Buffalo

â€Å"I want to be in Buffalo when the world ends.† I glance up from the magazine I’ve been flipping through and look at my friend with skepticism. Rolling her eyes as if the reasoning behind her bizarre statement is obvious to everyone except me, she explains, â€Å"Because it’s always ten years behind everywhere else.† For the most part, she’s right. Buffalo is rarely on the cutting edge of anything. When pink was the new black, women in Buffalo were still sporting gray. When Pacific Rim was all the rage, we continued to view the corner takeout as authentic Asian cuisine. Forget Mini Coopers, aren’t Chevy Suburbans still considered classy? Although one might think Buffalonians would have an inferiority complex about our less-than-cosmopolitan image, we actually revel in our provincial ways. We embrace the fact that we are the home of the chicken wing, kazoo, and electric chair, and the city whose football team almost won the Super Bowl four times. We are not ashamed to be the birthplace of America’s most forgettable president, Millard Fillmore, and the host of â€Å"Howdy Doody,† Buffalo Bob Smith. At this point, you might be wondering how any self-respecting person could be proud to live in a city whose major claims to fame are a greasy bird appendage and having snow seven months of the year. In order to understand our pride, you have to realize that Buffalo’s backward nature is what makes it so appealing to those who live here. It doesn’t matter that we’re not avant-garde. Instead, we’ve retained the kind of strong, cohesive community where people look out for each other which doesn’t typically exist in cities. On my street, for instance, neighbors greet each other by name, kids play outside unsupervised, and our street association works together to keep the blockattractive. One street over is the Elmwood Strip, where independently owned shops, restaurants, cafes, and the local library can be found. I never â€Å"walk the strip† without running into at least two people I know. I feel safe, at home, and part of the community. When an October storm dumped three feet of snow on Buffalo, half the city was left without electricity or phone service, and most of our trees were destroyed. Debris was everywhere, many roads were impassable, and schools and businesses were closed for over a week. Adults and children banded together to clear fallen branches, provide meals, and even offer their own homes to those in need. One of my neighbors, who has two infants, was without power or heat, but immediately received a neighbor’s generator, prepared meals, and had her driveway and front walk cleared by neighborhood men within hours. Despite our adversity, or perhaps because of it, Buffalonians are proud of who we are: loyal, generous, compassionate, and resourceful people linked by a common connection to each other. There aren’t many places where an entire community of volunteers pitches in to restore a park system to its original glory or, despite the city’s bankruptcy, privately raises $70 million to renovate a Frank Lloyd Wright masterpiece. Some give anonymously, like small-time vegetable merchant and amateur stock investor Walt Kaminski, who quietly gave away millions and finally revealed his legacy of support by leaving eight million dollars to local charities when he died recently. Others contribute on their own level. My grandfather knew all the panhandlers by name from passing them on his walk to work. Once, he traded his wool coat for a homeless man’s tattered one just to make sure this proud but down-on-his-luck guy had something warm to wear. The last time I went with my dad to see our mechanic, Nelson, I witnessed him refusing payment from a group of stranded Middle Eastern students whose car he had repaired because, he said, â€Å"I know they would do the same for my kids.† Growing up in Buffalo has shaped me in important ways, instilling in me kindness, generosity, resilience, integrity, authenticity, and a strong devotion to community. We Buffalonians may not be at the forefront of fashion, art, music or food, but we’re the kind of people you can depend on. So, the next time you hear the infamous refrain from â€Å"A Chorus Line† that claims â€Å"to commit suicide in Buffalo is redundant,† you can set the record straight.

Comparison Critique of two Famous Speeches Essay

Comparison Critique of two Famous Speeches - Essay Example What makes their speeches unique and special were the contrasting messages that each speaker delivered. Though delivered at different points in American history, each president successfully managed to convey the thoughts and emotions of the American public to the world. The speech of Pres. George W. Bush was delivered before the joint session of congress back in 2001. Without the use of visual aids and backed up only by an off camera teleprompter, the president stood before the politicians and international delegates in order to express the deep gratitude of the American people for the outpouring of love and support from the international community after the terrorist attacks. This was a historically significant speech as it signaled the beginning of America's decade long war on terror that took them from the arid desert of Afghanistan all the way to the oil rich country of Iraq. It was the day that America finally joined in on the growing war on terror because of the attack on their homeland. This was in effect, similar to the speech that Pres. Roosevelt gave on the fateful day that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. This speech turned the tide of history and dictated the end of the reign of terrorism in the Middle East. The opening dialogue of his speech tried to lighten the severely somber mood by reminding the American public that they were not alone in this tragedy. This was a tragedy that affected the whole world and nations such as South Korea, Britain, and others were not ashamed to show their sympathy by offering songs and prayers in support of America. After that the speech fell into its actual topic, which was how America was going to respond to the unprovoked attack and what it would cost the nation. It was not difficult to follow his train of thought during the speech as all the plans of action were laid out in a concise manner meant to educate the listener/viewer with its main ideas which were clearly supported by evidence. Americans have many qu estions tonight. Americans are asking, "Who attacked our country?"... The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. (Transcript of Pres. Bush's Address) Thanks to Pres. Bush's constant quoting of verified information from government sources such as the American CIA and British MI6, all the listeners deduced that their president had the credibility to deliver the information and, therefore, must be telling the truth. By using persuasive and highly descriptive information regarding the advent of the Al-Qaeda, Pres. Bush was able to garner unprecedented national and international support that was necessary in order to mount the war on terror. He explained in his own colorful and highly descriptive words that: The evidence we have gathered, all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as Al Qaeda. They are some of the murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and responsible for bombing the USS Cole. Al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. However, its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world and imposing

Three question Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Three question - Essay Example To protect their property and themselves, individuals may assent to a contractual affiliation whereby they unite themselves in an alliance for the good of all. Through channels of this pledged relationship, persons concur to accept different duties or responsibilities in return for the gains provided by communal cooperation. A democracy may be started on the base of a mutual pledge between community, and each person, in which society has a responsibility to every person and each person has a responsibility to society. For Locke, the natural justice will set the restrictions and provide the way for civil justice through the natural rights’ concept. Conferring to Locke, impartiality is not conceivable without personal possessions—meaning that justice will prevail only when a person has a claim to a property. The principle of Locke’s notion of impartiality is the safety of each individual’s personal property as a right built upon nature’s law (Locke pa r 5). Confucian would respond to the passage by stating the government has an obligation to attend to its citizens without favoritism or discrimination. Confucian believes that people can attain a good life through developing moral righteousness and take part in valued human relationships. Confucian would advise against bad behaviors such as being self-seeking. Confucian believes that the government has an obligation to uphold the settings, which are essential to the ‘good life’. The notion of fairness infers that the state should foster or create these settings impartially for everyone so that every individual is in a position to live a better life. An impartial society, therefore, has the following features; sufficiency for everyone, universal education and meritocracy. Question 2 A Hobbes and Locke are both well-known political theorists whose works have been momentously influential into the modern-political thought development. Moreover, they are alike in that they both denote a â€Å"state of nature† wherein man exists minus the government, as well as both talk of risks within this state. Nonetheless, while both talk of the risks of a ‘state of nature’, Hobbes is pessimistic while Locke talks of the possible benefits (Locke par 5). Hobbes talks of ‘states of nature’ hypothetically, while Locke points out instances where they are. Both men denote men to be equal within this state of nature; Hobbes affirms that nature has made men equal win the abilities of body and mind. Likewise, Locke explains the nature-of-nature as a condition of perfect impartiality, where inherently there is no dominance or authority of one on another. Regardless of this parity; nonetheless, both men caution of the risk of the ‘state of nature’.  For Hobbes, the whole time, which man is within a ‘state of nature’, he is inside a state of warfare. Hobbes states that two men can become enemies when it becomes imp ossible to relish the same item; in return they endeavor to wreck each other. Locke also points out threats, saying that minus the nature law’s everybody may execute verdicts, resulting to a state of mess (Locke par 5).    Hobbes and Locke’s ‘state of nature’ differ from one another. Firstly, Hobbes’ nature-of-nature is continually in a mess of war.   Rendering to him, the main purpose why men give up their power to the supreme is to pursue tranquility, and evade the â€Å"fear of demise†. In contrast, whereas Locke does talk of ‘