Concerning the defense lawyer’s main argument, the masquerade as lynchers with their victims were just a childish jest, we think a term in prison is not necessary. We agree with the defense lawyer in so far that a masquerade is not a murderer. Moreover, we have to regard that the five students Trey, Bedford, Jubal, Uncas and Bobby are unblemished boys up to this point. Another evidence for the fact that the boys did not want to start a campaign against another race, furthermore, is that they could have been sure that there would not be any members of the African American society at the closed fraternity Halloween party.
Nevertheless, we need to agree the district attorney as well. We think an expulsion from college is in consideration to the facts that the accused boys have taken pictures posing with toy rifles and “their victims” absolutely appropriate. This behavior represents that the defendants do not respect the long way of the African American Civil Rights Movement and do not see the actuality of this delicate topic.
In conclusion, we think the defendants should be expelled from college and have to accomplish 200 hours of charitable work.
In the speech “In No Other Country” held by Barack Obama in 2008, he emphasizes primarily the diversity of the USA. In his opinion, in no other country could his story be possible, so in no other country could family members are scattered across three continents. Saying this, he refers to the USA’s diversity.
Furthermore, Obama indicates diversity in his whole speech. For example by sharing information about his private life when he makes clear that he was educated by blacks and whites. Or by talking about things that make the USA diverse such as historical incidents or just by praising the country indirectly.
In my opinion, there are a lot of examples for living with diversity nowadays. One of these, we could find in our own county. In Germany we are living with diversity as so far that there is a lot of cultural exchange. For example restaurants, which offer dishes of foreign countries, chains of shops, which offer clothes from different countries or just the high percentage of immigration are making our country diverse and determining our daily life. The situation in other countries probably is similar so that one can say that we are living in a diverse world.
More examples for diversity could be found considering religion or cultural rites, which are things that make a country different from another one.
But all in all, I think diversity do not have to be the factor that separates humans beings. I rather think it could be a factor to expand one’s horizons.
The speech “In No Other Country” which was orated by the former Senator Barack Obama, deals with the topic of race, in part to assure voters during the US presidential campaign in 2008.
In the speech Obama describes his personal experiences as a black man in America. But at the same time he emphasizes that he was able to make his way despite all odds. Moreover, he talks about his family, which is and was always the base he could rely on. Concerning to this he talks about the fact that his own family is spread over three continents. In his opinion, something like this just could be possible in a versatile country like the USA.
Orating, Obama uses a lot of stylistic devices, which are signalizing his attitude to take away humans prejudices about blacks. For example he often uses the personal pronoun “I” to make the listener identify with him. Furthermore, he uses parallelisms and antitheses to unite allegedly irreconcilable things, which could be transferred to one’s worries about a black president what might be an irreconcilable thing for some people. Examples for this can be found in ll.9/10 as well as in ll. 11, when he says his wife “carries within her the blood of slaves and slave- owners”. Further stylistic devices are alliterations and enumerations (l. 2 and l. 12). Through these stylistic devices as well as the fact that Obama describes his personal experiences about this topic of race he is presenting himself as an optimal presidential candidate for everybody. The fact that he praises his country so much is elaborate (l. 14; ll. 15-17).
Considering the tone of the speech on the one hand I would say it is serious because of its important topic but on the other hand it is intimate because Senator Obama shares very personal details about his private affairs.
In conclusion, I think this speech is very convincing. Obama uses the right stylistic devices to clarify apparent contrasts and he succeeds to take away one’s prejudices about blacks, more specifically about a black president. Moreover, he is presenting himself as “a president for everybody”.
Aliens, you are not our conquerors
the only thing we hear from you
is the sound of our movies
when we use the zapper.
Why should we stop you
when we like your services so much?
What shell it mean
that you allegedly conquered us?
We control you, you are just a device.
Nobody conquered anybody.
And anyway, aliens, such an idiocy!
What a funny idea –
observing TV- Aliens.
Sometimes we really feel conquered
by technical devices
is it the TV or the PC
they cast a spell over us
and we cannot escape.
And if we sit in front of the TV
it is hard to stand up
and to something wittier.
Ohh, now you have nearly got me there –
but such an idiocy!
The first of the two bar charts represents the percent of people who read a newspaper the previous day from 1993 to 2008.
In 1993 58% are reading a newspaper the previous day, but it is to see that the percentage decreases steadily so that 2008 only 34% of the people are reading a written newspaper the previous day.
The second bar chart represents the percent or people who read news online in three or more days a week, as well from 1993 to 2008.
In opposition to the first bar graph the percentage is rising steadily: From a very low worth in 1993 (it was not even available) the percentage increased from 2% in 1996 to 37% in 2008.
So one can see that today  the percentage of people reading news online is higher than the percentage of people getting their information through written newspaper. The general trend therewith is that more and more people do not need a written version of their favorite newspaper because they also can get news through the internet.
The first pie chart shows the percent of people who read or saw no news the previous day in 1998. One can see that this amount came to 14% total; ten years later this amount came to 19% total, so it is to suppose that the general trend is rising.
Under the two pie charts one can see two bar charts, each time fitting to the two pie charts.
In the first of them one can see the percent of people who read or saw no newspaper the previous day in six different bars: From 18 to 24 years, from 25 to 29 years, from 30 to 49 years, from 50 to 64 years and from 60 years and older which show that the amount of people not reading or seeing news decreases with the age, with the result that 25% of the 18 to 24 year old people reading or seeing no news whereas the amount of people who are 60 years and older just amount to 6%.
In the bar graph for the year 2008 one can see the same scaling. Nevertheless the percentage of 18 to 24 year old people reading or seeing no news the previous day nearly doubled as well as the percentage of the 60 years and older people. Even the percentages of the bar graphs in between increased.
The general trend consequently is that more and more people do not read or see news the previous day.
The two different charts fit in so far together as they are representing the same trend: people cease to read newspaper or rather cease to inform themselves about the news, for example trough newspapers.
A reason for this might be the fact that the political apathy is higher than ever with the result that – especially teenagers – lose their political commitment and are not interested in the world affairs.
“And by buying Mc Donald’s in the UK, you are still buying from the same clown.”
With this utterance the author Peter Salisbury wants to say that even if the UK apparently changed something concerning to the worldwide accusations against Mc Donald’s chains – for example Mc Donald’s was incriminated by bad labor conditions, genetically manipulated food and cruelty to animals – it is not clear that all of the chains has reformed their image.
So if anybody buys a burger or something else in a British Mc Donald’s store, he or she is supporting all the other chains, which have not reformed anything, indirectly. In this case a complete reformation of the chains is nearly impossible.
Moreover this statement with the word “clown” in it, based on the Mc Donald’s mascot, could be a kind of wordplay because there are two different associations of the word clown. By the one hand it is a funny guy, like in the circus, but by the other hand it also could be a very stupid idiot, who does not notice that he is not as great as he might think. In the last case Salisbury could alludes to all the people buying their meals at Mc Donald’s and do not realize that they are supporting bad labor conditions, destroy of rain forests and genetically manipulated food by buying this kind of fast food. Additionally some people might think, they are doing something well after watching the deceived Mc Donald’s advertising spots, which try to make clear that this kind or food is hale, biologic and produced under very well working conditions. In this instance these people were just clowns.
In my opinion the author is right with his statement. I also think that buying food by Mc Donald’s no matter in which country is an indirect support of all the other chains which do not reform the situation after the accusations. And even if there are some stores in some regions or countries, there are still the others connected to the reformed ones so that a complete reformation is really impossible because I think it is not realizable to ensure that all stores are change anything to improve the image. Especially in developing countries it is barely imaginable to think that the conditions could be advanced just because of a few accusations of environmental organizations.
The titelless cartoon, whichs date of publicity is unknown, was drawn by Mister Bennett and deals with the fact that most of the people prefere a reassuring lie instead of an inconvient truth.
The scene, the writer refers to, shows two different theaters which are going to present two disperate plays, one with the title “An Inconvenient Truth”, the other with the title “A Reassuring Lie”. In the backgroung one can see two different counters of the two theaters at which the tickets for the respective plays are sold.
The queue of the left theater, which is going to present the play with the lie, is very long and the people standing in it are looking very happy and satisfied. The seller of these theater is also looking quiet content.
The seller of the left theater in contrast is looking very shocked and sad at the other one, because in front of his counter nobody is forming a line to buy a ticket for the play “An Inconvenient Truth” andaccording to his face he is probably not understanding this.
The message of this cartoon is obvious: It aims to show that people prefere lies, which sound nice or reassuring to them instead of the truth which sound sinister or inconvenient to them. In this fact the cartoonist criticises human mentally to always take the easier way of living.
I think the cartoonist is right with his criticism because reassuring lies are not better than the inconvenient truth just because they look easier at the first look. In the end when all the aspects which perceive a truth or a lie are measured out, there should be the insight that saying the truth will be easier in relation. There is a quotation about truth that says that truth would be easier because of the danger of lies. This danger is that the lying person always have to make new lies to uphold the beginning lie; that lies can start a independent existence – lies can surprise you inconvenient, the truth cannot. So I think saying the inconvenient truth is eventually more reassuring than lying.
According to Thomas L. Friedman the kind of jobs which are “untouchable” are still be needed in the future because this jobs cannot be accomplished by a PC, a machine or people in foreign countries far away (cf. p. 27, ll 70ff).
In the text “The Need for a New Middle”, which appeared in his book The World Is Flat, he is talking about fungible and nonfunglible jobs (cf. p. 27, ll. 80ff). Fungible jobs are occupations which can be outsourced, digitized and automated, like the jobs of teachers, of call center employees or technological jobs in general, for example.
Nonfungible jobs by the other hand are jobs which cannot be outsourced, digitized or automated because they are in one way so specified or local grounded, that only a few humans are able to accomplish them (cf. p. 27, ll. 90/91; ll. 98/99).
Examples for the first category are very specified doctors or popular stars like Madonna or even authors like J. K. Rowling (cf. p. 27 ll. 91/92) and for the second category employees which have to stand in contact to their costumers like waitresses, plumbers or barbers (cf. p. 27 l. 104). In this kind of jobs it just would not be possible to digitize the shear of the barber or the tongs of the plumber. And this is the thing which makes them untouchable as well as the people of the first category.
So if people want to have a chance for a good, not outsource- endangered job, they have to have “certain skills […] that can make [one] special, specialized or anchored and therefore […] untouchable” (p. 28, ll. 196ff).