Philip Rubacha October 22, 1996
American Politics-Essay #1 Essay-Debate
The presidential debates between democratic President William Clinton and Republican Senator Robert Dole proved to be a game of "dodge-ball". Bob Dole fired criticism and attacks while Clinton tried to "dodge" them. Dole attacked him on most of his ideas, and his tendency to exaggerate. Clinton avoided the lies he made since the 1992 presidential campaign (brought up by Dole, of course) by revealing all that he accomplished for the good of the people. Clinton focused on politics at a federal level at home, and tried to avoid foreign affairs. Dole based his debate on a state or local level. They both had separate ideas on different topics such as education, taxes, etc. They used these opposite ideas to attack each other.
The debates went smoothly through the first minutes without a lot of conflict but shortly into the debate Clinton makes his claim that "The United States is better off now than it was four years ago". Dole attacks by saying "He's (Clinton) better off than he was four years ago". Although it cracked a few laughs, it showed how little respect he has for Clinton and how desperate he is getting to resort to such cheesy remarks. The first several minutes of the debate had Clinton summarizing all that he has done in the past four years such as 10.5 million more jobs, the Brady Bill, and Family, Medical, and educational bills. In turn Dole complains that the United States has stagnant wages, and that 40% of wages are spent on taxes. On the topic of drug use in the United States Clinton claimed that cocaine use decreased 30% and crime decreased as well. Dole soon reacted by saying, rather sarcastically that drug abuse has doubled and for so much money that has been spent on crime little has changed. Throughout the debates Clinton claims he has done so much good for the country such as cutting the size of government, and stimulating economic growth. In return Dole would blame him for exaggerating and stealing credit for other's work such as governors, senators, etc. Clinton did little direct attacking but at one point, for example, he criticized Dole's 550 billion dollar "scheme" to cut Medicare and Social Security.
Clinton and Dole showed very different views on education. Clinton observed education as dependent on the federal government program for funding. Bob Dole believes that education should be brought more local, and on a state level. Dole wants to cut all federal programs and move programs such as Health Care, Medicare, etc., to more of a state level.
Bill Clinton likes to keep his ideas as well as debates on not only a federal level but within United States boundaries as well. He tries to avoid foreign affairs as that is an area of weakness. Bob Dole knows this and he attacks Clinton's policies. He claims that Clinton handled the situations incorrectly in places such as Haiti, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, North Korea, and Cuba. He says it has cost the United States billions of dollars to attempt to keep peace in the world. Clinton had no real answer to the remarks accept to give little positive outcomes of United States actions in these countries. He attacked Clinton's defense cuts as well. The President had claimed he would cut 60 billion dollars in defense spending, when in fact he cut 112 million dollars, according to Dole, but then again who knows.
Clinton and Dole possess very different outlines. Clinton believes in Federal power as Dole believes in state and local power. Clinton wants to decrease fire arms, reduce defense, and increase Welfare and Medicare. He plans to further stimulate education and his health plan. Dole on the other hand wants to increase defense spending, cut taxes on individuals but increase taxes on a national level, and take power from federal programs and pump it into state and local power. These are very different ideas which led to a lot of bickering and attacking of the issues (typical of any presidential debate). They both show completely different attitudes. To summarize the debate, it can be simply said that Dole attacked and avoided questions, while Clinton defended himself and directly addressed the people. For these reasons, Clinton clearly won this debate. Although he was not great he clearly won more respect from myself and many others. In all honesty, this was truly a g
Saturday, January 12, 2013
People accused of Violent Crimes should not be to post bail
People accused of violent crimes should not be allowed to post bail and remain out of jail while their trial is pending. There are many reasons to why I strongly agree with this statement. Many factors are unknown to the public without conducting some sort of extensive research. Whether it is simply reading in the paper about pending trials, or as complicated as researching previous trials. Bail is decided by a judge, and their lives are devoted to handling these types of decisions. There are three solid reasons to why I feel it is necessary to deny bail to those accused of violent crimes. One is that all conditions for release are decided by a judge who is fully aware of the circumstances. Another is that these defendants, since being arrested, should be considered a threat to public safety. My last, and final, reason is that my rationale strongly agrees with denial of bail to the accused.
In Nebraska, as written in the Statutes of Nebraska, bail is granted after a judge takes into account the nature and circumstances of the offense charged. This judge looks at the defendants family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mentality, having resided in the community, conviction records, and record of court appearances or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear. A judge, when deciding if bail is to be granted, does not just flip a coin to decide. He or she looks at all aspects of the situation. It all rests in the judge's hands. When a judge looks at a person accused of a violent crime, such as murder, a few things are liable to pop into perspective. One would be to how violent and detrimental the accusations are. Any rational thinking person would realize that if arrested, they are in suspicion. Therefore, a state appointed judge is also going to realize that this person must be a threat, especially if accused of a violent crime. It does not violate the accused rights, because once under arrest, their rights are strictly defined as what the judge's final decision is.
This leads me to my next point, that these accused people are a threat. The purpose of bail, as defined by the Nebraska Statute, is to ensure that the defendant will show at the trial. I researched a case where this was strongly considered. Brian Mase is accused of shooting and killing John Boyer, after Boyer refused to leave Mase's home. They were in a fight over a stolen watch. Friends and relatives gave evidence that Mase had premeditated the murder by making numerous phone calls to Boyer and various threats outside of Mase's home. The judge denied bail for reasons that I completely agree with. Since the prosecution had evidence that Mase planned to kill Boyer if he ever came to his home, the judge felt there was a risk involved with Mase staying in the county if granted bail. They suspected that Mase might flee after he learns what type of case the prosecution has against him. The defendant's attorney argued that Mase had nowhere to run, and many relatives. The judges decision in this case did not follow all of the rules show above. However, the one factor of threat overshadowed all of the rest. Even though Mase had strong family ties and nowhere to go to, even the slightest suspicion that he might flee was enough. I agree with the decision to deny bail. I cannot think of anyone who would want a man accused of killing someone over a watch being able to roam free on bail while their trial is in progress. This, in my own opinion, is a perfect example of how judges look at the circumstances of the case.
My final argument to why bail should be denied is solely based on my own personal analysis. Bail, in my opinion, is a privilege. If I had my own way, bail would only be used in misdemeanor offenses. If a person is accused of a violent crime there is evidently some inclination for the arrest. These accused people are not just randomly drawn out of a hat, they have had warrants out for their arrest. As many know, warrants have to be approved by a judge, the same judge who will decide if they are able to post bail. There was enough evidence, circumstantial or solid, for the arrest to be made for these violent crimes, and so there is enough evidence to deny bail to these accused individuals. It is inhumane for someone accused of a violent crime to be able to roam around free when their trial is pending. Once they are arrested, they should lose their bid for freedom until the verdict is in.
In Nebraska, as written in the Statutes of Nebraska, bail is granted after a judge takes into account the nature and circumstances of the offense charged. This judge looks at the defendants family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mentality, having resided in the community, conviction records, and record of court appearances or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear. A judge, when deciding if bail is to be granted, does not just flip a coin to decide. He or she looks at all aspects of the situation. It all rests in the judge's hands. When a judge looks at a person accused of a violent crime, such as murder, a few things are liable to pop into perspective. One would be to how violent and detrimental the accusations are. Any rational thinking person would realize that if arrested, they are in suspicion. Therefore, a state appointed judge is also going to realize that this person must be a threat, especially if accused of a violent crime. It does not violate the accused rights, because once under arrest, their rights are strictly defined as what the judge's final decision is.
This leads me to my next point, that these accused people are a threat. The purpose of bail, as defined by the Nebraska Statute, is to ensure that the defendant will show at the trial. I researched a case where this was strongly considered. Brian Mase is accused of shooting and killing John Boyer, after Boyer refused to leave Mase's home. They were in a fight over a stolen watch. Friends and relatives gave evidence that Mase had premeditated the murder by making numerous phone calls to Boyer and various threats outside of Mase's home. The judge denied bail for reasons that I completely agree with. Since the prosecution had evidence that Mase planned to kill Boyer if he ever came to his home, the judge felt there was a risk involved with Mase staying in the county if granted bail. They suspected that Mase might flee after he learns what type of case the prosecution has against him. The defendant's attorney argued that Mase had nowhere to run, and many relatives. The judges decision in this case did not follow all of the rules show above. However, the one factor of threat overshadowed all of the rest. Even though Mase had strong family ties and nowhere to go to, even the slightest suspicion that he might flee was enough. I agree with the decision to deny bail. I cannot think of anyone who would want a man accused of killing someone over a watch being able to roam free on bail while their trial is in progress. This, in my own opinion, is a perfect example of how judges look at the circumstances of the case.
My final argument to why bail should be denied is solely based on my own personal analysis. Bail, in my opinion, is a privilege. If I had my own way, bail would only be used in misdemeanor offenses. If a person is accused of a violent crime there is evidently some inclination for the arrest. These accused people are not just randomly drawn out of a hat, they have had warrants out for their arrest. As many know, warrants have to be approved by a judge, the same judge who will decide if they are able to post bail. There was enough evidence, circumstantial or solid, for the arrest to be made for these violent crimes, and so there is enough evidence to deny bail to these accused individuals. It is inhumane for someone accused of a violent crime to be able to roam around free when their trial is pending. Once they are arrested, they should lose their bid for freedom until the verdict is in.
Nixon vs The United States of America
The United States of America vs. Richard M. Nixon
Issue
In this case, the court is asked to decide if the president had knowledge\involvement in the Watergate robberies and if he had the right to invoke Executive Privilege.
Facts
During the campaign of President Nixon's second term, a group of burglars working for the committee to re-elect the President broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office-apartment complex in Washington DC, apparently in search of political intelligence. Attempts by the White House to stop or frustrate the ensuing investigations ultimately failed when Nixon's own White House tape recordings revealed that the president and his assistants had engaged in an obstruction of justice.
Following the arrest of the two co-plotters--G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt-- District Court Judge John J. Sirica was convinced that pertinent details had not been unveiled during the trial and proffered leniency in exchange for further information. It became increasingly evident that the Watergate burglars were tied closely to the CIA and the Committee to Re-elect the President, some of Nixon's aides began talking to federal prosecutors. Due to the defection of these aides, the Senate established, in February of 1973, an investigative committee held by Senator Sam Ervin, Jr., to look into the growing scandal. Amid the disclosures of White House involvement in the Watergate break-in and its aftermath, Nixon announced the resignation of two of his closest advisors and the dismissal of his counsel John W. Dean III. Dean told the Ervin committee in June that Nixon had known of the cover-up. A month later, former White House staff member Alexander Butterfield revealed that Nixon had secretly tape-recorded conversations in his offices. The special prosecutor Cox, and the Ervin committee attempted to obtain such tapes but the president cited Executive Privilege, and refused to relinquish them and attempted to have Cox fired. This attempt failed and as a result on Oct. 20, 1973, Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson resigned in protest. His deputy also refused and was fired. Nixon's solicitor general, who was nest in command fired Cox. This night is now known as the "Saturday Night Massacre" and heightened suspicions that Nixon had much to hide.
On Nov. 1 Leon Jaworski replaced Cox but continued to press for the tapes and on Mar. 1 1974, a federal jury indicted 7 men for conspiracy to obstruct justice. On April 30 the president released edited transcripts--containing suspicious gaps of Watergate related Oval Office conversations. Not satisfied Judge Sirica subpoenaed additional tapes, but Nixon refused and the case moved to the Supreme Court.
Decision
On July 24, the Supreme Court justices ruled in a unanimous 8-0 vote against him.
Reasoning
The court conceded that a president could withhold national security material but insisted that Watergate was a criminal matter. On July 27-30, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that Nixon be impeached on three charges: obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential power, and trying to impede the impeachment process by defying committee subpoenas but rejected the charges of unauthorized, secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and his use of public funds to improve his private property. After this decision, a beleaguered President released three tapes to the public on August 5, 1974; one revealing that he had attempted to thwart the FBI's inquiry into the Watergate burglary. It proved that Nixon had been a large part in the cover-up from its beginnings. With this new evidence and the remaining congressional support for the president crushed, Richard Nixon became the first President to resign.
criminal matter. On July 27-30, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that Nixon be impeached on three charges: obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential power, and trying to impede the impeachment process by defying committee subpoenas but rejected the charges of unauthorized, secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and his use of public funds to improve his private property. After this decision, a beleaguered President released three tapes to the public on August 5, 1974; one revealing that he had attempted to thwart the FBI's inquiry into the Watergate burglary. It proved that Nixon had been a large part in the cover-up from its beginnings. With this new evidence and the remaining congressional support for the president crushed, Richard Nixon became the first President to resign.
Issue
In this case, the court is asked to decide if the president had knowledge\involvement in the Watergate robberies and if he had the right to invoke Executive Privilege.
Facts
During the campaign of President Nixon's second term, a group of burglars working for the committee to re-elect the President broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office-apartment complex in Washington DC, apparently in search of political intelligence. Attempts by the White House to stop or frustrate the ensuing investigations ultimately failed when Nixon's own White House tape recordings revealed that the president and his assistants had engaged in an obstruction of justice.
Following the arrest of the two co-plotters--G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt-- District Court Judge John J. Sirica was convinced that pertinent details had not been unveiled during the trial and proffered leniency in exchange for further information. It became increasingly evident that the Watergate burglars were tied closely to the CIA and the Committee to Re-elect the President, some of Nixon's aides began talking to federal prosecutors. Due to the defection of these aides, the Senate established, in February of 1973, an investigative committee held by Senator Sam Ervin, Jr., to look into the growing scandal. Amid the disclosures of White House involvement in the Watergate break-in and its aftermath, Nixon announced the resignation of two of his closest advisors and the dismissal of his counsel John W. Dean III. Dean told the Ervin committee in June that Nixon had known of the cover-up. A month later, former White House staff member Alexander Butterfield revealed that Nixon had secretly tape-recorded conversations in his offices. The special prosecutor Cox, and the Ervin committee attempted to obtain such tapes but the president cited Executive Privilege, and refused to relinquish them and attempted to have Cox fired. This attempt failed and as a result on Oct. 20, 1973, Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson resigned in protest. His deputy also refused and was fired. Nixon's solicitor general, who was nest in command fired Cox. This night is now known as the "Saturday Night Massacre" and heightened suspicions that Nixon had much to hide.
On Nov. 1 Leon Jaworski replaced Cox but continued to press for the tapes and on Mar. 1 1974, a federal jury indicted 7 men for conspiracy to obstruct justice. On April 30 the president released edited transcripts--containing suspicious gaps of Watergate related Oval Office conversations. Not satisfied Judge Sirica subpoenaed additional tapes, but Nixon refused and the case moved to the Supreme Court.
Decision
On July 24, the Supreme Court justices ruled in a unanimous 8-0 vote against him.
Reasoning
The court conceded that a president could withhold national security material but insisted that Watergate was a criminal matter. On July 27-30, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that Nixon be impeached on three charges: obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential power, and trying to impede the impeachment process by defying committee subpoenas but rejected the charges of unauthorized, secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and his use of public funds to improve his private property. After this decision, a beleaguered President released three tapes to the public on August 5, 1974; one revealing that he had attempted to thwart the FBI's inquiry into the Watergate burglary. It proved that Nixon had been a large part in the cover-up from its beginnings. With this new evidence and the remaining congressional support for the president crushed, Richard Nixon became the first President to resign.
criminal matter. On July 27-30, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that Nixon be impeached on three charges: obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential power, and trying to impede the impeachment process by defying committee subpoenas but rejected the charges of unauthorized, secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and his use of public funds to improve his private property. After this decision, a beleaguered President released three tapes to the public on August 5, 1974; one revealing that he had attempted to thwart the FBI's inquiry into the Watergate burglary. It proved that Nixon had been a large part in the cover-up from its beginnings. With this new evidence and the remaining congressional support for the president crushed, Richard Nixon became the first President to resign.
Marxism
Karl Marx and Marxism
Karl Marx set the wheels of modern Communism and
Socialism in motion with his writings in the late nineteenth
century. In collaboration with his friend, Heinrich Engels, he
produced the The Communist Manifesto, written in 1848.
Many failed countries' political and socio-economic structures
have been based on Marx's theories, for example the USSR, East
Germany etc. Many people believe that Marxism is not
applicable to today's society, as Karl Marx put forward his ideas
not anticipating the type of society we have today. The welfare
state system has effectively nullified Marx's arguments, and
made them irrelevant.
Karl Marx, born on May 5, 1818, died on March 14, 1883,
was a German economist, philosopher and revolutionist whose
writings form the basis of the body of ideas known as Marxism.
In his youth he was deeply affected by the philosophy of G.W.F.
Hegel, and joined a rebel group called the Young Hegelians,
which contributed ideas towards the movement against
organized religion and the Prussian Autocracy. Later on in life,
he was influenced by the writings of Ludwig Feuerbach, who
wrote that God was invented by humans as a projection of their
own ideals, and that in creating such a 'perfect' being, in
contrast to themselves, mankind lowered themselves to lowly,
evil creatures who needed guidance from the church and
government. He said that, in creating God in their own image,
humans had 'alienated themselves from themselves.'
Karl Marx applied this alienation theory to private
property, which he said caused humans to work only for
themselves, not for the good of their species. The idea is
further explained in the following sentences. The people who
do the work in a capitalistic society own none of the means of
production, (ie. machines, raw produce etc.) that they use in
their work. These are owned by the capitalists, to whom the
workers must sell their 'labour power', or ability to do work, in
return for a wage. The capitalists, owning the factories,
automatically have ownership rights to everything produced by
it, and can do with it what the will. Because of this, the worker
is alienated from the product of their labours, having no
control over what is made, or what becomes of it.
Karl Marx was very concerned with the class system in
Prussia. He was an avid campaigner against a system where one
group of people flourish at the expense of another class, in this
case the working. He believed that all things should be equal,
and that sharing should abound, with no-one person owning
everything, all belonging to the state. Marx believed that once
most workers recognized their interests and became 'class
conscious', the overthrow of capitalism would proceed as
quickly and democratically as the nature of the capitalist
opposition allowed. The socialist society that would emerge
out of the revolution would develop the full productive
potential inherited from capitalism through democratic
planning on behalf of social needs. The final goal, towards
which socialist society would constantly build, is the human
one of abolishing alienation. Marx called the attainment of this
goal Communism.
Marxism in its various forms has affected the world
greatly throughout time. Both world wars have involved
communist countries to a great extent. Communism has gone
wrong in many countries, with the state turning into an
authoritarian one, with a few people at the top abusing their
power for their own personal gain, at the expense of the other
members of the public.
In conclusion, I believe that Marx's theories would be
beneficial up to a point. I agree that there should be no class
distinctions, and that everyone should have a fair go to succeed
in life. Sharing should be greater, as capitalism has risen to
knew heights of greed and power lust. A communist state,
however, would never work, as it is in the human nature to
compete against one another, which rules out any social
equality one could gain by abolishing personal property.
Bibliography
Kenny, S., (1994) Developing Communities for the Future :
Community Development in Australia, Thomas Nelson
Australia.
Miliband, R., (1977) Marxism and Politics, Herron Publishing
Inc., New York.
Ollman, B., (1995) Grolier's Encyclopaedia - Karl Marx and
Marxism, Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc.
Karl Marx set the wheels of modern Communism and
Socialism in motion with his writings in the late nineteenth
century. In collaboration with his friend, Heinrich Engels, he
produced the The Communist Manifesto, written in 1848.
Many failed countries' political and socio-economic structures
have been based on Marx's theories, for example the USSR, East
Germany etc. Many people believe that Marxism is not
applicable to today's society, as Karl Marx put forward his ideas
not anticipating the type of society we have today. The welfare
state system has effectively nullified Marx's arguments, and
made them irrelevant.
Karl Marx, born on May 5, 1818, died on March 14, 1883,
was a German economist, philosopher and revolutionist whose
writings form the basis of the body of ideas known as Marxism.
In his youth he was deeply affected by the philosophy of G.W.F.
Hegel, and joined a rebel group called the Young Hegelians,
which contributed ideas towards the movement against
organized religion and the Prussian Autocracy. Later on in life,
he was influenced by the writings of Ludwig Feuerbach, who
wrote that God was invented by humans as a projection of their
own ideals, and that in creating such a 'perfect' being, in
contrast to themselves, mankind lowered themselves to lowly,
evil creatures who needed guidance from the church and
government. He said that, in creating God in their own image,
humans had 'alienated themselves from themselves.'
Karl Marx applied this alienation theory to private
property, which he said caused humans to work only for
themselves, not for the good of their species. The idea is
further explained in the following sentences. The people who
do the work in a capitalistic society own none of the means of
production, (ie. machines, raw produce etc.) that they use in
their work. These are owned by the capitalists, to whom the
workers must sell their 'labour power', or ability to do work, in
return for a wage. The capitalists, owning the factories,
automatically have ownership rights to everything produced by
it, and can do with it what the will. Because of this, the worker
is alienated from the product of their labours, having no
control over what is made, or what becomes of it.
Karl Marx was very concerned with the class system in
Prussia. He was an avid campaigner against a system where one
group of people flourish at the expense of another class, in this
case the working. He believed that all things should be equal,
and that sharing should abound, with no-one person owning
everything, all belonging to the state. Marx believed that once
most workers recognized their interests and became 'class
conscious', the overthrow of capitalism would proceed as
quickly and democratically as the nature of the capitalist
opposition allowed. The socialist society that would emerge
out of the revolution would develop the full productive
potential inherited from capitalism through democratic
planning on behalf of social needs. The final goal, towards
which socialist society would constantly build, is the human
one of abolishing alienation. Marx called the attainment of this
goal Communism.
Marxism in its various forms has affected the world
greatly throughout time. Both world wars have involved
communist countries to a great extent. Communism has gone
wrong in many countries, with the state turning into an
authoritarian one, with a few people at the top abusing their
power for their own personal gain, at the expense of the other
members of the public.
In conclusion, I believe that Marx's theories would be
beneficial up to a point. I agree that there should be no class
distinctions, and that everyone should have a fair go to succeed
in life. Sharing should be greater, as capitalism has risen to
knew heights of greed and power lust. A communist state,
however, would never work, as it is in the human nature to
compete against one another, which rules out any social
equality one could gain by abolishing personal property.
Bibliography
Kenny, S., (1994) Developing Communities for the Future :
Community Development in Australia, Thomas Nelson
Australia.
Miliband, R., (1977) Marxism and Politics, Herron Publishing
Inc., New York.
Ollman, B., (1995) Grolier's Encyclopaedia - Karl Marx and
Marxism, Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Party government
In this article, "Partry Government is Gaining Too Much Power," E. E. Shchneider discuses how the United StatesGovernment was set up in a party system and how the party system is working today. In 1994 the rEpublican partypromised to be fair and to submit thier decisions to the public for criticizm and scutiny. Thyey won the majority of the congress after that promise. This was suprising because the democrates had been in control of congress for so long. The republican party didn't live up to thier agreement and is now not trusted by the public. Now niether of the two parties are proposing such a promisebecause that could lead to bad public relations. It seems that the parties are only conserned with winning the elections and not with the countries affairs themselves.The parties have gained to much power and this is leading to the decay of our once strong government
Micarthyisim
_WPC`
0(R 1mz
!p
/U( %@"{F
)\#
($
#
e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)
(i)1)a) J J HJ<6X 9`+C
ourier<-
íŸ€í³Œ
9p`(
XA?xxxxXx __________
_______________________________________________________Panasonic
KX-
P2180KXP2180.PRS
|
h
-
0 &4"|v "=DKRVce______________-}-
}__|_
3
0(R 1mz
!p
/U( %@"{F
)\#
($
#
e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)
(i)1)a) J J HJ<6X 9`+C
ourier<-
íŸ€í³Œ
9p`(
XA?xxxxXx __________
_______________________________________________________Panasonic
KX-
P2180KXP2180.PRS
|
h
-
0 &4"|v "=DKRVce______________-}-
}__|_
3
Aliens
Aliens... What are aliens? There are illegal aliens. Their are UFO aliens. You have to ask yourself one question, do you think there could be intelligent life other than the human race? I do. Aliens are creatures, things, phenomena. No one can explain them nor can any one prove their existence, but there are millions of people who believe they're out there. I'm not talking about ID4 aliens, or anything like that. I am talking about intelligent life that may just be coming here to study humans.
There have been many cases of close encounters of the third kind. Where aliens have abducted people and studied them. Some of the people that do believe this think it is evil. But if the United States government found an alien. They would probably study it in the same we aliens have studied humans.
Many people are UFO fanatics and live life to see UFO's. These people go out and search for UFO sightings. Do UFO's exsist that is the Question?
There have been many cases of close encounters of the third kind. Where aliens have abducted people and studied them. Some of the people that do believe this think it is evil. But if the United States government found an alien. They would probably study it in the same we aliens have studied humans.
Many people are UFO fanatics and live life to see UFO's. These people go out and search for UFO sightings. Do UFO's exsist that is the Question?
Friday, January 4, 2013
Revenue Sharing between the States and the Federal government
Federal grants have become more common over the last 60
years, due to the expansion and retraction of the size of the
federal government. The federal government began expanding in
the 1930s to deal with the Depression. It used federal agencies
to directly deal with problems. As time went on, the tasks were
turned over to the states, but the federal government still
remained involved through the use of federal grants to states
and localities. In the 1970s, Nixon's New Federalism put a
heavy emphasis on federal grants. Revenue sharing gave federal
dollars to localities and states that had never received very
much or any federal money before. This increased local interest
in receiving federal money in many localities.
In order to deal with the federal bureaucracy and receive
federal money, localities and states have to develop efficient
and effective bureaucracies of their own. These state and local
bureaucracies must understand the federal rules and requirements
for receiving federal aid. Some states routinely receive a
greater amount of federal money than other states with similar
populations due to the differences in state bureaucracies. The
state which has an effective grant-writing bureaucracy and
maintains relations with federal bureaucrats and leaders is
often able to get more money.
Federal bureaucracies are often very regionalized. They
are staffed by people from a certain region, and they primarily
deal with people from that region. They give more federal
assistance to these regions too. The overall trend in federal
spending in a state may be different from a particular agency's
pattern of spending. Some states may get very little overall
federal funding, but may get much more than the average amount
of money from a certain federal agency's grants.
American state-level politics can be divided up into 3
categories: traditional, moralistic, and individualistic.
Traditional areas are heavily elitist, and social elites are the
primary leaders of society. They have less reliance on
government programs, government spending, and government in
general. They are not as democratic as in other areas of the
country. Moralistic cultures put a heavy focus on government
taking an active role in society. There is more emphasis on
democratic methods in government, government funding, government
programs, and the provision of services. The individualist
culture sees government as only being important when it can help
the individual succeed. It should never hamper the individual
from attaining personnel success. The South is considered more
traditionalist. The midatlantic states and other areas which
have descendants of the original settlers of the midatlantic
states are considered individualistic. The northern states are
moralistic. All of these political cultures influences the
state governments in their areas. The states with the
moralistic culture are more likely to have a responsive
bureaucracy that knows how to get federal grant money and
services, while the others are less likely to have this ability.
Although general trends can be established, they are not without
irregularities. Some states do not follow the trends of their
region, and may contradict it. For example, Louisiana provides
a relatively high amount of unemployment benefits to its
residents, while other southern states do not. A state may have
a very responsive agriculture department which can obtain
federal dollars and assist farmers, but have few other agencies
in state government which do the same in other fields.
The national government should make more use of revenue
sharing than it does now. Revenue sharing will prevent many of
the disparities found in federal funding. States with small
populations now receive more federal money per capita than
states with large populations, possibly due to their having
higher representation in the Senate. The elimination of this
disparity in funding is needed in order to ensure adequate
funding of all states.
years, due to the expansion and retraction of the size of the
federal government. The federal government began expanding in
the 1930s to deal with the Depression. It used federal agencies
to directly deal with problems. As time went on, the tasks were
turned over to the states, but the federal government still
remained involved through the use of federal grants to states
and localities. In the 1970s, Nixon's New Federalism put a
heavy emphasis on federal grants. Revenue sharing gave federal
dollars to localities and states that had never received very
much or any federal money before. This increased local interest
in receiving federal money in many localities.
In order to deal with the federal bureaucracy and receive
federal money, localities and states have to develop efficient
and effective bureaucracies of their own. These state and local
bureaucracies must understand the federal rules and requirements
for receiving federal aid. Some states routinely receive a
greater amount of federal money than other states with similar
populations due to the differences in state bureaucracies. The
state which has an effective grant-writing bureaucracy and
maintains relations with federal bureaucrats and leaders is
often able to get more money.
Federal bureaucracies are often very regionalized. They
are staffed by people from a certain region, and they primarily
deal with people from that region. They give more federal
assistance to these regions too. The overall trend in federal
spending in a state may be different from a particular agency's
pattern of spending. Some states may get very little overall
federal funding, but may get much more than the average amount
of money from a certain federal agency's grants.
American state-level politics can be divided up into 3
categories: traditional, moralistic, and individualistic.
Traditional areas are heavily elitist, and social elites are the
primary leaders of society. They have less reliance on
government programs, government spending, and government in
general. They are not as democratic as in other areas of the
country. Moralistic cultures put a heavy focus on government
taking an active role in society. There is more emphasis on
democratic methods in government, government funding, government
programs, and the provision of services. The individualist
culture sees government as only being important when it can help
the individual succeed. It should never hamper the individual
from attaining personnel success. The South is considered more
traditionalist. The midatlantic states and other areas which
have descendants of the original settlers of the midatlantic
states are considered individualistic. The northern states are
moralistic. All of these political cultures influences the
state governments in their areas. The states with the
moralistic culture are more likely to have a responsive
bureaucracy that knows how to get federal grant money and
services, while the others are less likely to have this ability.
Although general trends can be established, they are not without
irregularities. Some states do not follow the trends of their
region, and may contradict it. For example, Louisiana provides
a relatively high amount of unemployment benefits to its
residents, while other southern states do not. A state may have
a very responsive agriculture department which can obtain
federal dollars and assist farmers, but have few other agencies
in state government which do the same in other fields.
The national government should make more use of revenue
sharing than it does now. Revenue sharing will prevent many of
the disparities found in federal funding. States with small
populations now receive more federal money per capita than
states with large populations, possibly due to their having
higher representation in the Senate. The elimination of this
disparity in funding is needed in order to ensure adequate
funding of all states.
Rehabilatation of criminals Awaste of time or worth the effo
Rehabilitation of criminals
A waste of time or worth the effort?
By: Heather Rose
009-56-0641
Table of contents
Background information on crime
Since 1960, the number of violent crimes committed per capita in the United States has increased by more than 450%. More than 24,000 murders took place in America in 1991.. With each passing year, rapes, robberies, murder, and other forms of extreme violence has become a way of life for some individuals who fall short of society's norms; however, it is only a small portion of criminals who commit the majority of the crimes. It is no longer rare to be a victim of a violent crime or to know someone who has been affected .
Get tough laws passed by many states have caused a increase in prison spending. Prison populations in the 1980's have more than doubled resulting in more prisons being built every year. Even with all the harsh sentencing guidelines, judges are not sentencing criminals to do necessary time . Prisons have become a revolving door society. Only 25% of those convicted are sent to prison. Judges usually have to let out a inmate before another one can take his place. There are limited cells in prisons, so the majority of crimes are punished by probation or court sanctions. Even when longer sentences are given, they are rarely served. The average murderer spends about six years in prison.
*
What factors decide the outcome of such individuals? Some experts feel there is no absolute answer, only speculation. There is however, a strong relationship between environment and the outcome of offenders. Low income, poor education,drugs, and family breakdown are some factors that keep repeating in cases of habitual offenders; however, the public sees the problem lies with the availability of guns and lack of morals. Only one factor stands out in both public and professional opinion, drugs.
*
What Factors Do The Public See As The Most Important In Causing Crime?
*
What are some alternatives?
To deal with crime, we must first go to the root of the problem. The American society is a breeding ground for violent crime. Preventative measures must be implemented to stop such behavior before it starts. Teaching family values in after school programs is a step in the right direction. Programs that teach respect, anger management, and accountability for one's own actions is a must in today's society.
Prison programs for the first time offender to help them become productive members of society can be a step in the right direction.Teaching inmates how to manage anger, drug counseling, people skills, as well as teaching blue collar trade to inmates will ease the transition from prison to the outside world. When the inmate is released, a half way house should be the residence of the former inmate until adjustments are made. This way a person coming into society will not be overwhelmed by his new found freedom. Giving them back their freedoms back a little at a time.
Community policing should be promoted in every urban area. Community policing helps unite citizens together, establish relations between police and it's citizens, and helps establish pride in neighborhoods. Bonds between neighbors are strengthened and unity is achieved.
Family restructuring services should be implemented by the state and run by community leaders. Services for families in need could include, mental health counseling, living and coping skills, anger management classes, and domestic violence help. Services should not be limited to those individuals who fall into certain brackets( financial ), but to anyone in the community who desires help to lead a productive life.
After school programs to keep juveniles of the streets should reduce crimes in communities. Children with nothing to do will find ways to entertain themselves, usually this leads to criminal mischief. After school programs already in use at public schools have had a sharp decrease in criminal related mischief. Programs such as sports and homework help has helped in reducing dropout rates.
A waste of time or worth the effort?
By: Heather Rose
009-56-0641
Table of contents
Background information on crime
Since 1960, the number of violent crimes committed per capita in the United States has increased by more than 450%. More than 24,000 murders took place in America in 1991.. With each passing year, rapes, robberies, murder, and other forms of extreme violence has become a way of life for some individuals who fall short of society's norms; however, it is only a small portion of criminals who commit the majority of the crimes. It is no longer rare to be a victim of a violent crime or to know someone who has been affected .
Get tough laws passed by many states have caused a increase in prison spending. Prison populations in the 1980's have more than doubled resulting in more prisons being built every year. Even with all the harsh sentencing guidelines, judges are not sentencing criminals to do necessary time . Prisons have become a revolving door society. Only 25% of those convicted are sent to prison. Judges usually have to let out a inmate before another one can take his place. There are limited cells in prisons, so the majority of crimes are punished by probation or court sanctions. Even when longer sentences are given, they are rarely served. The average murderer spends about six years in prison.
*
What factors decide the outcome of such individuals? Some experts feel there is no absolute answer, only speculation. There is however, a strong relationship between environment and the outcome of offenders. Low income, poor education,drugs, and family breakdown are some factors that keep repeating in cases of habitual offenders; however, the public sees the problem lies with the availability of guns and lack of morals. Only one factor stands out in both public and professional opinion, drugs.
*
What Factors Do The Public See As The Most Important In Causing Crime?
*
What are some alternatives?
To deal with crime, we must first go to the root of the problem. The American society is a breeding ground for violent crime. Preventative measures must be implemented to stop such behavior before it starts. Teaching family values in after school programs is a step in the right direction. Programs that teach respect, anger management, and accountability for one's own actions is a must in today's society.
Prison programs for the first time offender to help them become productive members of society can be a step in the right direction.Teaching inmates how to manage anger, drug counseling, people skills, as well as teaching blue collar trade to inmates will ease the transition from prison to the outside world. When the inmate is released, a half way house should be the residence of the former inmate until adjustments are made. This way a person coming into society will not be overwhelmed by his new found freedom. Giving them back their freedoms back a little at a time.
Community policing should be promoted in every urban area. Community policing helps unite citizens together, establish relations between police and it's citizens, and helps establish pride in neighborhoods. Bonds between neighbors are strengthened and unity is achieved.
Family restructuring services should be implemented by the state and run by community leaders. Services for families in need could include, mental health counseling, living and coping skills, anger management classes, and domestic violence help. Services should not be limited to those individuals who fall into certain brackets( financial ), but to anyone in the community who desires help to lead a productive life.
After school programs to keep juveniles of the streets should reduce crimes in communities. Children with nothing to do will find ways to entertain themselves, usually this leads to criminal mischief. After school programs already in use at public schools have had a sharp decrease in criminal related mischief. Programs such as sports and homework help has helped in reducing dropout rates.
No Tuch Thing AfricanAmerican
By D.C. Burch
It seems to be a time for Americans to try and be a family again. Maybe a quarrelsome and restless family not entirely happy with each member all of the time, but a family nonetheless.
OK, I admit it. I am confused and perplexed by the storm of political correctness sweeping throughout the nation, raising dust-devils and tempests; leaving destruction and chaos in its wake.
The English language is being transmogrified to quell and satisfy members of the American society who feel they should somehow, be special; apart from our citizenry. Thus my confusion.
I¹ve been called a privileged white-boy by some, honky by others, and cracker by others still. All this because I grew up in a middle class family in Toledo, Ohio? I¹ve never considered myself to be anything special, certainly never superior to anyone or anything by virtue of my ancestry, just your basic, run-of-the-mill guy who wants to do the right thing.
From the time I was little boy, I have seen one particular group called colored, Negro, black, and now, African-American. I can¹t seem to find a consensus out there in any media, one moment the reference is to blacks, and the next to African-Americans, when they are referring to the same group of people.
I¹m not knocking what people want to call themselves, it¹s the mixed messages I¹m getting and the inaccuracy of the terminology that frustrates me.
Look around and you will see there is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Black Muslims, and African-Americans.
All of these terms are used to refer to members of one group of people. Is it any wonder I¹m confused?
I have particular problems with the term African-American, a misnomer which would lead me to believe these people somehow hold dual citizenship with another country, or even worse, lead everyone to believe all those who use that term to describe themselves are of African origin and are exclusively black in color.
As we all know, there are white Africans, too. Should they choose to come to the U.S., they too, would be eligible for the label African-American, which would further confuse the issue.
Enter the U.S. Census Bureau.
Rather than help clear up the mess, they perpetuate it by requesting racial information and make-up of families that does nothing more than perpetuate the lies we tell one another. At least with the Census Bureau, their are Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Other, and Whites. I don¹t know about you folks but, I was born here in the U.S., so logically, I¹m as native an American as one can get.
Why do we continue to confound ourselves with inaccurate and self-serving terms? Why perpetuate lies? Either we are Americans first and foremost, or we aren¹t.
There really is an easy solution to this whole problem, those of us born within the boundaries of the United States are Americans, period. Should we choose to identify ourselves as being Americans of a given ancestry, wouldn¹t that serve the purpose?
Those who have emigrated from other countries should continue to refer to themselves as natives of that country until such time they choose to become naturalized citizens of the U.S. Then, they too, are Americans.
Separating ourselves into groups and isolated pockets of society will only serve one purpose, it will allow others to divide and conquer us all that much easier.
There was a time that we were all considered American, we had a common goal and destiny to fulfill. We had a message to share with the rest of the world &lsqauo; that of hope for a tomorrow that would be better for all of us if we would just put aside our differences and work toward a common goal: Peace in our time &lsqauo; for all time.
Have we achieved that goal? No, not by a long shot. But we have made significant steps in the right direction.
For every step of progress we make toward that end, I think we slide further back by accentuating our differences rather than focusing on our similarities.
It seems to be a time for Americans to try and be a family again. Maybe a quarrelsome and restless family not entirely happy with each member all of the time, but a family nonetheless.
OK, I admit it. I am confused and perplexed by the storm of political correctness sweeping throughout the nation, raising dust-devils and tempests; leaving destruction and chaos in its wake.
The English language is being transmogrified to quell and satisfy members of the American society who feel they should somehow, be special; apart from our citizenry. Thus my confusion.
I¹ve been called a privileged white-boy by some, honky by others, and cracker by others still. All this because I grew up in a middle class family in Toledo, Ohio? I¹ve never considered myself to be anything special, certainly never superior to anyone or anything by virtue of my ancestry, just your basic, run-of-the-mill guy who wants to do the right thing.
From the time I was little boy, I have seen one particular group called colored, Negro, black, and now, African-American. I can¹t seem to find a consensus out there in any media, one moment the reference is to blacks, and the next to African-Americans, when they are referring to the same group of people.
I¹m not knocking what people want to call themselves, it¹s the mixed messages I¹m getting and the inaccuracy of the terminology that frustrates me.
Look around and you will see there is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Black Muslims, and African-Americans.
All of these terms are used to refer to members of one group of people. Is it any wonder I¹m confused?
I have particular problems with the term African-American, a misnomer which would lead me to believe these people somehow hold dual citizenship with another country, or even worse, lead everyone to believe all those who use that term to describe themselves are of African origin and are exclusively black in color.
As we all know, there are white Africans, too. Should they choose to come to the U.S., they too, would be eligible for the label African-American, which would further confuse the issue.
Enter the U.S. Census Bureau.
Rather than help clear up the mess, they perpetuate it by requesting racial information and make-up of families that does nothing more than perpetuate the lies we tell one another. At least with the Census Bureau, their are Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Other, and Whites. I don¹t know about you folks but, I was born here in the U.S., so logically, I¹m as native an American as one can get.
Why do we continue to confound ourselves with inaccurate and self-serving terms? Why perpetuate lies? Either we are Americans first and foremost, or we aren¹t.
There really is an easy solution to this whole problem, those of us born within the boundaries of the United States are Americans, period. Should we choose to identify ourselves as being Americans of a given ancestry, wouldn¹t that serve the purpose?
Those who have emigrated from other countries should continue to refer to themselves as natives of that country until such time they choose to become naturalized citizens of the U.S. Then, they too, are Americans.
Separating ourselves into groups and isolated pockets of society will only serve one purpose, it will allow others to divide and conquer us all that much easier.
There was a time that we were all considered American, we had a common goal and destiny to fulfill. We had a message to share with the rest of the world &lsqauo; that of hope for a tomorrow that would be better for all of us if we would just put aside our differences and work toward a common goal: Peace in our time &lsqauo; for all time.
Have we achieved that goal? No, not by a long shot. But we have made significant steps in the right direction.
For every step of progress we make toward that end, I think we slide further back by accentuating our differences rather than focusing on our similarities.
Longest DayBiblical
The Longest Day
Few of God's miracles cause protests in the "scientific" community like
the account of Joshua's long day - when God made the sun and moon to stand
still. But science and modern technology have done more to verify this
phenominal biblical fact than they have to refute it.
Common sense would say it is impossible for such a major disruption to
occur and not totally destroy the precise, perfect balance in the solar
system. But given a God, who created the heavens and the earth, who
established the rotation of the planets and stars to the fraction of a
second, making the earth stop rotating for 24 hours is not such a difficult
task. Yet, computer scientists in the space program and mathematicians -
one a former professor at Yale University - have discovered that a whole
day has been unaccountably added in time.
The positions of the moon, sun, and planets have to be calculated
precisely for all space shots to avoid problems in establishing the
satellite's orbit. The orbit has to be calculated for the life of the
satellite to avoid its running into something else in space.
Using computers, scientists can tell the exact location of the planets
and their moons for years into the future. By the same means, they have
been able to backtrack and determine these specific locations in the past.
It was during one such search that the extra day appeared.
From various accounts of the incident, it appears that something "did
not compute." The extra day was just there. There was no computer
malfunction; there was no explanation for the interruption of normal time
patterns.
When this apparent error appeared and no explanation was forthcoming,
one of the scientists related that he had studied in Sunday School about
time standing still. A preposterous idea to scientists, but faced with no
other explanation, they asked him to show them the story.
In the story in the tenth chapter of the book of Joshua, Joshua had
asked God to make the sun and moon stand still to enable Joshua to defeat
his enemies. Joshua 10:13 says, "And the sun stood still, and the moon
stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies... So
the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about
a whole day."
There was the extra day that science couldn't account for. But
scientists are more exact than that. The term, "about a whole day" was not
close enough for them.
They rechecked their computers, going back to the time when the story
was written. Their calculations showed that the time the sun stood still
was 23 hours and 20 minutes. It was not a whole day. This forty minutes
was significant to the computer experts with their penchant for precision.
A missing forty minutes would throw things off for years into the future.
The former Sunday School pupil piped up again, saying he knew of
another Bible story where the sun traveled backward. This possibility was
even more bizarre than the sun standing still, said his skeptical, fellow
scientists. But they agreed to hear him out, even if only to prove him
wrong.
They got out the Book again and turned to II Kings 20 and read about
Hezekiah on his death bed. The prophet Isaiah told Hezekiah he would not
die, but Hezekiah required a sign from God. So, Isaiah proposed to have
God move the sun forward 10 degrees.
In verse 10, Hezekiah says, "It is a light thing for the shadow to go
down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees."
Isaiah called upon God and the shadow on the sun dial moved back 10
degrees. Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes. These 40 minutes in II Kings,
combined with the 23 hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, account forn the extra
day - the 24 God given hours that space travelers will have to include in
their calculations.
From - Christian Science Monitor & The Evangelist
Few of God's miracles cause protests in the "scientific" community like
the account of Joshua's long day - when God made the sun and moon to stand
still. But science and modern technology have done more to verify this
phenominal biblical fact than they have to refute it.
Common sense would say it is impossible for such a major disruption to
occur and not totally destroy the precise, perfect balance in the solar
system. But given a God, who created the heavens and the earth, who
established the rotation of the planets and stars to the fraction of a
second, making the earth stop rotating for 24 hours is not such a difficult
task. Yet, computer scientists in the space program and mathematicians -
one a former professor at Yale University - have discovered that a whole
day has been unaccountably added in time.
The positions of the moon, sun, and planets have to be calculated
precisely for all space shots to avoid problems in establishing the
satellite's orbit. The orbit has to be calculated for the life of the
satellite to avoid its running into something else in space.
Using computers, scientists can tell the exact location of the planets
and their moons for years into the future. By the same means, they have
been able to backtrack and determine these specific locations in the past.
It was during one such search that the extra day appeared.
From various accounts of the incident, it appears that something "did
not compute." The extra day was just there. There was no computer
malfunction; there was no explanation for the interruption of normal time
patterns.
When this apparent error appeared and no explanation was forthcoming,
one of the scientists related that he had studied in Sunday School about
time standing still. A preposterous idea to scientists, but faced with no
other explanation, they asked him to show them the story.
In the story in the tenth chapter of the book of Joshua, Joshua had
asked God to make the sun and moon stand still to enable Joshua to defeat
his enemies. Joshua 10:13 says, "And the sun stood still, and the moon
stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies... So
the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about
a whole day."
There was the extra day that science couldn't account for. But
scientists are more exact than that. The term, "about a whole day" was not
close enough for them.
They rechecked their computers, going back to the time when the story
was written. Their calculations showed that the time the sun stood still
was 23 hours and 20 minutes. It was not a whole day. This forty minutes
was significant to the computer experts with their penchant for precision.
A missing forty minutes would throw things off for years into the future.
The former Sunday School pupil piped up again, saying he knew of
another Bible story where the sun traveled backward. This possibility was
even more bizarre than the sun standing still, said his skeptical, fellow
scientists. But they agreed to hear him out, even if only to prove him
wrong.
They got out the Book again and turned to II Kings 20 and read about
Hezekiah on his death bed. The prophet Isaiah told Hezekiah he would not
die, but Hezekiah required a sign from God. So, Isaiah proposed to have
God move the sun forward 10 degrees.
In verse 10, Hezekiah says, "It is a light thing for the shadow to go
down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees."
Isaiah called upon God and the shadow on the sun dial moved back 10
degrees. Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes. These 40 minutes in II Kings,
combined with the 23 hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, account forn the extra
day - the 24 God given hours that space travelers will have to include in
their calculations.
From - Christian Science Monitor & The Evangelist
Thursday, January 3, 2013
The Republican Party Issues
The Republican Party: Overall Issues, 1860-1868
The Republican party during the 1860's was known as the party more concerned with "civil rights" and the common American. This came about through a series of sweeping changes in the party that occurred during two major time periods: the 1860-1864 and 1864-1868. The changes in the party reflected the attitude in the North as opposed to the confederate, democratic South. The main issue that divided the two was slavery and its implications for control of the nation.
The best illustration of the party's anti-slavery sentiment (as contrasted to abolitionism) in 1860, is the fact that although the party was against slavery , it refused to attempt to stamp it out of the regions it was already present. For example, in the Republican Party Platform for 1860, the party states its abhorrence for slavery and declares that slavery should not be instituted into new territories, but it never tries to outlaw it from Southern states.
"That the normal conditions of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom...and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature or of any individuals, to give existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States."
In the first four years of the 1860's, the North and South waged war over these issues, with the Republican North emerging victorious. The Republicans took charge of the national political power. Although he worked with an anti-slavery platform, President Lincoln attempted to make a generous peace with the South, with hopes of expanding the power of the Republican party with support from the South. Examples of this can be found in the fact that Confederate officials were not barred from public office, compensation for lost slaves was not ruled out and Lincoln hinted that he would be generous with pardons to rebel leaders. With the Emancipation Proclamation, the Republicans gained freedom for slaves, but not social or political equality.
During the years of 1864-1868, the Republican platform again changed with the public opinion in the North to one of abolition. In the platform for the National Union Convention, the party affirmed its support for an Amendment to "terminate and forever prohibit the existence of slavery within the limits or jurisdiction of the United States." The 13th Amendment confirmed the death of slavery. However, the so-called "Black Codes" that Southern governments implemented forced abolitionist Republicans in Congress to clash with President Andrew Johnson over the passage of a new Freedmen's Bureau bill and a Civil Rights Act. This clash signified a division between the old Republican values of tolerance and the new platform of slave rights. This led to the passage of the 14th amendment, which declared all slaves as citizens and defined their voting privileges as equal to every other citizen. The radical republicans had achieved their goal. With freedmen able to vote, the Republic party would be able to carry more of the Southern states in elections and maintain control.
Near the end of the Reconstruction Era, the Republican party underwent even more changes. With the slavery issue settled in their eyes, scandals in the party, and the threat of violence from various hate groups keeping freedmen from voting, its attentions began to turn elsewhere. The metamorphosis that the party underwent through the 1860's was a direct result of the popular opinion in the North at the time. As the detestment of slavery grew in the North, so did the Republican legislation grow more severe against it, starting with the party platforms and ending with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
The Republican party during the 1860's was known as the party more concerned with "civil rights" and the common American. This came about through a series of sweeping changes in the party that occurred during two major time periods: the 1860-1864 and 1864-1868. The changes in the party reflected the attitude in the North as opposed to the confederate, democratic South. The main issue that divided the two was slavery and its implications for control of the nation.
The best illustration of the party's anti-slavery sentiment (as contrasted to abolitionism) in 1860, is the fact that although the party was against slavery , it refused to attempt to stamp it out of the regions it was already present. For example, in the Republican Party Platform for 1860, the party states its abhorrence for slavery and declares that slavery should not be instituted into new territories, but it never tries to outlaw it from Southern states.
"That the normal conditions of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom...and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature or of any individuals, to give existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States."
In the first four years of the 1860's, the North and South waged war over these issues, with the Republican North emerging victorious. The Republicans took charge of the national political power. Although he worked with an anti-slavery platform, President Lincoln attempted to make a generous peace with the South, with hopes of expanding the power of the Republican party with support from the South. Examples of this can be found in the fact that Confederate officials were not barred from public office, compensation for lost slaves was not ruled out and Lincoln hinted that he would be generous with pardons to rebel leaders. With the Emancipation Proclamation, the Republicans gained freedom for slaves, but not social or political equality.
During the years of 1864-1868, the Republican platform again changed with the public opinion in the North to one of abolition. In the platform for the National Union Convention, the party affirmed its support for an Amendment to "terminate and forever prohibit the existence of slavery within the limits or jurisdiction of the United States." The 13th Amendment confirmed the death of slavery. However, the so-called "Black Codes" that Southern governments implemented forced abolitionist Republicans in Congress to clash with President Andrew Johnson over the passage of a new Freedmen's Bureau bill and a Civil Rights Act. This clash signified a division between the old Republican values of tolerance and the new platform of slave rights. This led to the passage of the 14th amendment, which declared all slaves as citizens and defined their voting privileges as equal to every other citizen. The radical republicans had achieved their goal. With freedmen able to vote, the Republic party would be able to carry more of the Southern states in elections and maintain control.
Near the end of the Reconstruction Era, the Republican party underwent even more changes. With the slavery issue settled in their eyes, scandals in the party, and the threat of violence from various hate groups keeping freedmen from voting, its attentions began to turn elsewhere. The metamorphosis that the party underwent through the 1860's was a direct result of the popular opinion in the North at the time. As the detestment of slavery grew in the North, so did the Republican legislation grow more severe against it, starting with the party platforms and ending with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Synopsis of Politicking Goes HighTech by Steven Roberts
Politicking Goes High-Tech
Steven V. Roberts
This reading dealt with the fact that the major decision makers for people when voting (especially for Senators) are the television spots. The article discussed how today's campaigns are now candidate-centered rather than political party-centered and how they require large sums of money in order to pay for all the advertising, and a team of professional workers rather than a team of volunteers is a necessity. Much of the money goes to commercial advertisements, but another large portion goes to continuous polling and direct mail strategies.
The article talked about the need to have the speed and technology to know how the people feel right away. A candidate cannot wait weeks or even days for the results to come back to him or her whether he or she is in the lead. The results are needed within hours. After getting the results from the polls, it is then time to determine what action needs to be taken to aid your campaign (or more often hurt your opponent). The candidate then needs to create new television ads to make himself or herself appeal to the interests of the people or sometimes to counteract the bad things the opponent has to say. This fight between the television ads is often referred to as Spot Wars.
While the Spot Wars help out the candidates (or harm the opponents with derogatory remarks), they can cost an enormous amount of money; and after being played on television the opponent will return the attack with one of his or her ads-then, the candidate will have to go back to work all over again creating new ads regarding the new polls-all of which costs more money. A major portion of the money for candidates to use comes from PACs. These PACs make up 1/4 off all contributions to Senate campaigns, while some of the other money comes from fund raisers and cost-per-plate dinners.
Before the candidate begins to play the ads on television he/she needs to determine what the campaign focus is going to be. Focus groups are small groups of voters who gather with the candidate to give an idea of perhaps what the people are looking for. Then the candidate has to decide when to run the ads. Determining that can be more difficult: if you have the money it is probably best to start early and hope your opponent runs out of money trying to counteract your ads-"One candidate puts on a message, and the other has to decide how to respond." After you run the ads you have to poll the people, of course, to determine how they feel about your standings on issues. If they don't like them, then you have to change your ads; and if your opponent is winning, you might as well say something about him/her to make him/her look bad to the viewers-"negative ads always cause a critical reaction at first, but are effective in the long run." In just a matter of seconds on a commercial, you can tarnish the life-long reputation of your opponent if you so desire; and the opponent will have to run new ads to bring his/her reputation back into good standing and then possibly tarnish yours. Many times, however, a candidate will overreact when a negative ad is thrown against him/her. "They tend to believe the voters will turn against them." A negative ad does throw the candidate off-guard and causes him/her to respond and take up precious time and resources.
I thought that this article was fairly interesting in that the candidates are able to respond so quickly to the television ads and have new ones made at the drop of a dime. The article made me realize how much "bashing" goes on between the opponents-they are always saying bad things about each other. The amount of money that it takes to run the ads was talked about briefly, and it seems hard to fathom that the candidates can come up with the money so easily.
Steven V. Roberts
This reading dealt with the fact that the major decision makers for people when voting (especially for Senators) are the television spots. The article discussed how today's campaigns are now candidate-centered rather than political party-centered and how they require large sums of money in order to pay for all the advertising, and a team of professional workers rather than a team of volunteers is a necessity. Much of the money goes to commercial advertisements, but another large portion goes to continuous polling and direct mail strategies.
The article talked about the need to have the speed and technology to know how the people feel right away. A candidate cannot wait weeks or even days for the results to come back to him or her whether he or she is in the lead. The results are needed within hours. After getting the results from the polls, it is then time to determine what action needs to be taken to aid your campaign (or more often hurt your opponent). The candidate then needs to create new television ads to make himself or herself appeal to the interests of the people or sometimes to counteract the bad things the opponent has to say. This fight between the television ads is often referred to as Spot Wars.
While the Spot Wars help out the candidates (or harm the opponents with derogatory remarks), they can cost an enormous amount of money; and after being played on television the opponent will return the attack with one of his or her ads-then, the candidate will have to go back to work all over again creating new ads regarding the new polls-all of which costs more money. A major portion of the money for candidates to use comes from PACs. These PACs make up 1/4 off all contributions to Senate campaigns, while some of the other money comes from fund raisers and cost-per-plate dinners.
Before the candidate begins to play the ads on television he/she needs to determine what the campaign focus is going to be. Focus groups are small groups of voters who gather with the candidate to give an idea of perhaps what the people are looking for. Then the candidate has to decide when to run the ads. Determining that can be more difficult: if you have the money it is probably best to start early and hope your opponent runs out of money trying to counteract your ads-"One candidate puts on a message, and the other has to decide how to respond." After you run the ads you have to poll the people, of course, to determine how they feel about your standings on issues. If they don't like them, then you have to change your ads; and if your opponent is winning, you might as well say something about him/her to make him/her look bad to the viewers-"negative ads always cause a critical reaction at first, but are effective in the long run." In just a matter of seconds on a commercial, you can tarnish the life-long reputation of your opponent if you so desire; and the opponent will have to run new ads to bring his/her reputation back into good standing and then possibly tarnish yours. Many times, however, a candidate will overreact when a negative ad is thrown against him/her. "They tend to believe the voters will turn against them." A negative ad does throw the candidate off-guard and causes him/her to respond and take up precious time and resources.
I thought that this article was fairly interesting in that the candidates are able to respond so quickly to the television ads and have new ones made at the drop of a dime. The article made me realize how much "bashing" goes on between the opponents-they are always saying bad things about each other. The amount of money that it takes to run the ads was talked about briefly, and it seems hard to fathom that the candidates can come up with the money so easily.
reaction to an article on Dole and Clintons campaign
In the article, "The Trouble With Character" from Time magazine , writer Richard Stengel describes Bob Dole's attacks on President Bill Clinton's character during the second Presidential debate and explains why Dole's criticisms did not affect Clinton.
Stengel begins the article by discussing how American parents do not want their children to aspire to become President as much as they used to. Most Americans feel that someone else should do the job, and this person is no moralistic model. Stengel says that the people's negative portrait of the President is demonstrated in the roles the President plays in various movies and novels.
Stengel then discusses the second Presidential debate in which Dole said that Clinton "single-handedly contaminated the highest office in the land" and is the leading cause of the public's distrust of the government. The focus of Dole's campaign was not Clinton's issues, but his moral pertinence. The press were surprised by the fact that most people think that Dole has a better character than Clinton, but they still prefer Clinton as President. This notion comes from the reasoning that most Americans are only concerned with whether or not the country and its citizens are taken care of, and so disregard the President's moral imperfections which, in the people's opinion, have very little to do with the issues. So the President can cheat on his taxes or even his wife and the Americans will overlook it as long as he is getting the job done. Claims such as these lead some to believe that Americans' standards of acceptable moral behavior are going down.
Stengel mentions examples of different presidents and the issues that gave them a bad reputation to demonstrate the fact that the people's expectations of the President have fallen. When it comes to politics, Americans are becoming more European - that is, they are becoming more and more tolerant of the flaws in their leaders. This is why Dole's complaints are ineffective in convincing voters.
In my opinion, I think that Stengel is correct in saying that the reason why Dole's attacks are not working is voters are not concerned with the President's personal shortcomings, but rather his capability of running the country, and the two are not always closely related. I think that Bob Dole is going about the whole issue all wrong, and his tactics are not practical and may even backfire. He is trying to make Clinton look bad by insulting his character, but in doing so, Dole is revealing a lot about his own.
Take for instance the issue of Clinton and his playful attitude regarding his use of drugs. Dole is using a personal attack on Bill Clinton to make the constituents think that Clinton is a drug user saying that he used drugs during the '70s. I think the real issue here is not Bill Clinton's problem, but the question of what we are going to do to stop drugs. Dole made such an effort to attack Clinton, but I never heard what Dole had to say about the issue, and what he is planning to do about it. Looking from his family's point of view and taking into consideration the negative impact drugs has had in his family, I think that Clinton is definitely concerned about drug use in America.
I agree with Stengel's belief that this is the way a majority of the voters feel about Clinton. The lack of conviction that Dole claims is Clinton's character flaw is actually his personal strength. Voters see his being indecisive as "still searching for the answer." Instead of clinging to the same traditional values and principles, Clinton is flexible and can adapt to new concepts and vary along with the times. Like Stengel said, the citizens' expectations of the President are changing and I think the country needs a leader who can keep up with a changing world.
Stengel begins the article by discussing how American parents do not want their children to aspire to become President as much as they used to. Most Americans feel that someone else should do the job, and this person is no moralistic model. Stengel says that the people's negative portrait of the President is demonstrated in the roles the President plays in various movies and novels.
Stengel then discusses the second Presidential debate in which Dole said that Clinton "single-handedly contaminated the highest office in the land" and is the leading cause of the public's distrust of the government. The focus of Dole's campaign was not Clinton's issues, but his moral pertinence. The press were surprised by the fact that most people think that Dole has a better character than Clinton, but they still prefer Clinton as President. This notion comes from the reasoning that most Americans are only concerned with whether or not the country and its citizens are taken care of, and so disregard the President's moral imperfections which, in the people's opinion, have very little to do with the issues. So the President can cheat on his taxes or even his wife and the Americans will overlook it as long as he is getting the job done. Claims such as these lead some to believe that Americans' standards of acceptable moral behavior are going down.
Stengel mentions examples of different presidents and the issues that gave them a bad reputation to demonstrate the fact that the people's expectations of the President have fallen. When it comes to politics, Americans are becoming more European - that is, they are becoming more and more tolerant of the flaws in their leaders. This is why Dole's complaints are ineffective in convincing voters.
In my opinion, I think that Stengel is correct in saying that the reason why Dole's attacks are not working is voters are not concerned with the President's personal shortcomings, but rather his capability of running the country, and the two are not always closely related. I think that Bob Dole is going about the whole issue all wrong, and his tactics are not practical and may even backfire. He is trying to make Clinton look bad by insulting his character, but in doing so, Dole is revealing a lot about his own.
Take for instance the issue of Clinton and his playful attitude regarding his use of drugs. Dole is using a personal attack on Bill Clinton to make the constituents think that Clinton is a drug user saying that he used drugs during the '70s. I think the real issue here is not Bill Clinton's problem, but the question of what we are going to do to stop drugs. Dole made such an effort to attack Clinton, but I never heard what Dole had to say about the issue, and what he is planning to do about it. Looking from his family's point of view and taking into consideration the negative impact drugs has had in his family, I think that Clinton is definitely concerned about drug use in America.
I agree with Stengel's belief that this is the way a majority of the voters feel about Clinton. The lack of conviction that Dole claims is Clinton's character flaw is actually his personal strength. Voters see his being indecisive as "still searching for the answer." Instead of clinging to the same traditional values and principles, Clinton is flexible and can adapt to new concepts and vary along with the times. Like Stengel said, the citizens' expectations of the President are changing and I think the country needs a leader who can keep up with a changing world.
presidential elections
Division and Classification
You could be the next presidential candidate! Sound good? You must file papers with the Federal Election Commission to run. You also have to pay the nominal filing fee charged to candidates entering the New Hampshire primary. That doesn¹t sound so difficult. Anyone who can accomplish these two tasks may run for President. Usually, some unlikely people do. This year, the candidates include people from Phil Gramm to Jack Mabardy(Who in the world might he be?). Only a few people have a genuine chance of winning the coveted office, others could win if the world knew them, and still others ( I am convinced) run for our amusement.
Clinton, Powell, and Dole have a decent chance at the Presidency. President Clinton remains the only democrat running. His experience and prominence will aid him in the 96 election. He spouts many unique, interesting ideas. For example, he realized, ³We¹ll never get everybody¹s income up until we educate everybody.² Clinton is full of brilliant revelations like, ³Racial diversity is our great meal ticket to the future if we can figure out how to get along and how to lift each other up.² His bits of intellect might be useful if he proposed solutions to the obvious problems he presents. Bob Dole, a republican candidate, has already done some work on welfare reform. He recently passed a bill which allows the state to create programs that will move people from welfare to work. His reform plan will effectively lower welfare recipients by requiring able-bodied people to work, single-teen parents to stay in school, and limiting welfare to five years. Dole knows what he wants to accomplish and has innovative ways of doing it. Powell has a large cult following and would be a great candidate. His only problem: he hasn¹t decided to run yet.
Arlen Spector believes the government should be ³limited, but not uncaring or a do nothing government.² His ideas sound good, but vague. Some of his ideas seem slightly less indecisive. He says American women should be free to make their own reproductive choices. Senator Phil Gramm also has a remote chance at the office. He vows to balance the budget and cut government spending and taxes. He is well known and says what people want to hear. He would be the ideal president if he could carry out his ideas. Dick Lugar wants to eliminate the IRS and improve the economy. He has a lot of amazing goals, but lacks practicality.
And now we have : ³the few, the proud, the obscure.² Remember, anyone can run for president. Irwin Schiff knows how to present a good image. He even wrote a book about avoiding the inconvenience of paying federal taxes, I fought the law and the law won. Well, I¹m sure his policies on reducing the national deficit would prove interesting. John Safran, a man old enough to remember World War One and model T cars, would provide an interesting addition to the ballot. He does have that experience thing going for him. I wonder if he, like Reagan, looks at the books beside his bed and calls them trees. Tennie Rogers resides in Tulsa, where she (Yes, we women have a representative!) bakes cookies for her grandchildren and preaches good old republican values. Fellow women, don¹t rejoice yet. We will have to wait a while longer for a female president. Unfortunately, Tennie only received twenty votes in the New Hampshire primary.
Everyone running has their good and bad points. A lot of the candidates¹ successes will depend upon them being known. The voters will have to choose between three realistic choices: Clinton, Powell, and Dole. The three have shown their intelligence and problem solving techniques. They have definite opinions on the country¹s problems and how to solve them. The rest of the candidates will have four more years to bake cookies or fight the IRS.
You could be the next presidential candidate! Sound good? You must file papers with the Federal Election Commission to run. You also have to pay the nominal filing fee charged to candidates entering the New Hampshire primary. That doesn¹t sound so difficult. Anyone who can accomplish these two tasks may run for President. Usually, some unlikely people do. This year, the candidates include people from Phil Gramm to Jack Mabardy(Who in the world might he be?). Only a few people have a genuine chance of winning the coveted office, others could win if the world knew them, and still others ( I am convinced) run for our amusement.
Clinton, Powell, and Dole have a decent chance at the Presidency. President Clinton remains the only democrat running. His experience and prominence will aid him in the 96 election. He spouts many unique, interesting ideas. For example, he realized, ³We¹ll never get everybody¹s income up until we educate everybody.² Clinton is full of brilliant revelations like, ³Racial diversity is our great meal ticket to the future if we can figure out how to get along and how to lift each other up.² His bits of intellect might be useful if he proposed solutions to the obvious problems he presents. Bob Dole, a republican candidate, has already done some work on welfare reform. He recently passed a bill which allows the state to create programs that will move people from welfare to work. His reform plan will effectively lower welfare recipients by requiring able-bodied people to work, single-teen parents to stay in school, and limiting welfare to five years. Dole knows what he wants to accomplish and has innovative ways of doing it. Powell has a large cult following and would be a great candidate. His only problem: he hasn¹t decided to run yet.
Arlen Spector believes the government should be ³limited, but not uncaring or a do nothing government.² His ideas sound good, but vague. Some of his ideas seem slightly less indecisive. He says American women should be free to make their own reproductive choices. Senator Phil Gramm also has a remote chance at the office. He vows to balance the budget and cut government spending and taxes. He is well known and says what people want to hear. He would be the ideal president if he could carry out his ideas. Dick Lugar wants to eliminate the IRS and improve the economy. He has a lot of amazing goals, but lacks practicality.
And now we have : ³the few, the proud, the obscure.² Remember, anyone can run for president. Irwin Schiff knows how to present a good image. He even wrote a book about avoiding the inconvenience of paying federal taxes, I fought the law and the law won. Well, I¹m sure his policies on reducing the national deficit would prove interesting. John Safran, a man old enough to remember World War One and model T cars, would provide an interesting addition to the ballot. He does have that experience thing going for him. I wonder if he, like Reagan, looks at the books beside his bed and calls them trees. Tennie Rogers resides in Tulsa, where she (Yes, we women have a representative!) bakes cookies for her grandchildren and preaches good old republican values. Fellow women, don¹t rejoice yet. We will have to wait a while longer for a female president. Unfortunately, Tennie only received twenty votes in the New Hampshire primary.
Everyone running has their good and bad points. A lot of the candidates¹ successes will depend upon them being known. The voters will have to choose between three realistic choices: Clinton, Powell, and Dole. The three have shown their intelligence and problem solving techniques. They have definite opinions on the country¹s problems and how to solve them. The rest of the candidates will have four more years to bake cookies or fight the IRS.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
What Makes America Great
I like America because there is opportunity here. I also like America
because of our government that is a democratic government. In other coun¬
tries, their government's are monarchies, or a dictatorship, or even
authoritarian. Some countries are even capitalistic. Here we have the freedom
to sell buy or trade anything that we want. Another reason that I like are
country is that it is full of states. Many of the other counties don't have states.
The privileges are vast because that we do. Some privileges are: you don't
always have to stay where you are you have the freedom to move. Now some
states have different laws but all are good here. Everyone in America has the
right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. If any of these rights are
taken away then you have the right to go to court. There are many different
types of courts. there is a District court, a Circuit court, (the only one with a
jury) , a Special Appeals court, and an Appeals court. The court that you will
go to depends on your situation. Our government is made up of three different
branches. They are the Executive branch, Legislative branch and the Judicial
branch. All of these branches check one another so that there is no foul ups.
The reason for the three branches is to split up the power and work. This is
done so that no one branch has more power that the other. I think that others
should move to America because of the opportunity the U. S. has to offer.
The U.S. has many jobs and schools. The schools in the U.S. are great they
teach you all that you would possibly want to know. I know that in some
countries the men can only labor and the women get treated badly. Here there
is no worry for we have a good security system. Also many kids in other
countries do without education and that I think is important in today's life.
Also many go without food and clothing. In America we try to help anyone
that we can. Our technology in the U.S. is also very advanced. The
workmanship that you will find here is quality work. I would like to conclude
my essay with saying that America is a land of opportunity. Thank You.
because of our government that is a democratic government. In other coun¬
tries, their government's are monarchies, or a dictatorship, or even
authoritarian. Some countries are even capitalistic. Here we have the freedom
to sell buy or trade anything that we want. Another reason that I like are
country is that it is full of states. Many of the other counties don't have states.
The privileges are vast because that we do. Some privileges are: you don't
always have to stay where you are you have the freedom to move. Now some
states have different laws but all are good here. Everyone in America has the
right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. If any of these rights are
taken away then you have the right to go to court. There are many different
types of courts. there is a District court, a Circuit court, (the only one with a
jury) , a Special Appeals court, and an Appeals court. The court that you will
go to depends on your situation. Our government is made up of three different
branches. They are the Executive branch, Legislative branch and the Judicial
branch. All of these branches check one another so that there is no foul ups.
The reason for the three branches is to split up the power and work. This is
done so that no one branch has more power that the other. I think that others
should move to America because of the opportunity the U. S. has to offer.
The U.S. has many jobs and schools. The schools in the U.S. are great they
teach you all that you would possibly want to know. I know that in some
countries the men can only labor and the women get treated badly. Here there
is no worry for we have a good security system. Also many kids in other
countries do without education and that I think is important in today's life.
Also many go without food and clothing. In America we try to help anyone
that we can. Our technology in the U.S. is also very advanced. The
workmanship that you will find here is quality work. I would like to conclude
my essay with saying that America is a land of opportunity. Thank You.
what is the public interest
Chris
MW 10-1150 a.m.
What Is The Public Interest?
Public interest to me means simply, what the general consensus or attitude is of a body of people with similar attributes and/or backgrounds. Thus, if a policy gets passed and the general feel is one of disapproval there is a push to reform toward a more favorable outcome
As of the present day, the public interest seems be an attitude toward being able function successfully in society without having the government interfere in terms of running every facit of a persons life. Yet, we still would want government to step in when there seems to be no other plausible option. For example, we would like to have government start a national healthcare system but we don¹t want any part of government interfering with us when it comes to much of our private lives.
MW 10-1150 a.m.
What Is The Public Interest?
Public interest to me means simply, what the general consensus or attitude is of a body of people with similar attributes and/or backgrounds. Thus, if a policy gets passed and the general feel is one of disapproval there is a push to reform toward a more favorable outcome
As of the present day, the public interest seems be an attitude toward being able function successfully in society without having the government interfere in terms of running every facit of a persons life. Yet, we still would want government to step in when there seems to be no other plausible option. For example, we would like to have government start a national healthcare system but we don¹t want any part of government interfering with us when it comes to much of our private lives.
The Balance of Power Theory
THE BALANCE OF POWER THEORY.
The most critical and obvious feature of international affairs is its state of anarchy. The international stage features many indepent actors each seeking their own best interest and security . With no sovereign body to govern over these actors it would seem that the system would never be capable of attaining any control. However this is not the reality of the system, we have seen in history that it is possible to restrain the players. It is said to be as a result of the concept of the Balance Of Power, which dictates the actions of states and provides a basis of control that states use when dealing with each other.
This essay is aimed at investigating the concept of the balance of power and will in turn discuss the following points. The use of the B.O.P. concept to explain the behaviour of states . The ideal behaviour of states in the B.O.P. system and the problems of B.O.P. analysis.
The concept of the B.O.P. can be a useful tool in explaining the behaviour of states. Mostly because it is founded on the theory that all states act to preserve thier own self interest. If they are to do this they must prevent domination by any other state, which leads to the assumption that they must build up power and form alliances. Throughout history we can see the B.O.P. concept in action. The clearest example of the B.O.P. concept can be found in the Cold War. In the Cold War the two superpowers the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. held a stable world balance between them. Both states sought to deter domination by the other through a build up of arms and through the creation of strong alliance systems. Under the B.O.P. theory the logic of the Cold War stratagies and alliances seems apparent, with the best method of security being strength.
In an ideal system of B.O.P. all states would 1. act in relatively the same fashion and 2. would make decisions as individual structures. However it can be seen that in the real world the system is composed of of various types of states. States can vary in their types of regimes and in their level of internal stability. States goals vary depending on these factors and hence all states will not make similar decisions as the B.O.P. theory would suggest. In assuming that states make decision as individual, rational actors the theory neglects the fact that though most states are run by an autonomous executive there are also many other complex bodies involved in a states decision making. When we veiw the individual members of these decision-making bodies we see many different motives, hence when a decision is made it may not be the unitary rational response that the B.O.P. theory suggests. From this we can see that states are not run as individuals and so cannot be expected to make decisions that way.
The major flaws of the B.O.P. theory appear to all converge at one point: the theory itself is oversimplified. It is difficult to suggest alterations to the theory because its main problem is also its main goal, to give a simplified model of international relations. It is not then suggested that the theory be abandonned, because it does offer helpful insight into inter-state relations, instead it is suggested that it not be used as the sole analytical tool. The B.O.P. theory because of its nature offers general explanations about international relations which is very useful. However when studying world affairs one needs to dig deeper to view the many variations of states.
The most critical and obvious feature of international affairs is its state of anarchy. The international stage features many indepent actors each seeking their own best interest and security . With no sovereign body to govern over these actors it would seem that the system would never be capable of attaining any control. However this is not the reality of the system, we have seen in history that it is possible to restrain the players. It is said to be as a result of the concept of the Balance Of Power, which dictates the actions of states and provides a basis of control that states use when dealing with each other.
This essay is aimed at investigating the concept of the balance of power and will in turn discuss the following points. The use of the B.O.P. concept to explain the behaviour of states . The ideal behaviour of states in the B.O.P. system and the problems of B.O.P. analysis.
The concept of the B.O.P. can be a useful tool in explaining the behaviour of states. Mostly because it is founded on the theory that all states act to preserve thier own self interest. If they are to do this they must prevent domination by any other state, which leads to the assumption that they must build up power and form alliances. Throughout history we can see the B.O.P. concept in action. The clearest example of the B.O.P. concept can be found in the Cold War. In the Cold War the two superpowers the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. held a stable world balance between them. Both states sought to deter domination by the other through a build up of arms and through the creation of strong alliance systems. Under the B.O.P. theory the logic of the Cold War stratagies and alliances seems apparent, with the best method of security being strength.
In an ideal system of B.O.P. all states would 1. act in relatively the same fashion and 2. would make decisions as individual structures. However it can be seen that in the real world the system is composed of of various types of states. States can vary in their types of regimes and in their level of internal stability. States goals vary depending on these factors and hence all states will not make similar decisions as the B.O.P. theory would suggest. In assuming that states make decision as individual, rational actors the theory neglects the fact that though most states are run by an autonomous executive there are also many other complex bodies involved in a states decision making. When we veiw the individual members of these decision-making bodies we see many different motives, hence when a decision is made it may not be the unitary rational response that the B.O.P. theory suggests. From this we can see that states are not run as individuals and so cannot be expected to make decisions that way.
The major flaws of the B.O.P. theory appear to all converge at one point: the theory itself is oversimplified. It is difficult to suggest alterations to the theory because its main problem is also its main goal, to give a simplified model of international relations. It is not then suggested that the theory be abandonned, because it does offer helpful insight into inter-state relations, instead it is suggested that it not be used as the sole analytical tool. The B.O.P. theory because of its nature offers general explanations about international relations which is very useful. However when studying world affairs one needs to dig deeper to view the many variations of states.
social security crisis
The Presidential election will be coming up this November and the question that many of Americans have on their mind is what are you going to about the Social Security crisis? This question has our nation divided between generations. The elder people of our nation (ages 50 and up) fell confident that Social Security will be there for them and that it should be left alone. On the other hand the Baby Boomers (ages 31-49) and Generation X (ages 18-30) lack this confidence fearing that they will never receive Social Security, and the money they put in would be a waste. Many politicians are afraid to touch this issue because the elder still make a large number of the voting block. Speaking as a member it is our duty to vote for change in Social Security to ensure we will have something to look forward to when we retire. We can not wait any longer to defeat this crisis.
For those who don't know the Social Security crisis is the threat that Social Security may go bankrupt. Well its more than just a threat its the reality. The common belief is that Social Security is a saving fund where the government takes a certain percentage out of our weekly pay. Then that money is put into a savings fund where it is held until you retire. When they retire money is returned to them in monthly checks plus the interest. This is where they are wrong. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system where the current
workforce pays for the present retirees, and then when they retire they will depend on the workforce and so on and so on. Which is fine when you always have more workers then retirees. This is the problem the government will face when the Baby Boomers retire in the year 2010. In 1950 there were 7.2 workers for each retiree. Today there are 3.2 workers for every retiree, an by the year 2020 there will only be 2.4 or less for each retiree. By the year 2010-2015 Social Security is projected by the government to pay out more money than it could take in. Since the current Social Security took in a surplus of $60 billion last year with a projected total to be around $5 trillion they will have enough money to last another 10 years or so. All in all experts expect that Social Security will have spent every penny it has by the year 2030
For those who don't know the Social Security crisis is the threat that Social Security may go bankrupt. Well its more than just a threat its the reality. The common belief is that Social Security is a saving fund where the government takes a certain percentage out of our weekly pay. Then that money is put into a savings fund where it is held until you retire. When they retire money is returned to them in monthly checks plus the interest. This is where they are wrong. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system where the current
workforce pays for the present retirees, and then when they retire they will depend on the workforce and so on and so on. Which is fine when you always have more workers then retirees. This is the problem the government will face when the Baby Boomers retire in the year 2010. In 1950 there were 7.2 workers for each retiree. Today there are 3.2 workers for every retiree, an by the year 2020 there will only be 2.4 or less for each retiree. By the year 2010-2015 Social Security is projected by the government to pay out more money than it could take in. Since the current Social Security took in a surplus of $60 billion last year with a projected total to be around $5 trillion they will have enough money to last another 10 years or so. All in all experts expect that Social Security will have spent every penny it has by the year 2030
Rights of Adopted Children
A touchy topic these days is whether or not the option should be open for adopted children to be able to locate their biological parents. There are some many circumstances for each different case that it is hard to know where exactly I stand on this topic. Over all, I do not think that you should locate your biological parents.
There are many reasons for this. For one thing, learning information on the person who gave you up is a long drawn out process. It can be very emotionally painful, as well. For whatever reason you were given up for adoption; death, financial problems, to young, etc it¹s private information and should remain that way. The decision was made a long time ago because it was the best one at that time.
Think about the birth parents involved. What happens after you spend a few months or more of your life trying to locate these people only to have a door shut in your face? How would you feel if that were to happen? The chances of this happening are pretty good. Yes, there are happy reunions on talk shows that turn out for the better, but that is not always the reality. These people gave up their birth rights many years ago and should not go back on that. They have moved on with their lives and might not want to be reminded what could have been. So many hurt feelings and feelings of guilt could come flying back and then put more of a burden on both of your lives.
There is another factor to think about in this situation. How is your family suppose to react to this and how are they supposed to feel? This is the loving family that took you in as there own for all these years, are they supposed to be fully supportive of your choice now? This is an extremely hard position to be put in because they could be afraid of losing you and dealing with this change will be very difficult.
These are just a few things that you should strongly consider before attempting to locate your biological family. I strongly advise against it, but obviously, it is your decision. Good luck in what you decide is best.
There are many reasons for this. For one thing, learning information on the person who gave you up is a long drawn out process. It can be very emotionally painful, as well. For whatever reason you were given up for adoption; death, financial problems, to young, etc it¹s private information and should remain that way. The decision was made a long time ago because it was the best one at that time.
Think about the birth parents involved. What happens after you spend a few months or more of your life trying to locate these people only to have a door shut in your face? How would you feel if that were to happen? The chances of this happening are pretty good. Yes, there are happy reunions on talk shows that turn out for the better, but that is not always the reality. These people gave up their birth rights many years ago and should not go back on that. They have moved on with their lives and might not want to be reminded what could have been. So many hurt feelings and feelings of guilt could come flying back and then put more of a burden on both of your lives.
There is another factor to think about in this situation. How is your family suppose to react to this and how are they supposed to feel? This is the loving family that took you in as there own for all these years, are they supposed to be fully supportive of your choice now? This is an extremely hard position to be put in because they could be afraid of losing you and dealing with this change will be very difficult.
These are just a few things that you should strongly consider before attempting to locate your biological family. I strongly advise against it, but obviously, it is your decision. Good luck in what you decide is best.
Quebec Seperation
I urge you as a fellow Canadian to vote NO! to the upcoming referendum question. Canada as a whole has many unique qualities. Our most valued characteristic is our cultural diversity. Our combination of Anglophone and Francophone regions throughout our country and their ability to work together sets us apart from the rest of the world. Canada cannot function without Quebec just as Quebec cannot function without Canada.
It has been said by many, that those who live in Quebec to want to separate because of their need and desire to have their own distinct culture and heritage. This is not a valid point because Canada's culture and heritage is largely defined by that of Quebec. Quebec separating from Canada would mean that Canada as a whole would lose that part of its history. Quebec does not need to separate from Canada to maintain its culture since Canada has always greatly encouraged it.
Voting YES to the referendum will cause problems in many relationships between peolpe who live in Quebec and those in the rest of Canada. Some of these problems are unemployment and jobs. The residents of Quebec will no longer be able to work in Canada just as Canadians will no longer be allowed to work in Quebec. This will cause a rise in unemployment because many people will be forced to quit thier jobs. The border between Canada and Quebec will impose even more obstacels. Travel will become stessfull because passports will be needed and duty taxes will be imposed. International trade will also be a problem since Canada and Quebec will be two separate countries. It would be unlikely for the two countries to do business with each other primarily due to feelings of resentment and hostility.
Another problem that will arise is the fact that some Quebecers are not willing to separate. There will never be a time when everyone living in Quebec will want to separate. It therefor causes a problem for those who want to stay because they would be compelled to leave. Also, it is not only an issue that will affect English Canadians and French Canadians but also the Native Canadians and their land claims.
In conclusion a NO vote is in the best interest of both English Canadians and French Canadians. There are few benefits that can be obtained but the negative consequences outweigh them. Quebec should support a unified Canada since they helped establish it. Quebec is a very important part of Canada's role as a country and it will be equally important in the future.
It has been said by many, that those who live in Quebec to want to separate because of their need and desire to have their own distinct culture and heritage. This is not a valid point because Canada's culture and heritage is largely defined by that of Quebec. Quebec separating from Canada would mean that Canada as a whole would lose that part of its history. Quebec does not need to separate from Canada to maintain its culture since Canada has always greatly encouraged it.
Voting YES to the referendum will cause problems in many relationships between peolpe who live in Quebec and those in the rest of Canada. Some of these problems are unemployment and jobs. The residents of Quebec will no longer be able to work in Canada just as Canadians will no longer be allowed to work in Quebec. This will cause a rise in unemployment because many people will be forced to quit thier jobs. The border between Canada and Quebec will impose even more obstacels. Travel will become stessfull because passports will be needed and duty taxes will be imposed. International trade will also be a problem since Canada and Quebec will be two separate countries. It would be unlikely for the two countries to do business with each other primarily due to feelings of resentment and hostility.
Another problem that will arise is the fact that some Quebecers are not willing to separate. There will never be a time when everyone living in Quebec will want to separate. It therefor causes a problem for those who want to stay because they would be compelled to leave. Also, it is not only an issue that will affect English Canadians and French Canadians but also the Native Canadians and their land claims.
In conclusion a NO vote is in the best interest of both English Canadians and French Canadians. There are few benefits that can be obtained but the negative consequences outweigh them. Quebec should support a unified Canada since they helped establish it. Quebec is a very important part of Canada's role as a country and it will be equally important in the future.
Propaganda!!
Have you ever seen a TV commercial portraying a disastrous automobile accident,
and then you reminds you to wear your seatbealts?!?! Believe it or not, that's using a
technique in propaganda called the fear appeal.
Propaganda is more widespread than people picture. Propaganda is being used for
everything from the baby food you feed your child to the TV commercial you laughed at
yesterday night.
There are many techniques that a propagandist can use to seduce you. Some of the
best known styles in propaganda are Plain Folk, Fear, Name Calling, and Glittering
Generality,
In this year's elections, propaganda has played an important role in who was
elected. This year's presidential candidates were all millionaires, but they have gone to
great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens. Bill Clinton eats at Mc Donald's
and read a variety of spy novels. Bob Dole presents himself as the "all American boy"
from the Heartland. In this two examples the plain folk device is at work.
When either presidential candidates agitates the public's fear of immigration, taxes,
or crime and voting for him will reduce the threat he is using the Fear Appeal. By playing
on the public's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hopes to redirect the
merits of a proposal and towards steps that can be taken to reduce the fear.
Propaganda has had a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in
our own development. It has stirred both men and women to unprecedented feats and
ruined reputations.
What comes to mind when you think of a racist person? I imagine an angry white
male with a Ku Kux Klan costume. I rarely think of the other racists, the
African-Americans, the Latino-Americans, the Asian-Americans and the rest of whom
believe they are the superior race. Why do people as myself picture this image when we
think of a racist person? I'll tell you so, it's because we have been "trained" to make the
presumption racist equals white male in kkk costume. That's the Name Calling device at
work! It links a person to a negative idea or symbol.
Glittering Generality is in short Name Calling in reverse, while the Name Calling
device ties a person to a negative idea, the Glittering Generality technique makes us
approve and except something without careful examination.
Since war is especially distasteful, the military is of course full of euphemisms. In
the 1940's the US changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense.
During the Reagon Administration, the MX-Missile, a nuclear weapon, was re-named "The
Peacekeeper".
In conclusion, as Alfred Lee once said, " Propaganda is opinion expressed for the
purpose of influencing actions of individuals or groups... Propaganda thus differs
fundamentally from scientific analysis. The propagandist tries to "put something across,"
good or bad. The scientist does not try to put anything across; he devotes his life to the
discovery of new facts and principles. The propagandist seldom wants careful scrutiny and
criticism; his object is to bring about a specific action. The scientist, on the other hand, is
always prepared for and wants the most careful scrutiny and criticism of his facts and
ideas. Science flourishes on criticism. Dangerous propaganda crumbles before it."
THE END
and then you reminds you to wear your seatbealts?!?! Believe it or not, that's using a
technique in propaganda called the fear appeal.
Propaganda is more widespread than people picture. Propaganda is being used for
everything from the baby food you feed your child to the TV commercial you laughed at
yesterday night.
There are many techniques that a propagandist can use to seduce you. Some of the
best known styles in propaganda are Plain Folk, Fear, Name Calling, and Glittering
Generality,
In this year's elections, propaganda has played an important role in who was
elected. This year's presidential candidates were all millionaires, but they have gone to
great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens. Bill Clinton eats at Mc Donald's
and read a variety of spy novels. Bob Dole presents himself as the "all American boy"
from the Heartland. In this two examples the plain folk device is at work.
When either presidential candidates agitates the public's fear of immigration, taxes,
or crime and voting for him will reduce the threat he is using the Fear Appeal. By playing
on the public's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hopes to redirect the
merits of a proposal and towards steps that can be taken to reduce the fear.
Propaganda has had a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in
our own development. It has stirred both men and women to unprecedented feats and
ruined reputations.
What comes to mind when you think of a racist person? I imagine an angry white
male with a Ku Kux Klan costume. I rarely think of the other racists, the
African-Americans, the Latino-Americans, the Asian-Americans and the rest of whom
believe they are the superior race. Why do people as myself picture this image when we
think of a racist person? I'll tell you so, it's because we have been "trained" to make the
presumption racist equals white male in kkk costume. That's the Name Calling device at
work! It links a person to a negative idea or symbol.
Glittering Generality is in short Name Calling in reverse, while the Name Calling
device ties a person to a negative idea, the Glittering Generality technique makes us
approve and except something without careful examination.
Since war is especially distasteful, the military is of course full of euphemisms. In
the 1940's the US changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense.
During the Reagon Administration, the MX-Missile, a nuclear weapon, was re-named "The
Peacekeeper".
In conclusion, as Alfred Lee once said, " Propaganda is opinion expressed for the
purpose of influencing actions of individuals or groups... Propaganda thus differs
fundamentally from scientific analysis. The propagandist tries to "put something across,"
good or bad. The scientist does not try to put anything across; he devotes his life to the
discovery of new facts and principles. The propagandist seldom wants careful scrutiny and
criticism; his object is to bring about a specific action. The scientist, on the other hand, is
always prepared for and wants the most careful scrutiny and criticism of his facts and
ideas. Science flourishes on criticism. Dangerous propaganda crumbles before it."
THE END
Party government
In this article, "Partry Government is Gaining Too Much Power," E. E. Shchneider discuses how the United StatesGovernment was set up in a party system and how the party system is working today. In 1994 the rEpublican partypromised to be fair and to submit thier decisions to the public for criticizm and scutiny. Thyey won the majority of the congress after that promise. This was suprising because the democrates had been in control of congress for so long. The republican party didn't live up to thier agreement and is now not trusted by the public. Now niether of the two parties are proposing such a promisebecause that could lead to bad public relations. It seems that the parties are only conserned with winning the elections and not with the countries affairs themselves.The parties have gained to much power and this is leading to the decay of our once strong government
One Man ¼ Vote
One Man, 1/4 Vote?
Joseph Farkas thinks that every vote cast should equal every other vote. He feels that many people are voting without knowing why they are voting for a certain person or why they aren't voting for another. He says that a vote cast by a person with no or very little knowledge in the election should not count as much as a vote cast by a person who knows alot about the election. The people who care about who has an important role in the government should have a bigger say in who is going to have that important role. The votes cast by a person who doesn't really know why they are voting for someone should not equal as much as an election educated person.
I do not think that this is a good idea at all. It would not encourage people to learn more about the election but keep them away from the voting area. It will probably make people not want to vote because many of them would think that their vote will not mean as much to the election. It would make the people who are familiar with the candidates want to vote because they would have a bigger say in who gets elected. It would be very hard to decide who know what about the running candidates and issues that are being addressed. They would have to give some kind of multiple-choice question test that you had to fill out while voting. It would take a long time for each person to vote and I think that would make people less encouraged to come and vote. Since the only way to link a vote with a test is to have them on the same paper the voters would have to take a test every time they voted. Most people want to walk in, vote, and walk out. They don't want to fill out a test asking them about what they know. For the people who don't know alot about the election, they don't want to say that when they vote. If the test was only optional it might work out a little better. The test would be on the ballot and if you wanted to fill it out then you could. If you didn't fill it out or failed it when you took it then your vote would still equal one vote. The people who took the test and passed it would get their vote counted as more than a normal vote. This would be better because if someone just wanted to vote and leave they wouldn't have to take the test. For those who wanted their vote to count more they could take the test. A problem with this is that no one would know if they passed or failed the test. The only large disadvantage would be how to score the tests. Each voting area would have to have a computer that could score each test and then send all the results through modem and phone lines to a large server that could keep track of everything. This would be expensive. The problem with this is that anything to do with computers, modems, and phone lines; hackers and phrackers can get the data and alter it in any way they please. I'm sure the government could make it hard for people to get access to the data but any experienced hacker could get at it with a little work.
Having different people's votes equal different amounts is not a good idea. It would only make more people not want to vote. The only way it could work would be to make the test optional and have the votes of those who don't take the test equal a normal vote. Even this would make alot of people not want to go to the voting areas to vote.
Joseph Farkas thinks that every vote cast should equal every other vote. He feels that many people are voting without knowing why they are voting for a certain person or why they aren't voting for another. He says that a vote cast by a person with no or very little knowledge in the election should not count as much as a vote cast by a person who knows alot about the election. The people who care about who has an important role in the government should have a bigger say in who is going to have that important role. The votes cast by a person who doesn't really know why they are voting for someone should not equal as much as an election educated person.
I do not think that this is a good idea at all. It would not encourage people to learn more about the election but keep them away from the voting area. It will probably make people not want to vote because many of them would think that their vote will not mean as much to the election. It would make the people who are familiar with the candidates want to vote because they would have a bigger say in who gets elected. It would be very hard to decide who know what about the running candidates and issues that are being addressed. They would have to give some kind of multiple-choice question test that you had to fill out while voting. It would take a long time for each person to vote and I think that would make people less encouraged to come and vote. Since the only way to link a vote with a test is to have them on the same paper the voters would have to take a test every time they voted. Most people want to walk in, vote, and walk out. They don't want to fill out a test asking them about what they know. For the people who don't know alot about the election, they don't want to say that when they vote. If the test was only optional it might work out a little better. The test would be on the ballot and if you wanted to fill it out then you could. If you didn't fill it out or failed it when you took it then your vote would still equal one vote. The people who took the test and passed it would get their vote counted as more than a normal vote. This would be better because if someone just wanted to vote and leave they wouldn't have to take the test. For those who wanted their vote to count more they could take the test. A problem with this is that no one would know if they passed or failed the test. The only large disadvantage would be how to score the tests. Each voting area would have to have a computer that could score each test and then send all the results through modem and phone lines to a large server that could keep track of everything. This would be expensive. The problem with this is that anything to do with computers, modems, and phone lines; hackers and phrackers can get the data and alter it in any way they please. I'm sure the government could make it hard for people to get access to the data but any experienced hacker could get at it with a little work.
Having different people's votes equal different amounts is not a good idea. It would only make more people not want to vote. The only way it could work would be to make the test optional and have the votes of those who don't take the test equal a normal vote. Even this would make alot of people not want to go to the voting areas to vote.
noone is gonna talk like that under my roof
Nobody's gonna talk like that under my roof!
It can be generalized, that society's younger members, being those under the age of around twenty-five, use slang terminology, or swear, far more than people who are on the older end of the age spectrum. Many of those who are among the "older group" would like to think that today's youth are chaotic and without values, or that it is just a factor of immaturity, which is probably true, but there is more to the issue than purely immaturity. Many things come into play when analyzing the cause of difference in interaction and dialogue such as social standing, self-confidence, and levels of maturity.
First, it is important to understand societal perspective; In effect, one must analyze where society has placed a group of people in order to understand why the group's actions vary from everyone else. While it is true that youth do not have as great of responsibilities, it is also true that they, by societal definition, do not have as much freedom. During one's youth he can't be his own self, identity is scarce when he relies on mom and dad for everything, and therefore must adhere to their rules, and in turn, lifestyle. It is the quest of most young adults to break away from their parents and forge their own person. This quest often turns into rebellion, which for most families, encompasses swearing. Opposite of the youth in this situation, adults are expected characteristically to be more mature and respectable. Often times an adult would lose much of the respect of his of her peers if they cussed up a blue streak, while youth accept it as commonplace.
It can be generalized, that society's younger members, being those under the age of around twenty-five, use slang terminology, or swear, far more than people who are on the older end of the age spectrum. Many of those who are among the "older group" would like to think that today's youth are chaotic and without values, or that it is just a factor of immaturity, which is probably true, but there is more to the issue than purely immaturity. Many things come into play when analyzing the cause of difference in interaction and dialogue such as social standing, self-confidence, and levels of maturity.
First, it is important to understand societal perspective; In effect, one must analyze where society has placed a group of people in order to understand why the group's actions vary from everyone else. While it is true that youth do not have as great of responsibilities, it is also true that they, by societal definition, do not have as much freedom. During one's youth he can't be his own self, identity is scarce when he relies on mom and dad for everything, and therefore must adhere to their rules, and in turn, lifestyle. It is the quest of most young adults to break away from their parents and forge their own person. This quest often turns into rebellion, which for most families, encompasses swearing. Opposite of the youth in this situation, adults are expected characteristically to be more mature and respectable. Often times an adult would lose much of the respect of his of her peers if they cussed up a blue streak, while youth accept it as commonplace.
No Title
There is an old adage which says, "The root of all evil is money." This, however, is not true in America. In America, money is not the problem, the love of money, or materialism, is the problem. Materialism is at the core of our American dream. We grow up learning that success is rooted in material wealth and power. We live in a country where material things mean more to the general populous than a good education, where material things dictate the amount of money we spend, and where material things motivate our lives in most every way; something needs to change. Realizing that we are corrupted by materialism is not difficult. What is difficult, however, is finding a solution to the problem.
Habits recognizes the difficulty by saying, "And since we have believed in that dream for a long time and worked very hard to make it come true, it is hard for us to give it up, even though it contradicts another dream that we have- that of living in a society that would really be worth living in." (Bella, et. Al. 285)
Materialism is closely tied to our individualism. We are taught to pursue our materialistic American dream, to get ahead in life, to be somebody, to pursue our own happiness. Even our own Declaration of Independence assumes we are individuals first and for most: "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. . ." For Americans to be primarily self-reliant and selfish is not surprising. Americans only do what is beneficial to themselves, if it helps someone along the way, then that's great, but helping people is not their initial motive.
In order to have the necessary balance between individualism and community, we must be willing to give and then, only after giving, take what has been given to us. If we learn to give, and then take what has been given to us, we will see a dramatic change in American society. A change from a materialistic mindset, to one which promotes the betterment of society, a society which as Habits says, "would really be worth living in." (Bella et. Al. 285)
Our individualistic idea of the American dream must change. It must change from being materially based to morally based. Our motives for doing things to get ahead need to change. Getting ahead is all well and good, in fact, I think it's vital to a society to have such a motive, but our reasons for getting ahead need to change. We need to do things to help others, not ourselves. We need to get a good education to have an educated society which can function with the other surrounding societies, rather than getting a good education to get a good job.
We need a new American dream, one that motivates the betterment of society as well as the betterment of our individual selves. This new American dream can only be achieved if we remove our selfish motives, and replace them with morally based and community minded motives.
Habits recognizes the difficulty by saying, "And since we have believed in that dream for a long time and worked very hard to make it come true, it is hard for us to give it up, even though it contradicts another dream that we have- that of living in a society that would really be worth living in." (Bella, et. Al. 285)
Materialism is closely tied to our individualism. We are taught to pursue our materialistic American dream, to get ahead in life, to be somebody, to pursue our own happiness. Even our own Declaration of Independence assumes we are individuals first and for most: "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. . ." For Americans to be primarily self-reliant and selfish is not surprising. Americans only do what is beneficial to themselves, if it helps someone along the way, then that's great, but helping people is not their initial motive.
In order to have the necessary balance between individualism and community, we must be willing to give and then, only after giving, take what has been given to us. If we learn to give, and then take what has been given to us, we will see a dramatic change in American society. A change from a materialistic mindset, to one which promotes the betterment of society, a society which as Habits says, "would really be worth living in." (Bella et. Al. 285)
Our individualistic idea of the American dream must change. It must change from being materially based to morally based. Our motives for doing things to get ahead need to change. Getting ahead is all well and good, in fact, I think it's vital to a society to have such a motive, but our reasons for getting ahead need to change. We need to do things to help others, not ourselves. We need to get a good education to have an educated society which can function with the other surrounding societies, rather than getting a good education to get a good job.
We need a new American dream, one that motivates the betterment of society as well as the betterment of our individual selves. This new American dream can only be achieved if we remove our selfish motives, and replace them with morally based and community minded motives.
Nixon v The United States
United States v. Nixon,
President of the United States
Throughout American history, the fear that our leaders may sometimes think themselves above the law has always been evident. The fear is that power brings corruptness. To prevent this, however, the system of checks and balances has been installed into the Constitution. No one branch of government stands above the law in this setup. This point was reasserted in the the Supreme Court case of 1974, United States v. Nixon. This case involved the President of the United States, at that time Richard Nixon, and the people of the United States. The case was based on the infamous Watergate scandal in which Nixon was said to be involved. The case came about when Nixon refused to deliver subpoenad tapes to the Special Prosecutor that could have possibly incriminated him. Nixon attempted to quash this subpoena by claiming executive privelege. The Special Prosecutor argued this claim successfully. The President then appealed this ruling from the District Court to the Court of Appeals. In the Appeals Court, the Special Prosecutor filed for a writ of certiorari which was petitioned by the President. Both petitions were granted and handed to the Supreme Court.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the basic arguements were as follows. President Nixon's attorneys argued that the District Court was out of its jurisdiction when it issued the subpoena to Nixon, making the case void. They stated that the dispute between the President and the Special Prosecutor was strictly executive, and by mediating them, the court broke the doctrine of seperation of powers. They also argued with executive privilege, the right of the President to withold information from Congress. To this, the District Court said that the judiciary, not the President, was the final arbiter of a claim of executive privilege. The Court also argued that the Special Prosecutor was vested power by the Attorney General who had the right under the constitution to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States government.
In its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the District Court. They ruled that President Nixon's insubordinance was unjustified. They felt that neither the claim of invalid jurisdiction nor that of executive privilege were applicable. The decision was unanimous. There was concurring opinion by Raoul Berger that stated that he affirmed the Court's decision, but he believed the decision cut too closely the right of executive privilege in the case that the information is irrelevant and the President needs to keep his privacy.
This case was positive proof to the American people that the justice system in our country is indeed working if even the President's wrongdoings can be rectified. It was a statement of equalness among all and set forth the precedent that nobody in this country is above the law.
President of the United States
Throughout American history, the fear that our leaders may sometimes think themselves above the law has always been evident. The fear is that power brings corruptness. To prevent this, however, the system of checks and balances has been installed into the Constitution. No one branch of government stands above the law in this setup. This point was reasserted in the the Supreme Court case of 1974, United States v. Nixon. This case involved the President of the United States, at that time Richard Nixon, and the people of the United States. The case was based on the infamous Watergate scandal in which Nixon was said to be involved. The case came about when Nixon refused to deliver subpoenad tapes to the Special Prosecutor that could have possibly incriminated him. Nixon attempted to quash this subpoena by claiming executive privelege. The Special Prosecutor argued this claim successfully. The President then appealed this ruling from the District Court to the Court of Appeals. In the Appeals Court, the Special Prosecutor filed for a writ of certiorari which was petitioned by the President. Both petitions were granted and handed to the Supreme Court.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the basic arguements were as follows. President Nixon's attorneys argued that the District Court was out of its jurisdiction when it issued the subpoena to Nixon, making the case void. They stated that the dispute between the President and the Special Prosecutor was strictly executive, and by mediating them, the court broke the doctrine of seperation of powers. They also argued with executive privilege, the right of the President to withold information from Congress. To this, the District Court said that the judiciary, not the President, was the final arbiter of a claim of executive privilege. The Court also argued that the Special Prosecutor was vested power by the Attorney General who had the right under the constitution to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States government.
In its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the District Court. They ruled that President Nixon's insubordinance was unjustified. They felt that neither the claim of invalid jurisdiction nor that of executive privilege were applicable. The decision was unanimous. There was concurring opinion by Raoul Berger that stated that he affirmed the Court's decision, but he believed the decision cut too closely the right of executive privilege in the case that the information is irrelevant and the President needs to keep his privacy.
This case was positive proof to the American people that the justice system in our country is indeed working if even the President's wrongdoings can be rectified. It was a statement of equalness among all and set forth the precedent that nobody in this country is above the law.
Nelson Mandella
Introduction
Nelson Mandela was a son of a tribal chief. Nelson was a lawyer and worked
tire-lessly to free his people. Nelson has been in jail for twenty-six years. Nelson
Rolihlahla Mandla was born on July 18, 1918 at Transku area of South Africa.
Nelson Mandela gave a speech Sestember 21, 1953. The quotation was adapted from
an article by Jawaharlal Nehru:
There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through
the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountainouss of
our desires.
Growing Up
Nelson had a tribal name Rolihlahla. Rolihlahla means one who brings trouble on his
self.
He grew up in Transku territy of South Africa. Qunu, the valleyhe grew p in, is
surrounded by hills that are covered with grass. Nelson was the youngest out of four
kids. He had three sisters and none brothers. He looked after the cattle and sheep. He
would help plow the field when it was time and helped his farther do chores. When the
chores were done he would hunt, play soccer, or fight with sticks. He would listen to
elders talk about African history.
Nelson's farther was the chief couselor to the Paramount chief of the tribe The
Trrembu. His great grand-farther had been king of the same tribe years ago.
The farther of Nelson Mandela died when Nelson was twelve. Nelson went to his
uncles home when his ferther died where he got good education. His uncle and his wife
Nelson Mandela was a son of a tribal chief. Nelson was a lawyer and worked
tire-lessly to free his people. Nelson has been in jail for twenty-six years. Nelson
Rolihlahla Mandla was born on July 18, 1918 at Transku area of South Africa.
Nelson Mandela gave a speech Sestember 21, 1953. The quotation was adapted from
an article by Jawaharlal Nehru:
There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through
the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountainouss of
our desires.
Growing Up
Nelson had a tribal name Rolihlahla. Rolihlahla means one who brings trouble on his
self.
He grew up in Transku territy of South Africa. Qunu, the valleyhe grew p in, is
surrounded by hills that are covered with grass. Nelson was the youngest out of four
kids. He had three sisters and none brothers. He looked after the cattle and sheep. He
would help plow the field when it was time and helped his farther do chores. When the
chores were done he would hunt, play soccer, or fight with sticks. He would listen to
elders talk about African history.
Nelson's farther was the chief couselor to the Paramount chief of the tribe The
Trrembu. His great grand-farther had been king of the same tribe years ago.
The farther of Nelson Mandela died when Nelson was twelve. Nelson went to his
uncles home when his ferther died where he got good education. His uncle and his wife
Morality and Legality of Abortion
Morality and legality of abortion
Somewhere amidst the abortion debates of the last quarter century, the real issue
has been lost. The focus has become too religious for a country that has separated church
and state. Therefore, I won't argue the religious rights and wrongs of abortion. No
answers can be derived until we focus on what the law and our citizens do value, because
this is how laws are changed. American laws hold sacred the value of human rights....but
when do a woman's end, and a child's begin?
The saving grace, and ultimately, the great flaw of the Constitution is it's
variability. Our founding fathers created it as an open door, to allow future generations to
correct their mistakes, but also to make them, and to contradict themselves ethically and
morally, on the whim of a generation. As a nation, we have always attempted a degree of
morality in our laws, a shared belief in what is right and wrong that is eforced by the law.
We assert that to ahrm another intentionally or otherwise is wrong and deserving of punishment.
Our laws condemn murderers and shun drunk drivers, charging involuntary manslaughter in the case
that he/she inadvertently kills another in an accident. There
are severe repercussions for rapists and assault of another person. We also often assert that
to harm oneself intentionally or in a way that could have been prevented by our own
precaution is wrong. These examples include the seatbelt and helmet laws and the ingestion of harmful drugs.
In keeping with our common and lawful morality that is careful to protect human life, the legality
of abortion appears incongruent.
An important question of this issue is of the point at which the
life conceived inside a woman's body is considered a life, rather than her personal property.
After conception, is there such a point htat "the right to choose" can be exercised as an alternative to a
condom or pill to prevent the said conception?
Prochoisce supporters wil continue to argue that a woman has a right to do with her body as she chooses
including termination of an unwanted pregnancy. However, nature has decreed the bodies of the same women
as indispensible protection for a life too vulnerable to survive outside of this sanctuary. Should this
biological right create a parallel between the human gestation period and a 1-month trial run?
Whether not abortion is morally acceptable, it is in many cases replacing conventional
birth contral and postponing women's decisions as to whether they desire a child. Factors such
as invoncenience, financial stability, and bad relationships have become grounds for abortion. These
feelings should be evaluated before a women begins to engage in the very act that promotes pro-creation.
The necessary precautions can then be taken to prevent the otherwise inevitable, rather than
trying to reverse a life already brought to existence.
Abortion was legalized at a time when women burned their bras and demanded to be liberated,
mainly from men. Somehow this movement shocked a generally conservative government into giving
these women what they wanted: absolute freedom from men. Today, with their demands fulfilled,
perhaps women in the government alike have taken a moment to look at their handiwork and wonder,
"What have we done?"
Somewhere amidst the abortion debates of the last quarter century, the real issue
has been lost. The focus has become too religious for a country that has separated church
and state. Therefore, I won't argue the religious rights and wrongs of abortion. No
answers can be derived until we focus on what the law and our citizens do value, because
this is how laws are changed. American laws hold sacred the value of human rights....but
when do a woman's end, and a child's begin?
The saving grace, and ultimately, the great flaw of the Constitution is it's
variability. Our founding fathers created it as an open door, to allow future generations to
correct their mistakes, but also to make them, and to contradict themselves ethically and
morally, on the whim of a generation. As a nation, we have always attempted a degree of
morality in our laws, a shared belief in what is right and wrong that is eforced by the law.
We assert that to ahrm another intentionally or otherwise is wrong and deserving of punishment.
Our laws condemn murderers and shun drunk drivers, charging involuntary manslaughter in the case
that he/she inadvertently kills another in an accident. There
are severe repercussions for rapists and assault of another person. We also often assert that
to harm oneself intentionally or in a way that could have been prevented by our own
precaution is wrong. These examples include the seatbelt and helmet laws and the ingestion of harmful drugs.
In keeping with our common and lawful morality that is careful to protect human life, the legality
of abortion appears incongruent.
An important question of this issue is of the point at which the
life conceived inside a woman's body is considered a life, rather than her personal property.
After conception, is there such a point htat "the right to choose" can be exercised as an alternative to a
condom or pill to prevent the said conception?
Prochoisce supporters wil continue to argue that a woman has a right to do with her body as she chooses
including termination of an unwanted pregnancy. However, nature has decreed the bodies of the same women
as indispensible protection for a life too vulnerable to survive outside of this sanctuary. Should this
biological right create a parallel between the human gestation period and a 1-month trial run?
Whether not abortion is morally acceptable, it is in many cases replacing conventional
birth contral and postponing women's decisions as to whether they desire a child. Factors such
as invoncenience, financial stability, and bad relationships have become grounds for abortion. These
feelings should be evaluated before a women begins to engage in the very act that promotes pro-creation.
The necessary precautions can then be taken to prevent the otherwise inevitable, rather than
trying to reverse a life already brought to existence.
Abortion was legalized at a time when women burned their bras and demanded to be liberated,
mainly from men. Somehow this movement shocked a generally conservative government into giving
these women what they wanted: absolute freedom from men. Today, with their demands fulfilled,
perhaps women in the government alike have taken a moment to look at their handiwork and wonder,
"What have we done?"
Micarthyisim
_WPC`
0(R 1mz
!p
/U( %@"{F
)\#
($
#
e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)
(i)1)a) J J HJ<6X 9`+C
ourier<-
íŸ€í³Œ
9p`(
XA?xxxxXx __________
_______________________________________________________Panasonic
KX-
P2180KXP2180.PRS
|
h
-
0 &4"|v "=DKRVce______________-}-
}__|_
3
0(R 1mz
!p
/U( %@"{F
)\#
($
#
e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)
(i)1)a) J J HJ<6X 9`+C
ourier<-
íŸ€í³Œ
9p`(
XA?xxxxXx __________
_______________________________________________________Panasonic
KX-
P2180KXP2180.PRS
|
h
-
0 &4"|v "=DKRVce______________-}-
}__|_
3
Medias Effect on Politics
The print media has little significance in shaping public reaction to political events in this age of CNN and news ON-LINE. This is because of the audience, work, and time involved in each. That is, the number of people that each reaches, the amount of work involved to get the scoop, and the amount of time it takes each to broadcast the news.
The first reason, the amount of people that the news reaches, is probably the biggest factor. Television is watched by most of the population whereas, the amount of people that receive a newspaper, or other source of obtaining news information, such as NEWSWEEK, is considerably less. Also, television offers a variety of channels and programs, which means a more complete story, as opposed to a newspaper which might only offer one view.
Another reason that television is preferred to print is because of the amount of work involved. The newspaper, or a magazine, is something that you have to go out and get, or even worse, wait for. News is not readily available, and waiting can be unpleasant if you are anxious for the inside scoop. Television, on the other hand, is available on a daily basis, and it can be turned on at any. Satellite owners have an even greater advantage, they can find global news and have a greater number of choices such as which news program to watch. Also, if a person is illiterate or a poor reader, it is quite obvious that they will choose television over a newspaper. Television is a much easier alternative than obtaining news through print.
A third and very important reason that print is the less effective method of obtaining information is time. It takes much longer than watching television or listening to the radio. For example, if a person works a lot and spends his other time taking care of a family and driving to and from work, then that person is going to choose the radio over the newspaper. Also, the radio is free, whereas a newspaper costs money.
The print media is less effective because of these reasons. If newspapers wanted to be more effective than they would have to lower the amount of time and effort involved in reading the paper, and they would have to reach a greater audience. If they were to do this then they would probably be much more effective. But until they do this, the print media will never be as effective as television or the radio.
The first reason, the amount of people that the news reaches, is probably the biggest factor. Television is watched by most of the population whereas, the amount of people that receive a newspaper, or other source of obtaining news information, such as NEWSWEEK, is considerably less. Also, television offers a variety of channels and programs, which means a more complete story, as opposed to a newspaper which might only offer one view.
Another reason that television is preferred to print is because of the amount of work involved. The newspaper, or a magazine, is something that you have to go out and get, or even worse, wait for. News is not readily available, and waiting can be unpleasant if you are anxious for the inside scoop. Television, on the other hand, is available on a daily basis, and it can be turned on at any. Satellite owners have an even greater advantage, they can find global news and have a greater number of choices such as which news program to watch. Also, if a person is illiterate or a poor reader, it is quite obvious that they will choose television over a newspaper. Television is a much easier alternative than obtaining news through print.
A third and very important reason that print is the less effective method of obtaining information is time. It takes much longer than watching television or listening to the radio. For example, if a person works a lot and spends his other time taking care of a family and driving to and from work, then that person is going to choose the radio over the newspaper. Also, the radio is free, whereas a newspaper costs money.
The print media is less effective because of these reasons. If newspapers wanted to be more effective than they would have to lower the amount of time and effort involved in reading the paper, and they would have to reach a greater audience. If they were to do this then they would probably be much more effective. But until they do this, the print media will never be as effective as television or the radio.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Life Death and Politics
LIFE, DEATH, AND POLITICS
A run-down of the abortion debate.
Few issues have fostered such controversy as has the topic of abortion. The participants in the abortion debate not only have firmly-fixed beliefs, but each group has a self-designated appellation that clearly reflects what they believe to be the essential issues. On one side, the pro-choice supporters see individual choice as central to the debate: If a woman cannot choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, a condition which affects her body and possibly her entire life, then she has lost one of her most basic human rights. These proponents of abortion believe that while a fetus is a potential life, its life cannot be placed on the same level with that of a woman. On the other side, the pro-life opponents of abortion argue that the fetus is human and therefore given the same human rights as the mother. Stated simply, they believe that when a society legalizes abortion, it is sanctioning murder.
In today's more industrialized societies, technology has simplified the abortion procedure to a few basic and safe methods. Technology, however, has also enhanced society's knowledge of the fetus. Ultrasound, fetal therapy, and amniocentesis graphically reveal complex life before birth, and it is this potential human life that is at the heart of the debate.
In order to form an opinion on this matter, we must first question and define several common factors which are numerously debated.
I. When does human life begin?
Scientists identify the first moment of human life as that instant when a sperm cell unites with an ovum or egg cell. The billions of cells that collectively make up a human being are body cells. Unless manipulated, these body cells are and remain what they appear to be: skin, hair, bone, muscle, and so on. Each has some worthy function in life and performs that function until it dies. Other rare cells, known as germ cells, have the power to transform themselves into every other kind of human cell. The sex cells are the sperm cells in the male and the egg cells in the female. It is only in combination that these cells can create a fetus. The merger is complete within twelve hours, at which time the egg is fertilized and becomes known as a "zygote," containing the full set of forty-six chromosomes required to create a new human life. It is at that point that life begins and should be respected with the same laws that apply to us all, whether we are dependent on a womb or not. Conception creates life and makes that life one of a kind.
The opposition would argue otherwise. To be a person, there must be evidence of a personality. Animals contain biological characteristics, but that does not qualify them as a person. It takes more than ten days after the fertilization for the conceptus to become anything more than a hollow ball of cells. During the first week, it is free-floating and not even attached to the uterine wall. Not until the beginning of the fourth week does a heart begin to beat, and then it is two-chambered like that of a fish. Not until the end of the fifth week is there evidence of the beginning of formation of the cerebral hemispheres, and they are merely hollow bubbles of cells. The possession of forty-six chromosomes does not make a cell a person. Most of the cells of your body contain these forty-six chromosomes, but that does not make a white corpuscle a person! If possession of forty-six chromosomes make some thing a person, then it would seem that possession of a different number would make something else. A personality is formed when a baby has entered the world. It acts and reacts to situations it is put upon and forms its opinions in that manner. It is only then that we can consider it a unique person with a unique personality.
II. Is abortion immoral?
Pro-life activists would argue that the taking of a human life is wrong no matter what the circumstances or in which tri-mester it is done. The controversy over abortion has avoided the real issue facing today's woman - her need to grow beyond stereotypes. Whenever an individual or group realizes it has been treated unjustly, the first reaction is anger, but often the anger is first expressed as aggression. People outgrowing oppression have so much stored-up bitterness, so many memories of powerlessness and so little knowledge of how to make themselves heard, that violence toward others is the result. The women's movement has been caught up in the same process. American men and women are among the most fair-minded on earth, but have slowly begun to feel that 4,000 abortions a day is enough. The abortion mentality has encouraged women to think of themselves as victims. Much emphasis is placed on pregnancy as a result of rape, even though the statistics show only about .1% of all rapes actually result in conception. That means that a large majority of pregnancies that resulted in abortion were the result of free-choice. The assumption is that a woman does not have control over her own body until after a male partner is finished with it. Only then does she hear talk of "rights." The term "pro-choice" evokes their sense of fairness, but what is really being considered is the killing of an innocent human life. Women are abandoning the abortion mentality because it weakens their greatest strength - creation. They are looking at responsibilities as well as rights, choosing instead of reacting.
Pro-choice supporters argue that abortion should be viewed as a sometimes necessary choice a woman must make in order to be in charge of her life. Considering pregnancy from a woman's point of view, it can be very dangerous to carry a baby for ninth months with accompanying symptoms such as nausea, skin discoloration, extreme bloating and swelling, insomnia, narcolepsy, hair loss, varicose veins, hemorrhoids, indigestion, and irreversible weight gain. Equal rights is an issue the women's movement has fought for for many years. Denying them the right to free choice would demolish everything they have fought for and all the respect they have gained as individuals.
III. The religious aspect.
The Church's judgment on abortion is neither male nor female. It is social. It places the rights of the child in the womb into the hands of the law which sees individual rights as inalienable. The relationship between morality and law, as between Church and society, is surely complex. The historical source of the Catholic teaching on abortion was conviction of the early Christian community that abortion is incompatible with and forbidden by the fundamental Christian norm of love, a norm which forbade the taking of life. By the fifth century, while the condemnation of abortion continued without diminishment, distinctions were on occasion being drawn between abortion and homicide. Both were seen as grave sins, but not necessarily exactly the same sin or to be subject to the same penalty. While theologians of the Eastern Church were apparently the first explicitly to draw a distinction between the "formed" and the "unformed" fetus, there quickly developed a strong tradition against using the distinction to differentiate homicide and abortion.
The substance of the Catholic position can be summed up in the following principles: (1) God alone is the lord of life. (2) Human beings do not have the right to take the lives of other human beings. (3) Human life begins at the moment of conception. (4) Abortion, at whatever the stage of development of the conceptus, is the taking of innocent human life. The conclusion follows: Abortion is wrong.
IV. Can abortion be justified?
There are, indeed, several situations in which abortion would seem necessary. Birth defects, although rare, sometimes occur and must be dealt with in a personal manner. If a woman knows she is going to give birth to a mentally retarded baby, she is faced with the option of aborting it. If she is not prepared to give the retarded baby the attention and love it needs or if she cannot afford to treat the babies problems, abortion would be the logical answer.
From the opposition: "It is only when we love the handicapped that we can truly value every human life."
The anti-abortion movement believes that the fetus, even in its embryonic stage of development, is human life and that any deliberate termination of embryonic or fetal life constitutes an "unjustified" termination of human life. Conversely, proponents of abortion deny that the fetus is human life, particularly during its embryonic stage of development, and therefore believe that the termination of fetal life does not constitute homicide. Further, proponents of abortion justify the termination of fetal life by asserting that the woman has the ultimate right to control her own body; that no individual has any right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy that she does not want; that parents have the moral responsibility and constitutional obligation to bring into this world only children who are wanted, loved, and provided for, so that they can realize their human potential; and that children have basic human and constitutional rights, which include the right to have loving, caring parents, sound health, protection form harm, and a social and physical environment that permits healthy human development and the assurance of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Conclusion: if a child cannot be cared for properly, it should not be brought into this world.
Pro-life advocates sustain that a child, originally unwanted, may cause a change of heart in his or her parents, and should be born on that argument alone. Children born in the face of hostile animus from their parents are not crippled by that original unwantedness. There are no clear signs that children first unwanted face abuse. Healthy, adaptive parenthood must be prepared from the start to make one's own wants second to one's children's needs - including the need to go on living.
If abortion were to become impossible again in this country, the lives of the vast majority of American women would worsen drastically. Many would be forced to spend decades living a life that they did not want. For all women sexual activity, even within marriage, would become a hateful risk. The entire revolution in sex roles is built on low, controlled fertility. Without abortion women could not be in the labor force in increasing numbers, and having independent careers. It is low fertility that makes day care economically feasible for many families. The leaders of the anti-abortion campaign emphasize the fetus' loss of life. However, some of the same people oppose the revolution in sex roles, the new freedom to express sexuality, and would make birth control illegal if they could. Many of them make no secret of their desire to see women return to obligatory domesticity and to a situation in which they are afraid to have sex outside marriage. They believe that a ban on abortion would further that agenda. It is certainly possible that Congress will give the Catholic bishops their victory and make abortion once again a crime. However, there is so much at stake for women that there is little chance they will give up abortions. If they have to get them illegally, they will.
V. Should abortion remain a personal choice?
Whether abortion and birth control should be a woman's decision has been a source of controversy throughout history. To defend the morality of choice for women is not to deny reverence toward or appreciation for many women's deep commitment to childbearing and shield nurturance. It does ask that women collectively come to understand that genuine choice with respect to power is a necessary condition of all women. When the day comes that the decision to bear a child is a moral choice, then and only then, the human liberation of women will be a reality.
Those who believe abortion should not be a personal choice argue that the fetus is a separate entity form the woman who carries it, and therefore entitled to the right to lice. They believe that women who choose to abort do so primarily out of convenience, a fact which trivializes unborn human life.
VI. Abortion and the Constitution.
In decisions handed down on January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Texas and Georgia abortion laws. The Texas case, Roe v. Wade, concerned a statue which restricted legal abortions to those deemed necessary to save the woman's life. The Georgia case, Doe v. Bolton, dealt with a state law permitting abortions only when required by the woman's health, or to prevent birth of a deformed child, or when pregnancy resulted form rape. The court's invalidation of these laws implied that similarly restrictive laws in most other states are also unconstitutional.
The Constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade is found in the personal liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights and its penumbras. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that:
"right of privacy...founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions on state action...is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her preg- nancy."
Opponents of legal abortion do not see it as a constitutional right. They argue that the law places many limits on people's freedom of choice, and should do so in the case of abortion. In fact, abortion foes see the law favoring one set of legal rights, the woman's, over another's, the unborn child's.
VII. Should abortion remain legal?
Since 1973, the proportion of women obtaining abortions before the eighth week, and using the safest method, suction curettage, has steadily increased. By improving availability and accessibility, legalization has also contributed to a significant decline in complications. The second major consequence of the shift from illegal to legal abortion has been to increase equity. Before legalization, there was in fact not one legal abortion market, but two. Women with the knowledge and means could usually obtain a reasonably safe abortion, performed by a physician. For women without information and funds, this option was unavailable.
It is my personal opinion that abortion must remain legal if we are to uphold the Constitution and respect women as equal individuals. There already is wide agreement that the single most important effect of legalization has been the substitution of safe, legal procedures for abortions that formerly were obtained illegally. This substitution quickly led to a dramatic decline in the number of women who died or suffered serious, sometimes permanent, injury. A second, equally important, result of legalization concerns equity: before abortion was legal, it was poor women, minority women, and very young women who suffered most, since their only options often were delivery of an unwanted child or a back-alley abortion.
Today the threat to women's lives and health no longer comes from abortion. It comes from those who want to outlaw it.
A run-down of the abortion debate.
Few issues have fostered such controversy as has the topic of abortion. The participants in the abortion debate not only have firmly-fixed beliefs, but each group has a self-designated appellation that clearly reflects what they believe to be the essential issues. On one side, the pro-choice supporters see individual choice as central to the debate: If a woman cannot choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, a condition which affects her body and possibly her entire life, then she has lost one of her most basic human rights. These proponents of abortion believe that while a fetus is a potential life, its life cannot be placed on the same level with that of a woman. On the other side, the pro-life opponents of abortion argue that the fetus is human and therefore given the same human rights as the mother. Stated simply, they believe that when a society legalizes abortion, it is sanctioning murder.
In today's more industrialized societies, technology has simplified the abortion procedure to a few basic and safe methods. Technology, however, has also enhanced society's knowledge of the fetus. Ultrasound, fetal therapy, and amniocentesis graphically reveal complex life before birth, and it is this potential human life that is at the heart of the debate.
In order to form an opinion on this matter, we must first question and define several common factors which are numerously debated.
I. When does human life begin?
Scientists identify the first moment of human life as that instant when a sperm cell unites with an ovum or egg cell. The billions of cells that collectively make up a human being are body cells. Unless manipulated, these body cells are and remain what they appear to be: skin, hair, bone, muscle, and so on. Each has some worthy function in life and performs that function until it dies. Other rare cells, known as germ cells, have the power to transform themselves into every other kind of human cell. The sex cells are the sperm cells in the male and the egg cells in the female. It is only in combination that these cells can create a fetus. The merger is complete within twelve hours, at which time the egg is fertilized and becomes known as a "zygote," containing the full set of forty-six chromosomes required to create a new human life. It is at that point that life begins and should be respected with the same laws that apply to us all, whether we are dependent on a womb or not. Conception creates life and makes that life one of a kind.
The opposition would argue otherwise. To be a person, there must be evidence of a personality. Animals contain biological characteristics, but that does not qualify them as a person. It takes more than ten days after the fertilization for the conceptus to become anything more than a hollow ball of cells. During the first week, it is free-floating and not even attached to the uterine wall. Not until the beginning of the fourth week does a heart begin to beat, and then it is two-chambered like that of a fish. Not until the end of the fifth week is there evidence of the beginning of formation of the cerebral hemispheres, and they are merely hollow bubbles of cells. The possession of forty-six chromosomes does not make a cell a person. Most of the cells of your body contain these forty-six chromosomes, but that does not make a white corpuscle a person! If possession of forty-six chromosomes make some thing a person, then it would seem that possession of a different number would make something else. A personality is formed when a baby has entered the world. It acts and reacts to situations it is put upon and forms its opinions in that manner. It is only then that we can consider it a unique person with a unique personality.
II. Is abortion immoral?
Pro-life activists would argue that the taking of a human life is wrong no matter what the circumstances or in which tri-mester it is done. The controversy over abortion has avoided the real issue facing today's woman - her need to grow beyond stereotypes. Whenever an individual or group realizes it has been treated unjustly, the first reaction is anger, but often the anger is first expressed as aggression. People outgrowing oppression have so much stored-up bitterness, so many memories of powerlessness and so little knowledge of how to make themselves heard, that violence toward others is the result. The women's movement has been caught up in the same process. American men and women are among the most fair-minded on earth, but have slowly begun to feel that 4,000 abortions a day is enough. The abortion mentality has encouraged women to think of themselves as victims. Much emphasis is placed on pregnancy as a result of rape, even though the statistics show only about .1% of all rapes actually result in conception. That means that a large majority of pregnancies that resulted in abortion were the result of free-choice. The assumption is that a woman does not have control over her own body until after a male partner is finished with it. Only then does she hear talk of "rights." The term "pro-choice" evokes their sense of fairness, but what is really being considered is the killing of an innocent human life. Women are abandoning the abortion mentality because it weakens their greatest strength - creation. They are looking at responsibilities as well as rights, choosing instead of reacting.
Pro-choice supporters argue that abortion should be viewed as a sometimes necessary choice a woman must make in order to be in charge of her life. Considering pregnancy from a woman's point of view, it can be very dangerous to carry a baby for ninth months with accompanying symptoms such as nausea, skin discoloration, extreme bloating and swelling, insomnia, narcolepsy, hair loss, varicose veins, hemorrhoids, indigestion, and irreversible weight gain. Equal rights is an issue the women's movement has fought for for many years. Denying them the right to free choice would demolish everything they have fought for and all the respect they have gained as individuals.
III. The religious aspect.
The Church's judgment on abortion is neither male nor female. It is social. It places the rights of the child in the womb into the hands of the law which sees individual rights as inalienable. The relationship between morality and law, as between Church and society, is surely complex. The historical source of the Catholic teaching on abortion was conviction of the early Christian community that abortion is incompatible with and forbidden by the fundamental Christian norm of love, a norm which forbade the taking of life. By the fifth century, while the condemnation of abortion continued without diminishment, distinctions were on occasion being drawn between abortion and homicide. Both were seen as grave sins, but not necessarily exactly the same sin or to be subject to the same penalty. While theologians of the Eastern Church were apparently the first explicitly to draw a distinction between the "formed" and the "unformed" fetus, there quickly developed a strong tradition against using the distinction to differentiate homicide and abortion.
The substance of the Catholic position can be summed up in the following principles: (1) God alone is the lord of life. (2) Human beings do not have the right to take the lives of other human beings. (3) Human life begins at the moment of conception. (4) Abortion, at whatever the stage of development of the conceptus, is the taking of innocent human life. The conclusion follows: Abortion is wrong.
IV. Can abortion be justified?
There are, indeed, several situations in which abortion would seem necessary. Birth defects, although rare, sometimes occur and must be dealt with in a personal manner. If a woman knows she is going to give birth to a mentally retarded baby, she is faced with the option of aborting it. If she is not prepared to give the retarded baby the attention and love it needs or if she cannot afford to treat the babies problems, abortion would be the logical answer.
From the opposition: "It is only when we love the handicapped that we can truly value every human life."
The anti-abortion movement believes that the fetus, even in its embryonic stage of development, is human life and that any deliberate termination of embryonic or fetal life constitutes an "unjustified" termination of human life. Conversely, proponents of abortion deny that the fetus is human life, particularly during its embryonic stage of development, and therefore believe that the termination of fetal life does not constitute homicide. Further, proponents of abortion justify the termination of fetal life by asserting that the woman has the ultimate right to control her own body; that no individual has any right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy that she does not want; that parents have the moral responsibility and constitutional obligation to bring into this world only children who are wanted, loved, and provided for, so that they can realize their human potential; and that children have basic human and constitutional rights, which include the right to have loving, caring parents, sound health, protection form harm, and a social and physical environment that permits healthy human development and the assurance of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Conclusion: if a child cannot be cared for properly, it should not be brought into this world.
Pro-life advocates sustain that a child, originally unwanted, may cause a change of heart in his or her parents, and should be born on that argument alone. Children born in the face of hostile animus from their parents are not crippled by that original unwantedness. There are no clear signs that children first unwanted face abuse. Healthy, adaptive parenthood must be prepared from the start to make one's own wants second to one's children's needs - including the need to go on living.
If abortion were to become impossible again in this country, the lives of the vast majority of American women would worsen drastically. Many would be forced to spend decades living a life that they did not want. For all women sexual activity, even within marriage, would become a hateful risk. The entire revolution in sex roles is built on low, controlled fertility. Without abortion women could not be in the labor force in increasing numbers, and having independent careers. It is low fertility that makes day care economically feasible for many families. The leaders of the anti-abortion campaign emphasize the fetus' loss of life. However, some of the same people oppose the revolution in sex roles, the new freedom to express sexuality, and would make birth control illegal if they could. Many of them make no secret of their desire to see women return to obligatory domesticity and to a situation in which they are afraid to have sex outside marriage. They believe that a ban on abortion would further that agenda. It is certainly possible that Congress will give the Catholic bishops their victory and make abortion once again a crime. However, there is so much at stake for women that there is little chance they will give up abortions. If they have to get them illegally, they will.
V. Should abortion remain a personal choice?
Whether abortion and birth control should be a woman's decision has been a source of controversy throughout history. To defend the morality of choice for women is not to deny reverence toward or appreciation for many women's deep commitment to childbearing and shield nurturance. It does ask that women collectively come to understand that genuine choice with respect to power is a necessary condition of all women. When the day comes that the decision to bear a child is a moral choice, then and only then, the human liberation of women will be a reality.
Those who believe abortion should not be a personal choice argue that the fetus is a separate entity form the woman who carries it, and therefore entitled to the right to lice. They believe that women who choose to abort do so primarily out of convenience, a fact which trivializes unborn human life.
VI. Abortion and the Constitution.
In decisions handed down on January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Texas and Georgia abortion laws. The Texas case, Roe v. Wade, concerned a statue which restricted legal abortions to those deemed necessary to save the woman's life. The Georgia case, Doe v. Bolton, dealt with a state law permitting abortions only when required by the woman's health, or to prevent birth of a deformed child, or when pregnancy resulted form rape. The court's invalidation of these laws implied that similarly restrictive laws in most other states are also unconstitutional.
The Constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade is found in the personal liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights and its penumbras. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that:
"right of privacy...founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions on state action...is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her preg- nancy."
Opponents of legal abortion do not see it as a constitutional right. They argue that the law places many limits on people's freedom of choice, and should do so in the case of abortion. In fact, abortion foes see the law favoring one set of legal rights, the woman's, over another's, the unborn child's.
VII. Should abortion remain legal?
Since 1973, the proportion of women obtaining abortions before the eighth week, and using the safest method, suction curettage, has steadily increased. By improving availability and accessibility, legalization has also contributed to a significant decline in complications. The second major consequence of the shift from illegal to legal abortion has been to increase equity. Before legalization, there was in fact not one legal abortion market, but two. Women with the knowledge and means could usually obtain a reasonably safe abortion, performed by a physician. For women without information and funds, this option was unavailable.
It is my personal opinion that abortion must remain legal if we are to uphold the Constitution and respect women as equal individuals. There already is wide agreement that the single most important effect of legalization has been the substitution of safe, legal procedures for abortions that formerly were obtained illegally. This substitution quickly led to a dramatic decline in the number of women who died or suffered serious, sometimes permanent, injury. A second, equally important, result of legalization concerns equity: before abortion was legal, it was poor women, minority women, and very young women who suffered most, since their only options often were delivery of an unwanted child or a back-alley abortion.
Today the threat to women's lives and health no longer comes from abortion. It comes from those who want to outlaw it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)