Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Clean Air Act Logical Fallacies - 2,642 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Was the Choice of President a Good One? The article chosen is called The Choice. It deals with many controversial facts and aspects of Presidential election campaign. The main problem of the article is that the last presidential elections have been the ugliest and the most bitter in the memory of American history. The article outlined that the mentioned ugliness had flowed from unfairness and dishonesty. According to the main point of the article the bitterness was felt by adherents of the challenger.

The ugliest fact mentioned in the article is that the president was against any recounting of the votes and at least he was given what he wanted. It is highlighted that such presidents assignment was some kind of mockery not only of the democratic trends, but also of constitution. The result was rather hostile and inflicted serious damage on comity's fabric. The main argument is also that President made no effort to pay attention to special circumstance of the elections, to the composition of the Cabinet, to explaining his main policy goals and objectives. In the result the elections were considered by some critics closed and such as lasted thirty seconds. The new orders were connected with tax reductions in favor of the very rich.

Presidents policy was pursued through weakening environmental protection, cutting of existing funds for family-planning. Such policy was considered unpopular. The aim of Bush was to create the government of national unity. Instead he chose to use the political capital for domestic program developing. He increased the majority in the House of Representatives and then recaptured the control over Senate mentioning that selected Democrats were friends of terrorism. It is apparent that the anger of Democrats was really great.

But it is necessary to say that the article provides only the black sides of the presidential policy. There are many positive moments which allow the USA to remain the one of the most powerful states in the world. It is known that American is one of the richest states with great potential of further developing. For example the implementation of tax reductions was aimed at economic lifting. And it is firstly the merit of government, president and historical circumstances. (The Choice) To my mind Presidents policy cant be considered completely wrong. It is a common knowledge that there are no people who have made no mistakes.

It is up to everyone to decide whether Bush's policy right or wrong. But I think that much attention should be paid to environment protection, because pollution is nowadays one of the greatest problems not only in the USA, but also in the whole world. I dont think that the result of the elections would be another after votes recounting. I am right that environment protection is a serious problem and government is trying to reinforce its positions concerning nature and environment protection.

It is known that many laws have been passed to improve the surrounding: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Endangered Species Act, etc. it is known that there appears even paperless schools. Government obliges businesses to pay attention to surrounding. I hold the opinion if the country is developing, then the policy is acting in the right direction. It is responded that development is not the bet for success, because the problem of terrorism and unfairness still remains. If the government doesnt implement ID cards, the terrorism will win.

Islamic terrorists try to make people believe if you dont believe in their God, you have to be killed. So the government should also pay attention to struggle with terrorism. In the previous paragraph two logical fallacies were used. The first fallacy is appeal to fear (If government doesnt implement ID cards, terrorism will won). This fallacy is used as a method of persuasion that such approach will be useful in fighting with terrorists. The second fallacy is appeal to force (If you dont believe in their God, you have to be killed) used also as persuasion. (Crook 1999. ) Works Cited The Choice.

The New Yorker: The Talks of the Town (2004, October 25). [Available at web ] Crook, Lynn S. Logical Fallacies and Ethical Breaches. Ethics & Behavior (1999): 1, 61. COMMENT THE CHOICE Posted 2004 - 10 - 25 This Presidential campaign has been as ugly and as bitter as any in American memory. The ugliness has flowed mostly in one direction, reaching its apotheosis in the effort, undertaken by a supposedly independent group financed by friends of the incumbent, to portray the challenger who in his mid-twenties was an exemplary combatant in both the Vietnam War and the movement to end that was a coward and a traitor. The bitterness has been felt mostly by the challengers adherents; yet there has been more than enough to go around.

This is one campaign in which no one thinks of having the band strike up Happy Days Are Here Again. The heightened emotions of the race that (with any luck) will end on November 2, 2004, are rooted in the events of three previous Tuesdays. On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, more than a hundred and five million Americans went to the polls and, by a small but indisputable plurality, voted to make Al Gore President of the United States. Because of the way the votes were distributed, however, the outcome in the electoral college turned on the outcome in Florida. In that state, George W. Bush held a lead of some five hundred votes, one one-thousandth of Gores national margin; irregularities, and there were many, all had the effect of taking votes away from Gore; and the states electoral machinery was in the hands of Bush's brother, who was the governor, and one of Bush's state campaign co-chairs, who was the Florida secretary of state.

Bush sued to stop any recounting of the votes, and, on Tuesday, December 12 th, the United States Supreme Court gave him what he wanted. Bush v. Gore was so shoddily reasoned and transparently partisan that the five justices who endorsed the decision declined to put their names on it, while the four dissenters did not bother to conceal their disgust. There are rules for settling electoral disputes of this kind, in federal and state law and in the Constitution itself.

By ignoring they cutting off the process and installing Bush by fiat the Court made a mockery not only of popular democracy but also of constitutional republicanism. A result so inimical to both majority rule and individual civic equality was bound to inflict damage on the fabric of comity. But the damage would have been far less severe if the new President had made some effort to take account of the special circumstances of his electronic the composition of his Cabinet, in the way that he pursued his policy goals, perhaps even in the goals themselves. He made no such effort. According to Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack, Vice-President Dick Cheney put it this way: From the very day we walked in the building, a notion of sort of a restrained presidency because it was such a close election, that lasted maybe thirty seconds.

It was not contemplated for any length of time. We had an agenda, we ran on that agenda, we won the election full speed ahead. The new Presidents main order of business was to push through Congress a program of tax reductions overwhelmingly skewed to favor the very rich. The policies he pursued through executive action, such as weakening environmental protection and cutting off funds for international family-planning efforts, were mostly unpopular outside what became known (in English, not Arabic) as the base, which is to say the conservative movement and, especially, its evangelical component. The Presidents enthusiastic embrace of that movement was such that, four months into the Administration, the defection of a moderate senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, cost his party control of the Senate.

And, four months after that, the Presidents political fortunes appeared to be coasting into a gentle but inexorable decline. Then came the blackest Tuesday of all. September 11, 2001, brought with it one positive gift: a surge of solidarity, global and national solidarity with and solidarity within the United States. This extraordinary outpouring provided Bush with a second opportunity to create something like a government of national unity. Again, he brushed the opportunity aside, choosing to use the political capital handed to him by Osama bin Laden to push through more elements of his un mandated domestic program.

A year after 9 / 11, in the midterm elections, he increased his majority in the House and recaptured control of the Senate by portraying selected Democrats as friends of terrorism. Is it any wonder that the anger felt by many Democrats is even greater than can be explained by the profound differences in outlook between the two candidates and their parties? The Bush Administration has had success in carrying out its policies and implementing its intentions, aided by majorities political and, apparently, ideological in both Houses of Congress. Substantively, however, its record has been one of failure, arrogance, and strikingly for a team that prided itself on crisp professionalism incompetence.

In January, 2001, just after Bush's inauguration, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office published its budget outlook for the coming decade. It showed a cumulative surplus of more than five trillion dollars. At the time, there was a lot of talk about what to do with the anticipated bounty, a discussion that now seems antique. Last years federal deficit was three hundred and seventy-five billion dollars; this years will top four hundred billion. According to the C. B.

O. , which came out with its latest projection in September, the period from 2005 to 2014 will see a cumulative shortfall of $ 2. 3 trillion. Even this seven-trillion-dollar turnaround underestimates the looming fiscal disaster. In doing its calculations, the C. B.

O. assumed that most of the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2011, as specified in the legislation that enacted them. However, nobody in Washington expects them to go away on schedule; they were designated as temporary only to make their ultimate results look less scary. If Congress extends the expiration deadlines near-certainty if Bush wins and the Republicans retain control of Congress then, according to the C.

B. O. , the cumulative deficit between 2005 and 2014 will nearly double, to $ 4. 5 trillion. What has the country received in return for mortgaging its future? The President says that his tax cuts lifted the economy before and after 9 / 11, thereby moderating the downturn that began with the Nasdaq's collapse in April, 2000. Its true that even badly designed tax cuts can give the economy a momentary jolt. But this doesnt make them wise policy.

Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans, Bush said during his final debate with Senator John Kerry. This is false lie, actually though at least it suggests some dim awareness that the reverse Robin Hood approach to tax cuts is politically and morally repugnant. But for tax cuts to stimulate economic activity quickly and efficiently they should go to people who will spend the extra money. Largely at the insistence of Democrats and moderate Republicans, the Bush cuts gave middle-class families some relief in the form of refunds, bigger child credits, and a smaller marriage penalty. Still, the rich do better, to put it mildly. Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington research group whose findings have proved highly dependable, notes that, this year, a typical person in the lowest fifth of the income distribution will get a tax cut of ninety-one dollars, a typical person in the middle fifth will pocket eight hundred and sixty-three dollars, and a typical person in the top one per cent will collect a windfall of fifty-nine thousand two hundred and ninety-two dollars.

These disparities help explain the familiar charge that Bush will likely be the first chief executive since Hoover to preside over a net loss of American jobs. This Administrations most unshakable commitment has been to shifting the burden of taxation away from the sort of income that rewards wealth and onto the sort that rewards work. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, another Washington research group, estimates that the average federal tax rate on income generated from corporate dividends and capital gains is now about ten per cent. On wages and salaries its about twenty-three per cent. The President promises, in a second term, to expand tax-free savings accounts, cut taxes further on dividends and capital gains, and permanently abolish the estate tall of which will widen the widening gap between the richest and the rest. Bush signaled his approach toward the environment a few weeks into his term, when he reneged on a campaign pledge to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, the primary cause of global warming.

His record since then has been dictated, sometimes literally, by the industries affected. In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding a key provision of the Clean Air Act known as new source review, which requires power-plant operators to install modern pollution controls when upgrading older facilities. The change, it turned out, had been recommended by some of the nations largest polluters, in e-mails to the Energy Task Force, which was chaired by Vice-President Cheney. More recently, the Administration proposed new rules that would significantly weaken controls on mercury emissions from power plants. The E. P.

A. s regulation drafters had copied, in some instances verbatim, memos sent to it by a law firm representing the utility industry. I guess youd say Im a good steward of the land, Bush mused dreamily during debate No. 2. Or maybe youd say nothing of the kind. The President has so far been unable to persuade the Senate to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but vast stretches of accessible wilderness have been opened up to development.

By stripping away restrictions on the use of federal lands, often through little-advertised rule changes, the Administration has potentially opened up sixty million acres, an area larger than Indiana and Iowa combined, to logging, mining, and oil exploration. During the fevered period immediately after September 11 th, the Administration rushed what it was pleased to call the U. S. A. Patriot Act through a compliant Congress. Some of the reaction to that law has been excessive.

Many of its provisions, such as allowing broader information-sharing among investigative agencies, are sensible. About others there are legitimate concerns. Section 215 of the law, for example, permits government investigators to obtain without a subpoena or a search warrant based on probable cause court order entitling them to records from libraries, bookstores, doctors, universities, and Internet service providers, among other public and private entities. Officials of the Department of Justice say that they have used Section 215 with restraint, and that they have not, so far, sought information from libraries or bookstores.

Their avowals of good faith would be more reassuring if their record were not otherwise so troubling. Secrecy and arrogance have been the touchstones of the Justice Department under Bush and his attorney general, John Ashcroft. Seven weeks after the 9 / 11 attacks, the Administration announced that its investigation had resulted in nearly twelve hundred arrests. The arrests have continued, but eventually the Administration simply stopped saying how many people were and are being held. In any event, not one of the detainees has been convicted of anything resembling a terrorist act. At least as reprehensible is the way that foreign nationals living in the United States have been treated.

Since September 11 th, some five thousand have been rounded up and more than five hundred have been deported, all for immigration infractions, after hearings that, in line with...


Free research essays on topics related to: capital gains, clean air act, thirty seconds, tax cuts, logical fallacies

Research essay sample on Clean Air Act Logical Fallacies

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com