This question is about the article "American flag stands for tolerance"
Answer and Explanation:
Allen shows that he believes that an individual can present better ways to show his discontent with the government instead of disrespecting the national flag by burning it, with that, we can see that he does not agree with the Supreme Court's decision to allow the burning of flags is a fair protest against the government, but quickly Allen claims that the Supreme Court is correct in allowing this, since even presenting a form of disrespect, the burning of flags is part of a peaceful protest, in addition to allowing freedom of expression in the country.
This shows that Allen's arguments are based on the country's ethical and legal standards and not on his own opinions, or on the sentimetalism he may feel for national symbols. He addresses the counterargument as a justification as to why he should not evaluate the Supreme Court's permission, but rather support it. This can be seen through the paragraph:
<em>"The American flag is a cherished symbol of our national aspirations [...] iven the widespread and deeply felt reverence for this symbol of what we perceive to be the best of our civilization, what is the harm in insisting upon a modicum of respect for it? [...] Any messages that burning the flag might convey easily can be communicated in other ways. </em>
<em>The Supreme Court was not wrong. Indeed, a decision contrary to the one reached would have been a definitive step away from our national aspirations. A commitment to the intertwined freedoms of conscience and expression is at the core of those aspirations. What most distinguishes our civilization from both its predecessors and its contemporary competitors is a belief in the sanctity of the human conscience. Each individual is to have the freedom to develop by his or her own lights, and not by the command of officialdom. That requires not just the right to be let alone, but also the right to communicate with, to learn from and test views in conversations."</em>
This question is about the article "America and I".
When reading between paragraphs 1-6, we can see that when leaving Russia, the author has the concept of "American dream" alive. This is because the author lived an life of oppression and few resources in Russia. The author allows the reader to understand that her life in Russia was limited, small, without opportunities and sad, but that would change in America. For the author, America was the land of freedom, opportunity and hope. She felt that America would offer her everything that Russia denied her and that in America she would work, express herself, be happy, do the things she wanted and be fully accomplished, in addition to being allowed to follow her dreams and enjoy the her life as she wanted.
Organization is the best and correct answer here.
She always has candy on her desk; gumdrops, M&M, chocolate kisses, or Life Savers.
Someone standing up for what they believe in.