Background of Wal-Mart and Current Challenges-300 Research Paper

Background of Wal-Mart and Current Challenges-300 - Research Paper Example The organization needs to operate as an equal opportunity player in rendering an equitable climate that would contribute in the gaining of employment, fiscal and economic opportunities by both the gender groups working in the organization. Similarly other types of organizational changes also relate to bringing about new policy directions that would help in the reduction of harassment activities in the workplace. The organizational management needs to set strict policy guidelines and regulations aiming at curbing the event of sexual harassment or emergence of pay and employment discriminations (Bell, McLaughlin and Sequeira, 2002, p.71). Moreover further organizational changes can be introduced pertaining to the reduction of hierarchal job layers in the concern such that the organizational structure can be transformed from the vertical to the horizontal state. This strategy rendered would contribute in the development of empowered teams in the concern and also in the enhancement of organizational communication. Rendering organizational flexibility in the concern through the enhancement of empowered teams would contribute in the development of organizational and performance skills of the people in the concern. This model of organ

Gay marriage should be legalized and accepted Essay Example for Free

Gay marriage should be legalized and accepted Essay Gay marriage (also known as same-sex marriage) generally refer to the marriage between two people with same sex can be either both male or both female. Imagine this, you and your beloved person walking on the street, everyone look at you in a strange way and mumble about you. How will you feel? That is how homosexual people feel these days. Remember this, they are just human beings like us but have different sexual orientation and that is the one and only difference. They can feel pain, happiness, sadness and lost just like how we feel, both physically and psychologically. It is one of our liberties to pursue happiness, which homosexual people are not able to chase, because they cannot marry the person they love. Who give you the right to take away others’ happiness? The happiness which did not and will not harm you. Are you racist? Are you sexist? Reasonable people will know that discriminate against anyone for any reason is rude and uneducated. And denying same-sex marriage sends the message of it is acceptable to discriminate against them. Some people may say that the institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman, and allowing gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage. This is absolutely nonsense. To not to change the institution is like to tell the court to not to change the law even when the law does not fit the modern world anymore. Nowadays, everything is changing as time passing by, so why not the institution of marriage. The legalization of gay marriage will also make it easier for same-sex couple to adopt, and provide stable home for children who otherwise be left in orphanage which hardly makes kids feel like home. Even gay marriage will lead to children being raised in same-sex household that lots of people may refer as not an optimum environment because children need both mother and father. However, according to a research by University of Melbourne lead by Doctor Simon Crouch which surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children. The research shows that children who were raised in same-sex parents scored an average of 6% higher then general population on both health and family cohesion. Clearly the evidence shows that the children who grown up in same-sex couple family won’t grow unhealthily, in fact sometimes it is even better for kids to gain more resilience, because all the kids need is no more than two loving parents. So how many lives should be ruined, how many happiness should be  taken away before we take actions?

Translating for Social Change :: Essays Papers

Translating for Social Change Frequently in "Feminist Political and Social Thought" taught at SUNY Albany, by Dr. J. Hobson, I found myself simultaneously inspired and frustrated by the theory we were assigned to read. Authors such as bell hooks, Uma Narayan, Ann Russo, Kimberly Crenshaw, Andy Smith, John Stoltenberg, and Judy Baca did such wonderful jobs of pointing out the problems of perspective that stymie the feminist movement from achieving its goal to facilitate the bonding of the oppressed across differences, in order to overcome all oppressions. Unfortunately when combing through these authors intricately written, often jargon-ridden words, it was difficult to make practical sense of their insights. I understood what many of them were saying and in many cases I couldn't agree more, only I could barley imagine how these theories might be applied to real life scenarios. Furthermore, it was difficult for me to see how much of this would come to any use-say the next time someone made a racist, homophobic, We stern-centric, sexist comment at work, or at the Thanksgiving dinner table for that matter. How could I possibly communicate the things that had been discussed in the classroom, laced with words like paradigm, praxis, pedagogy, and a completely deconstructed concept of the word "culture"? All these things would need an introduction of their own-and that may work in a classroom-but rarely in a conversation! In this essay I will approach the issue of communicating themes Women's Studies and other relatively obscured disciplines concerned with social change outside of academia, where jargon-laden talk will not work. In her essay "Educating Women: A Feminist Agenda" bell hooks asserts that a feminist movement to end sexist oppression that ignores communication with the majority of women and men (i.e. those outside of academia) is a movement that has no hope of realizing its goals for social change. Hooks contends, "The ability to "translate" ideas to an audience that varies in age, sex, ethnicity, degree of literacy is a skill feminist educators need to develop . . . Difficulty of access has been a problem with much feminist theory" (111) One educator/activist who demonstrates hooks' idea in his teaching techniques is Glenn Omatsu. However as an educator Omatsu does not put the onus of translation solely on himself, he holds his students responsible for translating what they have learned in the classroom for people outside of the classroom and in the community beyond the university campus.

Innate Evil and the Temptations of the Devil Essay -- American Literat

Early American literature is unique in that it is abundantly influenced by Biblical themes and ideas. Being that this country was founded by the strict, fundamentalist Puritans, it seems obvious that the literature would be pervaded by such things as the presence of evil and its impact on goodness and holiness. The â€Å"evil† that is found in Melville and Hawthorne is interesting because it reflects the Biblical idea of evil tempting good and attempting to convert it rather than simply destroy it. The stories of Poe reflect the turmoil and evil that is contained within a person and tempts him or her to commit evil acts. What is fascinating about this literature is that in Billy Budd, The Scarlet Letter, â€Å"The Imp of the Perverse,† and â€Å"William Wilson,† evil is always victorious. In today’s society, it is tempting to read stories and watch films in which good always prevails and the characters live happily ever after; however, at the time of these writings, there was still an air of Calvinism and the lasting idea that mankind is innately evil. Modern society is uncomfortable with the term â€Å"evil,† but at the time of this literature, it was a common term that was used freely and had clear definitions. Therefore, because of the strong Biblical influence, the aforementioned tales are centered on this presence of evil and its temptation and torturing of that which is holy until goodness is overcome. Melville’s Billy Budd is a tale in which the Biblical influence is quite obvious. There are many images of snakes and serpents, which is often symbolic of Satan. Many critics read the story as an allegory to the Christ story in which Billy and Claggart â€Å"play the roles of Jesus and Judas† (Wright 133). There is imagery throughout th... ...he adultery and temptations in The Scarlet Letter, and the murder in both â€Å"The Imp of the Perverse† and â€Å"William Wilson† all were easily classified as evil. Today, many of these actions would be subscribed to the doers’ childhoods or to other traumatic experiences and the people themselves would not necessarily be held responsible. It is difficult in today’s society to classify good and evil because those areas are no longer black and white; however, in early American times, evil was easy to identify and was seen as the influence of the devil. The aforementioned literature of Melville, Hawthorne, and Poe all contains tremendous influence from the Bible and therefore displays this evil temptation from the devil himself. Sadly, in each of the stories, evil always seems to triumph, and the characters are forced to realize their own wickedness and depravities.

The United States Hypocrisy

The United States hypocrisy is evident when the â€Å"land of the free and home of the brave† came at the cost of Native American cultural genocide and near physical destruction. The term genocide was first used by Polish Journalists Raphael Lenin in his book â€Å"Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.† which was published in 1944. Lenkin defined genocide as the intentional mass killing of members of a nation and/or executing acts with the intention of destroying the basic foundations of life, aiming to destroy the group as a whole. The term â€Å"basic foundations of life† refer to the culture, language, religion, established public and social institutions, liberty and personal safety, health and dignity. After coining the term, Linken petitioned the United Nations to criminalize genocide, which they did in 1948. The United Nations coined their own term. Defining genocide as the intentional killing of or causing serious physical or mental harm to members of a group, deliberately inflicting life conditions calculated to bring physical destruction to a group, preventing births and transferring children forcibly from one group or another. Both definitions are broad, but the use of â€Å"intention† has lead to controversy regarding Native Americans and the atrocities committed by the United States and their government. Whether the U.S intentionally slaughtered Natives with the intention of extermination is of great controversy. Simply because there was no official decree passed by Congress calling for their demise. However, the US demonstrated genocidal mentality on multiple occasions that resulted in the massacre of hundreds of indigenous people. This mentality was exhibited by Secretary of War, Henry Knox in 1790 when he ordered the US army to â€Å"extirpate, utterly, if possible,† a group of natives refusing to cede their land in Ohio. President Jefferson also demonstrated the same mentality a few years later when faced with the altercations with different Indians. â€Å"If we are ever constrained to lifting the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated or driven beyond Mississippi.† Later adding â€Å"They will kill some of us, we will kill all of them.† Both the Secretary of State and President of the US made it perfectly clear extermination was the only option when Natives refused to give their land. But this was not the first case of a president exhibiting such intolerant views. In 1799 the US declared war on the Haudenosaunee tribe for raids that had set back colonial settlement. â€Å"The objective of this war was â€Å"the total destruction and devastation of their settlements. † – George Washington. In this war, the US directly murdered 200 natives (Natives). When the topic of settlers and native American interactions arise, the common legend of Smallpox infested blankets being distributed to Natives by the settlers is widely debatable due to lack of hard evidence. Some argue it never happened, but on June 23rd, 1763 Captain William Trent wrote in his journal â€Å"We gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out if the Smallpox hospital†¦ I hope it will have its desired effects. † As a result, 60-80 Native died of Smallpox (Smallpox). It is clear that from the early years' colonial settlement that the high ranking US officials possessed a genocidal mentality regarding the indigenous people who resided there first. On May 28th, 1830 Congress passed the Indian removal act. This policy, was vigorously promoted by Andrew Jackson, provided the opportunity for the US to negotiate with the natives for their land with the promise of compensation. Instead of buying the land, The US used brute force to obtain it. The five â€Å"civilized tribes', Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole, creek, and Cherokee initially refused to negotiate. Many members of these tribes were trying to assimilate into American society. In 1835 self-appointed representatives from the Cherokee tribe drafted the Treaty of Echota. The treaty proposed trading of all Cherokee lands East of Mississippi River for five million dollars along with relocation assistance and compensation for lost property. The federal government agreed to these terms but most of the Cherokee felt betrayed. BY 1838 only two thousand had left for the reservation (Native), in response the government appointed General Winfield Scott and seven thousand other soldiers to handle the altercation. Their method of peace was to remove the natives and loot their homes. Afterwards, they forced the Natives to march 1200+ miles west, During this excruciating journey, they were not given food water or supplies. Over five thousand died from starvation, malnutrition and several flue epidemics including Whooping Cough, Typhus, Dysentery and Cholera. This journey was known as the Trail of Tears, and twenty-five per cent of these tribes died. Despite relocating the Native Americans and seizing land, the US still possessed presenting feelings towards natives. In the 1850s California Gold Rush natives were still being persecuted against and then enslaved. Should they not comply with treaties colonists would â€Å"make war..which must of necessity be one of extermination to many of the tribes.† stated by Californian Governor John McDougal in 1851 (Natives). A prime example of Native enslavement was exhibited on John Sutter's private mill, where gold was discovered. Sutter was one of the most influential landowners at the time, enslaving hundred of natives who resided on his property and controlling them with fear. The Natives were used for labour and as a makeshift militia to protect Sutter's 50,000 acres and trading centre. Sutter treated the native people horrendously. He was friendly at first but began to interfere with tribe customs and marriages. A former employee, Heinrich Lienhard accused Sutter of forming a Harlem and molesting young native girls. HIs method of control was fear. He was not hesitant to whip or kill noncompliant natives. Visitors noted â€Å"Sutter keeps 600-800 Indians in a complete stage of slavery†, feeding them leftover bread wheat from troughs while they slept in locked rooms without furniture. (Jeffery). The use of Native labour during the gold rush was common, even more so was the sale of indigenous people between farmers. Enslavement was a popular form of oppression during the gold rush, but it was not the only ordeal Native Americans faced. One particularly revolting act was Californian Governor John B Wells rendering funding for the Eel River Rangers. The Eel River Rangers was a group of twenty or so white men who hunted down and slaughtered Indigenous women and children. (Natives )The State government of California provided finances needed to take the lives of innocent women and children. Of course when discussing homicidal acts perpetrated by the United States one cannot forget the Indian Wars. The Indian Wars were U.S army campaigns that targeted smaller groups of tribes to send a message to the rest of the population. The U.S army intentionally slaughtered hundreds of Natives on three separate occasions. The first massacre occurred near Preston, ID in 1863. Named the Bear River massacre an estimated 384 Shoshone Indians were open fired on. The second massacre occurred January 28th,1870. Two hundred natives, mostly women and children, were murdered. The issue pertaining to their deaths was the altercation between Malcolm Clarke and Owl child when Clarke accused Owl Child of stealing his horses and whipping him brutally as a punishment. After the whipping, Owl Child gathered several allies and they murdered Clarke, fleeing afterwards. This issue led to a massive outcry and the federal government appointed Major Eugene Baker to retaliate. When looking for Owl Child and his allies, baker and his men came across a band of peaceful Indians. The band consisted of women, children and elderly men. When informed this was the wrong tribe Baker replied: â€Å"That makes no difference, one band or another, they are all Piegans (Blackfeet) and we will attack them.† On that day 37 men, 90 women and 50 defensless children were open fired on. Additionally, Baker captured 140 woman and children as prisoners. But when finding that the majority were infected with smallpox he abandoned them with no food or other supplies (Olster). Baker was clearly more focused on seeking revenge than bringing justice to the guilty. He was not concerned with what was right or wrong. He deliberately massacred defenceless people, knowing their innocence, because he despised natives. This genocidal mentality proceeded by Owl Child's cries resulted in their demise. As revolting as Baker's actions were, they were still considered mediocre to the Wounded Knee Massacre. On December 15, 1890, colonists attempted to arrest Cheif Sitting-Bull. A fight erupted and Cheif Spotted elk led the band of natives to the Pine Ridge Reservation. On December 28th natives encountered a US cavalry that escorted them to Wounded Knee Creek. After being disarmed the natives commenced a â€Å"Ghost Dance†, a ceremonial dance that they believed would protect them from the American's bullets. This agitated the US cavalry. Attempting to stop the natives resulted in a scuffle in which more than 60 women were killed. US cavalry suffered casualties of 31 dead, 333 wounded out of 500. (Olser). These massacres were messages to the larger population. Attempts to disrupt and destroy smaller members of a nation to cripple or at least communicate the homicidal intentions that would be met with further resistance or retaliation. The massacres exhibited the immense hatred the colonists possessed by slaughtering innocents as reparations for the guilty. In all cases, natives were disarmed, defenceless and completely innocent of violence against colonists. By attacking communities instead of armies the US army demonstrated intentions of destroying basic foundations fo life within the nation. When examining Native American oppression and the US government it is crucial to note the direct action US Congress took against the indigenous people. In this case, the United States established Native Americans on conditions precalculated to result in their deaths. On November 29th,1864 Cheif Black Kettle and Cheif Niwot led their band to Fort Lyon in compliance with provisions of a peace treaty established earlier that year in September. The Chiefs and their people were asked to relocate with the threat of their safety. To demonstrate friendliness to any Americans they may encounter the Natives hung a large American flag and a smaller white flag beneath it. John Chivington led the attack against the natives. Claiming â€Å"They were of the same tribes with those who had murdered many persons and destroyed valuable property on the Platt and Arkansas Rivers.† (Olster). Estimated casualties in this massacre vary, Chivington claimed â€Å"500 -600 warriors were killed.† But John S.Smith, an eyewitness general under Chivington's command estimates 135 deaths, 105 being woman and children. Smith also accounted for the scalping of women and infants and further mutilation fo the deceased. The Cheyennes lost many women and children. Chiefs White Antelope, Yellow Wolf, Big Man, and a number of others, many who advocated for peace with the colonists, were killed. Chivington had no legitimate reason to believe these natives a threat. They had flown an Amercian Flag and the universal flag for peace yet he still chose to slaughter them. his actions expose the premeditated murder of these people. Chivington had no intention of letting the natives escape, these conditions resulted in the inevitable deaths of innocent indigenous people. From scalping women and infants to completely abolishing their millage and even murdering Smith's â€Å"Hald breed † son Jack, Chivington displayed no compassion. Instead, he demonstrated brute force and barbarism towards natives. Unfortunately, the Sand Creek massacre wasn't the finale occurrence of premeditated lethal conditions. On September 28th,1862 the American Government tried 392 Idginieos prisoners, sentencing 303 to death and giving 16 prison terms. Because this trial was a military trial President Lincoln reviewed the commissioner's findings and found that 303 deaths seemed to genocidal. So he revised the criteria for the death penalty to those who had been convicted of rape, which lowered it to two. This number was still unsatisfactory so the criteria changed to those who had participated in the civilian massacres. December 26th, 1862 39 natives were sentenced to death. 38 were hanged and one was given a reprieve at the last minute. What makes this event so heinous was the conditions in which the trial was executed. The trial was conducted in English, the natives were unrepresented and unfamiliar with court proceedings. Also, the war that prompted these â€Å"war crimes† occurred in a sovereign state and those men who have surrendered were entitled to treatment of such. The disadvantages of the hearing completely abolished any chance of the natives having a fair trial and the possibility of them being found innocent. By placing them in that biased, tainted courtroom the American Government sealed their fate with no chance to defend themselves. The reason for the war? Two years prior to the trial the US failed to meet treaty obligations. In retaliation, Dakota warriors raided stole food and killed five settlers. After the sentencing and executions, it was found that two natives had been hung by mistake and a letter written by Cheif Wabasha stated the Americans had promised no innocent natives would be punished if they followed the advice of General Sibley (Trials). The Us clearly deceived the Natives, placing them in a premeditated, biased courtroom with less than fair trial conditions that would ultimately result in their deaths. In 1887, the American Government passed the Dawes Act. A policy that aimed to â€Å"safely guide natives from the night of barbarism to the fair dawn of Christian civilization.† Assimilation consisted of natives converting to Christianity, learning and speaking English, wearing western clothes and hairstyles, and living a typical American lifestyle. The act also stated that Indian Reservations were to be distributed to individuals and that land could not be sold for 25 years, land left over from distribution could be sold to outsiders. This allowed native land to be purchased by Americans as if Americans didn't have enough already. And it doesn't stop there. In 1930 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could disperse native land without Indian consent. And in 1924 The Citizenship act was passed. This Act granted citizenship to all Native Americans. Unfortunately, the desired effects were not seen as natives were forced to send their children to boarding schools for their education. In these schools children are often taught false information and censorship reigns supreme. Other nasty consequences of this act were the denial of rights to vote and extreme poverty. Most Indigenous people residing in inadequate housing with limited healthcare. While the United States failed in completely exterminating all Native Americans, no one can deny they had the mentality to do so. And this mentality, combined with artillery support led to the demise of hundreds of Natives. But even the slaughter of their people wants enough. Not only did we take their lives and their land, but we also stole their culture. Demanding them to replace their customs with our own or face death and discrimination. The United States failed in physical genocide but was successful in the demise of a cultural genocide.

How does the inclusion of the witches in Macbeth heighten the dramatic impact of the play? Essay

Macbeth is a play written by the renowned playwright William Shakespeare in the early 17th century. Originally produced for the King of Denmark, the play explores themes such as ambition and betrayal through the actions of the main protagonist Macbeth. The play’s other significant figures include three witches whose practice of sorcery attracted a lot of controversy towards the play. At the time, their inclusion heightened the dramatic impact on the audience; primarily because of the public’s view of witches. Also referred to as the ‘’weird sisters’’, they form a fundamental element of the play because it is their input that shapes the play into action. During this period of time, the mainstream population of Europe was Christian and superstitious, therefore belief in witchcraft was at its peak and so-called ‘’witches’’ were persecuted. Supposedly, witches (along with Satan) were part of a collective of evil and were blamed for a lot of wrongdoing in society. For instance, political dissidents who opposed the King were thought to be under the influence of black magic. This was because there was commonly held believe that the King had the divine right to rule; thus anyone challenging the King was basically challenging God (which was considered blasphemy and punishable by death). The inclusion of the witches and amount of media coverage they received along with the public’s superstition helped to heighten the dramatic impact of Macbeth on a Shakespearean audience. Today, however, due to the secularisation of society, religious morals are diminishing and witchcraft is seen as nothing more than simple entertainment; this is certainly not how Shakespeare intended it to be. Furthermore, television programmes such as W.I.T.C.H. and books such as the Harry Potter series are depicting witches in a much more positive light. On the other hand, a small number of possible offshoots of witchcraft such as Wicca and Freemasonry are still being practiced despite it being punishable by death in some extremely religious cultures. In this day and age, the general view about witches lessens the dramatic impact significantly because it is seen as a comedy routine therefore Macbeth doesn’t strike fear into the hearts of the audience like its original purpose. In Act 1 Scene 1, as shown in the stage directions; the witches are the first performers when they enter an ‘’open place’’ with ‘’thunder and lightning’’. By being the first performers on stage, they intensify the dramatic impact because the audience focuses their attention towards them. Also, Shakespeare specifically chose the weather in this scene to be threatening, to reflect the negative view of witches at the time and to elevate the dramatic impact by making them see more powerful (witches were associated with the ability to manipulate the weather). The technique of using elements of nature to express mood is known as pathetic fallacy. In this scene, the first impression that the audience are given of the witches is that they are unattractive. For instance, the quotes ‘’your beards’’ and ‘’skinny lips’’ suggests that the witches are ugly and depict them as being unnatural due to having masculine characteristics. Shakespeare has done this to add to the negative interpretation of witches, which in turn heightens the dramatic impact (because the realistic appearance of the witches would frighten the audience). He also uses other characters to highlight the appearance of the witches and therefore raise the dramatic impact on the audience. For instance, Banquo describe the witches as being creatures ‘’ that look not like th’ inhabitants o’ th’ earth’’. He is suggesting that they do not resemble other humans and that they are abnormal; perhaps beings from another world. Shakespeare uses dialogue between the witches to heighten the dramatic impact on the audience. For example, in Act 1 Scene 3, one of the witches says to the others ’‘I’ll drain him dry as hay, sleep shall neither night nor day’’. This line heightens the dramatic impact because it portrays witches as evil because of the reference to torturing someone by depriving him of water. Also the words ‘’hay’’ and ‘’day’’ rhyme, during the Shakespearean era this was related to the spells chanted by witches, therefore the audience would have instantaneously assumed that the lines were malicious; thus increasing the dramatic impact. The lines spoken by the witches also include a rhythm. For example in Act 1 Scene 3, the three witches start their lines with ‘’all hail†¦ all hail†¦ all hail’’, this promotes the idea that the witches have the same thoughts and gives the impression that they are insane because they speak in a different pattern to the other characters. The witches also speak in riddles to scare and confuse the audience, for example, the line ‘’when the battles lost and won’’ may be referring to Macbeth or it could be talking about the struggle for the throne of Scotland. This intensifies the dramatic impact because the audience are left unsure and given the impression that the three witches know something that they don’t. Once again, the witches are depicted as being unnatural because of their ability to prophesise the future. Imagery is used cleverly in many ways by Shakespeare to show the witches in a negative light and add to the dramatic impact. For example, in Act 4 Scene 1, the 1st witch says ‘’round and round the cauldron go, in the poisoned entrails throw’’. This quote emphasizes the popular belief (at the time) that witches chant around their cauldrons which consisted of nauseating ingredients such as rats (creates the image that witches are sick). Also, the witches simultaneously say ‘’double, double toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble’’, this makes the spell resemble a song more and consequently it increases the dramatic impact. To conclude, the inclusion of the witches in the play undeniably helps to heighten the dramatic impact on a Shakespearean audience. This is mainly because of his successful methods, for example when using pathetic fallacy. Today, however, his masterpiece has not been as popular and effective at creating a negative image of witches because of the enormous change in the public’s view of witches.

Biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Essay

The 32nd president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, accomplished many things during his three terms in office. Being the only president ever elected to more than two terms, it is easy to suppose that he was a well-rounded president. His leadership, success in getting programs passed, management of economic and domestic policy, foreign policy, and role as Chief Party Leader all contribute to an overall grade of an A for his presidency. First off, as the symbol of the country and the presidency, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gets an A. He showed great character and leadership with his thirty â€Å"fireside chats† on the radio. With these, he was able to soothe the thirty five million people listening. It was successful too, in that, after his first in which he assured the safety of keeping money in a reopened bank, confidence was restored and the banks began to open up. His ability to master the press contributed strongly to his overall public opinion and showed he had good character. Also, in WWII conferences such as Casablanca and Teheran, Roosevelt represented the country well in his efforts with the Allies to stop Nazi Germany. His leadership of the country and his character are the reason that he was the only president ever to be elected to four consecutive terms as the leader of the country. Particularly with the New Deal, FDR was rather successful as a policy and legislative leader. With the nation in the midst of the Great Depression, there was a lot of pressure on the president to take immediate action. Beginning with â€Å"the first hundred days,† Roosevelt shut down the banks and met with Congress. He was able to get 15 major bills approved regarding the economy in attempts to get it back on track. With such turmoil happening in the country, FDR was very efficient in getting bills passed by Congress, which is why he deserves an A. Though the actual success of each program may be questioned, his quick action and role as a policy and legislative leader was executed well. The same is true for when the United States became involved in WWII. This situation again demanded quick action and Roosevelt pulled through by passing various acts such as the Lend Lease Act and Neutrality Acts. Though again these may not have always had the best outcomes, his initiative and f air thinking are what gets him an A for this category. FDR’s most noted domestic policies while in office were those of the New Deal. With a nation pressuring the president for change, Roosevelt developed a plan called the New Deal. The principal acts were done during his first hundred days, as mentioned earlier, in attempts to achieve his goals of relief, recovery, and reform. Regarding the economy, Congressed passed the Glass-Stegall Banking Act which established the FDIC, a very important act after the crises leading up to the Great Depression. By stopping the bank runs, he was able to steer the economy in the right direction, creating a corporation that is still used today. In addition, under his presidency, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was established, giving jobs to young men while at the same time conserving both human and natural resources. With the young men being able to send the money back to their families, it was a way to decrease unemployment and boost the economy. Another important issue was his repeal of t he Prohibition through the 21st amendment. This gave much needed revenue to the country and provided employment. Despite these successful acts of domestic policy, Roosevelt was not always so brilliant. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, one of the New Deal agencies, increased unemployment, frustrated farmers, and was eventually deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. His intentions and theories to end overproduction were good, just not executed well. Another of Roosevelt’s reforms is Social Security. This is perhaps one of the most controversial of his policies. Some loved it and some hated it. In fact, the benefits of this administration are still debated over today with people calling into question the longevity of its existence. One problem that Roosevelt seemed to face was his long-running battle with the Supreme Court. Consisting of older aged, ultraconservative men whom Roosevelt had not appointed, the Supreme Court was something the president wanted to change. To fix it, he asked Congress to permit him to add up to 15 justices to the Supreme Court. This attempt to â€Å"pack† the court cost Roosevelt severely in the eyes of the public. It was his away of going around the Constitution in order to be able to keep more of his programs and agencies from the New Deal. In total, despite also several failures, many of FDR’s domestic policies were good. They helped relieve some of the stress set on by the depression. However, that’s all they did – relieve. His policies and the New Deal did not cure the country of the Great Depression, only temporarily masked the problems with only of his agencies still existing after his presidency. For these reasons, I give Roosevelt a B for his domestic policy. In the beginnings of a second world war, Roosevelt had important foreign policies that were crucial to the United States’ welfare. With an attempt to end the Depression, Roosevelt was initially going to send a delegate to take part in the London Conference. However, upon a second look, he decided that international agreements about the value of the dollar might restrict him in domestic recovery. This begins a trend toward increased nationalism and eventually to the United States’ views on isolationism. Though we are unable to tell what might have come out of the conference, it seems like a poor decision for Roosevelt to leave America totally on its own from other countries. Along with this idea of isolationism, through the Tydings-McDuffie Act, the United States freed the Philippines (after 12 years). This act was more beneficial for the United States than the actual freed country because of less foreign competition for sugar, as well as fewer people competing for jobs. Overall, it did help the U.S.; however, it also kind of abandoned the Philippines with not-so-nice economic terms. In contrast to these inward-looking acts, Roosevelt also created the Good Neighbor Policy with Latin America. He focused on consultation and nonintervention in hopes to unite the Western Hemisphere against any powers on the other side of the world. This was a smart move after withdrawing ties from Europe and Asia. It was a good idea that ended up being very successful for him and Roosevelt ended up with the title of â€Å"traveling salesman for peace.† In such fear of war, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts so as not to be brought into the violence like had been done in WWI. However, Roosevelt later changed these Acts to mean that an arms embargo be established for both Loyalists and rebels. As far as Roosevelt’s foreign policies go, this one was really bad. So scared of war, they basically aided in Franco’s taking over of the republican government of Spain. This in turn led to the strengthening of the European dictators, leading to the second world war. For this reason, Roosevelt’s grade goes down. Then, in 1941, neutrality had its meaning changed again. Really, it was thrown out the window with passing of Lend-Lease Act. The reasoning behind it was very understandable. Arm the other fighting democracies with weapons to defend against Hitler, or allow them to fall and have the U.S. face them alone. Knowing the risk, and after many debates, it was finally approved. It also set up the United States for war production when they did fight. However, the Lend-Lease Act ultimately was what brought them into the war once they had to start using armed Destroyer ships to take them to Britain. Roosevelt’s idea was good, however the consequences were bad. Later in the war, Roosevelt met with Churchill and Stalin for the Teheran Conference. Here, the three agreed upon a plan to attack Germany from the East as well as from the West. This was an incredibly important part of Roosevelt’s foreign policy since it was the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany. The Allies were able to recover France from the Nazis and continue their fight with Germany. Though Roosevelt died a month before V-E Day, his position as Commander in Chief for the past twelve years caused the United States and the Allies to defeat Germany. Though nobody is perfect, Roosevelt was able – through all decisions, good and bad – to stop the Nazis and ultimately save Europe. For these reasons, Roosevelt gets an A as Commander in Chief. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was strong in communicating with the public was well as dictating foreign and domestic policy. For this reason, his party grew during his presidency and so he deserves an A as Chief Party Leader. He started the â€Å"FDR Coalition† for his first term to get votes. Throughout his successes in the beginning, he was able to change many Republicans into Democrats, strengthening the Democratic Party for years to come. In addition, he also aided more Democratic candidates in all areas of government into office. With Roosevelt in office, the party grew both in voters as well as representation in Congress and other branches of government. His role as Chief Party Leader was done well and that is why he gets an A. Franklin Delano Roosevelt came into office at first having to deal with the struggles of the Great Depression. He was then later faced with the challenges of World War II, attempting to protect the United States as well as all Democratic countries from Nazi takeover. Anyone faced with these difficult challenges would have their ups and downs. FDR, on balance, was a good president and gets and overall A for his role as a country symbol, legislative leader, manager of the economy, Global leader, Commander in Chief, and Chief Party Leader. Works Cited Bailey, Thomas Andrew, David M. Kennedy, and Lizabeth Cohen. The American Pageant. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. Print. Hughes, L. P. â€Å"†FDR AS NATIONAL LEADER†Ã¢â‚¬  Austin Community College – Start Here. Get There. 1999. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. . Mintz, S. â€Å"The First 100 Days.† Digital History. 2007. Web. 01 Apr. 2011. . http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=468 (80%) http://www.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr.html (shrink 90%, page 4)