What’s the Problem, Mr. President?: Bush’s Shifting Definitions of the 2008 Financial Crisis

A case study is presented which examines the political rhetoric of U.S. President George W. Bush concerning the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2009. Topics include Bush\u27s definition of the economic crisis, his reluctance to recognize the existence of the financial crisis and the relationship between his rhetoric on the financial crisis and his legacy

President\u27s Message to the Campus Community, August 2010

Over the past year I have been giving a good deal of thought to diversity at Gettysburg College. I have talked with a number of you regarding the Diversity Commission\u27s work and current structure, our institutional goals with regard to diversity, and potential strategies to meet those goals. With this letter I\u27d like to share a few thoughts with you, none of which are brand new, but which I hope give you a sense of how important I think this topic is for Gettysburg College. [excerpt

Chapter 14 - Service Industries, pp. 334-346

The Catherwood Library and ILR School at Cornell are pleased to again make available an extremely important index of major labor union publications, long out of print. It is Lloyd G. Reynolds and Charles C. Killingsworth\u27s Trade Union Publications: The Official Journals, Convention Proceedings and Constitutions of International Unions and Federations, 1850-1941. Baltimore, The John Hopkins Press, 1944

President\u27s Message on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Last spring I announced that we would take time this year to focus some of our thinking and conversation on the topic of diversity, equity, and inclusion. There are many reasons for us to direct our efforts to this topic: the changing demographics in our society and the need to provide a welcoming environment to a diverse student body, faculty and staff; our responsibility to prepare students for living in diverse communities and working in diverse workplaces; and our desire to prepare citizens who will be sensitive to social injustices and motivated to right them. In addition, we cannot dismiss recent student survey results that indicate a general disappointment in the opportunities on campus to interact with diverse peers. [excerpt

Racism and Impeachment Power

[Excerpt] “Does racism constitute a legitimate basis for removing a president? More generally, what is the scope of Congress\u27s removal power? ”In all but the most extraordinary circumstances, the remedy for incompetent political leadership -indeed, even abhorrent political leadership lies in the next election. But the Constitution does provide Congress with tools to remove certain federal officeholders between elections.

You Can\u27t Be Any Poorer Than Dead : Difficulties in Recognizing Artificial Nutrition and Hydration as Medical Treatments

The President\u27s Commission Report Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment comes down squarely in favor of two propositions: 1) artificial provision of nutrition and hydration are medical treatments, and 2) as such, these medical treatments may be foregone by certain categories of patients or their proxies. This latter conclusion is based on roughly consequentialist grounds; the former is more assumed than argued. There is a school of thought opposed to both of these conclusions. After first demonstrating that nourishment is not medicine, a non-consequentialist or natural law argument is employed to show that nourishment may not be foregone insofar as it violates the principle, First, do no harm. I was once a member of this school, and this paper was to argue its position. In the end, however, this paper adopts the position that artificial provision of nourishment and hydration can be medical treatments, and as such may be foregone by certain categories of patients, without violating a natural law understanding of First, do no harm. Still, exposing my retained sympathies for my former position, the paper attempts to argue for a very careful standard for non-treatment. As a result, the argument of the paper takes four steps. First, I present the argument that artificial provision of nutrition is never medical treatment, giving as much strength to that argument as possible. Second, I show how the focus of that argument leads it astray, and that artificial provision of nourishment is medical treatment. Third, I try to show by what standard patients (or proxies) can legitimately forego this medical treatment. Fourth, I point out where my former position has valid criticisms of certain arguments used by those who hold that such treatment may be withdrawn, and urge great caution in deciding to forego treatment