United States

The world has changed for the worse. Humans are destroying our society. Our economy Is getting worse. Our crime rates are going up daily. Racism Is tearing apart our society. Society Is undergoing many changes and Is changing for the worse. There are many contributing factors that are making the USA economy go downhill. People earning minimum wage are not making enough money to pay their bills. November 201 3 through January 2014 the Wall-mart company was losing profit because sales were low. The sales were low because of the food stamp cuts by the governments, and because winter storms caused Wall-mart to close a few mimes. Wall-mart plans to lay off around 2. 300 employees from Sam club around the US. “Based on the White House’s own figures, the national debt will reach $20. 0 trillion by the end of this decade?about 140% of our current GAP. ”  To pay the national debt the people pay more in taxes. Crime rates are still a problem In our society. Today 1 out of every 100 adults is In prison or Jail (Minnesota Dally)The daily news always shows another dead body found or someone murdered. Data from 2008 said there are 2. 319,258 people were In Jail In the United States.

Yesterday my mom went for a walk in the park. She parked her car and when she came back from the walk one of her car doors was wide open. People can’t even go to the park today without their car getting broken into! So my mother is keeping her doors in her car locked every time she gets out now. The US homicide rate is still one of the highest In the industrialized world. U. S. Has not only a messed up economy and high crime rates but racism is also a problem. Department store employees follow African Americans around in a store cause they think they may shoplift. Becker). The media are attracted to anything that smacks of racism(Thomas). Los Angels Clippers owner Donald Sterling tells a friend he would rather not have black people showing up at his games (Boston Globe). The unemployment rate for blacks Is consistently about double that of whites (Boston Globe). Well, there you have it. We have racism, an economy on the verge of collapsing, and crime is a problem everywhere you go. The economy is so messed up we can’t live off of a full-time minimum wage job. In my opinion, we are destroying ourselves.

Can we save our country before we destroy what Americans worked so hard to create? We need to do our best and save our country before all of the freedom we have, all of the cultures we have, disappears and the only explanation we will have at the end is it’s too late. All we did was sit here, everyone should do something and take a stand to make our country a better place. A country we can actually say is number 1 and have proof behind that statement.

Loughmiller 1 Austin Loughmiller Davis Research Paper 15 April 2011 Chief Sitting Bull Strong Hearted and Brave “I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle. ” Chief Sitting Bull is one of the most well known Native Americans to this day. He was known for fighting bravely for his people. He died while fighting off white soldiers that were forcing Chief Sitting Bull and his tribe of their own land. Chief Sitting Bull had a life that many people today would try to run from.

Although the exact date of his birthday is not known, many speculate that it was from the years 1831 to 1837 (Notable Native Americans). Chief Sitting Bull first distinguished himself as a warrior at fourteen years old (Notable Native Americans). Now fourteen year olds are not allowed to fight in the armed forces but it was encouraged for a teenager to become a warrior for their tribe back then. Sitting Bull fought during the conflicts of the late nineteenth century when the Sioux were constantly resisting white soldiers (Notable Native Americans).

Sitting Bull was constantly fighting to protect the land that he and his tribe lived on. Sitting Bull died while fighting for his tribe on December 15, 1890. Sitting Bull is arguably the best-known Indian in American History (Notable Native Americans). Chief Sitting Bull’s whole life was dedicated to being a warrior and as a result he was involved in more wars than the average person today. By 1856, Sitting Bull was on of the sash wearers of the Hunkpapa’s Strong Heart warrior society (Notable Native Loughmiller 2 Americans).

When Sitting Bull became the chief of his tribe he was constantly leading his warriors into battles against white soldiers. Sitting Bull’s first altercation with white soldiers occurred in June 1863 (“Sitting Bull”). Sitting Bull was aiding the Santee Sioux against the white soldiers’ retaliation after the “Minnesota Massacre. ” After aiding the Santee Sioux Sitting Bull was named leader of the Strong Hearts and he became the cofounder of the elite Midnight Strong Hearts (Notable Native Americans). He became the leader of the Strong Hearts after receiving a bullet wound which left him with a permanent limp.

Although Sitting Bull was a brave soldier what he did on the battlefield is not the only reason he is remembered. Chief Sitting Bull is widely known today for his resistance against white soldiers. His perhaps mostly remembered for his leadership during the Battle of Little Big Horn (Notable Native Americans). Sitting Bull led warriors to fight off General George Custer when he unsuccessfully attacked a large group of Native Americans gathered to resist white domination. Sitting Bull was known by the public through his appearances on Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show and for his refusal to sign treaties (Notable Native Americans).

Sitting Bull never signed a treaty that the American Government offered him. Sitting Bull was killed during his arrest by government officials for supporting the Ghost Dance Movement. They began thinking the Ghost Dance was harmful to themselves and shot Sitting Bull for not stopping it. The death of Sitting Bull led to the Wounded Knee Massacre which killed 153 Lakota Sioux. Sitting Bull was just trying to protect his own people by refusing to sign the treaties that the white soldiers offered him.

Niger was the term they used hen calling Black Americans and treat them as their own property, so called “Slaves”. His twelve years of bondage proved how Black Americans were treated during pre-Civil War and I think, in post-civil War too. How they can buy Black Americans to be their SLAVES. They really treat Naggers as their own property and do what they want to do. I never expected that the White Americans can do such thing. The way he wrote it, was very dramatic because he’s the one who experienced that kind of slavery. He wanted to reach people who read his book.

I felt the feeling of reminiscence. I really wanted to see it but I know I can’t. He also, was very eager to wake all American citizens to see the reality of life or to see what’s really happening in the political issues over slavery. His book was one of the best books to show how White Americans kidnap and torture their so called “property’ especially those freemen Naggers like Mr.. Solomon Northup and sell them into Slavery. And I think, his point was always to compare what he saw and experienced to what he already knew as a freeman.

And also, for us to see how and what kind of discrimination or racism happened in the American’s Civil War years. “My narrative is at an end. I have no comments to make upon the subject of Slavery. Those who read this book may form their own opinions of the “peculiar institution”. What it may be in other States, I do not profess to know; what it is in the region of Red River, is truly and faithfully delineated in these pages. This is no fiction, no exaggeration. If I have failed in anything, it has been in presenting to the reader too prominently the bright side of he picture.

I doubt not hundreds have been as unfortunate as myself; that hundreds of free citizens have been kidnapped and sold into slavery, and are at this moment wearing out their lives on plantations in Texas and Louisiana. But I forbear. Chastened and subdued in spirit by the sufferings I have borne, and thankful to that good Being through whose mercy I have been restored to happiness and liberty, I hope henceforward to lead an upright though lowly life, and rest at last in the church yard where my father sleeps.

4. In March 2006, Tesco announced that it would enter the United States. This represents a departure from its historic strategy of focusing on developing nations. Why do you think Tesco made this decision? How is the U. S. market different from others Tesco has entered? What are the risks here? How do you think Tesco will do? In our opinion, Tesco had done a lot of research before they decide to open in United States market. Tesco believes that each market is unique and requires a different approach. Tesco experience In the United Kingdom has demonstrated that no single format can entirely penetrate a market.

That is why the company has developed a range of formats from convenience stores to hypermarkets that it deploys to meet the needs and opportunities it encounters in each country. One of the reasons Tesco enters the United States market is because they want to build a brand for Tesco. Tesco believe brands are the building blocks of lasting relationships with consumers. Tesco want to develop capabilities. A critical part of Tesco’s culture is an intense focus on learning, developing skills, processes and systems, and then sharing them across international markets to increase the chances of success.

United State market is different from others Tesco has entered. Accounting for almost 30% of world GDP, the United State is the world’s largest and most demanding market for almost everything from oil to microprocessors to premium coffee. Companies around the world aspire to do business in the United State or at least with United State companies in their home markets. By doing so, they learn much about the latest management practices, they can be closer to the cutting edge of innovation, and they can boost their reputations by supplying well known United States firms.

The risk for Tesco decide to open a market in United States is, Tesco moved too fast and made too many wrong assumptions about the United States Market. If the concept was working, an established and well financed retailer like Tesco would be using the economic downturn to drive out weaker United States players. It will be some risk to Tesco if they open a new market in United States, because they will compete with Wal-Mart their biggest competitor in United States. Wal-Mart is the biggest retailer in United States and since Wal-Mart has bought ASDA, Tesco will be struggling to compete with Wal-Mart in United States market.

In our opinion Tesco will fail or struggle in the beginning because they have to compete with their biggest competitor Wal-Mart. Most of the customers in United States used to go to Wal-Mart, since that Tesco will be struggle in a beginning. And from our research we found that none of British retailer has succeeded in United States market. But maybe after few months or few years Tesco will be back stronger in United States market and Tesco maybe will be more succeed than Wal-Mart.

Giancarlo Orichio Dr. A. Arraras CPO 3055 20 November 2008 Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Uruguay A study of democratization presumes that the meaning of democratization is self-evident: defined simply as a transition of a political system from non-democracy towards accountable and representative government practices. (Grugel 3) A concept that is valid in Uruguayan politics however, has an element of potential risk that will be the topic of further analysis.

Assessment of the latter will enable us to determine why Uruguay is the only one of the four former “bureaucratic-authoritarian” regimes in South America that includes Chile, Brazil, and Argentina to attain this debatably political status quo. Guillermo O’Donnell described this type of regime as an institution that uses coercive measures to respond to what they view as threats to capitalism, whereas, the only means of opposing this repressive government is by an “unconditional commitment to democracy. (O’Donnell xiii) The hierarchically lead bureaucratic-authoritarian regime as a political actor poses a possible advantage to democratization insofar that the military-as-institution may consider that their interests are best served by extrication from the military-as-government. However, seizing power to a new governing body without imposing strong constraints is improbable and has occurred predictably in Uruguayan democratic transition. Understanding the obstacle faced by the newly fragile democratic government in managing the military and eliminating its reserved domains brings us to the task at hand.

First, I will analyze the political history in Uruguay that lead up to the no doubt controversial argument that it has attained democratic consolidation. Secondly, I will analyze the factors that either contributed or hindered its journey to representative democracy; ultimately, arriving to the conclusion that Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan describe as a “risk-prone” consolidated democracy. On 25 August 1825, Juan Antonio Lavalleja, at the head of a group of patriots called the “treinta y tres orientales,” issued a declaration of independence. After a three-year fight, a peace treaty signed on 28 August 1828 guaranteed Uruguay’s independence.

During this period of political turmoil and civil war, the two political parties around which Uruguayan history has traditionally revolved, the Colorados and the Blancos, were founded. “Even by West Europen standards, [Uruguay] had a tradition of high party identification and a clear sense of a left-right index. ” (Linz 152) Uruguay’s first president, Gen. Jose Fructuoso Rivera, an ally of Artigas, founded the Colorados. The second president, Brig. Gen. Manuel Oribe, a friend of Lavalleja, founded the Blancos. The 19th century was largely a struggle between the two factions.

However, it was not until the election of Jose Batlle y Ordonez as president in 1903 that Uruguay matured as a nation. The Batlle administrations (1903–7, 1911–15) marked the period of greatest economic performance. A distinguished statesman, Batlle initiated the social welfare system codified in the Uruguayan constitution. From then on, Uruguay’s social programs, funded primarily by earnings of beef and wool in foreign markets, gave Uruguay the revered soubriquet “Switzerland of South America. ” After World War II, the Colorados ruled, except for an eight-year period from 1958–66.

It was during the administration of President Jorge Pacheco Areco (1967–72) that Uruguay entered a political and social crisis. As wool declined in world markets, export earnings no longer kept pace with the need for greater social expenditures. Political instability resulted, most dramatically in the emergence of Uruguay’s National Liberation Movement, popularly known as the Tupamaros. This well-organized urban guerrilla movement adopted Marxist and nationalist ideals while on the other hand, most nationally important actors were disloyal or at best semi-loyal to the already established democratic regime.

Their revolutionary activities, coupled with the worsening economic situation, exacerbated Uruguay’s political uncertainty. Gradually, the military-as institution assumed a greater role in government and by 1973 was in complete control of the political system. By the end of 1973, the Tupamaros had been successfully controlled and suppressed by the military-as-institution. In terms of systematic repression, as Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan stated, “Uruguay was the most deeply repressive of the four South American bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes. (Linz 152) Amnesty international denounced Uruguay for human rights violations; in 1979, they estimated the number of political prisoners jailed at a ratio of 1 per 600, Chile and Argentina were respectively 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 1,200. (Linz 152) By 1977 the military announced that they would devise a new constitution with the intentions to “strengthen democracy. ” The new constitution would be submitted to a plebiscite in 1980, and if ratified elections with a single presidential candidate nominated by both the Colorados and the Blancos and approved by the military would be held the following year.

The post-authoritarian transition to democracy began in Uruguay when the democratic opposition won the plebiscite. By the 1980’s the military did not have an offensive plan to lift Uruguay from its uninterrupted bad economic performance, the Tupamaros had in fact been defeated by 1973, so a defense project against urban guerrilla was unnecessary. The military had no civil or political support, and with there loss in the plebiscite, whose results they said they would respect, tarnished the military’s political leverage significantly.

Thus, the democratic opposition in the form of the two major catch all political parties that have governed de jure since the 19 century presented a non threatening alternative despite their disloyal behavior before the authoritarian coup d’etat . As previously touched on, the opportunities presented by a hierarchical military favoring democratic transition is the possibility that the leading officers of the military-as-institution will come to the conclusion that the cost of non democratic rule is greater than the cost of extrication.

With the main interest resting in a stable state that will in turn allow the military to become a functioning sector of the state apparatus. However, this does not preclude the possibility of non democratic prerogatives in the transfer. The party-military negotiation called the Naval Club Pact disqualified Wilson Ferreira of the Blanco party to be nominated as president, pushed for guarantees concerning their own autonomy, and the most damaging to democracy was the curtailment of human right trails for military officials.

Elections were held in 1985 were Julio Maria Sanguinetti from the Colorado party became the first democratically elected candidate in the 1977 constitution. Because of strong public discontent with Military Amnesty granted during the transition, the curtailment was sent to a referendum in 1989, were it approved the amnesty and gained democratic legitimacy by 57%. It has to be stated that the majority of Uruguayan opposed the amnesty, however the fragile democratic government confronted a troubling decision. They could have breached the Naval Club Pact and tried military officer for heir human right offenses and risked military refusal and therefore a crisis in their own authority. Or they could have hastily granted them amnesty at the cost of lowered prestige in the new democracy. It is safe to assume that the electorate voted to let the amnesty law stand not because it was just but more so to avoid a crisis. By 1992 the left-wing Frente Amplio was integrated into Uruguayan politics without any other major party leaders deeming them unacceptable arriving to the quarrelsome argument that Uruguay became a consolidated democracy.

Uruguay’s economic development can be divided into two starkly contrasting periods. During the first period, when it earned its valued sobriquet “Switzerland of South America,” from the late 1800s until the 1950s, Uruguay achieved remarkable growth and a high standard of living. Expanding livestock exports; principally beef and wool accounted for its economic development. The advanced social welfare programs, which redistributed wealth from the livestock sector to the rest of the economy, raised the standard of living for the majority of the population and contributed to the development of new industries.

When export earnings faltered in the 1950s, however, the fabric of Uruguay’s economy had begun to unravel. The country entered a decades-long period of economic stagnation. It was during the administration of President Jorge Pacheco Areco (1967–72) that Uruguay entered a political and social crisis. As wool and beef demands declined in world markets, export earnings no longer kept pace with the need for greater social expenditures causing bad economic performance that lead to the bureaucratic-authoritarian take over of government.

Although the old democratic regime was not able to lift economic prosperity neither was the military-as-government. Bad economic performance still plagued the nation throughout authoritarian rule. By 1980 the military had no agenda in combating the bad economic performance that helped unveil the inadequacies of the non democratic regime. In fact, economic performance has been in a decline since 1950’s until today. Although the legitimacy that the democratic system posses in Uruguay is strong, the capacity, or as Stepan and Linz say, the “efficacy” of the democratic system in resolving the stagnant economy is low.

Thus, making Uruguay’s democracy risk-prone due to an unsolved economic performance. Since the economy has been the number one issue affecting Uruguayans since the end of their golden era in the early 19 century. A public opinion poll was asked to upper class respondents weather a political alternative from the authoritarian regime at the time would speed rather than slow economic recuperation. By a margin of 2 to 1 they believed it would, more surprisingly was a 7 to 1 response to the question if a new democratic regime would bring more tranquility and public order.

In 1985, of the nine institutions evaluated in terms of trust, political parties ranked highest with a net score of 57 and the armed forces with a net score of negative 73. Only 5% viewed the military sympathetically while 78% viewed the military with antipathy. (Linz 153) In my studies concerning democratization never did democracy start with such rejection of the political role of the military from all class coalitions alike.

During the first half on the 19th century the norm was a two party system similar to that of the United States in that there was “low fragmentation and low polarization. ” (Linz 163) However, contrary to the American vetting process the Uruguayan had a peculiar electoral system known as the double simultaneous vote that allows all parties to run multiple candidate for the presidency. This did not present a problem until after the 1960’s when presidents routinely were elected with less than 25% of the vote because of the amount of candidates running.

This creates party fragmentation that can hinder democracy. The fact that the old regime political structure remains untouched means that the opportunity for constitutional change was missed and this presents a potential democratic upheaval. Behaviorally, by 1968-73 political elites were at best semi-loyal to the democratic system that soon caused the authoritarian regime to take over government, and one thing that can be done from previous failures in democratic attempts is to learn from their missteps.

Stepan and Linz clearly state that for the consolidation of democracy loyalty to the system as well as the perception that all other parties are loyal to the democratic process plays a crucial role. (Linz 156) By 1985 not one of the twelve major factions of the three leading parties perceived the other parties to be acting disloyal. As well as the mere fact that the once unacceptable left-wing party, Frente Amplio, held the mayoral position of Montevideo by 1989 and then the presidency by 2004 demonstrates the positive elite choices that contributed to democracy.

Since Uruguay’s troublesome and long fought battle for independence in August 25, 1828 Uruguay did not encounter any “intermestic” stateness problems. As far as Washington relations to Latin America and in particular Uruguay, the United States continues to pursue hegemony over the region. The neo-liberal reforms in place in the region are bound by the restraints of the global market and for a country like Uruguay it is very difficult to compete with such superpowers.

These reforms have often left the lower classes impoverish and desperate while the upper classes and Washington feed their gluttonous appetites. The civilian government in Uruguay has found it increasingly difficult to enforce these foreign economic influences that can potentially result in authoritarian means of accomplishment. As a member of MERCOSUR, Mercado Comun del Sur, Uruguay faced foreign political influences to liberalize its economy during the 1990s, as economic giants, and MERCOSUR partners Brazil and Argentina had done.

This can be potentially devastating to democracy except that Uruguay in the 1980’s had a gross national product (GNP) per capita income of 2,820, higher than any of its MERCOSUR counterparts. However, we must remember that Uruguay has been experiencing a downward economic performance since the mid 1900’s and is a potential risk that needs to be addressed to preserve democracy. United States foreign policy in Uruguay and in the rest of Latin America has encouraged for the liberalization of markets. The side effect of neo-liberal reform is the zero-sum element that produces excessive amounts of losers.

Essentially the contrary to what it is intended to produce. These superpower polices implemented creates few winners most of which are “elites with government connection [that] have been the primary beneficiaries of the sweeping economic transformation. ” (Kingstone 196) This transcends business when the only means of preserving this market economy is through potential authoritarian means. The contentious claim that Uruguay is a consolidated democracy since 1992 is threefold, first, because of the reluctance to fix the already proven failed double simultaneous vote electoral system.

Secondly, because of civil-military relations concerning human rights violation during authoritarian rule, although was legitimized by democratic referendum, but more importantly budgetary cuts that have been implemented as a result of bad economic performance. Finally, and most importantly, Uruguayans accept democracy as the most legitimate political game, but also recognize its incapacity to fix the troubling economy, producing this efficacy-legitimacy gap that can be potentially destructive for democracy.

These three factors give Uruguay the title of a risk-prone democracy. Works Cited Kingstone, Peter R. , ed. Readings in Latin American Politics. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. Linz, Juan, and Alfred Stepan. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. O’Donnell, Guillermo. Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1973.

Although the current Managers are fluent in Korean, it will be important to hire local dialect persons to add to our staff. This will ensure acceptance, communications, and also preventing miss spoken words that me be taken as offensive If not done with the proper tone. Curriculum Instructor certification. Since South Korea converted the KIT- Korea Teakwood Escalation In 1954 Into the World Teakwood Federation, the feeling In Korea Is all Black Belts must hold certificates from the WTFO.

This may be Just a financial ploy to collect money room those outside Korea, but the perception exists that if you hold a certificate (called a Okinawa Certificate) you are then legitimate regardless of what country you received the certificate, since all Okinawa certificates originate in Seoul, South Korea. All staff who do not currently hold their given Black Belt rank must be certified by the WTFO prior to submitting an application to be an instructor in our Korea Dugong expansion plans. Since no Okinawa officers exist in the united States, all certifications will be done by Head Master Ken Adulated, 6th Degree Black Belt Okinawa holder.

Country of Origin of retail goods. Three primary countries manufacture martial arts apparel (uniforms) and sparring gear. These are Japan, China, and South Korea. While Americans are primarily obsessed by price, and seem to disregard country of orally pride, Korea Is the opposite. It will be critical that all uniforms, belts, and sparring gear ONLY come from South Korea manufacturing companies. To offer anything else is potentially offensive, but should these goods come from China or Japan, it would also be a disgrace since both countries attacked Korea in the last century. B. Product

The product of Americas Best Teakwood is martial arts lessons. In America, most adults will not allow themselves to stick with a program, and many areas of the program we currently offer need to accommodate the lack of focus for Adult students, and their ability to Justify quitting. Only 1 of 10 Americans (compared to 1 out of 4 Europeans) has attempted to learn martial arts. Of those 33 million, only 10% stay with It beyond 30 days, leaving 3. 3 million. Of those 3. 3 million only 10% will stay with It another 3-6 months quitting Jest as they prepare to test out of novice level.

Of the enameling 330,000 who achieve Green belt/beginner Intermediate, only 10% of those will reach beginner advanced, or Brown Belt. We are left with just 33,000 Brown belts, In the USA, all but 10% quit after Just 30 days at Black belt, higher than any other country in the world. About 330 people are left who continue actual Black belt training, only 10% of those achieve Master level in the USA, Just 33 out of 330 million. Moving into Korea, we must modify our program for the long term goals of students.

Parents will require their children attend, and they will attend with them, it will be a Emily event, training multiple days per week for 6-10 years or more. It will be important to modify our tuition timeline to not appear to be short sighted Americas with no ling term vision, or they may feel we are looking for short term profit, or will not stay through difficult times. The good news is that Korea has been losing the Gold Medals at the Olympics to other countries and is accepting of Americas teaching teakwood and they have fond respect for the Lopez family of Houston Texas, multiple Gold Medal winners.

We will leverage our affiliation with the Amateur Athletic Union with Coach Lopez. We will use this for credibility but not for promoting an American Agency. 82. Price: Tuition pricing in America is structured around making it easy to quit, monthly pricing is not as important as not needing to make any commitment. In Korea it will be the opposite. Students will not mind signing non cancel agreements paid in full for 6 years as long as the rates are fair. For Korea the pricing will be a base of $900. 00 per year, for 4 classes per week, 2 hours per class, we expect class sizes to be 50-150 per class.

In America our current pricing is $200. 0 per month, month to month, 2 classes per week, 50 minutes per class. Koreans will look at price per hour over the long term, wanting the most hours per week at the lowest rate with a long term commitment; Americas want to know how cheaply they can Join, and how easily they can quit, more like leasing a car. 83 Promotion: In America martial arts lessons are promoted in a disposable product manner, viewed like a 6 pack of Coke. Coupon driven society demands a call to action for a discount.

Teachers are held in higher regards in Korea and it would be a disgrace to offer discounts, promotions, or marketing fluff. The Koreans will want endorsements from martial arts organizations and to see community service done by the staff. When they see us in public, they will approach us, but the Koreans will be completely turned off if the go to corner market and see “one month of lessons and a free uniform for 19. 99″….. Word of mouth and grassroots promotion only in Korea. BE Place: 52 million people actively practice Tea Swoon Do globally; it is the most popular martial art.

Korea in the past has not been accepting of foreign companies opening Dugongs in Korea, but the loss of first place in the last 3 Olympics has changed this. The OIC, International Olympic Committee has removed Baseball, Hockey, and Wrestling as of late. Talk is they will remove Karate, Judo, or Tea Swoon DO. Koreans national sport is Tea Swoon Do, and they are promising more support and resources. They will do whatever it takes to keep this Olympic Sport status. Allowing Americas Best, a proven Junior Olympic Gold Medal winning organization into Korea and supporting its grassroots movement is a given.

C Ethical Issues: to us from Korea. The Koreans have warned us that Americans are viewed as fat, lazy, and abrasive. The example proven to us is Korean infant adoption, only for America do they have a height and weight scale/range for adopting parents from America. 2) Where the money goes…….. Alt has also been brought to our attention from the WTFO that Koreans will need to see a direct line for their tuition to returning to the community. Unlike Americans who will buy a Toyota or Honda and not inquire where the money goes, the Koreans will need to see proof that some of it stays in the community. Sources: None.

Annie Moore the 1st immigrant to ever go through Ellis Island back when it was first opened. After being accepted and given the right to stay and live in the United States she stayed in New York where there was a large hub of Irish immigrants just as herself. After being the first of many to go through the gates at Ellis Island. Supposedly there were around 4 million other Irish folks who left their shores in Ireland to New York. So when she arrived at 1 7 years of age with her brothers Anthony and Philip and her went looking for their parents who were already here at the time.

As she spent more time living there she became more and more American and at one point a citizen. After the 19th Amendment was ratified she was then allowed to vote. All of the women of the United States couldn’t be happier, they were finally given what they had fought for, for a very long time. Alcohol and its abolition was a very important matter at the time. People were all debating whether to get rid of it or too keep it. She then later campaigned for the abolition of alcohol because she was now able to vote she decided to make her vote count and voted for the abolition of alcohol and it later was abolished.

The problem was that since people still wanted it badly a black market for it began and it was the beginning of organized crime. Later as she grew older she got married and the city at the time was very overcrowded and the living conditions weren’t the greatest but they had to cope with it because there was no where else they could live. Also working in the factory that was located on the other side of town she had to travel a lot to work everyday. Not only that but the conditions of work were horrid. The employers didn’t care about their well-being just about the job being done.