Performance of Goldman Sachs and Financial Ratio Analysis - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1871 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? Conventionally the Bank performance is evaluated by analysis of the financial ratios. However, despite of quite a few number of ratios being calculated, a sculpt that completely convinces the analysis of requirements and bank operations efficiency evaluation is yet to be developed. Hence for these reason, the financial ratio analysis is balance with unlike eminence evaluations, with characteristics such as organization quality, equity structure, spirited position and others which are incorporated in the concluding assessment. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Performance of Goldman Sachs and Financial Ratio Analysis" essay for you Create order In this piece of work we are going to evaluate overall performance of Goldman Sachs and critically analyse how financial ratios are used to evaluate banks performance. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a American investment banking and securities organisation which slot in global investment banking, securities, investment management, and erstwhile financial services principally with institutional clients. Goldman Sachs was founded in the year 1869 and its headquarter is at 200 West Street in the Lower Manhattan area of New York City. It has additional offices in major international financial hubs. The Goldman Sachs offers mergers and acquisitions advice, underwriting services, asset management, and prime brokerage to its clientele, which include corporations, governments and individuals. The Goldman Sachs also engages in proprietary trading and private equity deals, and is a primary dealer in the United States Treasury security market (Goldman Sachs Website). Bank Internal Performance Evaluation Strategic planning Goldman Sachs ability to address and tap into important economic and financial trends through roles such as advisor, financier, market maker and asset manager are critical for fulfilling their mission to help spur growth and perform strongly as a firm. Technology Technology is a core part of GS product offering and client experience. GS ability to respond quickly and effectively to address its clients needs with customized systems, products and services helps differentiate the firm. A technological advantage for GS is that they have only one central risk system, which is partially a byproduct of not having done multiple, major acquisitions that often require merging and retrofitting platforms. Personnel development The success of the GSs efforts are measured by how effectively their people act. Over time, effective training and development have enrich their corporate culture and strengthen the values of client service and focus on reputational risk management. Recognition includes compensation, promotion, assignments and mobility opportunities. They have made it clear the link between the behaviour expected of its people and the recognition used to encourage it. This is critically important because it signals broadly the way GS expects its people to behave and conduct business (Goldman Sachs Annual report 2010). Bank External Performance Evaluation Market share GS has frequently performed above the market despite worsening economic conditions. Since the 2008, the company has outpaced the market enough to draw public admiration. With strong profits and expected strong returns, the company has set aside $500M to invest in small businesses. These efforts are a combination to both improve the economy and their public image. Regulatory compliance The Dodd-Frank legislation and new capital and liquidity requirements under Basel 3 are two of the more significant outcomes from the recent focus on enhancing financial stability. Given regulatory implementation is only just beginning, and unclear on how the new rules will ultimately impact the industry. The broad contours of new regulation, however, are clear: improve the safety and soundness of the global financial system, increase the transparency of derivatives markets, limit certain investing activities and reduce the consequences of a failure of a large financial institution. Public confidence Goldman Sachs announced in May 2010 that it formed a Business Standards Committee to reshape its business practices and mend its reputation. Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein said at the time that there is a disconnect between how we view the firm and how the broader public perceives our roles and activities. GSs shareholders, BoDs, clients and customers have supported Mr. Blankfein through all the crisis and this shows their faith in bank (Goldman Sachs Annual report 2010). 4.0 Analyzing Bank Performance with Profit Ratios Goldman Sachs financial performance was better in 2009  than 2010 and Q4 2009 was the best quarter since the recession. 4.1 ROE Return on equity (ROE= net income after taxes/total equity) reveal GS capability to produce profits from shareholders equity (further referred as net assets or assets minus liabilities). In other words, ROE shows how effectively a company uses the shareholders money. As seen in graphical representation above, it is clear that Goldman Sachs is tendering a lower return on shareholders equity as compared to year ended in2009. The ROE of GS for the last year was 18.93% as compared to 10.08% this year. There has a been a significant decrease in the ROE which suggests GS is not utilising shareholders money properly. GS return on equity has declined substantially due to deleverage and is only marginally higher than its current cost of capital. 4.2 ROA Return on assets (ROA = net income after taxes/total assets) is how resourcefully a firm uses its assets. From the formula it is quite obvious that higher the ratio, the company is performing more efficiently and thus is generating more profits. A low ROA with enormous assets designate that the firm is handling its asset at a poor rate. As seen in graphical representation above, it is seen that Goldman Sachs has provided a lower ROA of 0.91% this year over 1.58% last year. There is one key differentiation between ROE and ROA and it is debt. In absence of debt, the shareholders equity is same as total assets of the firm which means that in this case, ROE and ROA are identical. Now if the firm come to a decision to take a loan, ROE exceeds ROA. A elevated ROE does not always guarantee a extraordinary performance of a firm. Incidentally, ROA is then a healthier pointer of the financial performance of a firm. With a high ROA and manageable debt, if ROE is also high it means th at the company is generating decent profits using shareholders money. But if ROA is low and there is huge debt carried by the company, even a high ROE can only be a misleading figure. 4.3 Net Interest Margin 4.4 Leverage ratio Debt to Equity Ratio 4.5 Decomposition of ROE DuPont Analysis As revealed in Appendix B, The ROE of a bank is dependent on a various factors and thus change in any one of these factor can affect the rate of return on shareholders equity of the bank. As Net Income is the main source to calculate ROE in conjunction with the shareholders equity in the bank, every alteration in the Income and Expense of the bank openly affects the net income and thus influence the ROE of a bank. The detailed DuPont analysis of Goldman Sachs for year 2010 is presented in Appendix B. The ROE is decomposed as follows wrt dupont identity. Now assuming that changes are made in Income or Expense levels of the Goldman Sachs, its effect will be seen on ROA and ROE. Let us consider a case where the Interest Expense for Goldman Sachs goes down by 10% and there are no changes in its Interest Income, following are the effects on ROA and ROE of the bank. Scenario 1 : -5% change in interest expense Change Values after change Interest Expense -10% 6125.4 Interest Income 0% 12309 Effect on NI 6680.6 39841.6 Effect on ROA +0.07% 0.99% Effect on ROE +0.88% 11.68% A few other situations with amendment in Total Non-interest Income and expenses and their outcome on the ROA ROE of bank are given away in the chart below. Scenario 2 : -5% change in non-interest expense Change Values after change Total Non-interest Income -5% 31975.1 Effect on NI -1682.9 37478.1 Effect on ROA -0.19% 0.73% Effect on ROE -1.46% 8.62% Scenario 3 : +10% change in non-interest expense  Change Values after change Total Non-interest Expenses 10% 27962 Effect on NI -2542 3160 Effect on ROA -0.31% 0.27% Effect on ROE -4.44% 3.78%    Bank Performance Evaluation Based on Economic Profit 5.1 Risk-Adjusted Return on Capital (RAROC) In risk- adjusted return on capital the capital is allocated for two vital motives: (1) risk management and (2) performance evaluation. In support of risk-management rationale, the banks most favourable capital structure can be establish by allocation of capital to individual business units. This course of action entails assessing the amount of the risk (volatility) each business unit chip in to the total risk of the bank and hence to its overall capital requirements. Now, for performance-evaluation function, RAROC structure allocate capital to business units as part of a procedure for shaping the risk-adjusted rate of return and, eventually, the economic value added of each business unit. The EVA of every and each business unit is its adjusted net income minus the amount of equity capital allocated to the unit times the required return on equity. The purpose is to compute a business units input to shareholder value and so to provide a source for effective capital budgeting a nd incentive compensation at the business-unit level. RAROC is calculated by dividing risk-adjusted net income by the total amount of economic capital assigned which is dependent on the risk calculation. Risk-adjusted net income is calculated by taking the financial data allotment to the bank and fine-tuning the income statement for expected loss. A further modification is also required to take into account the effects on the net interest margin because the attention is moved from book profitability to economic profitability. Thus RAROC = Risk adjusted income / Allocated Capital RAROC for 2010 of Goldman Sachs therefore comes to 2.24 %. Let us consider some scenarios where the risk adjusted income for Goldman Sachs are changed by {-2%, +2%, -5% +5%}, The effect on its RAROC is represented as below. Change in Risk Adjusted Income 2 % + 2 % 5 % Effect on RAROC 2.20 % 2.29 % 2.13 % Economic Value Added (EVA) EVA (Economic Valued Added) is a present day financial dimension instrument which concludes whether a business is earning greater than its true cost of capital. EVA stands out apart from ROA ROE which are most accepted measures of bank performance. This is because it includes cost of equity capital employed. On the other hand, net banking income and the efficiency ratio, also, do not consider the cost of equity capital employed. Therefore, these ratios possibly will propose a banks performance as healthy but in fact it could be deteriorating its value to its shareholders. EVA is essentially a tool that focuses on maximizing shareholder wealth. EVA = Adjusted earnings Opportunity cost of capital {Net operating Profit after Taxes} {Cost of Equity X Equity Capital } With an aim of creating values, the return on invested capital (ROIC) for a bank must be greater than cost of capital. So, the EVA can be possibly increased in quite a few ways, by: 1) Increasing Net operating Profit after Taxes; 2) Lowering the Cost of Equity and 3) Reducing Equity Capital Conclusion Year on year Goldman Sachs revenues have descended by 11.04% from $51.67bn to $45.97bn. This along with an increase in the cost of goods sold expense has contributed to a reduction in net income from $13.39bn to $8.35bn, a 37.59% decrease. In 2010, Goldman Sachs did not generate a significant amount of cash. Cash Flow from Financing totalled $7.84bn or 17.05% of revenues. In addition the company used 6.16bn for operations while cash used for investing totalled $185m. Goldman results were also dragged down by a $465 million one-time expense to cover a U.K. payroll tax and a $550 million outlay to settle  SEC  charges that it favoured certain clients over others.

Drug Addiction And Its Effects On The United States

Throughout history, drug addiction has been one of the many factors of why people across the United States become unsuccessful. Being an addict controls the mind, body and souls of some people and with that, it usually hurts them in the long run. A disease is a disease, no matter if it’s alcoholism, gambling, food addiction or a drug addiction. Not all drugs do the same to people, but in some cases, it gets them high for a couple minutes and makes them keep coming back for more and from time to time again, they want to get higher than the previous session, which leads to them trying other gateway drugs. Most people try drugs the first time because of peer pressure and not having the strength to say no, others is because they want to try new things and be cool with a certain group of kids at school. All it takes sometimes is one time, one pull, and one session for someone to get hooked to a certain drug and be an addict. Drug addiction has a deep impact on the brain that can cause the inability to learn, make good judgment, and alters vision and memory. Addiction is chronic, often relapsing brain disease that causes compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences to the addicted individual and to those around him or her. (National Institute on Drug Abuse) The components of drug addiction are endless. They usually contain chemicals that tap into the brain’s communication system and disrupt the way nerve cells normally send, receive, and process information. TheShow MoreRelatedHeroin Addiction : The United States1743 Words   |  7 PagesHeroin Addiction in the Un ited States Overview of Heroin Addiction in the U.S. Heroin addiction is one of the leading killers of adolescents and adults in the United States. In recent years, addiction has skyrocketed, and â€Å"the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths increased by 286 percent between 2002 and 2013.† In 2002, â€Å"100 people per 100,000 were addicted to heroin, and that number has doubled by 2013† (The National Institute on Drug Abuse 2013). The most affected populations include low incomeRead MoreIs Drug Addiction A Choice Or A Disease?1743 Words   |  7 PagesIs drug addiction a choice or a disease ? There are two central debates that often arise when speaking of addiction ; either addiction is a disease caused by the brain, or addiction is a matter of weak will. In comparison the disease model would take responsibility away from the addict and place it on biological reasoning ; the weak will model, would ultimately condemn the addict and place blame on the addicts decision making process and thus blame the addict for their behavior. Utilitarian theoryRead MoreSubstance Abuse Is A Brain Disease766 Words   |  4 PagesFindings Substance Abuse is a brain disease While the choice to use alcohol and drugs is initially voluntary, alcohol and/or drug addiction arises because the normal functioning of the brain is impaired so that alcoholism and drug addiction become a â€Å"chronic relapsing disease of the brain† (National Institute of Drug Abuse, Drugs, Brains and Behavior. The Science of Addiction. 2014, 5). Drugs impact the pathways of the brain by flooding the circuit with dopamine, which disturbs and distorts normalRead MoreEffects Of Adolescent Addiction On Adolescence And Local And The United States News About Adolescence Essay1127 Words   |  5 PagesAddiction in Adolescent Years The essay concerns itself with the questions Addictions in Adolescence. Wong, Hall, Justice, and Hernandez, 2015) state that adolescence distinctly determined by the beginning of puberty. The professional also allude that early onset of puberty is most likely to partaken in dangerous activities such as multiple sex partners, alcohol dependence, and inappropriate adaptive styles. In this essay, I will discuss my finding of current contributions and treatments of adolescentRead MoreThe Abuse Of Illicit Drugs Presents A Detrimental Effect On The Health And Well Being Of Millions Of Americans1133 Words   |  5 Pagesof illicit drugs presents a detrimental effect on the health and well-being of millions of Americans. People begin to use drugs for a wide variety of reasons: to feel euphoric pleasure, energy or self-confidence; decrease anxiety or depression; increase cognitive or athletic ability; because of rebellion, peer-influence, or simple curiosities (FIX). Initial users are li kely to experience seemingly positive effects and are naà ¯vely constrained by the addictive propensities of these drugs. EventuallyRead MorePrescription Drug Abuse And Prescription Drugs1487 Words   |  6 PagesPrescription Drug Abuse Prescription Drug Abuse has increased in an alarming rate over recent years! Prescription drug related deaths now outnumber those from heroin and cocaine combined. The abuse in prescription drugs in America goes back more than a hundred years ago. Prescription drug abuse is the use of a medication without a prescription, in a way other than prescribed, or for the experience or feelings elicited. Although prescription medications are intended to help individuals, they canRead MoreOpiates And Its Effects On The United States1588 Words   |  7 PagesOpiates Should be Outlawed in the United States Opiates, otherwise known as prescription painkillers, have become an enormous problem in the United States. Addiction, overdoses, and death are only a few of the problems caused by opiates. Painkillers can be prescribed to help lessen chronic pain, pain from surgery, pain from serious accidents, or pain from terminal diseases. Opiates are highly addicting and have become highly abused in the United States in the past few years. Prescription painkillersRead MoreMarijuana Should Not Be Beneficial For Medical Purposes1080 Words   |  5 PagesMarijuana has proven to be beneficial for medical purposes. It has therapeutic effects that will ultimately allow patients with adverse health conditions to improve their quality of life. Legalizing marijuana can also improve the state of the United States’ economy through taxation and creation of job opportunities. Additionally, it can reduce the crime rate in the United States and save the United States tons of money. Contrarily, marijuan a should not be legalized for recreational usage. ExtensiveRead MoreDrug Addiction : History, Laws, And Treatment Essay1570 Words   |  7 Pages Drug Addiction, History, Laws, and Treatment Drug Addiction itself affects almost  ­Ã¢â‚¬ Twenty-three million Americans are currently addicted to alcohol and/or other drugs. Only one in 10 percent of them (2.6 million) receives the treatment they need. The result: a treatment gap of more than 20 million Americans†(Writer, B. J. 2010). Drug Addiction is it truly a disease or a choice? Many state authority figures say it s a choice not a disease much of science says it s a choice disease, both inRead MoreSubstance Abuse And Its Effects On Society1285 Words   |  6 Pagesuse of many of these substances was considered widely acceptable and the norm, modern science and medicine has uncovered the harmful effects that these drugs can cause when they are abused and can lead to addiction and dangerous behaviors in society. In the United States, the first of the many laws to regulate and control addictive drugs was the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906, which required the correct labeling of medicines that contained opiates. In 1914 the Harrison Narcotic Act banned the sale

Flag Desecration Essay Example For Students

Flag Desecration Essay The issue of flag desecration has been and continues to be ahighly controversial issue; on the one side there are those whobelieve that the flag is a unique symbol for our nation whichshould be preserved at all costs, while on the other are thosewho believe that flag burning is a form of free speech and thatany legislation designed to prevent this form of expression iscontrary to the ideals of the First Amendment to ourShawn Eichman, as well as the majority of the United StatesSupreme Court, is in the latter of these groups. Many citizensbelieve that the freedom of speech granted to them in the FirstAmendment means that they can express themselves in any mannerthey wish as long as their right of expression does not infringeon the rights of others; others, however, believe that there areexceptions to this right of speech. Such constitutional issuesneed to be worked out by the Supreme Court, which uses its powersof constitutional interpretation and judicial review to outlinethe underpi nnings of the Constitution and interpret the law. The case which acted as an impetus for Eichmans actions wasthat of Texas v. Johnson. In 1984, in Dallas, Gregory Johnson,a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, a Maoistssociety, publicly burned a stolen American flag to protests there-nomination of Ronald Reagan as the Republican candidate (Levy217). The police consequently arrested Johnson not for hismessage but for his manner in delivering it; he had violated aTexas statute that prohibited the desecration of a veneratedobject by acts that the offender knows will seriously offend onor more persons (Downs 83). Johnson had hoped to captureAmericas attention with this burning, and he did; however, hisprotest earned him more than a moment in the national spotlight. Under Texass tough anti-flag-burning statute, Johnson was fine$2,000 and sentenced to a year in prison (Relin 16). In Texas v. Johnson a majority of the Supreme Courtconsidered for the first time whether the F irst Amendmentprotects desecration of the United States flag as a form ofsymbolic speech. A sharply divided Court had previously dealtwith symbolic speech cases that involved alleged misuses of theflag. While the Court had ruled in favor of the defendants inthose cases (Street v. New York, 1969; Smith v. Goguen, 1974;Spence v. Washington, 1974), it had done so on narrow grounds,refusing to confront the ultimate question status of flagdesecration (Downs 868). The court ruled in favor of Johnson(5-4), believing that there was no evidence that Johnsonsexpression threatened an imminent disturbance of the peace, andthat the statutes protection of the integrity of the flag as asymbol was improperly directed at the communicative messageentailed in flag burning (Downs 868). Justice Brennan concludedby saying, We do not consecrate the flag by punishing itsdesecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that thischerished emblem represents (Witt 409). Reacting to this ruling, the Untied St ates Congress soughtto pass legislation that would overturn it. The Flag ProtectionAmendment was introduced and then voted down, but then the FlagProtection Act was passed in both houses. President Bush allowedthis act to pass without his signature, an expression of hispreference for a Constitutional amendment (Apel FlagProtection). The Act criminalized the conduct of anyone whoknowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns,maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon a UnitedStates flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a worn orOn October 30th, 1989, the day the bill went into effect,hundreds of people burned flags; among them was Shawn Eichman. The Justice Department admitted that the law was unconstitutionalunder Texas v. Johnson, but prosecuted anyways, hoping to get thecourt to reverse its decision. The court decided that flagdesecration is a form of political expression that is protectedunder the First Amendment rights to free speech, and ruled infavor of Eichman by a vote of 5 to 4, thus nullify the FlagProtection Act which Eichman had been protesting (House 1144). The majority consisted of Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun,Scalia, and Kennedy. Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Renquist,For the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote theAlthough the Flag Protection Act contains no explicitcontent-based limitation on the scope of prohibitedconduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Governments asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expressionMoreover, the preciselanguage of the Acts prohibitions confirms Congressinterest in the communicative impact of flag destructionIf there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an ideasimply because society finds the idea offensive ordisagreeable. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem sorevered, and worth revering. (Supreme) According to Justice Anthony S tevens, The landmark decision wassimply a pure command of the Constitution. It is poignant butfundamental that the flag protects even those who hold it inDissenting, Justice Stevens, along with the Chief Justice,It is equally well settled that certain methods ofexpression may be prohibited if(a) the prohibition issupported by a legitimate societal interest this isunrelated to suppression of the ideas the speakerdesires to express; (b) the prohibition does not entailany interference with the speakers freedom to expressthose ideas by other means; and (c) the interest inallowing the speaker complete freedom of choice among alternative methods of expression is less important than the societal interest supporting theJustice Stevens concluded his opinion that by destroying thesymbol of freedom, the individual communicates a willingness toBy burning the embodiment of Americas collectivecommitment to freedom and equality, the flag burnercharges that the majority has forsaken the commitmentt hat continued respect for the flag isnothing more than hypocrisy. Such a charge may be madeeven if the flag burner loves the country and zealouslypursues the ideals that the country claims to honor. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)praised the ruling. Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLUsNational Washington Office showed her support when she said, TheFirst Amendment is this countrys first principle. It is acritical part of what has made our country uniquely free. Wehave been strengthened, not weakened, by the sweep of itslanguage and by the Supreme Courts adherence to its trueMany anti-flag desecration groups, particularly theCitizens Flag Alliance (CFA), were outraged by this ruling. These organizations petitioned Congress to reintroduce the FlagProtection Amendment. Since the ratification of the Constitutionin 1789, some 10,000 attempts have been made to amend it. Theyhave included ideas such as eliminating the Senate, andrenaming the country the United States of Earth. But never inthe nations history has anyone tried to amend the Bill ofRights. (Relin 18) To do so would be a dramatic step in that itcould pave the way for further future limitations on o urFor an amendment to the Constitution to be made, The houseand the Senate have to propose (each by 2/3 vote) exactly thesame text before the amendment is open for ratification by thestates (Apel Hasbrouck). If the amendment (to the FirstAmendment) is passed in both chambers, it then goes to the statesIn 1990, both the House and Senate failed to muster therequired two-thirds majority to pass the Flag ProtectionAmendment (Citizens). In 1995, however, the amendment clearedthe House by a vote of 312-120. This Senate Joint Resolution 31(S.J. Res. 31) was also passed by the Senate Judiciary Committeeby a vote of 12-6, but was then rejected by the Senate by only 3votes. In February of 1998, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and MaxCleland (D-GA) reintroduced the amendment as S.J. Res. 40, but itwas decided that there was not enough time left in the term tovote on the amendment. Most recently, in March of 1999, the FlagProtection Amendment was reintroduced once again as S. J. Res. 14. Once again, it was passed in the House and by the SenateJudiciary Committee, but to date has not become ratified. Among those against the original amendment in 1990 wereGeorge Mitchell, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Dale Bumpers, DavidBoren, Howard Metzenbaum, Barbara Mikulski, Jeff Bingaman, BillBradley, Paul Simon, and Christopher Dodd. Perhaps the mostardent opponent to the amendment was Ted Kennedy. In an eloquentspeech he gave on June 11, 1990 he stated:When we pledge allegiance to the flag, we pledge allegiance to the principles for which it stands. Few,if any, of those are more fundamental to the strengthof our democracy than the first amendments guaranteeof freedom of speech. Let us not start down thisdisastrous road of restricting the majestic scope ofthe first amendment by picking the kinds of speech thatare to be permitted in our society. (Ted) He goes on to mention that this constitutional amendment mightirreparably damage the separation of powers that has protectedour constitutional freedoms throughout historybecause judgesinsulated from public pressure can best evaluate the claims of unpopular minorities. Kennedy is saying here that sinceCongress can be greatly influenced by special interest groups,such as the Citizens Flag Alliance, it is the responsibility ofthe judiciary branch of government to objectively rule as to whatIf the Senate amends the Bill of Rights for the first timein history by passing the Flag Protection Amendment, who knowswhere they would stop. Every nation in the world has a flag,and many of them, including some democracies, have laws againstdesecrating their flag. No other nation has a Bill of Rights(Levy 219). The year 1991 marked the 200th anniversary of itsratification, and, in my opinion, it requires no limitingamendment. The American people understand that they are notthreatened by flag burners, and the American people prefer theFirst Amendment undiluted. They understand that imprisoning afew extremists is not what patriotism is all about; forcedpatriotism is surely not American. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NewYork) expressed these ideas whe n he said, If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened. Ifa jerk burns a flag, democracy is not under siege. IfA jerk burns a flag, freedom is not at risk and we arenot threatenedwe are offended; and to change ourConstitution because someone offends us is, in itself,unconscionable. (Apel Chronology). Flag burning may be all wrong, but a lot of wrongheadedspeech is protected by the First Amendment. The Bill or Rightsis a wonderfully terse, eloquent, and effective summation ofindividual freedoms, and there is no need to add except for flagburners. That exception, as the Court majority in United Statesv. Eichman realized, might show that the nation is so lacking infaith in itself that it permits the Johnsons and Eichmans todiminish the flags meaning. They are best treated, as Brennanargued, by saluting the flag that they burn or by ignoring themcontemptuously, not by paving the way for an assault on ourIn this research, I noted that all of the proponents for theEichman decision w ho were also against the Flag ProtectionAmendment used very logical, well-structured arguments, whilethose dissenting and in support of the amendment to anamendment use mostly emotional arguments and focus on therespect owed to all those who have died in the militaryprotecting the nation. These in the latter group seem usually tobe associated with the military themselves (e.g. Major GeneralPatrick H. Brady is the Board Chairman of the Citizens FlagI entirely agree with the Supreme Courts ruling in thiscase. Justice Stevens argued that flag-burning was not anacceptable form of expression because people could convey theirviews by other means; he seems to have failed to realize,however, that it is not the right of the government to limit oneto a certain means of voicing his or her opinions. Flag burningis a form of protest which rarely occurs and which does littlebut offend others. Perhaps a law such as the Flag ProtectionAct, while unconstitutional, is permissible as a means ofsilenci ng organization such as the CFA, but an amendment to ourBill of Rights if certainly going too far. The issue of flag desecration has been and continues to be ahighly controversial issue; on the one side there are those whobelieve that the flag is a unique symbol for our nation whichshould be preserved at all costs, while on the other are thosewho believe that flag burning is a form of free speech and thatany legislation designed to prevent this form of expression iscontrary to the ideals of the First Amendment to ourShawn Eichman, as well as the majority of the United StatesSupreme Court, is in the latter of these groups. Many citizensbelieve that the freedom of speech granted to them in the FirstAmendment means that they can express themselves in any mannerthey wish as long as their right of expression does not infringeon the rights of others; others, however, believe that there areexceptions to this right of speech. Such constitutional issuesneed to be worked out by the Supreme Co urt, which uses its powersof constitutional interpretation and judicial review to outlinethe underpinnings of the Constitution and interpret the law. The case which acted as an impetus for Eichmans actions wasthat of Texas v. Johnson. In 1984, in Dallas, Gregory Johnson,a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, a Maoistssociety, publicly burned a stolen American flag to protests there-nomination of Ronald Reagan as the Republican candidate (Levy217). The police consequently arrested Johnson not for hismessage but for his manner in delivering it; he had violated aTexas statute that prohibited the desecration of a veneratedobject by acts that the offender knows will seriously offend onor more persons (Downs 83). Johnson had hoped to captureAmericas attention with this burning, and he did; however, hisprotest earned him more than a moment in the national spotlight. Under Texass tough anti-flag-burning statute, Johnson was fine$2,000 and sentenced to a year in prison (Relin 16). In Texas v. Johnson a majority of the Supreme Courtconsidered for the first time whether the First Amendmentprotects desecration of the United States flag as a form ofsymbolic speech. A sharply divided Court had previously dealtwith symbolic speech cases that involved alleged misuses of theflag. While the Court had ruled in favor of the defendants inthose cases (Street v. New York, 1969; Smith v. Goguen, 1974;Spence v. Washington, 1974), it had done so on narrow grounds,refusing to confront the ultimate question status of flagdesecration (Downs 868). The court ruled in favor of Johnson(5-4), believing that there was no evidence that Johnsonsexpression threatened an imminent disturbance of the peace, andthat the statutes protection of the integrity of the flag as asymbol was improperly directed at the communicative messageentailed in flag burning (Downs 868). Justice Brennan concludedby saying, We do not consecrate the flag by punishing itsdesecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that thischerished emblem represents (Witt 409). Reacting to this ruling, the Untied States Congress soughtto pass legislation that would overturn it. The Flag ProtectionAmendment was introduced and then voted down, but then the FlagProtection Act was passed in both houses. President Bush allowedthis act to pass without his signature, an expression of hispreference for a Constitutional amendment (Apel FlagProtection). The Act criminalized the conduct of anyone whoknowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns,maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon a UnitedStates flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a worn orOn October 30th, 1989, the day the bill went into effect,hundreds of people burned flags; among them was Shawn Eichman. The Justice Department admitted that the law was unconstitutionalunder Texas v. Johnson, but prosecuted anyways, hoping to get thecourt to reverse its decision. The court decided that flagdesecration is a form of poli tical expression that is protectedunder the First Amendment rights to free speech, and ruled infavor of Eichman by a vote of 5 to 4, thus nullify the FlagProtection Act which Eichman had been protesting (House 1144). The majority consisted of Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun,Scalia, and Kennedy. Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Renquist,For the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote theAlthough the Flag Protection Act contains no explicitcontent-based limitation on the scope of prohibitedconduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Governments asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expressionMoreover, the preciselanguage of the Acts prohibitions confirms Congressinterest in the communicative impact of flag destructionIf there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an ideasimply because society finds the idea offensive ordisagreeable. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very fr eedom that makes this emblem sorevered, and worth revering. (Supreme) According to Justice Anthony Stevens, The landmark decision wassimply a pure command of the Constitution. It is poignant butfundamental that the flag protects even those who hold it inDissenting, Justice Stevens, along with the Chief Justice,It is equally well settled that certain methods ofexpression may be prohibited if(a) the prohibition issupported by a legitimate societal interest this isunrelated to suppression of the ideas the speakerdesires to express; (b) the prohibition does not entailany interference with the speakers freedom to expressthose ideas by other means; and (c) the interest inallowing the speaker complete freedom of choice among alternative methods of expression is less important than the societal interest supporting theJustice Stevens concluded his opinion that by destroying thesymbol of freedom, the individual communicates a willingness toBy burning the embodiment of Americas collectivecommi tment to freedom and equality, the flag burnercharges that the majority has forsaken the commitmentthat continued respect for the flag isnothing more than hypocrisy. Such a charge may be madeeven if the flag burner loves the country and zealouslypursues the ideals that the country claims to honor. What I Learned In Psychology Class EssayGroups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)praised the ruling. Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLUsNational Washington Office showed her support when she said, TheFirst Amendment is this countrys first principle. It is acritical part of what has made our country uniquely free. Wehave been strengthened, not weakened, by the sweep of itslanguage and by the Supreme Courts adherence to its trueMany anti-flag desecration groups, particularly theCitizens Flag Alliance (CFA), were outraged by this ruling. These organizations petitioned Congress to reintroduce the FlagProtection Amendment. Since the ratification of the Constitutionin 1789, some 10,000 attempts have been made to amend it. Theyhave included ideas such as eliminating the Senate, andrenaming the country the United States of Earth. But never inthe nations history has anyone tried to amend the Bill ofRights. (Relin 18) To do so would be a dramatic step in that itcould pave t he way for further future limitations on ourFor an amendment to the Constitution to be made, The houseand the Senate have to propose (each by 2/3 vote) exactly thesame text before the amendment is open for ratification by thestates (Apel Hasbrouck). If the amendment (to the FirstAmendment) is passed in both chambers, it then goes to the statesIn 1990, both the House and Senate failed to muster therequired two-thirds majority to pass the Flag ProtectionAmendment (Citizens). In 1995, however, the amendment clearedthe House by a vote of 312-120. This Senate Joint Resolution 31(S.J. Res. 31) was also passed by the Senate Judiciary Committeeby a vote of 12-6, but was then rejected by the Senate by only 3votes. In February of 1998, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and MaxCleland (D-GA) reintroduced the amendment as S.J. Res. 40, but itwas decided that there was not enough time left in the term tovote on the amendment. Most recently, in March of 1999, the FlagProtection Amendment was reintroduc ed once again as S. J. Res. 14. Once again, it was passed in the House and by the SenateJudiciary Committee, but to date has not become ratified. Among those against the original amendment in 1990 wereGeorge Mitchell, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Dale Bumpers, DavidBoren, Howard Metzenbaum, Barbara Mikulski, Jeff Bingaman, BillBradley, Paul Simon, and Christopher Dodd. Perhaps the mostardent opponent to the amendment was Ted Kennedy. In an eloquentspeech he gave on June 11, 1990 he stated:When we pledge allegiance to the flag, we pledge allegiance to the principles for which it stands. Few,if any, of those are more fundamental to the strengthof our democracy than the first amendments guaranteeof freedom of speech. Let us not start down thisdisastrous road of restricting the majestic scope ofthe first amendment by picking the kinds of speech thatare to be permitted in our society. (Ted) He goes on to mention that this constitutional amendment mightirreparably damage the separation of powers that has protectedour constitutional freedoms throughout historybecause judgesinsulated from public pressure can best evaluate the claims of unpopular minorities. Kennedy is saying here that sinceCongress can be greatly influenced by special interest groups,such as the Citizens Flag Alliance, it is the responsibility ofthe judiciary branch of government to objectively rule as to whatIf the Senate amends the Bill of Rights for the first timein history by passing the Flag Protection Amendment, who knowswhere they would stop. Every nation in the world has a flag,and many of them, including some democracies, have laws againstdesecrating their flag. No other nation has a Bill of Rights(Levy 219). The year 1991 marked the 200th anniversary of itsratification, and, in my opinion, it requires no limitingamendment. The American people understand that they are notthreatened by flag burners, and the American people prefer theFirst Amendment undiluted. They understand that imprisoning afew extremists is not what patriotism is all about; forcedpatriotism is surely not American. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NewYork) expressed these ideas whe n he said, If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened. Ifa jerk burns a flag, democracy is not under siege. IfA jerk burns a flag, freedom is not at risk and we arenot threatenedwe are offended; and to change ourConstitution because someone offends us is, in itself,unconscionable. (Apel Chronology). Flag burning may be all wrong, but a lot of wrongheadedspeech is protected by the First Amendment. The Bill or Rightsis a wonderfully terse, eloquent, and effective summation ofindividual freedoms, and there is no need to add except for flagburners. That exception, as the Court majority in United Statesv. Eichman realized, might show that the nation is so lacking infaith in itself that it permits the Johnsons and Eichmans todiminish the flags meaning. They are best treated, as Brennanargued, by saluting the flag that they burn or by ignoring themcontemptuously, not by paving the way for an assault on ourIn this research, I noted that all of the proponents for theEichman decision w ho were also against the Flag ProtectionAmendment used very logical, well-structured arguments, whilethose dissenting and in support of the amendment to anamendment use mostly emotional arguments and focus on therespect owed to all those who have died in the militaryprotecting the nation. These in the latter group seem usually tobe associated with the military themselves (e.g. Major GeneralPatrick H. Brady is the Board Chairman of the Citizens FlagI entirely agree with the Supreme Courts ruling in thiscase. Justice Stevens argued that flag-burning was not anacceptable form of expression because people could convey theirviews by other means; he seems to have failed to realize,however, that it is not the right of the government to limit oneto a certain means of voicing his or her opinions. Flag burningis a form of protest which rarely occurs and which does littlebut offend others. Perhaps a law such as the Flag ProtectionAct, while unconstitutional, is permissible as a means ofsilenci ng organization such as the CFA, but an amendment to ourBill of Rights if certainly going too far. Bibliography:Works CitedApel, Warren S. ACLU Action Report. Online. Apel, Warren S. Chronology to Flag Burning. Online. Apel, Warren S. The Flag Protection Act of 1989. Online. Apel, Warren S. Hasbrouk Explains the Voting Procedure. Online. Citizens Flag Alliance: Significant Campaign Events. Online. Downs, Donald A. Eichman, United States v. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1999: 83. Downs, Donald A. Texas v. Johnson. The Oxford Companion tothe Supreme Court of the United States. New York:Oxford University Press, 1992: 868-869. House Panel Approves Flag-Burning Measure. CongressionalQuarterly Weekly Report 17 May, 1997: 1444. Levy, Leonard W. Flag Desecration. Encyclopedia of theAmerican Constitution. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1992: 217-220. Relin, David Oliver. A Burning Question. Scholastic Update21 Sept, 1990: 16-19. Supreme Court of the United States. Online. Ted Kennedy. Online. U.S. Supreme CourtUnited States v. Eichman. Online. Witt, Elden. Protest and the Flag. Congressional Quarterlys Guide to the Supreme Court. WashingtonD.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1990: 409.

Othello Essays (2470 words) - Othello, Roderigo, Iago, Brabantio

Othello If Othello didnt begin as a play about race, history has made it one. The Venetian society that Othello is set in is representative of the writers context. The attitudes and values that Shakespeare reveals through the text are those same attitudes and values of Elizabethan society in England in the sixteenth-century. Although Othello is set in Venice and Cyprus, the attitudes and values shared in the text are probably reflective of the attitudes and values of Shakespeare's own society. It is difficult to assess the attitudes and values of people in sixteenth-century Britain to the relatively few blacks living amongst them. We are given an insight into those attitudes and values through the representation of race and gender in the text of Othello.These attitudes and values are indicative of what a culture believes in and supports. By the time Othello was written the English were becoming more and more aware of the existence of other races in the world besides themselves. There had been a lot of travelling and blacks were beginning to be used in Europe for the slave trade. During the time the play was written, the Queen of England had banned all blacks from entering the city. She spoke of them as Negars and Moors which are crept into the realm, of which kind of people there are already here too many. It seems that Shakespeare is almost mocking the Queen by characterising Othello as a black man who has a high ranking position in the Army and who marries a white aristocratic women, against her fathers will. Ruth Cowlig suggests that the presentation of Othello as the hero must have been startling for Elizabethan audiences. This may have been the case, but through the representation of Othello we are able to see that some members of society such as the Duke, looked over his colour to assign him his position whereas, others such as Iago, look on his colour as a way to mock him. Hostility is shown to Othello by characters such as Iago and Roderigo. This attitude may have been encouraged by the widespread belief in the legend that blacks were descendants of Ham in the Genesis story, punished for sexual excess by their blackness. The Elizabethan's discussed at length whether this skin colour was due to life in a hot climate or whether it was a punishment for sin. To the Elizabethan's, who thought hierarchically, fair skin was the epitome of beauty and therefore dark skin ranked below it. The term black was used in a variety of texts to stand for sin, filth, ugliness, evil, and the Devil. This value is ascribed to Iago when he describes Othello as the black moor hinting at something other than just colour. Attitudes to race arent the only attitudes revealed in the text though. Attitudes and values about gender are also revealed in the portrayal of women and their actions in the text. A prime example of this is when Desdemona elopes with Othello without her fathers permission, which during that time would have been socially unacceptable. This is revealed to us through Brabantios reaction as Shakespeare uses Brabantio as a vehicle for the representation of higher societys views on matters. Another value revealed in the text is that of marriage. In the Elizabethan era marriage was not just a spiritual union but also a property transaction; the bride brought a dowry from her father and the grooms father (or the groom if he had already inherited his estate) had to settle lands on her in return, as a jointure. Therefore, to marry without the bride's father's permission could be seen as an act of theft. This may explain why Brabantio reacted so strongly to the union of Othello and Desdemona.These attitudes and values contrast quite drastically to those ascribed to society today. Nowadays coloured skin is a common occurrence and a character such as Othello would be quite socially accepted. Race is both more accepted and more abused than in Shakespeare's time. With the feminist movement values given to women have also changed quite drastically. This is because women are now seen less as property and more of an equal. Marriage has also changed. In the sixteenth century girls tended to

Pter Kurten essays

Pter Kurten essays Peter Kurten was born the 26th of May 1883, in Cologne-Mulheim Germany. The eldest of 13 children, he was born into extreme poverty. Having to live in a small one-room apartment, he was witness to the violent outbursts of a drunken father. On his fathers side of the family there was a history of alcoholism and mental problems. Not only was Kurten subjected to the drunken violent assaults by his father, but was also witness to the forced rape of his mother on a continual basis. His father would later be arrested for attempting to molest his own 13-year-old daughter. Kurten would later state this was the beginning of his sexual teachings, which unfortunately would also involve violence. Having his father in prison, his mother, of respectable stock separated from her husband and shortly remarried. However, while the violent episodes that influenced Kurten should have ended, another individual surfaced to continue his perverse teachings. While the father was imprisoned the family took in a boarder, a dogcatcher, who would befriend the young Kurten. The dogcatcher, a severely demented individual, formed a tight bond with the 9-year-old and taught the boy to masturbate dogs and to torture them. Enjoying this immensely, Kurten turned to bestiality, which involved goats and sheep. He soon learned he enjoyed this much more when he would stab them repeatedly during intercourse. By the age 16 Kurten was involved in committing petty thefts and subsequently ran away from home. It was here that he would receive the first of 27 prison sentences, which would consume some 24 years of his life. After release from his first sentence he moved in with a prostitute who was twice his age. It is here that his teachings reached full circle and he moved sexually from animals to people. In 1913, Christine Klein, an 8-year-old girl, was to be the first known victim of Kurten. Frequenting a local inn, one nig...

Risk in marketing and human resource and how to manage it Essay

Risk in marketing and human resource and how to manage it - Essay Example In the section of promotion, risks occur if a company fails to select the right media to reach its audience and the idea that, a company develops a message that is not making any progress, this could mean that either the message is not clear or the one announcing has tempered with key points.   SWOT analysis is one strategy that helps eliminate most of the risks. That is if the companies together with the employees sit together and get to know what their customers are saying about the prices of their commodities, if they are fair, expensive or cheap and see the need to adjust. Also, if the company feels it does not reach out to the public, it needs to come up with new strategies of promoting their products, could be, they look for sale person or change Medias. Risks in this section start as fast as planning is concerned. Human Resource entails analyzing jobs and descriptions. This means that; they have a right to select the right person for a given position. If neglect is done in this area, there is a possibility of not getting the right manpower at the right time. In recruitment and selection, an action plan is set to ensure that the organization does not get any shortage of personnel that are qualified. If poor procedures are followed, there is a risk of incompetence in job production. The other aspect is in performance appraisals; all employees are expected t undergo an evaluation to see if the set goals were met or not. If no appraisals are done, there is a risk of de-motivation and will impact on production negatively. Being able to identify a risk brings us to the first step of risk management. This is achieved through a careful assessment tool, so as to be able to analyze and manage the types of risks (Kiritsis, Dimitris 28-30). Print Kiritsis, Dimitris. ‘Engineering Asset Lifecycle Management.’ Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Engineering Asset Management (wceam 2009), 28-30 September 2009. London: Springer,

Historical Personalities Of World War II Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Historical Personalities Of World War II - Essay Example The Populist Fronts tended to be so dear to Stalin that while he intended to rouse the Russian masses by gathering them around the idea of opposition to Hitler, at the same time Stalin was trying to strike a deal with the Nazi dictator because he considered Hitler to be an imminent threat to the Russian bureaucracy. In that context, Stalin played into the hands of Hitler by allowing the Nazi’s to have a striking success on the Western front before Hitler turned his attention to the East that is the USSR. As per Trotsky, had Stalin not been so particular about consolidating his hold on the USSR, it would have definitely allowed him to pressurize Hitler on the Eastern front, thereby perhaps inhibiting him from advancing so confidently in the West. Somewhere, Stalin’s strategy of allowing Hitler to initiate World War II proved to be short-sighted in the sense that he believed that he will manage to escape getting involved in the war. Had Stalin somehow conveyed to Hitler that Russia was going to offer a stiff resistance in case of an expansionist endeavor by Germany, perhaps World War II could have been avoided?