Response to Horatio Alger of H. L. Dalton Essay Example for Free

Response to Horatio Alger of H. L. Dalton Essay Harlon L. Dalton in his essay Horatio Alger criticizes a concept of the American dream the idea that presents America as the country where the opportunity for a success is possible for all hard working, talented and determined people regardless of race, gender and their social status. Dalton implies that not only this idea is not true but is doing a harm to society because that equality is cover only wishful thinking and can not be true unless massive changes in society economic structure and relocation of resources will be done. Daltons essay presents the point of view with that I can only partially agree. I must say that author is probably right that in this country the opportunities are not equal for all people. Why they should be? This world is not a paradise; we cannot just overcome overnight all either what is bad in us or in our society, it a complicated and I assume time-consuming process. I would like to give an example: I could tell the employer: you must employ the African-American and not white man that will be wrong not only because it could be white man who truly deserves this position but because the employer should really be aware that what is good for his company is to employ the more talented employee. There should be no law to force him whom he could employ. Therefore, there must be change in people and their thinking; it may take sometimes a generation or two. Nevertheless, even America is not fully fulfilled dream for all people; it opened the door of success for many and still is opening for others. This vast country gave opportunity for first settlers to success. Only strong and smart could survive in the harsh environment but their hard work was well paid, and they learned how to use this land to live well. As many newcomers came, the opportunity diminished making the dream more difficult to fulfill. It does not mean that American Dream died then; it is been well preserved in American constitution and richness of this country that is a good base to create that wonderland of equal opportunities for all people. Day after day this country is changing the more women achieve the most important positions in the enterprises, the more African-American stars appears on the big  screen, our children have more friends of different races and we do not mind to go to the doctor whose color of skin is different than ours. That is a big achievement and that is American dream. Dalton says not only that we live in the inequality but also that the concept of American dream is making harm to the society because allows to believe in what is not true and stop the reforms that should be done to prevent these inequalities. In my opinion, American Dream is self-realizing idea: the more people will believe in equality the more equality will be. If every man in this country will believe that all people have equal rights that will be no need to introduce massive changes in the structure of the economy and in the location of public resources as the author suggests. The problem is people still do not believe in it and therefore act as they should not act protecting those who they should not and rejecting these whom they should protect. There is another good reason to believe in American Dream; this dream is the engine that makes people works harder and more effectively, what helps to create the economical betterment of this country. I truly believe also that if any of social or racial group feels that its rights are abused it will refuse to work hard and in consequences it will fall off from the pursuit of money and goods and this way only worsen its own situation. In the conclusion, American dream is not failed idea as author wanted to present it. Although we do not live with a total equality, this dream is reflecting people desire America to be such a country and it is the factor that is making the America what is today in economical and social dimension. Bibliography Dalton H.A. Horatio Alger.

Platos Symposium Essay -- Socrates Love Symposium Essays Plato

Plato's Symposium   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  What is the meaning of love? What does love feel like? How does love come about? No one can truly explain it, yet somehow it's understood. In Plato's Symposium, a dinner party was held with the discussion of love as the main topic. Everyone was required to make a speech, an ode to Love, the spirit. The philosopher, Socrates gave his speech last, claiming that his speech was merely a repetition of what a wise woman named Diotima once told him. The speech was a powerful one, but before the night was over, a drunk Alcibiades entered. He was asked to make a eulogy for Love as well, but instead, talked about the nature of Socrates. The nature of Love and the nature of Socrates turned out to be extremely similar. In the Symposium, Socrates can be seen as the embodiment of Love itself.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The notion of love that was understood at the end of the Symposium came about gradually. It transformed from speaker to speaker over the course of the party, and could be compared to the whole process of understanding love that Socrates tried to explain in his own speech.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Its complexity was attained by taking small steps in a larger direction. Diotima explained to Socrates, that to attain the deepest love, he had to follow a certain order.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Much like stepping up on the "rungs in a ladder"(211c), love's nature started small, with Phaedrus and Pausinas merely stating that there was good love and bad love. This was the first step, starting with "beautiful things"(211c) and making those things "reason for... ascent"(211c) up the proverbial ladder. Next Eryximachus' speech compared love's importance to that of medicine's. He used the "things of this world as rungs in a ladder"(211c). Aristophanes then gives love a comedic approach, breaking up the adulation. Agathon was next, and his speech showed how love affected people's minds. It created great poets, and spawned the practices of "hedonism, luxury, and sensualism"(197d). Agathon was last before Socrates, and the closest to Socrates' view. He was at the final steps of the deepest love, seeing the "beauty of people's activities"(211c) and of "intellectual endeavors"(211c).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Love, the spirit, was said to be the son of "Plenty and Poverty"(203c). One parent a polar opposite of the other, coming together to form the middle path named Love. The spirit Love was full of self-conflic... ...lings were not a eulogy for Love, they were personal opinions of his experiences with Socrates, and bluntly stated it. Although it must be taken into consideration that he was characterized as drunk while giving his speech, he reminded the party that the "truth comes from wine"(217e). Essentially, reassuring the reader that he is not in a condition to be making up lies. His description of Socrates' nature was similar to that of Socrates' own description of love's nature. However, Alcibiades was not at the party when Socrates made his speech, so there was no way could have used it to fashion a similar story of his own.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Socrates was regarded as the wisest man at the party. He could have given a "second-rate report"(215d) on love, as Alcibiades would have said, and "woman, man, or child"(215d) would have been "overwhelmed and spellbound"(215d). It was the effect Socrates had on people. Perhaps he was the embodiment of love? Even if his speech was fictional, he held a captivated audience of men who would have reveled in the chance to "lay"(219b) with the Socrates. Works Cited: Plato, and Robin Waterfield, trans. Symposium. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Does Religious Discrimination Really Exist in Today’s America?

GB541-Unit 6 Research Paper Does Religious Discrimination Really Exist in Today’s America? Kaplan University Profession Steven Cates Introduction There is so much controversy when discussing different religious beliefs. Everyone has a different belief system, and who is to say which is right or wrong. Accepting these differences and avoiding judgment against those with different beliefs is the end result we are looking to achieve as Americans. Unfortunately there are a lot of opinions on what religious beliefs are acceptable and what religious beliefs are unacceptable.The ultimate goal is for everyone to accept that their religious beliefs are not right for everybody. Discrimination is a bias or prejudice resulting in denial of opportunity, or unfair treatment regarding selection, promotion, or transfer. Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an individual or employee) negatively because of that person’s spiritual views. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 regula tes the actions of all individuals or entities when entering into a contract to employ someone else. Title VI of this act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.Does Religious Discrimination Really Exist in Today’s America? Yes, religious discrimination still does exist today in America. The United States of America has always been proud of the fact that we are a free country. Free to practice whatever religious beliefs or not practice any religious beliefs that we want. This freedom has not only allowed citizens to openly practice their beliefs, it allows them to do so without judgment from others. One example we can look at is a major tragedy in America such as the terrorist attack of 9/11. After this horrific tragedy, there was an adverse reaction to Muslims.Americans who were of the same ancestry were treated differently because of the aftershock of that day’s events. In this case, the primary reason for the unfair treat ment was mainly due to fear and lack of knowledge about the culture and Muslim religion. There are people who have religious beliefs, and there are those who do not believe in religion. Approximately 78% of Americans are affiliated with Christianity as their religion. Christianity is the most popular of all religions listed in the article, â€Å"Religious Diversity and Discrimination in the United States†.About 16% of Americans are uncertain as to what if any religious affiliation they belong to. Religion is very controversial to begin with in different countries, let alone bringing them all together in the same state, city, or neighborhood†¦ Personal opinions can lead to some form of religious discrimination. The number of religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC has more than doubled from 1992 to 2007. Between the years of 1997 and 2000, religious based charges filed with the EEOC represents only about three percent of all filings.Between the years of 2001 and 2005 that percentage of charges filed increased to four percent, and increased to five percent between the years of 2006 to 2009. Although it is important for the employer to accommodate their employee’s religious beliefs, a company cannot subject other employee’s to unsafe conditions. If the amount of clothing worn in a manufacturing environment could get caught in machinery, it would be detrimental to the company to allow their employee to wear clothing that is unsafe.It is the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe work environment for all employees, which should be their first priority then they can accommodate their employee’s religious beliefs. Ultimately a company is not required to accommodate religious beliefs if it will cause undue hardship on the business. An example of an employee dress code that would cause undue hardship on the employer would be the case of McCarter v. Harris County; a female employee was hired and informed of the d ress code of navy blue pants and button down shirt.After the female employee converted to the Pentecostal church, she approached her employer about her inability to wear men’s clothing due to her new faith and her supervisor agreed to accommodate her request to wear a tapered skirt instead. The supervisor then assigned tasks like climbing a ladder to other employees who were dressed more suitably for the task. As time went on the supervisor retired and a new supervisor was not as accommodating to the female employee’s religious beliefs, so the female employee was instructed to return to the required dress code, and that they would no longer reassign tasks due to her attire.The female employee did not return to the pant dress code and later tripped and fell from the ladder. The supervisor gave the female a written notice that she was to return to the pant dress code, or she could contact Human Resources to see about a transfer to a different position that did not requir e the pant dress code. The female employee did not return to work due to her inability to accommodate the dress code requirements that conflicted with her faith and her lack of experience for other positions offered at the time of the incident; the female was terminated for refusing to come back to work.In this case the employer produced sufficient proof that they did make reasonable accommodations to support the employee’s religious requirements, but the employee’s attire was causing undue hardship on the company. The court found in favor of the employer, stating that the employer made every attempt to accommodate the employee, but their dress code would in fact cause undue hardship on the company and other employees who had to pick up the responsibilities that the female could not accomplish due to her apparel.Had the employer acted differently in this scenario, the employee could have won the lawsuit. For instance if the employer had not given the employee an opport unity to apply for different positions within the company, or not made attempts to accommodate the employees religious beliefs and made rude comments to the employee about her religion causing a stressful work environment for her could have caused the courts to rule in favor of the employee.In this scenario, the employer made attempts to accommodate the employee’s beliefs, but her attire not only put a heavier workload on her co-workers, it also caused her to have an accident within the workplace. This is considered an undue hardship on the employer by accommodating their employee’s religious beliefs. Abercrombie & Fitch has had a few experiences with discrimination claims. One woman claimed that she was discriminated against because she could not wear her hijab, and Abercrombie stated it was against their look policy because the woman would not be wearing clothing consistent with their brands.Abercrombie and Fitch was sued in 2004 by the EEOC for allegedly violating T itle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because their hiring and recruiting practices excluded minorities and women by assuming a restrictive marketing image, and other policies that limited minority and female employment. An employer like Abercrombie and Fitch are required to accommodate religious practices unless it causes undue hardship on the employer. In the article â€Å"Religious Diversity and Discrimination in the United States†, they list 20 different categories of religious affiliations within a survey.There were 4,151 religious discrimination complaints filed in 2011. If an individual experiences religious discrimination in the workplace, they are advised to file a formal complaint to the EEOC, they will then be advised to consult an attorney to determine the legal steps to take for compensation from their aggressor. If the courts find the company guilty of religious discrimination they will require corrective action to be taken to ensure that this does not happe n again and the company will be ordered to pay restitution to the employee’s involved in the lawsuit.The website www. franczek. com discussed a couple cases pertaining to religious discrimination against police officers. Should an officer be required to cut his hair if it is against his religion? In this particular case the question is not if the officer should cut his hair or not, but was the officer treated unfair by his employer? In this case, the police department is in the wrong for making derogatory comments about the officer, and they forced the officer to participate in a psychiatric evaluation.In the second case, the officer felt that the department’s personal grooming policy was against his religious beliefs and the department granted him temporary permission to follow his religious beliefs of keeping a trimmed beard and to wear a yarmulke when inside. The officer did agree to shave his beard, but continued to wear his yarmulke indoors. The officer filed a mo tion against the department and was partially found in his favor since the city grants approval to medical reasons for facial hair.If the department will accept facial hair for medical reasons, they must also make the same accommodations for religious reasons. An employee cannot be fired just for requesting that their employer accommodate their religious beliefs. In North Carolina a female front desk clerk was fired for asking if the hotel would switch her schedule to accommodate her observance of Sabbath. The front desk clerk’s religion was Seventh Day Adventist, and her schedule conflicted with her ability to observe Sabbath, which was observed from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.The EEOC found that the hotel was in violation of Title VII. In this instance the employee could have been granted an alternative schedule to accommodate her religious beliefs unless the accommodations cause undue hardship on the hotel. The courts did not find that any undue hardships wou ld have been qualified the hotels actions; therefore the hotel would be required to settle with the employee for wrongful termination under the grounds of religious discrimination. If an employee is terminated due to their eligious beliefs they can file a formal complaint with the EEOC, and seek legal counsel to discuss the steps necessary to gain compensation for the damages caused by this discrimination. If the employer did not make attempts to accommodate the individual’s religious beliefs in the workplace they are guilty of religious discrimination. If the individual is subjected to a hostile work environment due to slander towards their religion, jokes about religious beliefs, or rude comments about an individual because of their faith; the company is guilty of religious discrimination. An employer cannot claim what is and is not a valid faith.There is no stipulation on when an employee adopts their religious beliefs, they could have worked for a company for fifteen year s and convert from Christianity to Buddhism, and there is nothing that their employer can do about it. The employer also cannot determine what legitimate religious practices are acceptable and what practices are unacceptable. An employer has to prove that they have made attempts to accommodate religious beliefs in the workplace but the accommodations caused undue hardships to the company in order for the employer to take actions towards an employee who is claiming religious discrimination.These undue hardships would have to prove that the employer had made attempts to accommodate the employee, but the company was suffering and could not maintain the steps taken to support their employee’s faith. Sometime these undue hardships could be safety hazards, which could put the employee or other employee’s in danger of injury. Unsafe working conditions would be grounds for the employer to claim undue hardship, and then the company would not need to accommodate the employeeâ₠¬â„¢s faith practices.There are a few courses of action that can be taken to limit religious discrimination. One of the weaker courses of action is exercising tolerance of other people’s religious beliefs and allowing them to express their beliefs without forcing the beliefs of any individual’s religious faith. This course of action is not always acceptable in many situations. Another course of action is to remind Americans that we accept all people, no matter what religion they practice. We need to express a no tolerance policy for discrimination for everyone.Habitual offenders of religious discrimination will require more stringent penalties than most. This course of action would have to be handled in court and possibly with fines and action plans mandated by the court system. These courses of action are necessary to create a boundary that is set to define right and wrong ways to handle religious beliefs and discrimination. Avoiding religious discrimination going for ward will be complicated for all parties. The best way to avoid religious discrimination is to educate.Educating citizens about the importance of religious freedoms and differences in cultures is necessary to avoid discrimination going forward. I firmly believe that educating people is the best way to handle eliminating religious discrimination. People tend to resist what they do not understand, which tends to stimulate discrimination. This is why I feel that education of what we do not understand is important, so that we can rise above discrimination. Conclusion Religious discrimination is still very much a problem in the United States. America is known for freedom of religion, and many other freedoms.With these freedoms, there tends to be controversy within the different religious groups. The ability to accept each religious affiliation is next to impossible, but with education it will become less frequent than it has been. Educating Americans of the importance of religion in diff erent cultures and why they came to the United States. There will be tragic events such as the 9/11 attacks, the Oklahoma City Bombing, Hurricane Katrina, Tsunami’s, and more; these events will bring out religious beliefs for those who are affected directly with these tragedies.We can choose to accept the differences or we can pass judgment; I choose to accept the differences. References: Bennett-Alexander, D Hartman, L (2009) Employment Law for Business sixth edition Fuller, Jon George (2012) Religious Diversity and Discrimination in the United States, retrieved September 2012, www. equaljusticeandlaw. wordpress. com Ginn, Janel (2007) Do Religious Groups in America Experience Discrimination? , New Religion and Spirituality Books for Youth, Pp 68 Booklist Marcum, T. Perry, S. 2010) Dressed for Success: Can a Claim if Religious Discrimination be Successful, Labor Law Journal Pp 184 Unknown Author, (2012) Discrimination, retrieved September 18, 2012, www. businessdictionary. c om Unknown Author, (2012) Religious Discrimination, retrieved September 17, 2012 www. eeoc. gov Unknown Author, (2012) Religious Discrimination at work, retrieved September 25, 2012, www. employment. findlaw. com Unknown Author, (2008) Two Federal District Courts Decide Religious Discrimination Cases Involving Police Officers, retrieved September 25, 2012, www. franczek. com

What is a Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (PZEV)

PZEV is an acronym for  Partial  Zero Emissions  Vehicle. PZEVs are modern vehicles with advanced engines equipped with cutting-edge emissions controls. PZEVs run on gasoline, yet offer extremely clean emissions with zero evaporative emissions. Although these vehicles still do give off harmful carbon monoxide outputs, they significantly decrease harm to the environment caused by daily vehicular commutes and personal use of automobiles by a majority of Americans. Originating with Californias Zero Emission Vehicle mandate, the PZEV variety revolutionized the automobile manufacturing industry in the wake of the advent of the electric engine.   Origins of Cleaner Vehicles in the U.S. PZEVs come by way of California’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, a vital portion of the states low emission vehicle program dating back to 1990 requiring automakers to produce either battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. PZEVs have their own  administrative classification  within the  state’s low-emission vehicle standards. Throughout history, California has set a tight green benchmark for stringent emissions laws that have in turn led to tighter federal regulations. Vehicles are required to meet tight emission test requirements for volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide  (CO). While it was thought at the time that battery electric vehicles would become numerous on roads, problems from cost to range — and even marketing issues — led to a modification of the ZEV mandate that gave birth to the PZEV. The PZEV category was created as part of a compromise between the California Air Resources Board  (CARB) and automobile manufactures that allowed postponing the production of mandated ZEVs. In exchange, automakers were each assigned a quota based on sales that earned ZEV credits for every PZEV vehicle sold in the state. CARB’s advantage in the deal? Manufacturers that don’t meet the assigned quotas cannot continue to sell vehicles in the state. No car company has missed complying since! A PZEV Must Be an SULEV Before a vehicle can become a PZEV that meets or exceeds California’s specific requirements, it must be certified as an SULEV or, Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. Seriously, they use the words Super Ultra to describe these vehicles! This emission standard establishes limits for the amounts of key pollutants coming from a vehicle’s tailpipe and is set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Additionally, the SULEV’s emission components must have a 15-year, 150,000-mile warranty. Since a PZEV complies with tailpipe standards for an SULEV, the exhaust can be as clean as that of many gasoline-electric hybrids without the cars incurring the hybrid’s price premium. What a Difference It Makes! An important part of the PZEV’s advantage is its elimination of evaporative emissions, the gasoline fumes that escape during refueling or, especially on hot days, from the fuel tank and supply lines. The system makes a real difference in air quality. Originally, PZEVs were only available in  California and the states that had implemented Californias more stringent motor vehicle pollution control rules like Maine,  Massachusetts,  New York,  Oregon, and  Vermont. However, recently other states began implementing similar standards including Alaska,  Connecticut,  Maryland,  New Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode Island, and  Washington. Manufacturers began mass-producing these vehicles with the rise in popularity of eco-consciousness in the 2010s. The 2015 Audi A3, Ford Fusion and Kia Forte all qualified as PZEVs and newer and additional makes and models of these vehicles are increasingly appearing on the market. Today, PZEVs are widely available across the country and the market for electronic vehicles is also on the rise.