PlanetPapers.com RSS Feed

Towards a Sustainable Democracy and True Social Contract in Nigeria

2019-07-15T03:51:29.483-04:00

Qatar's isolation is it possible to end the qatari dream

2017-06-22T12:07:25.967-04:00

The relationship between the media and diplomacy / العلاقة بين الإعلام والدبلوماسية

2017-05-21T07:58:20.187-04:00

??? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ??????? – ??????? ( ???????? ??????? ) ????? ?????? : ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? : ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ? ?? ????? ???????? ? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??????????? ?? ???? ?????? ? ???????? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???? ????????? ? ????????? ? ????? ????????? ? ????????? ? ????? ????????? ? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ? ??? ????? ?????? ? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ? ????????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ? ??????? ?????????? ? ????????? ????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ? ? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ????? ? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ? ???????? ??? ????????? ??????? ? ????????? ? ??????? ???????? ? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? . ??? ?????? ??????????? ? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ? ????????? ??? ??????????? : ??? ??? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?????????? ? ? ?????? ??????????? ?? ????? ??????????? ??? ???????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ? ??????? ? ??????? ? ? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? . ? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????????? ? ??? ????????? ? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ? ? ??????? ????? ??????? ? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ? ????? ????????? ? ????????? ??? ???? ?????? . ??? ???????? ? ????? ????? ??? ??????????? : ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??? ?? ??? 47 – 1994? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ????? ????????? ? ? ??

the relationship between the media and diplomacy

2017-05-21T07:37:40.89-04:00

the political functions of media

2017-05-14T12:15:52.263-04:00

Political Desire

2017-03-10T15:40:59.53-05:00

BY: Lorenzo Davis The desire for political power has resulted in the massive incarceration of the minds, of the freedoms, and of the bodies of individual citizens. Philosophers have written that man is born in a state of selfish nature, and the fundamental need to survive has undermined the promise of inherent rights and afforded liberties in this democracy. We live in a culture of failure and inadequacy based upon the corruption of justice and the hatred of truth. Indeed, our founding fathers knew that in order to check the balances of power, the citizens first have to dismantle the system of tyranny, for no authority is exempt from public scrutiny. the dialectical engagement of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government must do more than to respond to the challenges of academic proposals based upon traditional political norms. Social injustice must be relative to political judgments with the intent of eliminating potential biases of the predominately ultilatarism appetite. The selection of party affiliation labels must not be the focus in our often failed attempt at socially constructed language. Individual responsibility does not have to be only a conservative persuasion, and public accountability does not have to exist only in the mind of a liberal utopia. The development of a sound disposition and societal progress demands a moral view of the world that exhibits the flexibility of evolution and challenges the misinformation of sensationalized media, but most importantly, it allows for everybody, including the poor individuals in marginalized communities to be heard. The goal and purpose in my life is to communicate my vision of an authentic economic, legal, and psychological success to those who seek it the most. Indeed, my vision started at the moment I encountered my prison sentence. The first vision that I had was to dismantle the natural desire for political power by sharing my personal experiences with the world. The realization of injustice is the first step to liberating all of us from our sentences: the sentence of being born in an incarcerated society is not justice, but it is not truth to those who deem my sentence a conspiracy. The only conspiracy in America is the conspiracy of not forgiving. It is the belief that individuals like myself do not deserve to have a second chance at worldly success in that ex-convicts failed to muster up the courage to fight against the inequitable realities of

Unemployment in the United States

2015-06-03T16:28:18.887-04:00

Unemployment in the U.S.A has reached epidemic levels in recent years. Legislatures at all levels have raced to create solutions to this pressing crisis. From the federal government to local government, there have been many routes taken to curb the growing number of unemployed. High unemployment rates in the U.S.A effect all aspects of the economy, albeit some more severely than others. It gives consumers less capital to spend, which in turn will decrease the revenue being generated by business. When these businesses start feeling their profit margins tumble, they start cutting employees and the whole cycle repeats. The government approved an 800 hundred billion dollar stimulus plan just to turn around the economy a couple years back, yet that has had minimal effects. The reality is, almost 4 million open jobs require specific specialized skills, which is very hard on young people in particular. Black youths (between the ages of 16-24), suffer an unemployment rate of 25%. When you combine an un-skilled population, with a government who administers an astonishing lack of attention to businesses just starting up, and a major decrease in consumer spending, the result is a major spike in unemployment rates. There is little to no incentive for a person or company to open up a new business. Here in the U.S.A, there are so many taxes that come along with being a new business that few people want to take up the endeavor. A dearth of new businesses starting up each year directly contributes to a decrease in the amount of people being employed. The government has focused way too much on existing companies and has focused on helping out these already surviving corporations. Unfortunately this robs businesses that have just started up the help they so desperately need. And it’s these new businesses that have the highest potential for growth. While it’s true that a third of all new business fail in the first 2 years, and half fail in the first 5, the rest are very likely to have rapid growth. This simple concept has seemingly failed to reach the minds of politicians across the U.S.A. A very telling stat is that in 1999 4.7 million jobs were created by startup businesses compared to 2.7 million new jobs created by startups in 2012 (Chau). Another crucial part of the economy not receiving nearly enough attention by the government is small businesses. As a matter

Man is An Enemy Unto Himself

2014-03-15T19:16:40.56-04:00

Man Is An Enemy Unto Himself: BY: Lorenzo Davis Since the beginning of human evolution to the development of modern societies, man has emerged as an enemy unto himself. He has

Conspiracy theory

2014-03-14T19:08:43.95-04:00

Lorenzo Davis Scientists and other researcher’s investigation into the tragic events surrounding 9/11 have debunked conspiracy theories. Indeed, some psychologists believe that those who adhere to conspiracy theories suffer from paranoia and are more likely to believe in other conspiracy theories, even if it is contradictory. Proponents of conspiracy theories contend that the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers and pentagon were planned and permitted by the United States

Hobbes & Locke: State of Nature and Determining Political Views

2013-03-10T23:23:51.507-04:00

Hobbes and Locke: State of Nature and Determining Political Views The State of Nature is a classic example that allowed John Locke and Thomas Hobbes to present their understanding of human nature and offer a reasoning for the formation of government. Locke and Hobbes both presented contesting accounts of such a state in Second Treatise of Government and Leviathan respectively, and they arrive at very different conclusions. An evaluation of their conception of pre-societal man accounts in large part for the divergence in their views on what form a Commonwealth should assume and what powers it should be endowed with. This essay will analyze Locke’s man in the state of nature and subsequently juxtapose it with Hobbes’ in an effort to shed light on the differences between two of the great political philosophers. Locke uses the state of nature as the starting point for his second, and most salient, Treatise. This is a condition where there is for men “a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other man.”(1) From this very first sentence, it is evident that Locke follows in the Natural Law tradition that states that men inherently have a moral sense that restricts them from engaging in certain acts. By virtue of being children of God, we know what is right and wrong and by extension what is lawful, and we can therefore resolve conflicts fairly consistently. As a result, for Locke, the state of nature is not a state of License because man “has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession, but where some nobler use, than its bare Preservation calls for it.”(2) Reason teaches us that we ought not to harm one another in life, health, liberty or possessions, and that in fact we have an active obligation to others. At the same time, we all have “a right to punish the transgressors of [the Law of Nature]”(3) and as such we are all executioners of natural law. However, man is disposed to be partial in his own case and therefore act as a biased judge. This is indeed one of the great shortcomings in Locke’s state of nature. The other two failings are the absence of protection of property

Reification and Linguistic Revolt: The Etymology of "bioptikon".

2007-09-12T16:31:51-04:00

Reification and Linguistic Revolt: The Etymology of “bioptikon”. The bioptikon—as a cultural artefact, as a semiotic signpost and as etymological curio—can stand in as an indication of where we are “at”, of the “kind of thing one can say about a person these days: Jenkins Butler for instance”. The term originated in the mid-1990s in the discourse of the New York cyberpoet subculture chronicled in Liam Davis’s sociological investigation “From Beat to Cyberpoetry” (Liam Davis, 1998). Davis, referred to this subculture as “the bastard child of neoliberal Prometheanism and postmodern culture jamming, shot through with a post-Kantian ethical brisance”, capturing well the heady atmosphere that spawned many linguistic neophytes, most of which, even now, defy categorisation. For an outsider, arriving on the scene some years after Davis chronicled this scene in its heyday, the sense of trepidation stepping into the now fabled Donkey Hospital Bar in the Lower East Side, dubbed the cyberDonkey by regulars, was akin to that felt by many a Jesuit arriving at some Melanesian outpost during the endgame of the first colonial phase (truncated by the battle for the Pacific in the second half of the “short 20th century”): “Hostility, insularity, messianism—a heady brew.” (Marus Felps, 1982) This was not simply a cultural battleground, the last hurrah of the cyberpunks, as Nigel Phillips has argued (Nigel Phillips, 2001). The “scene” was a linguistic battleground too—something played down systematically by Phillips and the other apostles of “post-semiotic discourse analysis” (Brian Horace, 2002). Bubbling up from the cyberDonkey zymurgy was a rich foment of phases, rich in possibilities for an archaeology of cultural discourse. To some extent this was not new. It built on the Leet Orthography that had been born in the 1980s subculture of mainframe geeks, but what was new was the extent to which the argot of the cyberpoet milieu saw itself, self-consciously, fiercely and narcissistically (Liam Davis, 2000), as a critique. In fact, contra Davis, one might argue that the work of a least a section of this milieu saw itself not simply as critique, but as auto-critique, the hallmark of critical-theoretical praxis (Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, 1997). This auto-critique took aim at the culture of reification of cultures that had given rise to the subculture itself. It was reflexive—supple. The reification of this metaculture (one is tempted to say, with Horace, orthoculture) was not simply the transformation of the culture of relations (or the relations

Reification and Linguistic Revolt: The Etymology of "bioptikon".

2007-09-12T16:31:25-04:00

Illegal Immigration

2006-12-05T01:48:42-05:00

There are several problems that seem to plague contemporary America—abortion, Iraq, social security—however none of these compares to the sweeping epidemic of illegal immigration. According to the 2000 census, an awe-inspiring 8 to 11 million illegal aliens live in the United States. The immigration crisis is founded on the contention that illegal immigration harmfully influences the American workforce. Moreover, these illegal aliens mostly hold jobs that require little to no training, which is a system that is auspicious for an employer. The Senate is currently deliberating on the Sensenbrenner Bill, which, if passed, will favorably contribute to the cure of the immigration pandemic. A common assertion on the effects of illegal immigration is that immigrants reduce the wages of United States citizens. Although this notion does not hold true for professional or highly-trained workers, the annual wages of low-skilled citizens are approximately 2.4 percent lower as a result of illegal immigration. Similarly, a study by Harvard economist George Borjas illustrates that the influx of illegal aliens reduces the average annual wage of native workers by roughly 3.2 percent. Furthermore, his study confirmed the supposition that illegal immigration does not necessarily reduce the wages of workers with a college education, but rather that of those who have not completed high school has lessened. Most of these illegal immigrants fill low-skill, blue-collar jobs. The jobs that they fill require no more than one month of training or experience needed, the majority of which fall under the category of manual labor. Such jobs are waiters and waitresses, janitors, stock and material movers, and landscapers. Seeing as the wages of American citizens who are employed in these areas are annually decreasing, it is apparent that the sole beneficiary of this system is the employer. This system is not uncommon; corporations such as Wal-Mart have been scrutinized for hiring illegal immigrants. In a country with a soaring unemployment rate, the influx of illegal immigrants in the American workforce only contributes to the rapidly-climbing number of unemployed citizens. Not only does this affect American citizens, but the American government also falls victim to illegal aliens. The hiring of tax-free labor by employers, and the fact that illegal immigrants needn’t pay any taxes as well, simply cheats the government out of the money it deserves, creating a net drain on

Courage in Politics: JFK's Profiles in Courage and Mayor Gavin Newsom

2006-12-05T01:43:45-05:00

The primary responsibility of any elected official is to operate in accordance with his or her constituency. They are thus obligated to do so, an obligation that at times forces the individual to act courageously, against outside pressures, to accomplish this task. When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom decided to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples in 2004, he did so with tremendous courage, against warnings of committing political suicide, and has subsequently ignited a modern struggle for equal rights. Gavin Newsom felt that it was his responsibility as an elected official to order city clerks to issue the marriage licenses. After attending a State of the Union address wherein President Bush praised the Defense of Marriage Act, Newsom felt offended (Heyman). Moreover, he “…thought [he] had an obligation…” to defend the rights of millions of Americans against what he viewed as an attempt by the President to deny these rights (Heyman). Irritated by President Bush’s pledge to preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage, Newsom studied the California constitution to ensure that his forthcoming actions would not be ruled unconstitutional. Newsom asserted that the equal-protection clause of the state constitution gave him reason to believe that Proposition 22 was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Acting on this notion, Newsom finalized his decision to issue the licenses on Wednesday February 11, 2004 (Taylor). By that Friday afternoon, in the midst of same-sex weddings, the opposition had begun. Lawyers were already in court trying to obtain an emergency decree to stop what they classified as “municipal anarchy” (Gordon). Other activists compared Newsom’s daring actions to legalizing heroin, prostitution, polygamy, and incest (Taylor). The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirmed its support for an amendment that would ban same-sex marriages (Lattin). In addition to the copious array of objections to the same-sex marriages, Newsom himself was faced with discrimination. He received more than fourteen hundred death threats, several pastors forbade him to worship in their churches, and was continually booed while delivering public speeches. Additionally, he was not given the opportunity to address the delegates that attended the Convention in Boston, in which every other attendee was given that opportunity (Friend). Gavin Newsom’s actions had immediate effects. Numerous counties in New Mexico, Oregon, and New Jersey began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples but were eventually

Supreme Court - Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

2006-12-05T01:28:30-05:00

The primary responsibility of the Supreme Court is to discuss and settle all matters that warrant federal attention. As a result, the Supreme Court is an essential entity in influencing public policy. To do this, the Court can govern in a manner that can be described as either judicial activism or judicial restraint. Miranda v Arizona (1966) is a case pertaining to the area of public policy that regards the rights of the accused, wherein the Court followed a policy of judicial activism. Similarly, the Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States (1964) case concerns the matter of civil rights and can be classified as resulting from judicial activism. Judicial activism is an act of judicial interpretation that results in the creation of a new law. Judicial activism is when the Court does not follow precedent but instead acts as a legislator to establish future precedent. Judicial restraint is just the opposite; it is an act of judicial interpretation where a limited judicial power is exercised. As a result of judicial restraint, the Court defines and strengthens laws are already in existence. With regard to the rights of the accused, the philosophy of judicial activism can be see can be seen in Miranda v Arizona (1966). Miranda was arrested as a suspect in the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old girl. While Miranda was questioned, he was not informed of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination or the right to counsel, and he ultimately confessed to the crime. Prosecutors offered his confession as evidence, and Miranda was found guilty. The case was brought to the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, and presented the question of if interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violates the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Miranda, and they held that prosecutors cannon use statements from interrogations unless they demonstrated procedural safeguards, which were later dubbed “Miranda rights.” Likewise, with regard to civil rights, the philosophy of judicial activism can bee seen in the Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States (1964). The owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons, which was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The owner sued on the grounds that the act surpassed the

Bias in the Media

2006-12-05T01:23:17-05:00

The primary source of political information in America is the media. There is an extent to which one may consider this merely information, however; the facts presented and the way in which the story is written is not free of political bias. Certain publications and the articles which they contain are often presented to a certain audience, tailored to elicit specific feelings, and are written to force the reader to adopt the same political views as those contained in that publication. Of these publications, the New York Times, Newsday, and the New York Post all apply a consistent political orientation. The New York Times is considered the hub for all liberal journalism, Newsday adopts a considerably liberal orientation, and the New York Post is biased in favor of conservatives. The New York Times is the definitive liberal publication. Those who write for the Times, and thus those who control the Times, all seem to have a liberal slant. For some events that favor the left, the Times will cover them to the extreme, while they will downplay and simply breeze over those that favor the right. In an article dated February 20, 2006, columnist Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote about President Bush’s authorization for the National Security Agency to monitor the phone calls of United States citizens. The article was crammed with quotes made by numerous prominent Senators. Although each quote illustrates a different notion, all of them favor the left. Moreover, each quote is merely a bash upon the legality of the eavesdropping program, and they are used in conjunction with each other to form a staunch liberal foundation. Stolberg quotes Senator Lindsey Graham, as he said “…[he is] adamant that the courts have some role when it comes to warrants…you need to get some judicial review.” The article continues in this fashion; each quote that Stolberg presents regards the notion that the courts should play a prominent role in this matter. Lastly, Stolberg brings the article to a close by stating how Senator Arlen Specter “…insists the eavesdropping must be subjected to a rigorous constitutional review.” In a more recent article, dated May 15, 2006, Bob Herbert constructs all-out denunciation against President Bush. It is titled “America the Fearful,” and Herbert claims President Bush is aiming to force “ordinary Americans” to remain in a perpetual

Types of Students

2006-10-04T06:55:48-04:00

High degree of sophistication, a matchless charm, and educational quality is backed by centuries of educational tradition. For many people education is considered as “the ladder of opportunity”, nevertheless success in learning depends upon personal qualities and intelligence of students. In general, the level of scholarship and erudition is closely connected with the desire of student to learn and reflects and reinforces existing differences between types of students. It is possible to single out many types and subgroups of students, but only the most important and generalized will be described. I. The first group represents types of students according to educational establishment they entered and the years of study: a) high school, college student, university student. The subgroup here include b) freshman, sophomore, junior, senior (the level is determined by the number of units a student has completed). And According to the type of learning students can be divided into c) full-time, part-time, distant learning continuing, former or returning students. Also, students can be classified as d) international and native, regular and transfer, audit student (who takes a course for his/her own educational needs) and probationary students, e) graduate, second degree and undergraduate students. It is also possible to single out curricular and non-curricular groups of students who do not plan to complete a degree. II. The second classification is based on personal style of learning. It is known that individuals learn for themselves and learn from other people. They learn as members of a group and by interaction with their group-mates, teachers and people outside the educational establishment. But for effec¬tive learning to take place at the individual level it is essential to foster an environ¬ment where individuals are encouraged to take risks and experiment, where mistakes are tolerated, but where means exist for those involved to learn from their experi¬ences. 1. The first subgroup includes: high-motivated and low-motivated students. The presence or absence of motivation is concerned with the factors that influence student to behave in certain ways. Some student is able to motivate themselves, but another group of students needs external motivation to achieve educational goals. 2. The second subgroup is connected with the previous one, but does not coincide with it. According to this classification students can be lazy or industrious. Usually, high-motivated students also belong to an industrious type, but it does not mean that all low-motivated students are lazy. A student may have a low motivation

Righyeous Or Vice?

2006-06-12T00:18:52-04:00

Aoshana, Melis English Period One Righteous Or Vice? A name we all know is the 42nd President of The United States Of America, George W. Bush. Many can argue if he is “Righteous Or Vice?”, but now matter what he is the MAN who is calling the shits. After his presidency, he will probably be remembered by three important events; the Terrorist Attacks on 9/11/01, his infamous Tax Relief, and the controversial War in Iraq. I’m not going to make you change your mind about him, I’m just going to point some facts out to you. The Terrorist Attacks on September 11th, 2001 has changed the world. It has caused a lot of people asking a lot questions. September 11 is often said to be the defining moment in the Bush presidency, even of modern history. Did Bush know about the attacks before they happened? If he did, why didn’t he do anything to prevent it? Why did it take the lives of about 3.000 innocent people to later have more security in our country? The President has proposed a bold an fair tax relief plan that will reduce the inequalities of the current tax code and help ensure that America remains prosperous. Whether you love President Bush or hate him, chances are his new tax cut will bring you some savings. The 9/11 tragedy, the destruction of the Twin Trade Towers in New York City, hit the economy again, with another 146,000 jobs lost in New York City alone. The first year of newly elected President George W. Bush's Administration was less than auspicious. However, President Bush took charge of the economy and forced substantial tax cuts through Congress. The current War in Iraq has divided this country in two; those who support and those who oppose George W. Bush and his administration. Yes, we finally captured Saddam Hussein, one of our country’s most wanted enemy. But was it for Iraq’s oil? Was it for Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction? No, there were no WMD found in any part of Iraq. Was it because supposedly Saddam Hussein sold bombs to Osama Bin Laden and was involved with 09/11/2001? No, that was proven wrong, and Hussein hates Bin Laden. Was it because he wanted to show his father, George Bush Sr., that he could catch his old nemesis? I hope I didn’t change your mind about him, I just wanted to clarify some of the

Wasn't Brian Mulroney's Fault - Kim Campbell Lost The Election

2006-05-17T02:02:25-04:00

On October 25, 1993 the Progressive Conservative party suffered the biggest political defeat in Canadian history. Under the leadership of Kim Campbell, the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced from one of the biggest majority governments in Canadian history to only two seats in the House of Commons. It is said that a lot of responsibility for this loss lies in the faulty government of Brian Mulroney. However, Kim Campbell was given the rare opportunity of running a country. For a period of seven months, Kim Campbell made all ultimate decisions that lead to the fate of Canada. Kim Campbell was the first female Prime Minister of Canada and even this fact alone could be used to draw votes from Canadians. In Fact, Kim Campbell had high approval ratings when her party chose her to be the leader of the Progressive Conservatives: “Poles said how well a renewed Conservative Party would do in an election, specifically with Kim Campbell as the new Tory leader. She would, said one of the first poles, win 43 percent of the vote compared to 25 percent for Jean Chrétien.” How did she manage to lose these ratings? How did she manage to bring the Progressive Conservative Party to its lowest number of seats in history? Brian Mulroney was not responsible for the Progressive Conservative Party’s defeat in 1993, unlike many would make him out to be. In the election, Canadians no longer needed to consider the power or opinion of Brian Mulroney. The fact is that on the date of the election, Canadians had a choice between Jean Chrétien and Kim Campbell to be the next Prime Minister of Canada. It was Kim Campbell’s actions that lead to the devastating defeat of the Progressive Conservative Party on October 25, 1993. Kim Campbell was not elected Prime Minister of Canada by the Canadian people because she had a massive ego that offended the Canadian public, and she did not run a smooth and successful election campaign. Throughout her career in politics, many people were offended due to Kim Campbell’s obvious idealism that she was better then the average person. Kim Campbell had a large ego and let it be known through her actions words during her career. She had a strong past record of being unable to see any other points of view on something she felt strongly about. This factor was definitely considered as Canadians took

Influences on Congress

2006-02-28T23:36:58-05:00

The legislative processes of the United States Congress are often open to certain influences. These influences can come from such elements of the congressional system as logrolling and party representation on committees. In addition, there are several manners in which party leadership in Congress can also contribute to these influences. Logrolling is one technique used to sway the legislative procedures of Congress in oneâ€™s favor. Also known as reciprocity, logrolling is a method that one or more congressman use to garner anotherâ€™s vote. In essence it is quid pro quo, or as Congressman B.F. Butler once defined it: â€œIf you will vote for my interest, I will vote for yours.â€? A common practice in American Congress, logrolling is inherently a form of mutual aid among politicians; one legislator will support anotherâ€™s project in return for the latterâ€™s support of his. When enough of these votes are exchanged, a majority coalition is formed. Logrolling is often used by Congressmen who seek to establish local projects. These initiatives, which are predicated upon the grassroots interests of politicians, run the gamut from new dams to improved irrigation systems; better harbors to additional bridges; and enhanced hospitals to state-of-the-art military bases. Another component of the congressional committee system that influences the legislative process is party representation. Committee make-up is determined by the percentage of party representation in each house. Essentially, the party who has the most members in Congress obtains the greatest amount of seats on a committee. This majority then impacts the naming of a committee chairman. The committees that wield the greatest amount of influence are the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Rules Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The party that has the highest percentage of seats, the greatest amount of party representation, clearly has the strongest influence on the legislative process. One manner in which party leadership in Congress can influence the legislative process is by choosing a Speaker of the House. The majority party is given the option of selecting the Speaker. The Speaker supervises the daily activities of the House and is supposed to be unbiased in his actions. Nonetheless, the influence of this presiding officer cannot be underestimated. The primary responsibilities of the Speaker are recognizing speakers, referring bills to committees, and answering procedural questions. One way in

Influences on Congress

2006-02-28T23:35:41-05:00

The legislative processes of the United States Congress are often open to certain influences. These influences can come from such elements of the congressional system as logrolling and party representation on committees. In addition, there are several manners in which party leadership in Congress can also contribute to these influences. Logrolling is one technique used to sway the legislative procedures of Congress in one’s favor. Also known as reciprocity, logrolling is a method that one or more congressman use to garner another’s vote. In essence it is quid pro quo, or as Congressman B.F. Butler once defined it: “If you will vote for my interest, I will vote for yours.” A common practice in American Congress, logrolling is inherently a form of mutual aid among politicians; one legislator will support another’s project in return for the latter’s support of his. When enough of these votes are exchanged, a majority coalition is formed. Logrolling is often used by Congressmen who seek to establish local projects. These initiatives, which are predicated upon the grassroots interests of politicians, run the gamut from new dams to improved irrigation systems; better harbors to additional bridges; and enhanced hospitals to state-of-the-art military bases. Another component of the congressional committee system that influences the legislative process is party representation. Committee make-up is determined by the percentage of party representation in each house. Essentially, the party who has the most members in Congress obtains the greatest amount of seats on a committee. This majority then impacts the naming of a committee chairman. The committees that wield the greatest amount of influence are the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Rules Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The party that has the highest percentage of seats, the greatest amount of party representation, clearly has the strongest influence on the legislative process. One manner in which party leadership in Congress can influence the legislative process is by choosing a Speaker of the House. The majority party is given the option of selecting the Speaker. The Speaker supervises the daily activities of the House and is supposed to be unbiased in his actions. Nonetheless, the influence of this presiding officer cannot be underestimated. The primary responsibilities of the Speaker are recognizing speakers, referring bills to committees, and answering procedural questions. One way in

Campaign Finance Reform

2006-02-28T23:33:27-05:00

Funding is a crucial component of every political campaign. Over the past several decades, the cost of running a campaign has vastly increased. As a result, the United States Congress has produced several proposals regarding campaign finance reform. These proposals included the elimination of soft money and the raising of limits on individual contributions. Of the various proposals discussed in Congress, one is the elimination of soft money. Soft money is donations given to political parties for party activities rather than in support of a particular candidate or campaign. Soft money is spent on activities such as voter registration and issue advertising. One proposal that was put forth in 1997 was the McCain-Feingold Bill, the basis of which was a ban on soft money. This bill would prohibit all soft money contributions to national political parties. Additionally, state parties that accepted these unregulated contributions would be prohibited from spending them on federal elections. There are, however, both proponents and opponents of this notion to eliminate soft money. Supporters of this reform argue that political parties become under the control of large contributors of soft money, many of which hope that their large contributions would pay off in the form of a policy decision or bill endorsement. Proponents advocate that this is detrimental to the democratic process, and that soft money contributions eliminate the power of the broad electorate. Nonetheless, there is a plethora of citizens who are against this proposal. Opponents argue that the first amendment to the Constitution grants them the freedom of speech, and that this proposal infringes on their rights to free speech and their ability to influence the electorate. Furthermore, just as some consider soft money contributions detrimental to the representative democracy of this country, others consider the banning of thus just as detrimental. Additionally, another proposal put forth is the raising of limits on individual contributions. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act set the limits of these individual contributions, commonly referred to as “hard money.” Individual contributions to a candidate are limited to $1,000 in the primary campaign and $1,000 in the general election. Moreover, individual contributions to a political action committee may not exceed $5,000 per year, and there is an aggregate limit of $25,000 to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs. The

Politics in Alaska (Short overview)

2006-02-07T19:01:15-05:00

The state of Alaska has proven to have a majority of Republican voters. From 1972 to 2004, this state has voted for all of the Republican candidates. This turns an obvious 100% of these elections with a Republican majority. This astounding statistic truly shows the interests on the voters in Alaska. These voting results prove this obvious conclusion along with all of the state’s government officials. The governor, representative, and two senators are all Republicans. The largest state in the country is a consistent supplier of natural resources as well as consistent and loyal voters to the Grand Old Party. All major political parties are active in this great state, including the green, independent, and libertarian parties. Along with the well-establish Democratic Party, the popularity seems to lie on

Campaign Finance Reform

2006-01-06T03:43:20-05:00

Funding is a crucial component of every political campaign. Over the past several decades, the cost of running a campaign has vastly increased. As a result, the United States Congress has produced several proposals on campaign finance reform. These proposals included the elimination of soft money and the raising of limits on individual contributions. Of the various proposals discussed in Congress, one is the elimination of soft money. Soft money is donations given to political parties for party activities rather than in support of a particular candidate or campaign. Soft money is spent on activities such as voter registration and issue advertising. One proposal that was put forth in 1997 was the McCain-Feingold Bill, the basis of which was a ban on soft money. This bill would prohibit all soft money contributions to national political parties. Additionally, state parties that accepted these unregulated contributions would be prohibited from spending them on federal elections. There are, however, both proponents and opponents of this notion to eliminate soft money. Supporters of this reform argue that political parties become under the control of large contributors of soft money, many of which hope that their large contributions would pay off in the form of a policy decision or bill endorsement. Proponents advocate that this is detrimental to the democratic process, and that soft money contributions eliminate the power of the broad electorate. Nonetheless, there is a plethora of citizens who are against this proposal. Opponents argue that the first amendment to the Constitution grants them the freedom of speech, and that this proposal infringes on their rights to free speech and their ability to influence the electorate. Furthermore, just as some consider soft money contributions detrimental to the representative democracy of this country, others consider the banning of thus just as detrimental. Additionally, another proposal put forth is the raising of limits on individual contributions. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act set the limits of these individual contributions, commonly referred to as “hard money.” Individual contributions to a candidate are limited to $1,000 in the primary campaign and $1,000 in the general election. Moreover, individual contributions to a political action committee may not exceed $5,000 per year, and there is an aggregate limit of $25,000 to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs. The debate over this issue

Human Rights Watch International Condemns Greece for Oppressing the Macedonians

2005-12-23T02:25:55-05:00

Human Rights Watch / Helsinki Denying Ethnic Identity - Macedonians of Greece, New York, 1994 The 80-page human rights violation report on Greece entitled "Denying Ethnic Identity - Macedonians of Greece" was published in May 1994. After visiting Aegean Macedonia, the Human Rights Watch/Helsinki concluded: "Although ethnic Macedonians in northern Greece make up large minority with their own language and culture, their internationally recognized human rights and even their existence are vigorously denied by the Greek government. Free expression is restricted; several Macedonians have been persecuted and convicted for their peaceful expression of their views. Moreover, ethnic Macedonians are discriminated against by the government's failure to permit the teaching

British Foreign Policy Since 1945

2005-12-13T15:53:06-05:00

Idil Un 12/13/05 Poli489 British Foreign Policy Since 1945 Britain used to be a great power for centuries controlling about a fifth of the earth’s land; such as India, Canada, Australasia, and South Africa. Britain was an oceanic power and was conductive to having a strong fleet; its strong navy provided Britain to be a very powerful empire. Britain was a stable country and this allowed it to advance religious reformation, and constitutional development. It was the world largest economy with having a drastic role in world trade. It was the first industrial nation had become the greatest power the world had ever seen, and of course a remarkable colonial power. The “Greatness of Britain” collapsed in the following centuries, due to many reasons; Germany’s aggressive continental power over Europe, the U.S had emerged as the new superpower, influences of communism, Cold War, declining economic and political power, losing its colonial power caused Britain to switch from a superpower, and thus the faith of Britain was not in its hands anymore. The globe was changing; old powers became powerless, new powers arose, regarding these the foreign policies of nations were to change and so was Britain’s. By 1945, Britain’s economic, international, and empirical positions seriously undermined by the WW II. In July 1945, the British foreign policy indicated a shift in British foreign policy as the Labor Party was elected succeeding Winston Churchill. The struggle of Soviet Union over Nazism inspired admiration for a swing to the left. Clement Attlee became the new Prime Minister of the U.K. Ernest Bevin became Foreign Secretary at a time when Britain was almost bankrupt as a result of the war. Labor Party came to power committed to the creation of a welfare state and a wide-ranging plan of nationalization and wanted a “socialist foreign policy”. Bevin did not have colonial aims as the former foreign secretaries and was approving British withdrawal from the territories that Britain was hegemonic over, such as India. By 1947 Britain agrees to leave Pakistan and in the same year Britain left India. Labor party agreed on specific foreign policy conservatives to have a close relationship with the United States, de-colonilization, to protect Europe against the Soviets, and to reject communist model. During Attlee’s role as the Prime Minister between the years 1945 to 1951; Britain left India thus forming East and West Pakistan, and India, later on East

Communism - An In Depth Review & Critique of it's Origin & Goals

2005-12-04T19:18:00-05:00

The purpose of this research is to investigate the meaning of communism while exploring the ideology in depth and to give a plausible critique of communism. Throughout the history of the modern world, man has sought out the perfect government. An invincible system of order. And in our search for this ideal system, the idea of holding property in common has been a reoccurring thought. From early Christian communities to modern Marxist states, socialism and more specifically, communism has had an important role in the development of this ideal system. The original goals of communism, a perfect proletariat society, transformed over time; from the revolutionary thinking of Karl Marx to the murderous communist dictatorships of V.I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin. In the original Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, the original idea of communism and socialism was to form a perfect proletariat society, where there were no classes and all people lived as equals together. (Marx, Engels, 42) Over the years, the original idea of peace and equality for all was transformed and molded to fit a certain person or groups personal interests. The peaceful society idea never worked out at all in a country like Russia. Rulers like Stalin and Lenin not only did not carry out the original goal of peace and living in harmony, they carried out bloody purges of people who did not fit “their plan” for a perfect communist society. They carried out the liquidation of the Kulak class. Instead of having a gradual change from a society with classes to a classless one. In the mid-1830’s, the term “Communism” was introduced to the world of French politics. First used to describe Saint-Simon and Fourier’s egalitarian slant on socialist ideas, Louis Blanc built on the ideals of Fourier to establish an important point of modern-day communism. He stated the principle, “...from each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs”, where as the old principle stated, “...from each according to his capacities, to each according to his works.” (Blanc, Loubere, 194) This would prove necessary to later philosophers such as Marx and Engels whose fundamental ideas were largely based on such principles. Even more influential, though, was German thinker George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel introduced “radical” ideas to European politics in the early 1800’s, but they would not be fully realized by others until after his death in 1831. He was convinced that

Carter and Religion

2005-12-01T23:46:07-05:00

Carter and Religion In his book, The Culture of Disbelief, author Steven Carter attempts to reconcile two modern concerns: religious significance and the importance placed on logical reasoning and understanding. He attempts to explain how religiously dedicated people can also be intelligent, rational persons who should be taken seriously. He does this continually emphasizing his own astuteness and concurrent piousness. In this passionately argued polemic--which Carter, a black Episcopalian, backs with personal anecdote, historical research, and legal brief--the case is made that something has gone

Carter and Religion

2005-12-01T23:45:50-05:00

Carter and Religion

2005-12-01T23:45:37-05:00

Carter and Religion

2005-12-01T23:45:26-05:00

Carter and Religion

2005-12-01T23:45:08-05:00

Southern Voting Behavior Since the 60's

2005-11-18T18:44:52-05:00

Voters in many areas of the U.S. are apt to vote differently as a whole from election to election. The nation has also had a decreased turnout rate for the presidential and local elections. The South has typically not followed these patterns that the rest of has seemed to be following. The Southern whites of the U.S. have typically followed and voted for the more conservative candidate and party. Where as the Southern blacks have typically (when they have been able to vote) voted for the more liberal party or candidate. The South was at one time a Democratic stronghold and has in the past 30 years become a typically conservative voting electorate. This tendency of voting by race for the liberal or conservative candidate has been a continuing occurrence. Southern turn out for elections has been significantly lower than the rest of the nation as well over the same time period. This bias of the past 30 years as well as voter turn out has only recently began to change in the South. In the beginning of and prior to the 1960's the South was a Democratic stronghold and it was rare for there to be any competition from Republicans in these non competitive states (Mulcahy p.56). A poll taken in the 1960's showed that " the southern states were the obvious stronghold of Democratic identification. The extreme case was Louisiana, where 66% identified with the Democratic party"(Black p.44). This all began to change as the Democratic party became more liberal in its national policy views. The Democrats became too liberal in their policies concerning civil rights for the white Southerners to continue voting for them. (Mulcahy p.40). This reason along with others is what drove the Southern whites to change there voting habits of the last 100 years. The white Southerners began to vote for presidents of the Republican party and for Independents such as the Dixiecrats, because they were more conservative on a national scale. The Largest change of the Southern voters occurred in 1960 when "the southern white Protestant presidential vote went Republican"(Wayne p62). This would of allowed for the democrats to lose the south if the black electorate had not voted Democrat. The black Southern voters at the time of the 1960's were just again able to participate with their rights to vote. This was because shortly after the Civil War and reconstruction the Southern whites

State of the Union Address - The Promise

2005-10-14T01:57:22-04:00

In order to steward and ensure a more perfect union for the people of the United States, and in its representation to its neighbors, I hereby pledge the following commitments while in Office as the President of this great country and as the management of the Executive Branch of its Government. The Health, Safety, and Welfare of the People of the United States The health, safety and welfare of the people represents the state in the soundness of this nation. It is in the combination of these factors where uniquely distinguishable, but are inseparable, that provides purpose of the Government and nothing further, nor less. It is in the standards of measure for this soundness, that the state of its people, and thus the Union is served. People are more empowered to stand on their own two feet when there is an environment conducive for them to do so. The Health, Safety, and Welfare of this Nation, as expressed in its people, is the foundation for this. Health, Safety, and Welfare all have many unique facets. These facets are regarded here for their importance at a personal level for each of us; at the community level where we live with others; and in terms of Federal Government in its responsibility to all of us as a Nation. Although the following is lengthy, I ask for your patience in its reading. It addresses much that has been on each of our minds. It is how this Administration addresses this as Responsibilities and to be held Transparently Accountable for by you. 1- The Health of Our Nation: The Health of the people is the strength of our Nation. It is not muscle that has strength, but the strength in the heart and the mind that provides strength to muscle. In this manner, the people are the strength of our Nation. The measures of Health have to be in terms of physical, mental, and spiritual, where these are manifested uniquely in all of us. Combined, this reflects the Health of our Nation, and thus the Health of our Government. 1.1- Physical Health is key to our sustainability as people, and by default, is entitled by all. It is the objective of this administration to make respectable health care to be obtainable for all in this nation. This is no matter if one is impoverished, is a worker who normally does not qualify for existing assistance, is

Kanye West Comments

2005-09-07T22:23:47-04:00

Dear America, and hello to the international public :) I am speaking to you today not as a Black Man, not as a Californian close to the city of Berkeley, and not even as a American. I am speaking to you today just as a human being and I hope that you will assume the same shape and form while reading my brief essay. First let me begin by addressing the situation directly with the Hurricane that has struck the gulf coast of LA, Miss, and AL. To even begin to assume that this was handled even remotely professional or on time is a far exageration of the truth to say the least. To explain the situation in New Orleans, you will first need to explain the poverty that has long exsisted there for hundreds of years since slavery. Slavery?! Don't get scared of that word it's just some Ancient American reality. But is it really ancient?????? The response to the Hurricane was a laugher. For one, no food got to any victim until the fifth day. Five days!! Long time with no food right?? Have you ever went 2 days without food?? Ever went one day?? Also, when the disaster was spoken about, the citizens were referred to as refugees and immigrants, even President Bush was puzzled by this. These were long time citizens that were born and raised in those states, not people that snuck over here on a boat. So the blame game begins now. Hmmm?? If I was Bush who should I blame?? Hmmm?? Maybe I shouldn't have cut that fund for repairing the Leevy 60-70% Huh?? Maybe if I focused more on my own country and it's poverty then things wouldn't be so bad huh?? Maybe we would have been more prepared for this disaster by actually planning for things like this, instead of sunbathing at the Crawford Ranch Hmm?? Iraq's really going well huh Hmmm?? Don't worry that the same terrorists on each street in Iraq are still blowing themselves up like before, but that's positive right Hmmmm?? I'm George W., what the hell should I do now. Gas is higher than the moon and I control all the oil in Iraq to HMMMM??? Lots of decisions to make, so many questions?? I know, lets have a investigation on what I did in Iraq and Katrina, and I'll head the investigation, I'll be in complete control and

Federal Structure of the US Goverment

2005-08-05T23:32:39-04:00

Structure of US Government The United States of America is a Federation of fifty states plus six territories. A Federation is a country that is comprised of more than one self-governing regions that are united by a central, or ‘federal,’ government. The term Federation comes from the Latin word foedus, meaning ‘covenant,’ and the term implies a basic relationship between the Central government and its member-states. Certain powers and duties are expressly given to parts of the Federal Government because, for reasons of security and stability, there can be but one system. Certain other powers are left to the states themselves chiefly because various problems are best dealt with by those closest to them, and it would be counter the spirit of limited government and diversity to create a “one-size-fits-all” policy for addressing complex issues. Likewise the states do not micromanage every problem that crops up within their borders; they send power to counties and municipalities who work together to form local policy and implement statewide statues. Government in the US is very decentralized, while authority is split between the federal and state governments; the federal government itself consists of three coequal branches. Congress, addressed in the first article of the Constitution, governs the Republic and is responsible for passing all laws as well as controlling the nation’s currency, levying taxes, borrowing money, establishing courts and distributing funding to every government organization, plus other duties. The House of Representatives represents the people of the various states and seats in the House are given in proportion to state population. Each house of Congress has the power to introduce legislation on any subject except revenue bills, which must originate in the House of Representatives. A bill must pass a majority in both chambers before it can be sent to the President. Additionally, both bills must be worded identically, for this purpose joint-committees are formed to streamline both chamber’s versions. The smaller of the two houses of Congress is the Senate, which is made up of two Senators from each state. The Senate has certain powers reserved to it specifically, including the right to confirm presidential appointments of judges, officials and ambassadors as well as authority to ratify all treaties. The House has the sole right to bring charges of misconduct, Impeachment, against an official, but the Senate is granted sole

teach me to choose

2005-05-24T15:04:52-04:00

For a long time, democracy is considered to be a wonderful regime. It represents liberty, and the

partners for peace

2005-05-24T15:02:43-04:00

The major population in Israel wants peace. No one argues about the question “is peace necessary?”- We argue about the question “how do we make peace?” Some people in Israel are convinced that seeing Palestinians as partners for peace will solve our conflict. Now, you may wonder and ask yourselves “is it true”? Of course there is no definite answer. It is not like other “solutions” for example killing all our enemies where the answer is defiantly no. We can not use violence on innocent children. Here, I would like to try answering the question:” how we can (the Israelis) see them (the Palestinians) as partners for peace? Peace is “a situation or a period of time in which there is no war or violence in a country or area” (The New Oxford English-English-Hebrew Students Dictionary, 2003). By this definition we can ask ourselves what is partners for peace? Is it working together for making peace, or living in peace after peace is done? Or maybe both of them? I allow myself to add something to the Oxford definition: a situation of peace can be created only in two conditions: a) Both sides must understand that they are about to live together on one land. b) Both sides must want peace. Let us begin with the second condition. I, as an Israeli, claim that the people of Israel want peace. I can not claim the same thing about Palestinians. According to interviews which Saliman a Shapi (Channel 2 news reporter in Gaza) made with the Palestinians- I can say that the Palestinian nation does not want peace. They also say that we must get away from this land, so the first condition in also cancelled. In addition to this Palestinians do terror attacks in Israel. They slaughter innocent people in restaurants, buses, weddings, streets, Passover Seder, and they bomb us with Kasam rackets (and they claim we bomb them). Imagine the following situation: after the terror attack in Park hotel, Netania, which killed more then 25 innocent people, a very famous person (I will not say his name because of slumber reasons) appears to the media and says that we must speak to Mr. Arafat about peace, and we may not react for it will hurt the Palestinian nation. In such a condition, how the common Israeli will listen to this man, and think about the Palestinians as partners for peace. I must

No to Philippine Govt's Proposal to Expand VAT Rate

2005-04-26T08:59:36-04:00

The Philippine government has no moral authority to collect taxes. This government has no moral authority to collect taxes because it has failed miserably in its most basic of functions – which is to deliver services to the people. A government collects taxes from its people based on the premise that it uses

No to Philippine Govt's Proposal to Expanded VAT Rate

2005-04-26T08:37:27-04:00

A Fascist America: How Close Are We?

2005-03-24T15:15:35-04:00

The idea that America is turning fascist has been popular on the Left for as long as I can remember: in the 1960s, when antiwar radicals raged against the Machine, this kind of hyperbole dominated campus political discourse and even made its way into the mainstream. When the radical Weather Underground went into ultra-Left meltdown and began issuing incoherent "communiqués" to an indifferent American public, they invariably signed off by declaring: "Death to the fascist insect pig that preys on the life of the people!" Such rhetoric, too overheated for American tastes, was quite obviously an exaggeration: America in the 1960s was no more "fascistic" than miniskirts, Hula Hoops, and the rhyming demagoguery of Spiro T. Agnew. Furthermore, we weren't even close to fascism, as the downfall of Richard M. Nixon made all too clear to whatever incipient authoritarians were nurtured at the breast of the GOP. Back in those halcyon days, America was, in effect, practically immune from the fascist virus that had wreaked such havoc in Europe and Asia in previous decades: there was a kind of innocence, back then, that acted as a vaccine against this dreaded affliction. Fascism – the demonic offspring of war – was practically a stranger to American soil. After all, it had been a century since America had been a battleground, and the sense of invulnerability that is the hallmark of youth permeated our politics and culture. Nothing could hurt us: we were forever young. But as we moved into the new millennium, Americans acquired a sense of their own mortality: an acute awareness that we could be hurt, and badly. That is the legacy of 9/11. Blessed with a double bulwark against foreign invasion – the Atlantic and Pacific oceans – America hasn't experienced the atomizing effects of large-scale military conflict on its soil since the Civil War. On that occasion, you'll remember, Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator," nearly emancipated the U.S. government from the chains of the Constitution by shutting down newspapers, jailing his political opponents, and cutting a swathe of destruction through the South, which was occupied and treated like a conquered province years after Lee surrendered. He was the closest to a dictator that any American president has come – but George W. Bush may well surpass him, given the possibilities that now present themselves. From the moment the twin towers were hit, the fascist seed began to germinate, to take

Media’s affect on voters

2005-03-22T03:13:58-04:00

Voters do not use their opinion because they are affected by the media. Most of the Americans vote for what they see in the newspapers, television, internet, and etc. The media controls people on political issues. American citizens pick the president that the media tells them to do. It is the media controls the nation. Television, internet, and newspapers are the sources of the mass communication. It is a connection all over the world that informs and influences people. Media’s job is to inform people. Media gives information in order to keep people with changing world. According to The Media and Politics. Media gives us the facts, then allows journalist to give an opinion on certain issues. Media influences uninformed voters in the election. For many American people, media is the only source of information. Voters listen to many different opinions and situations about the politics. It is not easy for voter to go through the lies and the truth and make an informed decision. Some journalists give untrue stories in order to catch ratings. Some people are making mistake by watching only one source instead of watching more sources of media. Such people base their opinion on one side of the story and luck the other side of the story. “The media have always played a powerful role in politics.”(The Media and politics, p. 42) According to The Media and politics, the media have a profound influence on voters. Sometimes media has a negative role in elections. The media is misleading the public. We have freedom of the press in America but freedom can do a terrible job. The press cannot be trusted. Public needs a fair press. According to Review of Press and Politics in the ‘90s, people are very affected by what they see. The politicians on debates are the type of theatrical perfomance. The debate discourages Americans. The media decides the result of elections. Peoples’ vote does not mean much. Media plays very

No Compromise

2005-03-19T14:49:20-04:00

Prayer before a game, “under God” as a part of the pledge, the Ten Commandments on school walls: are all of these really an endorsement of religion or are they merely a nation’s heritage; traditions passed down year after year? This point could and probably will be argued forever. But there is one thing that must be settled once and for all. If rights are to be removed from moral, conservative students in the public school system, then the precedent set by the removal of these rights must extend all the way across the board, even into government offices. If any one person’s rights are to be revoked, the revocation must be consistent, from public school student, all the way up to President of the United States. When one item is declared unconstitutional by the government, and the same item in another instance is not, our government is proving its lack of true leadership, not only to Americans but also the rest of the world. The Constitution of the United States has been compromised. It has been twisted and taken out of context many times to promote the liberal, social agenda. The dictionary definition for the word constitution says it all: the composition or make-up of anything, as of the human body or the state; the system of fundamental laws of a nation or society (New Concise Webster’s Dictionary, 1988). The constitution of a country cannot be altered any more than that of the human body. Twisting words; pulling them out of context, is like pulling out the stomach and inserting it into the brain cavity. It doesn’t work. When a constitution is altered, the body loses its identity. It is no longer what it was. Although on the outside it may seem to be a beautiful creation, it no longer has the strength and fortitude it had before it was cut and pieced back together. American history is full of official references to “the value and invocation of Divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of [both] the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders . . .” (Lynch v. Donnelly, 1999). American heritage and modern life alike are wrought with often times unrecognized religious symbols, sayings and celebrations. National holidays: Easter - Christian feast commemorating the Resurrection of Jesus (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2000).

Should the government’s have the right to control information which is accessible to the public?

2005-03-12T22:09:49-05:00

The issue about the government’s right to control information which is accessible to has been widely debated. It is an imperative subject because it poses fundamental litigious questions which may affect the liberty of an individual in their community. Different arguments have been articulated concerning this issue. These include arguments in favor of favor of the status quo, others for the complete control of information, or for absolute liberty of the citizen information, while some are indifferent. This essay will argue on behalf of government limitation of access. The government has many roles in society. These consist of assurance of public order, promotion of pervasive well being, maximizing individual freedom and intellectual potential, and maintaining cultural traditions. When any of these principles especially that of protecting social order is being violated, the government should have the authority to restrain accessible information to the public if it incites a violent act. Violence the worst human act of cruelty, is defined as “injury or damage by rough or abusive treatment”. Violence has been tolerated and forcefully used throughout history, but over the last two centuries social rejection against it has rapidly spread. If admission to unrestricted information that could provoke aggressive behavior persists, incidents of violence may increase. Such information as child pornography can and has led to vicious crime. A good example of this is the illustrious case of 10 year old, who was kidnapped by a man, sexually assaulted and murdered in her Toronto neighborhood on May 12, 2003 DNA evidence proved that Michael Briere, a software developer committed the crimes. In June 2004, he plead guilty and stated that he had visited child pornography sites on the internet which aroused him to commit the crimes. This type of brutal crime could be prevented if the government had some control and tracking over such accessible public information. Legislative moderation of liberally obtainable information should be used if it is illegal or may be used in criminal behaviors. The democratic Canadian government has a major responsibility of sustaining social equilibrium. To achieve collective stability, communal rules were developed to enforce fundamental ideologies of peaceful existence. These rules include a diverse range of activities that are outlawed and deemed morally unacceptable. There are numerous illicit activities but the most relevant to this argument is the abuse and exploitation of controlled substances. Unfettered sources of information such as the internet can be a useful tool

What is a political party

2004-12-02T20:11:29-05:00

In this assignment I will be researching three political topics. What is a political party? What is a party government? How are parties elected to govern in the UK? What is a political party? It’s a group of people who share the same views and principles on how to govern a country. A political party covers all areas of life, whereas a pressure group focuses on a specific area for example Countryside Alliance seek to influence people on the countryside ( Fox hunting). Many find it difficult to identify a political party from a pressure group as some parties fall into both categories for example the Green party have the right to form government but only according to its environmental principles. It’s essential that we have political parties especially countries such as the United Kingdom, a practising democratical country. This allows the people to have freedom of speech and this intern enables the party to voice the views on national matters such as health and education. There are many political parties in Britain, but throughout Britain as a whole there are three dominant political parties Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats. Anyone is able to form a party, but with these dominant parties having influential role on all major issues e.g. Education, taxes and because of the way our voting system, this makes it difficult for other parties to grow and make themselves known amongst the community. Political parties are not funded by the government, they are funded by the subscription fees from party members, sponsors from particular companies, fund raising activities, donations from supporters etc. The opposition parties who have Mp’s who have won the majority vote from their constituency to win a seat in parliament are given financial support from the short fund (Edward Short) introduced by him in the 1970’s. The opposition party receives this payment on a formula which is based on the amount of seats won an votes received in the most recent general election. For every seat won £3,840, 66 is given to the party and a special bonus of £7.67 for every 200 votes gained. The functions of political parties It’s the duty of politicians to respond to what society in general (national matters) and individuals want out of their community. These are the values and beliefs that society in general has. The most common are likely to be . Better and more effective law and order; an expansion of our police forces . An improved public

state revenue

2004-11-21T21:52:01-05:00

State Revenue There are many different types of revenues that are available to a state. Some revenues can be regressive, progressive, and proportional taxes. A regressive tax puts a large burden on lower income citizens then the higher income citizens because it just adds up to more proportion of low income citizens of their earned income. A progressive tax is a tax that goes up as a citizen’s income goes up. This is more favorable taxes to low income and not high income citizens. A proportional tax or also called a flat tax is a tax that is the same amount for all incomes. The terms elasticity and yield are important to have knowledge for before understanding any taxes that brings in state revenue. Yield is a term that means taxes being evaluated on how much money they contribute to government coffers. Elasticity means as government expenditures changes the taxing for revenues should contract or expand. Taxes are a word that should come into mind when talking about revenue for states. There are many major taxes that bring in revenue for states. An example of such tax is property tax. States can account for only 2 percent of total revenue that comes from property taxes. To make property taxing fair, 35 states have enacted the circuit breaker. These circuit breakers make property taxing more equitable. The poor and elderly people receive an applied limit on how much property tax they have to pay. Income tax is another tax that states use for revenue. Personal income tax accounts for about 34 percent of states total revenue. Corporate taxes account for about 6.5 percent of all state revenue. There are some states that leave out income taxes. These states are Alaska, South Dakota, Florida, Texas, Nevada, Washington, and Wyoming. Income taxes are beneficial when it comes to the criteria of yield and elasticity. These taxes bring in enormous amounts of money in because it taps all sources of income and also these taxes are good in short term economic conditions. Sales tax is another tax that states use for revenue. It accounts for about 33 percent of the states revenue. There are five states that don’t levy a sales tax and these states are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon. The sales tax is favored by states and citizens. It is the one that the two pick if they had to increase a

Would Proportional Representation Strengthen the Republic

2004-11-05T22:45:50-04:00

Charles Anderson Would Proportional Representation Strengthen the Republic? America, the world’s second oldest Republic, is one of the few democracies that still use the traditional single-winner system to determine the outcome of its elections. Most of Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Israel employ some form of fully proportional or semi-proportional representation in their voting. Proportional Representation (PR) is roughly defined as, “a group of voting systems whose major goal is to ensure that parties and political groups are allocated seats in legislative bodies in proportion to their share of the vote, [i.e.] a party receiving 30% of the national vote should receive 30% of the seats in the legislature” (PR Library, 2001). In the UK and in Canada the debate over whether or not to fully embrace PR is ongoing. Should America jump on board with this popular idea too? Is there enough proof of PR’s efficiency for us to abandon what we’ve always done? Despite cries that winner-take-all isn’t “fair” enough, the arguments for a complete withdrawal from our conventional system aren’t sound enough. For the most part, they seem to legitimize any notion, so long as no one person’s notions count more than another person’s (Graber, 1996). In 1788, James Madison spoke of the “ascendancy of passion over reason” in political decision-making, and that’s what a lot of the arguments for PR really amount to. They offer a lot of conjecture and circumstantial evidence in favor of PR, but no real concrete justification for abandoning our current system. Under the American winner-take-all system, when the populace goes to the polls they cast one vote per-person for one candidate per-position. The candidate who acquires more votes than any other is elected, regardless of whether or not he or she wins a majority of all votes. Sometimes this method is called “first-past-the-post” (Types of Electoral Systems, 1999). It’s simple to understand, the person who convinces the largest group of people to vote for him wins. The winner is then however, responsible for properly representing all of his constituents, not just the ones who share his views. The winner must work, theoretically at least, for the good of the whole, not just for his group. Suppose that a plurality winner enters her state legislature with 47 percent of the popular vote, having upset a

In My Opinions on the Problems Between Israel and Palestine

2004-10-16T02:11:17-04:00

In My Opinions on the Problems Between Israel and Palestine WANG RUIQIN P.R.CHINA Academic Director. WANG Ruiqin Education Philosophy Social Sciences Humane Studies And Art Research Centre Website:www.wiseroom.net E-mail:rqwaaa@yahoo.com.cn ,rqw998@yahoo.com.cn Tel:86 471 4991597 Tel :86 13514717264[Only receive the message of words] Name: Mr.WANG Ruiqin Bank: Bank of China ( Xin Cheng Dong Jie Office, Huhhot Branch) Account: 1314 8102 0008 769 All Right Reserved.If an editor who would like to publish the paper,do please send the pament for the paper to Mr.WANG Ruiqin The Problems Between Israel and Palestine have already become the historical problems which could not be solved in the last thousands years.Though we have been trying to find a series of new possible ways to deal with them in the morden time,however,we should realize and understand that the historical problems could not be solved in one day,one year or ten years.Just like the fact that the water has frozen up can not be attributed to the coldness of one single day.So we must be patient. In my opinion,to each man,the existence and living are his first and original need,the second need is the adequate food,clothing and houses,the third need is to develop the individual character of the man himself freely.And we could also say that the first need of each man is economy,the second need is education,the third need is democracy.In 21st century,the catalyst is the three factors:the economy,education and the globalation. Israel is being in the state of the third need of man,he is a developed country.Palestine is only being in the state of the first need of man,he is a developing country,and there are many many things about the aspects of the first and second need required to be done in this country.I found that there are many uneducated Palestinian children and the young to have been involved in the conflicts which broke out between Israel and Palestine.In Palestine ,there are so less the opportunies of educationand job,each Palestinian who live in the area and territory must face the requirements of food and existence every day.And the most opportunies of work are appearing and existing in Israel now,when Israel shut up the boundary,what should the younger Palestinians do? To Israel,in my opinion,his key object is to deal with the historical problems with Palestine properly.Because"Neighours are dearer

In My Opinions on the Problems Between Israel and Palestine

2004-10-15T03:32:46-04:00

In My Opinions on the Problems Between Israel and Palestine

2004-10-14T04:06:45-04:00

Black Dahlia Murder

2004-08-29T19:58:23-04:00

Black Dahlia Murder Who killed the Black Dahlia? That is the question that has intrigued and mystified people, since the hideous crime was committed in 1947. The sensational nature of the murder, the unusual name of the case, and the lack of a solution to the case add to the mystery. On January 15, 1947 a woman, by the name of Betty Bersinger, thought she saw a dummy lying in the grass. As she looked closer she realized that it was not a dummy, but the body of woman, severed and mutilated. The body had been severed into 2 halves and lay separated from one another, with the bottom half twisted into some kind of sexual pose. Her face and body had been slashed viciously. Rope marks on her ankles, wrists, and neck suggested a very nasty scene before she died. (Taylor) By the time detectives got to the scene, it was very much alive with reporters, photographers, and a curious crowd of bystanders. The crime scene was being trampled by outsiders who were more than likely destroying the evidence. Captain John Donahoe, of LAPD’s Homicide Division, cleared the scene and the body was taken to the Los Angeles County Morgue. Fingerprints were lifted and sent to the FBI in Washington. Meanwhile, an examination of the body was started at the coroner’s office. It began to detail an incredible and horrifying variety of wounds on the woman’s body, although the official cause of death was “hemorrhage and shock due to concussion of the brain and lacerations of the face.” (Carter) Dr. Victor CelFalu assisted Dr. Newbarr, Chief Surgeon on the woman’s autopsy. A report, written by Dr. Newbarr, is quoted below: There are multiple lacerations to the mid-forehead, in the right forehead, and at the top of the head in the midline. There are multiple tiny little abrasions and lacerations. The trunk is completely severed by an incision, which is almost straight through the abdomen. There are multiple crisscross lacerations in the suprapubic area, which extend through the skin and soft tissues. There are lacerations of the intestine and both kidneys. The uterus is small and no pregnancy is apparent. The tubes, ovaries, and cul-de-sac are intact. Within the vagina and higher up there is lying loose a piece of skin with fat and

Landlordism

2004-05-21T16:14:32-04:00

Introduction To Social Research Assignment 1 By Aaron Collins Discuss the view that structured interviews would best elicit an indication of general attitudes towards the behaviour of landlords providing student accommodation in Leeds . The theory I felt that would best associated with this question was the theory of Landlordism. Landlordism is the form of privilege or interference with the free market in which one state supported group ‘owns’ the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land. Landlordism is often associated with capitalism. Similar to those capitalists that may own a factory and earn money through their labourers , a landlord will make money through his or hers tenants. Anti capitalists are usually against the idea of landlordism also. Alfred Wallace is a sociologist who wrote a book called ‘Land Nationalisation’. His theory on Landlordism is one of negative attitudes. His basic description of the idea of Landlordism is as follows: “The great landlord is necessarily a monopolist and a despot. The land is his own to be dealt with as he pleases; and the greater the income he can derive from it, the greater share he can secure to himself of the produce of others’ labour upon it, the more respect and admiration he usually receives. In every step he takes to secure this end he is supported by the power and majesty of the law. His tenants have no rights on the soil buts such as he allows them. Whatever added value their labour has given to the land, in the absence of special agreement becomes his and not theirs. If they offend him in any way, if they refuse to act against their political convictions, if they are too demonstrative in their claims for religious equality, he may , and not infrequently does, eject them from the house in which they and their fathers were born, and from the land which they have industriously tilled for generations, more for his benefit than for their own.” Wallace talks a lot about conflicting interests between tenants and landlords which somewhere down the line could cause problems. When these problems occur the landlord usually exerts his power and therefore evicts the tenants and will be relatively better off then the tenants in the long run. Who is to blame for the conflict

Israel- Between two loyalties

2004-05-16T14:08:51-04:00

Israel-The only Jewish country in the middle east and the world. I am- Ely Vidal- A jewish man and a citizen of Israel- can describe the situation of my country between two loyalties.I will start in discribing the General position of this Essay. Our first loyalty is for the Jewish people-Israel is a shelter for us- and we have to be loyal to it- as the only jewish country in the world. Our second loyalty is for the modern-democratic world. Israel is a part from the modern world and stands for democracy. you peobably ask now

Plato Versus Aristotle

2004-05-13T04:43:57-04:00

Plato vs. Aristotle Numerous experts in modern time regard Plato as the first genuine political philosopher and Aristotle as the first political scientist. They were both great thinkers in regards to, in part with Socrates, being the foundation of the great western philosophers. Plato and Aristotle each had ideas in how to proceed with improving the society in which they were part of during their existence. It is necessary therefore to analyze their different theoretical approaches regarding their philosophical perspectives, such as ethics and psychology. This paper however will mainly concentrate on Aristotle’s view on friendship and how it influences today’s society. The main objective in Plato’s philosophy is a creation of a perfect society. He constructs a foundation for a utopian society in his book “The Republic”. The purpose of his thought process was to cleanse his society of the woes he felt plagued it and construct a new one. Plato lived during the Peloponnesian War, which consequently lead to the end of the Athenian democracy. He had eyewitness account of his mentor’s (Socrates) trial and execution. Bitter and angered by the political corruption that gripped the Athenian democratic government, he disengaged from participating in politics. He strongly felt that neither a moral individual nor a state that is rational could be established in a democratic environment. Plato felt that the common man was not intelligent or capable of dealing with concepts that influence the state such as economics, policy of foreign affairs and other relative matters. He viewed political incumbents in Athens government as being elected for matters that were irrelevant to main factors that affected the state. Another danger was that excessive liberty for the people of the democratic society could potentially lead to anarchy. In Plato’s perfect society, he forged ahead to eliminate the disease (pluralism of friendship) that plagued the human character and society (Class Notes). Essentially, Plato wanted to establish the perfect form of society, linked by one single entity. Aristotle, unlike Plato, was not focused or concerned about the idea of a perfect society, instead he wanted to improve upon the one that he was part of during his existence. Rather than develop a framework for a society that is perfect, he suggested that society should, in it self, strive to utilize the best system it can attain. He felt that utopia was abstract and superficial. It would not allow for realistic problem solving

Speak Your Mind: The Censorship Controversy in American Culture

2004-05-06T21:45:02-04:00

Speak Your Mind: The Censorship Controversy in American Culture On a rainy morning in Detroit, Michigan, a twenty-something year old man by the name of Marshall Mathers awakes to hear a pounding on his front door. After muttering a few obscene phrases, he rolls out of bed and stumbles to his front door. However, instead of facing another autograph seeker, the rapper best known by his alias Eminem (or the real Slim Shady) is face to face with two police officers. “Mr. Mathers,” one says, “we’re here to serve you with an arrest warrant. You have subjected much of America’s population to obscenity, homophobic comments, sexism, and racism, and frankly, it offends many people. We don’t want culture to face your type of commentary any more. You have the right to remain silent…” Needless to say, this scenario would never occur in the American democracy of the present. However, many in America today are advocating censorship to such an extreme that someday events such as this may become a reality. And, though time and time again court cases have ruled against censorship, many continue to fight to limit free speech in America. However, in restraining what the constitution guarantees, there is much at stake. Although many argue that censorship is necessary to protect America’s citizens, it violates one’s freedom of speech found in the First Amendment and should therefore not be practiced. Granted, there are many reasons for advocating censorship that could be justified. Much material that is available in magazines, at the movie theater, and on the internet is considered by many to be extremely offensive. For example, the rock band Rage Against the Machine at times seems to glorify violence. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine High School gunmen, were fond of this band, and some of Rage Against the Machine’s lyrics have been assumed to have inspired the boys’ violent act. In many cases, evil can be advocated in forms of speech, causing many to believe that in order to prevent wrong from prevailing, censorship must be practiced with a fervor. In his essay “Censorship Can Be Beneficial,” Thomas Stork says, “Now if we can identify certain evils, and if advocacy of those evils seems likely to encourage people to commit them, then why should we not take the next and logical step and prohibit such advocacy… Must the authorities be helpless to restrain the source of

Police v Darby: The Balance of Rights in Society

2004-03-03T08:01:27-05:00

The criminal justice system must balance the rights of the individual with the needs and standards of society. This is a difficult task as the wishes of the individual and the standards of the community are not always consistent. The recent case Police v Darby is a key example where the needs of society and social standards are conflicting with individual rights. The recent case of Police v Darby outlines this clash clearly. Glen Darby the defendant was charged with possession of cannabis. He was walking in a group of about 40, and had just exited an Oxford Street nightclub. Outside the club plain clothed police along with the trial drug detection dog “Rocky” were patrolling the area. Rocky picked Mr Darby out of the crowd and indicated that Mr Darby may have been carrying the illegal substance. Mr Darby was searched by the police and was found to have cannabis in his possession. The Local Court Magistrate Ms Jerram ruled that the search was an illegal due to the fact that the police had not formed a ‘reasonable suspicion’. Ms Jerram found that under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act police could not search a person without having formed a reasonable suspicion. The Deputy Chief Magistrate found that the use of the drug detection dog constituted an illegal search and Mr Darby was acquitted. Ms Jerram also found that the search breached the privacy provision of the international legislation, ICCPR. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed Ms Jerram’s decision as he felt that the Magistrate had made an error in the interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court heard the ‘stated case’. Justice O’Keefe revised the decision made my Ms Jerram and found that the search of Mr Darby was a legal one. He stated that the dogs’ sniffing was not a search rather it gave the police the reasonable suspicion needed to search Mr Darby. Because statute law overrides common law the Governments response to Ms Jerram’s decision was the enactment of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001. The act sets out the polices power to use drug detection dogs in certain public areas. This act however has now been repealed and the provisions for drug detection dogs have been incorporated into the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. As a result of this

The Human Rights Issue of Guantanamo Bay

2004-03-03T07:58:10-05:00

Human rights are those rights that all persons inherently possess. These rights are protected by various legal principals such as the rule of law and ensure the dignity of all people. Various organisations such as the United Nations attempt to ensure that all nations adhere to human rights laws. However, human rights are being violated by countries all around the world, even by countries such as the United States who have the national strategy - “America must stand firmly for the non – negotiable demands of human dignity” . The United States have been breaching international covenants and conventions on human rights with their terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. The United States, however, “acts according to the laws it defines for itself” . It is entitled to do so as it is a sovereign state. Guantanamo Bay is an American Navel base used to permanently incapacitate approximately 660 detainees from 40 nations, including children. Because the base is located on Cuban territory the prisoners are not protected by the American constitution or judiciary “it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values” . These prisoners are held at the detention center in “legal limbo, with no access to lawyers or families” . The prisoners are kept isolated for 24 hours a day, little outdoor exercise time and no interaction with other prisoners. The inmates are interrogated for hours at a time and it is commonly speculated subject to torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is the only non – government organisation allowed access to the prisoners. The ICRC is worried about the psychological impact that the prison is inflicting on inmates. A photograph released by the Pentagon shows inmates kneeling before soldiers, hands and ankles cuffed with masks completely covering their faces. The photograph has become an “icon of unacceptable US exceptionalism” . Sayed Abbasin, once an inmate of the Guantanamo bay detention center described the experience “it was the act of an animal to treat a human being like that” . The United States government authorised military commissions to hand down the death penalty for detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Against the verdicts the prisoners have no right to appeal, which is a requirement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The

Describe how the present democratic system works in the UK and suggest how it might be improved to m

2004-02-11T11:19:22-05:00

Describe how the present democratic system works in the UK and suggest how it might be improved to make it more representative and more relevant to the electorate. In Britain we have a representative system of democracy that is supposed to ensure that everyone has a say in the government of the country. This essay will explore the British system of democracy and then will consider whether alternative systems of representation are more effective to the electorate. Representative democracy is present in Britain. This system allows citizens of a constituency to elect representatives - members of parliament (MP’s) to make decisions for them in the House of Commons. The constituents are given the opportunity to either re-elect their present MP or to vote for a new one to represent them in the House of Commons. By doing this the electorate has passed on the opportunity to directly influence any decisions made in parliament to his/her MP. The MP is representing his/her point of view. MP’s from every constituency in the country meet in London in the houses of parliament within which can be found the house of commons this is where they debate matters and discuss acts to be considered for law. The electorate cannot make decisions, however, the MP allows members of his/her constituency to voice opinions on matters through clinics set up by the MP, known as ‘constituency clinics’. Direct democracy is quite different to representative democracy in that it requires every citizen who is over the legal voting age and not in prison to vote. Voting like this represents the majority vote. Where as in a representative democratic society the electorate passes this power to their MP. This is not practical in large-scale societies. It requires the electorate to fully involve its self in every meeting on every subject. It is acceptable to believe that the public cannot afford that scale of spare time. This problem could be seen as nothing more than a minor obstacle in the future due to the rapidly continuing technological developments. Great Britain is a Liberal democracy as well as being a representative democracy it is, among others, derived from representative democracy. Governments who practice liberal democracy in their country allow freedom of speech, thought, assembly and religion. Liberal democracy is based on six main features. These are majority rule, where matters

The Kashmir Crisis

2004-02-05T02:34:27-05:00

THE KASHMIR CRISIS April 7, 2003 In 1947, the British Indian Empire was divided into two countries: India and Pakistan. “The partition of British India into an independent India and Pakistan was a very complicated problem. The British had made no preparation for such things as the division of financial assets, of the Indian Army, the communications system or the water supply to irrigation projects” (Lamb 11). The land and military resources were unfairly divided, based on a ratio favorable to India. Kashmir, a province in the northeastern corner India, which is predominantly Muslim, yet is ruled by a Hindu government, has been the primary cause of tension between India and Pakistan. Both countries dispute over whom should be in command of this significant province. Pakistan should gain control of Kashmir because it received less land in the separation of British India, Kashmir is mostly Muslim resembling Pakistan and the resolution of the dispute would enable both countries to gain more economic stability. When British India split up, Pakistan retained less land and military support on the basis of a “30:70 ratio” (Ganguly 19) land division. “ The partition of British India… was an extremely complicated process for which the British had absolutely mot preparation (Lamb 11).” Britain chose to allow “exactly seventy-seven days in which to draw up the divorce papers (Collins 175)” not contemplating the aggravated effects the rapid separation would bring. This hasty partition brought many ill feelings that continue to boil today. Some of the effects were “ the division of the Indian financial assets, of the Indian Army, … of Indian communications, of the water supply to Indian irrigation water projects… (Lamb 11).” Because of the unequal division of these important assets, the Pakistani people are seriously handicapped. The consequences of the drastic disjointing are still effecting many people and their ability to make a profitable living for themselves. Because of British India’s inequitable partition, Pakistan received a smaller amount of land and military support. Pakistan’s agricultural and economic resources are much more restricted than India’s, due to the significant difference in land size. For example, “Pakistan resembles most Asian, African and Central and South American countries in being “under-developed.” Outstanding among her problems at birth was almost total lack of large-scale industries. The subcontinent was not devoid of these; but they nearly all happened to lie on the Indian side of the new frontiers. This

The Federal Marriage Amendment

2003-12-18T01:01:17-05:00

The Federal Marriage Amendment is one of the strongest controversies today. Should the government have the power to state what marriage is? The FMA would define marriage as only, in the traditional sense, between a man and a woman. The amendment was first introduced by Representative Ronnie Shows (D-Mississippi) in the House of Representatives on May 15, 2002. Supported already by the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Bill Frist (R-TN) and Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). In this, courts/legislatures from every state would be prevented from redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. Also, nullifying any gay or lesbian marriages already in existence. This is completely absurd. For the government to interfere into the personal lives and preferences of individuals is expressly forbidden. One strong supporter of this amendment is the American Family Association. The main argument used is the Church. They say, “The God-ordained institution of marriage is under attack in courts across the nation, and help is needed to save it before the one man-one women definition of marriage is completely and radically redefined”, and, of course, they believe that it’s their job to insure that the traditional meaning remains intact. They also go on to say that action must be taken before an activist judge re-interprets the Constitution by inventing a “right” to “gay marriage”. Of course, there are many ways to counter this argument. Under the first amendment, we are given the ‘freedom of religion’. So how can a Christian belief of monogamy be forced upon all of the citizens of the United States when you have SO many people with different religious beliefs and practices. To use an argument based on religious practices is careless and ignorant. In a society that has established the ‘freedom of religion’ so many times in so many areas, it’s just impossible to successfully impose religious practices onto others. If it were to happen, there would be no end of people fighting till the end. So if people have a freedom of religion, which has been established, then how can the government of the United States, or any state, deny the marriage of any homosexual couple if it’s religious based? In the fourteenth amendment it states , “ . . . , nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, . . . ” Liberty is the state of being free from oppression. So to deny a homosexual couple

frontline

2003-11-23T08:18:59-05:00

Frontline The term ‘truth’ is defined as the unbiased and actual portrayal of an event or situation. However, in the context of the area of study, it is shown that truth may be consciously or unconsciously manipulated whenever representation occurs. . Through the satiric television series Frontline, in particular the episodes the Siege and Smaller Fish to Fry; two contrasting photos representing the Boer War (by) in the Sydney Morning Herald’s Good Weekend magazine and the poem ‘Mirror’ by Sylvia Plaith, the assertion that our access to the truth is impeded by those with power is justified. The techniques used to explore these ideas include filmic and dramatic devices such as characterisation , satire, irony and humour; visual devices such as lighting, positioning and visual juxtaposition; and poetic devices such as personification and metaphors. Frontline acts as a comic, but deceptively insightful parody, through which current affairs programs and their motto of “conveying the truth” is mocked. The show highlights the unorthodox influence those with powerful assert over society’s access to the truth. This is demonstrated by the episode the ‘Siege’ and ‘Smaller Fish to Fry’. The exaggerated immoral and unethical actions of the Frontline characters serve to highlight the true value, such ratings and image driven programs, hold for conveying the ‘. Both episodes employ the device of visual juxtaposition of the on-air and the ‘behind the scenes’ activities and work ethics of the team. The realistic quality of filming in the “behind the scenes” aspects of each episode serves to portray the real truth of the situation. Thus in itself Frontline the series also attempts to represent the truth. The episode “The Siege”, satirises the integrity claimed by journalists. The Frontline team deliberately distorts and manipulates the “truth” in order to increase ratings during a Hostage Crisis. They view the event as “mundane”, and instead of conveying the simple yet “uninteresting” truth of the situation, prefer to sensationalise the event to heighten the buzz on the story. Parody is used continuously to comment on the ways the media manipulate the truth. For example, Marty’s crouched pose a mere five kilometers from the scene whilst reporting, is intended to ‘ look like he’s really in danger”, an obvious sensationalism of how the media attempts to imitate real life situations. This example also demonstrates the manner in which representation influences meaning. The fabrication of Marty’s “dangerous” situation lends the story a

To what extent have US-China relations since 1989 been affected by globalization?

2003-11-19T05:16:41-05:00

Throughout the 1990s, China was identified as a major world military power as well as a US rival. Many feared that China’s large and growing population and prosperous economy would aid it in becoming a challenger to the status quo, not unlike Germany in the first half of the 20th century. A late modernizer like Germany, China’s identity is infused with ideas of victimization and the desire to take its “rightful place” in the world. America has continually viewed China with a dual image: a looming threat or a lucrative partner. In the eyes of America, a fat, happy China with stakes in proven international frameworks could be a cooperative and profitable ally; at the same time, a prosperous China, with an expanded and modernized army as well as a highly educated and media-savvy populace, could rise as a challenge to American dominance in both Asia and the rest of the world. Conversely, China, “where the leadership and citizenry alike see themselves as having only recently wrested control of their national destiny from the depredations of foreigners after more than a century of humiliation,” sees influences and demands by outsiders as another attempt to keep China down (Lampton 7). Thus, “America’s demands for market access, a lower trade deficit, and limits on weapons exports are often viewed as … as effort to retard China’s rise” (Lampton 9). America sees China as a valid competitor, yet China proudly bears the cross of the injured party. Thus duality of perception leads to misunderstanding and argument over issues such as trade and the environment since Beijing often wants the preferred treatment of a developing country while Washington insists that “China be judged by a higher standard” (Lampton 9). Over the past fourteen years, one force has driven US-China relations above all others. That force is globalization, something which can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. Some say that globalization is a trend toward integration that has been present since early human society and cannot be controlled by any state, group, or individual. Trade among different societies has been present for thousands of years. Others state that globalization is a system perpetuated by several strong countries, corporations, and individuals. But as Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw put in their book The Commanding Heights, globalization is not a thing but a process and “A move to a more connected world in which barriers and borders

Labeling Our Schools

2002-12-03T13:00:00-05:00

The labeling of schools has become a controversial practice in today’s schools. One of the items that have made labeling schools controversial is the broadness of the labels themselves. Though there are only four set labels to rate schools, the same label can be used to measure schools that have differing results. For example, a school could have a rating of just below excelling for three years straight or a school could have a rating at the states average for three years straight and both would be labeled maintaining (Kossan). Additionally, the same situation can happen with the improving label. One excelling school can have ninety percent of its students pass the AIMS test while 1 percent earned the worst grade. Two years later, 96 percent pass the AIMS test and none earned the worst grade. This small increase would then earn the school an improving label (Kossan). In comparison, a school can have 21 percent of its students pass the AIMS test while 62 percent earn the worst grade. Again two years later, 43 percent passed the AIMS test and only 14 percent earned the worst grade (Kossan). Though the second school mentioned is below par and quite below that of the first school, they both receive the same label of improving. It is quite evident how a dedicated and deserving teacher can be upset with this system of accountability. According to the Arizona School Boards Association, the definitions of the titles used to label schools are as follows (internet):

Under performing: needs to meet state performance and state progress goals.
Maintaining Performance: meets state performance goals, and needs to meet state progress goals.
Improving: exceeds state performance and state progress goals.
Excelling:
- K-8: ninety percent of pupils achieve one year of academic progress in all subject areas of the Arizona measure of academic progress, and ninety percent passed all subject areas of the AIMS test.
- 9-12: ninety percent of pupils passed all subject areas of the AIMS test, the dropout rate is no more than 6 percent and the schools graduation rate is at least ninety percent.

Since Oct. 15, 2002, when the state released its first accountability labels for the schools, 1 in 5 Arizona schools ranked poorly (Kossan). Although it is a good idea to measure schools in some fashion, many believe that the current system gives students, parents, and teachers a like a sense of hopelessness. Due to the large

Should voting be compulsory in Australia?

2002-10-20T14:00:00-04:00

Compulsory voting was introduced in Australia in 1924 after the voter turnout of those registered to vote in Australia was as low as 47%. Since voting was made compulsory by the Federal Government, voter turnout has remained around 94-96%. Over twenty countries have some form of compulsory voting which requires citizens to register to vote and to go to their polling place or vote on election day. “Nearly seven-in-ten Australian electors (67%) believe voting in Australia should be compulsory, while 31% say it should be voluntary and 2% are undecided.” 89% of voters said they would vote at the next Federal election even if voting were voluntary. Only 9% said they would not vote while 2% were undecided, according to the 1997 Roy Morgan poll. Today, the right to vote, or universal suffrage, is considered a given element of democratic rule. However, there is the issue of universal participation. In order to guarantee this goal, must the right to vote be supplemented with the application of a legal duty? Few countries have elevated compulsory voting to a legal citizen duty. For new democracies, it is always an option worth considering in order to assure a high level of voting which is likely to enhance the legitimacy of representative institutions and of the political system in general.Whilst a high turnout level actually can be found under voluntary voting, it is quite clear that compulsory voting laws are very effective in raising participation levels in the countries that have them. When comparing the differences in turnout it is evident in the increase and decrease of turnout using Australia as an example, since compulsory voting was introduced. Nevertheless, as we use a secret ballot it is quite impossible to prove who has or has not voted so can this process be more accurately known as compulsory turnout? The requirement of Australian voters is to show up at their polling place on election day and cast a vote. The downfall of this is that it may force people to cast “donkey” votes that only serve to hinder the democratic process. Supporters of compulsory voting may say that it encourages awareness of political issues and their local candidates. The Australian law states that voting is compulsory. All eligible Australians are required under this law to attend a polling place, have their name crossed off in the electoral roll, take the ballot papers and fill them

Critique of Hitler's use of Machiavellan Principles

2002-09-16T14:00:00-04:00

Adolf Hitler: the Modern Machiavelli

In Adolf Hitler, the early twentieth century found a nearly flawless Machiavellian politician. He emerged from his nine-month imprisonment in 1924 a flawless tactician, not losing his ability to commandeer and expand a flourishing army until he attacked Russia. For Hitler had an extremely firm grasp on Machiavelli’s words: “A prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared.” Hitler inspired such a fear into his enemies and such a passionate exuberance into his followers that, domestically, he had few threats to fear as long as he continued to win battles. One could compare the situation of the German people with that of the people of Milan in the late 15th century: “Louis the Twelfth, King of France, quickly occupied Milan, and as quickly lost it; and to turn him out the first time it only needed Lodovico's own forces; because those who had opened the gates to him, finding themselves deceived in their hopes of future benefit [, were the people of Milan].” The German people are, in a figurative sense, the same as the people of Milan. During the glory of Germany at the height of Germany’s World War I power, they were controlled by a somewhat satisfactory ruler, yet, after the treaty of Versailles, which was supposed to bring closure to the German people, they found themselves oppressed, divided, and unsatisfied with the Bohemian government. Then, like a light from heaven, which is a sadly sadistic cliché to use for their situation, Adolf Hitler appeared with the solution to Germany’s problem, which was the same as the Solution to the Jewish (, gypsy, homosexual, and handicapped) Question. Hitler brought himself closer to his people and earned their trust (and votes) in a brutally efficient manner. From 1928 to 1930, the Nazi party’s seats in the German Reichstag jumped from twelve seats to 128. The political situation, or “fortune . . . one of those raging rivers” gave itself to the Nazi’s success. By the late 1920’s, the Great Depression was swinging toward Germany, allowing the Nazi party to take advantage of the middle class’s worries about financial vulnerability and convert it into a huge dose of political capital. The world economic situation also allowed the Nazis to blame the situation on the “Jewry”, because since

U.S. Patriotism: A Link to American Hatred. Politics in the Media

2002-07-16T14:00:00-04:00

As Americans, we believe that world events over the next few years will unfold from September 11th. The safety and security that we all felt before will never be the same. While Americans continue to recover our enemies continue to plan a way to bring us to our knees once again. Many of us will never again be able to fly without a fear of what if and many of us will never again be able to turn on the morning news without the fear of what if. We tend to have the attitude that terrorist attacks are events that happen in other countries like Israel where peace is unsteady. Many of us never dreamed of having it in our own front yard and to compound those affects by seeing parts of the world celebrating at the sight of a super power falling to its knees. While the attacks themselves are a focal point for many scholars, I will focus not on the attacks, but rather I will ask questions as to why the attacks happened and why it hurt so much to see others smile happily at the sight of our pain. Americans are shocked to see that others would ever wish us pain. Much of this is taught to us at an early age, that everyone wants to be American and that the “American Dream” is the only way to live a full and happy life. What role does the media play in continuing this naiveté of American society and how does the media in other countries account for our pain? How does our super power mentality play in this picture and why do many citizens of the world feel ill will towards Americans? I will address these questions by reviewing foreign newscasts and magazine articles, interviewing international politics experts, and finally interviewing an expert in American foreign policy. As citizens in a democracy we deserve the truth. The truth about how our government treats citizens of other countries and other accounts of how bad U.S. Foreign Policy creates negative feelings towards American citizens themselves. To understand how the American media plays into a bigger picture of the foreign media it is important to understand how they both operate. In The Politics of Illusions by Lance Bennett he writes about notable media differences. Lance writes: A fascinating example of how these work routines affect news content was discovered by Timothy

Axis of Evil (Satire)

2002-07-02T14:00:00-04:00

"In Speech, Bush Calls Iraq, Iran and North Korea 'Axis of Evil" -- N.Y. Times, 1/30/02 ANGERED BY SNUBBING, LIBYA, CHINA, SYRIA FORM AXIS OF JUST AS EVIL Cuba, Sudan, Serbia Form Axis of Somewhat Evil; Other Nations Start Own Clubs Beijing (SatireWire.com) — Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best." Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool." THE AXIS PANDEMIC International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable. With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Sometimes Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick. "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell. While wondering if the other

Has Progressive Dialectial Materialist Islamo-Fascism reached its Apogee in Post-National Anarcho-Sy

2002-06-22T14:00:00-04:00

Although relatively undocumented, the links between Progressive Dialectial Materialist Islamo-Fascism and Post-National Anarcho-Syndicalist Lesbianism are concrete and close. In this essay I aim to explicate the connections, give a brief

Russia - Comparative Politics

2002-06-01T14:00:00-04:00

POLITICAL STRUCTURE:

Summary: Why the democratic structure in Russia is proving to be unsuccessful.

INTRODUCTION:

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, disintegrating into thirteen different states. Ever since the political structure of Russia has been viable and lacks stability. Many reasons can be cited for this instability out of which the bearish economy and a shaky democratic system are the main causes.

ANALYSIS:

The reforms taken after Russia’s disintegration have yet to be proved fruitful. The economy is in no better shape then before and politically Russia has great set backs in the name of the ongoing war with Muslim freedom fighters in Chechnya. “The most important factor that needs to be established is economic growth. Successful economic development will ease the transition and enable violence and dissention among the races very avoidable. If resources are abundant and properly distributed then multiple markets can grow. However, when resources run scarce and competition arises for limited assets then violence and animosity become the only plausible alternatives. If two industries fiercely compete for limited resources then one is likely to be forced out of the market. A sound and developing economy is essential for the happiness and orderly conduct of the people (Barner-Barry & Hody, 1995)(1). Another problem cited in the progress is the difficulty of transition from communism to democracy when the government officials are trained in the old system. The process of privatization requires lengths of time and willingness of the people to take upon the businesses for which they require full governmental protection, easy paper work and full rights over their property. “If Russia is to make the transition, it must rediscover civil society (the informal network of family, church, service organization and the like). Strong civil society provides the political culture that supports liberal institutions, but the Communist Party deliberately destroyed many elements of civil society to ensure party dominance. Russia faces moral, economic, and legal gaps in its civil society. Hence Russia has a difficult road to achieve democracy.”(2) It was a widely held belief that with the fall of the Soviet Union Russia would make a rapid transition into democracy and free markets. “This overlooks the crucial role of political culture in shaping and supporting political and economic institutions. Russia did not have the political culture appropriate to western-style institutions and so became chaotic and lawless. For Russians, democracy became a dirty word, as it symbolized Russia’s troubles. Yet turning back is

Human Rights Regarding Chinese Women

2002-06-01T14:00:00-04:00

Even since the dramatic post-1949 changes in China regarding the role of women, China has remained paternalistic in it's attitudes and social reality. Like many other states, China inescapably has been deeply involved in human rights politics at the international level in recent decades. During this period of time, the Chinese government has been increasingly active in participating in the international human rights regime. China has so far joined seventeen human rights conventions, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and has expressed its respect for international human rights law. In 1997 China signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and in 1998 China signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The land reform, which was intended to create a more balanced economic force in marriage, was the beginning of governmental efforts to pacify women, with no real social effect. Communist China needed to address the "woman question". Since women wanted more equality, and equality is doled out from the hands of those in power, capitalism was examined. The economic issues of repressed Chinese women were focused on the Land Act and the Marriage Act of 1950. The Land reform succeeded in eliminating the extended family's material basis and hence, its potential for posing as a political threat to the regime. Small-plots were redistributed to each family member regardless of age or sex; and land reform provisions stipulated that property would be equally divided in the case of divorce. Nonetheless, their husbands effectively controlled land allotted to women. Patriarchal familial relationships in the Confucian tradition seemed to remain intact. The Marriage Law of 1950 legalized marriage, denounced patriarchal authority in the household and granted both sexes equal rights to file for divorce. The second and most prominent element of the strategy was integrating women into economic development. The PRC ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1980 and enacted the Law on the Protection of Women's Rights and Interests in 1992. However, open discrimination against women in China has continued to grow during the period of reform of the last 15 years. According to PRC government surveys, women's salaries have been found to average 77% of men's, and most women employed in industry work in low-skill and low-paying jobs. An estimated 70 to 80% of workers laid off as a result of downsizing in factories have been women, and, although women make

Apartheid in Africa

2002-06-01T14:00:00-04:00

This is a 2 page paper that discusses the development and progress of the APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA

INTRODUCTION:

The term apartheid (from the Afrikaans word for "apartness") was coined in the 1930s and used as a political slogan of the National Party in the early 1940s, but the policy itself extends back to the beginning of white settlement in South Africa in 1652. After the primarily Afrikaner Nationalists came to power in 1948, the social custom of apartheid was systematized under law. The apartheid was a social and political segregation of the white rulers from the black locals of South Africa.

ANALYSIS:

Dutch farmers, known as the Boers, settled African lands, taking them from the San and the Khoi Khoi. Eventually, a rising Great Britain noted the rich resources and strategic location of the country. Britain imposed its rule on rebellious Boers, pushing the Boers off their land and eventually sparking the Boer War. Britain employed an overwhelming force to subdue the Boers, who pioneered guerrilla warfare. Ironically, the Boers, now called Afrikaners, triumphed. Britain had granted them political rights which they used to take the government by way of the ballot box. Afrikaners imposed the apartheid system, which intended to keep the races separate. Black Africans were subject to many controls and were expected to work the low-wage jobs. Black resistance along with several other factors resulted in the end of apartheid. The white minority government negotiated a transition to majority rule, which meant black rule. Nelson Mandela was freed from prison to become South Africa's first black president (1). After the primarily Afrikaner Nationalists came to power in 1948, the social custom of apartheid was systematized under law. The implementation of the policy, later referred to as "separate development," was made possible by the Population Registration Act of 1950, which put all South Africans into three racial categories: Bantu (black African), white, or Coloured (of mixed race). A fourth category, Asian (Indians and Pakistanis), was added later (2). This was the inception of the historical too of discrimination unleashed on the poor community of the blacks by the ruling whites called the Apartheid. The clear reason of this apartheid was to have as less interference of the blacks in the governmental process as possible. Simple hatred could also be termed as a plausible reason. The social structure at that time for the blacks was deplorable, they were assigned to low wage

Military Defense Policy

2002-06-01T14:00:00-04:00

Dear Mr. President, As a proud American and veteran of our great armed forces, I strongly advocate that you initiate a new policy regarding the maintenance and strategic welfare of our nations forces. The current conditions of our military are not in sync with the needs of the 21st century challenges and objectives. There is numerous issues that need to be addressed such as: new weapon development, increase in pay, consolidation of various programs, review of oversea deployment policy and so forth. Currently you are aware that your predecessor (malignant Bill Clinton) and his administration have not developed any policy to upgrade our forces during his presidential tenure. Having served in the military, I can say from personal experience, that our forces need a desperate infusion of new weapons and strategic programs that would do away with inefficient and obsolete ones. Our men and women, who wear their proud uniform, represent one of America’s most treasured assets, thus their needs must be held to a high standard. During the Clinton era, for that matter, since the end of the Reagan era, defense spending has been systematically reduced across the board (omitting the Gulf War). This type of reduction leaves our armed forces inadequately supplied with resources to combat issues that affect the U.S. domestically and abroad. The current status must be overhauled and restructured. You may feel that as a result of the Cold-War ending and the majority of America feeling the need to expand our military is not necessary, I urge you not to ride the same track of thought. Having rogue states still capable in constructing weapons of mass destruction (e.g. Iraq) and host of other states that despise our way of life, it’s imperative, now more than ever, that we stay militarily capable and ready to defend America’s interest. Now there is many who believe that the United States should down grade military production because of several factors. First, the United States is the remaining super-power in the world, a threat from an antagonistic country like North Korea or Iraq seems ridiculous and very remote. Secondly we have the world’s most productive economy, allowing us to build and purchase anything that fits our interest. Last and most importantly we have and sustain the most dangerous armed forces known to man. Such factors leads us to believe that military spending is futile in age of peace time and further more, America’s most dangerous

Realism vs. Liberalism in the Realm of Deterrence

2002-06-01T14:00:00-04:00

Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a

Plato vs. Aristotle

2002-06-01T14:00:00-04:00

Numerous experts in modern time regard Plato as the first genuine political philosopher and Aristotle as the first political scientist. They were both great thinkers in regards to, in part with Socrates, being the foundation of the great western philosophers. Plato and Aristotle each had ideas in how to proceed with improving the society in which they were part of during their existence. It is necessary therefore to analyze their different theoretical approaches regarding their philosophical perspectives, such as ethics and psychology. This paper however will mainly concentrate on Aristotle’s views on friendship and how it impacts today’s society. The main objective in Plato’s philosophy is a creation of a perfect society. He constructs a foundation for a utopian society in his book “The Republic”. The purpose of his thought process was to cleanse his society of the woes he felt plagued it and construct a new one. Plato lived during the Peloponnesian War, which consequently lead to the end of the Athenian democracy. He had eyewitness account of his mentor’s (Socrates) trial and execution. Bitter and angered by the political corruption that gripped the Athenian democratic government, he disengaged from participating in politics. He strongly felt that neither a moral individual nor a state that is rational could be established in a democratic environment. Plato felt that the common man wasn’t intelligent or capable of dealing with concepts that influence the state such as economics, policy of foreign affairs and other relative matters. He viewed political incumbents in Athens government as being elected for matters that were irrelevant to main factors that affected the state. Another danger was that excessive liberty for the people of the democratic society could potentially lead to anarchy. In Plato’s perfect society, he forged ahead to eliminate the disease (pluralism of friendship) that plagued the human character and society (Class Notes). Essentially, Plato wanted to establish the perfect form of society, linked by one single entity. Aristotle, unlike Plato, was not focused or concerned about the idea of a perfect society, instead he wanted to improve upon the one that he was part of during his existence. Rather than develop a framework for a society that is perfect, he suggested that society should, in it self, strive to utilize the best system it can attain. He felt that utopia was abstract and superficial. It wouldn’t allow for realistic problem solving solutions. He felt that Plato’s view

Realism vs. Liberalism

2002-06-01T14:00:00-04:00

The realist perspective on international political economy can be seen in the United States international trade policy with China. The United States being an established world power seeks to further enhance its international role by engaging in trade with another nation, that being China, this reflects the realist main idea that the state occupies center stage in global political affairs. The United States willingness to engage in the world market signals the idea of self national interest that remind many of the policy

Human Rights

2002-06-01T14:00:00-04:00

This is a 3 page paper that describes evaluates and recommends the human right aspect of application in real life.

INTRODUCTION:

As laid down by the United Nations there are 30 articles pertaining to the definition of Human Rights. According to these articles it contains human rights to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and the right of freedom from discrimination and the right of free and fair trial.

RESPECT FOR FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS:

Globally speaking the world has faced a lot of human discrimination collectively in the past year, and this human rights violation is still going on. “All human beings, whatever their cultural or historical background, suffer when they are intimidated, imprisoned or tortured. The question of human rights is so fundamentally important that there should be no difference of views on this. We must therefore insist on a global consensus not only on the need to respect human rights world wide but more importantly on the definition of these rights.”(1). The tragedy of September 11 is a major human rights violation, but it doesn’t end here. The repercussions have lead into more human rights degrading. The supposedly guilty ‘terrorists’ held in Guatemala Bay are a living proof of serious human rights violation. With treatment meted out like animals to them they are being kept in cages in open view all the time. Where is one wonders the U.N. rights article number 11- Right to be considered innocent until proven Guilty? It is also clearly stated in the U.N. Charters of War and Crime that all arrests made in a state of war will be treated as Prisoners of War. And such prisoners have basic fundamental rights which are not being followed on these prisoners. To date there are innocent Saudis, Pakistani nationals and even French confined in these cages and whose governments are demanding their release. Since it is guarded severely in Cuba there are no exclusive pictures and footage to view for an audience however snaps and eye-witness accounts of Red Cross workers and Human Rights groups is available. “We need to think in global terms because the effects of one nation's actions are felt far beyond its borders. The acceptance of universally binding standards of Human Rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants of Human Rights is essential in today's shrinking world. Respect for fundamental human rights should not remain

Little Things - School Shootings and Teasing

2002-05-27T14:00:00-04:00

Introduction- Examples of shootings related to teasing and solutions to problem I. Change Atmosphere A. Assailants generally rejected B. Psychological damage C. Led to kill tormentors D. Quotes from others 1) Re: Columbine and its shooters- “at least…took a stand” 2) “…it did take guts” 3) “…Maybe it’ll make people think next time…” II. Students responsibility A. Intentions always told to peers 1) Usually detailed 2) Rarely taken seriously or reported B. Bethel, Alaska story C. Is it worth risking the lives of the potential victims to protect a reputation? III. Teachers take responsibility A. Listen to students B. Look for signs C. Don’t ignore “harmless teasing” D. Great Barrington, Massachusetts E. Take threats seriously Conclusion- Advancements are there, but there is a long way to go and everyone needs to step up Little Things Sixteen year old Nicholas Elliot of Virginia Beach, Virginia opened fire on his school with a semi automatic pistol in 1987, he said someone had called him a racist name. Fourteen year old James Alan Kearby of Goddard, Kansas killed the principal and three others within his school on January twenty- first of 1985. Afterward he reported that he had been brutally bullied and beaten for years proceeding the shooting. After being teased about his weight twelve year old Nathan Farris of DeKalb, Missouri shot a classmate and then himself on 1987. In 1997 fourteen year old Joseph Todd of Stamps, Arkansas shot two students, he claimed to have been humiliated by teasing. (Dedman: “Bullying, Tormenting Often Led to Revenge in Cases Studied”). This merciless teasing tarnishes the souls and reputations of its victims driving them to kill. Adolescents are victims of more crimes then any other age group in the U.S. (Furlong). Even though our federal, state, and local governments all address this issue with numerous laws and policies, there continues to be three million crimes committed in America’s public schools annually (Yell). Because searches and metal detectors do not appear to be effective, it is time to move away from intervention and start working on prevention. The first major step in the right direction is to change the atmosphere within the school. After this has been accomplished, the next task at hand is to train the students and staff to handle effectively, potentially dangerous situations when one arises. The absolute most critical part of this type of prevention is the “little things.” To stop the teasing and ridicule that occurs in schools is crucial. In other words, we are cutting all this aggression off at the

How do institutions shape policy? Neo-Institutional theory and Parliament and Cabinet

2002-05-04T14:00:00-04:00

Discuss the relevance of Neo-Institutional theory with reference to the institutions of Parliament and Cabinet

This essay is concerned with the impact of institutions of the state on the policy process. Key influences in the Neo-Institutional approach to the study of policy have been the importation of ideas from organisational sociology and a growing recognition of the need to employ historical analysis to trace the evolution of policy over time. I intend, in this essay to examine Neo-Institutionalist theory, and discuss it’s relevance with reference to the institutions of Parliament and the Cabinet. Two points though that should be noted are that institutions are seen as central to one of the main policy theories, and that they are seen as ‘makers and shapers’ of policy. Attempting though, to understand the relevance and impact institutions have on public policy without defining the terms ‘public policy’ and ‘institutions’ would be imprudent. Like so many concepts and ideas in politics, there are many competent definitions, but despite their variations they all agree on certain key aspects. They agree that polices result from decisions made by government and that decisions by governments to do nothing are just as much policy as are decisions to do something. William Jenkins’ definition of public policy is as ‘a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve.’ In this essay I will define institutions narrowly, like Howlett and Ramesh, as ‘the structures and organisations of the state, society and the international system’ With these definitions we can go on to consider the role of institutions in influencing the policy process. Unsurprisingly, there are a number of approaches to studying Public Policy. Howlett and Ramesh have created a two-dimensional framework, with one being a distinction between deductive and inductive approaches to the study of Public Policy, and the other asking whether the fundamental unit of analysis is the individual, the group, or the institution. Deductive theories begin from a relatively small number of basic postulates or assumptions accorded to universal status and then apply these assumptions to the study of specific phenomena. Inductive theories, on the other hand, begin with observations of specific phenomena and attempt to derive generalisations from these observations which can be combined into

Policy instruments - taxation, spending and regulation

2002-05-04T14:00:00-04:00

Does the choice of Policy instruments (taxation; spending and regulation) involve both the "means" and "ends" of policy development? Discuss.

Governments have at their disposal a selection of instruments with which they can implement their policies. Amongst them, are the policy instruments of taxation, spending and regulation, mentioned in this essay title. I intend in this paper to discuss the various policy instruments, their pros and cons, the central concepts of ‘means’ and ‘ends’, and then examine the competing rationales for policy instrument choice. I expect then to be in a situation to be able to conclude with an example of government policy that uses the variety of policy instruments available in an effort to achieve its ends. There exists a continuum of governing instruments with varying degrees of legitimate concern at the hands of government. At one end are extortion and persuasion, with the instruments of spending, taxation, regulation in that order leading the maximum degree, that of state ownership or nationalisation. Within the scale there also exists a classification of the various instruments available within the framework of voluntary instruments, such as family and community, then mixed instruments which include provision of information and taxation, and at the top end, where the level of state involvement is highest, compulsory instruments such as regulation and direct provision. Lester Salamon and Michael Lund suggest, quite rightly, that the different instruments involve varying degrees of effectiveness, efficiency, equity, legitimacy and partisan support, which affect their appropriateness for a particular situation. Spending as a policy instrument refers to all forms of financial transfer to individuals, firms and organisations from governments or from other individuals, firms, or organisations under governments’ direction. The purpose is to financially reward a desired activity, or to encourage a programme which supports government policy; subsidies and grants for medical research for example, or even as an instrument used directly to promote government policy as we shall see in the case study. Expenditure offers numerous advantages as a policy instrument. It can be used by governments as an incentive to the target group to carry out a particular action which although it may have seen as desirable could not have achieved for various reasons. It is a flexible instrument to administer because the individual participants can decide for themselves how to respond in light of changing circumstances. Consequently, by allowing them to devise their own appropriate response, subsidies may encourage innovation. A

Gulf monarchies - oil wealth and ‘traditional’ social structures

2002-05-04T14:00:00-04:00

Identify elements of continuity and change in the interaction between oil wealth and ‘traditional’ social structures in the Gulf monarchies

Development of the Gulf monarchies, and the rapid rise in standard of living the world had witnessed in the past fifty odd years can be attributed to the possession by many these states of one of the most important commodities, oil, and their ability to control world oil prices. Naturally, the enormous wealth that has been accumulated in the region has affected the both the economic and social structures of the Gulf monarchies, and in this essay I intend to identify these elements of change and continuity and their origins. I will first examine the development of the modern nation-state, during the early part of the twentieth century, discussing the taming of Tribalism and Islam, and the development of an ideology to justify the political system. The arrival of oil wealth furthered the development of bureaucratic, centralised structures, and the enabled the consolidation of the new political systems. As well as having direct effects of social structures, I will discuss what could be considered indirect effects, such as the proposition that a ‘rentier society’ has developed, and conclude by summarising the current relationship between citizens and the state with reference to the social elements of permanence and variation. When discussing the ‘Gulf monarchies’ I am referring to the countries of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. The economies of the region are, to a very large extent, dependent on income derived from the exploitation of oil and natural gas, and subsidiary industries. Historically, this has been a recent development spanning the last fifty to sixty years. The region was originally very poor, residually colonised by Ottoman Turks, and in the late nineteenth century became politically dependent on the United Kingdom. During the first quarter of the twentienth century, vast reserves of petroleum were discovered in the region. This natural resource has become very important to the modern world, and consequently, the exploitation of petroleum has been a source of extraordinary wealth for these desert economies. Gregory Gause suggests that portrayals of the ruling elites of Gulf monarchies are based on two general assumptions, which together create a picture of the regional politics being that of ‘traditional’ regimes which are culturally distinct from the West yet need the West to survive. The first of the assumptions is that societies

Is Peace Possible Between Israel and Palestine?

2002-04-29T14:00:00-04:00

“The Arab world is not in a compromising mood… Nations never concede; they fight. You won’t get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps get something, but only by the force of your arms…But it’s too late to talk of peaceful solutions” (Bard 1). The Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha said this statement on September 16, 1947, eight months before the state of Israel was established. The Arabs held this mentality in a time when Israel was not yet a fact. This trait was hereditary in the sense that it was taught to their children, who taught it to their children, and so on. Those are the people who are living in Arab countries, and still despise everything about Israel and believe that, no matter what, negotiations are useless. This is especially true today with the Palestinians, for as Suha Arafat, wife of Yasser Arafat, stated, “I have always rejected normalizing relations with (Israeli) women… They always invite me to their functions and I categorically refuse because I hate Israel” (Bard 2). This statement proves that though the Israeli’s try to normalize relations with the Palestinians, they refuse because they want nothing to do with Israel. From the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 to the present, there have been five wars, all of which have ended with peace treaties that did not do much. A peace treaty will never normalize the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the Middle East because so many have failed in the past. May 14, 1948 was a victorious day for the Jewish people; the state of Israel was born. The excitement, however, was short lived because the armies of Syria, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon entered Israel the next day in an effort to erase it off the map. “The Arabs themselves expected the new state to be swept off the map in months if not weeks” (Ross 30). The majority of the Arab world fiercely opposed the state of Israel and refused to recognize it in any way. As Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League said on May 15, 1948, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre” (Bard 1). So it was; over 6,300 Israelis were killed in the War of Independence (Israeli Casualties in Battle). Rhodes Peace Pact did not force the Arabs to recognize Israel as a state, allowing its legal existence to be

The Future of Limited Government - Summary and Analysis

2002-04-09T14:00:00-04:00

The paper, “The Future of Limited Government,” by Jim L. Riley, is an examination of the conflict between government authoritarian control and individual freedom. It discusses the involvement of the Supreme Court in balancing this conflict, while paying particular attention to the Court’s decisions under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The paper also discusses various social theories stated by Lynne Iglitzen, B.F. Skinner, and Robert Jungk concerning the impact of human behavior in the control/freedom conflict. The paper concludes by recognizing that rapid developments in technology demand a reevaluation of civil rights and liberties. It is important to recognize that the paper was written in 1974, and while some of the points it makes continue to be relevant, the author could not have anticipated the post-9/11 realities affecting the duty of the government to protect its citizens and the effects on individual freedoms when that duty is dismissed. The paper was also written during the time when the Watergate scandal made government intrusion the great issue of the day. One hint of the time this paper was written is the stark distinction the author makes between liberals, as supporters of the individual against an oppressive government, and conservatives. In our current age of “political correctness,” it is much more difficult to draw any such distinction, when the so-called liberals of the 1960s and 1970s have become the thought regulators of the 2000s.

The Supreme Court

The paper begins by saying that political disputes “gravitate” to the Supreme Court. It says, in fact, that it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution with regard to the concept of limited government and individual freedom. The author writes that most people are aware that the role of the Supreme Court is to shape the Constitution. This represents a pro-activist view. Under a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution, the role of the Court is to interpret, not shape the Constitution. The author quotes the first activist, Chief Justice John Marshall, as saying his Court was “expounding” the Constitution. Even Marshall did not claim the right to shape it. An example used repeatedly in the paper is the Warren Court and its activism. While there can be no doubt of the impact of its decisions on American society, there remains a widely held view that the Warren Court exceeded its Constitutional authority by using its judicial decisions not just to interpret laws, but to make them. Although

Discuss the success of Congresses as an independent branch of government

2002-03-17T13:00:00-04:00

As the complexity of government increase, the legislative branches of many western democracies have lost power to their executives giving rise to terms such as “elected dictatorships” and the elected members of parliament as merely “lobby-fodder”. While occasionally eclipsed, and led, by strong Presidents the American Congress has mostly managed to maintain its control over the legislative process and imperial presidencies. President Bush’s Nov. 13 executive order asserting his right to establish military tribunals for terrorists and the antiterrorism bill containing a section entitled “Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Newsweek, 12/10/2001) is an example of the executive attempts at grabbing for power being controlled by congress. Congress has four main functions these are representation, legislation, investigation and scrutiny (oversight), and financial control. This essay is concerned with the legislative element only though it will be seen that due to the nature of American politics representation must always be considered The construction of the constitution is such that it implies that Congress was to be the dominant institution of the American political system (Article 1 S1-S8 of the constitution). The powers of congress are granted, guarded and constrained by the constitution and it is not, like the British House of Commons, the sovereign power able to do what it pleases. Within the Federal structure Congress is checked by the President as set out in the Constitution and now also by the supreme courts power of Judicial review which was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). Further more the division of powers between Federal and State governments also constrains Congress but over its lifetime Congress has increased its influence first by widening the scope of its power to govern inter-state to include activities within a state the landmark Court rulings being Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc v. United States (1964), Katzen v. McClung (1964 and Labour Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin (1937). Congress is a bicameral legislature with the House of Representatives representing the people and the Senate representing the states. Both have legislative responsibility and then distinct clearly defined, by the Constitution, separate powers. The Senate is responsible for approving bureaucratic and judicial appointments made by the president, ratifying treaties and acting as a court in impeachment proceedings. With its six-year term, against two-years in the House, the Senate is regarded as the more prestigious of the two chambers. Occasionally refereed to as the upper chamber as

I am a libertarian

2002-03-14T13:00:00-04:00

The best way to summarize my political views would to say I am libertarian. I believe in the rights on an individual and that they have a personal responsibility for their own well being. I believe in free-market economy of abundance and prosperity. Like other libertarians, I want a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade. A single leader should not govern a whole nation which is full of different views. The government should be smaller and less in control of our social lives and concentrate on federal issues such as trade and relations with other countries. As a libertarian, my views resemble that of a liberal but also with conservatives on the role of federal governments. I believe that change should be for the good of the community. Like John Locke, I believe that when a person comes to power after another, the new leader should represent the views of the people. The change in power should not cripple the society but improve it. All decisions should be made by the majority and not a single leader like a king. The law of nature should never be changed so that others may hurt each other. Locke has a quote in which he says “And that all men may be restrained from invading others’ rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind,” I agree with him to preserve the law of nature. John Locke and I both agree that if there should be change in the state of government, it should be for the good of the community and those in it. In the state of nature, man is mostly good. They live their lives obeying God and thus not causing any harm to anyone else. Locke frequently mentions that man should go by the laws of God. I agree with him. I also agree with him when he says, “that is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” I believe that man is essentially good in the state of nature. All men should be equal and have the same potential to do things. No one should be discriminated for their race, beliefs, or

Overcrowding America by Immigration

2002-03-06T13:00:00-05:00

All over America, some places more than others, immigration has become a major debate for everyone. More than one million people are coming into the United States legally and illegally. According to the US Immigration Guide, written by attorney, Ramon Carrion, legal immigration means people coming into the country with their temporary or permanent visas given out by the government’s consent. And illegal immigration means anyone who crosses over the border without proper documentation of the government’s consent, and staying for any period of time (xii). On one hand, the experts are saying those loose borders are very good because it helps out with the nation’s economy and ethnic diversity. But on the other hand, loose border can have a negative effect on the nation by overcrowding, keeping the wages of working down and drug importation. America is a nation built on immigrants from all over the world. However, numerous actions have been taken to slow down the rate of immigration. For example, in 1924 congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act, which allowed fewer immigrants to come to the United States legally and strengthened the borders. And in 1996, congress passed the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act to toughen the borders and deportation procedures (Masci 579). Currently the top three countries of origin for immigrants admitted into the United States are Mexico, China, India, in that order, Mexico being the highest with 131,575 people in 1998. China being the second highest with 36,884 and India with 36,482 people, both also in 1998. Plus, the United States admitted over 40,000 people from Africa in 1998 (Masci 576). And these numbers are increasing rapidly. In the 1980’s there were approximately 6.3 million immigrants legally admitted to the United States, compared to the 1990’s when 10 million were let in. And in 1998, approximately 1.51 million immigrants came into the United States illegally and 1.54 came in 1999, according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (Masci573). Now the Center for Immigration Studies says 68 million people have been added to the population since 1970, and a lot of that has to do with immigration since the fertility rate of American families has decreased since then. An estimation by the National Research Council says, “that by 2050, current immigration policies will cause the population of the United States to be fully 80 million larger than without immigration, triple the population growth that would take

Illegeracy - The Reason We Are Failing

2002-02-27T13:00:00-05:00

In the United States, one of our biggest political problems has become that we are a country of spectators. The average American citizen would choose to watch football over reading up on current events, and that same citizen would opt to watch a political discourse on TV rather than engaging in it. Some people would look at this scenario in a small realm and see themselves; some would laugh and wonder what the problem is. But therein lies the problem. We have become a society of aliterate, passive spectators. The cause of this mass illegeracy is not our fault alone. The cause is widely due to the fact that the two knowledge cornerstones, media and education systems, are failing us. The media, which is supposed to educate us, has become an entertainment-based industry. News programs, magazines, and even newspapers are neglecting to focus on the important news and opting to focus on entertaining us rather then informing us. The media is at partial fault, but our public education system should take most of the blame. Public education has become a system that thoughtlessly ignores subjects such as politics, provokes anti-intellectualism and widely accepts mediocrity. Therefore, the simultaneous failure of the media and education will continue to produce a society of illegerate citizens. There are three characteristics that an illegerate person embodies. If you are illegerate, you are unable to make sense of your culture, fail to see the conditions of your life as open to choice and to give up any political power you have to influence the direction of society. The failure to make sense of one’s culture is to be lacking the knowledge to understand the events or changes that directly or indirectly affect one’s life. This sort of cultural confusion, in turn, leads a citizen to the feeling that his or her life is not open to choice. After a person decides that they have no choices, they give up any political power to influence the direction of society. A democracy thrives on a constant discourse of important political issues. The knowledgeable discussion between citizens leads to educated views; knowledge leads to action, and action leads to change. Without the education system placing an emphasis on political discourse, there is a lack of it in our society, and that is a direct consequence of illegeracy. The consequences of this widespread illegeracy will negatively impact our politics, government and society for

Federalist Papers

2002-02-27T13:00:00-05:00

James Madison begins the Federalist No. 10, possibly one of the greatest political papers, by stating an argument in favor of the Constitution. Madison supports the Constitution because it establishes a government that is capable of controlling the “violence of faction.” Factions are groups of people with like political or economic interests that gather to promote their own views. Factions cause an unstable government because they are constantly at odds with each other and consistently maintain the opposing view against public interest, while infringing on the rights of others. It is the nature of man to create factions. Men will always hold different opinions, different amounts of wealth and will naturally group with people that share the most similarity to them. It is the government’s duty to simultaneously protect the weaker groups and regulate the conflicting interests of all its peoples. To Madison, there are only two ways to control a faction: to remove its causes or to control its effects. The first would destroy the liberty the framers were striving so hard to achieve. The second it neither possible nor practical. I would have to agree with Madison when he claims that destroying liberty is a “cure worse then the disease itself.” The government that the Constitution creates would be able to control the damage caused by factions. The Constitution had established a representative government in which many voted and a few actually govern. This form of government is in stark contrast from a pure democracy in which all members of a society directly participate in making laws. This type of a democracy would never be able to control factions because the majority faction would always prevail, and there would be no way to protect minority rights. Madison hoped that the elected representatives would be the good and most knowledgeable men in the country. With a country of our size, the best man would surely win the election. But if by chance or situation, the men elected were part of a particular faction, the pure representatives would be able to contrast the rebel views of the bad. Although a representative government harnesses some of the “mischief” caused by factions, it would not eliminate their power. Madison believed the only true way to eliminate the possible tyranny of factions would be to establish a system of checks and balances. This system would divide authority and still have a strong central government. The distribution

What is Politics?

2002-02-27T13:00:00-05:00

What is politics? Throughout history, people have participated in politics on many different levels. They may have participated through a direct democracy, in which they directly governed, or they may have participated through a representative democracy, in which they participated by electing representatives. As citizens’, people have participated in politics to attain the things they needed or wanted, the valued things. Participation in politics has been the way that people have a voice and change the things that directly affect their lives. Throughout the course of history, politics has been the competition of ideas; they decide who gets what, when, where and how. Politics is the means for attaining valued things. Although, valued things are different in every society, the means of securing those things has never changed. The competition for power, authority and influence will always be the backbone of politics. Applying power, authority and influence to the valued things that support the public good, will produce the quality of life a society desires. In the present day, citizens in the United States demand certain valued things such as welfare, education, safe streets and healthcare. Through politics, citizens can apply their power in many different ways to get the things they want. Power is the ability to get someone to do something they may or may not want to do. Through the use of or the application of coercion, persuasion, manipulation and negotiation, power is used to influence the system. It would seem as if valued things, such as safe streets and healthcare, would already be established in a society such as ours. Using safe streets as an example, it is hard to believe a person would not support safe streets. But the discussion about safe streets is not exactly whether we want them or not. The disagreement on this topic, and most political topics, is how much should be spent fiscally on achieving and maintaining safe streets. The question of how much money should be spent on what and where is usually decided by whomever or whatever has applied the most power, influence and authority. How active or inactive should the government be in getting valued things? Politics must be used as the means of answering this question. Politics should be used to attain the things that the society needs most and should represent all of the people equally. In America today, there is a general, underlying equality that

Americas Political Legacy

2002-02-27T13:00:00-05:00

Webster’s Dictionary defines legacy as “anything handed down from an ancestor, predecessor, or earlier era.” Legacy is something that has been passed on, something that teaches, something that is embraces a person or society and aids them through life with knowledge and a proven system. In the United States we have the duty to proudly carry on the American legacy. Democratic principles and justice support the American legacy. As American citizens, we share a commonality; we share a legacy that promises freedom and a government that has flourished for hundreds of years. Starting with revolution and ending with the Bill of Rights, our legacy, if practiced continuously, will live on. Revolution. If there is one thing, one ideal that encompasses all of American history, it is the idea of revolution. Starting with revolting against Britain and continuing into the 21st century, to revolt has been in American. Embedded into the minds of every American past or present has been that it is their right to revolt if any rights have been taken away or harnessed. One of the rights promised was the right to vote. A democratic government guaranteed citizens a freely elected government. Ideally everyone would receive equal representation. The framers believed that this type of system would be able to control the damage of faction. If the framers had developed a pure democracy, then each citizen would have the right to vote on every topic. Using the representative form of government, every citizen would have the right to vote for representatives, and those representatives would vote and directly govern the country. A freely elected government promised the citizens a system free from overly destructive factions, and tyranny. The backbone of the American legacy is the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. More then 200 years old, the Constitution remains the operating charter of our republic.” The United States has a government under the law. Unlike many governments, U.S. citizens and the government must practice our democracy under the Supreme law of the Constitution. As citizens, whether we are in direct agreement or not, have chose to accept this law, and are not above it. Although our government is not above the Constitution, the Supreme Court does have the right to interpret it. This part of our legacy is judicial review. Judicial review also entails that every government action is subject to be reviewed in court. Judicial review is a major part of

President Bush and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

2002-02-10T13:00:00-05:00

When the Cold War came to a finish in 1972, the Soviet Union and the United States of America knew some sort of action needed to be taken to evade a nuclear war in the future. The U.S. wanted an agreement with the Soviet Union for the limitation of “strategic offensive arms”. From this dilemma, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was produced, and signed, by both countries to put an end to their aggression towards each other and to limit anti-ballistic missile systems designed to defend against strategic ballistic missiles. After nearly 30 years of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty being in effect, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and extenuating circumstances taking place in the United States, President George W. Bush has made the right decision to pull out of the treaty. Although it was made for the purpose of preventing countries to acquire an anti-missile defense system, that was in the past and things are dissimilar now. Time has changed, and along with it, so have methods of defense. Many events have occurred in the previous thirty years that make the treaty out of date, so President Bush made the correct decision for our nation by making the choice to remove the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The ABM Treaty may have banned anti-ballistic missile systems, but it did allow the research, development and limited deployment of some type of ground-based anti-ballistic missile system. However, this was written and signed with the idea of a certain type of technological approach in mind at the time and since then, technology has greatly advanced. Other countries have recently given the United States reasonability to be removed from this treaty. The United States government has obviously considered alternatives and has taken the correct actions to guard this country. A number of terrorist attacks against the United States have taken place over the years, when this system could have possibly prevented some them. A build up of arms has begun between the U.S. and European countries to cause America to believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that an anti-ballistic missile system is the preeminent option for citizens of this country. September 11th, 2001, is just one example that the United States has first-rate reason to be against the treaty and find better ways to protect the U.S. President George W. Bush, although only beginning the second year of his Presidency, was forced to make this decision

Keynesianism, Monetarism and the shift of economic policy

2002-02-05T13:00:00-05:00

Q1: How and why were Keynesian economic policies abandoned in the UK?

Keynesianism was the economic model followed by governments in the UK from the 1950s up until the late 1970s. In the 1950s and 1960s, the name “Butskellism” was given to Chancellor Butler and Chancellor Gaitskell’s Keynesian approach to management of the economy, with an overall aim of maintaining full employment by substantial government intervention. Keynes rejected the idea of laissez faire (“leave alone”) policies that left the market to regulate wages and prices. He said that if the economy were left alone in this way, there would be a recession, meaning more people being laid-off from their jobs and reduced real wages. More unemployment would then result in less consumer confidence and hence a decrease in aggregate demand. Keynes also rejected the socialist idea of the economy being stimulated by the redistribution of wealth to the poor – this would destroy the incentive to achieve and so competition would fade, resulting in inferior total output and making recession much more likely. Governments used Keynes’ theory of “demand management” as a solution to recessions. He said that a government should “spend its way out” of a recession by lowering taxes and investing more in projects and programmes which would create new job opportunities and create wealth. Those who take up the jobs would have more money in their pockets and so their extra spending (increased demand) would stimulate the economy more. Keynes’ idea was that if demand was threatening to rise too much, the government should reduce the Budget deficit by raising taxes and cutting government expenditure to reduce demand. In the same way, if there was a substantial rise in unemployment, the government should increase the Budget deficit by investing in new projects and lowering taxes. There was little criticism of Keynesianism until the late 1970s because the society as a whole was pretty wealthy. There was consistent full employment and great prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s. Earnings were growing faster than prices, meaning that real wages were high and more people were able to buy expensive durable goods such as televisions and cars. Taxes were also low, people had more money to spend and overall wealth was high. But by the mid-1970s, however, Keynesian policies did not seem able to prevent ‘stagflation’ (high inflation combined with high unemployment). The average rate of inflation between 1950 and 1970 was 4.5%

Progress to EMU has been too rash and hasty

2002-02-05T13:00:00-05:00

Despite the healthy support given to EMU by the likes of Helmut Köhl, Jaques Delors and François Mittererand, there are some arguments that progress towards EMU has been too rash and hasty for it to be successful. Firstly, there are several political factors that support this notion. Public support for EMU is insufficient not only in Britain and the countries outside of the Euro but even in the Eurozone countries themselves. There is significant opposition to the single currency (taken as about 40% of the population) in over half of the Eurozone’s countries that make it up. Likewise, the populations of most European countries are not happy to lose their national currencies, as national currencies are unquestionably signs of sovereignty. For example, the Germans see their Deutschmark as the most powerful national symbol of post-war Germany, partly explaining why they are so hesitant to give it up. The majority of Europeans are also adamant that the European Central Bank is not sufficiently accountable, and moreover, the necessary democratic structures are not in place throughout the institutions of the EU. The ECB cannot be influenced or checked upon by anyone other than the subcommittee of the European Parliament. This inefficient body lacks the resources to hold the ECB or its president - Wim Duisenburg - to account. The Council of Ministers is almost always allowed to make decisions without even referring them to the electorates, and overall, European citizens are very rarely included in the decision-making processes. Therefore, it is not surprising that most European citizens feel out of touch with the powers by which they are (or will be) ultimately governed. This is furthered by the argument that EMU is simply driven by the political dream of a small elite. This idea is easy to agree with, particularly when examining the social composition of those in support of EMU. More businesspersons, financiers and distinguished entrepreneurs in general support EMU than average citizens of the EU, of which there are far more. As a whole, political union seems insufficient to support further economic union. However, it can be argued that political union has advanced sufficiently to allow economic union to be a success. The Single European Act of 1986 certainly made EMU more likely, adding further impetus towards economic union. It removed physical, fiscal, and technical barriers between EU countries to complete the Single Market and revealed that exchange rate fluctuations were also an

Positive And Negative Liberty

2002-01-14T13:00:00-05:00

The need for liberty lies deep within the very essence of the human entity. It seems that only in a state of freedom can the human being be provided with the propitious premises for a harmonious evolution. Even if the cultivation of high spiritual values and a number of great cultural, social and scientific achievements were also possible in ‘freedom-lacking’ environments, we must understand that those cases were only the exceptions to the rule and stood as testimony for the will and determination of the humanity to surpass any obstacles put in its way. Given its overwhelming importance, the connotations of liberty have been deeply and almost exhaustively studied by philosophers, sociologists and last but not least by politicians. First of all, what does liberty mean? It means acting in whatever way you see fit for satisfying your own interests, desires and expectations to the extent that you don’t infringe upon the very same liberties of the others. There can be no freedom without compromise, or, in other words, you cannot dispose of absolute freedom, for the others, at their turn, would no longer be bound to respecting your own and will therefore deprive you of it. So the only way liberty can be achieved is through consensus among its bearers. Politically speaking, liberty is only possible in societies lead by a legitimate government, as Karl Jaspers accurately remarked. Legitimacy of government is a term that can comprise various meanings, out of which the most important are the legitimacy of heredity and the legitimacy of free universal vote. Both forms can be contested and are subject to well-founded doubt: while heredity can legitimate both the idiot and the vulgar, vote is partially conditioned by error and sheer occurrence, and very often it is the result of temporary mass suggestion. But given the fact that there can be only one choice between despotism and legitimacy, we must make do with any wants the latter might encompass. In our times, the most suited form of legitimacy is considered to be free universal voting. As I stated before, the freedom of the individual is possible only to the extent it coexists with the freedom of the others. Therefore, in order to maintain his own liberty, one has to permanently respect in his own actions the liberties of the people surrounding him. But from the juridical point of view, the individual is also entitled to a very own

Could the UN be a world government?

2001-12-12T13:00:00-05:00

“The vision of a unified world, freed from the anarchy of tribalistic strife among organised fragments of the human race and possessed of a government able to disperse justice and maintain order among all men, had long captured the prophetic imagination of a philosophers and poets.” Yes, the UN can be a world government although it is my opinion that it would be very improbable it would happen at least in the near future for a variety of reasons. They include the fact that many if not most of the states making up the UN would not be willing to hand over their sovereignty to a world body, according to realists. It is a well-known fact that the overwhelming majority of states would put what they regard as the welfare of their own nation above everything else, the interests of a world state included . Also, the sheer complexity of uniting over 200 countries would prove to be an enormous task. For example, it would prove difficult dividing the power between all the states in the world. There is the question of whether to divide the power between GDP or populations as was done in the European Union. On the other hand, idealists believe there are many positive aspects to uniting the world politically. Global issues such as war, poverty, human rights and the environment can be dealt with more efficiency. With a united world, the poorest parts of the world can be helped by richer member states. All these points will be discussed in further detail throughout this essay. The idealist in us looks for a major shift in state behaviour away from sovereign selfishness and toward cooperation in an international system structured to prevent aggression and promote economic growth . In order for the public to accept the legitimacy of the UN as a world government, people would have to renounce nationalistic arrogance and ideological intolerance, in order to help them to fit into the ‘world picture’ instead of just a ‘national picture.’ We would need to create a sense of people belonging to a much wider picture and optimistically; states would realize that it is to their national interest to join a world government. After states join this world government body, comes the hard part, making it work. Universal values are essential for this world government to work. It is a fact that states that join up to

Power of the Australian Senate

2001-12-11T13:00:00-05:00

“The Senate has assumed a position of power and importance in the Australian Parliament System far beyond what was envisaged by the founding fathers in 1901” The Senate is one of the two houses of the Australian Federal Parliament. It consists of 76 Senators, twelve from each of the six states and two from each of the mainland territories. It has virtually equal power to make laws with the other House of Parliament, the House of Representatives. Senators are elected by proportional representation, so that the Senate’s composition closely reflects the voting pattern of the electors. The Senate specifically protects the States and the People from abuse. Each State has equal representation, no matter what its population. Time after time PM after PM has attempted to undermine the Power of the Senate and get control of it, and time after time the Constitution has foiled them. High Court after High Court has been raining down hammer blows on the States, favouring the Federal Government against the States, but the Courts have not broken the Federation. These activities are clearly acting against the intent of the Constitution, as well as the Will of the People, who have consistently voted in referenda against increasing Federal Power since Federation. The Constitution was written with the idea of having an absent Sovereign, and for the express purpose of protecting the People and the States from the central government. The instruments the Founding Fathers chose to provide maximum protection for the People and the States were the Crown, the Senate, the High Court (with an Appeal to the Privy Council), and the Constitution. The Senate that the Founding Fathers created was a stroke of genius, and is the strongest Upper House in the world. The Constitution created two Houses of Parliament that are equal in power but with significant differences. They have different electorates and electoral systems. The Upper House, the Senate, is half the size of the Lower House of Representatives. The Lower House was given no taxing powers at Federation but was expected to perform its functions on 1/4 of tariff collections! When the Lower House was granted taxing powers the Senate was given the power to refuse taxation measures, thus preserving the equality of power between the two Houses. Capricious use of this power by the Senate immediately forces the Government to the People, who then decide in a free and fair election to

The Biased Media

2001-12-11T13:00:00-05:00

In America we value the freedom of the press. The press is the one place where most Americans go to get educated on issues facing their community, state, and most of all nation. Everyone knows that the media plays a major role in Americans’ lives; however their role of gatekeeper is not completely understood. The press decides which issues to report and how to report them. In order to improve the nation and world, the media should present their unbiased findings to allow people to make up their own minds. However, this is not the case. The media often shows its bias. Their widespread exposure enables them to communicate their ideas to the public, regardless of the public’s responsiveness. The elections of officials for the federal government during the late 20th century serve as prime examples of their bias. An analysis of surveys, media delivery, and reporter’s testimonies, I have found that the media is actually more out of touch with mainstream America than the politicians they cover. The media affects American interest towards politics by only showing the people what they want them to see. Even if there are many issues in a campaign, the media will focus on the one’s they believe to be the most important. Other issues maybe completely ignored. Hence people become interested only in certain areas of politics since they hear about them very often. There is usually a much greater turnout when voting for the president than voting for a Senator. This is mainly because the media covers a presidential race much more closely. Americans focus on what the media frequently shows us rather than the little heard of issues of greater importance. A large number of people do not follow local elections mainly because they do not hear about it on the six o’clock news. I think that many Americans do not even know their Senators’ or House Representatives’ name. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to find someone who does not know anything about the recent presidential election. Everyone knows about the Florida ballot disputes only because the media has placed so much emphasis on them. There is so much media coverage in politics today that in order to be elected one must be appealing to the public. Years ago the only way people could find out about candidates and the issues they stood for was by reading a

Are Human Rights Universal?

2001-12-10T13:00:00-05:00

The notion that human rights are universal stems from the philosophical view that human rights are inextricably linked to the preservation of human dignity. This means that respect for individual dignity is due equally to one and all, regardless of circumstance. In this way, human rights must apply universally. This is clearly the thrust behind the world’s main human rights instruments in operation today. The earliest human rights Charter of the modern era – the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and of Citizen 1789 – refers to the "natural and inalienable rights of man" and that "[m]en are born free and equal in rights". (Note the term ‘man’ is used in the sense of all human beings or ‘mankind’.) The same sentiment was expressed almost 160 years later in the Preamble to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which refers to: "the inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". The human rights contained in both of these instruments, and the many others that share their aspirations, are considered essential to the respect of every human being’s dignity. "… this single page of print, which outweighs libraries, and is stronger than all the armies of Napoleon". Lord Acton (British Law Lord), on the French Declaration on the Rights of Man (1789)

What does ‘universality’ mean?

The ‘universality of human rights’ is a concept. This concept holds that human rights belong to all human beings and are fundamental to every type of society. In this way, everyone has the same basic human rights. Individuals may exercise different rights, or exercise the same rights differently, depending on which group they belong to within society. Different groups include women, children, or those of a certain race, ethnicity or religion. Even if the form or content of human rights changes over time, the concept of their universality remains true. The central tenet of the notion of universality is that human rights are themselves the right of all human beings. The most important rights of all, in other words, are everyone’s right to human rights! Some argue that the concept of universality is culturally constructed. Human rights are viewed as representing the particular belief systems of some cultures and societies rather than those of all cultures and societies. This is the so-called ‘cultural relativist’ argument, the very rationale of which

Burke and Locke on Revolution

2001-12-09T13:00:00-05:00

I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. - Thomas Jefferson Political rebellion takes place when the people of a country feel it is essential that a change in government is made. Different nations have different ideas about the responsibilities of government, and as a result there are many possible reasons for political rebellion. John Locke, an English medical doctor and philosopher who lived until 1704, published his liberal theories about government, property, and the rights of man, in his book Second Treatise of Government. Edmund Burke, a writer with a legal background who spent his life involved in English politics, published his opinions about revolution in 1790 in his book Reflections on the Revolution in France. Both Locke and Burke support political rebellion, but Locke’s belief that politics are based upon abstract natural rights drives his support for the complete dissolution of government in the event of rebellion, while Burke’s belief that rights and morals are derived from the conventions of society makes his support for rebellion more reserved and conditional. This comparison is significant to any individuals considering revolution as a means of changing government. The outcomes of rebellion can depend on the underlying beliefs driving it, and both writer’s positions are useful to establish the underlying reasons for revolution, and some of the risks involved depending on the extent of the change. Locke believes that before we form civil society by consenting to establish government, we live in a State of Nature. He describes this pre-political state as, “...a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man.” (Locke, 1980, p.81) The State of Nature is ruled essentially by human nature. Liberty, equality, self preservation, reason, and property are the most prominent principles that Locke feels are innate to humans. Locke explains how nature intended for all men to be equal, “...creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same facilities should be equal amongst another...” (Locke, 1980, p.8) Locke comes to the conclusion that humans are self preserving in the State of Nature, through his observations that we

Lukacs' Reification and Heller's Theory of Needs in Marx

2001-11-12T13:00:00-05:00

1. A little over a decade after the "collapse of Communism", it might appear that Marxist theory has been relegated to little more than an historical or even archeological artefact with little relevance to or influence over an ever encroaching and expanding, globalising capitalism. Socialism "proper", as a state economic model and ideology seems to have been banished to the margins of the world scene. The disastrous results in terms of the dictatorships and totalitarianism that have ensued wherever an attempt has been made to implement a socialist model; the Fukuyaman proclamation of the "end of history" after communism collapsed, this end being equated with the eschatological triumph of free-market capitalism; and the insistence of multinational enterprises and capitalist governments on the expansion of global capital appear to some extent to have marked the death of socialism and marxist critique. 2. However, it cannot be denied that fundamental contradictions remain and are increasing in intensity. Recent events, such as often violent demonstrations whenever and wherever bodies seen to be representative of global capitalism, such as the World Trade Organisation, meet, and the upsurge in anti-western sentiment, especially in Islamic middle-eastern nations, point to a trend that now denies the triumphant mood in the West during the early nineties. Magnus and Cullenberg referred to these already in 1994 in their Introductions to Derrida's Specters of Marx: Given the difficulties some democratic, free market economies are experiencing - including the plight of the homeless, the lack of adequate health care, environmental degradation, and enormous debt burdens - what sort of model for the future do we have? And what is one to make of the destructive, even violent "nationalisms" which have followed in the wake of the collapse of communism, not to mention virulent forms of ethnocentrism and xenophobia perhaps not seen since Hitler's Germany? What does this imply then for…the global economy and life throughout our shared world? (viii) Derrida also takes note of the economic contradictions undermining the "end" of history: And how can one overlook, moreover, the economic war that is raging today both between [the United States and the European Community] and within the European Community? How can one minimize the conflicts of the GATT treaty and all that it represents, which the complex strategies of protectionism recall every day, not to mention the economic war with Japan and all the contradictions at work within the trade between the wealthy countries and

An Elitest Constitution

2001-11-11T13:00:00-05:00

Did the American Constitution embody the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence? The prima facie answer would be yes. Looking deeper and remembering that during the Age of Empires the world ran on money, force of arms and enlightened self-interest, that the answer is now it depended on who you were. Application of the occasional Machaivellian twist to some of the Founding Fathers decisions will be used to support this view point. The Declaration of Independence said that “men were entitled as a Creator given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. And that as long as a government did not infringe upon these it could have the obedience of the people. The document was influenced by philosophers such as Montesquieu and Thomas Paine - notably his “Common Sense”. The famous phrase “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was inspired by the “Second Treaties on Government” writen by the English jurist Locke. Although in Locke’s version, the last word was one more in keeping with reality than revolutionary rhetoric it was “property”. In 1787 representatives of the 13 states met in Philadelphia to revise the articles of confederation. These representatives were mostly from towns on or near the coast and also ranked amongst the financially successful of the time. Indeed 40 out of the 55 were owed money by the treasury department. Instead they created a new totally new national government And the democratic society that Americans had fought for on the War of Independence was to shortly become an elitist capitalistic republic. So what was wrong with the Confederation and also the colonial system they had just broken away from ? Madison said, referring to the Confederation, "A government which relies on thirteen independent sovereignties for the means of its existence, is a solecism in theory and a mere nullity in practice" cited by Mitchell(1975) Under British rule the founding fathers had seen the effects where any one branch of a government managed to wield too much power and wanted they to create a system where such ministerial abuse would be impossible. Contrasting this was how to balance the freedom of the citizen from interference from central government while maintaining a system that protected the rights of minorities from an abuse of majority rule in a republican structure without exposing the government to the dangers of mob rule. The delegates considered that the states of the Confederation were

Should there be a House of Lords?

2001-10-29T13:00:00-04:00

Clearly, in such a populated country such as Great Britain, a Second Chamber of Parliament also known as the House of Lords is necessary. Although the House of Lords cannot execute much power, compared to the House of Commons, it is a vital part of British Government. The House of Lords plays an important part in revising, potentially delaying legislation and as well as keeping a check on Government by scrutinising its activities. It complements the work of the Commons, whose members are elected to represent their constituents. Members of the Lords are not elected and are unpaid. Most peers have a wide range of experience as most have retired from a political career. For example, there have been 158 members of the House of Lords that were once MPs, (the breakdown is as follows; Conservatives 77, Labour 55, Liberal Democrats 14, Crossbenchers 9, other 3) . Peers also provide a source of independent expertise as the House has among its members a number of University Chancellors, professors, and writers. The House also has a judicial role as the final Court of Appeal . Although the House of Lords perform many functions to help Government flow smoothly, it has many flaws including being undemocratic as members are appointed, not voted in by the people (as mentioned before). In this essay, there will be arguments both for and against the Second Chamber being part of British Government. Also, it will be discussed how the role of the Second Chamber has changed throughout history. To understand the functions of the House of Lords, one has to first look at how it has evolved throughout history. The House of Lords has slowly lost its power throughout time. During the 1800's, the two houses of Parliament remained nearly equal in power. Although the Commons had control over money bills, the Lords had the power to veto legislation. Soon, in 1909, a dispute broke out between the House of Commons and the House of Lords over a budget that was rejected by the Lords. Two years later, the Parliamentary Act of 1911 came into effect and the House of Lords lost its vetoing power. Under this new act, the Lords were permitted to delay money bills for only one month and non-money bills for a minimum of two years. Soon, the Parliamentary Act of 1949 reduced to one year the length of time that the

Why Have States Emerged?

2001-10-29T13:00:00-04:00

The main reason for states emerging is because of the desire of peoples of the same or similar ethnic background for self-rule. A state is defined as, ‘A political organisation exercising complete authority over a defined territory, .’ Over the past 200 years there has been a considerable increase in the number of states in the world compared to any other time period in history. In 1700 there were 45 states, in 1945 there were about 65 states. Currently, there are around 200 states. Arguably, nationalism has played the biggest role in the emergence of countries as a result of revolutionary ideas originated from philosophers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill. The French Revolution became a catalyst for transformation in the way distressed people perceived their governments; consequently, leading to revolutions throughout the world. As the 20th century unfolded, the role of the United Nations in support of self-determination led to the increasing number of countries, which is depicted through the process of decolonisation. Subsequently, new states in Africa have confronted many problems since achieving independence; many being due to colonisation. The lack of economic investment, education and continuous tribal warfare has hampered improvements in Africa. Many historians argue that nationalism has contributed to be a major factor in the emergence of new states. Nationalism is defined as, ‘(The) sentiment of pride in belonging to a community whose members identify with a set of symbols, beliefs and ways of life (for example, common language, history, culture and religion) .’ Since the late 1700's, nationalism has become a significant force in international relations. Nationalistic feelings, particularly the desire of each country to govern itself, have helped to modify the map of Europe several times since the 1800's. Since the late 1940's, nationalism has also transformed the maps of Africa and Asia. One might wonder why nationalism only became a dominant force in the late 1700’s. The reason why is because improvements in communications extended the knowledge of people beyond their village or province. Likewise, the spread of education gave the people the feeling of participation in a common cultural heritage. Through education, people learned of their common background and tradition and immediately began to identify themselves with the historical continuity of the ethnic group . Nationalism in Europe was greatly increased with the influence of the French Revolution in 1789 when loyalty to the king was replaced by loyalty

Retaliation: Not An Easy Choice

2001-10-18T14:00:00-04:00

“September 11, 2001, like Dec. 7, 1941, will live in infamy. For the first time since the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor, Americans have been attacked on their own soil,” said Senior San Diego Police Spokesman Bill Robinson. On this date terrorists hijacked four planes, all heading for major American landmarks. Two planes crashed into and leveled New York City’s World Trade Center towers, one plane drove itself into the Pentagon, and the last plane crashed in Pennsylvania. The hijackers, members of an Afghanistan home based terrorist organization named al-Qaeda, and its’ leader, Osama bin Laden, left President George W. Bush with a daunting and complicated decision of how to react. President Bush was faced with an assault that “was so sudden and so shocking that it seemed to obliterate many of the doubts that were the legacy of the country's tortured Vietnam experience. Polls show that up to 90% of Americans support a military response,” wrote Mark Barabak. Simultaneously, President Bush and his administration encountered a potentially dangerous and sensitive situation in the Middle East. Any type of intervention, be it Diplomatic Intervention or Military Intervention, would be viewed by the predominantly conservative Muslim Middle Eastern countries as the “start of a hobnailed Western Victory march, justifying extreme actions in self-defense” (Biema et. al. 34). Before acting, President Bush had to take into consideration Bin Laden’s motives for the onslaught. Boaz Gabor, the executive director of the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT) and a Reason Magazine journalist, defined in the ICT’s web-based newspaper, Bin Laden’s Motives for the September 11th attacks: Bin Laden and his followers regard America as their main enemy because it is America that leads the Western and democratic world, and supports the moderate Arab regimes. Moreover, America is regarded in their eyes as controlling and contaminating the holy places of Islam—particularly those in Saudi-Arabia—through the presence of military personnel there and in other countries in the Persian Gulf since the Gulf war in 1991. America also is condemned by Bin laden for its support of Israel, which he regards as the “arrowhead in the heart of the Islamic world,” which must be rooted out and destroyed. Needless to say, either course of action to be taken by the United States needed to fire a message to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the rest of the terrorist community that terrorism absolutely and under no circumstances would be tolerated

Two to Tango - War is not the answer to terrorism

2001-10-05T14:00:00-04:00

The Associated Press has quoted 19-year-old Colin Zaremba, whose own name suggests immigrant origins, as saying, “I’m proud to be an American, and I hate Arabs and I always have.” It seems like everyone is proud to be an American these days, however, like Zaremba, most people, especially America’s adolescents, know nothing about being one. Being patriotic doesn’t mean scurrying to your local Wal-Mart and buying the U.S. flag gear or harassing Arabs; it’s much more than that. The democratic ideals of this country are hoisted up high around this world by our flag. Everything that our country stands for is symbolized in our flag and like Zaremba, I’m afraid our leaders don’t realize that. The leading political parties of this country should exemplify our ideals, diversity, free speech, and tolerance. One’s gut reaction to any kind of attack is to get revenge, but much like a tango, it takes two to wage war. And frankly, we Americans should stand our ground! Show everyone that terrorism will not be tolerated! … and show it peacefully. Once someone drops a nuclear bomb in this day and age, the world as we know it will come to an end. War is not the answer to terrorism. Any attacks on the terrorists will result in a return attack. What the world desperately needs is a solution that will allow the global population to enjoy their lives without the need to annihilate an entire culture. This event will be regarded as the single worst attack on the U.S. ever. How do you retaliate? It’s not like you can go out there and “one up” them. Anything we do just is a slap on the wrist to the perpetrators as a whole. Bush expects the world, in its entirety, to make a stand against terrorism. But the history of agreements in Iraq demonstrates that a stand will be difficult to sustain. Support for sanctions will quickly become diminished among nations other than the United States. This was true before the Bush administration entered the fray, with its go-it-alone philosophy, walking away from treaties on missile defense and global warming, upsetting even our closest allies. It remains true today. President Bush can’t expect the world to join us in fighting terrorism in the U.S., while it ignores the rest of the world’s issues. We can't overcome our reputation of imperialism and arrogance in much of the Arab world when

Australia's Political Parties, Voting Process and Bicameral System

2001-09-26T14:00:00-04:00

What are Australia's main political parties? Compare & contrast the voting system of Australia with that of another country. Discuss the effects of Australia changing its bicameral system of government. “ Modern democracy is party democracy; the political institutions and practices that are the essence of democratic government in the Western view were the creations of political parties and would be unthinkable without them. ” (Katz, 1980: page 1) As a feature of modern democracy, the Australian system of government includes many political parties representing various groups of people of different ideologies and to protect the interests of these particular groups. Each party accommodates its own structures to a different conception of democracy, and maintains a different view of what a democratic society should be. Having inherited our system of government from the British Westminster system, Australia also furthers the Westminster tradition of the ‘two party system’. This of course does not imply that there are necessarily only two parties. It simply derives its meaning from the two main points of view presented in the debate among parties. In Australia, there are three major parties; the ‘two parties’ consisting of the Labor Party and a coalition of the Liberal and National Party. The Labor party is Australia’s oldest political party. Founded in the 1880s, the Labor Party was formed in the midst of depression & high unemployment. Traditionally the Labor Party has taken a role in voicing the needs of the common workers, & has taken the side in upholding social justice. The main goals of the Labor party are to eliminate poverty, create full employment and establish equal rights & opportunities. (Chapman, 1994: page 192) Currently, the Labor Party have not held office since 1996, & under leader Kim Beazley hold a considerable part of the House of Representatives. The conservative Coalition consists of a long–time partnership between the Liberal and National party. This partnership has often been described as symbiotic. In this relationship, the leader of the Liberal party takes leadership of the coalition, & the leader of the National Party takes the role of deputy. Currently the coalition is lead by John Howard with his sidekick John Anderson. The National Party, formerly the Country Party founded in 1920, was established to better represent the interests of the industries & residents of rural Australia. The National Party represents a unique aspect of Australia, from which we not only see our heritage as a nation as

The Race

2001-08-13T14:00:00-04:00

If politics is the application of influence and authority then an election is the application of that influence to win the vote of the citizens. Many things from finances to current civic topics and from political background to political denomination determine the outcome and/or circumstances of elections, but the most influential election tool is, and has been, the media. The use and misuse of the media, political advertisements and televised debates has been known to win or lose an election. In the late 1990’s Patrick Kennedy decided to run for the House of Representatives, in Congress. After winning the primary, Kennedy would have only one opponent, Dr. Kevin Vigilante. At 39 years old Vigilante had an excellent background that included John Hopkins University and dozens of medical clinics. At 28 years old Patrick Kennedy was a typical political Kennedy with the drive to carry on the family legacy of public service. The media embraced this Kennedy-mania and Patrick Kennedy won the election 54-56, only 8 percentage points ahead. Kennedy won the election with money and influence in his left pocket and bulging out of his right pocket was the media. At first glance of this election it would seem as though Kennedy won because of name and money. At second glance that is not the complete story. Kennedy won the election through correct use of the media, through negative campaign ads and political influence. For Vigilante, fundraising for the campaign started with spending 500 hours on the phone and raising a commendable $150,000. Kennedy, on the other hand was not on the phone, he was planning fundraising events, events that would win him media attention, and the citizens approval. Kennedy brought in family members such as Caroline Kennedy, John F. Kennedy Jr., and Hollywood icons such as Tony Bennett. In the end, the fundraising totals were close, Kennedy $1 million and Vigilante $800,000. The fact was, the media had embraced Patrick Kennedy with spotlights, interviews and editorials and the citizens embraced Kennedy because he had the influence to “bring home the bacon.” During the campaign Kennedy furthered his use of the media through negative advertising. Kennedy launched several ad campaigns the attacked Vigilante on several subjects ranging from only voting 4 times in 20 years and exaggerating an insurance claim on an automobile accident. Holding a news conference, Vigilante proceeded to ask Kennedy to pull the negative ads. Sadly for

Mike Harris and the Ontario Conservative Party: CEOs of the Year?

2001-06-25T14:00:00-04:00

Private universities, private jails, private health-care and private water testing. What do all of these things have in common? They are all services the Tory government in Ontario has been trying to privatize with some disastrous results and possibly more to come. The Ontario government, lead by Progressive Conservative leader Mike Harris, has been slowly trying to do away with services that are currently administered by the province. The ideology in question, privatization, has been a hallmark of the Common Sense revolution. But so far the Tories have been slow to make a success of it. Attempts to privatize the Liquor Control Board and TV Ontario were put on the back burner because of low public support. As well, privatizing hydro utilities has already led to charges of price gouging. But by far the biggest headache is coming from the public outcry over the deaths from the E-coli outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario. Regardless of who the Tories look to blame, the issue continually keeps coming back to the privatization of water labs by the province. Yet now, with these other efforts stalled or creating political turmoil, the government is pushing ahead with its prison agenda. The first of the new “superjails” will be opened in Penetanguishine, a small rural community north of Toronto. This jail is slated to be home to the province's first privatized superjail and the issue has created a storm of controversy. In November of 1999, the Ministry of Corrections announced that the new 1200 bed facility would be turned over to the private sector, contrary to what the municipality had been previously told. Wayne Redditt is a member of a local citizen's committee opposed to the privatization venture. “The municipality entered into this deal because they thought they were going be getting a lot of good paying OPSEU (Ontario Public Sector Employees Union) jobs. People were told it was going to be a publicly run facility. Then after the election we are told that it will be private. People here didn't expect to be treated like guinea pig.” The Ministry of Corrections has defended themselves by stating there will be a strict code of standards imposed before private corporations are allowed to take control of the prisons. They have gone on to say that there will also be constant monitoring of the prison by ministry officials. This had done very little to quell public fear in

The Role and Functions of New Zealand Government

2001-06-02T14:00:00-04:00

The New Zealand Government has made significant changes to the economy throughout the last 15 years. The operation and organisation of business activity in New Zealand has been affected by this changing economy. All aspects of the New Zealand Government have been altered. The reason for this change was to improve the performance by being more efficient. The key reforms are privatisation and corporatisation of State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and restructuring government agencies. The most significant change was the election of the Labour Party in 1984, which ended the Muldoon Administration. At this time, New Zealand was in a rut because of poor economic management by the previous Government. Unemployment was high in 1983 and still climbing, real GDP was only 1.15 between 1976 and 1984, and international debt was at 41% of GDP in 1984. The United Kingdom (the major New Zealand export market) had join the European Union in 1973, and since had to endorse a quota where they could only import a certain number on overseas products. Under the National Government, New Zealand was close to self-sufficiency because the government refused to import products from overseas. The public were to losers in this situation as there were a limited number of products offered for sale, and they were also quite expensive too. This called for some desperate transformation. When the Labour Party was elected under David Lange, they immediately changed the sectors that they thought needed urgent attention. They were Capital Markets, Financial, Industry, and International Trade. Other reforms occurred in 1985 (Monetary), 1986 (Tax and Corporatisation), 1988 (Privatisation), 1989 (Public Expenditure), 1990 (Labour Market), and 1991 (Resource Management and Social Services). In fact all state sectors underwent some sort of alteration at some stage. The period from 1984 – 1994 was dubbed “a period of radical change.” These reforms occurred simultaneously and some are still being refined now. From 1995 onwards there was a second period of “slower paced evolutionary” activity. (1999, OECD Government Reform) The key idea in the reform process was to “roll back the state” – in other words focus more on what a government should do which is, governing the people. Defining a government’s core business can be difficult because in every country it is different, even in New Zealand. It is also difficult to set limits as its role is constantly changing; however, the main consistencies are those of Health, Education, Defence, and Welfare.

Why does Plato believe that only Philosophers are fit to rule?

2001-05-08T14:00:00-04:00

Rather than the practical pursuit we are accustomed to, for Plato, Politics is an intellectual faculty. Governance by non-philosophers is to be governed by opinions, beliefs and self-interest; in contrast the philosopher ruler will govern with virtue and justice with no hidden agenda. The philosopher is in love, in love with learning, knowledge and truth. It is important to make a distinction here between the acquisition of knowledge and the acquisition of truth, because knowledge is not necessarily the truth. With the help of an allegory, Plato explains the sensible world of illusion and belief, the place where most people reside. The philosopher has stepped outside this world, into a world of knowledge and truth. Plato makes use of a cave to explain this; I will use another means. A child believes in the myth of Santa Claus, a child has good reason to suppose this myth is true, it is inculcated when he receives Christmas presents, the media, family and friends consolidate the belief, the child even writes to Santa Claus and receives a reply. On Christmas Day this belief becomes a ‘reality’. Through education and maturity, the child will have doubts as to the truth of this illusion. At some stage during the transition from childhood to adulthood he will acknowledge the illusion, and further, during parenthood the myth really comes home to roost as knowledge and absolute truth. (He now has a choice; he can put an end to the myth or continue the cycle) What is distinctive regarding each stage, is how far they have come out of the cave. Through illusion and belief to knowledge, or from artisan to auxiliary to philosopher. The fundamental prerequisite to becoming a philosopher ruler is to have knowledge of the forms, therefore knowing the truth. The forms do not exist in the sensible world, they can only be found in the super-sensible world. Platos‘ theory of the forms is partly logical and partly metaphysical. The logical part is, take for example a dog, there will be many types of dog, and general particulars regarding a dog. The form of a dog is universal and eternal it has no position in space or time, it is not born when a dog is born, nor does it die when a dog dies. The metaphysical part of the theory is the form of a dog is a perfect, unique dog, created by God.

Public Policy Problems in the Environment

2001-05-03T14:00:00-04:00

Public policy is defined by Webster’s as the “The basic policy or set of policies forming the foundation of public laws, especially such policy not yet formally enunciated.” The United States Government has many policies in the area of the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to help identify environmental problems in our nation, and to set policy on how to deal with those problems. Yet, with so much money spent by the government to deal with problems with the environment, it must be noted that problems still exist, even within the bureaucracy that was meant to help in the first place. During the presidential campaign of the last election, an issue arose concerning the “energy crisis” that was driving gasoline and oil prices up throughout our country. Vice President Al Gore supported President Clinton’s ideology of waiting for the proper legislative initiatives to pass through Congress, and when the situation merited, provide some limited releases of oil from the national oil reserve. Candidate George W. Bush, on the other had, favored drilling in the government protected lands of Alaska to find future oil reserves so that America would no longer be so dependent on foreign oil. The problem with Bush’s plan, according to Gore, was that this could be devastating to the environment of the scarcely populated Alaskan wilderness. Regardless of the political, legal or moral implications of such drilling, there are problems dealing with multiple types of rationality in this issue. In his book “Reason in Society,” Paul Diesing describes six major types of rationality. These include technical, economic, social, legal, political and ecological rational. It is easy to comprehend that this environmental issue involves each one of these types of rationality. First of all, the technical rationality is demonstrated through the question of whether or not oil can be found in Alaska, and if it could, would there be enough present to really make a dramatic difference for the consumer? It must also be considered as to how this drilling may effect the environment of this area. Technical rationality also questions whether or not there are ways to drill that can possibly leave the natural resources of this area with as little human interference as possible. Engineers and scientists can try to come up with ways to create a process with which the area will not be devastated by the involvement with man

Robert Jervis - Perception and Level of Analysis

2001-04-30T14:00:00-04:00

Robert Jervis in Perception and Level of Analysis espouses the notion that in order to fully explain crucial decisions and policies it is essential that one pays heed to the decision-maker’s beliefs about the world and his or her perceptions of others. Rather than attempting to understand foreign policies as directly resulting from the three other levels of analysis, the bureaucratic, the domestic, and the international environment, which he outlines, Jervis contends that examination of a decision-maker’s perceptions, both their causes and effects, can more readily determine and explain behavioral patterns; in such a light, the taxonomy or three other levels of analysis appear devoid of truth value when applied alone, and all related theories are shown as invalid except in extreme cases. Nonetheless, one might more accurately contest that while careful study of a decision-maker’s beliefs is a necessity for comprehension, analysis of such beliefs is in fact an examination of bureaucratic organizations, domestic circumstances, and the international environment; all four are interrelated in the sense that the perceptions of the decision-maker are influenced by the circumstances existent in the three other levels. Likewise the three levels are themselves affected and often altered by the politician’s choices. Therefore, in order to provide the most comprehensive explanations of foreign policy decisions one cannot completely disregard externalities, and conversely one cannot ignore individual perceptions of decision-makers. One cannot rely solely on the bureaucratic level of analysis, the domestic, the international environment, or even on a combination of the three as adequate. What one might interpret as a clash of bureaucratic interests and stands yielding incoherent and conflicting policies, could in reality be a “clash among values that are widely held in both society and the decision-makers’ own minds” (Jervis 28). Similarly, if domestic situations were the medium upon which politicians base their decisions then changes in leadership would not necessarily produce significant changes in foreign policy; however, the consistency of foreign policy is difficult to measure. For example, some might contend that the Cold War would not have occurred had President Franklin Delano Roosevelt not died; they suggest that his death altered American policy in the sense that President Truman and his anti-Soviet position came to dominate political decision-making. Others contest that FDR would have acted similarly to Truman, as he too was coming to an anti-Soviet stance prior to his death. If the former is seen as accurate the domestic level

North Korea and The New Administration

2001-04-20T14:00:00-04:00

Half a century ago, war erupted in Korea on June 25,1950, along the thirty-eight parallel that separated North and South Korea, The Korean War set all the rules for East/West superpower conflict in the nuclear age. And in so doing brought the world closer to an all out atomic race that is still proliferating today. The international community today is witnessing an increasing spread in weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. Especially, the nuclear threat of the ambiguous North Koreans, which have the capabilities of striking South Korea, Japan, and the Continental United States. Last year the U.S. came close to reaching an agreement that would have ended its development and export of ballistic missiles and related technologies under the Clinton Administration. But time ran out before an agreement could be finalized. Talks have recently resumed from a visit by President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea with President Bush on March 6. The Bush Administration is undertaking what it calls a through review of American policy towards North Korea and its president Kim Jong II. It is clear that the Bush Administration is taking a far harder line than the Clinton Administration did in 1994 that tried unsuccessfully, to close a deal on missile control before they left office. The Bush Administration has called for “verification” of compliance with the 1994 Geneva agreement, as well as new agreements for doing away with production, testing and sale of missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. At the same time Washington is demanding reciprocity from the North for gestures of good will by South Korea and the United States. However, there is much skepticism on the different views that each side poses on the right strategy and policy aim at North Korea. Douglas Paal, who heads the Asian Pacific Policy Center said, “Bush is like a cop and Kim Jung is like a priest.” “The cop wants to get the North Koreans disarmed and off the streets, while the priest wants to give him the resource to become a very different person” (NY Times ,March 6). As President Kim Dae Jung sees no safe or sane alternative to the course on which the Koreans will embark. Surely, the art of diplomacy has been a rocky and uncertain journey. However, for Kim and his “Sunshine Policy”, it has only brought a relaxation of tensions along the demilitarized zone luckily so far. The Bush Administration is committed to

Democracy Verses the Red Machine

2001-04-16T14:00:00-04:00

In past and even in recent history, world politics has taken many faces ranging from the absolute monarchies of PhillipII to the dictatorships of Sadam Hussein. Some political institutions have even stood out and have taken center stage in political theses. Two successful institutions that follow this criteria include democracy, backed by de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and communism, as written in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. While both these aspects of politics have enjoyed ample success, there is no possible way both these worlds can coexist and function because democracy has exceptionally achieved far more prestige and withstood the ravage of time in terms of American democracy. Communism could have been the answer to governing a nation but due to the vice of power-hungry leaders, democracy surpasses this institution with evidence from history, revealing why these political powers machines cannot remain mutually exclusive. Communism can be regarded as a social system in which property is owned by the community and each member works for the common benefit. Such an ideal where the community as a whole works for equal benefit may seem to paint the perfect picture at first but this theory becomes tainted. The Communist Manifesto proclaims, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations” (Marx 12). What communism lacks, due to ignorance by its perfect picture, is the aspect of proper management to further a country’s prestige. And what happens when you have management via dictatorship? There usually lurks the abuse of power and later the overthrow of a power by civil war or international powers. What communism lacks that democracy fosters is the virtue of progress that allows a nation to rise above and endure times of hostility. The portrait of democracy is best painted by the French writer deTocqueville who acts as a mere observer of American democracy rather than a participant. Although taking such an objective stance, he adores the democratic institution in America. Democracy in response to communism is government by the whole people of a country. The answer communism exclusively has that democracy lacks is the solution to the class struggle as identified by deTocqueville, “The division of property has lessened the distance which separated the rich from the poor; but it would seem that, the nearer they draw

U.S. Foreign Policies

2001-03-16T13:00:00-04:00

Speaker: An Iraqi student in the U.S. Crowd: Senators and University professors Situation: Madeline Albright just gave a speech about U.S. foreign policy/ relations Imagine the fear of not knowing how your parents and little sister are doing back home. Imagine the shock of finding out your little sister is dying because there were no medicines available for her treatment. Imagine the sorrow you feel when you go back home and find your hometown in ruins and not anymore as beautiful, modern and safe as it once used to be. Well, I experienced all of that, and still wish that it's only a bad nightmare. Mrs. Albright who was speaking about U.S. foreign policy failed to mention Iraq in her speech. About 5 months ago I saw her on TV in an interview with CNN. The reporter who had just returned from Iraq was describing that a million children were dying (died) due to sanctions imposed on the people of Iraq. He told her: "…..that is more children that have died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think its worth it?" Mrs. Albright looked into the camera and replied: " Yes, it is worth it." Let me tell you more about Iraq, because it only gets worse from this point onwards. I believe there is a genocide happening in Iraq. It is a second holocaust. I have read of such bad things in history happening, like the Word Wars and people dropping atomic bombs without even thinking of the ramifications. 2.5 million people have died in Iraq so far, but still sanctions continue. For the last 10 years you wouldn't imagine the kinds of things that aren't being let into the country: heart machines, lung machines, needles, infrastructural parts to build the economy. Even for cancer patients sometimes only some of the medicine will be let in, but not all. It's very strategic what is let in and at what time, because what it does, is, it prolongs life, but doesn't save it. Iraq which before the sanctions had the best medical services in the Arab World, now has to use gasoline to clean they're hospital floors, because detergents aren't allowed into the county due to sanctions. This is how U.S. policy has brought Iraq into such a bad shape. The problem is that even though USA has imposed sanctions and recently even found out that Iraq has no nuclear capabilities they continue to bomb

Imperialism

2001-02-21T13:00:00-05:00

Imperialism is the total domination of the political, economical, or cultural aspects or a nation. Imperial colonization has been occurring sense the beginning of time. An imperialistic

Who I favor for president in 2000

2001-01-09T13:00:00-05:00

Each of the candidates for President and Vice-President has specific experience and numerous accomplishments that aid in decision-making for voters. Al Gore graduated with honors from Harvard University in 1969. Later in that year, he voluntarily enlisted in the United States Army to go to Vietnam as a military journalist. In May of 1971, he returned from Vietnam. After that, he attended the Vanderbilt Univ.Grad School of Religion from 1971 until 1972. Later, he attended Vanderbilt University Law School from 1975 to 1976. In November of 1976, he was elected to congress representing Tennessee’s Fourth Congressional District. In February of 1979, he cosponsored the Department of Education Organization Act. In October of 1984, he was elected to the United States Senate. In 1988, he ran for president, winning more than three million votes in 1988 presidential campaign. In 1992, he became one of ten US Senators to support the Persian Gulf War. In November of 1992, Al Gore wa elected as the 45th Vice-President of the United States. In 1993, Gore casted the deciding vote for the administration’s 1993 economic plan. In November of 1996, Gore is reelected as 46th Vice-President of the United States. In August of 1997 the Clinton-Gore administration signs the first balanced budget in a generation. Gore spoke at the Columbine High School memorial service calling for stricter gun control and support for the families of the victims. He certainly stands with an impressive amount of accomplishments and experience as a politician in the United States. Joseph Lieberman was born in Stamford, Connecticut on February 24, 1942 and attended public schools there. He received his bachelor's degree from Yale College in 1964 and his law degree from Yale Law School in 1967. Lieberman was elected to the Connecticut State Senate in 1970 and served there for 10 years, including the last 6 as Majority Leader. He also spent time in the private practice of law, and as an Assistant Dean of the School of Art and Architecture at Yale. From 1982 to 1988, Joe Lieberman served as Connecticut's 21st Attorney General, and used the post to fight for consumers in Connecticut. He took on the oil industry and brought legal actions to promote women's rights. Lieberman also was an aggressive enforcer of the state's environmental protection laws. In 1988, Lieberman won the biggest upset victory in the country, by beating incumbent Lowell Weicker to win election to

China as Most Favored Nation

2000-11-13T13:00:00-05:00

What is the debate on weather or not China should retain favored-nation trading status all about? Is it really a decision on what is best economically for the United States, and China. Or is it: the issue of Chinese human rights violations and the fact that if the United States where to revoke the favored nation status of China it would have a profound negative impact on the U.S. economy alone. (+)Most-favored-nation trade status started in the United States as a version of the European preferential trade system. The Carter Administration first granted most-favored-nation trading status to China in 1980, following the historic efforts of President Nixon during the 1970’s to restore diplomatic ties. Historically, a significant difference existed between the unconditional most-favored-nation clause in European trade law and the American version of conditional most-favored-nation. Under unconditional most-favored-nation status, one country's extension of tariff concessions guarantees the same concessions to all nations associated with it through commercial treaties. American conditional most-favored-nation status provided treaty signatories only the opportunity to negotiate most-favored-nation status when most-favored-nation status was extended to another trading partner. Thus meaning that the United States gives significant economic advantages to one nation in the form of most-favored-nation trading status. Under the Trade Act of 1974, most-favored-nation status could only be granted to China through a Sino-American bilateral commercial agreement and satisfaction of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment requirements. The Jackson-Vanik amendment states that the President of the United States may grant a communist country such as China most-favored-nation trade status if it was in conjunction with a trade agreement and upon proper improvement that China would permit emigration. Also China would have to satisfy that they are moving toward improving current policies. The conclusion of the US-PRC commercial accord in July 1979, and the initial waiving of the Jackson-Vanik requirements, and with Congressional approval, most-favored-nation status was granted to China. This action sealed the successful efforts of the Carter Administration to create social and economic ties through Sino-American relations. The renewal of China’s most-favored-nation trade status has been supported by Chinese liberalization of its own emigration policies. Six hundred and twenty-five thousand Chinese citizens traveled abroad in 1990. The Chinese government in 1990 issued 280,000 new passports. During the same year, the United States issued seventeen thousand immigrant visas through consular offices in China, the full number allowed by American immigration law. The principal restraint to Chinese emigration has arisen not from Chinese emigration

The Price of Freedom

2000-11-11T13:00:00-05:00

What is the price of freedom that was paid, and is being paid? Freedom was paid with anguish, pain, time, and lives. We, the inhabitants of America, are fortunate to see this land where we have unalienable human rights that are just basic and essential statutes. There is always a cost for something; furthermore there is a price on our freedom. We pay taxes, follow the land and society¡¯s regulations, vote, and so on. The topic of importance and eminence is how, why, and what paid for our freedom. Women have come a long way from being ¡°House-Wives.¡± In many countries, women have little or no power, or role. Furthermore, that is why this country, America, gives freedom to women to carry their own individual dreams out. They paid for their current freedom, suffrage, and liberty by peaceful, yet passionate and touching demonstrating. They have paved the way for the future to evolve and develop. Immigrants have paid for their freedom by working, or literally paying for it. It costs these new immigrants a pretty penny to migrate to the so-called ¡°Land of Opportunity,¡± and worked harder than anyone else just to exist and survive here. New societal regulations and government rules just make it harder for newcomers to assimilate to their new lives. This country is built on immigration and their hard labor work, using people ranging from Black slaves to Hispanic workers on the streets waiting for jobs. Furthermore, without them many tasks would have not been achieved. The Chinese for example migrated here and built the first railroads, in addition they worked on sugar plantations of Hawaii, only increasing Uncle Sam¡¯s wallet. All for their freedom and liberty in America. World War I, World War II, Vietnam War, Korean War, American Revolution, Civil War, French & Indian War, and so on. These wars all occurred for one main reason, to protect the people and their endowed rights. If brave and courageous warriors did not step on to the battlefield, and sacrifice themselves to their country, who knows what could have happened. Pain was suffered, families were separated, and veterans were hopelessly injured. Why did they suffer torment and defile conditions? To rid the depravity and keep our Freedom! In conclusion, I feel that no one should be able to take away freedom. Too often this happens in other countries, that are less fortunate of this great democratic lifestyle. Imagine life without

Euthanasia in Australia

2000-11-01T13:00:00-04:00

Euthanasia and the 1995 Rights of the Terminally Ill Act When we hear the phrase voluntary euthanasia people generally think of one of two things: the active termination of life at the patient's or the Nazi extermination program of murder. Many people have beliefs about whether euthanasia is right or wrong, often without being able to define it clearly. Some people take an extreme view, while many fall somewhere between the two camps. The derivation means gentle and easy death coming from the Greek words, eu - thanatos. Euthanasia was formerly called "mercy killing," euthanasia means intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing that person to die naturally. Put bluntly, euthanasia means killing in the name of compassion. Euthanasia is often confused with physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia is when one person does something that directly kills another. For example, a doctor gives a lethal injection to a patient. In assisted suicide, a non-suicidal person knowingly and intentionally provides the means or acts in some way to help a suicidal person kill himself or herself. For example, a doctor writes a prescription for poison, or someone hooks up a face mask and tubing to a canister of carbon monoxide and then instructs the suicidal person on how to push a lever so that she'll be gassed to death. For all practical purposes, any distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide has been abandoned today. Euthanasia in Australia (pre-1995) In the last decade or so several Australian states and territories have taken action aimed at guaranteeing the right of adult patients of sound mind to direct that extraordinary measures to prolong life be stopped. South Australia passed the Natural Death Act in 1983, Victoria the Medical Treatment Act in 1988, the Northern Territory the Natural Death Act in 1988 and the Australian Capital Territory passed the Medical Treatment Act in 1994. NSW issued "interim guidelines" in 1993. The afore-mentioned legislation covers the following: 1) Refusal or withdrawal of current treatment. 2) Issuing a direction for refusal of certain treatment in the event that the patient becomes incompetent to make decisions. 3) Appointing an agent to make decisions on refusal of treatment in the event that the patient becomes incompetent to make decisions. Though these legislative guidelines deal with the rights of a patient to refuse current medical treatment, it is often doubted whether they make a considerable difference to medical practice. Even without the legislation, the right

Democracy vs Dictatorship

2000-10-31T13:00:00-04:00

Imagine the next time you step into the voting booth your ballot only lists one candidate to choose from. Or perhaps your ballot lists four candidates, but they are all from the Liberal party. Dictatorships are one party political systems that are ruled by one leader or an elite group of people under the principle of authoritarianism. Some feel that dictatorships are the most effective form of government because decisions are made quickly and extreme nationalism benefits the military and economy. These individuals value order, nationalism, and authority. However, these systems often result in violence, repression of the public, and few provisions for changes to the system. Democracies are multiparty political systems that rest on the principle of rule by the people. Most people that live in democracies have civil liberties1, and political rights2. Individuals who feel that multiparty systems are the best government value equality, accountability, and freedom. Nations that have multiparty political systems will meet the needs of the public better through the means of political equality, a higher standard of living3, and civil liberties. Dictatorships often occur when a nation is economically and politically unstable. An example of this is Napoleon’s coup d’ etat in 1799 France. In a system of authoritarian rule decisions are made efficiently because very few people are involved in the decision making process. The leader or elite group at the head of the government decides on new policies and economic measures, then makes sure that the public abides by them by using tactics of force and indoctrination. Dictatorial systems have helped nations recover from economic turmoil many times in the past. The extreme nationalism that is born from propaganda and government sponsored youth organizations encourages people to work harder for the benefit of their country. Newly motivated work forces easily meet their production goals. If the leader of a dictatorship is capable the country can rise to hold a great amount of international power. Building up the military is an important step to gain power. A strong military will discourage other countries from attacking and also discourage the citizens of the country from rebelling. The force of nationalism, and new laws that can be easily passed regarding education (such that every male of a certain age must serve time in the military) allow military strength of dictatorships to multiply. The Soviet Union experienced a dictatorial system from 1917 to 1985. Under the

Pat Buchanan Speaks Out

2000-10-22T14:00:00-04:00

Thursday night the Phillips Center for Performing Arts hosted a very special guest appearance by the Reforms Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. In the year of presidential elections the two popular candidates George Bush and Al Gore really don’t lash out on each other, which makes this years debates boring and long. Pat Buchanan is refreshing to the sense he doesn’t care what he says about the other candidates. Pat Buchanan’s history includes serving as an assistant to Richard Nixon, and also to Ronald Regan. An accomplished journalist in his younger career, Pat Buchanan wrote speeches for the Reykjavik summit with Mikhail Gorbachev, and Richard Nixon’s popular speech to the opening of China in 1972. A solid Republican through many years in the White House Pat Buchanan saw a growing problem and decided to do something about it. Buchanan says, ” The other parties do not realize the problems in America, we are loosing our country and what we stand for”. Buchanan wasted no time on stage knocking both Gore and Bush, because they are failing to talk about real problems in the United States. “These guys stand up here and are scared to death to step on each other toes and tell the Gods honest truth”. Buchanan feels that he left the Republican Party because they will not fight for American rights. Buchanan really focused his ideas with building America back to the nation our founding fathers wanted. He pointed out the problem with America’s heritage taking Washington’s day and changing it to President’s day. Buchanan explained, “When did we stop celebrating our first President of United States, and start celebrating Presidents such as Bill Clinton”. He also argued the problem of changing Christmas break to Winter break, and Easter break into Spring break. What’s more surprising is his views on why America is changing and what he will do to change America back to the land of liberty. Buchanan blames the change in United to States to the problem with immigration. “With too much immigration we are loosing communication with each other, we should teach all new immigrants English and emphasize American history first and foremost’. Buchanan feels that, “English is what as Americans brings us together, so everyone who lives in America should know English”. Buchanan also offered a strict policy on immigration on his new plan. Under Buchanan’s new plan he will cut foreign aid and also pull troops

World Bank Report 1999 & World Development Report 2000/2001

2000-09-20T14:00:00-04:00

Starting from the year 1990, the international community has set up plans to eliminate poverty in the world by the year 2015 with a set of specific goals to be achieved by that date. These goals were set up according to the studies done beforehand, that showed where and what the major poverty areas and problems in the world were. These studies explained that although the poverty problem was extensive, there were several factors of which the crisis was mainly constituted. The first problem was extreme income poverty, with almost half the world's population living on less than $2 a day, and a fifth living on less than $1 daily. Another major problem was education, which encompassed many aspects. Not only wasn't primary education compulsory in many regions, but there were also problems regarding women getting equal education to men, due to cultural, social and economic barriers. The third main problem area was health, where child mortality rates, for example, were alarming; 'in rich countries fewer than 1 child in 100 does not reach its fifth birthday, while in the poorest countries as many as a fifth of the children do not'. After getting these goals in focus and setting these plans in motion, it was discovered that they weren't going as well as planned. It was found that the goals were pretty unrealistic compared to the conditions and the time period. For example, one of the goals was 'cutting income poverty by half'. This could only be achieved, if income poverty decreased by 2.7% annually between 1990 and 2015, which didn't happen, because studies showed that between 1990 and 1998, it decreased by only 1.7% annually. This failure to achieve the objectives was mainly because of the inequality of the world; inequality in distribution of income, inequality in cultural and religious conditions, inequality in practically too many facets of life to be able to control or conform to a generalized plan. So, from the outcome of this attempt and from going back to the reports of previous decades, a new strategy to eliminate poverty was laid out, based on three fundamental interrelated concepts that could be adapted to each community differently according to its individual conditions. These concepts are promoting opportunity, facilitating empowerment, and enhancing security. In promoting opportunity, the government plays an important role, in making it easy for poor people to start their own small businesses by making the

Is Government Interference Right?

2000-08-18T14:00:00-04:00

Should government have the right to interfere in our private lives? Does being part of a representative democracy mean that we abdicate our freedom to make our own choices in the name of the good of all? Should the government have the right to interfere in our private lives? Democracy guarantees freedom. One might then argue that a government should allow people to act according to their own free will. But there are two sides to every coin. Absolute independence might not lead to anything productive in an interdependent society as ours. There needs to be a basic framework of rules and guidelines to which all participants in that society agree to. According to Hobbes, human nature is such that if there were no rules or a law enforcing institution in the government, it would be a war of every man against every man1. The government regulates the activities of individuals in a manner such that the freedom guaranteed by democracy to everybody is not infringed upon by the selfish acts of few. Apart from the protection of these basic rights of people, I feel that government interference in our private live is not acceptable. Systems such as welfare and progressive taxes do not seem quite right. The government should definitely work towards the increase in the standard of living of the whole nation but it should not be by snatching well-earned money from the rich in the form of progressive taxes just because they have some extra money whereas some others are not so fortunate enough. On the other hand, encouraging people to learn and obtain knowledge would pay of in the long run by making them self-sufficient without depending on the welfare systems of the nation. Further taking the economic perspective into account, this would even help the nation as a whole by increasing its total production and achieving economic growth. This in turn could lead to greater equality amongst the citizens and the whole theory about levying taxes prospective in nature could be dropped without having any arguments. Government also tries to control our lives and means of sustenance by the affirmative action policies it has adopted. Democracy should ensure people the right to work irrespective of race or ethnicity. Worthy people have lost in this competition of the labor market just because he is not of some particular caste or religion. It sure has some positive sides to it but

Australian Foreign Policy

2000-08-14T14:00:00-04:00

What is Foreign Policy? Foreign Policy is a nations’ attitude, actions (ie economic sanctions, peacekeeping, military activity) as well as our dealings with other countries (ie trade, immigration, aid, defence) and anything that is directed towards preserving and furthering certain national interests. Foreign Policy seeks to maintain national security, promote economic and trade interests, expand regional and global links, and promote the nation as a good global citizen. Why is FP unique in terms of FP making? Indeed, FP is unique in terms of policy making, largely because it requires little legislation. In essence, governments do not have to face a review of their policy enshrined in legislation in the Senate. Arguably FP may be made with little reference to Parliament as it usually obtains bi-partisan support as recently exemplified by the outstanding Labor Party support for an additional Medicare levy to cover the costs of Australian peacekeeping forces in East Timor. Consequentially, FP is seldom a topic for elections as it does not directly affect the electorate, nor does it gather the same level of community participation or interest as many other policies. Key features… A 1997 White Paper on Foreign and Trade Policy called ‘In the National Interest’ is the most important single statement on FP in recent years. It set the guideline for FP according to the National Interest. Implicit in the National Interest is to maintain national security through international diplomacy and readiness to defend the continent and territories against possible armed attack or other aggression, to protect and promote the nation’s economic welfare and living standards, which increasingly depend on global economic growth, free international trade and the confidence of global international markets, and to keep our democratic way of life, and our civil and political liberties. A more recent foreign policy priority is the promotion of the nation as an active and responsible global citizen. Success in this area is measured by our response to human rights, terrorism, third world debt, and drug issues. Australia already has a well deserved international reputation because of the work of previous foreign ministers, e.g Bill Hayden and Gareth Evans on human rights. Key players and their roles… Decisions about FP are made by the executive and the bureaucracy making it incompatible with the democracy that Australia is. The government can dominate foreign policy in a way that it cannot dominate domestic policy. The specialised nature of the development, ultimate secrecy and lack of legislative obligations

What's at Stake in the 2000 Presidential Election

2000-08-13T14:00:00-04:00

This is perhaps the most important election of our time. Looking at it pragmatically, we only have two viable choices: Bush or Gore. As someone who is apparently concerned about environmental issues, abortion issues, and economic issues the choice between the two should be obvious -al gore In addition a simple fact is Nader will not be elected president in November gore in effect a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Gore may offer him a cabinet position to drop out of the race. As for the U.S. Supreme Court, consider this: The U.S. Senate confirms Supreme Court nominees. The Republican Party will control the U.S. Senate. The DNC and the RNC alike have stated they are sure on the control of the Senate [AP 04/02]. George W. Bush is on record as stating that his two FAVORITE U.S. Supreme Court justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the most ultra- conservative justices on the bench. During there terms some very important cases will be up for review such as Roe vs. Wade [Vote 5-4] and the Miranda rights case. Gov Bush will appoint conservative justices (he says he will not conduct a litmus test to determine if they are pro life, he does not need to conduct a limits test to determine their pro life! He knows what a complete conservative believes in; he is just saying this so afterward he can just claim ignorance and say I didn't know) for those of you who don't believe Bush would do this Bush has signed at-least 18 anti-choice provisions into law since he has been Governor of Texas. In an interview in August 1999, Bush agreed with the claim that he was the most anti-abortion governor in the United States. "I rest their case. I’m pro-life," Bush said. Bush’s record was enough to earn the endorsement of National Right to Life. [National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, "NARAL Fact Sheet," 7/22/99; CNN, Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields, 8/14/99; Boston Globe, 2/9/00] A woman's right to choose will not be the only issue at stake into he supreme court. I believe that a court controlled by the right wing will also have a good chance of ruling that some of our environmental protection laws are unconstitutional. Do you think that Bush will feel compelled to pick moderate judges as his U.S. Supreme Court nominees with a friendly, Republican-controlled Senate

Communism vs Democracy

2000-06-16T14:00:00-04:00

Communism is an original system of society, quite different from Democracy in many ways. While total democracy is not widely spread, many forms of it are prosperous throughout the world today. One of the first and major differences between a Communist and Democratic government is their contrary economic systems. In a communist government, the community owns the major resources and means of production. The goal of such a system is to prevent any one person or group of people from becoming radically rich, while others are extremely poor. The system attempts to eliminate lower class by balancing the wealth between rich and poor, therefore giving everyone equal pay and ownership. Unfortunately, this results in an increased lower class. However, in a Democracy, free enterprising is permitted, and smiled upon. ? Here, free enterprising helps the economy to flourish. People can organize their own businesses and receive their own profits if it succeeds, or debts if it fails. In this system, the harder a person works, the more money they receive, allowing them to ‘make ends meet.’ The downside to democracy is that people can get a high paying job through education, but may work just as hard at a lower paying job and receive less money. As Winston Churchill once said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Generally, Democracy’s seem be more successful economically. In a democracy, money is the most dominant incentive. On the contrary, in a communist government, a person can work a million times harder than the person sitting next to him, and receive equal pay. This results in no incentive on the part of the worker whatsoever. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder, people become slothful, which does little good for a country’s economy. In most attempts, past and present, communism has failed economically, whereas democracies have a commendable success rate. Communism is most widely taken up by Third World countries striving for national independence and sudden social change (Russia, Cuba, and Northern Korea). Forms of democracy however, are usually exercised by countries, which have a long-range goal to succeed, or improve economically (Britain, U.S.A.). Most widely first heard of through Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, communism hasn’t been around nearly as long as democracy, which is first known to have existed in the city-states of ancient

A Dictionary of Modern Revolution: How Che Guevara Has Affected My Life

2000-05-24T14:00:00-04:00

The book A Dictionary of Modern Revolution written by Edward Hyams is a book that has changed my entire view on society, life, greed, and morales. This book tells the entire life of a famous revolutionary named Ernesto Guevara. Ernesto Guevara is widely known throughout the world as Che Guevara or simply Che. The interesting twist that makes Che so interesting is that he was

The Library Of Congress

2000-05-16T14:00:00-04:00

HISTORY The Library of congress was established by an act of congress on April 24, 1800. It was originally housed in the United States capitol. The collection, which stared out small at 740 volumes, slowly increased to over 3,000 volumes by 1814. That year, though, the British along with the capitol burned those books during the assault on Washington. To rapidly replace the collection, Thomas Jefferson offered his personal library to congress at no cost, describing the nature of his books like so: "I do not know that it contains any branch of science which Congress would wish to exclude from the collections; there is, in fact, no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasion to refer." This changed the library from a tiny legislative workplace to the largest national institute that it was about to become. Jefferson’s more or less 6,500 volumes formed the heart of the library, and grew speedily in the nineteenth century. The new copyright law of 1870 demanded that two copies of every single book copyrighted had to be given to the library in order to receive protection. The flood of material that resulted forced the construction of a new building that opened in 1897. A new age for the library was guided by the opening of the Jefferson building and The Main Reading room. Special format collections were separated from the book collections and the readers could access them in different locations of the library. Some of these format collections were maps, prints, music, and manuscripts. The continued growth of the library’s collection required two new buildings at the location of the library, Capitol Hill. These two new buildings were the Adams building, built in 1939, and the Madison building, built in 1980. Even though these new libraries were opened, the Main reading room stayed the central point of access for the libraries collections. Most people, weather they are doing specialized or general work will start in the main reading room. That reason is because the main reading room has the Computer Catalog Center, The main card catalog, and about 70,000 volumes in the reference section. Up-to-date information is maintained mostly by technology. The computer catalog gives a lot of information of the libraries collections, information of Congressional legislation, selective indexing of periodical articles, and PCs around the library provides access to a large variety of reference database in an electronic format. THE BUILDINGS The law that

Drug and Alcohol Abuse

2000-04-28T14:00:00-04:00

If I were an advisor to the Governor of Missouri, the issue I would encourage him to address is the manufacture of drugs and the use of drugs and alcohol throughout our state. The advice I would give him is to impose stiffer penalties for those who manufacture drugs and focus on prevention, and, most importantly, rehabilitation, of those who abuse alcohol or drugs. According to the Missouri Department of Mental Health, alcohol and drug abuse affects more than 259,000 Missourians and another 800,000 who are family members of substance abusers. That is roughly 20% of Missourians who are affected. Intoxication by the means of drugs and alcohol contribute to a great percentage of deaths statewide from burns, fires, homicides, assaults, drowning, suicides and traffic crashes. I believe that very stiff penalties must go towards those who manufacture illegal drugs. These people have no regard for human life. These manufacturers sell the drugs that pollute and corrupt our society without shame or remorse and should be severely punished. I believe another way to limit the manufacture of drugs is to make a college education easier to achieve, therefore making honest, lucrative careers more obtainable. The state of Missouri should lower the cost of tuition in its colleges and universities and raise the amount of state money in the areas of financial aid, grants and scholarships. While this measure will contribute to a loss of state money, I believe that it will also save money by keeping potential drug manufacturers out of the jail cells and in the classrooms. I believe that it is also important to prevent people, especially children and teenagers, from using drugs and alcohol. Many children and teenagers throughout Missouri experiment with drugs every day. Programs that are already in place for children, such as the "Mo Says No" and "Take Hugs, Not Drugs" campaigns are great, but I believe that these programs should continue to the junior high and high school levels because most drug use begins here, not in elementary. For junior high students, schools should hold voluntary drug testing (with the parents' consent) every month and those who test negative could receive a pizza party, a dance or something of that nature. This will reward drug-free junior high students and will encourage other students, who might have tried drugs, to do likewise. For high school students, we should provide more scholarships like the Bar S scholarship. This

The Ineptitude of the United States

2000-03-26T14:00:00-04:00

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those are the opening lines to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. Yet, slavery continued in the United States for nearly ninety years after this document declared that "all men where created equal," and those "unalienable rights" are still not shared by everyone in the United States. The U.S. has been lacking in its responsibility to its citizens. The state responsibility for human and civil rights must be expanded in the United States. In December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The thirty articles of the UDHR were developed to provide a clear definition of human rights. It then became the responsibility of the states of the United Nations to protect those rights. This is where the United States is lacking. The U.S. is one of the founding nations of the United Nations and one of the most influential, yet it has failed to take adequate state responsibility for human rights. Before the ineptitude of the United States can be discussed, the concept of state responsibility for human and civil rights must be clearly defined. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines state as "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory," and responsibility as "moral, legal, or mental accountability." These definitions of state and responsibility can be interpreted and combined to provide a literal definition of state responsibility. The definition of state responsibility could then be seen as "the moral and legal accountability of a government." A concise notion of state responsibility for human and civil rights would then be congruent to "the moral and legal accountability of government for life, liberty, security, and any other finite right of a person." With the concept of state responsibility for human and civil rights having been defined, the extent of state responsibility in the United States can be discussed. Rhonda Copelon once noted, "…the most limited conception of state responsibility [in the United States] has been essentially dismantled." Copelon also made a statement to the effect that rights in the U.S. are limited to constraints on government and that they do not reach private conduct or include the most basic social and economic

The Inequality of American Justice

2000-03-26T14:00:00-04:00

David Cole wrote, "our criminal justice system affirmatively depends on inequality" (5). Cole has substantial grounds for making this statement. Race and class have long been issues in the criminal justice system, but does the system "affirmatively depend on inequality?" Does the criminal justice system depend on the disparities of the people that it serves? American justice is supposed to be blind. Despite this there have been many disparities in the justice system due to racial, social class, and economic reasons. "Absent race and class disparities, the privileged among us could not enjoy as much constitutional protection of our liberties as we do…" (Cole 5). The case of Gideon v. Wainwright can be used to illustrate this point. Cole summarizes the case: Clarence Earl Gideon, a penniless Florida man, down on his luck and charged with breaking and entering a poolroom, claims that although he can’t afford a layer, he has a constitutional right to have a lawyer appointed by the state to defend him. When the Florida trial court denies his request, [Gideon] represents himself, and is convicted. From prison, [Gideon] sends a hand-written note to the Supreme Court asking it to hear his case. …Abe Fortas [is appointed] to argue Gideon’s case, and then [the Court] rules that the Sixth Amendment guarantees indigent defendants the assistance of a lawyer in all serious criminal trials. On retrial, with a lawyer paid for by the states, Gideon is acquitted. (63) The Gideon v. Wainwright may not appear to support the previous statement: "Absent race and class disparities, the privileged among us could not enjoy as much constitutional protection of our liberties as we do…" (Cole 5). The outcome of Gideon requires government to provide a lawyer to a defendant, "[b]ut as long as the state provides a warm body with a law degree and a bar admission, little else matters" (Cole 64). Even though the state provides indigent defense counsel, most are "underpaid, overworked, and given insufficient resources to conduct an adequate investigation and defense" (Cole 84). Cole states that in 1990, "[t]he national average per capita spending on local and state indigent defense was $5.37" (84). Cole also points out other facts about the ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright: One of the most remarkable facts about the constitutional right declared in Gideon v. Wainwright is that it was not a constitutional right for the first 184 years of our Constitution. The Sixth

The Evolution of Inequality in the U.S. Legal System

2000-03-26T14:00:00-04:00

In the United States, true equality has never existed. From the Declaration of Independence to modern times, the U.S. legal system has failed in any attempt at equality. The ideology of "all [men] are equal but some [men] are more equal than others" has been present throughout the history of the U.S. (Orwell). Inequality has always existed in the United States legal system and continues to exist today; however, the inequality presently in the system is not as blatant as what it once was, but the system has come to depend on inequality. Since the very beginning of a legal system in the United States, there has been inequality. The Declaration of Independence declared that "…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…"(Jefferson). The reality of the Declaration of Independence was that all free, white, landowning men are created equal. Slavery continued in the U.S. for nearly ninety years after the Declaration, and black Americans still feel the sting of inequality. Women were also left out of "…all men are created equal…." The implied meaning of the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence is what the U.S. legal system has strived for and failed to grasp fully. After the establishment of independence in the United States, the development of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ensued. The Bill of Rights was to establish the basic rights of every citizen of the United States, but failed to do so. The rights of white, male citizens were the only rights that were ensured by the Bill of Rights. The rights of blacks and the underprivileged were not even considered. The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" ("Constitution", Amendment V). These rights were often denied to those that were second class citizens or those people that were not even considered to be people, such as slaves. The rights ensured by the first ten amendments have been denied to some part of the population at any given time in American history. The denying of the basic rights established by the Bill of Rights is not limited to the any one

The Corruption Crisis of the European Commission

2000-03-06T13:00:00-05:00

Abstract: The Corruption Scandal of the European Commission and its possible effects on the institutional balance and the question of legitimacy I. Defining Corruption The first chapter is an attempt to define corruption. It is important to divide overlapping and complicated terms such as corruption, scandal and fraud. Corruption is defined as an illegal transaction, where both actors benefit from their special position in the market or the government. Scandal is the public reaction to allegations of corruption and thus it is interconnected with the issue of legitimacy. Fraud, however is a purely criminal cathegory. The European Commission is a multicultural and multinational institution of the European Union so it is vital to take into account the cultural relativity of the meaning of corruption. Corruption can only be defined within a specific society and at a specific time. This culture specific aspect of corruption is reflected in the division of so called black, white and grey corruption. Black corruption in a given society is a repremanded behaviour both by the public and by experts. It is a well defined area of the untolerated behaviour. White corruption on the other hand is the behaviour that is tolerated by the public in a given society and not looked upon as misbehaviour. Grey corruption is the area in between, which is tolerated by a part of the society, while seen as corruption by the other part. It is also important to realize the dynamics of the definition of corruption, as it changes with geography or time from black to grey to white corruption (or vica versa). Corruption scandals are often only a sign of this change in the public perception of corruption. These cultural differences can be observed in the member states of the European Union. There is a dividing line on the imaginary corruption scale between the Northern protestant countries (Denmark being the least corrupt) and the Southern catholic countries (with Italy at the lowest end of the corruption scale). The corruption in the Mediterranian countries can be identified along the lines of amoral familiarism, and the constant use of mediators. The cause of this southern type of corruption is the relative weakness of tthe central government and the inefficiency of the buerocracy. These madiators came to be the only effective channels between central governments and peripheries. They were the seeds of organized crime of the maffia for example, which integrated into the central government. In the northern

The Advisory opinion of the ICJ on the legality of Nuclear Weapons

2000-03-06T13:00:00-05:00

One of my first memories is a beautiful warm summer night, sitting in the garden with my grandfather, looking up to the stars. Then my grandfather started to talk about two powerful men in the world, who have all the capability just by pushing two buttons to destroy the entire planet. The bombs would come with great light and unbearable heat and there would be nowhere to hide. Everybody and everything would be destroyed. I remember the shock I felt, I could not understand why would somebody want to destroy me. This was precipitation of the Cold War in a remote village of Eastern Europe. With the end of the Cold War the whole international climate seemed to change fundamentally. The theory that there is no stronger basis to human coexistence than "genocidal fear" was weakened. The arms race ended and it seemed clear that we are at crossroads. Disarmament was a political reality for the first time since the bomb was created. It soon became clear however, that there was no real political intention to do so. Security continued to be identified by nuclear strategy. It turned out also that the cease of enmity between the superpowers did not turn the world into a peaceful heaven. The last decade of this century has been just as violent as the previous ones, with the major conflict situations in Yugoslavia and the Gulf and several bloody conflicts in different third world countries. It seemed also that the international community’s attention had been averted from the question of disarmament. The question of nuclear weapons came back to the picture when allegations were spread in the media about Iraq having or almost having weapons of mass destruction; chemical and biological weapons and maybe nuclear weapons. This exposed the vulnerability and the imperfectness of the present regime of monitoring proliferation of nuclear weapons. The nuclear tests by France, India and Pakistan also showed that we are still leaving in a world of a possible nuclear war. The spread of the weapons of mass destruction to officially non-nuclear state mean also a higher risk that it is actually going to be used- intentionally or by accident. In this tense environment the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to render its Advisory Opinion on the following question: "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances

Should the Govt. Interfere in an Economy of A Country?

2000-02-03T13:00:00-05:00

Have you ever been on a baseball team? Or any other kind of organization? Then you must know that you need to work and cooperate with a number of other people in order to be successful. More importantly though, there is a coach, an instructor, a boss. This head honcho organizes all aspects of your team and keeps order. The head of your organization tells what you are going to learn, how to use and acquire the talent, and they will inform you what the target of your new skill is. Without a coach there is chaos and misunderstandings on the baseball field. Only the best players on the team will get to play and many feelings of being inferior compared to the rest of the team arise. This is an example of the contrasts of the market economy and the centrally planned economy. Countries are established very much like baseball teams, which is the reason why I chose to use the analogy above. The economy of a country affects everyone living in it and the type of economy changes your values, your hopes, and especially your reality. I feel that total government control has many more advantages than a market economy and controlled economy gives a country a connected feeling. My first reason promoting total government interference is that the govt. supports handicapped and people with physical disabilities. I attended a speaker in our school's conference and she told us a great deal about the mentally ill. Many of them live in a free market system and they are homeless because they are unable to get jobs to support themselves. Competition is much too great in the market economy. In the controlled system, the mentally ill would get the same benefits as any other working person. Because of this, the mentally ill are able to eat, to be clothed, to have a roof over their heads, and basically survive. The government and the work force meet their basic needs.Secondly, in a controlled economy there is little supply and demand. The government controls everything and does not allow the prices to rise and dip as extremely as $11.00/barrel of oil to $29.00/barrel of oil. This makes a controlled economy much more steady and secure. Sudden drops and hikes are virtually unknown to a centrally planned economy and the economy benefits from that.The government of a central economy can control monopolies

Lao-Tzu: The Moderation of Rule

2000-01-19T13:00:00-05:00

Ruling a country effectively is executed through a variety of methods. Lao-Tzu, a follower of Taoism, expresses his belief on the most efficient way to govern. "The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be" (25). This quote from Lao-Tzu can be interpreted many different ways. The author discusses what he feels the role of a leader should be, the restrictions and the privileges that should be given to the people. There are various views on this particular passage even among Americans. Lao-Tzu feels that taking action in order to make people feel safer and ensure their well being will actually be detrimental; although I agree with Lao-Tzu's tactics, most Americans hold differentiating views. The more restrictions you place on a people, the less moral the people will be. Americans encounter this on a daily basis. American society was founded upon and is enraptured by rebellion. The early American colonists revolted against the English government. The more laws and restrictions the King would place on them the more they would rebel and fight. When the American people feel oppressed by any law or prohibition set forth by the government the people will challenge it in an effort to change it. America is one of the only countries where its people actually believe they can make a difference and change what they feel is not right. Other countries around the world have been too oppressed to have enough hope for the future. Protests and demonstrations occur daily in the United States. The majority of crime committed against the government or any official organization by the people is out of spite or revolt for the prohibitions that are placed upon them. Therefore, Lao-Tzu's ideal is illustrated through the actions of the early American colonists. Having a greater amount of weapons will cause the people to feel less safe. If you live in a neighborhood where you do not have to lock your doors at night you will feel safer than if you lived in a neighborhood where every night you have to set the alarm on your house. On an international level, the more weapons a country has the more people will live in fear. They will feel that they are in a great amount of danger if the need

Nato Hits Chinese Embassy

2000-01-08T13:00:00-05:00

Three ultra-accurate laser-guided NATO missiles penetrated the walls of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia from different angles, exploded in the core of the building and decimated it to wreckage. Three people were reported killed, and 21 injured, while one is missing. The Chinese government and people are terribly outraged at NATO's method of expressing its displeasures, calling it a "barbarian act" and that "'the U.S.-led NATO should bear all responsibilities.'" NATO explained that they feel regretful of the mishap, saying the bombing was an unintentional accident. However, non-NATO countries analyze it differently, interpreting the bombing as an evil design of the NATO alliance, purposely assaulting the Chinese who objected to NATO's unhumanitarian bombing campaign all along and "has represented for Yugoslav interest in the United States since Belgrade broke diplomatic relations with Washington." China and Russia wishes NATO to stop its ruthless missile strikes immediately and discuss it the civilized way, through diplomatic means. NATO refuses to halt

Media's effect on Voters

1999-12-27T13:00:00-05:00

In our lazy nation today, most of the American citizen cast their vote on what they see on the news. It is safe to say that the media primarily control peoples opinion on political issues. Unfortunately the worlds most developed nation don't have time to carefully pick their leaders in any level. While vast opportunity of research is available to the American citizen to carefully pick their candidates, they choose to go along with the with what the media tells them to do. It is the media that controls the nation, it is the media that selects the agenda, and it will be the media that selects the president. Media also gives vast amount of information to keep us up to date with the changing world. It is important to watch the news, because news allows us to be up to date on current events. When it comes to keeping up with news, I usually tune to several different sources such as PBS and ABC. I choose to watch PBS and ABC because these sources generally gives the cold facts first, then allows journalist to give their opinion on certain issues. This is helpful because when the viewer knows the facts, they can relate their opinions to the opinions of the journalist. There are times when the media gets carried away with information, they allow their opinion to drive the fact, instead of the facts driving the opinion. This example was experienced in the case between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. The journalist's opinions, not facts drove the nations though about the issue. After President Clinton testified in front of Mr. Starr we learned the cold facts. This is why I believe media's most important job is to inform the public. Media's job is to inform. I'm not against media's quest to make profit, but I'm against it when media, the informer, gives untrue stories to catch ratings. What is the point of having a teacher who is interested in making money and forgetting about the most important thing, which is to teach children? In a nation that is so dependent on the media, it must be their duty to inform. The president himself is dependent on the media to keep up with the changing world. There must be other ways to gain ratings, but misinforming the public is not one of the options. That is why if I were to

Euthanasia

1999-10-17T14:00:00-04:00

"A dying man needs to die, as a sleepy man needs to sleep, and there comes a time when it is wrong, as well as useless to resist." -Steward Alsop, Stay of Execution Euthanasia has become an issue of increasing attention because of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicides. As of October 21 Kevorkian has assisted in nineteen suicides. Because of the increasing number of suicides in Michigan, Gov. Engler signed an anti-suicide law in late February that made doctor-assisted suicides a felony. During the 21-month trial period of the new law anyone assisting in a suicide can be sentenced to up to four years in prison and fined more than $2,000 (Reuters, 1993). With the passing of this law I thought that most people would be against the right-to-die, not so. In a poll cited in a 1991 issue of USA Today eighty percent of Americans think sometimes there are circumstances when a patient should be allowed to die, compared to only fifteen percent think doctors and nurses should always do everything possible to save a person's life. It also showed that eight in ten adults approve of state laws that allow medical care for the terminally ill to be removed or withheld, if that is what the patient "wishes", whereas only thirteen percent disapproved of the laws. Also seventy percent think the family should be allowed to make the decision about treatment on behalf of the patient, while another five percent think this is suitable only in some cases (Colasnto, 1991, p. 62). The results on mercy killing surprised me even more. Seventy percent think it is justified at least sometimes for a person to kill his or her spouse, if he or she is suffering terrible pain caused by a terminal illness. Even suicide is starting to be accepted. About half the public thinks a "moral right" to suicide exists if a person has an incurable disease or is suffering great pain with no hope of recovering (Colasnto, 1991, p. 63). About half of those with living parents think their mothers and fathers would want medical treatment stopped if they were suffering a great deal of pain in a terminal disease, or if they became totally dependant on a family member. Forty percent of their parents would want medical treatment stopped if daily activities became a burden (Colasnto, 1991, p. 63). With the continuous coverage of Dr. Kevorkian the views of people will continue

Locke Government Theory

1999-10-11T14:00:00-04:00

John Locke was born on August 29, 1632, into a middle class family during late Renaissance England. Locke started his studies at Christ Church in Oxford. He then went into medical studies and received a medical license, which he practiced under Anthony Cooper. They became friends, and when Cooper became Earl of Shaftesbury, Locke was able to hold minor government jobs and became involved in politics. Shaftesbury steered Locke towards the views of a government whose law was fair to all, and all were under the law. In 1679, Shaftesbury was tried for treason against James, Duke of York, who would later become King James II. Shaftesbury had tried to prevent James's right of succession, so he fled to Holland, and Locke followed. Locke returned to England with Queen Mary when she overthrew James II in the Glorious Revolution. The support which Locke showed for Mary demonstrates his mindset of politics, and shows his opposition towards despotic rulers and divine right. Locke saw many important men while in England, including Sir Isaac Newton, of whom he wrote. Through Locke's friendships with numerous government officials, Locke became influential in the politics of the seventeenth century. Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, written in 1690, dealt with the subject of human philosophy, and was written with consistency to the theories of Newton. Locke's views that experience produces ideas led him to believe that people are not aware of physical objects, but rather that they are aware of symbols for those objects, a believe shared by others such as Galileo and Descartes before him. John Locke became convinced that true knowledge cannot be attained in natural science, but only through concrete mathematics. This theory was later adopted by several other philosophers. Locke was the first theorist of the philosphy of liberalism, which says that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. Locke's philosophical beliefs and theories are the basis of numerous other philosophers, and play an important role in the development of the American judicial system. Some examples of these are the pursuit of happiness and the system of checks and balances throughout the branches of government, known as the separation of powers. Locke's view of the state of nature is a state of being where all men are created equal, and all men have the right to protect their life, freedom, and possesions. Therefore, no individual has the right to take away

Communism - From Marx to Zemin

1999-09-14T14:00:00-04:00

Communism has long been heralded in capitalist countries as the root of all evil. However, as with all phobias, this intrinsic fear of communism comes from a lack of knowledge rather than sound reasoning. It is that same fear that gave the world the Cold War and McCarthy's Red Scare. The purpose of this paper is neither to support communism over capitalism nor the reverse of that. Rather, it is to inform the reader of communism's migration through time and hopefully assist the regression of such fear. The ideology of communism came out of the minds of two men, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (Marxism, 11). (Dueto Marx being the more widely known influence, he will be the one most often referred to.) It was his belief that private property was the cause of the poverty and degradation of the proletariat. Therefore, he came to settle on the idea that no one person should have control over production of good, ownership of land, and management of funds. In that same token then, no one class should be allowed to have control over these things. He went onto comment that the exploitation of the working class must come to an end. That end would be achieved through revolution. Once this was achieved, everybody would work according to their abilities and then be paid accordingly (Capital, 586-617). Soon after, however, technical innovations would create such abundance of goods that "everyone works according to his abilities and receives according to his needs." Soon thereafter, money would have no place in society. People would be able to take what they want and would be lacking nothing. Marx then believed that the pleasure of seeing the fruits of labor would be enough to cause man to work (Communism, 56-62). Countries and people were soon to catch on to this ideology. The two most known of which are Russia and China. Of the two, Russia was the first to adopt the communist beliefs. Russia already had a long history of peasant insurrection. Most of these uprisings though, were leaderless and highly unorganized. The motives of the rebels were vague and often confused. By the time the government did anything to please the peasants, it was too late. In 1917, due to the breakdown of administration and military order, the peasants moved to carry out their own revolution. They tore down any form of legal and territorial authority and

The Alien and Sedition Acts

1999-09-13T14:00:00-04:00

The debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 revealed bitter controversies on a number of issues that had been developing since the penning of the Constitution. The writers of the document knew that over time the needs of the nation and its people would change, and therefore provided for its amendment. But by not expressly delegating powers to specific organizations, whether the federal government, state governments, or the people themselves, they inadvertently created a major problem in the years to follow: Constitutional interpretation. Shortly after the Constitution's ratification, two distinct camps formed, each believing in opposite manners of interpretation. One group, the Federalists, led by the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, thought that the Constitution should be interpreted very loosely. He claimed that the Constitution contained powers other than those delegated or enumerated. These unspecified powers were implied powers. To explain these powers, Hamilton said it would be natural - or implied - that the federal government would gain control over any territory gained through conquest of purchase, although the Constitution made no mention of territorial control. In essence, Hamilton wished to use the implied powers to build a strong and authoritative central government. In 1789, the Minister to France Thomas Jefferson, to Francis Hopkinson of Pennsylvania, protesting that "I am not of the party of the federalists. But I am much farther from that of the anitfederalists." However, the situation was so sensitive that he could not help but chose a side. In 1795, Jefferson wrote to a congressman from Virginia, William Giles, that he "held "t honorable to take a firm and decided part." The group he sided with, the Democratic-Republicans, favored a strict interpretation. As their leader, Jefferson argued that all powers not enumerated by the Constitution belonged to the States. The basis for his argument was the old English "compact" theory. This theory stated that various individuals, in this case the states, joined together in a formal agreement of government. Since the states had drawn up the contract and given power to the federal government, it should be up to them to decide who received the power, not the body they created. This debate over interpretation thus sparked one of the first and major issues that eventually led to the Alien and Sedition Acts: should a strong central government be formed (federalist desire), or should the individual states have control. And wild attacks of

Government: Canada and China

1999-08-25T14:00:00-04:00

The two countries I have chosen to compare are China and Canada. Their systems of government are very different and have different powers and rolls in their country. Canada has a system of government very similar to our own. While china's government appears to be similar as well, but it is quite different. Canada's government democratic and is parliamentary in form but, very much like our own. Like all large governments it is representative democracy. Canada has a central government designed to deal with the country as a whole. Things like national defense, banking, currency, and commerce are controlled by the central government. All other matters are left to the provinces to deal with. Such as education, hospitals, and civil rights are responsibilities of the states. The Canadian Parliament consists of two houses. Their Senate is made up of 104 members who serve until the age of seventy-five. The House of Commons is composed of 295 members who are popularly elected to serve for five-year terms. The Parliament elects the executive, the Prime Minister. Canada has a Federal system and is divided into ten provinces that have powers the way our states do. China's government is a dictatorship it is led by the communist party. A premier who is now Li Peng leads the country. The Executive powers rest in the State Council, which is headed by the premier, Li Peng. The National People's Congress is the most powerful part of China's government. Its members are indirectly elected to serve five-year terms. One representative is elected from each province for every 400,000 people, with a minimum of ten representatives from each. There are approximately 3000 representatives in China's Congress. China also has a federal government. The country is divided into Provinces, which are divided into even smaller divisions of several types. The Communist party controls the government. Other parties do exist but the Communists Party is in control of the government. Canada and China are very different States and are run by very different forms of government. The basic underlying difference between the two governments is the location of sovereignty in the counties. In China it seems as though the people do play a large part in the government, but after studying it, it is evident that the power really rests with the Communist party and the dictatorship. While in Canada the people popularly elect their representatives who elect their

Political Parties and Their Roles in China and Canada

1999-08-25T14:00:00-04:00

The systems of government in Canada and China are very different. In each country the political party system varies. In China there is a One-party system and Canada has a multiparty system. Canada has a parliamentary form of government and China has a Dictatorship. The two countries have different forms of government in which political parties play different roles. A multiparty system is a system in which several major political parties and many lesser parties exist. Each party in a multiparty system has some specific platform or interest. Since that each party would represent a different specific idea and with many to chose from the system would provide the people with a wide range of choices for the people and better represent them in the government. A multiparty system does tend to lead to instability in the government. With the many parties in the elections, it is difficult for one party to win a majority in an election. Without a majority the power to govern the nation must be shared by a coalition of parties. Which is where the trouble lies. Multiparty systems exist in most European democratic countries today and in parts of the world were Europe has had a large impact on the area. Canada is one such nation with a multiparty system. In contrast to the multiparty system is the one party system. The one party system exists at the national level today in dictatorships. In the dictatorship there is one leader, the dictator, in power over the nation and the party that has sole control over the nation is the party that the dictator belongs to. In this system the people have no real choices with only one party to chose from. China is an example of a country that is governed with a one party system. In Canada there are many parties as is true of all multiparty systems. Some of the more important parties are Canada's New Democratic Party, The Liberal Party of Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Reform Party, The Libertarian Party, the Green Party of Canada, the Natural Law Party of Canada, and the Canadian Action Party, to name a few. Each of these parties has a specific platform that they represent. The Progressive Conservative Party for example is very much like the Conservative Party here in the U.S. This party believes in low taxes to stimulate the economy

Constitutionalism: The Tyranny of the Majority

1999-07-02T14:00:00-04:00

In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of

The Potential for a U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Kosovo

1999-05-16T14:00:00-04:00

I. Introduction The bombing of Kosovo by NATO forces may finally come to an end. While the excuses for bombing the troubled region have been challenged, for the most part the world concurs that the atrocities gong on in that nation warranted international action. In any event, the bombing did start and it continues, despite the accidental hits on pedestrian villages and buildings which were not targets in the first place. They have been explained away as unavoidable during such a mission. Casualties must be expected. While the mission continues, talks of peace are in the air and even Milosevic seems hopeful. Yet, he remains stubborn, unwilling to comply with mandates which would essentially halt the bombing efforts. Still, a conclusion seems to be near. If in fact a treaty can be implemented, a peacekeeping force is inevitable. Yet, the force, or at least the use of the term "force" could be met with opposition. Another important issue which crops up is the composition of the force. It is generally agreed that the United Nations would play a major role in peacekeeping. Yet, there are a variety of political components at play, and there has been tensions due to NATO's military mission, as well as Russia and China's ambivalent role in all of this. How all of these factors play out will essentially affect the peacekeeping efforts by the U.N. In examining the potential for the U.N.'s presence in the region, the political implications as well as the reasons for the war in the first place, are all important. First, an in depth look at the conflict in Kosovo is necessary in order to analyze the effects and necessity of a potential U.N.-led force. II. The Crisis in Kosovo Every war has to have a reason. For the Kosovo conflict, one reason NATO gives for initiating the conflict is to prevent another holocaust (Cotler 8). Nazi Germany is fresh in the minds of many, and survivors of the death camps are still with us today. No one wants to make a mistake and wait as the so-called "ethnic cleansing" is in full swing. Yet, the bombings seemed to have brought even more atrocities, something not unexpected. It was justifiable as had nothing been done, ethnic cleansing would continue. At least the world is doing something about the problem. Though the war itself will bring casualties on all sides, and plans of expensive rebuilding of eastern

The American Constitution

1999-03-03T13:00:00-05:00

The basis of all law in the United States is the Constitution. This Constitution is a document written by "outcasts" of England. The Constitution of the United States sets forth the nation's fundamental laws. It establishes the form of the national government and defines the rights and liberties of the American people. It also lists the aims of the government and the methods of achieving them. The Constitution was written to organize a strong national government for the American states. Previously, the nation's leaders had established a national government under the Articles of Confederation. But the Articles granted independence to each state. They lacked the authority to make the states work together to solve national problems. After the states won independence in the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), they faced the problems of peacetime government. The states had to enforce law and order, collect taxes, pay a large public debt, and regulate trade among themselves. They also had to deal with Indian tribes and negotiate with other governments. Leading statesmen, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, began to discuss the creation of a strong national government under a new constitution. The United States is a republic that operates under a federalist system. The national government had specific enumerated powers, and the fifty states retain substantial endowment over their citizens and their residents. Both the national government and the state government are divided into three different branches, executive, legislative, and judicial. Written constitutions, both federal and state, form a system of separated powers. Amendment, in legislation, is a change in a law, or in a bill before it becomes a law. Bills often have amendments attached before a legislature votes on them. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States may be proposed in two ways: (1) If two-thirds of both houses approve, Congress may propose an amendment. The amendment becomes a law when ratified either by legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. (2) If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states ask for an amendment, Congress must call a convention to propose it. The amendment becomes a law when ratified either by the legislatures or by conventions in three fourths of the states. This method has never been used. The Federal Government is comprised of three branches: Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The executive branch includes the President the vice President, the cabinet and all federal

American Government

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

America as we know it includes a vast network of representative governments. During the colonial period of early America, Virginia was the first to introduce a representative assembly. This first glimpse of democracy influenced the shape of America today. It eventually caused the colonies to drift away from monarchial England, and to establish a democratic government. Ironically, from this government, slavery and racism sprouted. In an attempt to make Virginia a more pleasant place to live, the governor was instructed to create an assembly with the power to make laws. The assembly included two members from each plantation to serve as burgesses, or representatives. Convening in 1619 it became the first colonial, representative body (p.13). This was a significant step in the formation of America. A group of men representing the residents of a particular land would make laws that were meant for them. This was democracy at its earliest stage in America. Everywhere one goes today in America, there is democracy. Whether a church council, school club or the state general assembly, a representative group is always present. Democracy shapes America. One could view the first democratic group responsible for today's freedom. This was the assembly formed by George Yeardly (p.13). Perhaps, if the Virginia Company had not instructed the governor to establish an assembly, the idea of democracy might not have instilled into the minds of the colonists. Surely, without this first appearance, it is questionable that an idea suppressed for centuries under the English monarchy would surface anywhere else. Moreover, it led the way for other settlements to adopt a similar code. Another way the representative body shaped America was slavery. Most representatives approved slavery and practiced it. The early burgesses of the Virginian assembly received land as their pay wages (p.14). They needed people to work their newly acquired lands. Therefore, indentured servants were common on their plantations. The whole idea of indentured servants and their later inadequacy eventually led to the flood of black slaves to America. Because these representatives owned servants and slaves themselves, slavery was easily passed into law. It has a huge impact on the racial tension in America today. Because of the representative government approved slavery, it existed in America. Virginia's first representative body helped form present America because it set an example of democracy for other colonies and broke from the common practice of lordship and monarchy. It eventually caused the colonies to drift

Truman Doctrine

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

The Truman Doctrine was the impetus for the change in United States foreign policy, from isolationist to internationalists; thus we were drawn into two wars of containment and into world affairs. The Truman Doctrine led to a major change in U.S. foreign policy from its inception - aid to Turkey and Greece - to its indirect influence in Korea and Vietnam. The aftermath of World War II inspired the U.S. to issue a proclamation that would stem Communist influence throughout the world. However, our zeal in that achievement sent our soldiers to die in Vietnam and Korea for a seemingly futile cause. It must be the policy of the U.S. to support free peoples. This is no more than a frank recognitions that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples . . . undermine the foundations of . . . peace and security of the United States. The Truman Doctrine would change the foreign policy of the United States and the world. This policy would first go in aid to support the democratic regimes in Turkey and Greece. These nations were being threatened by Soviet-supported rebels seeking to topple the government and install a Communist regime. The Soviets were also making extreme territorial demands especially concerning the Dardanelles. A direct influence of this Doctrine was, of course, the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was designed to give aid to any European country damaged during World War II. It tremendously helped ravaged European nations such as Italy and France. By helping them economically, the Marshall Plan indirectly helped to stem growing Communist sentiment in these countries. The process whereby the Truman Doctrine came to fruition was a long and arduous one. After World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States stood at the pinnacle of world power. By the late '40's, the U.S.S.R. had caught up to the United States' nuclear weapons programs. In addition, they were very land-hungry. Throughout Russia's history, they have been in search of a port - a quest advanced further by Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. The Soviets in that respect were direct threats to their non-Communist neighbors: Greece, Turkey, and Iran. In Iran, the U.S.S.R. was not evacuating Iran's northern provinces despite entreaties from the United States. In Turkey, the Soviet Union coveted several naval bases along the Straits of Dardanelles. Further, they pressured Turkey for border cessions that Turkey had taken from Russia

Southern Voting behavior since the 1960s

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

Politicians

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

In politics it would be novel to have a gracious rival. Modern political campaigners might take a lesson in graciousness and kindness from the great British statesman, Edward Campbell . Once when Campbell was opposing Thackereay for a seat in Parliament, the two contenders, in course of their campaigning, met and engaged in friendly conversation. On taking leave of his rival Thackereay remarked, 'May the best man win!' 'Oh, no,' replied Campbell, 'I hope not, I want to win!' E.J. Dionne Jr., author of They Only Look Dead, ascertains that politics in America today are nothing more than 'politics of moral annihilation'. As an example of this he refers to the presidential election of 1992. Normally , press conferences are called when political matters arise. The conference mentioned was called by the conservatives. Paula Jones came forward and accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment; apparently Mr. Clinton made 'unwelcomed sexual advances" . He continues to point out that these are the same conservatives that only a few years earlier had denounced the idea of sexual harassment as 'feminist invention'. It is acts like this that are aiding in the 'moral annihilation' of politics. The overall impact of such politics is undermining the intelligence of the American populous by turning political campaigning into a childlike power struggle. Both the Democrats and Republicans have reverted to a state of guerrilla media warfare. Every time election year rolls around we begin to hear the usual complaints of how politics is morally corrupt. It typically means we get to see the superficial image-oriented campaigning, negative attacks against one's opponent, and the thirty-second spot commercials that intrr upt our favorite sitcom. Experts note that the rates of political participation in the United States, as measured by the percentage of eligable voters who register and actually cast their ballot, has been dropping for years, in part due to the fact that citizens are disgusted with the conduct of political campaigns. From this we can clearly see overall impact of this type of politics does infact undermind how the populus acts in 3 ways: 1)don't watch televison 2)don't care and 3)don't vote. This then brings us to the second point of how this is harmful to democracy. As I stated before it turns political campaigning into a childlike game for power. Author Daniel O'Connell once said: 'A politican doesn't stand on his own record; he jumps on the other fellows.

Reformation of Government Through Passive Resistence

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

"...A little rebellion now and then is a good thing...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." Thomas Jefferson Thoreau, a transcendentalist from the mid 19th century and Martin Luther King Jr., the Civil Rights movement leader of a century later both believed the necessity of medicine for government. Although they showed disagreement of opinion on issues regarding voting, both writers agreed on the necessity to reform the government and the means of accomplishing it. In King's Letter from Birmingham Jail and Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, both agreed on injustice of majority to rule over minority, both resisted the government passively, and both wanted a better government immediately. The majority is not necessarily right, but they have always been the ones in power because they are the strongest and the most influential. Therefore, all the laws are written by the majority, almost all are in favor of the majority, and all are enforced by the majority. According to King, a law drafted by the majority is only just when the minority are willing to follow it. He wrote "An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself" (2:475). In other words, if a law denies the right of the minority or is inflicted upon the minority by force, then it is not a just law. Similar opinions are shared by Thoreau, when he writes "But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice..."(1:1425). Both agreed that if a law is unjust, it is the duty of the opposition to break the law, and do what they believe to be right. Once a law is broken, the person must be willing to accept the consequences, which may be the penalty of imprisonment. Although laws may be unjust, but it must be respected regardless. King fears that anarchy will result if laws are not respected; Thoreau describes that rebellion will be the consequence if laws are not given respect. Consequently, both chooses to passively resist the laws they believed that are against their morals, and are prepared to accept imprisonment . The exercise of passive resistance is the basis of the title of Thoreau's work, and King presents several examples of "civil disobedience" in his letter, including the Boston Tea Party. King not only exercises passive resistance, he also

Differences between Bureaucrats and Aristocrats in Government

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

Bureaucrats and aristocrats, the former evident in the government in the Tang dynasty (617-907) and the ladder pronoun in the government of Heian Japan. Both are different in many different aspects, such as within government, government structure, law, economy, and society. A bureaucrat can be defined by the following: an appointed government official with certain duties and responsibilities defined by disposition in the bureaucracy. A bureaucrat is more dependent on the government than an aristocrat because official power comes from official appointment through the bureaucracy (Class Lecture, Oct. 16, 97). Bureaucracy first replaced aristocracy in the Tang dynasty, under the rule of Empress Wu (625?-706?, r.690-706) bureaucracy was expanded by furthering expansion policies and supporting the examination system. Positions in government were filled through the examination system, and people who passed were called the literati. When one held this title of literati, you were considered intelligent and were considered to have high status (TA session, Oct. 28, 97). "They were a group of smart guys with a good education." (Steve, TA session, Oct. 28, 97). This of course deprived the hereditary aristocracy of power 'they had enjoyed during the period of division, when appointments had been made by recommendation, and opened government service to a somewhat wider class of people...' (Schirokauer, p.103). For the first time, men who entered office through examination could attain the highest office, even that of Chief Minister. Examination graduates earned (earn being the operative word) prestige, and even though officials still entered government by other means such as family connections, at the same time the literati and thus the bureaucrats were gaining authority, jurisdiction, and power. And thus, one could see this shifting of supremacy from the aristocracy to the bureaucracy. Government in the Tang dynasty was regulated by the Tang legal codes, a system of laws written by legalists which consisted of a system of rewards and severe punishments (TA session, Oct. 28, 97). These legal codes were administrative: reporting what the state could do and what the subjects could not do. This is an important point in that, this showed the subjects possessed little power, the Tang legal codes are the opposite of any laws of present day, these legal codes protected the government and not the people. Government needed the subjects only to provide for taxes (revenue), labour (grain) and military (soldiers) reasons. 'A dead subject was not as useful as a living subject.'

Some of the most important presidential elections

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

1812 The election of 1812 consisted of a battle between James Madison, and De Witt Clinton. Madison had represented both Democratic and Republican beliefs, while Clinton was a Federalist. James Madison was born in Port Conway, Va., on March 16, 1751. A Princeton graduate, he joined the struggle for independence on his return to Virginia in 1771. He had been an active politician in the 1770's and 1780's. He was greatly know for championing the Jefferson reform program, and in the Continental Congress. Madison, in collaboration, had participated greatly in the, Federalist, a paper who's main purpose was to ratify the constitution. Madison first became president in 1809, when he bested Charles C. Pickney. He had led the U.S. in a very unpopular war, in which the U.S. hadn't been prepared for...the War of 1812. De Witt Clinton was a Federalist, who's main purpose of the election was to get the U.S. out of a war in which he felt was very unnecessary. DeWitt held every major elective office in New York between 1797 and 1828--assemblyman, senator, mayor of New York City, lieutenant governor, and governor. He was a philanthropist and patron of the arts and science and, as canal commissioner, championed construction of the Erie and Champlain canals The method in which these candidates received nomination was by the Electoral College, or by King Caucus. The idea of political conventions had not been present at this time. There were no third-party candidates in this election. The major issue of this election was the War of 1812. The War of 1812, or "Mr. Madison's War", had been very unpopular among different sections of America. Mainly the ship owners in New England. The war was supposed to protect. This war was supposed to help their shipping, but instead, it had kept them from trading and making money. The winner of the election of 1812 was James Madison. Madison collected 128 electoral votes, while Clinton received 89, and the number of "No Votes Cast" was 1. The Vice-presidential candidate, who won the election was Elbridge Gerry, who received 131 electoral votes, while Jared Ingersoll received 86. There was no record of the number of popular votes for this election. My opinion of why Madison had won the election is because he had led the country into the War of 1812, and therefore, he should be allowed to fight it. He was also much more popular than

The Presidential Contenders in 1856

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

For the presidential election of 1856, the Democrats nominated James Buchanan and John Breckenridge, the newly formed Republican party nominated John Fremont and William Drayton, the American [or Know-Nothing] party nominated former president Millard Fillmore and Andrew Donelson, and the Abolition Party nominated Gerrit Smith and Samuel McFarland. Buchanan started his political career as a state representative in Pennsylvania, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1821, appointed minister to Russia in 1832, and elected US Senator in 1834. He was appointed Secretary of State in 1845 by President Polk and in that capacity helped forge the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican War. He was appointed by President Polk as minister to Great Britain in 1853. As such, he, along with the American ministers to Spain and France, issued the Ostend Manifesto, which recommended the annexation of Cuba to the United States. This endeared him to southerners, who assumed Cuba would be a slave state. He was one of several northerners supported over the years by southern Democrats for being amenable to slaveholders' interests, a situation originating with Martin van Buren. Buchanan's two major rivals for the nomination, Franklin Pierce and Stephen Douglas, were both politically tainted by the bloodshed in Kansas. Buchanan was untainted, since he had been abroad during most of the controversy. Even so, he did not secure the nomination until the seventeenth ballot. Fremont was best known as an explorer and a war hero. He surveyed the land between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, explored the Oregon Trail territories and crossed the Sierra Madres into the Sacramento Valley. As a captain in the Army, he returned to California and helped the settlers overthrow Mexican rule in what became known as the Bear Flag Revolution, a sidebar to the Mexican War. He was elected as one of California's first two Senators. The infant Republican party was born from the ashes of the Whig party, which had suffered spontaneous combustion as a result of the slavery issue. The party's convention was a farce; only northern states and a few border slave states sent delegates. Sticking to their Whig roots, they nominated a war hero, albeit a minor one. William Drayton's runner-up for the VP slot was Abraham Lincoln. Fillmore, having been the thirteenth president following the death of Zachary Taylor, found himself representing the American party after many northern delegates left the convention over a rift caused by

Political Momentum

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

"Only YOU can prevent forest fires". This famous quote, by Smokey the Bear, is a statement that essentially defines momentum. Momentum, in the case of forest fires, is detrimental momentum. We've all seen the commercial, the bright red Ferrari driving down the road, flicking a cigarette out the window. It rolls onto a pile of dry leaves, and suddenly, the leaf is smoking! Oh no! The leaves have caught fire and it is spreading to a nearby tree! Soon, nearby trees have caught fire, and thus the momentum that results in a forest fire of gigantic proportions begins from a single spark. Such is the case with recent interest in campaign finance reform. Only the momentum it has gained in recent months is anything but detrimental! So, to answer the question, "WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN THIS SESSION OF CONGRESS?" My answer is that the chances of this are slim to none, however, this answer is somewhat incomplete. Allow me to expand upon this by first, citing past evidence of questionable campaign fund raisers. Second, I will use the examples to explain WHY we need a reform. And finally, I will describe how the recent take off on this large issue has ensured its eventual resolution. First, allow me to cite examples of corrupt campaign financing. The campaiging 'business' is not a cheap enterprise. The money that is required to publish and distribute phamplets, hire campaign workers, and buy airtime from the media is enourmous! It has always been a concern of candidates of major elections. More recently however has such a controversy surfaces. Allow me to use this as an example: According to the Sep. 29th 1997 issure of Time, in 1995 and 1996, videotapes were made of presedential coffees with Asian executives, personal donors, and business owners. A total of 103 coffees for the Democrats equals 27 million dollars for their fund raisers. There are more recent events. Accroding to the Oct. 13th 1997 issue of Bus. Week, including Blue Plate Dinners whose prices ran from 1,000 to 10,000 dollars a plate! The most recent developements in the Justice departments research into President Clinton's phone calls that supposedly prove that he elicited funds from private donors from the White House, thus making it illegal. All this evidence is merely a handful compared to the complete list of occurances. But let me move on

Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and Rene Descartes

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

"Politics should be the application of the science Of man to the construction of the community" Explain this remark and discuss what reasons there might be for thinking it is not true In this essay I intend to examine the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and Rene Descartes, in particular their ideas relating to the science of man, and attempt to explain why their ideas prove that it is not possible to construct a science of man. I will also briefly mention the philosophy of Donald Davidson in regards to a science of man. The theories of Hobbes and the contemporary socio-biologists attempt to recognise how man works and on that basis build a society. "Hobbes wished to be seen as the inventor of the science of politics" (Sorrell, p45) He went about this by looking at the psychology of man and discovering that man is a mechanism. Hobbes wanted to understand mechanics. He wanted to look at why men live the way that they do in society and therefore, breaks it down. By doing this he discovered that people are cogs in the social machine. Therefore he wants to examine this cogs to achieve an understanding of the social mechanism, and does this by looking at the psychology of the mind. Hobbes is both an empirist and a materialist. Empirists believe that sense gives all knowledge. Generally, they do not believe in astrology, god, electrons etc. Their philosophy is summed up by saying that all things that give true knowledge can be sensed. Materialists believe that all things in existence are physical matter. In other words, the soul and the spirit do not exist. Therefore Hobbes believes that thoughts are material, that they are caused by sense and vice versa. Tom Sorrell suggests in his essay, entitled "Hobbes' scheme of the sciences", that rather than have knowledge of how the mechanics of the mind's passions work, a more successful way of gaining political knowledge is to understand what these passions cause. They cause various degrees of action, with the possessor going to various extents to achieve what they want. In chapter six of "De Corpere", Hobbes makes a connection between the knowledge of the principles of politics and the knowledge of the motions of the average human mind. Hobbes' account of political science is an idea of what man must do if his goal is self-preservation. These ideas are not what mankind will do but what it

The Medicare Debate

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

The U.S. government have denied that Medicare has been going bankrupt. Although the government may say that Medicare has plenty of money it is untrue because it is a fact that Medicare will go bankrupt by the year 2001 as stated by preliminary sources. Medicare is one of the main sources of funding for those people that have no money or very small amount of money. The community service that was done for this research paper is hospital volunteering at John Muir Medical Center. The community service included various jobs that was needed to be done were, Putting items away for nurses, discharging patients, doing paper work, feeding patients, answering phones, and helping patients when they ask for assistance. The floor I worked on was Oncology (The branch of medicine that deals with tumors, including study of their development, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention). This community service has help me gain insight on the Medicare situation because I have asked multiple amount of people that work at John Muir Medical Center. There is a side to be considered about Medicare and Social Security in the government. The vice president of the United States, Al Gore, wrote in a letter stating that social security funds are not being depleted. Gore said that, "the allegations to the contrary have been circulated by certain organizations as a money-making scheme for some time." (Gore Letter). Vice President Gore tries to show theses allegations are untrue by explaining how social security works. In this letter, Vice President Gore cleared up the allegations by writing that, "When Social Security taxes are collected, they are credited to the Social Security trust funds with government security, perhaps the safest investment in the United States. In history Medicare has experience a few problem regarding it's funding. Problems have occurred over the history of Medicare. The major problem and most recent of Medicare is that it is going bankrupt. Medicare is another legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson Great Society. Spending is obviously out of control. On June 5th the government announced that the Medicare Trust Fund would go broke by the year 2001(nationaldebt). In 1965 when LBJ started Health and Medicare, the Total Federal Spending for the year was $101 Billion. By the year 2000 we will spend over 4 times than amount on Health and Medicare alone, and Medicare will equal the annual spending for Defense(CNN). Under our Constitution, Defense is a