
f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\96 Elections.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
'96 Elections


     The presidential elections are here.  The elections only take place every four years and now it is time again to vote for the man whom we trust to be our leader for another four years.  There many things involved in the elections.  Campaigning and debating are two things used to help get the people to be in favor of those who are running.  The two main candidates this year are Dole/Kemp and Clinton/Gore.

     Campaigning is done in many different ways, it is a technique used by the candidates in order for more people to recognize them and become more familiar with their ideas.  It is done on television, in newspapers, signs that are put all over your town, and on the internet.  The object is to put the adds in places where many people are going to see them.  The internet and on television is a very good way to make the candidates known because of the tremendous internet traffic and increasing television viewers.

     Debating is a requirement of the elections and there are different kinds of debates.  There are debates between the candidates and there are some between the possible vice-presidents.  The speakers must be very good at thinking of something to say quickly and making their point clear to the audience in order to make a difference in the debates.  The debates are a time to show the audience the flaws the other candidate might have and to also show them the good things that you may have to offer them as their president or vice-president.

     Dole is the major republican candidate for president.  One of Dole's major plans in his presidency, if he is elected, is to cut taxes and balance the budget.  This is a very hard thing to do, but it is a good aspect of Bob Dole.  He also has a goal for a plan of economic growth.  I myself like the aspect that Bob Dole as a republican is against abortion.  I think abortion is murder to innocent babies who are not even given a chance to live.

  

 
Clinton is the other major candidate for the elections.  He is a democrat that is hoping to get re-elected to serve another four years.  While in his first term, Clinton has made abortion a legal act, increased our taxes, and been 
accused of many small lies; but if he is accused of those small lies, why should we not be able to think he is lying to us?  One of Clinton's big concerns is health care.  He has done many things pertaining to this issue, but only half of it has been followed through with.

     The elections are up to the people, and it is the people who decides who will be your leader for another four years.  So, let's vote smart and think about who will better our country for the next four years.



 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\A Balanced Budget .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
A Balanced Budget?

	This year President Clinton will submit his proposed legislation for the Federal Budget to Congress. The fact that we have divided government (ex., Democratic President, Republican majority in Congress) means the majority of that legislation won't make it through the first ten minutes of a Congressional session. The President in turn will veto legislation presented to him by Congress. The whole situation is a vicious, never ending circle. Each side is looking out for their own best interests, and after years, even decades of this the United States has a huge budget deficit. Is there a solution to all this madness? Is it feasible to balance the Federal Budget? Every politician on Capitol Hill claims to have the answer. The Federal Government goes as far to employ some of the most renowned economist's in the world to try to solve the deficit mess, and they still haven't figured it out.
	The budget simulation exercise by The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget provided choices Congress has to use as its guide for the upcoming year. How hard can it be to balance the budget I thought? After doing the exercised I realized the title of the simulation exercise, "The FY 1997 Budget: An Exercise in Hard Choices," could not have been more appropriate. It is possible though to balance the Federal Budget, provided you follow 3 simple rules. First you must decide what you feel is important, then cut without consciousness, and if that doesn't work, alter your baseline.
Important Choices 
	When deciding on what I thought was important to protect in the budget, I felt like a politician myself. I protected my own self interests. First up was Defense. The fact that I am in the Marine Officer Program weighed heavily on my decision to increase Defense spending by 17.6 billion (all amounts in billions, unless noted), following the Congressional Budget Resolution. The President's plan just didn't provide enough capital, the Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus would basically wipe out my career before it even starts, and I just can not have that. Next up is Education. Without the direct student loan program, I would have no way to fund my education other than going to some bank and going through the demeaning process of begging a loan officer to lend me money for school. I feel a sense of loyalty to the President on this issue, because without this program I would still be doing concrete construction back home in Indiana. As a result, I voted to increase Educational spending 33.4. My other concern or problem area is Administration of Justice. Crime is way out of control in this country. There has to be an end. I voted to increase spending 23.6, opting for the President's budget because it provides enough capital to temporarily combat the problem. You might be thinking, wow this fool just increased the deficit by 74.6, but unless are borders are protected, are children educated, and until we can feel safe in our homes at night, this country won't realize it's potential.
International & Domestic Spending
	At this point, the deficit stands at 883.6 (809 billion beginning + current spending). It is time to cut the waste. First, International Affairs requires attention. Does the United States really need to fund every country's struggle? I don't think so, so I agree with the Budget Resolution Conference Agreement (BRCA), and I vote to cut 12.4. 
Next on the list, General Science, Space and Technology. I vote to discontinue the Space Station Program. As the report says, scientists have lost interest so why keep funding it. Another 11.2 by the wayside.
 The Energy issue is a complex one, but nevertheless the DOE has to go. The DOE is a bureaucracy of waste. The DOE has several institutions doing the same research. By Eliminating the DOE as a go-between, money and time saved. The BRCA proposal is more beneficial to my pursuit of a balanced budget, eliminating 4.2.
 Natural Resources are a touchy subject, but in order to balance the budget, everyone has to chip in. By charging the fair market value for natural resources, 21 billion saved.
Agriculture is essential, but it is not necessary to increase salaries and expenses of Farm Service Agency employees, which the President's budget does.. The BRCA cuts 4.1. 
	Commerce and Housing Credit, another huge buearucracy, has to go. By eliminating the Department of Commerce, and by broadening FCC Authority to Auction Licenses, total saving equals 10.4.
 Transportation is another touchy subject, what with all the airline tragedies and train crashes. This subject is constantly in the news. Terminating  the Federal Transit Administration and leaving the states to be responsible for funding, 23 billion saved. Also by reducing or eliminating other Transport Subsidies I save another 6.2.
	Community and Regional Development are an issue I have never really given much consideration to, but with the spending I did earlier, I need to make cuts. The BRCA cuts the most. I propose to follow their legislation cutting 21.5. 
	Health was in the news when Clinton was first elected. I liked his rhetoric then, and although I need to make cuts, I stand by his proposal of 45.3. even though it is only half of what the BRCA proposes to do this is a very sensitive area of policy, and cutting to much could mean reelection.
	What about Medicare? To play it safe, I went with the BRCA proposal because it reforms Comprehensive Medicare, just not as much as the President's Proposal. The CBO Illustrative Comprehensive Options were a brief and passing thought, but overall I believe they hurt Medicare more than either of the other two proposals. Saving equates to 182.6.
	As far as Income Security goes, I recommend following the BRCA proposal. Their proposal cuts 45.4, so for those people on welfare, get out and get a job.
	Social Security is a sore topic for many individuals. I would propose cutting Social Security completely, but that wasn't an option. Why should I pay for something I'll never get anything out of. Forced to choose some kind of cuts, I suggest first skipping one COLA for One Year, a saving's of 57.9. By Reducing the Replacement Rate Within Each Bracket of Social Security I am able to save an additional 11.8.
	Something I failed to realize earlier, Veterans Benefits and Services. This is something I might one day need based on my career aspirations. I chose to go with the BRCA because it increases the Presidents budget in categories such as medical care and medical research. Total saving amounts to 9.4 billion.
	With the Federal Compensation and General Government portion of the budget, I thought it to be a bad idea in cutting pay to government employees. If I were a Member of Congress, I could consider myself blacklisted. Also I one day hope to be a government employee via the military. I propose Reducing COLAS to Middle or High Income Retirees, saving 11 billion. I also would raise Employee Contributions. By doing so, it only benefits these same employees in the future when they retire, and it also allows me to trim an additional 12.4 off of the deficit.
	As for means testing, I chose to reduce this area by opting for Reduction of Benefits to Middle and High Income Families. Families with an annual income of $40,000 really don't need help. I chose to not cut anything else, but I was able to do 303.3 in damage to the deficit.
Revenue
	Going into Revenues, I have saved 793.9 billion, but still the budget remains unbalanced. Here, I decided to tax imported oil, saving 62.5. Next, taxing Toxic Water Pollutants as well as levying an Excise Tax on Air Pollutants nets an additional 170.7. Also by increasing tobacco taxes to 48 cents per pack netted 22.3. As for a running total, 1048.7 billion remains unspent. 
	Unfortunately there happens to be some programs that need money. First, I chose to spend 117 billion on giving tax credits for Families/Children, opting for the President's budget. I voted to repeal the 4.3 cent motor fuels tax, spending 2.9. Finally, I spent 15.6 to Provide Tax Incentives for Long - Term Care Insurance. All this spending on revenues cost me 187.2 billion. My rational behind my spending, is once again in my own self interest, for if I was a Member of Congress, with all the cuts I have made, I have to give back a little. 
Balanced?
Will the budget balance? Before the exercise began there was an 809 billion deficit. I spent 209.3 billion, on a total of 6 different programs. I cut 1048.7 billion from 18 different recipients of federal dollars. This amounts to a balanced budget. Total Deficit Reduction from Policy changes equaled 838.7(all amounts in billions). Interest savings amounted to 83.87. Total deficit reduction, 992.57. Add in the baseline budget deficit of  809 billion from the previous year. 113.57 remains. Policy changes totaled at 718.7. Spending changes as a percentage ended up 85.7%. Finally revenue changes finished at 14.31%.
Is it feasible to balance the Federal Budget? It is if it is a game or assignment. Dealing with issues that effect individuals from all walks of life is almost impossible. I cut all but a few categories under International & Domestic Spending. It is not realistic in the real world. Cutting funding for one program not only effects those involved, but inadvertently effects' others. An example would be cutting welfare benefits. With no money, no job, and no future prospects, an individual might result to crime, whether selling narcotics or robbery, in order to support their family. The decisions that the President makes in preparing a budget have to be overwhelming. In Congress, individual decisions are more anonymous. The records are accessible, but who really remembers how an individual Member of Congress voted. How many taxpayers know what a baseline is. The President and Congress each uses their own baseline, it helps them justify spending or cuts. Until the President and Congress can agree to balance the budget, cut waste, and quit talking about it, there will be a deficit.
 Works Cited
Exercise In Hard Choices. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. July 1996.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\A Brothers Murder.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


A Brother's Murder

	A belief I feel very strongly about proposes that all problems faced by our society have solutions.  If this belief is true, why do problems still face us today?  The answer could be a result of either laziness by the people in our society in finding these solutions or just the fact that there are too many problems to solve.  Maybe this belief I have is too far out of reach to be true.  On the other hand, Brent Staples, a well-respected writer, seems to share this idea with me.  In his works, he displays a great deal of motivation to solve particular problems faced by society.  In "A Brother's Murder," he uses a personal account of murder within the streets caused by social placement to illustrate the problem within the lower class.  After reading this article, I questioned the stability of our society, and the overall severity of this problem of murder in the streets.
	The inner streets of our nations' cities have, over the years, proven to be war zones.  Gangs are roaming the streets to protect their territory, making gunplay an everyday task.  The smell of fear, death, and misguided souls reek to the nose of the onlooker.  Brent Staples does an outstanding job of describing the severity of these problems.  His brother, Blake, leads a life molded by this street life.  His official cause of death was murder.  However, at the young age of twenty-two years old, they should have noted his death as a casualty of war.  He played a part in the war of gangs and guns.  If he did not live in the inner streets of Roanoke, Va., he would probably be alive today.  In most other parts of the country, you can have an argument with one of your best friends and not get killed over it.  Blake was shot six time s by a good friend over an argument about a former girlfriend.
	Brent Staples grew up in the same type of atmosphere as his little brother Blake. As Staples explains in paragraph four of "A Brother's Murder," he chose a different lifestyle.  He disagreed with the childish attitude of the death-ridden people on his street.  He chose a path of going to college and leading a successful career.  He was lucky enough and smart enough to leave those streets.  "Upwardly mobile" was how Brent put it.  In Blake's lifestyle moving up means killing more people to gain social standing within his gang.
	Brent took a trip to his brother's home to intervene with his situation.  What he saw was someone taken over by life on the streets.  He was obsessed by this lifestyle of teetering between life and death, because that was all for which he had to live.  This was clear on the surface, but his own brother could look deeper.  He could see his true human character.  Brent saw his brother as a human being who he cared deeply for and wanted to help.  However, when our society looks at these people killing each other, they see young kids with no hope and no feelings.  I believe this inability to give people a chance is what cause this instability in our social structure.  If everyone could try to make a difference like Brent did with his brother, we would have more stability in our society.
	After reading this article, I came up with many unanswered questions.  First, I would have like to have seen more detail about the relationship between Brent and Blake.  I feel like this would have added more emotion and detail to the story.  A final question to be discussed is concerning Brent's actions with his brother.  Could he have done more to save his brother's life?  It took Brent ten years to go back to his brother to help.  Also, was it right of Brent to shut out his hometown, knowing that this would affect his brother?
 	Brent Staples' "A Brother's Murder" appeared in a 1986 edition of New York Time Magazine.  Brent continues to write editorials regularly for the New York Times.  I had the opportunity to browse through some of his recent articles at the library.  He continues today to write about life in the streets and other problems with unfound solutions.  Brent Staples is a true humanitarian, and with his articles shows a lot of care in making a change.      




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\A comparison of Canadas main national political parties.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	In a country as vast and as culturally diverse as Canada, many different political opinions can be found stretched across the country.  From the affluent neighbourhoods of West Vancouver to the small fishing towns located on the east coast of Newfoundland, political opinions and affiliations range from the left wing to the right wing.  To represent these varying political views, Canada has four official national political parties to choose from: the Liberals (who are currently in power), the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democrats, and the Reform Party.  What is particularly interesting is that none of the latter three parties compose Her Majesty's Official Opposition in the House of Commons.  The Bloc Quebecois, a Quebec separatist party who only ran candidates in the province of Quebec in the last federal election in 1993, won 54 seats in that province, and claimed the title of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition over the Reform Party, who garnered only 52 seats.  Because the Bloc ran candidates only in Quebec, it would be difficult to think of them being a national political party, even though they hold a significant number of seats in the national legislature.  This paper will examine the significant early history of Canada's four main national political parties, and then will analyse their current state, referring to  recent major political victories/disasters, and the comparison of  major economic policy standpoints, which will ultimately lead to a prediction of which party will win the next federal election in Canada.   
	Starting on the far left, there is the New Democratic Party of Canada.  Today's modern New Democratic Party was originally called the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), and was founded in 1932.  Originally led by a man by the name of James Shaver Woodsworth, the CCF was formed by several radical farming groups who found out that they had more similarities with each other than just their destitution.  The 1920's had been a dark period for radicals and unions within Canada; poverty and significantly lower wages for workers were prevalent, and apathy regarding these issues was rampant.  When the depression wove its destructive web across Canada in the 1930s, proponents of capitalism were staggered, but their left-wing opponents were too busy coming to the aid of the victims of the depression, and could not deal with the capitalists effectively.  When the CCF was officially formed in Calgary, they adopted the principle policy of being "a co-operative commonwealth, in which the basic principle regulating production, distribution and exchange will be the supplying of human needs instead of the making of profits."  (Morton, p.12, 1986)  Meanwhile, in Eastern Canada, a group of scholars formed the League for Social Reconstruction (LSR), and gave the Canadian left a version of socialism that was related in some respects to the current social and economic situation in Canada.  In 1933, the CCF had its first major convention in Regina, Saskatchewan, and the original policy platform first proposed by the CCF was replaced by a manifesto prepared by an LSR committee and originally drafted by a Toronto scholar, Frank Underhill.  The Regina Manifesto, as it is known as today, put emphasis on "economic planning, nationalisation of financial institutions, public utilities and natural resources, security of tenure for farmers, a national labour code, socialised health services and greatly increased economic powers for the central government."  (Morton, p.12, 1986)  As a supplement to the feverish mood created by the convention, the Regina convention concluded by saying "no CCF Government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialised planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the Co-operative Commonwealth."  (Morton, p.12, 1986).  The CCF tried to garner more popular support later down the road, and after calling itself the New Party in 1960, it changed its name officially to the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1962.  Over the years, the NDP has become a large force in Canadian politics, becoming an alternative to the Conservatives and Liberals.  (Morton, pgs.12-27, 1986)
	Even to the casual Canadian political observer, the NDP is generally regarded as the party at the bottom of the political barrel at the federal level.  In the last Canadian federal election in 1993 under the leadership of Audrey McLoughlin, the NDP went from holding 43 seats in the House of Commons to only 9.  McLoughlin resigned, paving the way for the election of the former leader of the Nova Scotia NDP to the federal post, Alexa McDonough in 1994.  On the provincial level, however, the NDP has experienced some success of late.  Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have had (or currently have) an NDP provincial mandate.  (Guy, p.384, 1995)  
	On the policy front, the NDP seem to be most concerned with a plan for "fair taxes now." (fairtaxnow.html, 1997)  According to the NDP, "it's time banks and big corporations paid their fair share -- so we can better afford health care, education and other services for middle class and working families."  (fairtaxnow.html, 1997)  Some of the key points of the NDP's "fair taxes now" campaign include "a minimum corporate tax, a minimum wealth tax, an end to tax breaks for profitable corporations that lay people off, an end to corporate deductions for meals and entertainment, and increased federal auditing and enforcement of existing corporate taxes," (fairtaxnow.html, 1997) to name a few.  Of course, these recommendations for taxation reform reflect the typical left-wing, socialistic standpoints that the NDP has stood for ever since its inception.   
	Moving further towards the centre of the political scale,  the current federal governing party in Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, is found.  Liberals in an independent form started to be elected to the various legislatures around the country in the middle of the 1800s, with a formal party being created in the late 1800s.  The purpose of forming a formal party was a response to the increasing popularity of the Conservatives in Canada; "...the rural Clear Grits of Upper Canada, the anti-clerical rouges, and the reform element in the Maritimes came together gradually as the Liberal Party."  (McMenemy, pg.10, 1976)  In its early years, the Liberal Party reflected the various demographics of religion and geography among the voting public in Canada.  With widespread support in Canada's rural areas several years after Confederation, "the Liberal Party opposed protectionism and supported commercial reciprocity with the United States.  It also opposed MacDonald's program of railway construction.  Led by Sir Wilfred Laurier, the Liberals supported unrestricted reciprocity and suffered for it in the election of 1891."  (McMenemy, pg.12, 1976)  The Liberals' policy on trade annoyed industrialists, who were intimidated by the prospect of unlimited trade.  British Loyalists regarded the trade reciprocity as being anti-British.  In the latter part of the 1890s, however, Laurier adjusted the party's policy on trade reciprocity.  "In the budget of 1897, the Liberals neatly undercut the Conservatives by introducing the principle of a minimum and a maximum tariff.  A chief result of this Liberal protectionism was to give British goods a preference in Canada."  (McMenemy, pg.12, 1976)  Another significant move made by the Liberals was in 1903, when Prime Minister Laurier announced the construction of a second transcontinental railroad.  Laurier's minister of railways dissented on the idea and in turn was sacked by the Prime Minister.  "By the election of 1904, the Liberals had acquired MacDonald's railway and tariff policy and could therefore wear the previously Conservative mantle of 'party of national development.'"(McMenemy, pg.12, 1976)
	 The Liberal Party of Canada currently forms the federal government of Canada.  Their current leader, Jean Chretien, was elected to succeed John Turner in 1990.  Around the time Chretien was elected leader, questions within and outside the party were raised regarding the political "baggage" that Chretien carried from previous Liberal governments.  Despite the controversy, Chretien won his party's leadership quite comfortably, and returned his party to prominence once again in 1993 by forming a federal government with a large majority in the House of Commons.  Looking back, this current Liberal mandate has weathered relatively little criticism until recently.  One of Chretien's campaign promises in 1993 was to scrap the Goods and Services Tax (GST) if the Liberals were to form a government.  To complement that promise by Chretien, Sheila Copps, another prominent Liberal from Hamilton, Ontario, vowed to resign if the GST was not scrapped under a Liberal mandate.  Three years into the Liberal mandate, controversy began to rise over Chretien's and Copps' promises regarding the GST.  Copps eventually resigned after much criticism, and won back her seat in her Hamilton riding in a by-election several weeks later.  Chretien was subjected to large amounts of public criticism, especially during one of CBC TV's electronic "town hall" meetings.  Chretien argued the fact that the Liberals never said that they were going to scrap the GST, and that people should read their policy guide, the "Red Book," to find out where exactly the Liberals stood on the issue of the GST.  Chretien argued during this debate that the Liberals wanted to replace the GST instead of scrapping it.  Earlier clips taken from the parliamentary channel and radio interviews seemed to contradict his claim that the Liberals wanted to replace the GST.  "We hate it and we will kill it!" (the GST) were the exact words that came out of Jean Chretien's mouth during a debate in the House of Commons over the GST, before the Liberals took power in 1993.  Since the federal election has not been called yet, it has yet to be seen whether or not the Canadian public has lost any faith in the current Prime Minister.
	The Liberals have made the economic revival of Canada one of their top policy platforms, so much so that in the online edition of the Red Book, economic policy is  chapter one.  The Liberals explain their approach to economic policy by saying that they will focus on the five major problems facing the current Canadian economy: "lack of growth, high unemployment, high long-term real interest rates, too high levels of foreign indebtedness, and excessive government debt and deficits."  (chapter1.html, 1997)  In the online edition of the Red Book, the Liberals also state that the "better co-ordination of federal and provincial tax and economic policies must be achieved in the interests of all Canadians....we will work with the provinces to redesign the current social assistance programs, to help people on social assistance who are able to work to move from dependence to full participation in the economic and social life of this country....and that Canadians are entitled to trade rules that are fair that secure access to new markets, and that do not undermine Canadian commitments to labour and environmental standards."  (chapter1.html, 1997)  There is also a brief section about the Liberals' plan to create many more jobs for Canadians, which was one of their large campaign platforms during the 1993 election.  (chapter1.html, 1997)
	Right of centre on the political scale, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada can be found.  The Progressive Conservatives (PCs) were, in their fledgling years, known as the Conservative Party (and before that, the Liberal-Conservatives), and was founded before the Liberal Party of Canada, making it the oldest political party in Canada.  "While it is difficult to pin-point a precise date of origin of the Conservative Party there is nevertheless good reason for regarding 1854 as the inaugural year for the political group which has continued to this day as the conservative element in Canadian politics."  (Macquarrie, pg.3, 1965)  In 1854, John A. MacDonald, who was to become Canada's first Prime Minister ever, led the Conservative Party to office  and "began the process which established a nation in the northern part of this continent and set the pattern for that nation's political institutions."  (Macquarrie, pg.4, 1965)  Since Confederation, many events in Canadian politics have held vast significance in Canada's history.  For example: Confederation (1867), Hudson Bay territories joining the dominion (1870), Arctic Islands added to the dominion (1880), the defeat of reciprocity (1911), the enfranchisement of women (1918), the providing of universal suffrage under the Dominion Elections Act (1920), the Statute of Westminster (1931), and finally, the addition of Newfoundland to the Dominion (1949).  It is interesting to note that all of these significant political occurrences were made under Conservative Party mandates.  (Macquarrie, pg.2, 1965)  "It has been said that if Canada had an Independence Day it would be December 11, 1931, the date of the proclamation of the Statute of Westminster under the regime of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett."  (Macquarrie, pg.3, 1965)  The Statute of Westminster "repealed the Colonial Laws Validity Act and gave Canada absolute legislative autonomy except as requested by Canada in the case of amendments to the British North America Act."  (Macquarrie, pg.107, 1965) This was a recognition of an establishment which was long overdue.  Before the Statute of Westminster was implemented in 1931, it was under the rule of another conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, in which Canada took its largest steps towards having "full independence and complete national sovereignty.  Vigorously and successfully he (Borden) asserted the equality of nations comprising the Commonwealth."  (Macquarrie, pg.3, 1965)  In December of 1942, the Conservative Party met at a leadership convention in Winnipeg, and after some prodding by one of the candidates, John Bracken, the name of the Conservative Party was changed to that of the Progressive Conservatives, in order to reflect the party's progressive goals and intentions.  (Macquarrie, pg.122, 1965)  Under the name of Progressive Conservative party, John Diefenbaker led the party to the largest landslide victory in the history of Canadian politics in 1958, just one year after the Diefenbaker government had won a minority government.  (Guy, pg.393, 1995)
	In recent years, the Progressive Conservatives have been dealt severe blows at the polls.  In 1993, the Progressive Conservatives went from having the majority government in the House of Commons to a mere two seats: current PC leader Jean Charest in Sherbrooke, and Elsie Wayne in Saint John.  The PCs can attach their massive defeat in the 1993 election to nine years of rule by Brian Mulroney.  Mulroney won two large majority governments in 1984 and 1988, but in the 1988 term, his fortunes turned south.  His government was responsible for the implementation of the hated Goods and Services tax, the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and the Meech Lake Accord.  Several months before the 1993 federal election was called, Mulroney stepped down as party leader, which paved the way for the election of Kim Campbell, then Justice Minister, to the post of Prime Minister.  Campbell was the first female Prime Minister of Canada, even though she was not elected by the general voting public.  Her early days of campaigning were regarded as successful for herself and the party, but in the latter part of the election campaign, debates over whether or not Campbell was a competent leader were raised.  Her trip-up in the late stages of the election campaign set the stage for the Custer-like wiping out of her party; she was even soundly defeated in her own riding of Vancouver Central.  Even though the federal party was decimated, provincial PC parties seemed to hold their own during the federal dark times.  Currently, there are Progressive Conservative provincial governments in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Prince Edward Island.  PEI Conservatives won the most recent election, going from only one seat in the PEI legislature to a majority.  The Conservatives in Ontario were also recent winners.  Under the leadership of Mike Harris, the Ontario Conservatives ousted the Ontario NDP in the 1994 provincial election in a landslide victory, perhaps bringing on a second wave of the Big Blue Machine in years to come.  
	Even though the Conservatives were given a serious setback in the 1993 federal election, their commitment to policy-making has not been affected.  They have drafted a Tory Top Ten list of policies that they will campaign with during the next federal election.  Their number one policy standpoint on the Top Ten is tax cuts for jobs: "Canadians today are overtaxed. The high tax burden is killing jobs and reducing Canada's competitiveness. We need to create lasting jobs and rekindle the entrepreneurial spirit. Tax cuts will inject life back into the Canadian economy by promoting investment, consumer consumption and job creation."  (library4.html, 1997)  On the income tax front, the PCs are also committed to giving Canadians a 10-20 per cent personal income tax cut, which would be phased in over their first term in office. They have also given the situation regarding the federal debt and deficit a fair amount of thought.  They intend to balance the federal budget within their first mandate in office, and that by the time the deficit is eliminated through spending cuts, "specific targets for reduction of the federal debt  must be set with measurable milestones."  (Designing a Blueprint for Canadians, pp.6-7, 1996)  Finally, their overall economic policy states that "Canada should constitute an economic union within which goods, services, persons and capital may move freely.  Any measures which unduly discriminate between individuals, goods, services and capital on the basis of their origin or their destination should be unconstitutional. The strengthening of the Canadian economic union is crucial to fostering economic growth, the flourishing of a common citizenhood, and helping Canadians reach their full potential."  (Designing a Blueprint for Canadians, pgs.40-41, 1996)  On the whole, it would appear to the unbiased reader that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada knows exactly what it stands for.
	Even further to the right side of the political scale, the relatively new Reform Party of Canada can be found.  On the last weekend of October in 1987, 306 delegates from Western Canada converged on Alberta, in order to found the party.  These people were fed up with the traditional Liberal/Conservative rule in Ottawa, and wanted a party that could effectively represent the concerns of Western Canadians.  (Harrison, pgs.110, 112,114, 1995)  "The delegates faced three tasks as they met that weekend: to decide upon a name for the party, to devise a constitution, and to pick a leader.  The delegates chose the party's name - the Reform Party of Canada - the first day."  (Harrison, pg.114, 1995)  On the second day of the convention, the party started the process of selecting a leader.  There were three potential candidates: Preston Manning (the current leader), Ted Byfield, and Stan Roberts.  Byfield was not entirely comfortable with the idea of being the Reform Party's leader, however, and wanted to continue to run his own personal business. A theory that came out of the convention was that this leadership race was a battle between "Roberts' old political style and money against Manning's grass-roots populism."  (Harrison, pg.117, 1995)  There was also some controversy over the amount of money Roberts spent on his hospitality suite at the convention, which was an estimated $25000.  Manning was regarded as being quite frugal, spending around $2000.  Even though the difference in the amount of money spent between the two main candidates was rather large, Manning was regarded as being the stronger of the two candidates, having the unquestionable allegiance of many of the delegates.  (Harrison, pg.117, 1995)  Roberts knew of the immense support Manning had, and it was rumoured that he was going to bring in a significant amount of "instant delegates"  (Harrison, pg.117, 1995)  to push him over the top.  The Manning camp got word of this idea, and subsequently closed delegate registration on the Friday night of the convention (it was supposed to run until Saturday morning).  This action sent a Roberts supporter by the name of Francis Winspear into a rage, severely criticising the decision to suspend registration and accusing the Manning camp that some membership money had been unaccounted for.  "With animosities rising, Jo Anne Hillier called a meeting between the two sides on Saturday night to attempt to resolve the disputes.  The attempt at reconciliation failed."  (Harrison, pg.117, 1995)  The next morning, during an emotional speech, Roberts decided to drop out of the race, all the while questioning whether or not the party stood true to its founding principles of integrity and honesty.  He referred to Manning's supporters as "fanatical Albertans" and "small-minded evangelical cranks."  (Harrison, pg.118, 1995)  This left Preston Manning as the first (and current) leader of one of Canada's newest political parties, the Reform Party of Canada.  
	In its short history to date, the Reform Party of Canada has had some success federally, and has weathered its share of criticism.  In the last federal election, they won a total of 52 seats, almost beating out the Bloc Quebecois for the title of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, who won 54 seats.  The Reform took one seat in Ontario, one seat in Manitoba, four seats in Saskatchewan, 22 seats in Alberta, and 24 seats in British Columbia.  (Guy, pg.434, 1995)  There was some debate at the beginning of the Liberals' mandate from the Reform Party whether or not a separatist party (Bloc Quebecois) should be allowed to be the opposition in Parliament, but the Bloc remained as official opposition.  Lately, however, a Bloc MP resigned his seat, leaving the Bloc with a one seat lead over the Reform Party in the race for official opposition.  The next federal election should be very interesting, as these two parties might battle it out for the right to be opposition again.  One moniker that the Reform Party wears that could damage their hopes of ever being the opposition or the government is the fact that many Canadians have the stereotype that Reform MPs and supporters are red-necked hillbillies from out west.  A little while back, a Reform MP by the name of Robert Wringma made comments of a racial nature towards black and aboriginal people.  Wringma suggested that if he were a shopkeeper, and if his patrons were offended by blacks or aboriginals working up in the front of his shop, he would make sure that the black or aboriginal person(s) working for him would be in the back of the shop while his racist customers were on the premises.  This prompted outrage from minority groups and the general Canadian population, and Preston Manning was eventually pressured into kicking Wringma out of caucus.  That particular incident summed up the Reform stereotype of extreme right-wing views, and it should also be interesting whether or not this subject surfaces again during the next federal election campaign.  
	On the Reform Party's web page, the policy section is entitled "a 6 point plan to build a brighter future together."  (summary.html, 1997)  Their number one priority is to "create growth, opportunity, and lasting jobs through smaller government, an end to overspending, and lower taxes, to make government smaller by eliminating waste, duplication, and red tape to save $15 billion a year, and to balance the budget by March 31, 1999."  (summary.html, 1997)  The Reform Party also intends to give the public tax relief, by having "lower taxes for all Canadians: $2,000 by the year 2000 for the average family, an increase in the Basic Personal Amount and Spousal Amount, cut capital gains taxes in half, cut employers' U.I. premiums by 28%, and eliminate federal surtaxes and last but not least, flatten and simplify the income tax system."  (Summary.html, 1997)  Their plans for the Unemployment Insurance system are not all that extravagant, but on the home page, they are quoted as saying that they are going to: "return Unemployment Insurance to its original purpose: protection against temporary job loss."  (summary.html, 1997)  These economic reform policies seem to be related somewhat to the Progressive Conservatives' economic reform policies, but they do not go into nearly as much detail as the Conservatives do.
	Politics in Canada is an extremely volatile business. One day a party can be on top of the world, and the next day they can be the scourge of the planet.  Politics in Canada has a long and interesting history, so much so that this paper has barely even scratched the surface.  While the New Democrats and Reform are gathering support in different areas of the country, it must be remembered that the only two parties to ever hold federal office in this country have been the Conservative and Liberal parties.  From examining the various party's web pages, it seems that the Liberals and Conservatives have the most detailed policy platforms, the Reform Party is simply lacking the detail of the Conservatives and Liberals, and the New Democrats have little information to research at all.  History tends to repeat itself, especially in elections in this country, and it would not be surprising if the Liberals won another federal mandate this year.  The Conservatives look like they are making the long trek back to prominence, but the Reform Party and New Democrats seem to be treading water.  The real test that will determine which paths these parties will take during the trek into the 21st century, however, will be made in the soon-to-be-called Canadian federal election.  Democracy will speak out once again.  



 
















BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1996) A Fresh Start for Canadians [Online].  Available:    
	http://www.reform.ca/FreshStart/summary.html [1997, Feb.25].

Guy, John J. People, Politics and Government.  Scarborough: Prentice Hall, 1995.

Harrison, Trevor.  Of Passionate Intensity.  Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.

(1996)  Liberal Party of Canada [Online].  Available:
	http://www.liberal.ca/english2/policy/red_book/chapter1.html [1997, Feb.25].

Macquarrie, Heath.  The Conservative Party.  Toronto: McClelland and Stewart   
	Limited, 1965.

McMenemy, John, Winn, Conrad.  Political Parties in Canada.  Montreal: McGraw-Hill
	Ryerson, 1976.

Morton, Desmond.  The New Democrats, 1961-1986.  Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman Ltd., 
	1986.

(1996)  New Democrats of Canada [Online].  Available:
	http://www.fed.ndp.ca/fndp/fairtaxnow.html [1997, Feb.25].

Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.  Designing a Blueprint for Canadians.  
	Ottawa, 1997.

(1996)  Progressive Conservative Youth [Online].  Available:
	http://www.openface.ca/PCU/library4.html [1997, Feb.25].






 	
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\A study of the market reforms in PostCommunist eastern Europ.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
A study of the market reforms in post-communist eastern Europe with a specific case study of Poland

Introduction
	Poland, as well as it's fellow post-communist countries, face an arduous task in
re-inventing their economies to match the dominant Western style currently dominating the world. The difficulties lie in the areas of  ideology, structural needs (massive changes required), world recession(current) and debt load.
Communist Economics 
	Why did the economics of the communist bloc fail so miserably? Why has every single socialist, fascist, communist and other non-democratic country had to implement economic change in order to survive? This is due to some inherent problems in the command economy idea.
	Monopolies (in a command economy) tend to produce inefficiency, low quality goods, lack of innovation and technological improvement.
	Command economies tend to focus on growth rather than strength leading to larger production and an evan. worse use of available resources.
	The 1980's marked a change in world markets meant that the communist economies were faced with four challenges that would, if met, have meant the continuation of the USSR.
	Resource saving miniaturization requiring high technology and skill were demanded (command economies have neither), Flexible production to meet a variety of needs (command economies have large factories to keep production high - they, thus, did not have the funds or ability to affect the necessary changes to their means of production), the "information age" meant that the communist bloc had to deny the new prevalent types of technology, which would spread Western ideas, and thus they fell behind), and "software" became essential to the growth of industry (the "hardware" focus of the East could not absorb this new approach. 
	As well, the changes are being attempted in a deep period of economic crisis that make an already difficult process even more difficult.
	Changing the Economy
	Systematic transformation requires institutional innovations, the internal liberalization of the economy, the external liberalization and the adjustment of the real economy as well as the monetary system.
	Not only does there need to be a different institutional framework for a market economy but one has to remove most of the inherited structures and to change the typical behavioral patterns in industry, state and private households.
	Privatization
	Privatization is a difficult task because of four main factors. Firm sizes in post-communist countries tend to be large. This means that their division or shrinkage poses difficulties for foreign investors, they are however, not worthwhile at current sizes and must be reshaped. Expectations are running high but attitudes ingrained in the workforce will need time to change. None of the structure exists to deal with private firms and must be created along with the labor needed to run it. There is very little knowledge and certainty about the property rights issue and until resolved investors will be wary of the situation.
	However, not all countries have addressed the needed changes in the same fashion. Poland has been a leader in foreign investment and involvement when compared to it's post-comminist counterparts.
Poland
	Brief History
	The name Poland is derived from that of the Polanie, a Slavic people that settled in the area, probably in the 5th century AD. Poland is a nation in east-central Europe. In the 18th century it was divided up by its neighbors and ceased to exist until resurrected in 1918.  Again partitioned by Germany and the USSR at the beginning of World War II, it was reestablished as a Soviet satellite state in 1945, and remained a Communist-dominated "people's republic" until 1989.
	Mikhail Gorbachev's appointment as Kremlin leader in March 1985 was the signal that the Polish opposition had been waiting for. Exploiting the new liberalization in the region, Lech Walesa and Solidarity, Pope John Paul II and the church hierarchy, and ordinary citizens stung by the deepening economic recession combined to force the Communists to sit down at roundtable talks in 1989.  They secured far-reaching political concessions and exploited the resulting opportunities for political competition to drive the Communists from power
	The new non-Communist government sought to bring about economic reform through "shock therapy" in a scheme devised by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz.  	Introduction to Polish economic situation
	Poland's fundamental economic problem is that production and living standards for it's 38 million people is considered to be inadequate. With a GDP about a third of the United States (on a per capita basis), Poland is considered to be a middle income country. 
	During the 1970's, the Gierek government tries to tackle the problem (of economic distress) through a policy of rapidly expanding consumption coupled with investment financed by foreign borrowing. For several years this economic policy generated growth of about ten percent per year (The USA's current growth (In GDP) is between 2-3% with 4% being the goal).
	However, the policy was to eventually fail due to mismanagement, recession in Western export markets (i.e a lack of foreign investment), a bias towards products in weak demand but costly to produce (in terms of energy input and raw resources). These three factors produced an economic crisis that resulted in negative growth rates in 1979,80,81 and 82. It also produced the Solidarity movement in 1980 and the implementation of martial law the following year. 
	During the 1980's, Poland managed to regain earlier production levels, at the end of this period of economic development there was some restructuring of production, away from heavy industry towards lighter industry, food processing and services. As well there was slight movement towards the movement of business from state to private hands (with the goal of believed market mechanisms for efficiency). The private sector, in Poland, now accounts for one-third of the labor force (2/3 of that in agriculture).
	However, former policies (as mentioned above) have created a basic economic situation in Poland that is marked by inefficiency, foreign debt and market imbalances.
Inefficiency
	Agriculture
	Agriculture accounts for 13% of national income, 28% of employment and 12% of export earnings. It is predominantly a private industry sector (about 75%) but productivity is low and development is stagnant. In this area Poland has fallen progressively behind it's east European neighbors. 
	This lack of progress is due mainly to an inefficiently small size of farms (10 hectares or less), inefficient production methods, lack of investment incentives and limited access to inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides (which would increase productivity and reduce loss due to pests).
	Industry
	Industry (including energy and manufacturing) produces about half of GDP and employs 29% of the labor force. The sector is largely biased towards heavy industry and large state enterprises (classic approach of communist ethic). Over 90% of industrial output is produced by the 6000 (or so) state owned enterprises. This outmoded productive base needs to be restructured. Industry is largely over-manned and energy intensive. Energy consumption is 2-3 times higher per unit of production in Poland than in the average Western Industrialized country. There are significant energy reserves in Poland, in the form of coal, oil and gas (in eastern Poland), but these reserves need modern technology to be tapped. Poland is no longer a net energy producer and must import energy to maintain production. 
	Incentives for management and workers have been distorted (includes unrealistic prices-low energy and pollution costs, soft budget constraints and employment guarantees. 
Foreign Debt
	Largely created during the 1970's, this totaled more than 48 billion dollars (US) before the more than 50% reduction of official debt in March of 1991. The remaining 30 billion dollars is still a heavy burden on the economy. The debt service due (interest - simple maintaining of debt at present level) in 1991 amounted to 4 billion (40% of 1989 exports).
	The government fell into arrears with many creditors (2/3 owed to foreign governments, 1/3 to foreign banks). The debt was being traded on the markets at 15 cents on the dollar down from 40 cents at the end of 1988 (meaning that the creditors were not secure in the belief that Poland was a good debtor and that their debts were unlikely to be paid in full - hence the drop in value of holding part of their debt).
Market imbalances
	Shortages and excess demand for consumer goods and factors of production were deeply ingrained in the system until the reform of January 1990. Subsidies accounted for 14% of GDP (down from 17% in 1983), and the budget was running a deficit of 8% of GDP in 1989.
Summary
	Poland's economy was structured, in the same way systematic of communist countries, in an inefficient manner. Production was large, state owned and in usual monopoly, This meant that the economy was  without the benefits of private market mechanisms for economic efficiency. In attempting to compete in an increasingly globalized world market Poland's economic situation became dire. This coupled with debt (and the needs of servicing it) meant that the economy was in need of change on a grand scale if Poland was to emerge as an economic force with reasonable success in comparison to her neighbors in Europe and the world . 
The Reform Process
	Against the background , the Mazowiecki government adopted a rapid and radical reform program for 1990. The aim, of this program, was to effect a transformation of the Polish economy from a command to market economy based on proven institutions with market determination of prices and convertible currency. The program included measures for stabilization, liberalization and restructuring. 
	Stabilization
	A number of policy measures were directed primarily to stabilization objectives.
1)	Budgetary balance: increasing taxes by 50%, reducing government investments, and reducing subsidies from 14% of GNP to 6% in 1990. (These measures were designed to increase revenue while decreasing expenditures making for a balanced budget and the ability to repay the national debt)
2)	Tight monetary policy with positive real interest rates (interest minus inflation = real interest rate) to eliminate hidden subsidies from household savers to state enterprises via low interest rates in the banking sector that were estimated to total 10-15% of GNP in 1988 and 1989. 
3)	Eliminating controls on more than 90% of prices in the economy, with exceptions in energy, public transport and housing. (This was designed to eliminate state pricing that did not reflect accurate market pictures of cost and demand)
4)	Wage restraint, providing only mild wage indexation (indexation = change of wages based on cost of living increases (i.e. inflation) - limited means that wages would remain largely unindexed and thus workers would not (unless given a raise) earn the same relative salary as years past and would experience a loss in buying power). Excess wage payments were taxed at a punitive 500% enterprise tax rate. 
5)	Foreign debt was rescheduled by an agreement with the Paris Club (Holder of 2/3 of national debt) in march 1990 and reduced by at least 50% in March 1991. A structural adjustment loan of 394 million was obtained by the World Bank in 1990, as well as an IMF (International Monetary Fund) stand-by of 569 million and commitments from the G-24 stabilization fund (of 1 billion) and EC (economic community) of financial aid.
	Liberalization of Foreign Trade
	This implies the lifting of most of the quantitative and licensing restrictions coupled with the lowering of tariffs to between 15 and 50% for most goods. Since 1982 an increasing number of enterprises have been granted authorizations to conduct foreign trade activities, in addition to the 60 (odd) specialized state enterprises (with the same privilege).
	Export incentives include export related income tax reliefs, a foreign-exchange retention system introduced in 1982 (this granted export enterprises priority rights to buy foreign exchange for production related imports). 
	Restructuring of the Economic system
	This was to mean measures of a more radical nature to be introduced in a gradual nature. 
1)	Deregulation of state enterprises and enforcement of strict payment procedures; new bankruptcy and anti-monopoly legislation intended to harden budget constraints and to reduce monopoly power. The system of ad hoc, ex post tax differentiation with respect to sectors, firms and factors of production will be replaced by a uniform system of taxation (enterprise tax, personal income tax). Abolishment of industrial associations, in order to, prevent informal co-ordination of their activities. 
2)	Well defined property rights. The new government inherited a system under which workers' councils were directly involved in enterprise decision making and the appointment of managers (the obvious lack of industry strength under this system is obvious). A Major difficulty is the reconciliation of workers' rights and the privatization law of adopted in July, 1990 (this law envisages far-reaching privatization).
	State companies are being transformed into companies with shares owned by the state to be sold later to the public. At most, 20% can be sold to worker on preferential terms and 10% to foreign investors without certification. However, larger scale sales to foreign investors are possible subject to government approval (the process is expected to be mere formality).
	The obvious gain of this is to increase government revenue (in the short term) and to create, through foreign investment, a vibrant economy providing jobs and revenue n the future. 
3)	A new monetary system based on a two-tier banking system. The monopoly bank was split in February 1989. Interest rates are to reflect market forces, government bond sales can be used to manage possible budgetary deficits, and commercial paper will be issued (which can cope with the problem of inter- enterprise arrears by turning them into tradeable securities to be discounted at commercial banks).
	This was designed to create better adjusting "natural" market forces and to enable industry to better cope with the economic changes.
The Results of Reform
	The reform program led to initial results that were no less than remarkable. However these results have in most cases not been sustained over time.
	Inflation, after an initial jump, fell to a much lower rate; but it did not fall as far as was hoped and the problem is not yet beaten (low inflation has become a dominant economic policy in the last two decades). In 1990 inflation was at 585%, in 1991 it was supposed to drop to 36% (according to IMF forecast) but only fell to 80%. (For perspective the "normal" inflation rate in the Western world stands at between 1-3%).
	Relative prices responded rapidly to the 1990 price liberalization and shortages largely disappeared. Strong positive real interest rates were established. The budget was initially in surplus (unheard of) but has since gone back into deficit.
	The economy remains in a deep recession. GDP fell by 8-12% and output by 12-18% in 1991. The deepest output decreases have been in textiles, coal, metal and transport. Investment in 1991 was 15% below levels of 1990. 
	However, output in the private sector increased in 1990 by 17% (might be due to the simple increase in the size of the private sector). Agricultural output has not decreased, so far, despite a drop in fodder and fertilizer sales to one-third of former levels. 
	As well, bankruptcies have been rare, new firms have been established (net increase in firms in 1990 of 362,000). Enterprises have been cushioned, so far, by decreasing investment expenditure, sale of capital assets and stocks, and have used their resources to secure short-term survival and avoid lay-offs.
	Unemployment is also low compared to the drop in production levels (May 1991 - 8% of labor force jobless).Real wages have fallen sharply (25% immediately after reforms in 1990) and continue a downward trend. 
Problems of Reform
	The ultimate aim of the reform process is to infuse a dynamic element into the economy by means of marketization (making economic agents responsive to real prices) of production and privatization of the means of production. The full range of the necessary conditions for growth is not clear (economists rarely agree) but it is clear that there exists a minimum requirement for successful reform. This includes political, cultural and economic sustainability.
	Popular Attitudes
	Initially, both the government and the population were fully committed to the reform process. In the first months of 1990, the government could claim an unprecedented degree of legitimacy and support from the population. In the public opinion polls the proportion of people who felt that their economic situation was at least "not bad" rose from 13% in autumn in 1989 to 20% in January 1990 and up to a high of 27% in March of that same year. 
	Since then, however, this spirit of success has become tarnished. Polls in mid 1991 showed that most people expected tensions to increase. In 1991 the CBOS polling firm recorded (in March) a 48% difference between optimist and pessimist (54% pessimist versus 6% optimist).
	The likely reason for this is that expectations rose faster than the possible economic gains and the populations expectations were not (nor could not be met).
	Institutional Reform
	A huge amount of new economic legislation is required to establish a general rule of law and institutions appropriate to a market economy.
	A crucial aim of reform is to improve incentives for private and state-owned enterprises. Property rights are to be clearly defined and contracts and payment procedures strictly enforced. Privatization has a high priority, however, there are still issues of timing, scale and foreign investment that need to be worked out.
	The Polish people are eager for quick reforms and a fast rise in living standards. There are, however, risks to endeavors such as quick privatization. This type of project (mass privatization) is costly in terms of consultants, administration (to monitor the new owners rights) and is dangerous in terms of insider acquisitions. 
	Privatization policies are also difficult in an environment where the home populace is unable to afford a stake in the new firms. During the initial phase of reform individual Polish financial strength has diminished. This has meant that foreign investment was needed to buy the once state owned firms. This might create problems in the future with little or no control exercised by the Polish themselves in their own country. 
	Adequate labor market institutions are absent, worker still appeal (in general) to the state authorities rather than to enterprise management when claiming higher wages and other improvements. A system of collective bargaining is needed, and the private enterprise needs representative organizations.
	Supply Response
	Institutions that can transmit market signals to producers are lacking. Should the signals pass there is often structural rigidities that prevent the necessary changes needed to capitalize on consumer demand. 
	World Environment
	This is crucial to the success of reform in accelerating economic growth. Poland has had the misfortune of four recent blows to the economy. The reduction of the former GDR market after the German reunification (this has meant the loss of job for 35,000 Polish migrant workers), severe cuts in exports to other parts of the former CMEA (especially Russia) (Poland's exports for reasons of quality and price cannot compete with Western exports), increases in world oil prices (Poland imports energy) and finally the world recession of the past 4 years which has forced Western economic concentration on itself and thus world aid has been reduced. 
Conclusion
	Poland has been the unlucky recipient of economic and political freedom in terms of timing. The Western world is in a debt crisis and can no longer help as much as they once would. As well, the end of the Cold War has meant that Poland is no longer as important as it might have been as a lever for the democratic countries of the West. It's pursuit of democracy does not have the same impact as it would have had under Cold War circumstances.
	From an economic point of view Poland, and every other East European country in this situation, is faced with a lumbering giant of an economy littered with inefficiency, waste, bad management and technology decades behind the countries they are now in competition with. This means that Poland will need to effect a complete reconstruction of it's economy in order to be able to, in the future, compete on an even level. 
	Poland has the ability to emerge from this economic recession and emerge as an solid economic power capable of providing good living standards for her people.

Bibliography
-Blanchard, O. and Layard, R. "Economic Change in Poland" Discussion paper No 3,  	London School of Economics, 1990.
-Chilosi, A., "Poland's Program of Economic Transformation", Paper presented at  	NATO-Colloquium, Brussels, 1990.
-Dziewanowski, M.K. "A History of Soviet Russia", Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1989.
-Gomulka, S. And Rostowski, J., "An International Comparison of Material 	 	Intensity", Journal of Comparitive Economics, No4:475-501 Dec 1988.	
-Kremer, M and Weber M. Eds. "Transforming Economic Systems: The Case of 	Poland"  	Physica-Verlag Heidelberg , 1992.
-Macesich, G. and Dimitrijevic, D. "Monetary Reform in former Socialist Economies", Praeger,  	London 1994.
-Mihalyi, P and Smolik, J.E. ,"Leading is not enough: an Assessment for Western Support for  	Reforms...." Paper presented at 1st conferance of EACES, Verona, 1990.
-Nuti, D.M.	 
1)"Internal and International Aspects......in Poland", Paper presented at 5th Congress 	of EEA, Lisboa, 1990.
2)"Privatization of Socialist Economies", Paper presented at 1st Conference of  	EACES, Verona 1990.
-Poznanski, K. Ed "Stabilization and Privatization in Poland", Kluwer Academic 	Publishers,  	Boston , 1993.
-Sachs, J. "Poland's Jump to the Market Economy", MIT press, Massachusetts,1993.
-Shen, R. "The Polish Economy" Praeger, New York, 1992.
-Slay , B. "The Polish Economy" Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1994.
-Summers, R. and Heston, A. "A New Set of International Comparisons...", Review of  	Income and Wealth 34, No1:1-25.
-Zabkowicz, A. "Stabilization, Adjustment and Economic Activity - the Polish and Hungarian  	Experience" Discussion Paper 328, Institute of Developement studies 1993.






 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\A Victory For Clinton.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 

 


A Victory For Clinton

	Another four years, another new president?  The election of 1996 for president
moves closer everyday as the republican Robert Dole, and the president Bill Clinton fight it
out.  Far behind and by all means out of the race is Ross Perot.  The polls show
Dole-Kemp behind Clinton-Gore, and the results will stay this way for several key reasons. 
Clinton will serve another four years as president since Americans know what to expect
from him as president.  On several key issues, such as the budget, Dole has provided the
voters with vague ideas on how he will tackle his promises.  As three key issues are
examined we find Dole to make claims that can easily be doubted.  Clinton's claims and
views are backed up with four years of experience.  Clinton's four years as president has
seen a stable economy, and he will try to keep this up for another four years.  The
balancing of the budget proves to stand as one of the largest issues going into the election.
	Dole has talked about putting up 23% of federal spending up for cuts.  Dole has
also said he will not touch the areas of social security, defense, interest on the debt,
Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, military pensions, and the Energy Department
research labs with cuts.  This means under Dole we would be likely to see cuts in national
parks with the number of rangers, the Border Patrol with fewer agents, the Bureau of
Prisons with fewer prison spaces, NASA with fewer space shuttle flights, the FBI with
fewer agents, drug interdiction with 2,960 fewer DEA agents, and education with fewer
students in Head Start.  On the record Dole has suggested cuts in the Energy Department,
and the possibility of also eliminating the Commerce Department.  These cuts alone would
not achieve the goal of eliminating the budget deficit by 2002 which shows why Dole's
ideas are too vague.  In the reality for a balanced budget Transportation and the FBI could
face cuts of up to 40%.  Clinton, on the other hand, focuses his cuts on other areas in
order to meet the seven years standard on balancing the budget.  Clinton would plan to
make the majority of his cuts on Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare.  Clinton has already
started dipping into these areas by passing the welfare reform act.  The president's ideas
are more focused on these specifics of balancing the budget which is why he will most
likely be re-elected.  Another decisive area in the 1996 elections exists in the area of taxes.
	Taxes, always a big issue to voters, will be another key to winning the 1996
presidential election.  Dole has said that he will focus his policies on a platform of sweeping
tax cuts.  Dole talks of a 15% across the board tax rate cut, and an end to the Internal
Revenue Service as it is know today.  Dole claims that tax cuts are the key to faster growth. 
Dole also believes that he can cut taxes significantly and still execute his balanced budget
plan.  Clinton plan proves to be more acceptable.  In the 1980's tax cuts resulted in
massive deficits.  The growth argument Dole makes would most likely be proven false as
the tax cuts in correspondence with the budget deal would just balloon the deficit.  A
majority of Americans realize this from past experiences, and will tend to lean toward the
President whose focuses are more targeted.  Clinton's plans call for a targeted capital gains
tax cut for the middle-income families who sell their homes, a $1,500 a year tuition tax
credit for the first two years of college, expanded tax free Individual Retirement Accounts,
and a credit to businesses that hire people off welfare.  Voters will chose Clinton again for
his less drastic and more sensible tax cuts.  Along with the budget and tax cuts the issue of
abortion completes the three most decisive factors in a win for President Clinton.
	Bill Clinton's views on abortion were made clear when he vetoed a measure to ban
partial birth or late-term abortions.  Clinton said he vetoed the measure because it did not
include exemptions for women who face serious health consequences if they carried the
fetus to term.  Clinton made his claim that this was a life saving measure for a small, but
vulnerable group of women and families in this country.  While Clinton's views are more
for the women carrying the baby themselves, Mr. Dole tends to belong more to the pro-life
side.  Dole's views are between the GOP's opposing factions.  He is not completely for the
rights of the unborn like Pat Buchanan, nor pro-choice like many other Republicans.  For
this reason Dole is likely to lose a number of votes from the female population.  As Clinton
made his views clear, he also supports government aid for the less advantaged to help the
women pay for this procedure.  Once again American's will side with Bill Clinton because
he has the experience, and is focused in the issues.
	Come next year Bill Clinton will serve another four years as presi 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\A Whisper of Change.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


A Whisper of Change



	At first glance of Nikolay Gogol's novel The Overcoat, one would only see a short
story about a poor man wishing to survive in a cruel world.  However, in looking further
into the story, deep symbolism can be found.  Gogol lived in Russia during the rise of the
communist party, and was a great dissident of communism.  He believed the inevitable end
of a communist government was total failure.  He also criticized the other government of
the world for failing to aid Russia in its quest for a better system.  Gogol used his creative
mind and his writing abilities to speak out against the evils of the Russian government.  He
used symbolism to prove his points, and often risked exile by his own government for
expressing such radical views.  Many different objects in The Overcoat can be mirrored
with the objects of true life.  Everything from Akaky Akakyevitch's coat, to his
administrator is used by Gogol to symbolize the situation of Russia during Gogol's time. 
In truth, the Russian government was against the free-thinking man, and so was against
Gogol.  
	Akaky himself is used as a symbol of the Russian people.  The communists were
against any sort of free-thinking, and respected any man who performed his duties without
question.  Akaky is described in the story as being a quiet, hard-working man.  He keeps
mostly to himself, having very little to do with the outside world.  His entire life centers
around his profession.  Akaky's life changes only after he buys his new overcoat.  The
overcoats in the story symbolize different governments.  Akaky's original "dressing
jacket," is the Russian government in power before communism took over.  The
government, like the overcoat, once served its purpose, but is now worn thin and needs a
replacement.  The original color of the coat cannot even be seen anymore.  Each time a
tear appears in the coat, it is patched and forgotten, but the coat eventually cannot be
patched any longer.  Akaky is extremely hesitant in buying a new coat, claiming it would
be too expensive.  This compares to the hesitation of the Russian population to switch to a
new government.  However, the coat no longer serves its intended purpose, and Akaky is
forced to either purchase a new coat or freeze in the cold.  Akaky's new coat symbolizes
the establishment of communism over the Russian people.  At first, the coat serves its
purpose, keeping Akaky warm.  Though it looks nice and expensive, the overcoat is
actually made of fairly cheap materials.  The overcoat gives Akaky a quick glance of
happiness, but is quickly stolen by robbers on the street.  Gogol uses the new overcoat to
make a statement about the communistic government.  In the beginning years of
communism, the people of Russia believed the system to be efficient and superior to all
others, yet the government eventually proved to be a failure, falling far short of the
people's expectations.   
	Akaky's fellow workers, the other clerks in the office, are symbolic of other
countries.  The clerks neglected Akaky and teased him about his old coat, but after he
purchased his new overcoat, the other clerks gained much respect for him, admiring his
new coat and inviting him to dinner.  Akaky was pleased with being treated as an equal. 
This is representative of the other countries' view of Russia.  During Russia's previous
government, the other countries of the world both pitied and laughed at the once great
nation.  However, after communist took control, Russia was viewed with more respect
among the countries.  Other nations now recognized Russia as an equal.
	The Person of Consequence is symbolic of a great democratic nation, possibly the
United States.  The Person of Consequence is portrayed as an egotistical person, afraid of
showing weakness to the "lower grades, " but always willing to smile and enjoy himself in
front of his equals.  Here Gogol shows his opinions of the democratic nations.  The
democratic nations treat each other with respect and admiration, but each looks upon the
communists with distrust and conceitedness.  The nations believe that no cowardice must
ever be shown to the communists.  Gogol believed that, once the chains of communism
had been broken by the Russian people, the democratic governments would be hesitant in
helping the struggling country.  In the story, Akaky seeks the help of the Person of
Consequence in retrieving his stolen overcoat.  However, the Person of Consequence
shows no respect for Akaky, yelling at him and ignoring his pleas.  Thus the predictions of
Gogol are portrayed through the actions of the Person of Consequence.  
	After Akaky's death, his ghost haunts citizens on the streets of Petersburg, robbing
them of their overcoats.  The hauntings continue until Akaky steals the overcoat of his
enemy, the Person of Consequence.  The ghost then disappears, with only rumors of
further sightings of the ghost.  Gogol uses Akaky's ghost to predict the future of Russia. 
Once communism falls, the people will begin a search for a new government.  The search
will end with Russia  evoloving into a democracy, though the democratic nations are the
enemies of communist Russia during Gogol's life.  The rumors of coninued sightings of the
ghost perhaps suggest Gogol's believe that some will not be satisfied under a democratic
rule. 
	Nikolay Gogol was able to escape exile from his country only by hiding his
opinions through the use of symbolism.  No one will ever know the true meanings put
forth in The Overcoat, yet Gogol's general opinions can be recognized.  In a country so
against the right of mankind to voice his opinions freely, Gogol was able to successfully
speak his mind by using his creativity and his talents.  Gogol's works paved the way for
many other Russian authors who, by using Gogol's actions as inspiration, now had the
courage necessary for fighting against the power of the majority.  It is men like Gogol who
shape the nations of the world.  His influence in Russian society could be compared to
many great authors who have influenced the people of the United States, such as John
Locke and Thomas Jefferson.  Without writers such as these, the opinions of the
oppressed could never be made audible, and the desires for a greater future could never
become a reality. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\AAFI.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
AUSTRALIANS AGAINST

FURTHER IMMIGRATION

OUR VIEW

		Environment		Humanitarianism
		Economics			Health
		Defences			Education
					Culture



IMMIGRATION IS NOT A SINGLE ISSUE!











Australia's immigration policy is disastrous, proceeding as if there is no balance of payment problem, no foreign debt and no geographical or environmental constraints to population growth.  Continued immigration will finally and irreversibly alter the natural and urban environment, economic viability and attitudes and culture of our nation.

The people have been consulted on, or given their consent to, the interwoven policies of immigration and multiculturalism.  It is now time for Australians to demand their democratic rights, reclaim their sovereignty and demand a say in the future of their nation.





Australians Against Further Immigration want immigration drastically reduced to zero net.  That is, out immigration numbers should merely replace those permanently leaving Australia each year - historically running between 20,000 and 30,000.  At this policy of institutionalised, publicly funded multiculturalism should be scrapped.

We are a non-racist organisation and attempts to convert the debate to one of race and emotion is a deliberate ploy to silence critics and avoid the real issues.  We believe in freedom of speech.  The philosopher Spinoza said,  "In a free state every man can think what he wants and say what he thinks".  This should apply here to debates on immigration.

We care about Australia and want to pass our heritage to our children and their children.  We want to preserve our Australian identity.  We stress that migrants already in Australia are welcome, what we are against is further immigration and the effect this in now having on social harmony.

Our opposition is the pro-immigration lobby comprised of big business including the media, the ethnic lobby, churches, misguided humanitarians and both sides of politics.  It is our own successive governments inflicting these policies on us and they, not the individual migrant, should bear the blame.

We are concerned about the effect of immigration and multiculturalism on this country where as the pro-immigration lobby is only concerned for the migrant or their own interests.

ENVIRONMENT
Australia, the world's oldest and driest continent, with severe soil degradation and climatic uncertainty - a land of, "droughts and flooding rains"' already faces declining agricultural productivity.  Only 10% of our huge land mass is arable and this land produces less grain than two small states in the USA.  The reality is that we always will be a small food producer by international standards.  Australia has a responsibility to protect its bio-diversity and not allow its flora and fauna to be pushed form their habits to extinction because of population or economic pressures.  In comparison, the pro-immigration lobby feel that we have no moral right to this land unless we push development to the limit.  Our population must be stabilised as elsewhere in the world.

The use of water for irrigation, urban demand and sewage disposal, is already straining supply to the limits.  Our main cities have grown beyond their optimum size.  Pollution, traffic, urban sprawl, failing community service, crime and lower quality of life are occurring.  Crowed, sprawling, smog covered cities, with all of the dysfunctional problems of Los Angles, are the inevitable consequences of further mass immigration.  Yet the government plans to double the size of our major cities over the next 30 years by immigration.  Is this what Australians, new and old, or of and ethnic group wants?

The Premier of NSW, Bob Carr was right when he said, "the nation can't handle more people....Sydney is bursting at the seams....the debate ought to be about carrying capacity of the continent - a continent that has lousy soils, fragile vegetation and depleted and degraded river systems".
ECONOMICS
To cope with our massive immigration problem which has produced the fastest population growth in the OECD, we are spending $15 billion per annum.  Each year
Australia must build the equivalent of a city the size of Geelong, with all its infrastructure and social services just to cope with one years immigration intake.  Every migrant in Australia, must be provided with accommodation, food, transport, a job, schools, pensions, hospitals, water, electricity, roads, sewerage, universities and all the basic necessities of life.  This has been a major factor in bankrupting Australia and has given us a foreign debt currently standing at $170 billion with a current account deficit  of about $2 billion per month, half of which is due to immigration.  It is no surprise that we have the highest per capita foreign debit in the world.

Paul Keating was right, when he said in his maiden speech to parliament in 1970, "It is time we considered the enormous cost of bringing migrants to this country".

Even the pro-immigration, Bureau of Immigration and Population Research, could not find any economic benefits from our immigration program - and their conclusion came from a study which was biased by omitting the enormous infrastructure costs mentioned above.

Too few people recognise or question the corrosive influence internationalisation of our economy has had on our society and the part that immigration is playing in that process - the breakdown of unionism and consequent deterioration of awards/working conditions, the predatory nature of foreign investment/ownership, the destruction of manufacturing/dropping of tariffs and consequent unemployment/increased imports with associated increased foreign debt, the privatisation of publicly own schemes and dual citizenship.  All of these contribute to our diminishing capacity to shape our national destiny as we are re-colonised by deregulated global capacity.  Bipartisanship ensures these policies will further foreign take over towards a point of no return.  If we can not stop immigration we will never stop the rest.

UNEMPLOYMENT
A country in debt must decrease all spending.  This means less jobs and higher unemployment.  We now have 1 million unemployed and to add 100,000 migrants each year is insanity.  These people can only take jobs from the existing pool or join the dole queue.  40% of all migrants over the last 5 years have joined the long term unemployment queues!  A similar percentage of our own youth are also unable to get a job.

To create a new job in Australia requires a capital outlay of $150,000 per job.  With a foreign debt of $170 billion we are in no position to create these new jobs.  We have spent our scarce funds on immigration induced growth, rather than on plant, equipment, training and jobs in export and import replacing industries.

It is morally indefensible to import skilled labour into Australia whilst not training our own youth and our skilled labour remains unemployed.  Yet both Liberal and Labour regard importing skilled migrants as the way to increase the labour market!

DEFENCE
The 1987 government policy paper on the defence of Australia stated, "no population increase is necessary for defence".  Today's defence needs require a strong economy and sophisticated, expensive military infrastructure.  We need a professional well trained mobile technically advanced force with access to sophisticated weapon systems.  A cohesive and united society, not a divided multicultural society, is what is needed for our defence.

HUMANITARIANISM	
In a world with 95 million extra people per annum and with 35 million refugees, our immigration program can only help 1/10th of 1% of these people and then only at the 
expensive of our quality of life and environment.  Foreign aid, not immigration is the logical way for humanitarian relief.

Only genuine refugees in fear for their lives, should be granted temporary entry into Australia and then returned to their country of origin when the danger is passed.  Economic illegal migrants, whether arriving in leaky boats or through our airports and falsely claiming refugee status, should be immediately deported.

 HEALTH
Our hospital waiting lists are evidence of the fact we are already not coping.  Many new diseases are mow being introduced into Australia.  TB and Hepatitis B from Asia will become a greater and greater problem.  We are already seeing 1,000 deaths per annum from Hepatitis B and rates of TB contact in inner Sydney schools of 25%.  The government admits it does not have the resources to immunise those as risk of Hepatitis B or to provide the necessary TB screening procedures.

EDUCATION
Is the choice school or the dole?  There is a shortage of real education producing real skills for real jobs.  The preferential admission of children of migrants to universities under the unfair LOTE (Language Other Than English) bonus ensures Australian children will be disadvantaged and the government will create an educated ethnic elite to take over positions of power and control in Australia.

MEDIA
Media communication on immigration and multiculturalism is severely censored, the media presenting what they want you to know and think.  Be your own judge and do not rely on the flawed views of journalists whose job opportunities rely on editors and media owners who are part of the pro-immigration lobby.

CULTURE
We understand the desire for migrants to maintain there culture in Australia for Australians have exactly the same desire to maintain our culture, history and traditions, and we see no reason why migrant cultures should be maintained when it is at the expensive of ours.  The Australian culture is unique and we shall fight to defend it.  Our culture emphasises a balanced life, free of excessive striving and materialism and has created an attractive society.  As in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, Australia has incorporated the best features of British culture - the balance of law, freedom and order, separation of public services and politics, conflict solving by debate and not by force, violence and insurrection, tolerance of minorities, economic opportunity, fortitude in war without militarism and provision of social services.  We have our distinctive art, music, theatre, literature, sport and film with achievements in science, medicine, social welfare and a unique quality of life.

Our culture developed from our history, our common memories, stories and traditions.  Australia led the way with the secret ballot, the 8 hour day votes for women, invalid, widow and old age pensions, strong trade unions the arbitration system and the basic wage.  Our culture embodies the values of egalitarianism and mateship.  It rejects excessive authority and believes in a fair go, admiration for the battler and a belief in the individual.

Currently we are seeing our culture replaced by a new culture for Australia, called multiculturalism - a philosophy that has failed wherever in the world it has been tried such as in Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Bosnia, Chechnya, Rwanda, Tibet, Isreal, Briton, Timor ect.  Multiculturalism always produces conflict between group rights and individual rights.  The small 'l' liberal establishment, who so strongly support multicultururalism, seem blind to the fact that their philosophy of individual rights will disappear under the pressure of group, ethnic and racial rights in a multicultural society.

Now we are being told that Australia is a part of Asia and that we must adopt Asian cultural values.  Values that are often totally alien to our civilisation values and background.

COUNTRY AUSTRALIA
Country Australia is paying a high price for immigration.  At the same time as the government cries, "poor", and removes country services such as hospitals, post offices, schools, police and railways ect., they bring into Australia 120,000 migrants per year and provides them with all the services in the cities.  You lose your post office and railways and migrants get jobs in post offices and on railways!  Immigration costs Australia $15 billion annually.  Just imagine the services which could be provided if this $15 billion were spent in rural areas.

Electorally, one year's migrant intake is now more important to our politicians than rural Australia which has provided most of Australia's export income for 200 years.  Most countries look after their export earners, but our government ignores, denigrates and exploits ours!

ASIANISATION
The government's justification for continuing mass immigration into Australia can be summarised in one word - Asianisation.  Our politicians plan an Asian future for Australia.  As Immigration Minister, Senator Bolkus, said on the 6/12/94, "we cannot cut and should not cut immigration because of our integration with Asia".  Do we need to change the ethnic/racial make up of Australia for trade?  Trade comes and goes, but the soul of our nation should not be traded for money, international approval or to fulfil a bizarre social experiment.

70% of our program is from Asian countries and ANU demographer, Charles Price, concluded that Australia will be 27% Asian within 25 years and of course it does not stop there.  In a democracy, how dare our government force such changes on the Australian people without their consent, but also against their often polled opinion.

IN SUMMARY:-
We have a clear choice of accepting increasing immigration with the consequent exploitation of this land and a falling standard of living and quality of life, living in crowded, polluted, high density cities, with over-taxed recreational areas and intercommunal tensions and feeling like strangers in our own country.  The economic consequences of an increasing foreign debt, foreign ownership and undesirable, unsustainable economic expansion, will destroy any chance of maintaining the best features of Australian life as we know it.  And, as migrant numbers increase, there will be an escalating push for higher migrant intake which eventually will be unstoppable.

OR

Stoping mass immigration and attempting to live in harmony with our fragile environment, creating an economically and environmental sound, self reliant and self sustaining community, maintaining our quality of life and handing to the next generation a country to be cherished, and free from problems of over population.



 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\abe lincoln and jeff davis.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Sunny Herren

American History

Mrs.Lynn

5 February 1997

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis

	In this report I compare two great historical figures:  Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, steered the Union to victory in the American Civil War and abolished slavery, and the first and only president of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis.  Abraham Lincoln was the President of the Union, and Jefferson Davis struggled to lead the Confederacy to independence in the U.S. Civil War.  Lincoln was treasured by the African Americans and was considered an earthly incarnation of the Savior of mankind (DeGregorio 20-25).  On the other hand, Davis was both admired and hated.  Lincoln had a different view of how the U.S. should be in abolishing slavery.  Davis was a politician, president of the Confederate States of America, and also a successful planter.  He had beliefs for the South to continue in the old ways with slavery and plantations.  Both Lincoln and Davis had strong feelings for the protection of their land (Arnold 55-57).
	Both Abraham and Jefferson Davis shared several differences and similarities.  Lincoln was known to have an easy going and joking type attitude.  In contrast, Davis had a temper such that when challenged, he simply could not back down (DeGregorio 89).  Davis had been a fire-eater before Abraham Lincoln's election, but the prospect of Civil War made him gloomy and depressed.  Fifty-three years old in 1861, he suffered from a variety of ailments such as fever, neuralgia, and inflamed eye, poor digestion, insomnia, and stress.  Lincoln also suffered from illnesses during the war.  He had severe cases of headaches and stress.  
	Both presidents had a lot of pressure of them due to the fact of defending their region.  Lincoln had difficulties growing up because of the deaths early in his childhood, poverty, and little education.  Davis; however, studied at a Roman Catholic school in Kentucky and at Transylvania University, and entered West Point in 1824.  Davis seemed to have had an outreaching environment to his success.  The major difference, personality wise, was Davis's weakness in his inability to get along with other people where Lincoln was a well liked and easygoing man.
	Both men shared a common bond in their education towards war.  Davis served at frontier military posts and in the Black Hawk War before resigning in 1835.  Lincoln gained the respect of his fellow townspeople and was elected captain of his company in the Black Hawk War.  Lincoln started his political career running unsuccessfully for the Illinois legislature in 1832.  Tow years later he was elected to the lower house for the first of four successive terms as a Whig.  Davis moved to Mississippi where he managed a plantation and studied.  In 1845, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat.  He soon had to leave due to the Mexican War.  Wanting to be made the commander of the Southern army, he was instead elected president of the Confederacy on February 8, 1861.  In 1860 Republicans nominated Lincoln for the presidency on a platform of slavery restriction, internal improvements, homesteads, and tariff reform.  He took oath of office on March 4, 1861.  The Civil War started after Lincoln took oath, and the battle at Fort Sumpter occurred.  The upper South had not yet seceded and when Lincoln took action to defend Ft. Sumpter, the Confederates opened fire starting the Civil War.  The South, lead by Davis, suffered due to his poor health, which didn't make him an ideal chief executive.  Davis became increasingly unpopular as the war continued.  Both President Davis and President Lincoln still had to deal with Congress- in Davis's case with a weak one, in Lincoln's case with a much stronger one (Eaton 160-163).  
	During the last year of the war, Jefferson Davis's speeches were in fact inspiring that spring of 1865.  Davis was in poor health under the strain of war, he changed noticeably.  He developed a closed sphinx like personality.  The finally of the war happened at Appomattox.  Lee, Davis's army commander, surrendered to Grant's army under Lincoln.  When Jefferson Davis heard about Lee's surrendered he wept, but refused to admit defeat.  The combined Union and Confederate casualties amounted to 33 to 40 percent of the forces involved.  The northerners had lost 359,000 dead, the Southerners, 258,000 (Canfield 85-87).
At the second inaugural, Lincoln summed up his attitude in the famous phrase "with malice toward none, with charity for all."  Lincoln publically announced his support for black suffrage.  This act sparked, the evil, John Wilkes Booth to take action on which he had been plotting for an attack against the president.  John Wilkes Booth was a prominent Shakespearean actor with militant Confederate sympathies.  He believed that most Americans hated Lincoln so adamantly that they would hail his assassin as a national hero.  He was aroused by the prospect of votes for blacks, and he was determined to carry out his assassination scheme.  Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre in Washington D.C. on April 14, 1865.  The president died the next day (Sandburg 522).
	Davis was a suspect in the murder of Lincoln.  The Northerners, not knowing of any details of the assassination, made him a suspect.  Davis was captured and became very unpopular in the Confederacy; he was called a despot.  But his cruel treatment as a prisoner by the U.S. Government made him a martyr after a time and restored him to immerse popularity in the South (Eaton 490).
	These men gave many positive historical contributions.  Lincoln was elected with the bipartisan support and was reelected as a Whig to three successive terms, Lincoln supported a system of improved transportation for the state and creation of a state bank.  Whig Congressman Lincoln served on the post Roads Committee and the War Department Expenditures Committee.  Lincoln had intense opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories which prompted him to abandon the Whig party and join the new Republican Party in 1856.  Lincoln issue toward slavery grew stronger.  Lincoln once quoted "There is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence- the right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Lincoln was elected as president and continued there to contribute to the U.S.  Soon the President would have his hands full with the Civil War.  Eleven states seceded from the Union in 1861 to form the Confederate States of America.  In September 1862 President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Lincoln is praised for his excellence in leading the troops to fight for the independence of slaves.  The Civil War marked the end of slavery forever.  Lincoln ranked first of 31 presidents:  best of the 5 "great" presidents, he ranked above George Washington(DeGregorio 232-240).
	No man in American history had to face heavier odds and greater discouragement's than Jefferson Davis.  He had been called the man who symbolized the solemn convictions and tragic fortunes of millions of men.  The people of the South didn't agree with everything Davis believed, which made him unpopular, but he won their respect and affection after the war through his suffering in prison and through his lifelong defense of the Southern cause (Canfield 129-131).  In my opinion both Lincoln and Davis had an extreme impact on American history.  Lincoln had the largest problem in ending slavery.  He, in my opinion, had the greatest impact on America.  In that harsh period of time, being in favor for the black equality race was dangerous yet courageous.  Lincoln had have been one of the stronger presidents with all the difficulties he ran into.  The decisions were very critical and were thought out with extreme care.  By Lincoln serving as president, we prospered in many ways.  His actions brought about great challenges that he, and the following fathers of our country would go through.  The combining of both races and more freedoms would stir troubles for many years to come.  Although his actions stopped slavery, it didn't stop the harsh treatment of the black race which carried out for decades.  Lincoln's Presidency was dominated by the war.  The country was going through major changes socially and economically.  Though Davis led the South through dramatic changes, no change has ever had more importance than the abolishment of slavery.  Both the North and the South gained knowledge from this horrid experience of war.  Lincoln's achievements-saving the Union and freeing the slaves-and his martyrdom just at the war's end assured his continuing fame.  Both men have made their historical marks due to their great deeds, and ways they both sacrificed their devotion to shape our country.  I agree with most historians that Lincoln had qualities that made him a great American statesman.  His keen intellect, humor and boldness, and compassion all contributed to his presidency in unifying the nation and extending freedom.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Abortion 2.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Hong Chen							Composition I
								 Theme1
			Abortion 
Abortion is a growing issue in America among women and their right to reproduce children. Approximately one to three million abortions are done each year. Women get abortions for many reasons such as for rape, teen pregnancy and health reasons.
	Rape is one of many reasons that cause women to choose abortion to end their pregnancies. What to do about their pregnancy is mandatory, although many or them felt they were ending a life. They are wise enough to know how they would treat their illegitimate child. They hate their rapist, and worry that if they kept their babies, they would hate their children for reminding them of such a painful time. 
	Young women between 15 and 19 account for at least 5 million abortions every year -- 1 million of them in the United States. In fact, one of every five pregnancies happens to a teen-age girl. In situations like this, some people are sure that they could take care of the child, while others know that they aren't ready or mature enough to take so much responsibility. In many cases the child would have no one to rely on but a single mother with no schooling, and maybe a non-supportive family. He or she would have a twisted, miserable upbringing, left vulnerable later in life.	
	Another reason that causes women choice abortion is health problem. There is a range of problems, including the child being born with Down's Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, or a disposition to obesity, which can later in life cause clogged arteries and heart failure. In another case, people must often make choice between saving the mother, already a functioning member of society, or letting her die to try and save the baby.
	In conclusion, for any pregnant woman, making a decision to abort her child is painful and ruthless, but under certain situation such as rape, young age and health reasons, a woman would choose to terminate her pregnant by abortion. 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Abortion.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
			  Abortion

Life or Death ��� Who Chooses?

	In Roman times, abortion and the destruction of unwanted children was permissible, but as out civilization has aged, it seems that such acts were no longer acceptable by rational human beings, so that in 1948, Canada along with most other nations in the world signed a declaration of the United Nations promising every human being the right to life. The World Medical Association meeting in Geneve at the same time, stated that the utmost respect for human life was to be from the moment of conception. This declaration was re-affirmed when the World Medical Association met in Oslo in 1970. Should we go backwards in our concern for the life of an individual human being?
	The unborn human is still a human life and not all the wishful thinking of those advocating repeal of abortion laws, can alter this. Those of us who would seek to protect the human who is still to small to cry aloud for it's own protection, have been accused of having a 19th Century approach to life in the last third of the 20th Century. But who in reality is using arguments of a bygone Century? It is an incontrovertible fact of biological science - Make no Mistake - that from the moment of conception, a new human life has been created. 
	Only those who allow their emotional passion to overide their knowledge, can deny it: only those who are irrational or ignorant of science, doubt that when a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum a new human being is created. A new human being who carries genes in its cells that make that human being uniquely different from any and other human being and yet, undeniably a member, as we all are, of the great human family. All the fetus needs to grow into a babe, a child, an old man, is time, nutrition and a suitable environment. It is determined at that very moment of conception whether the baby will be a boy or a girl; which of his parents he will look like; what blood type he will have. His whole heritage is forever fixed. Look at a human being 8 weeks after conception and you, yes every person here who can tell the difference between a man and a women, will be able to look at the fetus and tell me whether it is a baby boy or a girl.
	No, a fetus is not just another part of a women's body like an appendix or appendage. These appendages, these perfectly formed tiny feel belong to a 10 week developed baby, not to his or her mother.
	The fetus is distinct and different and has it's own heart beat. Do you know that the fetus' heart started beating just 18 days after a new life was created, beating before the mother even knew she was pregnant? By 3 months of pregnancy the developing baby is just small enough to be help in the palm of a man's hand but look closely at this 3 month old fetus. All his organs are formed and all his systems working. He swims, he grasps a pointer, he moves freely, he excretes urine. If you inject a sweet solution into the water around him, he will swallaw because he likes the taste. Inject a bitter solution and he will quit swallowing because he does not like the taste. By 16 weeks it is obvious to all, except those who have eyes but deliberately do not see, that this is a young human being.
	Who chooses life or death for this little one because abortion is the taking of a human life? This fact is undeniable; however much of the members of the Women's Liberation Movement, the new Feminists, Dr. Henry Morgentaler or the Canadian Medical Association President feel about it, does not alter the fact of the matter. An incontrovertible fact that cannot change as feelings change.
	If abortion is undeniably the taking of human life and yet sincere misguided people feel that it should be just a personal matter between a women and the doctor, there seems to be 2 choices open to them. (1) That they would believe that other acts of destruction of human beings such as infanticide and homicide should be of no concern of society and therefore, eliminate them from the criminal code. This I cannot believe is the thinking of the majority, although the tendency for doctors to respect the selfish desire of parents and not treat the newborn defective with a necessary lifesaving measure, is becoming increasingly more common. (2) But for the most part the only conclusion available to us is that those pressing for repeal of the abortion laws believe that there are different sorts of human beings and that by some arbitrary standard, they can place different values on the lives of there human beings. Of course, different human beings have different values to each of us as individuals: my mother means more to me than she does to you. But the right to life of all human beings is undeniable. I do not think this is negotiable. It is easy to be concerned with the welfare of those we know and love, while regarding everybody else as less important and somehow, less real. Most people would rather have heard of the death of thousands in the Honduras flooding disaster than of a serious accident involving a close friends or favourite relatives. That is why some are less disturbed by the slaughter of thousands of unborn children than by the personal problems of a pregnant women across the street. To rationalize this double standard, they pretend to themselves that the unborn child is a less valuable human life because it has no active social relationships and can therefore, be disposed of by others who have an arbitrary standard of their own for the value of a human life.
	I agree that the fetus has not developed it's full potential as a human being: but neither have any of us. Nor will any of us have reached that point: that point of perfect humaness, when we die. Because some of us may be less far along the path than others, does not give them the right to kill us. But those in favour of abortion, assume that they have that right, the standard being arbitrary. To say that a 10 week fetus has less value that a baby, means also that one must consider a baby of less value than a child, a young adult of less value than an old man. Surely one cannot believe this and still be civilized and human. A society that does not protect its individual members is on the lowest scale of civilized society. One of the measures of a more highly civilized society, is its attitude towards its weaker members. If the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the helpless are not protected, the society is not as advanced as in a society where they are protected. The more mature the society is, the more there is respect for the dignity and rights of all human beings. The function of the laws of the society, is to protect and provide for all members so that no individual or group of individuals can be victimized by another individual group. Every member of Canadian society has a vital stake in what value system is adopted towards its weak, aged, cripple, it's helpless intra-uterine members; a vital stake in who chooses life or death.
	As some of you may know, in 1969, the abortion laws were changed in Canada, so that it became legal for a doctor to perform an abortion if a committee of 3 other doctors in an eccredited hospital deemed that continuation of the pregnancy constituted a severe threat to the life and health, mental or physical of the women. Threat to health was not defined and so it is variously interpreted to mean very real medical disease to anything that interferes with even social or economic well being, so that any unwanted or unplanned pregnancy thus qualifies. What really is the truth about the lasting effect of an unwanted pregnancy on the psyche of a womem? Of course there is a difference of opinion among psychiatrists, but if unbiased, prospective studies are examined certain facts become obvious. (1) The health of women who are mentally ill before they become pregnant, is not improved by an abortion. In fact in 1970 an official statement of the World Health Organization said, "Serious mental disorders arise more often in women previous mental problems. Thus the very women for whom legal abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds, are the ones who have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders. (2) Most women who are mentally healthy before unwanted pregnancy, despite a temporary emotional upset during the early weeks for the pregnancy, are mentally healthy after the pregnancy whether they were aborted or carried through to term.
	Do we accept killing a human being because of a temporary, emotional upset? All obstetricians and gynaecologists know of many cases where the mother, be her single or married, has spoken of abortion early in the pregnancy and later on, has confessed her gratitude to those who have not performed the abortion. On the other hand, we have all seen women what have been troubled, consumed with guilt and development significant psychiatric problems following and because of abortion. I quote Ft. John L. Grady, Medical Examiner for Florida State Attorney's Office, "I believe it can be stated with certainty that abortion causes more deep-seated guilt, depression and mental illness than it ever cures".
	We used to hear a lot about the risk of suicide among those who threatened such action if their request for abortion was refused. How real is that risk - it is not - in fact, the suicide rate among pregnant women be they happy of unhappy about the pregnancy, is 1/4 of the rate among non-pregnant women in child-bearing years. An accurate 10 year study was done in England on unwed mothers who requested abortions and were refused. It was found that the suicide rate of this group was less than that average population. In Minnesota in a 15 year period, there were only 14 maternal suicides. 11 occurred after delivery. None were illegitimately pregnant. All were psychotic. In contrast, among the first 8 deaths of women aborted under the liberal law in the United Kingdon, 2 were from suicide directly following the abortion.
	Are there any medical indications for abortion?? Is it valid for a doctor to co-operate in the choice for abortion? The late Dr. Guttmacher, one of the world leaders of the pro-abortion movement, has stated: "Almost any women can be brought through pregnancy alive unless she suffers from cancer or leukemia, in which case abortion is unlikely to prolong her life much less save it."
	As an opponent to abortion, I will readily agree, as will all those who are against abortion, that pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is a tragedy. Rape is a detestable crime, but no sane reasoning can place the slightest blame on the unborn child it might produce. Incest is, if that is possible, even worse, but for centuries, traditional Jewish law has clearly stated, that if a father sins against his daughter (incest) that does not justify a second crime - the abortion of the product of that sin. The act of rape or incest is the major emotional physical trauma to the young girl or women. Should we compound the psychic scar already inflicted on the mother by her having the guilt of destroying a living being which was at least half her own? Throughout history, pregnant women who for one crime or another were sentenced to death, were given a stay of execution until after the delivery of the child: it being the contention of courts that one could not punish the innocent child for the crime of the mother. Can we punish it for a crime against the mother?
	If rape occurred the victim should immediately report the incident. If this is done, early reporting of the crime will provide greater opportunity for apprehension and conviction of the rapist, for treatment of venereal disease and prevention of pregnancy. Let is give our children good sex education; and let us get tough on pornography, clean up the newstands, literature and "Adult Movies" and television programmes which encourage crime, abusive drugs and make mockery of morality and good behaviour and therefore, contribute to rape.
	By some peculiar trick of adult logic, proponents of abortion talk about fetal indications for act. Whatever abortion may do for the mother, it so very obviously cannot be therapeutic for the fetus. Death is hardly a constructive therapy. As Dr. Hellegers of John Hopkins Hospital says, "While it is easy to feel that abortion is being performed for the sake of the fetus, honesty requires us to recognize that we perform it for adults". There is no evidence to indicate that an infant with congenital or birth defect would rather not be born since he cannot be consulted. This evidence might exist if suicides were common among people with congenital handicaps. However, to the contrary, these seem to value life, since the incidence of suicide is less than that of the general population. Can we choose death for another while life is all we ourselves know? Methods are being developed to diagnose certain defects in the infants of mothers at risk before the infant is born. The fluid around the fetus can be sampled and tested in a very complicated fashion. If we kill infants with confidential defects before they are born, why not after birth, why not any human being we declare defective? It is no surprise of course for many of us to learn that in hospitals across North American Continent such decisions affecting the newborn and the very elderly or those with incurable disease, are being made. What is a defect, what is a congenital defect? Hitler considered being 1/4 Jewish was a congenital defect incompatible with the right to life. Perhaps you have all heard this story :
	One doctor saying to another doctor, "About the termination of a pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic (venereal disease). The mother tuberculous (small lumps on skin). Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth also tuberculous. What would you have done?"
"I would have ended the pregnancy".  "Then you would have murdered Beethoven".
	Not content with the Abortion Act of 1969 which allows 40,000 unborn children to be killed legally in our country in 1973, many noisy and emotional people are campaigning for abortion on request. They are aided by a crusading, misguided press and media which continues to utter as fact, the fiction of fertile imaginative minds. We have been told by the media that the majority of Canadians wish to have abortion legalized but the latest census taken by the Toronto Star in March of 1989 reports that 35% of those polled thought that abortion was already easy to obtain, 26% thought it too hard, 19% about right and 21% had no opinion. Men more then women thought it too hard. Even if the majority did want it, this does not make it right. Centuries ago, most Americans thought slavery was right. The elected leaders of this country must have the wisdom and integrity for what is right, not for what might be politically opportune.
	One of the uttered justifications for abortion on demand is that every women should have the mastership of her own body, but should she? To quote Dr. Edwin Connow, "Should she have the right for what is really judicial execution of new life - not a cat, not a chicken but a human being - not only potential but actual". In a society one is not totally free to do what one will with one's own body (we don't have the right to get drunk or high on drugs and drive down Young Street.) The great concern has been shown for the innocent victims of highjacking but what is abortion but this? The highjacking without reprieve, of an innocent passenger out of his mother's womb. Should we really leave the right to hijack as a personal decision only?
	Those campaigning for further liberalization of the abortion law, hope to make abortion available and safe for all who wish it during a pregnancy. Qualifications have been placed on the abortion on demand routine by other groups, for example, a time limit for the duration of pregnancy or clause that the operation be performed in an accredited hospital. Before exploring the reality of so-called safe abortion, let me tell you a little method of procuring an abortion. Before 13 weeks of pregnancy, the neck of the womb is dilated - a comparatively easy procedure in someone who has already had a child - much more difficult if childbirth has not occurred. The products of conception in many hospitals are removed but a suction apparatus - considered safe and better that the curettal scraping method. After 13 weeks pregnancy, the fetus is too big to be removed in this was and either a dangerous method of injection a solution into the womb is carried out, this salting out method results in the mother going into what is really a miniature labour and after a period of time, expelling a very dead often skinned baby. In some hospitals because of the danger of this procedure to the mother, an operation like a miniature Caesarean section called a hysterotomy has to be performed. There area also many other methods.
	Let us now look if we can, at consequences of such license to kill an individual too small to cry for it's own protection.
	Abortion by suction curettage is not just as simple as a pelvic examination performed in a doctor's office as Dr. Morgentaler and the television programe W5 who were doing a great disservice to young women in Canada would have us believe. In Canada as reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (the Statistics from Statistics Canada), the complication rate and this being for immediate complications of early abortion is 4.5%. According to the Wyn report with statistics from 12 counties, women who have a previous induced abortion have their ability to bear children in the future permanently impaired. There is a 
5-10% increase in infertility. The chances of these women having a pregnancy in the tube increases up to 4 times. Premature delivery increases up to 50% and when one realizes that prematurity is the commonest cause for infants being mentally or physically defective, having cerebral palsy or other difficulties, then one realizes that those doctors doing abortions in great numbers south of the border or across the water, even in Canada may not be doing the women and her family a service. They will tell you that abortion has almost no complications. What most of them will not tell you, is that once the abortion is done they may refuse to see the women again and that she must take her post-abortal problems elsewhere.
	Those seeking repeal of the present abortion law will rapidly point out that nevertheless, it is safer to have a legal abortion than illegal abortions, safer for the women that is. This I don not dispute, but here is the real rub. Liberalized abortion laws do not eliminate illegal, back street abortions and in some cases, the overall number of illegal abortions actually rise, usually stays stagnant, and rarely falls. There are still people who would rather try it themselves or go somewhere they will be completely anonymous. Another factor enters the total number of people seeking abortion, legal or illegal rises. The overall pregnancy rate rockets and people become careless with contraception and a women can have 3 or 4 abortions during the time of one full term pregnancy.
	Are doctors really being kind to the girl to allow her to choose life or death for her unborn child? In aborting a 16 year old this year with so-called informed consent, we may be preventing her from having even 1 or 2 children 10 years later when happily married. No, repealing the abortion law does not make it possible for every women to safely eliminate, what is for her, an unwanted pregnancy.
	Would limiting abortions to accredited hospitals make it safer? Yes, safer for the women, not for the fetus and it would jeopardize the continued well being of all of the members of the community with the gross misuse of the medical manpower, hospital facilities and money. With almost 31,739 abortions performed in Ontario in 1989, the cost to OHIP is about 9 million dollars. Yet to do as has been done in the U.S.A and the United Kingdom - namely to make legal, abortions is to turn so-called 'backstreet butchers' into legal operators. 
	Patients now go into the office through the front door instead of the rear. I have heard it said that is abortions became available on request, many less children would be born and we could use the pleasant delivery suites and postnatal beds for abortions. As I have pointed out, however, before today, liberalization of abortion does not reduce the birth rate. There would be little increase in available facilities or indeed doctor's time. By the very nature of the operation and because the longer pregnancy lasts, the more difficult it is, patients for abortions are admitted as urgent cases or emergencies so that all other members of the community must wait longer for their hospital bed or the surgery they need.
	Who will pay for there abortions? With medicare, of course, it is you and I. I know one full tern pregnancy costs most than an abortion, but not much more. And it does not cost more than 3 abortions and that is what happens when the climate or choice for life or death of the unborn child changes. Let us use this money for constructive purposes, not destructive. It has been suggested that abortions on request would enable the poor to secure abortion as easily as the rich but regrettably, it has been shown that abortion-minded physicians in great demand will respond to the age-old commercial rules, as has already happened in the States and in Britain.
	Abortion on demand a women's right to choose not to continue an unplanned pregnancy would prevent there being unwanted children in this country, so we are told. This is the final and desperate emotional plea of people anxious, at whatever price, to escape the responsibility for their actions. Nobody here or in Canada, wants there to be unwanted children in this city, and in this country, and also in this world. There is nothing more pitiable or heat rending that an unwanted fetus becoming an unwanted babe or an unwanted babe becoming an unwanted child, or an unwanted child becoming an embittered adult. But few would think it right to kill or have killed an unwanted baby to prevent it from becoming an unwanted child. Then how can they think it right to kill an unwanted fetus, even more defenceless than a newborn babe just because it may grow into an unwanted child.
	Once a women has conceived, she already is a parent, be it willing or otherwise. The only way she ceases it be a parents is by a natural death or an act of killing. Killing in any form is not the solution to so-called unwanted human beings at any age. Hitler thought this was right. Canadians surely do not. It is a permissive and frightened society that does not develop the expertise to control population, civil disorder, crime, poverty, even its own sexuality but yet would mount an uncontrolled, repeat uncontrolled, destructive attack on the defenceless, very beginnings of life. Let us marshall all our resources financial, educational, those of social agencies, but above all, of human concern and passion for our fellow humans. Let us by all means, make available to all, knowledge of conception and methods of contraception. Let us offer ourselves as loving humans to those already in this country who are unwanted by their natural parents. And incidentally, I am sure I don not need acquaint you with some of the facts about so-called unwanted children. The Children's Aid Societies in Toronto and in fact in every major city across our country have many more potential parents anxious and willing to adopt infants and young children than they have such children available for adoption. Let us marshall our technology and humanity in the service of the unfortunate.
And in conclusion, I would like to read to you a letter which a member of Birthright received.



Dear Birthright:

	I heard about your work in Birthright and think you can help us. We're in our late 20's and have been married 7 years. After 3 years of waiting, we became the happy adoptive parents of a precious baby girl last fall.
	This is how you can help us. Please tell every unwed mother who places her baby for adoption how much we love her. We think each of those girls are the most generous, charitable, kind devoted and loving mothers on this earth.
We know she must have carried her child out of love or in this day and age should have found some way to have an abortion. We can never thank her enough for the 9 months of time and energy she spent for us.
	Maybe if she knows that we think she's the most loving person in this world we will never know, it will help us both.
	As Jenny grows older, we are telling her she has two sets of parents. We'll tell her how she came to be our child this way. Her first mommy didn't have a home or a daddy to help love and care for her. She loved her so much that she just couldn't let her daughter grow up without love of two parents and all the things that make a happy home. We'll tell Jenny that her 1st mommy thinks of her often and wonders how she is. She will always love her baby.
	Maybe our thoughts will someday reach Jenny's 1st mommy. What she did was an act of faith in mankind, hope for her daughter's future and love toward us. We think the strength of her love enabled her to place her precious baby with us. We have faith that as Jenny grows up learning she was placed out of love and not abandoned by her 1st mommy, both Jenny and she will be at peace.
  
                                          Thank you. 


 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Accountability to the Canadian People.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Accountability is the essence of our democratic form of government.  It is the liability assumed by all those who exercise authority to account for the manner in which they have fulfilled responsibilities entrusted to them, a liability ultimately to the Canadian people owed by Parliament, by the government and thus, every government department and agency.

	One of the fundamental principals of a democratic society is the government must be accountable to the people.  Such accountability in Canada is exercised through Parliament.  Every Minister is ultimately accountable for their portfolio to Parliament and therefore in turn responsible to the Canadian electorate.  The realization of this responsibility is undertaken upon the assumption of office.   Accountability within government is a measure that is used to control the abuse of power by those elected as  government representatives.  "The government must be able to control and protect its own membership to be able meaningfully to accept responsibility for its direction and impact as a government."  Without accountability we are left with a powerful political structure that has the ability to act without conscience or redress and this does not represent a modern democracy.  With any discussion which focuses on responsibility within parliament, one can see the varying  levels of accountability and the difficulties which arise when attempting to describe power, within the Canadian political system.  	 Accountability in the public service can be studied from two different perspectives.  The civil servant who represents the bureaucratic sector and the minister indicating the political sphere.  The issue of accountability raises several key questions and queries for social scientists. Is the power of the civil servant increasing while ministerial responsibility is decreasing?  What effects if any does this have on the bureaucratic system?  How does Parliament excise legislative control over the bureaucracy?  In essence, who is accountable to the Canadian people?

Ministerial Responsibility	
	
	Ministers in Canada are elected senior members of parliament who are appointed to a departmental portfolio by the Prime Minister.  These offices are the constitutional head of all public agencies, ranging from Department of National Defense to Department of Human Resources.  Each portfolio has a deputy minister and a team of senior civil servants who advise the minister on a variety of issues ranging from administrative procedures to policy implication.  Because a minister is usually not specialized in his portfolio he usually has to rely heavily on information acquired from his senior officials.  Therefore Ministerial responsibility is closely tied to bureaucrats.    
	It may prove beneficial, at this time, to outline general procedures for policy making and implementation. Cabinet is the form in which new governmental polices are developed.  These policies are then conveyed to individual departments through the ministers.  The implementation and feedback of these policies is then the responsibility of civil servants. 
	There are two main types of ministerial responsibility: Collective and individual.
	Collective responsibilities refers to the accountability of Government to Parliament.  The collective cabinet responsibility ensures the solidarity of Government.  "Ministers must be supportive of all cabinet policies while at the same time quell criticisms of individual departments."  With collective responsibility a minister must be supportive of all cabinet policies regardless of individual concerns especially in public.  The government can therefore present policies to Parliament with one collective voice. This solidarity enables government to defend individual minister in the House of Commons and protect its right to govern.  
	The government's collective responsibility is to have the confidence of Parliament at all times.  If at any time this confidence is questioned the governing party must be subjected to a vote in Parliament.  Failure to win the vote requires the government to either resign or dissolve Parliament.  Collective responsibility enables the government to rise, put forth policy and resign as one collective unit.    
     Three related rules form the doctrine of collective responsibility: that government should stand or fall as one "administration" (and not re-make itself out of the same assembly and try to win a vote of confidence); that the administration speaks formally to Parliament with one voice, and that ministers collectively resign or the government asks for dissolution if defeated in the Commons on matters of confidence.

	This is one measure in which Government can be held accountable to the people.  Difficulties will arise in trying to convince back benchers to essentially vote themselves into the unemployment line, however if the government fails to pass a 'substantial' bill nowadays that is consider a vote of non-confidence.  Opposition parties also use this accountability measure to heighten public awareness of questionable government practices or policies.   
	Individual ministerial responsibility can be divided into two sub-components.  First a minister must answer to Parliament for any wrong doings that is done by their department while at the same time defend the actions of their department.  These two elements combined ensure that Ministers are ultimately held accountable for their portfolios.  This is especially held true when matters that are done properly under his instructions or in accordance with governmental policy. 
	
	Usually what happens though, if a departmental mistake is brought to the attention of a Minister he usually denies any foreknowledge therefore asserting no personal blame.  Whenever an issue is brought up that has hard evidence concerning Ministerial knowledge, the minister would usually blame it upon his officials and answers to Parliament with the fact that the individual responsible will be disciplined.    This is not to say that there have been times in Canadian history where a Minister has made an serious error concerning his department and has been disciplined accordingly.  Politics usually takes take control over such issues.  Rather or not the issue is important to voters, the magnitude of it  and popularity of the Minister.  As S. L. Sutherland indicates "Resignations are not a perfect indicator of the quality of accountability mechanisms in responsible government..."  
	The problem arises are describe earlier, the convention of collective responsibility will usually take effect.  Therefore this mechanisms of accountability may very well only damage the credibility of a Minister.  If this is the case  it goes without saying though, at time of elections, the court of the public opinion will pass judgement.  "A minister can't possibly know everything which is done in the Department by every last civil Servant and therefore it would be folly to try and pretend that the Minister will beheld accountable and must resign when somewhere down the line at the end of a corridor the ten thousandth person committed something illegal or contrary to Government standards or norms." 
	One political convention is that when a public servant makes a serious mistake, he remains 'faceless' to the public eye.  This convention has it roots in the principal of political neutrality.  This is suppose to enable the civil servant to carry out the actions of their minister despite their own political views and public opinion on governmental policy. It is the Minister's duty to respond to Parliamentary request concerning the actions of his subordinates but they cannot name the official or officials who may have cause a mistake.  It goes without saying that since civil servants enjoy this privilege and career advancements are based upon merit, any political waves that they may of created will definitely have weight to some degree.  There are of course have been exceptions in history of where a Minister has decided to wave this right of anonymity .  Two notable cases include 1989 episode which involved the minister of transport, Benoit Bouchard and in 1982 where the deputy minister of finance resigned.
	In reality a minister cannot be held totally accountable for the actions of their departments. With the trend of downsizing the cabinet in recent governments, and cabinet shuffles the norm, there is no way that a minister can ever be specialized in accordance to the portfolio that they hold..  A minister cannot be expected to know the daily operations of his portfolio.  Therefore he must rely heavy on his senior staff.  Thus, policy implementation  especially from a minister recently appointed, is constituent on what he is told from the senior permeant staff.  Therefore Ministerial responsibly is closely tied to department senior officials. In fact in the history of Canada there only have been two ministers who have resigned over mal-administration of their portfolio.  Henry Stevens resigned for the Bennett Conservative government in 1934 because the Prime Minister publicly condemned Stevens' actions as chair of the Royal Commission of Price Spreads and Mass Buying; and John Fraser resigned from the Mulroney Conservative government in 1985 because he had intervened in the departmental inspection process.
	The second compound of Ministerial responsibility is that a minister must explain the actions of their department to Parliament.  This is done through question and answer period.  The minister is the "constitutional mouthpiece through which department actions will be defended or repudiated and form whom information is sought.  The minister is the sole representative to the House and the focus in the House for those seeking answers and redress." This accountability is the most important element to the Canadian public.  It allows the media, opposition parties and ultimately the voter to obtain information concerning current governmental policies.  It should be noted though that minister do not have to respond to question nor give reason for not responding.  Because Minister are constitutionally accountable for their departments this is the exception and not the norm.  This conventions allows backbenchers, and opposition parties to address concerns that their constituents may have that where not satisfactory answered through the normal bureaucratic channels.  
	As the opening quote indicates all elected officials must be held accountable if the government waste public funds, break the law or violate citizen's rights.  Voters want someone to be held accountable and if the ministers do not take public blame than it usually falls to the public servants.  However, political conventions that protect civil servants identity raises the question as to rather or not they excise power without a true accountability.  It comes down to three things that government can do to regulate bureaucratic influence.  "Debates, questions, and other procedures in the legislature; Reliance on certain 'watch dog' agencies that report directly or indirectly to the legislature; and the use of legislative committees."    
 


Deputy Minister Accountability  

	Departments are the public agencies that are central to the government and responsible for the daily operation of this body.  The departments are portfolios formally headed by individual ministers.  "Departments are thus distinguished from any other type of governmental body by the fact that each is legally under the direct control of a responsible minister." Due to time constraints and a heavy work load ministers have the support of deputies to shoulder some the managerial aspects of the portfolio.  "Ministers are members of a political party, constituency representatives, members of the Cabinet and its committees and members of Parliament."  Deputy ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister and are in charge of the administration of the policies handed down the minister of the particular departmental office.  The deputy's concerns,  in fact, should mirror those of his minister and must be held directly accountable to him.  In all cases they are responsible for exercising the minister's authority.
	What happens if a deputy minister is in conflict with the policies he must administer at the request of the minister?  Regardless of what policies a minister delegates to a deputy minister and whether his deputy supports the proposals or not, the minister is held personally accountable to Cabinet, government, Parliament and the Canadian electorate.  "Ministers therefore must be able to assure themselves that actions carried out under their authority are in accordance with the requirements of the responsible exercise of power." In the chain of command the minister is ultimately responsible for the actions of his support staff including his deputy minister.  The deputy minister is accountable, but, it is the office of the minister that undergoes the public scrutiny if a conflict ensues or a policy fails.

The Public Servants   
  
	Then the question becomes, who holds the real political power?  The answer is simple, the public servants.  These servants are responsible for the implementation of departmental policies and are held directly accountable to only a small number political members.  They are the ones who determine who will get what limited government resources and how governmental policy will be implemented which will have an effect on future governmental policy.  In order to make public servants accountable authority must be exercised over them by those higher in the chain of command.  The difficulty arises when it comes time to assign individual responsibility to public servants for administrative mishaps because of the fact that so many public servants are involved in the decision making process.  Public services have continued to grow in size as with this increased growth so to have their responsibilities grown in complexity.  Who are the public servants accountable to? 
	Public servants are directly accountable only to political and administrative superiors, the courts and to any internal governmental authorities (e.g. central agencies) to which accountability is required by law or the administrative hierarchy.  They are not directly accountable to the legislature, to pressure groups, the news media, or to the general public.  However, they are generally required to explain their decisions to these entities.
   
	Acts of Parliament is one method of control over public servants.  However the problems arises that senior officials have influence over the content of legislation. Formally, the Minister and Cabinet make a policy and Civil Servants are responsible for the implementation of that policy.  Although in effect it is the Civil Servants who have an enormous amount of influence over the development and implementation of policy, therefore it would be unthinkable to hold the ministers personally accountable in this sense.  This does not by no means implies that a Minister can not be held accountable at all.  


Legislative Control
	 Parliament uses five methods to excise control over the bureaucracy.  They are: 'watchdog' agencies; ombudsman (provincially); Public Service Commission of Canada; Auditor General and Parliamentary Committees.  This paper will look at the two most common in the public eye: The Office of the Auditor General and Ombudsman.  
	Watchdog agencies such as the Office of Auditor General assist legislators in the accountability of bureaucrats.  In particular the Auditor General keeps track of bureaucratic expenditures to ensure that monies are spend and properly recorded as allocated by Parliament.  In addition this person reports on the effectiveness of social programs, environmental and economic polices.  It should be noted that the Auditor General is the only person who is allowed to report directly to Parliament without having to go through a Minister.  The Auditor General must submit an annual report to Parliament on his findings.  Because of the political neutrality of this office, this report is usually welcomed by the media as a detailed assessment of governmental policies.  While at the same time it provides the opposition in Parliament much creditable evidence to governmental waste.
	Another watchdog agency would be that of the Ombudsman.  Although currently this office is only on the Provincial level.   The Ombudsman investigates any complaints about improper administrative treatment in the bureaucracy.  If a complaint is found to be valid then it is this persons responsibility to inform the bureaucracy of how to correct the situation.  It is important to not that an ombudsman does not posses authoritative power over civil servants but rather they  'influences' bureaucrats to make changes.

Conclusion

	This paper took a detailed look at accountability in the public sector and political conventions associated with this subject.  It has shown the limitations of both collective and individual ministerial responsibility; outlined bureaucratic power; and briefly touched upon legislative control.  
	A minister is formally held accountable to the actions of their portfolio.  But because of ministerial dependancy upon senior civil servants and political conventions that in essence protect the government, this accountability is not more than a moral responsibility.   The power of the civil servant is increasing becoming broader as Ministerial portfolios are combined with the modern trend of downsizing cabinet.  The influential power of the civil servant is increased as ministers are becoming unspecialized in their portfolios.   
	The only effective legislative accountability is done through the office of the auditor general.  With their annual reports, they give Parliament an insight as to the effectiveness of governmental policies.  Although Parliament has no effective way to sanction a Minister or department who's interpretation of governmental policy differs from their own.  This is not to say that government is beyond the means of total control.  History has proven, and will continue to prove, that in a democratic society such as Canada, that ultimately ministers and Parliament are held accountable in the public eye at the time of elections.  
BIBLIOGRAPHY


	Horn, Murray J. The Political Economy of Public Administration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Kersell, J.E.  Control of Administrative Behavior. Canadian Public Administration. v.  19.  1976.

	Law Reform Commission of Canada. Political Control of Independent Administrative Agencies - a study paper, Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada. 1979.

	Marshall, Geoffrey. Constitutional Conventions: The Rules and Forms of Political Accountability.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

	Marshall, Geoffrey and Graeme C. Moodie. Some Problems of the Constitution. 5th ed. London: Hutchinson University Library, 1971.

	Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability. Final Report. Hull: Supply and Services Canada 1979.

	Siegel, David and Kenneth Kernaghan. Public Administration in Canada. 3rd ed.  Toronto: Nelson Canada, 1995.

	Sutherland, S. l. Responsible Government and Ministerial Responsibility: Every Reform is its Own Problem. Canadian Journal of Political Science, v.  24 March 1991. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Affirmative Action 2.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Affirmative Action was started to eliminate discrimination in the workplace by hiring workers on a nondiscriminatory basis.  It began in 1961 by president Kennedy when he issued executive order number 10925 to make federal contractors take affirmative action(Altschiller, p.5).  The goal of affirmative action is to allow "the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have occupied in the absence of that conduct" Rehnquist said.  Should such policies be legal and deemed as good or looked down upon as a failed attempt to solve our racial problems?  Affirmative action does not eliminate discrimination if anything it makes it more of an issue.
	Although the concept of affirmative action is good, the result of it on whites has been bad.  In a survey in 1984, one out of ten white males claimed to have personally felt reverse discrimination.  Reverse discrimination is the term being used to describe discrimination towards whites. Many of these reverse discrimination cases have been brought to court, the result is just more confusion.  This is because there is a lot of gray in the law concerning this topic.  Sometimes courts allow someone to choose the minority if they are less qualified, while in other cases they don't allow it.  For example in a supreme court decision, it was allowed for a Michigan school district to layoff non-minority teachers in order to hire minority teachers with less experience(Altschiller, p13).  If a similar case were to appear again the result would most likely be different.    
	In no case should the person who is less qualified be hired.  It also doesn't make much sense to try to do away with a racial problem by using race as the important factor.  When it's looked at from the logical point of view most people do see it as a bad thing. Like when the question "Because of past discrimination, should qualified blacks receive preference over equally qualified whites in such matters as getting jobs or into colleges or not?" Fifty percent of blacks said they should not.  While when the question of whether or not affirmative action is a plus or minus consistently blacks, other minorities, and whites see it as a good thing.  These two statistics oppose each other.  When the actual term affirmative action is used people tend to favor it but, when the concept is brought up only half of the minorities favor it.  Do people just not know enough about it?    
	So, affirmative action isn't doing it's job and eliminating discrimination.  Although it's not that good now, if the courts came to more defiant standards it could improve.  For it to work the whole idea has to be looked at from a different point of view.  To solve the discrimination problem we have to get rid of it, that means on employment and college application forms we have to get rid of the race box.  Because race shouldn't be a factor.  It shouldn't get you a position or lose you a position.


Works Cited

Altschiller, Donald Ed. Affirmative Action New York: The H.W. Wilson Company,1991.
Carter, Stephen L. Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby Basic Books, New York, 	New York, 1991.
Hill, Herbert Race, Affirmative Action, and the Constitution McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992
Terkel, Struds Race: How Whites and Blacks think and feel about the American obsession 	The New Press, New York 1992.
 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\affirmative action defense.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
An Ethical and Practical Defense of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action has been the subject of increasing debate and tension in American society.
However, the debate over affirmative action has become ensnared in rhetoric that pits equality of
opportunity against the equality of results. The debate has been more emotional than intellectual, and
has generated more tension than shed light on the issue. Participants in the debate have over
examined the ethical and moral issues that affirmative action raises while forgetting to scrutinize the
system that has created the need for them. Too often, affirmative action is looked upon as the
panacea for a nation once ill with, but now cured of, the virulent disease of racial discrimination.
Affirmative action is, and should be seen as, a temporary, partial, and perhaps even flawed remedy
for past and continuing discrimination against historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups in
American society. Working as it should, it affords groups greater equality of opportunity in a social
context marked by substantial inequalities and structural forces that impede a fair assessment of their
capabilities.
In this essay I will expose what I see as the shortcomings of the current ethical attacks on affirmative
action (1), the main one being, that these attacks are devoid of proper historical context and
shrouded in white male hegemony and privilege. Then, I will discuss the moral and ethical issues
raised by continuing to function within a system that systematically disadvantages historically
marginalized groups. With that as a backdrop, I will make a positive case for continuing affirmative
action programs and discuss the practical concerns that continuing such programs may raise.
Perhaps the biggest complaint that one hears about affirmative action policies aimed at helping Black
Americans is that they violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws. The
claim is that these programs distort what is now a level playing field and bestow preferential
treatment on undeserving minorities because of the color of their skin. While this view seems very
logical on the surface, I contend that it lacks any historical support and is aimed more at preserving
existing white (2) privilege than establishing equality of opportunity for all. Any cursory look at the
history of this country should provide a serious critique to the idea of a level playing field. Since the
birth of this nation, Blacks have been an enslaved, oppressed, and exploited people. Until 1954,
when the Supreme Court handed down Brown v. Board, Blacks were legally pushed to the margin
of society where many were left to dwell in poverty and powerlessness. The Brown decision
removed the legal impediments that had so long kept Blacks in the impoverished peripheral. Despite
this long awaited victory for Black Americans, the historic decision failed to provide adequate means
for the deconstruction of white dominance and privilege. It merely allowed Blacks to enter the arena
of competition. This recognized and established the status quo (white wealth and Black indigence,
white employment and Black unemployment, white opportunity and Black disenfranchisement) as an
acceptable and neutral baseline. Without the deconstruction of white power and privilege how can
we legitimately claim that the playing field is level? Does it not seem more logical, and indeed fairer
and more just, to actively deconstruct white privilege, rather than let it exist through hegemony?
Another critique of affirmative action policies is that they stigmatize and call into question the
credentials of the qualified minorities. And furthermore, that this doubt undermines their
effectiveness. This has always been the most puzzling critique of affirmative action in my mind. The
credentials, qualifications, character, and even the culture of minorities have always been in question
and stigmatized in this country. When racial categories were created, simply being labeled a minority
carried with it quite a slanderous stigma. Even to this day Black Americans combat lingering racism
and stereotypes about their intelligence, tendency toward violence, sexual prowess, etc.... The idea
that affirmative action policies introduce stigmas that did not already exist into the life of minorities
seems nonsensical. To those who claim that this stigma undermines the effectiveness of Blacks
because their coworkers will not be cooperative, or because the minority will always doubt that he
or she deserves to be there, I propose that affirmative action gives minorities the opportunities to
defy the pernicious stereotypes and stigmas cast upon them by others. In fact, I claim that not using
affirmative action will only accomplish the continued exclusion of Black Americans from participation
within American society and thus further ingrain stereotypes and stigmas. Another reason that the
stigma critique of affirmative action confuses me, is because the discussion is always limited to race
and gender based affirmative action policies. Where is the discussion about athletes and legacy
students who are accorded preferential treatment in university admission decisions on a yearly basis?
Did anyone raise stigma issues when Henry Ford II, was appointed CEO of Ford Motor Co.? This
focus on gender and race based policies only reinforces my point that the stigma minorities face has
much more to do with persistent racism than the deleterious effects of affirmative action.
Now I will make what some may consider to be my boldest claim. I believe that continuing with a
system of neutral principles in a society already slanted significantly toward whites is, itself, unethical
and immoral. Let me begin with an anecdotal example similar to the one used by Lyndon B. Johnson
to justify affirmative action programs. Suppose that is a track officials judging two athletes running a
hundred yard dash. Before the official shoots off the starting pistol, one runner kicks the other in the
shin, stomps on his toes, and then runs ahead fifty yards. Now because our official is observant, he
sees this dirty play and immediately halts the race. So, he walks over to the runner, who is fifty yards
ahead and tells him that what he did was unfair and wrong and he is forbidden from doing it again.
Then he goes back to check on the runner at the starting line. The runner is a little bruised up. The
official tells him "Don't worry I saw everything that happened. I told the other runner that what he
did was wrong and that he shouldn't have done it. As I speak the rules are being changed to outlaw
such actions from ever happening again." Then the official strolls back to his position and fires the
starting pistol to begin the race, where the runners left off.
Surely there is something wrong with this scenario. Is it enough to simply chide the offending runner,
change the rule book, and then begin the race with one runner halfway to the finish line? By
advancing one runner ahead, would we be corrupting the idea of the100 yard dash? These questions
yield one answer. No. The race has already been tainted. It is our duty to somehow reconstruct the
situation so that fairness can again pervade the event. At the very least we must allow the injured
runner time to heal and then advance him fifty yards to be even with his competition. We must
actively deconstruct the advantages. If we do not, we violate our own rules of fairness, preserving
the advantages of one runner over the other.
Now that we have established sufficient justification for affirmative action, we must begin healthy
dialogue about the best way to implement the policies. Some argue that affirmative action programs
incite racial tension. I must assume that this tension is created by the bitterness or scorn of whites
who feel that the affirmative action recipients don't deserve to be where they are. It doesn't appear
plausible to me that the minority recipient of affirmative action would be looking to incite or create
racial tension. These people have jobs to do. This racial tension argument is very similar to the
stigma argument against affirmative action and can be dismissed along the same lines. Racial tension
existed long before affirmative action, and to believe that these programs cause them lacks any sense
of history. In fact, affirmative action may very well reduce racial tension, forcing people to interact
together and work as a unit in a professional and intellectual level across racial lines. And even if I
were to accept the idea that affirmative action arouses spite and scorn from whites, then their "right
not to be made angry" (if it is a right at all) is easily trumped by Blacks' right of equal opportunity.
Should affirmative action be classed based? I say no. The wrongs that affirmative action programs
seek to address are of a racial nature and must be addressed accordingly. While a class based
program would certainly benefit Blacks (and other minorities because they are disproportionately
represented in the lower class), it would not adequately deconstruct white racial privilege.
Affirmative action policies based on race actively deconstruct the white stranglehold on power, by
actively placing minorities in positions that have historically been only white.
Should affirmative action programs only focus on the young? Again, I answer no. Why should we
give children's right to equal opportunity precedence over their parents? The adults have lived longer
without the chance at equal opportunity and I believe that their restitution would take precedence if
we had to choose. Affirmative action policies should encompass the eldest and youngest of our
society.
Should affirmative action programs force people to hire unqualified minorities? No. But affirmative
action programs should cause us as a society to re-evaluate how we assess qualifications and how
we measure merit. Let us become tenured Harvard Law School professors for just a moment.
Suppose we have two applicants for an open associate professor position. The first candidate is
white, a Harvard Law School graduate, has impressive board scores, served as editor of the Law
Review, etc.... , but has never practiced law before. The other candidate is Black, a Howard Law
School graduate, average board scores, has excellent person skills, and practiced law as the county
defendant in an inner-city neighborhood. Under the traditional system of merit the white Harvard
graduate gets the appointment hands down. But under affirmative action policies the Black Howard
graduate receives the job. Why is this the optimal situation? The Black lawyer brings non-traditional,
but certainly valid, qualifications to the table that are not recognized under our current system of
merit. In f 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Affirmative Action End it.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Adam Honse 
Expos Essay
April 18, 1996
Affirmative Action: End It.
	The left is brilliant at using words.  Because of their willing accomplices in the mainstream media, the liberal view of almost every issue is crystallized using their terms of the debate.  Essential American ideals, freedom, equal justice under law, individual rights, have been trampled upon (using the cover of nice-sounding terms).  All poisonous schemes liberals have foisted upon American for decades have been hidden under sweet names: social justice, fairness, compassion, the common good, progressivism, diversity, tolerance, affirmative action.  Who could oppose any thing so positive, so wonderful, so loving, so kind? 
	Anyone who dares oppose the left's programs are deemed mean spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, McCarthyite, fascist, extremist, yada, yada, yada.  Liberals have not counted on two things.  First, ordinary people do not participate in liberalism's required denial of reality: they see for themselves in their own cities, communities, schools, businesses, the terrible real life consequences of liberal ideas.  Second, just because liberals have for years been able to stifle any substantive debate on these issues with name-calling and intimidation,  they have not stamped out the vast opposition.  Although they've tried. 
	And they are still trying, as we will continue to see as the debate over affirmative action heats up.  Listen to Willie Brown, former California Assembly Speaker: "Those who operate on the theory, in this environment, that there is something tragically wrong with the remedy called affirmative action, and that it needs to be corrected, they're wrong and they come from the perspective of a racist."
	Thirty years ago, before the media bestowed upon liberals alone the moral authority to discuss civil rights issues, conditions were radically different than they are today.  If you were a member of a racial minority, you did not have access to certain jobs, you were not permitted to shop or go to the movies in certain places, and in many ways you could not lead a normal life.  All because you were a different color.  It was vile, and it flew in the face of the American ideal.
	Now thirty years later there is an initiative called the called the California Civil Rights Initiative.  This was proposed by two San Francisco professors, it reads as follows: "Neither the State of California nor any of its political subdivisions or agents shall use race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as a criterion for either discriminating against, or  granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the operation of the State's system of public employment, public education or public contracting."  I wonder ... who will oppose that?  Could we say it would be the bigots?  By any definition of the word,  I think we can. 
  
	The media and the democratic party are appalled at the instant popularity of this initiative, of which over 60 percent of California voters approve, according to a recent field poll.  A significant number of those who supposedly benefit from the preferential policies back the measure.  Nearly 60 percent of women and about 40 percent of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.  When asked about affirmative action in general, California voters oppose the concept by a 2-1 ratio.
	 "The elimination of affirmative action ... would be a catastrophe for American women," says Katherine Spillar, national coordinator of the Feminist Majority Foundation.  Though Ms. Spillar does not speak for most women, nor does she justify her belief that affirmative action is "right," she declares:  "Women will not quickly accept a rollback in our rights."  The Congressional Black Caucus has formed a task force to fight efforts to overhaul affirmative action laws.  Says Rep. Donald M. Payne (D, NJ), Chairman of the caucus: "We are going to be a truth squad to interpret correctly what affirmative action is and what the goals have been."
	Let us look at what affirmative action is. Sen. Bill Bradley (D, NJ) claims: "The issue has been distorted that affirmative action to many means reverse discrimination and preferences, which is clearly not what affirmative action is.  That's what Quotas are."  You have got it exactly wrong senator.  Like most liberals, you believe that an innocent sounding name for a policy equals an innocent policy.  But in real life, in the real world, senator, affirmative action means reverse discrimination and preferences.  Affirmative action means quotas.  Affirmative action is institutional racism, and it's time to end it.     
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Affirmative Action public policy vs public opinion.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: PUBLIC OPINION VS. POLICY
When Justin Ketcham, a white college student from the suburbs, thinks about affirmative action, he thinks about what happened when he sent out letters seeking scholarships so he could attend Stanford University after being accepted during his senior year of high school.The organizations that wrote back told him their money was reserved for women or minorities.  To Americans like Ketcham, it's a matter of fairness.  The average white male will claim that it's not fair to attempt to rebalance scales by balancing them the other way.  Students like Ketcham are also more likely to claim that affirmative action is a program geared towards curtailing workplace prejudices that really don't exist anymore.But when Hillary Williams, a black insurance company manager from the inner-city, thinks about affirmative action, she thinks about the time she had to train three consecutive white male bosses for a job that no one even approached her about filling.  To her, it's also a question of fairness.  African-Americans like Hillary feel that there is just no other was besides affirmative action to level the playing field in certain businesses.And so the disparity in public opinion begins.  A racially-divided America creates separate groups, which "Affirmative Action issue taps a fundamental cleavage  in American Society" (Gamson and Modigliani 170)--each with their own view of affirmative action on different sides of the line. Government attempts to create policy based upon the voice of the people but affirmative action seems to present an almost un-solvable dilemma.  Traditionally, it had been a policy that was greatly scrutinized for its quotas and alleged unfairness towards Blacks, but at the same time it had also been praised for its inherent ability to help minorities gets  jobs they deserve but could not obtain otherwise.  So how do we reach a "happy medium" so-to-speak?  In American political culture, it appears as though individualism and egalitarianism are values that find themselves on opposite ends of the political battlefield. 
In a complex world of political ideology and political culture are sets of values and principles that are widely endorsed by politicians, educators, the media and other opinion leaders that make up the definition of what is to be American (Feldman and Zaller). Some favor the values of individual freedom, especially individual economic freedom, over other values, especially equality and popular sovereignty (egalitarianism). These people are labeled Conservatives. The other side of the spectrum consider themselves as Liberals (Feldman and Zaller).Because we live in a meritocracy created by the strong forces of capitalism, there is a tendency for people to fall behind either in the economy or in the academic community. During the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, affirmative action was implemented with the idea and hope that America would finally become truly equal. The tension of the 1960s civil rights movement had made it very clear that the nations minority and female population was not receiving equal social and economic opportunity. The implementation of affirmative action was America's first honest attempt at solving a problem it had previously chose to ignore.The Philadelphia Plan was one of the first major vehicles for affirmative action named for the first city in which a labor department agreement with federal contractors had been reached.  "The plan set specific numerical goals for each of the minority employment and the availability pool."  Labor Department officials announced that "because of the deplorably low rate of employment among minority groups" in the industry, they would set up similar plans in other major cities (Gamson and Modigliani 139).
Today, without a college degree will  definitely  decrease the chance of upward mobility.  Public universities give preferences to minorities based on race and gender.  Many private universities, including Harvard, Chicago and Stanford, have given preferences to the children of alumni, faculty, and athletes.  This is not to say that public universities give the same preferential treatment, but it goes to show that public institutions use affirmative action to uplift the non-privileged minority (Leslie 1991, 59).  And universities gives special scholarships and fellowships to a limited amount of applicants from a particular, regional, gender, ethnic, or religious backgrounds (Lipset 39).Conservatives believe that people could achieve social mobility  by "hard work (and ambition) rather than lucky breaks or help from other people" (Lipset 30).  From 1983 through 1990, surveys taken by NORC found that around two-thirds of respondents consistently agreed that "people get ahead by hard work (and) a much larger percentage said ambition" (Lipset 30). In October 1989, poll taken by ABC News-Washington Post, found that 60 percent of whites and 60 percent of blacks agreed with the statements:  "if blacks would try harder, they could be just as well off as whites." Conservatives (whites) are overwhelmingly non-supportive to affirmative action or preferential treatment, as seen from responses to the following NES questions in 1988 and 1992 (Sniderman and Piazza 1993, 104):

Some people say that because of past discrimination it is sometimes necessary for colleges and universities to reserve openings for black student.  Other oppose quotas because they say quotas give blacks advantages they haven't earned.  What about your opinion-are you for or against quotas to admit black students?
              For	     Against    Unsure
1988:      33%          58%         9%
1992:      23%          71%         6%



Some people say that because of past discrimination, blacks should be given preference in hiring and promotion.  Others say that such preference in hiring and promotion is wrong because it discriminates against whites.  What about your opinion-are you for or against preferential hiring for blacks? 
                                           For	    Against       Unsure 
                             1988:      19%          75%         6%
                             1992:      13%          84%         3%

The attitudes on affirmative action are firmly held for the white majority.  Sniderman and Piazza says that the opposition of egalitarian polices like affirmative action lead to a negative stereotyping of minorities.  Among the randomly selected sample, one-half of them were asked about black stereotypes-they are irresponsible, they are lazy, they are arrogant.  These questions were the immediately followed by a single question about affirmative action in employment.  The other half of the sample was asked the same question about blacks, but they were immediately preceded by the question about affirmative action in employment.  The data show significantly higher percentages of negative stereotypes about blacks for the sample getting the affirmative action questions (Sniderman and Piazza 1993, 97-104).  Sniderman and Piazza (1993, 109) concluded that "affirmative action is so intensely disliked that it has led some whites to dislike blacks-an ironic example of a policy meant to put the divided of race behind us in fact further widening it."
Study completed by Stanley Dickinson, argued that  students somewhat feel the same way that Sniderman and Piazza stated above.  He  asked 759 anonymous 'non-minority students' about their thoughts of stereotyping among certain racial groups. 8 out of 10 or 80% of the students said at one particular time they had used 'negative stereotyping' as a result from affirmative action. It goes to show that affirmative action or preferential treatment constitutes a negative opinion (emphasis from Sniderman and Piazza)."  The same survey found 52 percent of blacks and 56 percent of whites accepting the view that "discrimination has unfairly held down blacks, but many of the problems blacks in this country have (back then) brought on by blacks themselves" (Lipset 50). According to Sears and Kinder 1971, he argues that "symbolic racism" explains the lack of support among whites for particular remedies to solve the problem of racial discrimination.  Whites are more likely to respond to symbolic racism (i.e. Black, Mexican, etc.) rather than policy content of the question.  Over the past few decades, straight out racism is quite unacceptable.  "Now racial hostility is expressed indirectly by a glorification of traditional values such as 'work ethic' and 'individualism,' in which blacks and other minorities groups are seen as deficient" (Sears 1986).  Sniderman and Piazza argue the rival explanation of straightforward politics.  They argue that "the central problem of racial politics is not the problem of prejudice" (1993, 107).  The agenda of the civil rights movement has changed from one of equal opportunity to equal outcomes.  The vast majority of the American Creed view the new civil rights program of racial quotas and affirmative action very much contrast with the principle of equal opportunity for all (Erikson/Tedin 95). 
Although the civil rights movement fabricated most of the political culture, progress for socio-economic equality has been inadequate, uneven and unsteady.  This fact in itself urges the public to argue for changed policies.  Today, people are listing to the 'individualistic' side rather than tipsy egalitarian side of the political spectrum. Proposition 209 was an civil rightsinitiative that utilized  conservative values of individualistic principles to get rid of 1There are only 7 counties that did not support the initiative. Women, especially white women, have by many measures made greater gains than  minorities (Lester PG), a sore point that could complicate coalition-building now that affirmative action is under fire.  Whatever its role in spawning a healthy black middle class, it has barely touched black poverty or reduced an enduring gap between white and black unemployment rates.Given this pattern, it is hardly surprising that the much touted review of federal programs commissioned by the President, should have included a considerable amount of straightforward advocacy for the diversity principle. For example, that the "competitiveness of our society and economy" depends upon building an "inclusive" economy, and adds that in science, education, and other fields, there will be "dangerous shortages of talent if we continue to draw the ranks of those professions so overwhelmingly from among white males only" (Aptheker 15).  The suggestion that women and minorities offer abilities different from and in some ways superior to those of white men is echoed elsewhere in the assertion that diversity "is critical to the quality of certain institutions and professions."  Throughout, society's equilibrium is measured by the standard of proportional representation, and any deviation from the norm is regarded as a major social wrong.But affirmative action is, after all , a policy which has survived at least in theme for years in the face of widespread, and often angry, disapproval.  It is also a policy whose potential constituency is quite formidable, encompassing blacks, certain immigrants groups, and women-in other words, over half the population.  True, many women, Hispanics, and Asians are ambivalent about or in some cases hostile to the idea of group rights, but Americans retain a powerful attachment to the principle of affirmative action, and many in the new black middle class have come back to look on it as an entitlement-much as the elderly view Medicare or farmers regard crop subsidies.  Support for affirmative action also enjoys the status of a litmus test of group loyalty for black elected officials and civil-rights leaders.

Affirmative action is a cheap and easy way to remedy societal fall backs Over the last few decades, public opinion about affirmative actions has changed tantamount to public policy.  The original affirmative-action initiative emerged out of a belief that the racial neutrality enshrined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not suffice to change the face of American society.  According to this reasoning, even if individual blacks were no longer being denied opportunities, black as a whole would nevertheless, simply because the country's economic and educational institutions functioned in a systemically discriminatory way.  It was in the basis of this theory-known popularly as the doctrine of institutional racism-that the earliest affirmative action plans called for lowering employment standards en masse, and for coercing corporations and government agencies into agreements which, in practice, often led to defacto quotas (emphasis aptheker 16). According to S.M. Lipset, Americans believe strongly in both values: individualism and egalitarianism. But affirmative action has, since its inception, been an ever-present example of government attempting to create a public policy that would appeal all.  Some commentators content that the move to affirmative action came because the nation, faced with the financial demands of the Vietnam War buildup, was unable to afford the vast sums necessary on social programs to help the poor compete their way to economic parity (Aptheker 14).  In this view, affirmative action was perceived as the fast, cheap way to achieve social equality.Whatever its origins, few doubt that affirmative action has helped ope the doors of oportunity for minorities and women over the past three decades.  Their numbers have grown throughout the workforce, including high paying professions like law and medicine.  Both the gender gap and, to a slightly lesser degree, the racial gap in median earnings have narrowed.  In this sense, a greater number of minorites have moved into positions of power, and thus their groups have a much stronger influence upon affirmative action itself . . .or so one might think . .BUT IN THE OTHER HAND, THE 
And economists agree that progress has not meant parity.  Women, according to one recent study, still earn on average 15 percent less than comarably qualified men.  Blacks actually made their greatest gains between 1940 and 1970 and fell back relative to whates during the 1980's (Currie 19).  Both groups remain underrepresented in high-paying executive and magerial positions.  And studies pairing black and white job applicants with similar credentials consistently show that whites do better (Williams 75-6).On the public platform, affirmative action is indeed an emotional, divisive and complicated issue for policy-makers.  30 years after it entered the national lexicon on the wake of the passage of the Civil Right Act of 1964, it has emerged as one of the nation's major topic of disagreement and debate.  From government set-aside to workplace preferences to race-targeted school admissions, it is under attack from opponents who want to abolish of and from reformers who want to refocus it.Although these policies were unpopular with white Americans from the outset, they were grudgingly accepted by many on the grounds that blacks, who has recently been the objects of legal discrimination, arguably deserved some limited amount of compensatory justice.  Over the years, however, the proposition that affirmative action was necessary to combat discrimination, or even the effects of past discrimination, became increasingly difficult to sustain.  Employers met the conditions set down by enforcement agencies; employment and educational tests were changed, and personnel policies were adjusted to conform with guidelines established by the EEOC; and thousands of new businesses set their hiring policies entirely according to affirmative action principles.Faced with an increasingly shaky rationale, the advocates of preferences began to advance a new one:  diversity.  Like the original conception, diversity assumed an America in which racism (now joined by sexism) was rampant.  But diversity was designed less to fight bias in particular instances than to create sweeping standards for the entire workforce, if not for the entire society.  And where affirmative action had been intended, at least theoretically, to enhanced the goal of societal integration, diversity celebrated difference and promote "multiculturalism"-i.e., segregation.  Implementing it necessitated a degree of racial and sexual consciousness virtually limitless in its application.There are few figures in public life today as committed to the diversity idea as President Clinton.  From the musical and literary selections at his inaugural ceremony, to his policy of setting aside one of every three positions on the new adminstration for women and minorities, to his having reserved to position of Attorney General for a woman, to the scrupulous balancing of his health-care task force according to race and gender, to the proposal advanced by that task force to impose a diversity system on the medical profession, the Clinton administration has sent an unmistakable message: as for as the government is concerned, America is a country that counts by race and gender.The adminstration's attitude was perhaps most vividly demonstrated ina  case involving a public-school teacher in Piscataway, New Jersey.  In 1989, the local schoool board had been confronted with the need to lay off one of two home economics teachers-one white, one black, with equal seniority and comparable performance assessments.  Even though blacks were well-represented throughout the faculty, the board dismissed the white teacher on purely racial grounds.  She then sued, and the Bush adminstration, citing flagrant reverse discrimination, supported her action (Citrin 40-1).  	The Clinton adminstration, however, abruptly reversed course and supported the schoool board.  It had to do so on grounds other than discrimination against the black teacher, which was never an issue in this case; the grounds it came up with were "diversity."Nor does affirmative action lack for broad backing among predominactly white institutions.  The business community has regularly spoken against anti-quota legislations in the past, and is distinctly unenthusiastic about anti-preference proposals today, including CCRI (Czurak 1).  Officials at prestigous unversiies regard their racially balanced student boddies as a major achievement.  Even the American 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Affirmative Action Solution or Confusion.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


Affirmative Action: Solution or Confusion?

Affirmative action is a plan designed to end discrimination by
guaranteeing minorities will be hired, regardless of race or gender.  While
our country hires such groups based upon these guarantees, the
qualifications of such people are occasionally overlooked.  Many believe
that affirmative action is a very effective plan; however, the population
which opposes such action frequently includes people of various minorities,
as well as many others who have been wronged by this plan   In several
cases, this plan causes minorities to be perceived as being under-qualified
when hired; in addition, it also causes a new minority, the white male.   
Our government must acknowledge the fact that affirmative action is not
putting an end to discrimination; in all actuality, this plan has succeeded in
creating new minorities, and more reasons for discrimination.
Affirmative action frequently causes qualified employees to be
looked down upon because some believe them to be "affirmative action
hires".  Two of my female relatives are currently on the police force; as a
result, I have encountered many discriminatory comments pertaining to
their positions.  The first remark I usually receive suggests that they were
hired for their position solely based on gender.  Another comment which I
usually receive is, "Well, being a woman probably didn't hurt their resume." 
Both of my relatives are very good at their jobs; one was even on the
popular television show, Cops.  Neither of them are "wimps", yet most
males look down upon them as being hired because of affirmative action. 
This type of criticism is received by many minorities holding good jobs,
whether they are qualified or not.  To quote William Reynolds, assistant
attorney general in the civil rights division: 
In many cases, affirmative action takes away from legitimate
minority success. People look at the black banker
downtown who has made it on his own and say, "He got his
job because of affirmative action." Or, an employer hires a
few talented minority people who would have succeeded
anyway and says, "Those are my affirmative-action hires."
(26)
In this particular case, affirmative action may, or may not, have
been the reason for hiring, yet that is what most perceive.  People of any
race or gender should be able to hold a job where their colleagues respect
them as equals, not as "affirmative-action hires". 
My cousin, Christine, has also added to my knowledge on how well
affirmative action works at the hospital where she works.  One of the
administrators happened to be a black male--who was very qualified for his
position--yet most of the staff accused him of being promoted because of
his race. This affected his morality to such an extent that he resigned
shortly after his promotion. Another black female--who was hired because
of her race and gender--is not qualified for her position, yet is esteemed by
her colleagues for her accomplishments.  It seems that minorities are
accepted to a certain extent, until they become someone's boss.  It is also a
scary situation when a person has an under-qualified surgeon performing
surgery on them because of affirmative action.
Affirmative action insists that the employer must "[a]void the kind
of unnecessary escalation of criteria for selection and promotion which has
sometimes been used to keep certain classes of people from entering the
mainstream of our economic life" (Berry  19).  This aspect of the plan
creates more openings for minorities; however, it also suggests that the
standards should be maintained at a low to guarantee these openings.  In
my opinion, if the standards for any position are raised, the productivity
and accuracy of the country will rise accordingly.  When the policy of
affirmative action is to almost lower the standards of our society, this
sacrifices quality for the sake of equality.  Roy Wilkins, a former Executive
Director of the NAACP, stated to the congress: 
Our association has never been in favor of a quota system. 
We believe the quota system is unfair whether it is used for
or against blacks...We feel people ought to be hired because
of their ability, irrespective of their color...We want
equality, equality of opportunity and employment on the
basis of ability. (qtd. in Reynolds  26)
If the people which affirmative action was made for are against
most of it's principles--and the white male loses jobs because of it--why is
the majority so supportive of this plan? 
One of the most powerful arguments for affirmative action is based
upon claims from minorities who believe that they deserve a certain amount
of compensation because of the past discrimination which they have 
received.  Diana Axelson, chairperson of the Department of Philosophy of
Spelman College,  states this in her essay, "Affirmative Action
Compensates for Past Discrimination", by claiming, "The first form of
compensation which seems appropriate is compensations...for injuries they
themselves have received as a result of individualized or institutionalized
racism and sexism" (33).  In my opinion, the blame of past wrongs should
not be put upon the employer, nor should something which happened in the
past be a factor in hiring practices. To quote Michael Levin, professor of
philosophy: 
Other past wrongs have left their traces-acts of theft,
despoliation, fraud, anti-Semitism-yet society has no
organized policy of rectifying those wrongs.  It surely seems
that if the consequences of one kind of wrong should not be
allowed to unfold, neither should those of any other.  (40)
Although society may sympathize with past wrongs, it is not any
employer's obligation to compensate these people; further, it would be a
great injustice to society's majority to ignore them in order to accomplish
this.
Affirmative action is a successful plan in theory, but hiring a certain percentage of
minorities--qualified or unqualified--has turned into a larger problem than what already
existed.  In all actuality, the hiring requirements of affirmative action have caused the
white male to become a minority because they cannot be hired unless the required
percentage of minorities are already employed.  A more effective method of hiring fairly,
without discrimination, may be a faceless and nameless interview.  If perspective
employees could send in their resumes, be assigned a number, fill out a written interview,
and be hired entirely based on their qualifications, this would solve many of the problems. 
Using this method to hire and promote would guarantee the most qualified people would
be hired, and there could be no accusations of choosing a person solely on their race or
gender.  We live in a country where a certain percent of the work force is hired based
entirely on their race or gender, not their qualifications.  It is quite obvious that affirmative
action does not fulfill the intended purpose; contrary to its objective, this plan has only
created more discrimination than could ever be imagined. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Affirmative Action.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


Affirmative Action


	Affirmative Action as defined by the Meriam Webster's Dictionary is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of  minority groups or women.
	In 1961 John F.Kennedy issued an executive order calling for Affirmative Action as a means to promote equal opportunity for racial minorities, in hiring by federal contractors. This was the first official use of the term by the Federal Government. Eight years later Nixon as President beefed up the Office of Federal Compliance Programs, which along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has become one of the governments two main enforcers of affirmative action policy.(Grolier's Electronic Encyclopedia, 1993) 
	Such efforts have vastly expanded opportunities for Afro-Americans. However they have also touched off complaints from many whites that Afro-Americans are benefiting from reverse discrimination. Under the equal opportunity act of 1972 most federal contractors, subcontractors, all state and government institutions (including universities) must initiate plans to increase the proportions of their female and minority employees until they are equal to the proportions existing in the available labor market.(Grolier's Electric Encyclopedia, 1993)
	Affirmative action plans that establish racial quotas were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of University of California VS. Bakke in 1978. This case arose when the medical school of the University of California at Davis twice rejected Allen Bakke's application while admitting members of racial minorities who had lower test scores. Bakke charged that the medical school's policy of setting aside 16 of the 100 positions for racial minorities was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. In a complex 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ordered that Bakke be admitted. The court ruled that even though universities may consider race and ethnic origins as a factor in evaluating candidates for admission, they may not establish fixed racial quotas.(Time Magazine, May 27 1991, pp.22) 
	The decision was, however upheld in the case of Private Business and Unions in United Steelworkers of America vs. Webber in 1979. This case arose when Brian F. Webber sued Kaiser Aluminum and the United Steelworkers of America for setting aside half of the positions in a training program for minority workers with less seniority. The Supreme Court overruled this case by a 5-2 vote holding that the Kaiser program did not violate title VII of the civil rights act of 1964. The ruling was that, private employers could voluntarily adopt plans designed to eliminate conspicuous racial imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories. Then in 1984 and 1986 the justices ruled against upsetting seniority systems in favor of minorities.(Harper's Magazine, July 1991, pp.27)
	 In 1984 the Supreme Court struck down a Richmond ordinance intended to quarntee Afro-Americans and other minorities a greater share of the city's construction contracts. The decision not only threatened similar programs in 36 states, but also opened the door to legal attacks against other racially based government schemes. A key component of the court ruling was the requirement that all government distinctions based on race be subject to "strict scrutiny." This means that public sector affirmative action programs are valid only if they serve the compelling state interest of redressing identified discrimination.(Time Magazine, February 6 1989, pp.60) 
	Affirmative action has moved to the forefront of public debate in recent months with a proposed California ballot initiative that would end many race-based preference programs. The University of California itself has become the focus of debate after Ward Connerly, a Regent for the University of California system called for an end to such preferences in admissions. The Chancellor of UCLA Charles E. Young, quickly took a strong stand against Mr. Connerly, saying that affirmative action had benefited the university and should continue.(NY.Times, June 4 1995, pp.22)
	The University Of California at Berkeley campus was among the first of the nations' leading universities to embrace the elements of affirmative action in it's admissions policies, and now boasts that it has one of the most diverse campuses in America, with whites accounting for only 32% of the student body. However Berkeley may soon become one of the first campuses in the nation to abandon the cornerstone of affirmative action in higher education. The University Board of Regents expects to consider a proposal to prohibit the use of race and ethnicity as factors for admissions.(NY. Times, June 4 1995, pp.23)
	Then on Thursday July 8, 1995, the California University System Board of Regents adopted a plan to dismantle affirmative action plans within the university system. 
	Effective January 1, 1997, the University of California system shall not use race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin as a criterion for admission to the University or any program of study. The following is a brief excerpt from the resolution: The president shall confer with the Academic Senate of the University of California to develop supplemental criteria for consideration by the board of regents. . . In developing such criteria, which shall provide reasonable assurances that the applicant will successfully complete his or her course of study, consideration shall be given to individuals who, despite having suffered disadvantage economically or in terms of their environment (such as an abusive or otherwise dysfunctional home or a neighborhood of unwholesome or anti-social influences),have nonetheless demonstrated sufficient character and determination in overcoming obstacles to warrant confidence that the applicant can pursue a course of study to successful completion, provided that any student admitted under this section must be academically eligible for admission. (NY Times, June 4 1995 pp.7)
	The regents decision was hailed as an "Historical achievement" by Republican Governor Pete Wilson. Wilson responded to White House Chief of Staff's Leon Panetta's contentions that the board of regents made a terrible mistake and that the Justice Department would begin a review of the billions of dollars that flow from the federal government into the states' universities, by claiming that the state will not be intimidated by the implicit threat of losing the huge largess in student aid and research funds that the university receives. The university would follow through with the dismantling of the programs because, they were wrong and unfair.(NY Times, July 22 1995, pp.7)
	There are however two unusual twists to the assault on affirmative action in the University of California system, that defy the stereotypes. First the race based preferences are being attacked by a black member of the board of regents and defended by Berkeley's Asian-American Chancellor. Second the racial makeup here has extended the fault line in the debate to minority VS. minority, as well as black VS white.
	On the side of those who favor Affirmative Action and would like for it to remain a part of California's school system are many optimistic voices. Affirmative action at Berkeley represents an essential and healthy adaptation to a changing California and a changing nation. Affirmative action is not for underrepresented minorities. Affirmative action is for the benefit of the larger society. Beginning with the admission of women in the 1880's and with an early form of affirmative action called the Educational Opportunity Program in 1964, Berkeley has aggressively promoted inclusion. At Berkeley if Admissions were based on grades and test scores alone,Asian-Americans would account for 51.6% of the freshman class. Compared with 41.7% of this years Asian-American class. Whites now comprising 29.8 %, would account for 34.8% to 37.3%. The figure for Hispanic students would drop from the current 15.3% to 3-6% and Afro-American freshmen would account for less than 2% of entering freshmen they currently account for 6.4% of the freshmen at Berkeley.(NY Times, June 4 1995, pp.24) 
	Troy Duster, a Berkeley sociologist who has studied  affirmative action for years said it is being made a scapegoat for rejection. Faculty,administration,and students alike have all tried to tell the board of regents that affirmative action had been working fine to create a genuinely diverse student body. Yvonne Marsh, Assistant Vice-Chancellor for enrollment services at Davis said she had been "stunned and disappointed" by the decision of the regents, but she too was confident that other means of achieving the same end could be devised.(NY Times, July 24 1995, pp.A1)
	Doctor Hopper, President for health affairs in the University of California system said: "We have creative faculties, I am hopeful that they will be able to find ways to achieve diversity. This can result in a student body that will be substantially the same as it is today.Doctor Hopper said his biggest worry is that minorities may see the regents decision as a door having been closed to them.(NY Times, July 24 1995, pp.A1)
	
	On the other side of the coin are those who would prefer to do away with affirmative action. They assert that the successes Asian-Americans have achieved without being given preferential treatment,raises a question about the necessity of race-based programs as a remedy for overcoming historic prejudice. The same critics argue that affirmative action to aid historically disadvantaged black and Hispanic students, has become a new form of discrimination against Asian-Americans. Although Afro-Americans and Hispanic students are still underrepresented at Berkeley as measured by their share of the state's population.(NY Times, June 4 1995, pp.24)
	Many students believe that if the goal of affirmative action is to move toward a more equal society, then the effect is to create a campus obsessed with racial and ethnic divisions. Some skeptics say affirmative action in admissions contributes to a balkanized campus of racially divided dorms and friendships that make the benefits of diversity more theoretical than real. 
	In a lecture Doctor Waldinger, a sociology professor at UCLA, had his own thesis about affirmative action. He contended that Afro-Americans and other minorities have historically succeeded without the help of affirmative action and that such preferences could be dispensed with today for all groups except Afro-Americans. Ward Connerly, the black businessman and regent who proposed the resolutions to terminate the preference programs, has argued that affirmative action has outlived its usefulness and now undermines achievement by Afro-Americans.(NY Times, May 3 1995, pp.B9)
	Having discussed the views of professors and students, it is essential  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\AFFIRMITIVE ACTION.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


AFFIRMITIVE ACTION

	In the Human Rights Act, Chapter 214 of the revised statutes, 1989, it states 

that "in recognition that human rights must be protected by the rule of law, this 

Legislature affirms the principal that every person is free and equal in dignity and 

rights without regard to race, religion, religious creed, colour, sex, physical or 

mental disability or ethnic or national origin."  Unfortunately though, sometimes this 

law is not always abided by.  Women, aboriginal people who are physically or 

mentally challenged, and visible minorities have often been denied employment 

equity, or equal employment opportunities due to discriminatory practices.  These 

groups should enjoy equal representative share of employment opportunities in all 

occupations and at all levels.

	An example of discrimination that denies equal opportunity is the practice of 

allowing members of these four groups to advance within a company only to a 

certain level.  The company may appear to be equitable by including members of 

these groups in management positions.  However, the top executive positions are 

still out of reach for members of these groups not because these people are not 

qualified for the jobs, but because they are discriminated against.  Legislation, 

including the federal Employment Equity Act, exists to ensure employment equity.  

Such legislation requires employers to report what proportion of their employees 

belong to these four groups.  Employers must then prove that all groups are equally 

represented at all levels within their organizations.

	Affirmative action promotes equality in the workplace in such areas as hiring, 

training-apprenticeships, promotion, compensation, transfer, layoff, termination and 

goals.  It also promotes equal employment opportunities for those groups or 

individuals who are disadvantaged due to race, religion, creed, colour, disability, 

national or ethnic origin, sex, age or marital status.  Affirmative action programs are 

designed to improve the lot of people who have suffered as a result of past 

discrimination.

	By the year 2000, white males will likely account for only 15% of new 

workers - 85% of new workers will consist of women, aboriginal people, physically 

or mentally challenged people, and members of visible minorities.  The number of 

women and minorities has increased in many occupations because of affirmative 

action programs.  Some companies actually make a point of advertising that they are 

Equal Opportunity Employers.

	Application forms and advertisements for employment should not make any 

inquiry that directly or indirectly expresses or invites any limitation, specification, 

preference or information as to age, race, colour, religion, creed, sex, sexual 

orientation, physical or mental disability, ethnic, national or aboriginal origin, family 

or marital status, source of income, political beliefs, affiliation or activity.  There is 

provision for exemption if a bona fide qualification can be established.  The burden 

of proof lies with the employer, who should apply in writing to the Human Rights 

Commission.

	Some unacceptable pre-employment inquiries are:

-indicate whether Mr., Mrs., Miss. or Ms.

-any inquiry into gender

-any inquiry into sexual orientation

-any inquiry into pregnancy, childbirth or child bearing plans

-any inquiry as to the applicant's spouse

-request for photograph or the taking of photographs

-any inquiry into religious affiliation or customs
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Air Pollution.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
                                          



                                           Steps Towards an Ecosociety:
                                            Dealing with Air Pollution













                                                                                                 By:  Jonathan Roitman 
                                                                                                 For: Dr. Rao
                                                                                                 Course: Poli 385/2
                                                                                                 Due: December 4, 1995
                                                                                                 I.D. #: 3071340
 
		This essay  identifies and explains the problem of pollution facing humanity today. It  will also propose one of the first ideas which could more effectively limit air pollution, Emission Credit Trading. This can be seen as one of the first steps in the development of an ecosociety. The notion of a viable ecosociety has created considerable problems in terms of deciding the most effective and efficient policies to be implemented. Air pollution has become one of the most serious environmental problems here at home, and throughout the rest of the world. Air pollution is also perhaps one of the more politically sensitive problems because of the numerous economic, environmental and health implications involved. 
		
     		A key step in the policy-making process is to define the problem to be remedied. If we can not understand the problem, how are we to know what needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, implementing policies on air pollution has the politically undesirable effect of having extensive economic consequences on all sectors of the economy.  Therefore, those policies which lead to the development of an ecosociety must be aimed at having the greatest environmental impact while creating minimal economic distortions.   				

            For the purpose of this essay, pollution shall be identified as follows "...the deliberate or accidental introduction to the environment of contaminants, in the form of either wastes or products " (Bryner, 10). This essay will deal with the problem of air pollution. Air pollutants come from heavy industry, fumes from automobiles, jet planes and the like. When speaking of the automobile alone "...each gallon of gas burned releases 22 pounds of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...the car is the single largest contributor to global warming " (Rifkin 179). Although the majority of the problem areas are in the developing world, these areas can affect the entire world. The atmosphere is not confined to borders like the land. Pollution spreads beyond the borders of any country, and as such, no one region can solve the problem alone. In some developing nations, there are areas that people and animals cannot live in for extended periods of time. 

	One visitor to the Romanian 'black town' of Cops Mica noted that "the trees and grass are so stained by soot that they look as if they had been soaked in ink." A local doctor reported that even horses can stay only for two years in the town; "then they have to be taken away, or else they will die" (Gore 81).	
	
There are many reasons that pollution has come to the foreground of twentieth century politics. The most important is the effect it has on human life. This does not place the effects that it has on our natural environment as secondary, however, it seems that unless we as human beings are directly affected, we tend to look the other way.  
   
             The EPA's 1990 report on urban air quality trends estimates that over 100 million Americans live in areas where pollution exceeds federal air quality standards, as well air pollution is responsible for more then 50,000 to 60,000 premature deaths each year (Bryner,  3)
	
Air pollution is also the main cause of  global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer.  If the earth's temperature rises by a mere five degrees, the resulting catastrophe would be immeasurable.  It is important to realize that global warming is a direct result of the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere. 

 "A greater variety of greenhouse gases are created by a myriad of essential human activities, including the generation of power, industrial production, transportation, agriculture and forestry. Mitigating climate change will require major changes in life-style, especially those that consume large amounts of fossil fuels" (Vig and Kraft 313).
           We can see that no matter where we look, air pollution has come to occupy a major part in our daily lives.  The only way to reduce the quantity of  poisonous emissions to the air would require a drastic change in the way we live. 

 Due to inefficient regulatory policies, the different types of air pollution  pose severe problems.  Air pollution  occurs when "gases and particles are combined or altered in such a way that they degrade the air and form substances that are harmful to humans, animals, and other living things (Bryner, 41)."  Some air pollution is a result of natural processes such as forest fires, volcanoes or wind blown dust. Conversely, the majority of pollutants are the direct result of human interaction and misuse of our environment. An example of this is the loss of the  whales, who for centuries lived in the St. Lawrence region of the Atlantic Ocean, but had to migrate due to the  "...polluted water emptying out of the Great Lakes. They are said to be contaminated with toxic chemicals at concentration levels high enough that they are technically classified as hazardous waste" (Keller, 262).    

	"...the atmosphere will...need to be regulated as a global trust if the human community is to entertain any possibility of addressing the problems of global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, and air pollution. In June 1988, the prime ministers of Norway and Canada proposed a "Law of the Air" treaty to protect the atmosphere from global warming and ozone depletion.[The end result being]...the transition to renewable energy sources, and the research and development of alternatives to CFCs" (Rifkin 318).
	
Air pollution and pollution in general have reached such alarming levels because of human neglect and ignorance. They have been allowed to perpetuate due to the lack of clearly defined property rights within the ecosphere (natural resources and the environment). We must realize that individual actions as well as those of large and /or small corporations affect not only the lifestyle, but the quality of life of all organisms on the planet; human or not.  "The corporation's inherent tendency to maximize profits by mass-production and technological efficiency clashes with the desire to limit material growth and preserve nature" (Arnopoulos 150). We must recognize the consequences our actions have on the environment or we are doomed to keep on repeating our mistakes.
	
Another example could be what has become known as the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. "Perhaps the largest forced migration in American history was the mass departure from Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska and other plains during the period of the early 1930's... (Gore 71). The Dust Bowl resulted in huge sand storms as the farmland of the above mentioned areas became completely devastated as a result of the overuse of its agricultural ability. It was pushed to far, and the exploitation finally ended in rendering the land useless for decades.     
	
The protection of the environment has become a major concern in all levels of political, social and economic arenas. As we enter the next millennium we must ask ourselves what type of environment do we want to live in? How do we want our children to grow up? The practical answers to these questions are difficult, but not the theoretical ones. Theoretically, the perfect world is one in which we do not have to fear pollution, we do not have to be afraid of the water we drink, or the air we breath. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world and we have no choice but to worry. 
The idyllic world outlined above is what ecologists and social scientists alike hope for: an ecosociety. This ecosociety is sought after by so-called Green Parties. There are six key strategies which they employ (through different tactical means) in order to achieve their policies. They are: to think globally by acting locally. The reason for this is to attempt to spread some sort of global awareness, but get citizens involved at a local level, hence having them feel that they are playing a key role and are important in the policy making process. Green parties also advocate more ecological education, and a more sustainable economy. This notion of a more sustainable economy can be achieved the following ways: conservation of resources, slow down material production, and lower industrial output. What this all amounts to is moving the tertiary and quaternary sectors of the economy to the fore, and eliminating the primary and secondary (to a literally subsistence level). Furthermore, they want to get human beings to recognize the highly spiritual life that they are capable of living and not the hedonistic material one they are living. By the same token, they want to increase green spaces and partake in long range planning thereby helping to keep the earth alive as long as possible (Arnopoulos, 92). By concentrating on the above six strategies, Green Parties believe that it may be possible for people to change from a consumed to a conserved society. A society in which we live in harmony with nature, not in  dominance over it.
	
As we look back today and see the damage that has been done to the environment, we wonder what went wrong. That question could be answered as such: "The thoughtless and shortsighted transformation of scientific knowledge into technical know-how has given mankind too much power too soon to be able to use it wisely (Arnopoulos  80)". With these technological advances comes the inevitable depletion and deterioration of the earth. Depletion, in the sense that we are undoubtedly going to run out of natural resources at our present rate of consumption. Deterioration, in the sense of all the pollutants which we constantly spew  into our environment , where our children and theirs will have to live.

Public opinion polls show wide spread support for stronger and more aggressive measures aimed at solving pollution problems and protecting our natural resources.  These sentiments have become so pervasive that well over the majority of people believe that "protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost (Mitchell, 85)."  This mass popularization of environmentalism has had the effect of increasing demands for action being made on our political process and leaders. 
	
In many industries, air pollution is a  by-product of normal economic production.  In some such cases government authorities have restricted firms' production of effluents.  This restriction is often imposed as a maximum rate of flow at which a firm may emit pollutants.  This system in which emissions are managed on a source to source basis has been labeled one of "Command-and-Control (Vig and Kraft, 52)."  However, empirical studies have shown that costs under Command-and-Control mechanisms are as much as twenty times as expensive as the least-cost market oriented mechanism that achieves the same environmental quality.  This discrepancy in efficiency is due to the high costs associated with regulating the C&C method since allocations must be made on a firm to firm basis.  As well, even when all sources are in compliance with technological based standards, there is no guarantee that the sum of emissions will produce quality air.

	Recently, there is growing consensus that the methods of control do not work on a uniform basis in terms of addressing different locations and types of pollutants with the most damaging health impacts.  Presently, standards refer to ambient (outdoor) concentrations where measurements can most easily be made, most often from the tops of buildings.  However, in North America we spend under 10% of our time outdoors, and even less atop buildings.  As negligible as this may appear to be, the exposure to pollutants which one receives varies greatly from being indoors, at street levels or on top of a high-rise.  With particular pollutants, as little as 25% of total exposure is due to outdoor exposure.  This is due to many of the air pollutants (environmental tobacco smoke, household chemicals...) which in terms of total levels are minimal, but because of the quantities we are exposed to have the greatest impact on human health (Saunders, 277-8).  
	
The implicit assumption underlining ECT is that health damages from pollution depend only on the effects of emissions on widespread ambient concentrations.  Local effects are for the most part ignored.  Consequently, sources of pollution that may have substantial effects on a local level but a negligible effect on ambient ones are not taken into account.  With this in mind Emission Credit Trading could be considerably improved, in terms of the impact it is to have on health and environmental conservation, by shifting from concentration to exposure levels (Saunders, 276).
	
There is also the question of legitimate enforcement.  The arbitrary nature of enforcement in such a system as C&C creates an environment in which polluters have an incentive to be rent seeking competitors.  And with the status of our political and administrative offices this can produce the perception of favoritism or in some cases corruption.  Since rent seeking is economically inefficient, and it increases the publics (already high) cynicism about government, a decentralized Emission Credit Trading program would minimize these problems.   ECT programs have been advanced as a major improvement over command-and-control pollution abatement programs.  This is one of the first pieces of proposed legislation toward an environmentally friendly shift in politics. The entire concept of Emission Credit Trading is bringing to the fore the notion that we do live in a sort of  'Global Village' and that the "... importance of a system is proportional to the degree it can affect its environment... the sensitivity of a system depends on how much it is affected by its environment. If the sensitivity is high, the system is dependent on the environment; if low, independent" (Arnopoulos 45). We are now realizing that we cannot act completely independently from nature, because we are all related. We cannot be sustained without nature.  The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency went as far as to proclaim transferable discharge permits "the most important innovation in environmental policy for the next decade" (Rifkin, 66).
	
As previously mentioned, the major contributor to air pollution is the automobile. Therefore, any thought of policy dealing with the elimination or reduction of air pollution should concentrate, but not be limited to the automobile.  In dealing with the automobile in terms of reducing it's impact on air pollution incentives must be given for manufacturers to reduce pollutant emissions from their vehicles and the costs associated with the pollution created from driving must be transferred to those people operating the vehicle.
	
To increase manufacturers compliance with the production of less harmful vehicles, a combination of averaging and trading is the most effective solution.  This system is very similar to that of Emission Credit Trading in that manufactures will be given a fleet wide average standard to meet (ie: their sales-weight emissions can't exceed the average).  This average can then be met in two manners.  By averaging emissions within their fleet, through methods such as installing pollution reduction equipment on their vehicle or by altering their sales mix towards more fuel efficient vehicles.  Or the manufacturer can trade emission allocations with other manufactures in the same manner as ECTs (Bryner, 176). It is important to note here that this is a different proposal as to what is already in existence.
	
The second method by which automobile pollution can be reduced focuses on internalizing the costs of pollution into the driving experience. The most effective and efficient manner is in the development of electronic scanning devices that would locate a vehicle at suitable points along the road and then monthly billings would be sent to the owner based on the vehicle's contribution to congestion.  To increase fairness (due to different emission levels of vehicles) this can be combined with periodic inspections so as to determine emission levels of a particular vehicle, so as to adjust billings accordingly (Bryner, 5). A serious increase in fuel taxes would also not do any harm in reducing air pollution problems.  It is important to note that by putting the costs of pollution onto drivers this will increase pressures on manufactures to produce more efficient cars, and develop alternative fuel sources.

	In a nutshell emission credit trading programs operate as follows.  Rather than having each firm reduce it's emissions by a given amount, the program requires that average emissions be reduced by a set amount.  A firm that reduces it's emissions below this average level would be given credits which could be sold or saved.   Credits which are saved could then be used at a later date if the firm desired to increase production (hence pollution).  Credits to be sold would go to firms finding it less costly to purchase credits at market rates than to actually reduce harmful emissions.  Therefore, each firms incentive to invest in more effective pollution abatement technology will increase.  Through the trading of credits, dollars spent on pollution control are spent where they are most effective at reducing pollution.

	Some of the advantages of ECT's are that no other method is as effective at allocating the decision making process to the people who are in the position to devise the best balance between the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of reducing polluting emissions.  There are different methods by which a firm can reduce its pollution, most often being directly tied into complicated technological processes unique to its operations or industry.  Consequently, unless the cooperation of management and technicians within the industry or activity can be effectively mobilized by self-interest motivation, it is unlikely that the best solution will be attained (Gore, 1).
	
In addition, as mentioned earlier, nearly all other methods of reducing air pollutants involve a degree of arbitrary decision making on the part of officials charged with administering controls.  Such controls may be necessary to even the best ECT system, but if administered in conjunction with such a system then the necessary discriminations will at least be minimized.  In such a case when controls need to be imposed, they will be done (if  not in practice at least in perception) in a much more unilateral manner.  This eliminates the perception of arbitrariness and discrimination, which in turn leads to greater levels of compliance and cooperation amongst corporations (Gore, 2).
	
Furthermore, a system of Emission Credit Trading is at least in principle, highly flexible, in that the market price will vary in accordance with changing circumstances, even changing weather conditions .  Technically, this may be difficult to incorporate immediately, but the potential for development is present. 
	
Perhaps most importantly, the use of ECT forces the air pollution problem to be brought into perspective.  Once transnational corporations take a stake in the problem, an ecosociety becomes more plausible. The reason for this is because of the power that they yield, and the influence which they are capable of spreading.  Pollution costs shall also be internalized into the cost of production.  This has the effect of greater adoptions of emission reduction technology, since there is a monetary incentive to do so.  And with the increasing levels of global competitiveness these transnational corporations (as well as local firms) can not afford to ignore any forms of cost reductions.  As well, in this day of information highways and increased consumer awareness firms which adopt environmentally sound practices are much likelier to show healthier bottom lines .

	Air pollution in recent years has become one of the more serious environmental concerns because of the many implications involved.  The problem has reached a degree of considerable concern, however because of the lack of political will to attack the problem in a radical manner (because of the economic distortions it would create) a market oriented alternative must be approached.  There are many areas which need to be addressed so as to develop a comprehensive pollution reduction program.  All sources of air pollution (industrial, home and vehicle) must be taken into account when dealing with the problem.  However, by introducing environmentally friendly concepts such as Emission Credit Trading a serious reduction in air pollution can be achieved, and the initial steps toward the ecosociety taken.  Obviously this is not the ideal, having to put a price on the air we breath so as to ensure it's quality, but unfortunately it is the most viable option considering the social system in which we all live.
                                                           

 











                     


                                                            Works Cited

1.  Arnopoulos, P. Political Dimensions of an Information Society: A General                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Overview. Montreal: Gamma, 1982.
2.  Bryner, G. ed. Global Warming and the Challenge of International    Cooperation: An Interdisciplinary Assessment. Provo UT: Bringham Young    University Press, 1992.
3.  Gore, A. Biotechnology: Implications for Public Policy. Washington DC. : Brookings Institution, 1985.
4.  Keller, E. Environmental Geology. Columbus: CE Merrill Publishing Co., 1985.
5.  Mitchell, B. Canadian Resource Policies: Problems and Prospects. Toronto: Methuen, 1981.
6.  Rifkin, E. Proteases and Biological Control. New York: Cold Spring Harbour  Laboratory, 1975.
7.  Saunders, DA Reintegrating Fragmented Landscapes: Towards Sustainable Production and Nature Conservation. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
8.  Vig, N and Kraft, M. Environmental Policy in the 1990's. Washington DC: C.Q. Press, 1990.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Aliens.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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?
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\All I Know Is What I Read In the papers.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

               "All I know is what I read in the papers" - Will Rogers

	There have been many criteria over the past few centuries that measured one's political clout and influence: divine right, property, money, and acquaintances.  In the twentieth century, particularly the past two decades, the political power to influence others resides in information: the more information you have and the more you know how to use it, the more potential influence you have.
	People rely on the media for their information, as it is the most easily accessible, efficient, and passive way of acquiring knowledge.  Unfortunately, the media is not completely reliable as it can and has been manipulated by politicians, their parties, and their governments.  This makes the media a powerful weapon as politicians use it to effect voters political choices through advertising, change popular opinion on issues of state, and debasing political campaigns through smear tactics. 
      
         "You can make a candidate someone they aren't.  You can protect them from someone they are, or make them more of what they are".-Senator Norm Atkins(1)

"An election is like a one day sale...the product (candidate) in a sale
(campaign) is only available a few hours on one day".(2)

	The main goal one hopes to achieve by advertising something is to make it marketable so people will purchase it.  Since what a politician hopes to ultimately do is persuade people to vote for, or buy, their political platform, they would be foolish to not take advantage of the captive and passive audience of the advertising mass media.  Unfortunately politicians and their management take advantage of this medium to manipulate voters' choices.  Two cases of  advertising manipulation on voters was during 

-2-
the Canadian National Referendum of 1992 and the Quebec Referendum of 1995.  During the National Referendum of 1992 over the Charlottetown Accord "three hours of free broadcast time was made available during prime time on every radio and television network that met the statutory criteria"(3)  according to the Referendum Act.  The act also states that "half (of the time) is allocated to the 'Yes' and half to the 'No' side"(4).  This allotment of advertising time did  not take into account the print advertisement that was plastered all over the daily and weekly news periodicals calling for people to vote for their side.  In the  Toronto Star all the month of October the "Yes" campaign, fronted by Brian Mulroney, took out ads that had  powerful bylines printed in bold type like this one of October 17:  "Vote Yes for Canada's Future"(5).   This statement is an attempt to manipulate not only the voter who will take the time to read the reasons in smaller print,  but also the voter who only glances through the paper as their attention is caught, even if it is only for a second,  to the bold type and the powerful finality of the statement.
	These are examples of direct use of advertisement to sway voters' decisions.  There is a more indirect method as well where politicians use the news media to try to convey their message and hope the news will air or print it.  During the National Referendum  campaign the "No" side relied on this factor more than the "Yes" side did.  In a Globe and Mail article before the vote, the reporter regurgitated what Judy Rebick had said about the "Yes" side being "top-heavy with politicians, government types, and opinion leaders"(6), and how the public respects the "No" side as it is "something that comes from the grassroots"(7).  
	
-3-
	Similar to the National Referendum, the Quebec Referendum also followed the same guidelines set out by the Referendum Act concerning media advertising allotment.  The only difference was that the advertisement was localized to Quebec only.  As with the 1992 Referendum the local periodicals in Quebec were littered with advertisements for votes: in Quebec's French-language newspapers "the federal government took out full-page ads"(8)  which stated "in huge bold letters...NUMBERS DON'T LIE and goes on to explain how Quebec...will receive 31 per cent of all federal transfer payments"(10).  This ad was meant to persuade Quebec citizens to vote no as Canada is very generous to them. 
	Politicians in Quebec also took advantage of the indirect media advertising when they recited political rhetoric to reporters hoping it will be printed: 
 Pierre Paradis , Liberal House Leader, said the poll numbers
suggest that the No side's message that separation is the real 
issue is getting through to the public.  "The more the stakes
become clear...the more people will be inclined to say No"(11).
This statement by the Liberal House leader works just as well as a paid advertisement as a result of it being short, concise, and the main messages are clear: separation is the real issue and the clear person, that is to say the person with clarity of mind, will vote no.

	 "Corruption may then be seen as just one of the many ways a person
can persuade someone who exercises public authority...so 
long as the power-holder acts within the rules".(12)



-4-
Not all politicians in power try to corrupt others through the media, as the quotation may suggest, but politicians have used the media to influence, change, or even confuse peoples' views on issues of state.  This trend goes as far back as Nazi Germany  when the streets of Germany were littered with propaganda posters and literature condemning other countries and their ideologies, for instance: (found below a poster of a massive skeletal Bolshevik soldier) "Only one man can save us from the monster of Bolshevism-Adolf Hitler!"(13).  Propaganda has always been an affective form of manipulation and has stood the test of time but there are other forms of media manipulation that have altered viewpoints.  The time that preceded world war two in Canada the issue of conscription was a very volatile issue which Prime Minister Mackenzie King endeavored to deal with a referendum.  Barring the result of the referendum, Mackenzie King new he would have support on any decision he made as most periodicals knew whom they had to aid during the war.  In a letter from J.W. Dafoe, editor in chief of the Winnipeg  Free Press, to George Ferguson the editor of the news room , Dafoe clearly states, in regard to Mackenzie King's "conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription" policy:

Of course, the coming of the war will change the [approach to] 
the editorial page...unless something happens that we simply 
cannot stand, our business will be to go along with the 
government and help them out in every possible way by 
explanations, intelligent publicity and so forth.(14)
  
	

-5-
Mackenzie King's government were confident that no matter the outcome of the war or the conscription issue the media would support their decision, and since print news and radio were the only information medium of the time, the content was easily controlled.  Since conscription was passed and very little resistance was put forth by opposition, it must be concluded that the media was successfully controlled in favor of Mackenzie King's government and the reality of conscription was taken easier by the public.
	A more recent use of the media to change people's minds was immediately after the Quebec referendum when the federal government cabinet team was put together to "fulfill the promise made by Mr. Cretien at the massive Montreal No rally"(15-).   This cabinet team "sprung out of sudden haste"(16) and its airy "mandate is to try and give recommendations to the Prime Minister...on all the possibilities for change in the union"(17).  The lack of real direction and purpose in the mandate of this team suggests that its emergence was to assure the public that the government is still in control and has alternate plans to deal with the problem.  The reality is that there can be no control over something that the government only has a half say in, there is no control on the side of Quebec because the Parti Quebecois has political power at this time.  









-6-
"Oh Lord, teach us to utter words that are gentle and tender
because tomorrow we may have to eat them"(18)               

	
Nothing is more vulgar, heated, or viscous than a political campaign.  It does not matter how good one's intentions are, it is inevitable that a politician will make personal attacks on their opponents, and reduce the race to a battle of smear campaigns.  Similar to political advertising, politicians rely on the media, both personal direct advertisement  and indirect advertisement through journalist news reporting.  In the recent past the most controversial media smear tactic was during the last federal election when Kim Campbell 
made a an advertisement criticizing Jean Cretien's physical disability.  It was a collection of people commenting on how embarrassing it would be if he were to be Prime Minister due to the paralysis on the left side of his mouth.  Ultimately this tactic failed and in turn Jean Cretien used the bad publicity that Campbell brought on herself to portray her as petty and desperate.
	In a more recent paradine, the Quebec Referendum was also a forum for bashing the opponent both directly through campaign advertisement and indirect free exposure through the news.  The No side malignantly condemned Mr. Bouchard's "campaign slip when he spoke of the 'white race' in Quebec and its low birth rate"(19) .  To make the matter worse, the Liberals "also found fodder in...Jaques Parizeau blaming money and the ethnic vote"(20) for the Bloc's loss in the referendum.  The response of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc was to resort to the same tactics by "accusing the No side of 


-7-
overspending and other illegal acts... and perhaps costing the sovereigntists  a victory".(21)   
	Another verbal thrashing Mr, Bouchard took came at the hands of ex-Prime Minister Pierre Truedeau.  Bouchard sarcastically alluded to the constitution matter of 1982 and implied Truedeau was a liar; "when talking about the distortion of Quebec history, Pierre Truedeau is certainly an expert in that matter"(22). Truedeau floored Bouchard by saying that "the federalists would have done better in the recent Quebec referendum "(23)  if the Yes side didn't "make Quebeckers, especially former premier Rene"Levesque, look like victims"(24), 
             Politics is a very dirty game, and if you don't develop a thick skin to deal with the rhetoric then you will not survive the smear campaigns.

	"I fear three newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets"(25)

	  The mass media in all its manifestations has a mandate to be a forum for views both directly and indirectly through advertising and journalist reporting,  This massive forum has been the place, for many years, that politicians have had their voice.  Like many other institutions, the mass media has been utilized as a tool of the political world with which politicians, their parties, and their governments capture the  fixated and passive audience, thus making the media a powerful device to affect voters political choices 

-8-
through advertising, change popular opinion on issues of state, and debasing political campaigns with smear tactics.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\All Men Created Equal Stephen Douglas versus Abraham Lincol.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
All Men Created Equal

	America has undergone incredible hardships as a nation.  No issue has had more impact on the development of the American definition of freedom than the issue of slavery.  Did the Constitution specify which men were created equal?  Surprisingly enough the phrase "all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights" did not mean what it does today.  The nation was divided on the issue of slavery and the rights of the black man in its early stages as a growing republic.  Abraham Lincoln was a brave pioneer who dared to rub his hand against the grain of slavery bringing the original ideals of America's founders to a new light.  He was a man who felt he was witnessing a slow decay in the foundation of the American principles.  His views were not met with unanimous applause from the American people.  He battled against an equally strong constituency - the slave owner's and their presidential candidate, Judge Douglas.  Abraham's grounds for the abolition of slavery were based on the words that were scripted in the Declaration of Independence and the meaning of those words as they related to American citizens and the celebration of the 4th of July.
Many American's argued that the Negroes were not entitled to the same rights because they were not legally citizens of the United States of America.  This issue was dealt with in the ruling of the Dredd Scott case.  Lincoln points out that the ruling of the case was based on historical fact that was wrongly assumed.  Judge Taney, who presided over the case stated that "Negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States."   This statement was later refuted by Judge Curtis who shows that "in five of the then thirteen states...free negroes were voters, and, in proportion to their numbers, had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had."   The fact that Negroes were citizens who participated in the framing of the Constitution gave them the same freedoms as the white men who helped shape the American ideals classifying the Negro as a "citizen."
The strongest persuasion that Abraham could have possibly given the American people were the words that the Declaration of Independence so powerfully spoke.  Lincoln fully understood the phrase "all men were created equal" as pertaining to the entire human family.  He explained:  
"[they] intended  to include all men, but they did not
 intend to declare all men equal in all respects.  They 
 did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, 
  intellect, moral developments, or social capacity." 
  This statement was perfectly logical.  The Declaration goes on to state that the "inalienable rights" that human beings have are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  This was the idea which Abraham believed was the "standard maxim for free society."   Abraham even used a parallel from the Bible. "'As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.'"  This quote from Matthew 5:48 was used to illustrate that God had set an impossible goal for us to attain, and in the same way the framers of the Constitution and writers of the Declaration of Independence gave mankind an endeavor to give equality to all mankind.   Douglas argued that the writers only meant to give the British citizens in America equal rights to the British citizens then residing in Great Britain.  Douglas' argument for this hypothesis was: 
"'they [the writers] referred to the white race alone,
 and not to the African, when they declared all men 
 to have been created equal'"  
It was terribly wrong because 'white' did not necessarily mean British.  Where did this statement leave white immigrants from Germany and France who were not necessarily 'British'?  The Declaration was not meant as a mere statement of liberation from Britain but as the basis of a government that would uphold the belief that the people deserved to be free from a King or other form of rule which infringed on those rights that mankind deserves.
	In fact, what worth was the Declaration eighty years after it was written if it's only purpose was as statement of independence from Great Britain?  What's more, the Declaration of Independence would have given no freedoms to men residing in America if it had read, as Douglas implied, "'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain.'"   To the citizen of the United States, the Fourth of July would have come to mean absolutely nothing if freedom was granted to an exclusive group of people.
	Though Americans were divided on the issue of Negro rights and their right to citizenship, an almost unanimous fear was the possibility of an increase in interracial marriages following the abolition of slavery.  Abraham agreed with the separation of the races when it came to mixed blood.  He gave Americans numerical statistics which showed that interracial marriages were significantly less within free states.  The end of slavery (and thus separation of whites and blacks) "is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation."   The reasoning was based on the frequency of mulatto births arising from slaves and their masters in comparison to the number of mulatto births that were among free states.  The mixing of the blood was occurring because the Negroes and whites were in forced contact.  The elimination of an almost universal fear was yet another argument for the separation of the races.  
	Although he was not a 'modern day' civil right's activist, Lincoln's logic eventually led to the abolition of slavery, tragically driving the nation into a state of civil war.  However, the American ideals which he embraced have made their way into our modern societies standards leading to civil right's programs which are constantly being reformed.  Immigrants, of all nationalities and colors now look to America as a symbol of great ideals.  Abraham said more prophetically than he could imagine that the American ideals of freedom should be "constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all peoples of all colors everywhere."  As a result of his push for the preservation of the American ideal of freedom, slavery no longer exists and is even considered unconstitutional on the grounds that it is in direct contradiction with the conception that "all men are created equal."
	
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\American Civil War.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The American Civil War was a grave turning point in the history of North America. It was a conflict that pitted the Northern states of the American union against the Southern states. The war raged for four years, from 1861 to 1865, and was marked by some of the fiercest military campaigns in modern history. In this essay, you will learn the causes of the American Civil war, as well as the after effects of the war. 

	It has been extremely hard for historians to exactly pin-point the causes and effects of the war.  The war itself had international impact, not only because of the growing international status of the United States, but also because war threatened world access to the South's cotton.  Britain and France were the two main countries that had particular interest in the wars outcome, but other nations were as well effected by it.  The civil war was a conflict over way of life. The Southern states depended upon the agriculture of the slaves, including cotton production . When Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860,  his opposition of slavery was seen as a threat to the economic interests of the Southern states. The South responded by seceding from the union and founding the Confederate States of America in 1861. The first state to secede was South Carolina, on December 20, 1860. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana followed in January, 1861. Texas then also separated on February 1st. Three days later on February 4th, 1861, delegates from these states drafted a constitution for the confederacy. Jefferson Davis, was proclaimed president on February 18th. This was before Abraham Lincoln himself even became officially proclaimed President. The war began in 1861, when confederates open fired on Ft. Sumter, gaining control over the Port of Charleston. On April 15th, Lincoln then called out 75,000 volunteers determined to surpress the insurrection. It was the beginning of war. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas seceded in the Spring of 1861. By now, the Confederacy had 11 states, and were outnumbered by the union who had 23 states. Eleven confederate states would stand against twenty-three states of the union. The south had a population of nine million, and three million of them were slaves. They were up against the north, who had over twenty-


two million people. The war was well fought by both the North and South, and ended in 1865, with the North easily overpowering the South. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865, 12 days before the final surrender of the confederacy. The war itself  costed over $20 billion dollars. The war did not address once and for all one  of its main causes - the race issue. In the post-war reconstruction period between 1865-1877, Northern reformers sought to give the freed blacks not only protection but power in the Southern states. However, the effects of their programs, which were also negative in intent, was to increase Southern white hostility toward the blacks as well as the North. The abandonment of the reconstruction left the blacks with their future scrapped out.. Despite the blacks being free from oppression back then, they were still the lasting casualties of the war. Only long term national progress and prosperity could begin to offset their harsh lot in both the South and North.

	In conclusion, the civil war had the legacy of a truly modern war, over 600,000 dead, and over a million American casualties for a cause until this day stirs the American nation deeply 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS






SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\American Sel Perception vs the Truth.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

AMERICAN SELF PERCEPTION vs.
the TRUTH


	Lee Greenwood, a song writer,  describes the emotion involved in American self-perception in a song by saying, "I'm proud to be an American. For at least I know I'm free." Freedom is the founding pillar of the American self-perception.  Self-perception is the culmination of how one views oneself.  Other aspects which make up American self-perception are wealth, power, and the pursuance of happiness. Self-perceptions, whether confined to the individual or confined to an entire country, usually leave out negative aspects such as hypocrisy. When dealing with the perception of a country, the true image of a society comes from self, or internal perceptions, combined with the external perceptions from other countries.
	The foundation of American self-perception is freedom. Freedom of speech and movement are virtual institutions in the United States. Such freedoms of speech and movement are outlined in the United States Constitution.  Americans believe the constitution sketches the "American Dream" which is having a family, money, and the freedom to pursue happiness.  Every American will stand by the line derived from the Constitution, "All men are created equal."  In actuality, the constitution outlined the freedom for rich white landowners to achieve unchecked power and wealth.  At the time of the framing of the constitution, blacks were slaves thus all men were NOT created equal. Women were equally excluded from the constitution as suffrage wasn't even a consideration at the time. The only class groups which the American Constitution outlined freedom for were wealthy European immigrants fleeing their own land for such reasons as taxes.  After such movements as Suffrage and Civil Rights, all Americans were granted individual rights of freedom thus approaching equality. 
	The American self-perception of living a life of virtual complete freedom parallels the American stand on its' belief  of democracy. Americans feel that a democratic government is the only possible administration which can be deemed acceptable in today's world system. Such a deep rooted belief in democracy instills a fear and dislike of any other form of government. Look at American policies towards the Soviet Union after the second world war. The American enemy image of the Soviets was that of  a populace of evil and clever people who pushed their form of government upon weak nations all over the world. The base of Soviet fear was based and strengthened not on fact but a fear of the unknown. The American response to the Soviets was to contain U.S.S.R  through political and military interventions in countries where there was a possibility of the formation of a communist government. American intervention dominated the western hemisphere as a bipolar world system arose with the United States in the west and the Soviet Union in the east. By using extensive intervention, the United States turned incredibly hypocritical as they were pushing their form of government upon smaller, weaker countries which were dependent on American aid. This is no different than what the "evil" Soviet Union was doing in the eastern hemisphere. Also by forcing American government style upon other nations, the United States was restricting the choice and freedom of independent states. This threatening of choice contradicts the American belief that every country should be democratic. Again another form of hypocrisy has occurred in American self-perceptions and beliefs.
	Other nations view America slightly differently than what the American self-perception details. Let's take the Polish perception of Americans. Ever since the Polish Solidarnosc movement of the late 1980s, America has been there to lend a helping democratic hand. Help from the United States  come in the forms of economic aid and increased trade. For the United States, a democratic sphere of influence in a former Eastern Bloc country was considered to be a prized possession.  To Poland and the Polish people, America was doing more than helping democratic reform, they were trying to mold Poland into a mirror image of the United States just as the Soviets tried to mold Poland into a miniature Soviet Republic. This overbearance of American help borders on imperialism. Such overbearance which disturbs the Polish people is the recognition of such American holidays as the Fourth of July. All over Poland, particularly in Warsaw, extensive news coverage of American Independence Day spans the entire day through such mediums as television, radio, and newspaper. Poles view this as Americans having a superiority complex.  While the general consensus all over Poland is that help from America is a godsend, Many Poles agree that the intermingling of American culture with Polish culture is unacceptable.  Never has the US ever extended another country such equal treatment. A large section of the Polish population views Americans as wealthy  and powerful on the positive side, and imperialistic and egotistical on the negative side.
	The American true image is comprised of more than self-perception. How other countries and cultures perceive Americans is a important part of what it truly means to be an American. Americans see themselves as free and righteous while other countries like Poland view Americans as ethnocentric. What many Americans fail to see in their self-perception is, that intermingled within their beliefs and practices, hypocrisy. Hypocrisy dominated the American containment policy of the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. As Americans were condemning the Soviets for pushing a communist government, Americans themselves were pushing democracy in weaker, dependent states. To find the truth of what it is to be American, you must combine other countries perceptions into your own, otherwise you will only achieve half the truth.
	
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\An Explosive Answer .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


After browsing through Stephen E. Atkins book Terrorism, I soon learned many
interesting things regarding the history of terrorism.  It seems this form of protest has been
around since Biblical times.  Also, the main goal of a terrorist is not to do damage to
one peticular person or place, but to gain publicity for an idea they support.  (page 1) 
Evidence of this can be found by looking at the recent past of the United States.  The
Oklahoma bombing was one man's way of expressing his dislike of the government.  
The exact definition of terrorism is not a solid line, it is a very wide line that isn't
defined.  The general definition of terrorism is an attack of some sort against a person or
place that involves violence and/or destruction of property and is usually politically
motivated.  (Terrorism 3)

Our fight against terrorism became something the terrorists might fear in 1970, at
the Hague Convention.  This United Nations convention basically defined ...hijacking as a
crime and required contracting states either to allow the extradition of hijackers to their
country of origin, or to prosecute them in the state where they were arrested. (The Terrorists
146)  Atkins states that one of the reasons it took so long to do anything about terrorism is
that it is so hard to define, and therefore just as hard to enforce.  He also says
Declarations and conventions from the UN have lacked effective enforcement
mechanisms, so they have been ignored by member states and have been characterized as
'largely cosmetic.   Basically, the UN is doing this to satisfy the public and little else. 
This lack of understanding of the meaning of terrorism has also been a hindrance when law
8:56 PM 12/14/96enforcement was actually implemented.  Police aren't trained to handle terrorist type
attacks, instead they handle them like ordinary criminal attacks. (Terrorism 26-27)  This gives
the terrorists exactly what they wanted, publicity for their cause.

The media is a terrorists best friend.  Without the modern wide-spread media,
terrorism would be worthless.  The human nature that makes us stop and look at the
horrible traffic accident is another reason why terrorism is effective.  Ask someone 20
years from now what they remember about the 1996 Summer Olympics, and they will say
the terrorist bombing.  This event was literally blown out of proportion by the media.  It
wasn't a terrorist attack, there was no one taking credit, and no reason for doing it.  Any
juvenile delinquent could have easily found this information off the Internet.  According to
the infamous Jolly Rogers, homemade weapons are easy to make.  He doesn't gloss over
the fact that attempting to make these weapons is usually illegal, and dangerous.  There
are approximately 50 different types of illegal activities detailed in the text file, which is
over 100 pages long.  This document isn't hard to find to anyone looking. 
(http://space.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/~rykramer/cookbook.html)

There are usually a few kids every year who remove fingers trying to build home
made bombs, and those kids are the lucky ones, many have died making the explosive
kitchen creations.  One example is the tennis ball bomb.  Supposedly, a tennis ball is cut
open and filled with broken off match heads.  The only thing the article doesn't mention is
the chances of filling the tennis ball up with match heads before friction ignites the thing in
the builders hands.  Another dangerous thing is the light bulb bomb.  This is built by
placing black power inside a light bulb.  The theory behind it is that the filament will ignite
the power, thereby sending glass fragments throughout the room.  The only problem is
when the builder forgets to turn off the light switch before screwing in the explosive light
bulb.  (http://space.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/~rykramer/cookbook.html)  It is also true that two high school students
built a small nuclear weapon in a chemistry lab from instructions found on the Internet. 
Resources like Jolly Roger's Cookbook and the Phreak filez are easily available on the
Internet, but contrary to what most mass-media mediums would like people to believe, the
bomb making instructions do not suddenly jump up on the user's screen.  The Internet
user must go out and look for the information, and if they are really that dedicated to their
terrorist cause, the will be able to find the information anywhere, not just the Internet.  As
far as the modern terrorist is concerned, the Internet doesn't have any new information
that isn't already easily accessible.

  Terrorist form groups to make it easier to get their message across.  Atkins has a
very good list of modern terrorist groups.  One group is the Arab National Youth
Organization for the Liberation of Palestine. (ANYOLP)  This group was found by the
president of Libya, Qaddafi.  This group isn't as active as when it started in 1972, but it
was never officially disbanded by Qaddafi.  (Terrorism 102)  One of the most famous groups is
the Black Panther Party.  (BPP)  This was founded in the United States in the 1960's, in
Alabama.  This groups wasn't really a terrorist group, but more a self-defense group that
pushed the lines of self defense.  Most people associate Martin Luther King Jr.'s name
when they hear this group because this was a very racially oriented group.  (106)  One of
the oldest terrorist groups is the Irish Republican Army.  (IRA)  It started during the 19th
century when Ireland was fighting for its independence.  Unlike other groups, this group is
respected by many people because they are trying to unify the island of Ireland.  This
group also has a more radical splinter group called the Irish Republican Army Provisional
Wing.  (Terrorism 116-117)

Terrorist groups have also become very good plots for movie makers.  The movie
Delta Force is based solely on a terrorist taking over an airplane.  There has also been a
movie made recently which  shows the Islamic Jihad group of Iran and their attack in 1983
against Marines in Beirut. (Terrorism 118)  Another movie that mentions the Islamic Jihad is
"Executive Decision"   This is just another example of how the media loves dramatic
stories, and why not, it sells!

I believe terrorism is a very real and very dangerous threat to the United States. 
We spend millions to support a large "peace keeping" military, but yet a single terrorist
attack could easily bring our nation to it's knees.  The media loves the blood and gore, so
it reports all the details.  What paper would print a cover story about the recent Nobel
Peace Prize recipients instead of the recent plane that may have been bombed or the
"terrorist" attack at the Olympic games?

---------------------------------

Works Cited

Atkins, Stephen E. Terrorism: A Reference Handbook Santa Barbara, California:
ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1992.

Payne, Ronald and Dobson, Christopher.  The Terrorists: Their Weapons, Leaders and
Tactics.  New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1982.


 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\An politcal arguement of sexual harrasment.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Innocence
	In the nation Katha Pollitt argues in her article "Kissing & Telling" that the media is against liberals, and or her views. Allan Levite in his article for the National review, "Bias Basics," Levite argues that the medial is biased against conservatives. Both authors present arguments with deficiencies. They both have motives to be biased. One of them has to be right, but using the proof the two authors sight you could not tell which one. The two columnists each write biased columns that do not prove their points well.

In Pollitt's argument she says that the media ignores the real issue. Which is a male harassing a female. She says that the media ignores the other cases of more serious offenses dealing with the same subject. She sights two other cases that she would have us believe are more commonplace than incredibly stupid elementary school kids.  Her first example is the case dealing with the sixth grader who received death threats does not even clearly state what kind of hate was involved. It could have been sexual harassment, or it could have been because she carried Spam around on her forehead. She only names two cases as her examples.  So in her magical "evil people bash feminism land" her argument is just as common as what she is complaining about, or maybe less common. No one is trying to bash feminism. This was not planned out to happen. (I hope) 

Also, kids in elementary school always are not thinking about getting their secretaries to have sex with them for raises. Personally, I think kids are stupid. Even I was a stupid kid. When I was in third grade a guy, Tommy, bit my ear. Because he bit my ear I have not become accustomed to Sado Masochist gay sex dealing around ear biting. Tommy has not been going around biting people's ears and getting turned on by this. He now cleans pools for a living. I doubt either of us cared at the time. Although I remember some crying. People who pee in their pants in grade school usually do not pee in their pants when they are grown up to be heads of the country. We would know about it if they did. Many children form weird attractions to doing many things when they are small. I used to think Bon Jovi was the coolest band ever. Now I laugh at my obvious immaturity, because I do not believe that anymore. Kids have no idea what the hell they are doing they're "dumb" and "cute." (And getting more sexual activity than me and those bastards can't even multiply)

Even Pollitt justifies my argument of the kid does not know what the hell he is doing. "De' Andre's whole family was famous, until they stopped returning reporters' calls after he punched and bit a teacher." The kid probably will not grow up, and go around biting and punching teachers.

Pollitt also tries to argue the point when she asks "And how can we raise children to respect another's limits at 13-- and-- 30 if we think it's cute when we do not." She compares what the kids did to "sexual aggression and violence." This is a little bit strong comparison for a bunch of kids who probably have wet their bed's recently. They do not exactly have secretaries to bribe with raises yet, or wives to beat. When I think of violence the first thing that comes to my mind is tearing one button from a skirt. (Really) I do not think these kids are anyway dealing with anything but their own ignorance. Charge them with stupidity or immaturity. Come on, these kids are not even old enough to laugh in health class everytime someone says the word "penis."

Another completely bogus thing that Pollitt suggest is if John Leo, who wrote the column on if he would have though it was so cute if the boys had kissed other boys. Would the principal have thought that it was sexual harassment and suspended them in the first place? I doubt it.

It would appear also that because of Pollitt's past history she does hold some anger towards people who mess with others when they are children. She does not appear to be too much a centrist when it comes to punishment of kids mistreating others. In fact, she probably holds some deep psychological grudge against kids who annoy others. Maybe to get back at the ones who annoyed and mistreated her she decided to write this column thinking that Johnathan and De' Andre are just like the ones who angered her. This is the first reason for bias. There is probably a really good reason why this article is in a magazine that is so left winged it is probably communist.
 
	Levite's using the most incredibly dense, and stupid idea I have seen in quite a while. To decide whether the media is liberally or conservatively biased he uses a keyword search. Putting words into a keyword search is by no stretch of the imagination reliable for anything. Example: If I type "free porn" into the Internet search, Infoseek?�� I get some crap against child pornography, some Palmala Anderson non porn stuff, some crap on pay me some money "free" service, and actually only one real "Free Porn" site. Keyword searches take two words and find them anywhere in the document. If I said, "I can see out over the airplane's wing and on the right side I see a bird," according to his search I am a pinko commie liberal bastard. A better example of keyword searches:  I put the words ultra left and right wings into the searches. Right wing gives me information on cults. Left wing gives me information on flying. Consider Waco, and Montana cults and militias. That was front page news every day, and I do not seem to know of any left wing cults. Probably because using a true Democrat a left wing cult cannot exist unless it happens to be a separate country. (See Aaron Burr) The fact that Levite did not actually check to see what ever the articles are on, or he just neglected to mention what they were about. If he did not mention them, might it be because it might hurt his argument so he left that subject out? If he did not even check the articles, why? Does he have an actual life? Or do his statistics prove what he wants to say so he decides why go any further?

I also wonder how he decided upon what terms were considered offensive to each party. Some terms considered to describe the right wing consist of everything from white supremacist rich capitalist to Nazi. Many of the psychotically dangerous right wing people I know skip the talk of "ultra liberal" and "liberal attack," and go straight to "you pinko commie bastard" or the ever popular and multi-useful derogatory comment, "fag." As other essay's discussed in class columnist can use the terminology more often than others, but there is still the same amount of columns biased on both sides. This is also effected by other factors, such as editors who value comic strips more than columnist etc.

The methods used by Levite are not sufficient proof of the claim he does so well to argue in the first paragraph. He uses data that is based on the actual amount of reporters and editors who are liberal and conservative from the Los Angeles Times, and The Media Elite. If he would have used more data like the ones he used in the first paragraph then there would be no way to actually argue his entire essay. The first paragraph of the essay goes to prove his point beautifully. Damn shame the other three pages are completely useless because of the data he uses. (unless you run out of toilet paper) Quite possibly Levite's data could be read by a left wing supporting columnist and turned around in his face with a look into the actual articles Levite uses in his search.

	If you plan on showing how something such as the media is biased then the one collecting the research should not be biased in the first place. Biased researchers look for what they are trying to prove instead of the whole truth, and might disregard something that does not prove their point. My suggestion is to get someone who hates both sides and will try to ruin them both. 

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Analysis of President Bushs postcold war intervention polic.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

			What Leads to Intervention?:
			A Case Study of Intervention During 
the Bush Administration 


	As Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful armed force in a world plagued by small military crises, the question ultimately becomes: when does a crisis call for intervention? From 1988 to 1992, this was President George Bush's dilemma. The days of the United States fearing embroilment in international affairs due to the towering menace of the USSR and global destruction ended at about the same time as Bush ascended the Presidency. However, with the threat of the USSR gone, the importance of small scale conflicts had taken priority in maintaining world peace. Further, the fall of communism had left the United States with a leading role in world politics. In that position, with a powerful armed force behind it, the United States carried the heavy responsibility of how and why to use it's new found eminence. That responsibility fell onto the shoulders of Mr. George Bush as the first American President to sit in that exalted position. His actions would determine the United States' place in the new world order and set the path that future Presidents would have to carefully tread. 
	The world order that President Bush inherited was of a vastly different character then that of all his predecessors. The Cold War environment that the world had just left behind had provided a clear framework for national security policy and the use of the US military. The environment that Bush walked into was an environment filled with disagreement and confusion over the new framework with which the US should operate.  It was also an environment with which the role of Congress was almost eliminated as President Bush continually authorized military operations without the full consent of Congress. It was an environment where the executive held the power to use the military based on his own intent.  
	During his term in the Presidency, George Bush was confronted with many opportunities to demonstrate his intent for the US military. The four years while Bush was President saw crisis situations occur with alarming frequency. In each of these crisis areas, gross human rights violations were committed. In some cases he reacted with swift military action, in the name of humanitarianism, while in other cases he allowed sanctions to do the job. The crisis situations where he advocated a military intervention and the situations where he did not both tell the whole story. In analyzing these actions, it can be ascertained which variables promoted a military intervention and which did not. 

The Variables

	There are many variables that could influence the United States' decision to send a military intervention, however very few are relevant, quantifiable or could possibly have a strong influence over such an important decision. Therefore, based on published literature and observation there appear to be five compelling variables which would have  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\antichurch.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Religion" 

        According to the dictionary "religion is the service and worship of 
God or the supernatural."1  I challenge that definition.  It is true that all 
religions do involve the worship of some supernatural force, however, it 
is also true that no religion in history has ever stopped at that.  For a 
more complete definition of the word religion we also have to examine 
two other aspects.  How has it affected man over the centuries?  And 
what is the true motivation of its leadership?  Some would have you 
believe that it has brought peace and harmony to the world and that its 
leaders are motivated by the service of their god. 



        I suggest that a more accurate definition of word would be as 
follows.  Religion, a feudal system of government which uses fear, hate and 
sometimes lies to control and manipulate people for the betterment of a 
select group 
of individuals. 



        To better illustrate this point let's look at just three of the countless 
examples that human history has to offer.  The Inquisition, "judicial 
institution, established by the papacy in the Middle Ages, charged with 
seeking out, trying, and sentencing people guilty of heresy."2  Heretics 
were considered enemies of the state.  The penalty for heresy was 
torture and death.  The crucifixion of Jesus Christ, "Jesus was taken to 
Golgotha and nailed to a cross, the Roman punishment for political 
offenders and criminals."2  The Crusades, "The name Crusade (from 
Latin, "Cross") was also applied, to the wars against pagan peoples, 
Christian heretics, and political foes of the papacy."2  All three 
examples illustrate how man has used God to justify his greed and quest 
for power.  When the leadership was challenged, it used devine decree to 
justify the murder and torture of the innocent. We are expected to 
believe that a non-physical being order the religious leadership to aquire 
riches and land, often at the demise of the poor and helpless.  The 
misuse of God isn't limited to the Ancient world.  Today we have people 
like Louis Farakahn and Adolph Hitler and David Koresch who use god 
to propagate racism and hate, there by giving them the power unite and 
control a given segment of the population. 



         As you can plainly see, religion is much more than the worship of 
a supernatural force as its leaders would have us believe.  It is in fact, a 
method by which a society is governed and controlled.  "God created 
man, man created religion, it is therefore corrupt." 
  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Apartheid in SOuth Africa.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
                                    APARTHEID
     Apartheid is the political policy of racial segregation.  In Afrikaans, it means
apartness, and it was pioneered in 1948 by the South African National Party when it
came to power. 
     Not only did apartheid seperate whites from non-whites, it also segregated the
Blacks (Africans) from the Coloureds (Indians, Asians).  
     All things such as jobs, schools, railway stations, beaches, park benches, public
toilets and even parliament.
       Apartheid also prevented blacks from living in white areas.  This brought about
the hated "pass laws".  These laws required any non-white to carry a pass on him or
her.  Unless it was stamped on their pass, they were not allowed to stay in a white area
for more than 72 hours.
      Despite the fact that the whites only make up just over 14% of the population, they
own 86.3% of the land.  However, it must be said that the Afrikaaners are entitled to
the Orange Free State and Transvaal as they were first to use it after the Great Trek of
1836.
     The average South African White earns eight times as much as the average black
man.  Coloureds earn three times as much as black while colords earn well over half of
what whites earn.
                    
                            AFRICANS                                                    273  Rand per month
                            COLOUREDS                                                624  Rand per month
                            ASIANS                                                       1,072 Rand per month
                            WHITES                                                       1,834 Rand per
month
                                                                                          
                                                   (source: Modern day South Africa, Jean Heyes,
1984)

     During Apartheid, media censorship was at an all time high.  People were even
banned from showing Soweto on television.  It was common to see a newspaper shut
down, and then start again after being halted by the government.
     Up until 1985, mixed marriages were banned.  This meant that a person of one race
cold not marry a person of another race.  Apartheid was not only used in theory, but
also by law.  Every person was classifed, just like an animal, as white, black or
coloured.  
    The system of Apartheid began to deteriorate in the mid to late 1980's.  In 1985,
mixed marriages were allowed, the Pass laws repealed, and a general weakening of
petty segregation laws regarding parks and beaches.
     In 1994, the entire system collapsed after Pres. F.W. de Klerk gave non-whites to
vote.  Nelson Mandella was elected tooffice following his prison release in February
1990.     

GROUP AREAS ACT
     A Group Areas Act, froom 1948, set aside most of the coutntry for use by the
whites.  Smaller, and less desiracle areas called 'bantustans' were set aside for blacks. 
These areas are over crowded, un sanitory, and most of all, unhygenic.  Soweto, a
large bantustan, is the size of Brighton, yet has over two million peopl in it.  
     Blacks were told to regard these desolate and unfertile areas as their 'homelands'. 
Over half of the black South African population lived, not in these batustans, but in the
white areas of the country for cheap labour.  Nonwhites had to live in shanty towns,
while the whites lived comfortably.

                         KEY GROUPS AND FIGURES     
                                  
                                                       AWB    
      The AWB ( Afrikaans for Afrikaaners Resistance Movement) are an extreme right
wing group who seek the formation of a Volkstaat.  A Volkstaat would be entirely
made up of Afrikaaners.  Led by Eugene Terre'blanche, they resort to terrorist
activities such as bombings, shootings, weapon theft and raids on black townships to
achieve their aim.  They are totally for segregation.

STEVE BIKO
     Born in 1946, he attended Natal University in 1966 to study medacine.  After
leaving the white dominated National Union of students to form the all-black South
African Students Organisation.  Aleading figure in the Black Conciosness Movement,
he formed the Black Peoples Convention, and several communtity based organisations. 
In 1975, he was held without arrest for 137 days.  Not surprisingly, he died in 1977
after being beaten in police custody after being taken from Port Elisabeth to Pretoria.

 
NELSON MANDELLA
     Born into the Royal Family of the Tembu in Transkei.  For involvement in student
politics, he was expelledfrom Fort Haire University, but obtained a law degree by
correspondance.  He established the first African law practise in Johannesburg along
with his partner Oliver Tambo.  He co-founded the ANC with Youth League with
Tambo and Walter Sisulu and eventually became National President.  In 1952, he was
arrested for the Defiance campaign, which blatantly broke Apartheid laws.  In 1956,
Mandella was charged with High Treason.  He was aquitted four and a half years later. 
After the Sharpeville massaacre, Mandella helped form the military wing of the ANC. 
He went into hiding and travelled abroad before being again arrested, this time for
illegally exiting the country in 1962, for which he recieved a sentence of five years. 
Whilst serving this sentence, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for 'sabotage' and
'conspiracy to overthrow the government by revolution'.  This was extremely unjust, as
he was charged with these offences under the Suppression of Communism Act, and
Mandella favoured a Westminster type democracy.  Finally, after years of international
pressure, Mandella was released in February, 1990.  In 1993, he shared the Nobel
Peace Prize and in 1994, became South African President.
 
DESMOND TUTU	
     Ordained as apriest in 1961, Tutu studied theology in London where he gaine dhis
asters degree in 1966.  He became bishop of Lesotho in 1978 and was appoited
secretary-general of the South African Council of Churches in the same year.  He was
honoured world-wide for his determination in resisting apartheid peacefuly.  He
supported the Free Mandela campaign and promoted peaceful disobidience.  Awarded
the Nobel piec prize in 1985, he was a powerful voice amongst those calling for
economic sanctions to be placed on South Africa.  He was Archbishop of
Johannesburg, then Cape Town, befor retiring  in 1995.

HENDRIK VERWOERD 	
     Born in Holland, Verwoerd was known as one of the 'architects of apartheid'
because he created the idea of bantustan and bantu education.  In 1946, he became
vice-chairman of the National Party in Transval and then Minister of Native and Bantu
Administration in 1950.  He became Prime Minister in 1958 and was assassinated eight
years later.	



SUMMARY
      From 1948 to 1990, South Africa had an appaling record with regards to human
rights.  Not only was Apartheid in use, but blacks were being killed on streets,
playground and even in their homes and police stations.  The government organised
and condoned this behaviour.  They breached Article    of the decleration of human
rights by banning groups such as the ANC.  Article    was breached by the police when
they would arrest people for no reason.  Finally Article    was breached simply because
the South African Government, army and police force did not treat blacks equaly and
fairly like human beings.
     With the Presidency of Nelson Mandella, and the leadership of the ANC, the
country looks set to put behind them the troubles of the past one hundred years,
however, with extremist groups and people such as the AWB and Eugene
Terre'Blanche, one can never be sure.   




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Are immigrants a burden to the U S Should we stop all immigr.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Immigrants are not a burden tothe U.S. Therefore, we shouldn't stop all immigration . Immigrants are hard workers and are not causing unemployment for legal citizens.
	The work ethic of today's  immigrants os as strong as that of the Irish, Italians, and Poles of early immigration. According to a 1990 census, forgien born males have a 77% labor force participation. Now, compare that to the 74% participation of native-born Americans and you see that immigrants are not as lazy as some would have you believe. 5.1% of working age immigrants, the majority of which were legally admitted, recieve welfare benefits. 5.3% of working age, native born Americans also recieve welfare benefits . Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the minority of those recieving welfare and are not the only ones recieving it as the facts show.
	Immigrants, even undocumented ones are not causing unemployment for legal citizens. The INS says that there are 1.25% of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Around 1% can't  be the  cause of the 7% unemployment rate. The loss of jobs and lower wages are primarily aren't  the effect  of immigration. The loss of jobs and lower wages are primarily an effect of manufatuers moving overseas and federal economic policies. So, what are the jobs that immigrants are supposedly stealing from us? Well, undocumented immigrants typically work in low wage-jobs not filled by U.S. born workers.
 	As you can see, immigrants are not a burden to the U.S. We should not  stop  
all immigration.
	 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Arguments For & Against Congress.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
There is a definite need for Congress in the United States.  It serves many roles such as making laws, implementing national policy and watching over the other two branches of government.  These are just a few of the duties of our U.S. Congress.  Although they are essential to our government, there are potential problems.  People are not always satisfied with the length of time involved in passing a law as well as the deadlock Congress can experience on an issue.  Another potential problem people see with Congress is representation.  Not all Americans feel that they are equally represented.
The Congress of the United States is viewed by many as the largest branch in government.  Some people might even say it is the most important.  This is due to the roles Congress pays in our government.  Congress is responsible for the lawmaking in our country as well as implementing national policy.  The power to make laws was given to Congress by our forefathers when they constructed our constitution.  Passing laws is very important to our country because without them we would be living in chaos.  Of course, all our laws are not perfect but for the most part our Congress does a good job at keeping this country under control.  The problems with lawmaking that most people see is the time involved in getting a law passed.  In order for a bill to become a law it must first be "introduced to the House or Senate, or both, then referred to a committee." (Cummings / Wise 479).  This can be a very time consuming process.  Anyone interested in having a law passed must realize the process involved and be patient.  In addition to lawmaking Congress is also involved in passing amendments.  Our nation has been able to grow and strengthen due to the amendment process.  In order for our government to keep up with the changing times it is crucial that we make adjustments to the constitution.  The downfall is that the amendments passed have not always kept up with changing times.  Arguments against Congress would be that they taken to long in enforcing the amendments.  
	The U.S. Congress must also implement national policy.  The Congress must regulate commerce in order to create a prosperous economy.  It is up to Congress to monitor the growth of the economy and be ready to act if necessary.  Congress has the power to implement monetary policy in which they decrease taxes to induce spending during a slow economic period.  They can also increase taxes if there is a threat of inflation.  The problems with the role of Congress in the economy is again the time factor.  It takes time to get the policy going so Congress must be able to detect future economic problems in order for it to be effective.  
Congress makes up one of three branches of government.  The three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial were designed in a way to prevent any one branch from having absolute power over our nation.  Each branch was given the job to check and balance the other two branches.  Congress has the job of watching over the president.  If Congress detects any corruption by the president, it can bring about changes to impeach the president.  Also, if the president becomes incapacitated it is up to Congress to determine him as unfit to continue his duties.  Another way Congress checks the president is that it must approve any treaties to ensure that the president does not have too much power when it comes to foreign affairs.  "The Senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online).  People will argue that Congress gives the president too much power in the area of foreign affairs.  "Bush embarked on major war against Iraq in 1991, without a declaration of war by Congress." (Cummings / Wise 448).  Although these checks and balances are necessary they can also cause conflicts between branches.  There is always a possibility that the majority in Congress can be of a different party than that of the president.  "The disadvantage of the American system is the deadlock that can develop between the president and the Congress over policy when each is in control of a different party." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online)
There is a definite need for Congress in the United States.  It serves many roles such as making laws, implementing national policy and watching over the other two branches of government.  These are just a few of the duties of our U.S. Congress.  Although they are essential to our government, there are potential problems.  People are not always satisfied with the length of time involved in passing a law as well as the deadlock Congress can experience on an issue.  Another potential problem people see with Congress is representation.  Not all Americans feel that they are equally represented.
The Congress of the United States is viewed by many as the largest branch in government.  Some people might even say it is the most important.  This is due to the roles Congress pays in our government.  Congress is responsible for the lawmaking in our country as well as implementing national policy.  The power to make laws was given to Congress by our forefathers when they constructed our constitution.  Passing laws is very important to our country because without them we would be living in chaos.  Of course, all our laws are not perfect but for the most part our Congress does a good job at keeping this country under control.  The problems with lawmaking that most people see is the time involved in getting a law passed.  In order for a bill to become a law it must first be "introduced to the House or Senate, or both, then referred to a committee." (Cummings / Wise 479).  This can be a very time consuming process.  Anyone interested in having a law passed must realize the process involved and be patient.  In addition to lawmaking Congress is also involved in passing amendments.  Our nation has been able to grow and strengthen due to the amendment process.  In order for our government to keep up with the changing times it is crucial that we make adjustments to the constitution.  The downfall is that the amendments passed have not always kept up with changing times.  Arguments against Congress would be that they taken to long in enforcing the amendments.  
	The U.S. Congress must also implement national policy.  The Congress must regulate commerce in order to create a prosperous economy.  It is up to Congress to monitor the growth of the economy and be ready to act if necessary.  Congress has the power to implement monetary policy in which they decrease taxes to induce spending during a slow economic period.  They can also increase taxes if there is a threat of inflation.  The problems with the role of Congress in the economy is again the time factor.  It takes time to get the policy going so Congress must be able to detect future economic problems in order for it to be effective.  
Congress makes up one of three branches of government.  The three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial were designed in a way to prevent any one branch from having absolute power over our nation.  Each branch was given the job to check and balance the other two branches.  Congress has the job of watching over the president.  If Congress detects any corruption by the president, it can bring about changes to impeach the president.  Also, if the president becomes incapacitated it is up to Congress to determine him as unfit to continue his duties.  Another way Congress checks the president is that it must approve any treaties to ensure that the president does not have too much power when it comes to foreign affairs.  "The Senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online).  People will argue that Congress gives the president too much power in the area of foreign affairs.  "Bush embarked on major war against Iraq in 1991, without a declaration of war by Congress." (Cummings / Wise 448).  Although these checks and balances are necessary they can also cause conflicts between branches.  There is always a possibility that the majority in Congress can be of a different party than that of the president.  "The disadvantage of the American system is the deadlock that can develop between the president and the Congress over policy when each is in control of a different party." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online)
Representation was a key issue when the House and Senate were being designed.  Many were worried about how the states would receive equal representation in government.  It was decided that the Senate would be made up of two senators from each state and the House representatives would be chosen on the basis of population.  In general this would seem fair as far as the states are concerned but what about the people.  Who is it that makes up our Congress?  Are they everyday people you and I?  Many will say that our Congress is a representative to what the people want.  The fact is that the United States is becoming increasingly diverse as time goes on,  but just recently has Congress began to change.  "More than half the nations population are women, but the 102nd Congress had only thirty one women members." (Cummings / Wise 453).  In addition,  our nation is made up of mostly blue collared workers, yet the most predominant occupation of Congress members are lawyers.  With this in mind the Congress must strive to understand and represent the needs of the people.  Congress cannot ignore the disadvantage groups that feel unrepresented in the system.  "Until the enactment of Medicare in 1965, Congress declined to pass health care legislation for the elderly." (Cummings / Wise 446).
There will always be people for and people against any branch in government.  The reason being, government is not perfect, nor are the people who run it.  Laws take time to create and policies take time to be implemented.  You cannot deny the fact that regardless of the time involved these procedures are a major and necessary step.  Over all Congress does a good job with the roles and duties it is given.  When it comes to representation, the vote lies in our hands.  We have the power to vote for who we want to represent us.  We can make a difference if we get involved in electing those who share the same ideas of the people to make us a better a better nation.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Aristotle A Man of His Beliefs.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
											
			
	Born in the year of 384 B.C. Aristotle was seen as conventional for his time, for he regarded slavery as a natural course of nature and believed that certain people were born to be slaves due to the fact that their soul lacked the rational part that should rule in a human being;  However in certain circumstances it is evident that Aristotle did not believe that all men who were slaves were meant to be slaves.
	In his book Politics, Aristotle begins with the Theory of The Household, and it is here that the majority of his views upon slavery are found.  With the beginning of Chapter IV, Aristotle's idea of slavery is clearly defined.  "The instruments of the household form its stock of property : they are animate and inanimate : the slave is an animate instrument, intended (like all the instruments of the household) for action, and not for productions."  This distinction between action and production, is based upon the understanding that 'production' is a course in which a result is desired beyond the immediate act of doing.  Where as, the simple act of completing a task is identified as 'action'.  Aristotle, who believed that life was action and not production theorized that slaves were instruments of life and were therefore needed to form a complete household.  In fact Aristotle went as far as to say that a slave was comparable to a tame animal, with their only divergence in the fact that a slave 





could apprehend reason.  For he concluded that a slave and animals only use was to supply their owners with bodily help.  
	At the end of the Theories of the Household, Aristotle explains how slaves are different from andy other types of people, in the sence that they are the only class who are born into their occupation and become property of their masters.  In examining this relationship we find that he thought that while masters were the masters of the slaves, they still held a life other than that of being master;  However, Aristotle believed that not only was the slave a slave to his master,  but the slave had no other life or purpose than belonging.  From this consideration we begin to understand Aristotle's views on the relationship between Master and Slave.
	At the beginning of Chapter V of the Theory of the Household, the distinct role of master and slave is defined.  
		
		There is a principle of rule and subordin-
		action in nature at large : it appears 
		especially in the realm of animate creation.  
		By virtue of that principle, the soul rules 
		the body; and by virtue of it the master, who 				possesses the rational faculty of the soul,
		rules the slave, who possesses only bodily 
		powers and the faculty of understanding the 
		directions given by another's reason.



	It was Aristotle's views on the human soul that gave grounds to his arguments for slavery.  It was his beliefs that the soul 




was divided into two parts, being the rational faculty and the 
capacity for obeying.  Aristotle postulated that a freeman was innately born with the rational faculty while "A slave is entirely without the faculty of deliberation."  And with his views he felt as though it was necessary for there to be a natural ruling order, whereas, the body was ruled by the soul, and those with the natural rational faculty within their soul should rule others without.  This relationship, Aristotle found to be an essential element in his idea of master and slave being two parts forming one common entity.
	It was his belief that a man's body was the representation of his inner self and that it was nature's intentions to distinguish between those who were born to be freemen and those born to be slaves.  However, we see that Aristotle have somewhat reservations upon his beliefs that all slaves corresponded to his mold.  With such quotes as "But with nature , though she intends, does not always succeed in achieving a clear distinction between men born to be masters and men born to be slaves." we begin to see that Aristotle was not as conservative as believed.  In fact, we start to understand the left-wing attitudes that Aristotle held.  At the end of Chapter V of the Theories of the Household,  Aristotle concludes "The contrary of nature's intentions, 
however, often happens:  there are some slaves who have the 
bodies of freemen-as there are others who have a freeman's soul."  



  	Aristotle in his Theories of the Household,  allocates a full section (section 9 chapter VI), to the explanation of the relationship between a slave and a freeman who are not naturally meant to be as such.  It was Aristotle's view that although there are slaves who were born to be freemen and freemen who were born to be slaves, there could be a relationship in such cases where 
the two discerning parties would work in a community of interest and in a relationship of friendship.  "The part and the whole, like the body and the soul, have an identical interest; and the slave is a part of the master, in the sence if being a living but separate part."  
	Aristotle had many slaves himself within his household, and during the course of his death and through the executing of his will we find insight into the character of Aristotle.  He died in the year of 322 B.C. and with his death he requested that four of his slaves be emancipated.  Also he asked that none of his house slaves be sold and that they all be given the opportunity of being set free at a due age if they so deserved.  This act of generosity and goodwill gives light to the attitudes that Aristotle held.  It is evident that he believed that these slaves had the capacity to be freemen with the rational faculty within themselves to make conscious, and reasonable decisions.  Many 
scholars such as Professor Jaeger, author of Aristotleles, 
theorized that many of the views that Aristotle held upon the 




subject of slavery were developed through the close relationship that Aristotle had formed with an ex-slave.  This man was Hermias.  A man who had risen from the ranks of slave to a prince of considerable wealth, as well as father in law to Aristotle.  
	On the general analysis of Aristotle we find that he was a man of great curiosity, wisdom and ideas.  Although his views on 
slavery seemed to hold true to the times, he had many variations on the conservative norms and beliefs.  He had believed that slavery was a just system where both master and slave were beneficial from this relationship.  And with this he thought that by nature, certain people were born to be slaves, yet with these beliefs we find many exceptions, where Aristotle allocates areas to describe those who by chance became slaves but in his opinion were born to be free.  And in such incidence where men born free were not fit to be masters Aristotle explained how it would be easier for the master to obtain a steward who was more adept at giving instructions to run the household and leave the master of the house to more prudent issues.
	We can only guess as to what made Aristotle believe that by the human soul one could delineate whether or not a man was meant to be a slave or a freeman.  And with his arguments we find that it was just as difficult for him to make that distinction as well.  "Though it is not as easy to see the beauty of the soul as it is to see that of the body."    
	    
	

	























 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Back Seat to Nuclear Weapons.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 





	I feel the most important issue which I learned in class was of the emergence of the nuclear age.  I feel that this is important due to the fact that it totally redefines war and also the future of war.  When I say nuclear age, I specifically mean the potential of every nation possessing nuclear weapons.  The importance of this is that any country, whether super power or  third world,  would then have the potential to destroy any opponent, for any reason.  What makes this issue so important to not only me, but to the world population, are the repercussions which nuclear weapons possess. The problem is, "the no win aspect of nuclear weapons," as stated in "Strategic Nuclear Weapons" by James F. Dunnigan.  Any race, religion, or nation could be wiped out in the flick of a switch, and that effects every person on this planet.  Some may say that the nuclear age does not demand cognizance because the cold war is over, but it does because eleven  nations, and growing, currently posses nuclear war heads. In the past, ideals were the driving force in war, but now they take the back seat to nuclear weapons. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Bill Clinton Vs Paula Jones.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
  A lawsuit has been filed by Paula Jones, a clerk for the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, for sexual harassment by then Governor Clinton.  In her lawsuit, Paula Jones states that Clinton told an Arkansas State trooper to escort her to a private hotel room where she claims that she was sexually harassed.  There are two sides to this case: Clinton states that he did not do it and that he has never seen this person before.  Clinton's lawyers say that forcing the president of the United States to answer to a lawsuit will distract him for his already hard and time-consuming job.  On the other hand, Paula Jones says that "no one is above the law," not even the President of the United States.  What she wants most is for the truth to come out and for her story to be heard.  "In no way is she looking for her fifteen minutes of fame," Jones says.  The case is going before the Supreme Court to decide whether to reverse the decision of the two lower courts and delay the sexual harrassment lawsuit until President Clinton leaves office.  It could be months before the verdict from the Supreme Court will be announced.  I believe that the case should be held at a later date when President Clinton is no longer in office.  It takes away from his job which is to run the United States of America.  Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court blocked a damage suit against Richard Nixon with a five to four vote finding that the president is immune from being suied for his official acts.  If the president gets in trouble, the whole nation is also in trouble because after all we did elect him.  Our confidence in our political leaders will suffer, and out system of government will be impacted negatively.  If Paula Jones is allowed to sue the president, then others may follow, creating an even greater impact on the president and his duties.  This would be especially unfortunate if the president did not commit the crime of which he is accused.  The president should be immune from being sued until he is out of office so the he can continue to run our great nation without the extra worries. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Boxers or Briefs.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Steiner's Model
Steiner's model on programming preferences and broadcasting choices tries to show how stations come to the conclusion of what programming to show. This model goes on the assumption that broadcasters will go after the largest audience possible.
Going on the information given about this hypothetical situation, we can predict what each of the four stations in this market will show.
There are three distinct audience preferences. The first groups of 1200 viewers has a first programming preference of sitcoms and a second choice of soaps. The second group numbers 900 viewers and would pick cops first and soaps second. The third group, 500 viewers, likes soaps first and sitcoms and their second choice.
This model says that the audience will watch their first choice first and then the second choice, but only is their first choice is not available.
Let's say that the Federal Communications Commission licenses station A in their market. Looking at the viewer preferences, station A would start to broadcast soaps. By show soaps, it would capture a market of 2600 viewers. All viewers would watch because soaps is their first choice or it is their second choice but their first is not available.
The FCC then offers a license to station B. After examining the audience sizes, stations B also starts to show soaps. By programming to this audience, it splits the soaps market with station A and both of them have 1300 viewers.
Station B does not pick another programming because no other choice can offer more than 1300 viewers.
When the FCC offers a license to station C, things will definitely change in this market. Station C sees the biggest audience available is the sitcom market with 1200 viewers.
But when station C takes that 1200 viewers from the soap audience which hold sitcoms as their first choice, station A and B will both drop to 700 viewers. They now have to make a decision. Both can find larger markets elsewhere.
One station, and it does not matter which one, will switch to cop shows. For this hypothetical, station B would choose cops for 900 viewers.
Station A, who still is showing soaps, now only has 500 viewers. It does not like that, so it starts to show sitcoms. Audience 3, with 500 viewers, now is watching sitcoms because there are no soaps out there. Station A and C are both showing sitcoms and are splitting a viewer audience of 1700 for 850 each.
Now that the viewers are confused about what station is showing what, the FCC offers a fourth license to station D. After examination, station D decides to start broadcasting sitcoms in competition with stations A and C. All three stations have an audience share of 566. That is more than the 500 soap viewers or splitting the 900 cops viewers with station B.
Although Steiner's model is not too far off what happens in today's television landscape, it does have a couple of drawbacks that keeps it from being a true model.
Steiner does not take into consideration that some audiences are more valuable to advertisers than others. Because advertisers want certain viewers, stations might program to that audience to attract more advertising dollars.
Steiner also assumes that as stations go into competition with another station, they will split the audience equally. That is not always the case. Viewers will watch the station they believe has the better quality, even if there are two or three stations showing the same thing.
This model does offer some insights on how stations and networks make decisions. Just look at the TV Guide and see how many sitcoms there are on any given night.
This also shows why some minority viewers never get programming directed at them. The stations are going to the majority audiences which have larger numbers. The minority viewer preferences, under these model, have to have another station before they get to see their shows, in this situation.

First Copy COsts
First copy costs in the newspaper industry are the fixed costs of owning a paper and printing the first one.
First copy costs include the money spend on items that are necessary for the newspaper to be printed. These fixed costs do not vary as the number of papers increases or decreases. Because they do not vary, they are very important and must be covered by advertising and subscriptions.
These fixed costs include the physical plant, the presses, the pressmen, reporters, photographers, other staff members and the delivery trucks. 
The interesting things about fixed costs is that you have to have them. You can not scrimp or just not buy them. To cut corners, a paper does not hire reporters, but how does it cover the local news? Whether or not you print a paper, you still must pay for that stuff.
To figure the first copy costs of a newspaper, the fixed costs and the cost of the paper and ink of the first issue off the press are added together. For instance, let's say that the fixed costs of a newspaper is $1 million and the first issue costs $1 to print. The first copy costs $1,000,001.
Looking at this, it sounds like newspapers would never make any money, but we have not figured in variable costs. These include the paper, ink and related costs of running the press. As the quantity of papers goes up, these prices usually go down. As the quantity continues to go up, the average cost comes down and each paper gets cheaper and cheaper.
First copy costs keep many papers from owning their own presses. Large dailies must own their own presses in order to meet distribution deadlines and ensure that their paper gets printed on time. Smaller papers can not afford that first copy cost, so they have to contract with other to print their paper. 
First copy costs are a determining factor in how a paper is operated. Whether it owns it own presses or not, the size of its staff and how often it prints is all tied into these first copy costs.

Economy of Scale with Cable TV
By the nature of the beast, cable operators normally get exclusive franchises to supply a community with their cable service; so talking about competition in the cable industry sounds like an oxymoron. But there are signs that it might actually compete in a way.
Less than 50 cities in the United States are overbuilt, or have more than one cable provider. Yet studies show that those overbuilt cities have lower basic cable subscription rates, $14.31 compared to $17.31.
Can competition within the cable system be created?
Probably not. The barriers against entry for new cable operators in a specific market are great.
To begin with, the new operator must get a franchise agreement with that city. The incumbent franchise will not stand still for this. Those in the local government also will fear that the incumbent franchise might change benefits or disturb the local political situation.
Economics of Scale would suggest that the incumbent would have lower average costs because they are already there and have a better distribution system. The second franchise would have high entry costs because they have to string their own cable and many times they have to bury the new cable. This additional work means high construction costs and community aggravation as they tear up roads and yards.
The incumbent can employ delay tactics to make it very hard to start up new franchises. From political pressure to lawsuits to dropping price and keeping their customers happy, delays will make the new guy on the block discouraged and out.
Within the cable operator networks, like TCI or CableVision, networks themselves own or have a financial interest in some of the channels they carry. Time-Warner owns TBS, CNN and a host of other channels started by the Turner Broadcast System.
Although this sounds like a serious violation of the anti-trust laws, no contest has been put up against this practice. In fact, it has been shown that multi-system operators and overbuilt cities' operators are more likely to provide channels owned by other networks.
Carrying their own channels allows networks to increase profits and helps keep subscription rates down. And, as a practical matter, cable systems need channels to put out there for people to watch. Owning or having financial interest in channels ensures that they have programming to carry.
With all the things going against the competition of cable systems, the market demand for cable is elastic. The Crandall study, sponsored by TCI, showed that an elastic rate of 2.2 means that as subscription rates go up 1 percent, 2.2 percent of the subscribers will cancel their service.
As the market show elasticity, the reality is that is normally does not work that way. To persuade subscribers to take their higher rates, cable operators offer new channels along with the rate hike. The number of channels has traditionally been a measure of quality and as "quality" goes up, so can the rates.
Cable in the near future will see some competition from sectors outside of the cable industry. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 will make it easier for telephone and utility companies to go head to head with the cable operators. This might change the competition landscape of cable TV.

programming to the minority audiences
Because networks and broadcasters look to capture the largest audience possible, many times the minority tastes are ignored. These minorities now have more choices today than they did before as technology expands.
Steiner's model described how broadcasters went after larger audiences and skip over minority tastes. As technology advances and more stations are introduced, Steiner's model would suggest that those minority tastes were met.
In a situation where government regulates a small number of broadcast stations, minority taste audiences have little recourse. The only option that they have is to petition the government to force the stations to program to them. Such was the case with religious groups. They got the Federal Communications Commission to make stations allocate time for specific religions and their shows.
In a government sponsored market with a limited number of channels, some programming for the minority tastes will appear. The government would sponsor a channel that showed minority taste programming. On the down side here, the other broadcasters will continue to ignore minority tastes because their needs are met somewhere else. Broadcasters will continue to aim for the majority markets.
Today, with an unlimited number of channels available, minorities have programming provided to them. Those with minority tastes can now start their own channel to cater strictly to themselves. Whatever their tastes, they will have it.
The benefit of unlimited channel supply is that the market audience keeps getting more and more programming. Once someone see a type of programming work and make money, they might go after the same market. Broadcasters who once avoid that type of programming can now start another channel and tap into that market without detracting from its majority audience programming.
As the technology improves and allows more and more minority groups to get involved with broadcasting, we will start to see a sharp increase in specialty channels; more than what we currently see. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Bulgaria 1945 1996.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


Postscript















	Over the course of the past two months, January and February 1997, Bulgaria has undergone some sweeping political changes and its economy has deteriorated into further collapse. The following is an attempt to describe the events which took place in Bulgaria in January and February of 1997. This is somewhat of a difficult task given the current rate of political, economical and social changes which are occurring in Bulgaria. What follows is an account of the events which have taken place in Bulgaria over the last two months i.e. January and February of 1997, subject to the news material which was available to me and to the time constraints of this project. 
	Bulgaria's economic crisis exploded into popular outrage at the beginning of January 1997, when previously quiescent Bulgarians poured into the streets to demand that the governing BSP, leave power now rather than when their four-year term expires at the end of 1998.
	After a month of mostly peaceful daily protests that paralysed Sofia and brought much of the country's business to a halt, the Socialists, who lack the kind of fiercely loyal police and media that have sustained President Slobodan Milosevic in neighbouring Serbia, submitted to the protesters demands on Wednesday, February 5th  1997. They agreed to hand over power to a caretaker government until new elections in mid-April, which they are unlikely to win, when recent polls conclude that only 10% of the population currently support the BSP. "We'd better celebrate now, because we have very hard days ahead," said Ivan Kostov, leader of the opposition United Democratic Forces. ( Source : OMRI Daily Digest, 18th February 1997. ).
	The newly elected Bulgarian President Petar Stoyanov named an interim cabinet headed by Sofia Mayor Stefan Sofianski to oversee the country and its collapsing economy until a new parliament is chosen in general elections scheduled for April 19. The appointment means that the mass protests forced the leaders of the Socialist majority in parliament to agree to a new ballot 20 months before the end of their elective term. Sofianski's caretaker cabinet includes strong critics of the BSP and has announced it will abolish the economic development portfolio created by them.
	This new caretaker government has already begun to dismantle the large number of government Ministries which were set up by the former Communists, the BSP. Literally thousands of Civil Servants are being made redundant, as the caretaker government attempts to pave the way for Administrative Reform in both the Central and Local Governments of Bulgaria.
	Just before this project went to press, on Thursday, the 27th of February, 1997, Poland agreed to give Bulgaria 100,00 tons of wheat to help it deal with the grain shortages. Bulgaria has already opened its wheat reserves in an effort to ease the continuing bread shortages. The loan will be repaid when Bulgaria's grain reserves are replenished.        ( Source : OMRI Daily Digest, 28th February 1997. )
	The German Foreign Minister, Klaus Kinkel, speaking in Bonn on 27th February 1997, commented that "Bulgaria is on the brink of economic economic catastrophe", and he appealed to Sofia not to delay economic reforms any longer.          ( Source OMRI Daily Digest, 28th February, 1997 ).
	






 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Canada of the United States of America.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
CANADA - OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

	 The Canadian identity has always been difficult to define.  We, as Canadians, have continued to define
ourselves by reference to what we are not - American - rather than in terms of our own national history and
tradition.  This is ironic since the United States is continuing to be allowed by Canadians to take over our economy
and literally buy our country.  Culturally Canada has its own distinct government and institutions which differ and
are better from those in the United States, but economically the country has been all but sold out to America.  The
major cultural differences to be examined are that of Canada's strong government, institutions such as welfare and
universal healthcare, and our profound respect for law and authority.  These establishments make Canada a
separate nation from the USA.  Economically, it will be examined how Canada has become a victim to
Americanization through the purchase of Canada with our own money, the shocking statistics of Canada's foreign
ownership, and the final payment for our country, free trade.  All in all we have our own government, our own
flag, our own anthem; but are we really Canadian or a not quite United State of America?

	In Canada, strong government involvement plays an immense role in  determining the destiny of its
people for the good of the society.

In Canada you are reminded of the government every day. It parades before you.  It is 
not content to be the servant, but will be the master...
						Henry David Thoreau, 18861

Although slightly outdated, as of 1982 47.3 percent of Canada's GNP was in government hands, compared with
38% in the United States.  Government spending in Canada was 24.4% greater than in the U.S. and if you subtract
the U.S.'s excessive national defense spending, the gap between the two countries considerable widens.2  The
United States has adopted a more Freudian "survival of the fittest" concept towards government where the rights of
the individual are predominant and industry is publicly owned and run with little help from the government. 
Although there is some government control and ownership of industry in both countries it is much more common
in Canada where "the state has always dominated and shaped the ... economy."3

Of 400 top industrial firms, 25 were controlled by federal or provincial governments.
Of the top 50 industrialists, all ranked by sales, 7 were either wholly owned or
controlled by the federal or provincial governments.  For financial institutions, 9 of
the top 25 were federally or provincially owned or controlled ....4

Also, Canadian subsidies to business and employment in public enterprise were five times the level in the U.S. 
Government involvement is a crutial part of the distinctness of our Canadian identity.

	Similar variations occur with respect to Canada's welfare policies.  They are clearly implemented for the
good of the society, giving aid to any citizen in need.  This system is considered superior to that of the United
States where some people have no source of income whatsoever and no chance to claim welfare.  Welfare policies
have generally been adopted earlier in Canada and tend to be "more advanced in terms of program development,
coverage, and benefits".5  Another advanced Canadian institution is that of Canada's famous universal health care
system.  Although it is a complex system its highlights consist of: government run, non profit insurance plan that
uses public funds to pay for a private, comprehensive system.6  The concept of the program being universal means
that the service is available to all Canadians regardless of income.  This system has been said by many to be
Canada's most successful and popular program globally.  It also separates us from the misconception that we are
similar to Americans.

Perhaps as important for our national identity, the Canadian approach to health
insurance also clearly distinguishes us from the United States.  The fact that we have
developed such a different system suggests that we really are a separate people, with
different political and cultural values.  Even better our system works well while the
American alternative does not.7

In the U.S. there are forty million people, more than the entire population of Canada, who have no health
insurance.8  And even the best medical insurance plan in the U.S.A. only covers 31.5% of expenses.9  Moreover,
the Canadian systems costs are well below that of the U.S. and have produced lower infant mortality rates and
longer life expectancy.

In 1986, average out-of-pocket expenditures for health care were $1135 per household
in the United States, and $446(US) in Canada.  For hospitals and physicians American
households paid $346, Canadians paid $33.10

	It is clear that the Canadian universal system of health care is by far superior to the U.S. system.  This
may also be said true for Canadian's superior respect for law and authority.  Canada's fathers of confederation
stressed a great Canadian motto of  "Peace, Order, and Good Government" which implies control of, and
protection for the society. The parallel motto developed by America's founding fathers is "life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness", this model suggests the upholding of the rights of the individual.  Due to the Canadian
motto being geared towards the rights and obligations of the community "the crime control model .... emphasizes
the maintenance of law and order, and is less protective of the rights of the accused and of individuals
generally".11  Due to the American 's stress on the rights of the individual "there is a greater propensity to
redefine or ignore the rules .... (there is) greater lawlessness and corruption in the United States".12  For example,
in 1987 the murder rate in Canada was 2.5 per 100,000 population; for the U.S. it was 8.3.  In the U.S. last year,
every 17 seconds a violent crime was committed; a rape every 5 minutes, a murder every 23 minutes, an assault
every 51 seconds.  Also, because it is a constitutional right for an American to own a gun, every day 15 children
aged 19 and under are killed with guns, it is the leading cause of death for people between ages of 15 and 24.
Licensed firearm dealers sell an estimated 7.5 million guns a year including 3.5 million handguns.13  In Canada
"ownership of offensive weapons or guns is considered a privilege, not a right".14  And 83.3 of Canadians show
support for a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit to purchase a gun .  Even though a
representative of the Canadian Justice department is quoted as saying "it is almost impossible to get a permit to
carry a handgun".15  Though in the U.S.A. a handgun can be purchased in less than 24 hours.

	In 1992 handguns were used to murder 36 people in Sweden, 97 in Switzerland, 60 in Japan,
	128 in Canada, 33 in Great Britain, 13 in Australia and 13,495 in the United States;  God Bless
	America!16

Again, a major Canadian system has proven itself superior to its American counterpart.  It is surprising that
Canada's most important social institutions are far superior to those of the U.S.A. although it is well known that
the U.N. (United Nations) has chosen Canada as the best place to live in the world two years running.  These
successful institutions promote Canada's cultural identity for they can be used as models to countries around the
globe.

Americans should not underestimate the constant pressure on Canada which the mere
presence of the United States has produced.  We're different people from you and
we're different people because of you .... living next to you is in some ways like
sleeping with an elephant.  No matter how friendly and even tempered the beast, if I
can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt .... It should not therefore be
expected that this kind of nation, this Canada, should project itself .... as a mirror
image of the United States.
					              Pierre Trudeau (1969)17
	Culturally, Canadians are Canadians but economically Canadians are Americans.  Ever since the end of
World War I the U.S. cleverly began to purchase our country.  Through foreign investment "the Americans
accumulated Canada at the unbelievable rate of a billion dollars worth yearly"18 from 1955 onward.  Not only
were they buying out Canada but they were doing it with Canadian money.  The way that they did this is through
trade profits, for instance:  Just before World War II the U.S.A. was buying goods off of us at a rate of $35 per
Canadian, we were buying goods off them at $50 per Canadian.  The difference comes to $15 per Canadian per
year in the American's favour.  Our population was 11 million at this time therefore this trade deficit translates
into a profit of $165,000,000 in the American's favour, per year, at a $15 trade deficit, with an 11 million
population ($15 x 11mil. = 165mil.).19

In 1947 our trade with the United States reach such proportions that it was draining
from us the amazing total of $70 per person per year20

In the 10 years from 1947 to 1957 Americans bought $20 billion worth of goods from us (figures are rounded),
they sold us $27 billion worth.  In other words, we handed the United States seven billion dollars.  And that same
figure (seven billions) happens to be almost exactly the amount of money the Americans "invested in Canada" in
the years 1947 - 1957.  In other words:

In 10 years American financiers took from the Canadian people seven billion dollars,
and during that very same period they used our seven billion dollars to buy up a large
portion of our country21

This did not only happen between 1947 and 1957 but if you research any year in modern trading history between
Canada and the United States you will come to the same conclusion (except the figures keep growing and growing
as time progresses).

	Due mostly to the Americans purchasing our country "Canada is already the most foreign-dominated of
any industrialized country in the world".22  100% of the tobacco industry, 98%of the rubber industry, 92% of the
automotive industry, 84% of transportation, 78% of electrical apparatus industry, 78% of the petroleum and coal
industry, 76% of the chemical industry, and 75% of heavy manufacturing are foreign owned, mostly American.23

This foreign takeover has turned Canada into a branch plant economy where parent companies in the U.S. make
decisions concerning Canadian companies and Canadians rarely have the ability to reach top management
positions.  This current situation "erodes Canadian sovereignty and diminishes Canadian independence" it is also a
"threat to our power to implement decisions within our own borders - a threat no less real, though more subtle, that
if a division of Marines were marching across our border."24  Another way of describing Canada's branch plant
economy is to call it a new form of mercantilism.  We are just a colony of the United States and we are acting for
the betterment of the Mother country.

We are the servants of a new mercantilism.  The foreign subsidiary in Canada clearly
exists to further the interests of the parent corporation, whose home country in most
cases is the United States.  The hinterlands - like Canada - are to supply the
corporations with raw materials, and organize the disposition of subsequent consumer
capital goods25 

Although foreign ownership creates jobs for Canadians, it does not create the top jobs, nor does it promote
economic progress or even prosperity.  It actually costs Canada $35 billion each and every year in revenue taken
out of the country.26  "Americans have drained from Canada more wealth than they have hauled out of all other
countries combined".  And the government is still allowing more and more foreign investment.  "No other country
seems prepared to tolerate so high a degree of foreign ownership as exists in Canada".27  And now, with
free-trade, it has become even easier for America to control Canada and exploit it for all America's wants and
needs.

	New Democratic party leader, Edward Broadbent, referring to Brian Mulrony and free-trade between
Canada and the United States said "I can tell you that for the first time in the history of Canada, we have a man
who is Prime Minister who has, without even being asked, volunteered Canada to be the 51st state in the United
States  ...."28  This is essentially what free-trade meant for Canada.  John A. MacDonald had called free-trade
"veiled treason", and for 125 years prominent Canadian figures warned fellow Canadians that "without an
economic border we soon would not have a political border either".29  The best way to describe free-trade is to
quote some of John Turner's detailed and moving speech delivered in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss one of the most devastating pieces of
legislation ever brought before the House of Commons...a bill which will finish
Canada as we know it and replace it with a Canada that will become nothing more
than a colony of the United States.  In this bill...we find that Canadians can be fined,
even imprisoned for contravening American law....Why are we now being forced to
give hasy approval to legislation which represents the largest sell-out of our
sovereignty since we became a nation in 1867?...We have given up control of our
capital markets...This deal sells out our energy, the life blood of this country...The
National Energy Board becomes nothing more than a monitoring agency...it is
Washington that is taking control of our energy resources...With this deal we have
succeeded in the fulfilment of the American Dream!  Fifty-four Forty, or Fight! 
Manifest Destiny!  At long last they found a Government in Ottawa dumb enough,
stupid enough, patsies so craven in the face of American demands that they just caved
in to every request made of them...I say to the people of  Canada that this is not a
trade deal.  This is "the Sale of Canada Act..."30

When free trade was finally implicated into the Canadian society, the first three years cost 1.4 million jobs.  Archie
McLean, Vice President of McCain's Foods, testified that 100,000 to 150,000 jobs would be lost directly from free
trade in his company alone.  By September 1992, Canada had the highest number of unemployed in its history. 
B.C. millionaire Jim Patterson said: "We're taking everything we've go and pushing it into the United States... I
keep telling our people to forget the border - it doesn't exist anymore".31  Free trade was obviously a bad deal for
Canada and should have been obvious when it was laid on the table.  Even the American public knew what they
were getting when they obtained the free trade agreement.  An American economic forecaster, Marvin Cetron,
wrote in his 1990 bestselling book, American Renaissance : Our Life at the Turn of the Century:

Once the free-trade agreement with the United States takes full effect, the next logical
step will be to accept politically what has already happened economically - the
integration of Canada into the United States32

	In conclusion, it is evident that Canada is different form the United States within its government and
institutions and, in most cases, have a superior system, but economically Canada is owned and dominated by
America.  Benjamin Franklin once said that "the man who would trade independence for security deserves
neither."33  Canada is slowly voulenteering for the American vision of Manifest Destiny where not one gun has to
be fired.  Ex Prime Minister John Diefenbaker expressed his opinion by stating that "We are a power, not a
puppet...I want Canada to ve in control of Canadian soil.  Now if that's an offence I want the people of Canada to
say so."34   We must to several thing to break free from these restraints which ar upon us.  First, though, we must
scrap free trade, control foreign ownership, and balance our trade with the enemy - the USA.

Canada has gone form being a colony of France, to being a colony of Britan, to being
a colony of the United States.  It's time now to become a nation.35   























Bibliography



1.  Berton, Pierre.  Why we Act like Canadians.  Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1982.


2.  Lamorie, Andrew.  How they sold Our Canada to the U.S.A..  Toronto: NC Press, 1976.


3.  Lipset, Seymour M.  North American Cultures.  U.S.A.: Borderlands Project, 1990.


4.  Nader, Ralph.  Canada Firsts.  Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1992.


5.  Orchard, David.  The Fight for Canada.  Toronto: Stoddart Publishing, 1993.


6.  "The center to prevent hand gun violence".  National center for health statistics, 1994.  Internet document.


7.  "The FBI Uniform Creme Reports".  The Los Angeles Times, Nov. 19, 1995.  Internet document.


8.  The Star-Spangled Beaver.  Ed. John H. Redekop.  Toronto: Peter Martin, 1971.


9.  Thomas, David.  Canada and the United States, Differences that Count.  Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1993.







































Canada - of the United States of America

by:  Mat Harrison






for:  Mr. Harkins
HCN OA1



















I.E. Weldon Secondary School
November 14, 1996



 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Canadian Public Policy and Administration Employment Equity.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 










POL 209Y PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION IN CANADA
The Employment Equity Act:  A short paper evaluating the success of the Act.









								For:	Prof.  J. C. Simeon
								By:	

								Due:	November 25, 1993

	Canada has a population of approximately twenty six million people.  With the introduction of the federal government's multicultualism program, the social demographic make up of Canada is quite vast, bringing together people from many different nations to join those already living here.  Taking the population as a whole into account, it is no secret that historically, certain members of this social order have been denied fair access to employment system.  The federal and provincial governments had undertaken steps to address the issue through a wide range of programs such as equal employment and other affirmative action programs to "promote equal opportunity in the public service for segments of the population that have historically been underrepresented there."   Today those designated groups, underrepresented in the labour force include women, Aboriginal peoples, disabled people, and persons who are, because of their race or colour, is a visible minority in Canada. In October 1984, Judge Rosalie Silberman Abella submitted a Royal Commission Report on equality in employment (the Abella Report) to the federal government.  "The Commission was established in recognition of the fact that women, visible minorities, the handicapped and native peoples were being denied the full benefits of employment."   Based on the findings of the Abella Commission, the federal government implemented  "The Employment Equity Act" in 1986.  This short paper will evaluate the success of the "Act" and will argue that although some progress has been made, the Canadian Labour force still does not reflect the demographic composition of Canada as the Act had targeted. 
	For the purposes of implementing Employment Equity, certain individuals or groups who are at an employment disadvantage are designated to benefit from Employment Equity. The Employment Equity Act describes the designated groups as "women, aboriginal peoples; Indians, Inuit or Metis, who so identify themselves to their employer, or agree to be so identified by an employer, for the purposes of the Employment Equity Act.  Persons with disabilities;  are people who, because of any persistent physical, mental, psychiatric, sensory or learning impairment, believe that  they are potentially disadvantaged in employment, and who so identify themselves to an employer, or agree to be so identified by an employer, for the purposes of the Act.  Members of visible minorities are persons, other than aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour, and who so identify themselves to an employer, or agree to be so identified by an employer, for the purpose of the Act."  
	The designated groups, in particular women, have essentially been discriminated against for a substantial period of time.  A 1977 study of women in federal Crown Corporations conducted by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, reported that the federal government is the largest employer in Canada, with almost 40% of it's employee's (excluding the Army)  employed by federal Crown Corporations.   At that time, employees of Crown Corporations were not subject to the Public Service Employee Act, which prohibited discrimination in all aspects of employment including personnel hiring and promotion.  The study showed that women made up 37% of the Canadian labour force population and 33% of federal public service employee population.  However, only 15.4% of the total employee population of  federal Crown Corporations were female.  The underrepresentation of women in federal Crown Corporations are clearly evident in the  two charts indicated below.  According to the 1981 census, women were at a disadvantage in a number of ways.  In comparison to men, women have  higher unemployment rates, lower participation rates and are concentrated in lower paying jobs, regardless of their level of education.
Company		Men			Women		% of Women
CN	71,369	4,434	5.9
Air Canada	14,867	6,073	29.6
CBC	8,015	3,094	27
Atomic Energy Canada	5,000	778	13.5
Cape Breton Development	3,822	78	2.0
		Number of men and women working for Crown Corporations in 1977 


Company 		Men			Women		% of Women
CN	1,014	2	0.2
Air Canada	158	1	0.6
CBC	116	2	1.7
Atomic Energy Canada	78	0	0
Cape Breton Development	N/A	N/A	N/A
		Number of men and women in senior management 

	There is also evidence that the other designated groups were at a disadvantage to fair access to employment.  Studies have shown that aboriginal peoples, have significantly lower participation rates and higher unemployment rates than those generally experienced in the Canadian labour force.  They also have significantly lower levels of education and are paid lower average salaries.  The 1981 census indicate that "of the total aboriginal population, 50.4% worked in the Canadian labour force in 1981." 
	Persons with disabilities have also been at a disadvantage in the Canadian labour force.  Like the aboriginal people, they too have higher unemployment rates, lower participation rates and lower levels of education.  1981 census statistics for disabled person in the labour force were not readily available, however it has been suggested that whatever the figure was, between "1984 and 1986 their participation in the labour force had increase by 11%." 
	Although members of visible minority groups have relatively high levels of education and relatively high participation rates, they are generally concentrated in particular occupational groups
	The Abella Commission found that the essence of the problem with respect to why women and the other designated groups were not reaping the full potential benefits from their participation in the labour force was "systemic" in nature.  In other words, "the prevailing socio-economic system in which all Canadians worked had a set of social and political values and institutions in place which often unintentionally discriminated against these groups."   The Abella Commission harboured the opinion that the discriminating systemic barriers could only be eliminated through systemic remedies, thus, "comprehensive programs had to be adopted and put in place to enable target groups to overcome the systemic barriers of employment. . . . . . . . .and that a new term 'employment equity' be adopted to describe programs of positive remedy for discrimination in the workplace." 
	In 1986, the federal government passed the Employment Equity Act.  The Act required that all "federally regulated employers with 100 or more employees to implement equity programs and provide for minimal commitments on the part of employers to file bare census information on their work force with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and to develop their own defined employment equity program to remedy systemic discrimination." 
	On September 1, during the same year, the federal government implemented the Federal Contractors Employment Equity Program, requiring that all contractors with 100 employees or more, tendering for goods and services with the federal government to implement employment equity within their organization.
	The Acts essentially aimed at making the demographic characteristics of the Canadian labour force to be representative of the demographic base of Canada.  "In it's full sense, employment equity is a comprehensive planning process designed to bring about not only equality of opportunity but equality in results.  Its primary objective is to ensure that the Canadian work force is an accurate reflection of the composition of the Canadian population given the availability of required skills.  This objective is essentially an ethical goal based on the value of ensuring equity." 
	Although some progress has been made since the enactment of the Employment Equity Act, to date the target groups are still underrepresented in the labour force, in addition there are other difficulties facing these groups in relation to the Act.
	Provisions were made in the Act requiring mandatory reporting of progress in the companies affected by the Act (all federally regulated companies with more than 100 employees).  From the information provided by these companies, which approximates 350, the Minister of Employment and Immigration Canada is required to compile an annual report, to analyse and monitor the progress of the Act and to ensure compliance.
	Although annual reports exist from 1987 to 1992, while researching this paper, only the reports for 1989, 1990 and 1992 were readily available for examination.  As such is the case, only the data contained in these reports wsill be used in this paper.
	The 1989 report indicated their had been an increase over the previous year in representation  in the work force by each target group.  Women increased their representation from 40.90% to 42.12%.  Aboriginal peoples increased their representation from 0.66% to 0.73%. Persons with disabilities increased their representation from 1.59% to 1.71% and members of visible minorities increased their representation from 4.99% to 5.69%.   Of the women employees that had to be reported by employees under the Act, they constituted 42.12% of the work force.  This constituted a 1.22% increase over the previous year.  Their representation under the act remained lower than their representation in the Canadian labour force which is 44%. 
	Aboriginal peoples in the work force under the Act increased very slightly in the same period and remained underrepresented.  They represented 0.73% of the work force under the Act compared with 2.1% representation in the Canadian labour force. 
	10,289 persons with disabilities were reported by employers and constituted 1.71% of all employees reported under the Act.  Like the women and the aboriginal peoples, they too remained underrepresented in each province for which employees provided a report. 
	A slight increase in representation was reported for the visible minority group, however, the report indicated that despite the increase, they remained underrepresented in the work force under the Employment Equity Act. 
	The 1992 Annual Report shows that two of the four target groups exceeded representation in the work force under the Act, compared to representation in the Canadian labour force.  Both the women and visible minority groups achieved this mark, however the aboriginal peoples and persons of disability remained underrepresented in the work force under the Act.  Women increased their representation to 44.11% which is about the same now as it was for the Canadian labour force (44%) at the time of the 1986 Census.  Aboriginal peoples increased to 0.96%.  The representation of persons with disabilities increased from 2.39% in the previous year to 2.50%.  And Visible minorities increased to 7.55%, slightly higher than it was for the Canadian labour force (6.3%) at the time of the 1986 census. 
	Though the government may want to pat themselves on the back and claim partial success of the program, in reflecting on the achievements of the women and visible minority target groups, there is a concern that factors other than the Act may have influence the rise in the participation rate of these two groups.
	In occupations that were traditionally male dominated, i.e.: lawyers and notary publics etc., women have been slowly but gradually playing catch up.  This is in part due to the fact that more and more women are graduating from university.  In 1987, Canadian universities granted more than 103,000 degrees at the bachelor level.  This number represented growth of more than 21 % from 1981.  Female graduates out numbered male graduates for the seventh year in a row and by 1987 accounted for 53% of those receiving bachelor's degrees.   The question then is did the doors to accessible employment open to women because of the Employment Equity Act or did the women provide access for themselves by attending university.  Unless there is some equity program in place for university attendance, it would be unreasonable to summize that the Employment Equity program was the sole vehicle for allowing women fair access into the workplace.
	But even still, there is no real success to speak of. Although gaps are being closer to being closed, women are still underrepresented in some occupations such as upper level managerial positions and overrepresented in traditionally female occupations.  For example, under the Act women comprise 0.21% of upper level managers compared to 1.53% of men.  And they comprise 60.97% of clerical workers compared to 14.59% of men.   Much of the indicators are similar for that of the visible minority groups.
	As indicated previously, there are other problems associated with the Act.  Complaints have be raised from "public servants and from their unions that the equal opportunity programs violate the merit principle and discriminate against candidates outside the target groups for appointment and promotion."   White males in particular feel that they have become victims of reverse discrimination.  As such problems occur when they retaliate against the system by employing candidates in the target group who are sometimes not competent for the position hired, in an attempt at hindering that persons oppotunities for advancement within the company.
	Another problem that becomes present is that when a qualified candidate in a target group is promoted, concerns are raised among those outside the target group, that the candidate did not excel because of his or her merit but rather, because of the affiliation to one of the target groups.
	Employment equity was initially seen as good social policy.  Most people would agree that it is unjust and unacceptable for a society to have individuals facing barriers to employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability.  These people were underemployed because they are women, aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities, or persons with disabilities.  Despite the governments efforts to address the issue, and although some gains have been made, there is still a significant number in the target groups that still face the systemic barriers.  Perhaps the government has not done enough to change the status quo. Perhaps allowing the employers to set their own goals and time tables was an error and should be reviewed.  But given the data presented thus far in their own annual reports and the continuous controversy surrounding the issue, the Employment Equity act as far as I am concern has only partially attained its goal.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kernagan,K et al, 	Public Administration in Canada
			Scarborough, Ontario, Nelson Canada 1991

Kelly, John G.		Human Resource Management and the Human Rights Process
			Canada, CHH Canadian Limited 1991

			Annual Report: The Employment Equity Act. 1989, 1990, 1992
			Ottawa, Ministry of supply and Services Canada
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Canadian Senant.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Canadian Senate
By Andrew Donogh


	Today the Canadian Senate does not do all that much for the Canadian government.  It no longer does the job that it was created to do.  It barely stops any bills that go through.  They're paid a lot of money to just sit and do nothing.

	The Canadian Government could work fine without the Senate.  Just get rid of it, and have the governor  look at the bills closely before he signs them.  Just in case the governing party try's to pass a bad bill.  
	Or it could be changed, have less senators that aren't paid as much.  Or change to an American Triple E type of senate.  Which stands for elected, effective, and equal.  The Senator should be elected by the provinces and have a limited time in the Senate.  This would make the Senate much more effective and fare.  
	If the Senate continues as it is right know people will get more and more frustrated with it.  And soon they wont want it at all.  Which probably wouldn't be much of a problem anyway.  
	I believe that we should keep the Senate, and just reform it to be more effective.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Capital Punishment 2.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Error] - File could not be written...


f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Capital Punishment 3.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Capital Punishment		By: Omer Kassam


Thesis One: In principle a case can be made on moral grounds both supporting and opposing capital punishment. 

Thesis two: Concretely and in practice, compelling arguments against capital punishment can be made on the basis of its actual administration in our society. 



Two different cases can be made. One is based on justice and the nature of a moral community. This leads to a defense of capital punishment. The second is based on love and the nature of an ideal spiritual community. This leads to a rejection of capital punishment. 

JUSTICE AND THE NATURE OF MORAL COMMUNITY


A central principle of a just society is that every person has an equal right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Within that framework, an argument for capital punishment can be formulated along the following lines: some acts are so vile and so destructive of community that they invalidate the right of the perpetrator to membership and even to life. A community founded on moral principles has certain requirements. The right to belong to a community is not unconditional. The privilege of living and pursuing the good life in society is not absolute. It may be negated by behavior that undermines the nature of a moral community. The essential basis on which community is built requires each citizen to honor the rightful claims of others. The utter and deliberate denial of life and opportunity to others forfeits ones own claim to continued membership in the community, whose standards have been so flagrantly violated. The preservation of moral community demands that the shattering of the foundation of its existence must be taken with utmost seriousness. The preciousness of life in a moral community must be so highly honored that those who do not honor the life of others make null and void their own right to membership. Those who violate the personhood of others, especially if this is done persistently as a habit must pay the ultimate penalty. This punishment must be inflicted for the sake of maintaining the community whose foundation has been violated. We can debate whether some non-lethal alternative is a fitting substitute for the death penalty. But the standard of judgment is whether the punishment fits the crime and sufficiently honors the nature of moral community. 

LOVE AND AN IDEAL SPIRITUAL COMMUNITY


Agape, Christian love, is unconditional. It does not depend on the worthiness or merit of those to whom it is directed. It is persistent in seeking the good of others regardless of whether they return the favor or even deserve to be treated well on the basis of their own incessant wrongdoing. An ideal community would be made up of free and equal citizens devoted to a balance between individual self-fulfillment and the advancement of the common good. Communal life would be based on mutual love in which equality of giving and receiving was the norm of social practice. Everyone would contribute to the best of ability and each would receive in accordance with legitimate claims to available resources. 

What would a community based on this kind of love do with those who committed brutal acts of terror, violence, and murder? Put negatively, it would not live by the philosophy of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life." It would act to safeguard the members of the community from further destruction. Those who had shown no respect for life would be restrained, permanently if necessary, so that they could not further endanger other members of the community. But the purpose of confinement would not be vengeance or punishment. Rather an ideal community would show mercy even to those who had shown no mercy. It would return good for evil. The aim of isolation is reconciliation and not revenge. Agape never gives up. It is ever hopeful that even the worse among us can be redeemed so that their own potential contribution to others can be realized. Opportunities for confronting those who had been hurt most could be provided to encourage remorse and reconciliation. If a life has been taken, no full restitution can be made, of course, but some kind of service to the community might be required as a way of partially making amends. 

EVALUATION 


Such, in brief, is the argument for and against capital punishment, one founded on justice and the nature of moral community, the other resting on love and the nature of an ideal spiritual community. If we stand back from this description and make an attempt at evaluation, one point is crucial. The love ethic requires a high degree of moral achievement and maturity. It is more suitable for small, closely-knit communities in which members know each other personally and in some depth. Forgiveness and reclamation flourish best in a setting in which people can participate in each other's lives. If you press the agape motif to its highest manifestation, it becomes an ethic of non-resistance to evil, unqualified pacifism, and self-sacrifice in which self-interest is totally abandoned. The non-resisting Jesus on the cross who surrenders his life to save others is the epitome of agape at this level. 

Love at this point becomes superethical. It is grounded in a deep faith in God that surrenders any reference to earthly justice. That is the reason for speaking of love and the nature of an ideal spiritual community. Love of this kind abandons the right to kill another in self-defense and will refuse absolutely to kill enemies even in a just war. If made into a social ethic, it requires the poor to sacrifice for the rich, the sick to sacrifice for the healthy, the oppressed to sacrifice for the oppressor. It allows the neighbor to be terrorized, brutalized, and slaughtered, since restraint of the aggressor is forbidden. All this is indefensible on moral grounds. 

To make sense of this, it is helpful to distinguish between an ethical dimension of love and an ecstatic dimension. Love as an ethical ideal seeks a community based on mutuality and reciprocity in which there is an equality of giving and receiving. Mutual love has a justice element in which every person has an equal claim to fulfillment and an equal duty to be responsible. Ethical love is unconditional and will reach out to others even when they lack merit. But it will resist encroachment upon its own equal claim to fulfillment and will repel if possible any denial of ones own right to be fully human in every respect. Against the pacifist, ethical love would justify killing in self-defense and killing enemies in a just war when non-lethal alternatives are unavailable. They are necessary and tragic emergency means here and now to stop present and ongoing violence. Capital punishment is opposed since the crime has already been committed, and isolation can protect society against future violence. 

Love in the ecstatic dimension becomes superethical. In ecstasy one is delirious with impetuous joy in the presence of the other and totally devoted to that person's happiness and well- being. In ecstasy we do not count the cost to ourselves but are totally self-giving, heedless of our own needs. In this mood sacrifice for the other is not an ethical act of self-denial but the superethical expression of what we most want to do. Ecstasy involves the unpremeditated overflow of boundless affection and the impulsive joy of exhilarating union with the loved one. The ecstatic lover dances with delight in the presence of the beloved. Sensible calculations balancing rights and duties have no place. Rational ethics has been transcended by spiritual ecstasy. Ecstatic love expresses itself spontaneously in a certain frame of spirit. Love expressed in ecstasy gives all without regard to whether the recipient has any claim on the gift. It is pure grace. 

Consider the story of the woman who poured expensive perfume on the feet of Jesus (Mk. 14:3-9). She was displaying love in the ecstatic dimension. Some present were thinking ethically. They complained that this perfume could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. On ethical grounds they were right. What the woman did was indefensible as a moral act. It was irrational and superethical. This deed flowed spontaneously from ecstatic love. 

Love has both an ethical and an ecstatic or superethical dimension, and we should not confuse the two. It is quite clear, however, that ecstatic agape cannot be the norm of large, impersonal societies. A corporation cannot exist on the basis of forgiving seventy times seven an incompetent employee whose repeated ineptness is costing thousands of dollars. Ecstasy is not even the mode in which we can live all the time in the most exemplary family life with spouses and children. Ecstatic love is an occasional, fabulous, wonderful overflowing of spectacular affection that adds immeasurably to the joy of life, but it cannot be the day to day standard for ordinary life even in the family or the church. 

Can Christian love in the ethical sense be an appropriate norm for a large, secular, pluralistic, civil society? Can unconditional love for the other that regards the welfare of the neighbor equal with ones own be the ideal expected of the citizens of New York or the United States? Surely, to agree with Reinhold Niebuhr, that would be to hope for an "impossible possibility." Ethical love is a description of ideal life in the family, in the church, and other small communities in which unconditional regard for each other can be lived out in face-to- face relationships. Even in these settings, we will often fail, but we can hold it up as the criterion by which we are judged and to which we aspire even in our shortcoming. In this sense, ethical love is the supreme norm that serves as both goal and judge of all conduct. Realistically, however, we can hope only for some rough approximation with decreasing levels of attainment as we move away from intimate communities toward larger collectives. Nation states are not likely, even occasionally, to become ecstatic in their devotion to each other! Mutual, not even to mention sacrificial, love is hardly the guiding rule of relations between General Motors and Toyota, nor does either have aspirations in that direction. 

A workable ethical standard for the state and the nation will appeal to the ideals defined by justice and the requirements of a moral community. To say it otherwise, ethical love expressed as social policy for large, impersonal societies takes the form of justice. What that norm involves for New York or the United States as secular, pluralistic societies cannot be spelled out here. Within this framework a strong but debatable case can be made for capital punishment. Pragmatically and politically, of course, Christians have to work within the framework of justice as defined by the secular society in which they have their citizenship and seek to transform it in the light of their own ideals. 

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS


This brings me to thesis two. The most compelling arguments against capital punishment can be made on the basis of its actual administration in our society. I will list five of the usual points. 

1.The possibility of error. Sometimes a person might be put to death who is innocent. 

2. Unfair administration. Capital punishment is inflicted disproportionately on the poor and minorities. 

3. Weakness of the argument from deterrence. The claim that the threat of capital punishment reduces violent crime is inconclusive, certainly not proven, extremely difficult to disprove, and morally suspect if any case. 

4. The length of stay on death row. If there were ever any validity to the deterrence argument, it is negated by the endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials that keep persons condemned to death waiting for execution for years on end. One of the strongest arguments right now against capital punishment is that we are too incompetent to carry it out. That incompetence becomes another injustice. 

5. Mitigating circumstances. Persons who commit vicious crimes have often suffered from neglect, emotional trauma, violence, cruelty, abandonment, lack of love, and a host of destructive social conditions. These extenuating circumstances may have damaged their humanity to the point that it is unfair to hold them fully accountable for their wrongdoing. Corporate responsibility somehow has to be factored in to some degree. No greater challenge to social wisdom exists than this. 

The conclusion of the matter is that the present practice of capital punishment is a moral disgrace. The irony is that the very societies that have the least right to inflict it are precisely the ones most likely to do so. The compounding irony is that the economic malfunctions and cultural diseases in those same societies contribute to the violence that makes it necessary to unleash even more repression and brutality against its unruly citizens to preserve order and stave off chaos. To the degree that society provides opportunities for all citizens to achieve a good life in a sensible culture, it is reasonable to believe that the demand for capital punishment will be reduced or eliminated. The fact that our prisons are so full is the most eloquent testimony imaginable of our dismal failure to create a good society. Massive incarceration indicates the bankruptcy of social wisdom and social will. It points to the shallowness of our dedication to solving the basic problems of poverty, moral decay, meaninglessness, and social discord. Meanwhile, our leaders divert our attention with the alluring fantasy that capital punishment will make our citizens more secure against violent crime. 

THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN WITNESS 


What, then, is the role of the church? It is two-fold. 



(1) Ideally and ultimately, followers of Jesus are the salt of the earth, light of the world, leaven in the secular loaf. As such, Christians go into the world with the aim of moving, lifting, and luring society in the direction of ethical love. The vocation of Christians is to hold up ethical love as "a transcendent gauge exhibiting the moral defects of society and thus spread the infection of an uneasy spirit" (A. N. Whitehead). In particular, Christians should work to overcome the larger injustices, social disarray, and cultural illness that create an atmosphere conducive to violence. This work will involve both political action and cultural transformation. 

(2) Pragmatically and immediately, Christians will translate ethical love into mandates of secular justice and work for the best approximation of the norm that is possible under given circumstances. Hence, Christian witness may be but is not necessarily directed against capital punishment on moral grounds in principle. The choice is a matter of practical discernment and social wisdom in a particular situation.Christians should insist that if capital punishment is to be practiced, it must be administered in a just way. On this count, present-day society fails miserably. My prediction is that a society that becomes sensitive enough to make sure that the death penalty is administered in a just way will then do away with it altogether in favor of more humane practices such as life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. 



In short, for the moment the Christian witness to society is this: first demonstrate that capital punishment can be administered in a just and efficient manner. Then we will debate with you as to whether capital punishment is in principle necessary, fitting, and right or whether a humane society will find non-lethal alternatives to protect citizens from persistently violent criminals. Until then the church should say "no" to this extreme measure. 

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Capital Punishment 4.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
DEATH PENALTY

	 Is the death penalty just? Politicians, lobbyists, philosophers, and experts from all walks of life continuously debate this controversial subject. Has any one of these individuals listened to the rest of us?  The answer in many cases is no.  
	The United States is a democracy of embodied officials, who represent the people, their wishes, beliefs and ideals.  That means, through elections, we decide what policies are to be enacted.  In the case of capital punishment, various polls report that seventy percent of Americans are in favor of the death sentence.  That is a clear majority.  So called experts are free to petition grievances and speak freely according to our constitution.  But the fact of the matter is seven out of ten Americans have evaluated the dilemma of capital punishment according to their own values and beliefs.  Their conclusion was favorable to the death penalty.  At this juncture of time, the question of it being just was answered by the majority - and the majority rules.
	Many experts who speak against the death penalty cite it as barbaric. The definition of murder, according to Webster, is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought."  Therefore an uneducated person would classify murder as equally barbaric. The mitigating factor of the death penalty is, or should be, an already established punishment for this crime.  The killer willingly committed the heinous act of taking a life, knowing they would be subject to this penalty.  Therefore, he decided to gamble on not being caught, or thought that he was above the law.  In either case he willingly forfeited his life with the taking of another.  The killer may not agree with "Lex Taliones", but the consequence of his action were obvious.
	While critics argue that an innocent person may be put to death, most agree this may unfortunately happen.  However, we must protect the people of this country from killers, and unfortunately, short of calling in the army, we have tried all other options.  Capital statutes usually allow the trial court to impose death only after a postconviction hearing, during which circumstances of the crime are reviewed.  If the "aggravating" factors prevail, the case is automatically reviewed by an appellate court.  The accused may also appeal the decision or request a stay of execution as he sees fit.  Although the risk of an accidental death is there, the legal proceedings are in place to prevent an unwarranted death.
	An argument put forth by many is that the economics involved with capital punishment is irrelevant.  This is true to the individuals and groups who are financially well off - but not to the remainder of the population. To sentence a convicted murderer to life in prison is costing the tax payers forty-two thousand dollars a year in California alone.  To the lower and middle class, who must support that individual for the rest of his life, that is unacceptable.  The money we use to support their life in prison can be spent on preventing our next generation from doing the same.  
	We, the people, feel we should be heard.  We fully realize how precious life is and understand it's wrong to kill, but obviously some just don't care.  With the death penalty in place, and integrated into our legal system, individuals who are convicted of murder have willingly accepted their fate and should be dealt with accordingly. 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\capital punishment 5.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
     Let us suppose that killing as a form of punishment is a moral and universally accepted practice.  Would it then be acceptable to issue this irreparable sanction to a select few while allowing others, equally accountable, to avoid it?  It is acceptable to our criminal justice system for it seems to be standard operating procedure.  Many embrace the death penalty based on the "eye for an eye" concept.  There is certainly some merit to this argument and it seems quite fair and logical.  Unfortunately our use of the death penalty is neither fair nor logical.  Our criminal justice system's "lip service" to the age-old concept is an insulting disguise for such an obscurity of fairness and logic.  The death penalty is frivolous and discriminatory in its procedure because of the unreasonable prices we pay to execute certain groups at much higher rates than others.
     We pay different prices for using a death penalty.  Sadly, today more than ever, the dollar seems to be the endlessly interchangeable standard of value.  We strive to make money, save money and when we spend money we do so with a valued return in mind.  Accordingly, a popular argument contends that we spend too much money incarcerating prisoners for life.  We probably do but the price tag on issuing a death sentence according to a Florida study is $3.1 million compared to $1 million for a life sentence; a 3100% difference (Walker 1994, 108).  Imagine your death being valued at $3.1 million - how flattering.  Based on these figures, the difference in the price of an execution and the price of life behind bars is enough to feed 7,200 starving children for ten years.
     The price of an execution is amazing.  Naturally, for such a price, we should consider our "valued" return.  In return for an execution we receive utter incapacitation; an essential return indeed but we get the same from a life sentence at a fraction of the cost.  What else do we get?  Perhaps we satisfy a need for revenge.  Perhaps we feel that we need to keep revenge alive at any price.  After all, we pay top dollar for it.  So who exactly is the target of our vengeance and why?  From 1930 to 1980 executions for whites numbered 1754 compared to 2066 for blacks (Bedau 1982).  In 1978 blacks claimed 4888 murder victims.  Of these, 536 were white or 12% (Bedau 1982).  About half the death row population was black and 85% of their victims were white (Bedau 1982).  Blacks who kill whites have a 25% chance of receiving the death penalty while whites have a 0% chance of receiving it for killing a black.  For a black person, killing a white person could be deadly.
     Our criminal justice system's use of the death penalty appears increasingly void of rationale when we consider the other prices we pay.  Executions take up to fifteen years or longer (Walker 1994,106).  We not only pay for executions but incarceration as well!  There is also the ultimate price.  In the wake of the criminal justice system's quest to lethally condemn a specific offender, some innocently accused are gassed, hanged and electrocuted in the name of retribution.  There are twenty-three known cases of the innocent being put to death by the "state" (Walker 1994,106).  Oops.  The process of the death penalty is not only frivolous.  It is reckless as well.
     The criminal justice system is discriminatory in its use of the death penalty.  If the overwhelming bias in the process of the death penalty isn't convincing then perhaps the phenomenal expenditures are.  Either way we look we find a gross absurdity.  The funding of the death penalty is frivolous, its fairness is unrealistic and its process as a whole is unconscionable.













     Let us suppose that killing as a form of punishment is a moral and universally accepted practice.  Would it then be acceptable to issue this irreparable sanction to a select few while allowing others, equally accountable, to avoid it?  It is acceptable to our criminal justice system for it seems to be standard operating procedure.  Many embrace the death penalty based on the "eye for an eye" concept.  There is certainly some merit to this argument and it seems quite fair and logical.  Unfortunately our use of the death penalty is neither fair nor logical.  Our criminal justice system's "lip service" to the age-old concept is an insulting disguise for such an obscurity of fairness and logic.  The death penalty is frivolous and discriminatory in its procedure because of the unreasonable prices we pay to execute certain groups at much higher rates than others.
     We pay different prices for using a death penalty.  Sadly, today more than ever, the dollar seems to be the endlessly interchangeable standard of value.  We strive to make money, save money and when we spend money we do so with a valued return in mind.  Accordingly, a popular argument contends that we spend too much money incarcerating prisoners for life.  We probably do but the price tag on issuing a death sentence according to a Florida study is $3.1 million compared to $1 million for a life sentence; a 3100% difference (Walker 1994, 108).  Imagine your death being valued at $3.1 million - how flattering.  Based on these figures, the difference in the price of an execution and the price of life behind bars is enough to feed 7,200 starving children for ten years.
     The price of an execution is amazing.  Naturally, for such a price, we should consider our "valued" return.  In return for an execution we receive utter incapacitation; an essential return indeed but we get the same from a life sentence at a fraction of the cost.  What else do we get?  Perhaps we satisfy a need for revenge.  Perhaps we feel that we need to keep revenge alive at any price.  After all, we pay top dollar for it.  So who exactly is the target of our vengeance and why?  From 1930 to 1980 executions for whites numbered 1754 compared to 2066 for blacks (Bedau 1982).  In 1978 blacks claimed 4888 murder victims.  Of these, 536 were white or 12% (Bedau 1982).  About half the death row population was black and 85% of their victims were white (Bedau 1982).  Blacks who kill whites have a 25% chance of receiving the death penalty while whites have a 0% chance of receiving it for killing a black.  For a black person, killing a white person could be deadly.
     Our criminal justice system's use of the death penalty appears increasingly void of rationale when we consider the other prices we pay.  Executions take up to fifteen years or longer (Walker 1994,106).  We not only pay for executions but incarceration as well!  There is also the ultimate price.  In the wake of the criminal justice system's quest to lethally condemn a specific offender, some innocently accused are gassed, hanged and electrocuted in the name of retribution.  There are twenty-three known cases of the innocent being put to death by the "state" (Walker 1994,106).  Oops.  The process of the death penalty is not only frivolous.  It is reckless as well.
     The criminal justice system is discriminatory in its use of the death penalty.  If the overwhelming bias in the process of the death penalty isn't convincing then perhaps the phenomenal expenditures are.  Either way we look we find a gross absurdity.  The funding of the death penalty is frivolous, its fairness is unrealistic and its process as a whole is unconscionable.













     Let us suppose that killing as a form of punishment is a moral and universally accepted practice.  Would it then be acceptable to issue this irreparable sanction to a select few while allowing others, equally accountable, to avoid it?  It is acceptable to our criminal justice system for it seems to be standard operating procedure.  Many embrace the death penalty based on the "eye for an eye" concept.  There is certainly some merit to this argument and it seems quite fair and logical.  Unfortunately our use of the death penalty is neither fair nor logical.  Our criminal justice system's "lip service" to the age-old concept is an insulting disguise for such an obscurity of fairness and logic.  The death penalty is frivolous and discriminatory in its procedure because of the unreasonable prices we pay to execute certain groups at much higher rates than others.
     We pay different prices for using a death penalty.  Sadly, today more than ever, the dollar seems to be the endlessly interchangeable standard of value.  We strive to make money, save money and when we spend money we do so with a valued return in mind.  Accordingly, a popular argument contends that we spend too much money incarcerating prisoners for life.  We probably do but the price tag on issuing a death sentence according to a Florida study is $3.1 million compared to $1 million for a life sentence; a 3100% difference (Walker 1994, 108).  Imagine your death being valued at $3.1 million - how flattering.  Based on these figures, the difference in the price of an execution and the price of life behind bars is enough to feed 7,200 starving children for ten years.
     The price of an execution is amazing.  Naturally, for such a price, we should consider our "valued" return.  In return for an execution we receive utter incapacitation; an essential return indeed but we get the same from a life sentence at a fraction of the cost.  What else do we get?  Perhaps we satisfy a need for revenge.  Perhaps we feel that we need to keep revenge alive at any price.  After all, we pay top dollar for it.  So who exactly is the target of our vengeance and why?  From 1930 to 1980 executions for whites numbered 1754 compared to 2066 for blacks (Bedau 1982).  In 1978 blacks claimed 4888 murder victims.  Of these, 536 were white or 12% (Bedau 1982).  About half the death row population was black and 85% of their victims were white (Bedau 1982).  Blacks who kill whites have a 25% chance of receiving the death penalty while whites have a 0% chance of receiving it for killing a black.  For a black person, killing a white person could be deadly.
     Our criminal justice system's use of the death penalty appears increasingly void of rationale when we consider the other prices we pay.  Executions take up to fifteen years or longer (Walker 1994,106).  We not only pay for executions but incarceration as well!  There is also the ultimate price.  In the wake of the criminal justice system's quest to lethally condemn a specific offender, some innocently accused are gassed, hanged and electrocuted in the name of retribution.  There are twenty-three known cases of the innocent being put to death by the "state" (Walker 1994,106).  Oops.  The process of the death penalty is not only frivolous.  It is reckless as well.
     The criminal justice system is discriminatory in its use of the death penalty.  If the overwhelming bias in the process of the death penalty isn't convincing then perhaps the phenomenal expenditures are.  Either way we look we find a gross absurdity.  The funding of the death penalty is frivolous, its fairness is unrealistic and its process as a whole is unconscionable.













 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Capital Punishment.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
With out the death penalty families of murder victims would be delt a double blow.  Many families feel that the only justice they could posiblly recive is having the murder put on death row.  In the book "Rights of  execcution" by louis Mansor there was a case where a girl had both her parents brudally murdered, the book reads "She cries every day, she doesn't sleep through a single night and she thinks apart of her died too.  She doesn't find much joy on anything."  Don't you think is a moral obligation to her, and her family, and it would also bring justice to society to put the criminal on Death Row.  
	These kind of people get enjoyment out of hurting and killing inocent people.  Just look at Richard Allen Davis, Poly Classes murder.  First he admits to killing Poly, and then he made an obsence gesture with his hands to million of people of on tv.  And Finally to make every thing worse, when he gets to make a statement, he claimed that poly told him that her dad abused her.  This statement out raged many people, including Mr. Clauss.  Just sit here and think how he feels.  His daughter was just brutully murdered... and on top of all this he has to control his rage in the court room.  Put your self in shoes for a minute, would you really want this man back on the streets on parolle for good behavior in prison.  Would you find any relief in knowing he is locked up in a comfy jail cell with cable tv, and recieving a chance for parolle in 20 or so years.  No this man needs to be on death row, awaiting execution.


Rehabilitation isn't used on death row because the criminals have aready been found to be a future risk to society,  but if there was no Death Penalty do you think a man like Richard Allen Davis could possibly be rehabilitated under the current inmate program.  It isn't likely.  Only 10% of people in the program are rehabilitated, these criminals are just to dangerous to be put back on the street.  The majority of the time they commit a second crime.  The only kind of rehab criminals recieve on death row, is phyciatric care.  They are examend to see if they are sane enough to be executed.  So this shows what kind of people we are dealing with.  The only 100% rehabilitation is execution.  Not one of those criminals ever comited another crime. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Capital Punishment1.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
     

 
"Why the Death Penalty is Dead Wrong"                        
                                                             
     Most people argue that the death penalty is not a form  
of cruel and unusual punishment. However, this is extremely  
inaccurate. Electric chair victims can take up to 14 minutes 
to die, maintaining full consciousness as their flesh begins 
to scorch and burn off. During lethal injection, "even a     
slight error in dosage or administration can leave a         
prisoner conscious but paralyzed with pain, serving as a     
witness for his own demise." The following is an eye witness 
account of an Arizona gas chamber execution given by Supreme 
Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "When the fumes enveloped   
Don's head he took a quick breath. A few seconds later, he   
looked again in my direction. His face was red and contorted 
as if he were attempting to fight through tremendous pain.   
His mouth was pursed shut and his jaw was clenched tight.    
Don then took several more quick gulps of the fumes. His     
body started convulsing violently and his skin turned a deep 
red...the viens in his temple and neck began to bulge until  
I thought they might explode. After about a minute, Don's    
face leaned partially forward, but he was still very         
conscious. He was shuddering uncontrollably and his body was 
racked with spasms. His head continued to snap back. His     
fists were clenched tightly. After several more minutes, the 
most violent of the convulsions subsided. At this time, the  
muscles along Don's left arm and back began twitching in a   
wavelike motion under his skin. Spittle drooled from his     
mouth. Don Harling took exactly ten minutes and 31 seconds   
to die. Approximately three months later, he was found       
innocent."                                                   
     And it wasn't the first time. Amnesty International     
sites that "from 1900 to 1985 over 350 people sentenced to   
death were later found to be innocent of the crimes charged. 
Some excaped execution by only minutes, but 23 were actually 
executed. Within the last 20 years, 54 Americans under       
sentence of death have been released because of evidence of  
their innocence." Unlike a life imprisonment, death offers   
no second chance. If new evidence surfaces after the person  
has been executed, it's too late to do anything about it.    
     The death penalty doesn't save tax payers any money,    
either. Many people have the misconception that criminals    
should not be allowed to "rot in jail" wasting tax payers    
money. However, a study conducted by the Death Penalty       
Information Center (DPIC) concludes that tax payers pay an   
average of $3.2 million dollars per each death penalty       
case -- enough to sentence someone to 120 years in a maximum 
security facility.                                           
     The death penalty is also not a detterent to crime. >>> 
Texas, one of the leading states in the number of people     
executed, also has an extraordinarily high homicide rate.    
Much higher then that of states such as Michigan, which has  
no death penalty. In fact, a study conducted for the United  
Nations found that the number of homicides actually INCREASE 
around the time that a highly publicized execution occurs.   
In Canada, the homicide rate has dropped by 27% since        
capital punsihment was abolished in 1976, dropping most      
drastically within the first three years.                    
    Unarguably, criminals need to be punished for the        
lasting harm that they have caused society. However, the     
severity of the punishment has it's limits. Governments that 
respect humanit
 
"Why the Death Penalty is Dead Wrong"                        
                                                             
     Most people argue that the death penalty is not a form  
of cruel and unusual punishment. However, this is extremely  
inaccurate. Electric chair victims can take up to 14 minutes 
to die, maintaining full consciousness as their flesh begins 
to scorch and burn off. During lethal injection, "even a     
slight error in dosage or administration can leave a         
prisoner conscious but paralyzed with pain, serving as a     
witness for his own demise." The following is an eye witness 
account of an Arizona gas chamber execution given by Supreme 
Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "When the fumes enveloped   
Don's head he took a quick breath. A few seconds later, he   
looked again in my direction. His face was red and contorted 
as if he were attempting to fight through tremendous pain.   
His mouth was pursed shut and his jaw was clenched tight.    
Don then took several more quick gulps of the fumes. His     
body started convulsing violently and his skin turned a deep 
red...the viens in his temple and neck began to bulge 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Censorship On The Internet.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
     I object to the gradual loss of the freedoms promised in the Constitution. This last
outrage, the loss of part of our Freedom of speech and assembly, contained within the
telecomm act of 96 is just another step along the road to complete police state
takeover. We are being treated like recalcitrant teenagers by those that think they
know what is best for us, regardless of our feelings. Generally, it is later discovered
that the proponents of these kinds of controlling maneuvers had something personal to
gain. Be it power, control, money, sex or property. Those that wrote this bill, pushed
for it, bargained away our rights in order to trade favors for something of their own,
should be scrutinized closely, in every aspect of their own lives. 

     If we continue to demonstrate, to march, to speak out, to make our voices and our
wishes heard, maybe-- just maybe, the wise and powerful few will hear, and rescind
this nastiness. 

     Ignorant laws passed by ignorant people in the palaces of Power, if they are ignored
by the mass, soon become unenforceable laws. We, in the United States, are the
laughing stock of the rest of the world that inhabits the Web. A few of our most
ignorant politicians in Washington believe that they can control a community that
overspans borders, oceans, and vast distances. The rest of the civilized world, on the
Web or not, laughs at our arrogance, ignorance and just plain stupidity. This idiocy
has made its way into the "other" mass media, and we, our leaders at least, look like
foolish children. With perseverance we may prevail 

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Censorship.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


 



Censorship



 



The freedom to read is essential to the democratic way of life. But



today, that freedom is under attack. Private groups and public authorities



everywhere are working to remove both books and periodicals from sale, to



exclude certain books from public schools, to censor and silence magazines



and newspapers, and to limit "controversial" books and periodicals to the



general public. The suppression of reading materials is suppression of



creative thought. Books and periodicals are not the only ones being



suppressed by pressures to the political and social systems. They are also



being brought against the educational system, films, radio, television, and



against the graphic and theatre arts. However or whenever these attacks



occur, they usually fall at least one of the following categories:



 



 



Religion



War & Peace (Violence)



Sociology & Race



Language



Drugs



Sex



Inappropriate Adolescent Behaviour



 



 



What is Obscenity? Clearly something hard to talk about



constructively. "Obscenity" is difficult to discuss honestly. After all,



what makes a thing obscene? It is Something too vague perhaps to be



defined. It's an elusive term we use, but can't explain. Different people



often see things differently. Some see obscenity in nude pictures, statues,



paintings, etc. While others find less obscenity in these things. All the



same, "obscene" isn't the same as "wrong" or "bad". Clearly obscenity is



not identical with evil. It only covers a single segment of it. But what is



that segment? A look at the words "obscenity" and "pornography" suggests



that it is a segment that didn't worry people very much till relatively



recently.



 



Though censorship was known in english law quite early on, it wasn't



for obscenity but for heresy and sedition."Undue" exploitation of sex" is



what criminal law in Canada prohibits. This is how criminal law defines



obscenity. But it is rather vague. It doesn't differentiate between



"ordinary obscenity" and "hard-core pornography." The first denoting the



ordinary run of "girlie magazines and the second denoting pictures ,



literature and so on that deal with rape, sadism, masochism, bestiality,



necrophilia and other perversions. People tend to object far more to



"hard-core pornography." Another distinction unfortunately overlooked by



our criminal law is the distinction between isolated instances of obscenity



and the products of vast commercial enterprise.



 



There has been an increasing trend towards children's literature that



reflects a more realistic approach to the life both fiction and



non-fiction, with subjects that include sex, homosexuality, divorce, child



abuse, drugs, violence, etc. And they are these realistic books that have



people outraged. In school libraries, the most frequent complaints come



from parents about the school's selections. And in public libraries,



parents were once again the single greatest source of challenges to



materials.



 



The world is filled with "obscene" things. And it would seem that



those parents are just trying to protect their children from the outside



world. But does it really help? These day, an average elementary school



student knows many things. They are influenced by a wide range of sources,



from television and other forms of media, their environment at home and



school, their personality and their background. Why they read does not



necessarily mean that they will follow. Literature is a valued source of



knowledge for these children, and should not be held back. So rather than



applying full censorship, it should be made an age-related censorship. Many



of the complaints that were issued were of the immaturity of the readers.



And younger children should be prevented from borrowing material intended



for an older age group. Controversial materials should still be held either



in reserve stock, available on request, or under a section for parents and



teachers who can decide for themselves whether the material is suitable or



not.



 



Our would is not perfect. We are a world filled with violence, sex,



racism, etc. Certain literature like "hard-core pornography" should be



censored to the general public. These types of "explicit sex" truly have no



meaning. They degrade the human race by increasing physical, mental and



sexual abuse against women, animals, and sometimes against men. These



inhuman treatments should not be shown to prevent other potential people



from "experimenting" these acts of disgust. "Ordinary obscenity" should be



censored closely, but with an objective view. They may also cause an



increase in the violence against women, so they must be reduced and kept



out of reach of the immature readers. To make a tree grow correctly, you



must start caring from the very beginning. You must not block its



nutrients, water nor sunlight, but allow it to move around a bit. We have a



governing social system that mainly frowns upon the violence against women.



There should indeed be access to most types of literature, but in varying



degrees of freedom, determined not by censorship, but by controlled access.



Parents are trying to protect their children from the harsh realities of



life, but are they really helping, or hindering?



 



 



Bibliography



 



 



 



 



The Censorship Iceberg: The results of a survey of challenges in



school and public libraries. By Dr. David Jenkins. School Libraries



in Canada. Fall, 1985. v.6 n.1 p19-22



 



Sanitized textbooks reflect a pious paradise that never was. By



June Callwood. The Globe and Mail. March 18, 1987. pA2-A3



 



Suffer the little children. By Janet Collins. Books in Canada.



October 1991. v.20 n.7 p25-27



 



Court bans 'humanist' books from Alabama public schools. By Robin



Toner. The Globe and Mail. March 5, 1987. pA10



 



Censorship in the children's library. By Rupert Colley. The Junior



Bookshelf. June 1990. v.54 n.3 p121-123



 



Censorship News. Spring 1985. n20



 



Limits of criminal law - obscenity: a test case. By The Law Reform



Commission: working paper no. 10. p7-9



 



Censorship: stopping the book banners. By the book and periodical



development council. August 1988. p1-17 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\ChaipasUn Conflicto Real.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Desde que se empezo a hacer notar lo de cierto conflicto armado en Chiapas muchas inquietudes, y porque n�, muchas formas de ver la vida se diaron a la luz. Los conflictos han acompa�ado siempre al g�nero humano. Son causados por muy variadas razones: diferencias de opini�n, falta o escasez de recursos esenciales, ambici�n y deseos de imponerse sobre los dem�s, entre otros motivos. Pero los conflictos pueden resolverse sin necesidad de recurrir a la violencia. Si un conflicto no llega a ser solucionado de forma pac�fica puede agravarse progresivamente y convertirse en conflicto armado, en el que las partes enfrentadas recurren a las armas para tratar de imponer al contrario su voluntad. Si un conflicto armado se agrava y se convierte en una guerra. Los conflictos pueden resolverse sin necesidad de recurrir a la violencia. Esto es algo que hay que mantener siempre en mente ya que en un punto clave para 'ambas partes'.  Este peque�o estudio se realiza, p�es, en poz de tratar de investigar las causas 'reales' de este conflicto para poder as� encontra no la soluci�n m�s adecuada sino la mas correcta, la mas justa.
�Como se da un conflicto? 

En todos los conflictos hay causas hist�ricas. Siempre hay una causa para un efecto. Siempre se presento algun acontecimietno que altere en un futuro el balance de las cosas y las relaciones entre ellas.  Todos estos pedazos de informaci�n se sit�an en el tiempo y pertenecen, por tanto, a la historia.
A menudo nos encontramos con problemas o incoherencias dentro de la historia ya que esta a veces es usada para favorecer ciertos intereses. Este uso y abuso de la historia como causa de los conflictos presenta muchas manifestaciones: venganza, compromisos territoriales falsos, etc..
En el pasado, gran parte de las guerras ten�an como motivaci�n fundamental la conquista de territorios, ya fuera para el afianzamiento del poder de un se�or feudal o para extender un imperio colonial. En la actualidad este tipo de conflicto es menos frecuente, debido en parte al desarrollo del derecho internacional y a la creaci�n de instancias jur�dicas que regulan los conflictos territoriales, como las Naciones Unidas y el Tribunal Internacional de Justicia. Aun as�, el factor geogr�fico sigue siendo un elemento importante para poder entender c�mo se generan los conflictos. Es preciso comprender el espacio donde aparecen los enfrentamientos armados para as� poderlos analizar en toda su integridad.
Muchos de los primeros conflictos violentos de los que se tiene noticia en la historia de la humanidad, lo son por motivos que hoy podr�amos llamar econ�micos: posesi�n de recursos (tierras, ganados, aguas), apropiaci�n de bienes y personas (esclavos, mujeres) y satisfacci�n de otras necesidades de subsistencia de las sociedades. 
No todas las guerras son desencadenadas por motivos econ�micos. Esta idea est� basada en el hecho irrefutable de que toda guerra tiene graves consecuencias econ�micas, lo que es muy distinto y no tiene nada que ver con la cuesti�n. Se aproxima m�s a la realidad el hecho de que en casi todas las guerras existen razones econ�micas como causas secundarias que refuerzan los motivos primarios que las desencadenan.
Con frecuencia unos grupos humanos dominan a otros imponi�ndoles su idioma, su religi�n o sus costumbres. Se genera as� un tipo de conflicto de ra�ces �tnicas. Ocurre a veces que la dominaci� de unos grupos por otros, coincide con situaciones de desigualdad econ�mica, de desplazamientos forzados de poblaciones fuera de sus territorios de origen. 
La crisis econ�mica, la desigualdad y la pobreza se encuentran a menudo entre las causas de los conflictos, existen sociedades donde el reparto injusto de bienes crean problemas internos que usualmente se caracterizan por la discriminaci�n �tnica, la represi�n pol�tica y las violaciones de los derechos humanos. 

Un caso real


"Chiapas es el estado m�s pobre de M�xico. Tiene 3,2 millones de habitantes; un mill�n son indios. Algunos son campesinos y otros jornaleros, fabricantes de carb�n vegetal o artesanos. Los campesinos ind�genas sufrieron durante siglos la persecuci�n, la expulsi�n de sus tierras y el abuso de los terratenientes. 
La revoluci�n de 1910 hab�a dado a los campesinos ciertas garant�as, m�s 'formales' que 'reales'. La Constituci�n puso l�mites a los latifundios y prohibi� la compra de los ejidos o tierras comunales. Pero en 1992, durante la presidencia de Carlos Salinas de Gortari, se autoriz� la privatizaci�n de los ejidos.
Chiapas es una zona productora de caf�. El gobierno indujo en los a�os ochenta a los campesinos a cultivarlo para venderlo en el mercado internacional. Se talaron los �rboles de m�s de la mitad de la rica selva Lacandona y se vendi� la madera. La tierra se destin� al cultivo del caf�. Muchos campesinos ind�genas de Chiapas perdieron sus tierras y emigraron a las grandes ciudades.
La privatizaci�n hizo que los endeudados campesinos tuvieran que vender las tierras. Sus deudas proven�an de no haber recibido ninguna ayuda gubernamental ante la ca�da del precio del caf� en el mercado internacional en 1989." 
En estas circunstancias, la insurrecci�n de Chiapas, alentada por la marginaci�n, y dirigida por el Frente Zapatista de Liberaci�n Nacional, mostr� la cara de la miseria. A partir de la aparici�n de los zapatistas, M�xico no volvi� a ser el mismo: se desencanden� una fuerte crisis pol�tica, se multiplicaron los asesinatos entre los c�rculos del poder, se revelaron las vinculaciones del Estado con el narcotr�fico y se hundi� el peso mexicano. 

La solucion: est� la debemos de encontrar pensando en todos las personas que cayeron victimas de este conflicto, no importa quien sea. Se presenta la oportunidad, con este conflicto, de re-evaluar anal�ticamente nuestro sistema de justicia y nuestro criterio. Para tener una mayor consideraci�n de las alternativas observemos la contrapuesta del gobierno a este conflicto.

PROPUESTA DEL GOBIERNO DE REFORMAS CONSTITUCIONALES EN MATERIA DE DERECHOS DE LOS PUEBLOS INDIGENAS


Art�culo 4o.

La naci�n mexicana tiene una composici�n pluricultural sustentada originalmente en sus pueblos ind�genas a los cuales, en los t�rminos de esta Constituci�n, se les reconoce el derecho a la libre determinaci�n que se expresa en un marco de autonom�a respecto a sus formas internas de convivencia y de organizaci�n social, econ�mica, pol�tica y cultural. Dicho derecho les permitir�:

I. Aplicar sus normas, usos y costumbres en la regulaci�n y soluci�n de conflictos internos entre sus miembros, respetando las garant�as que establece esta Constituci�n y los derechos humanos, as� como la dignidad e integridad de las mujeres. Las leyes locales prever�n el reconocimiento a las instancias y procedimientos que utilicen para ello, y establecer�n las normas para que sus juicios y resoluciones sean homologados por las autoridades jurisdiccionales del Estado;

II. Elegir a sus autoridades municipales y ejercer sus formas propias de gobierno interno, siempre y cuando se garantice el respeto a los derechos pol�ticos de todos los ciudadanos y la participaci�n de las mujeres en condiciones de igualdad;

III. Fortalecer su participaci�n y representaci�n pol�ticas de conformidad con sus especificidades culturales;

IV. Acceder al uso y disfrute de los recursos naturales de sus tierras, respetando las formas, modalidades y limitaciones establecidas para la propiedad por esta Constituci�n y las leyes;

V. Preservar y enriquecer sus lenguas, conocimientos y todos los elementos que configuren su cultura e identidad, y

VI. Adquirir, operar y administrar sus propios medios de comunicaci�n, conforme a la ley.

La Federaci�n, los estados y los municipios deber�n, en el �mbito de sus respectivas competencias, y con el concurso de los pueblos ind�genas, promover el desarrollo equitativo y sustentable y la educaci�n biling�e e intercultural. Asimismo, deber�n impulsar el respeto y conocimiento de las diversas culturas existentes en la Naci�n y combatir toda forma de discriminaci�n.

Las autoridades educativas competentes, tomando en cuenta la opini�n de los pueblos ind�genas, definir�n y desarrollar�n programas educativos de contenido regional, en los que se reconocer� su herencia cultural.

El Estado impulsar� tambi�n programas espec�ficos de protecci�n de los derechos de los ind�genas migrantes en el territorio nacional y, de acuerdo con las normas de derecho internacional, en el extranjero.

Para garantizar el acceso pleno de los pueblos ind�genas a la jurisdicci�n del Estado, en todos los juicios y procedimientos que involucren individual o colectivamente a ind�genas se tomar�n en cuenta sus pr�cticas jur�dicas y especificidades culturales, respetando los preceptos de esta Constituci�n. Los ind�genas tendr�n en todo tiempo el derecho a ser asistidos por int�rpretes y defensores que tengan conocimiento de sus lenguas y culturas.

El Estado establecer� las instituciones y pol�ticas necesarias para garantizar la vigencia de los derechos de los pueblos ind�genas y su desarrollo integral, las cuales deber�n ser dise�adas y operadas concertadamente con dichos pueblos.

Las Constituciones y leyes de los estados, conforme a sus particulares caracter�sticas, establecer�n las modalidades pertinentes para la aplicaci�n de los principios se�alados, garantizando los derechos que esta Constituci�n reconoce a los pueblos ind�genas.

El var�n y la mujer...

Toda persona...

Toda familia...

Es deber...

Art�culo 115

Los estados adoptar�n...

I. Cada municipio...

Los presidentes...

Las legislaturas...

En caso de declararse...

Si alguno...

II. Los municipios estar�n...

III. Los municipios, con el concurso...

IV. Los municipios administrar�n...

V. Los municipios, en los t�rminos de las leyes federales y estatales relativas, estar�n facultados para formular, aprobar y administrar la zonificaci�n y planes y programas de desarrollo municipal y urbano; participar en la creaci�n y administraci�n de sus reservas territoriales; controlar y vigilar la utilizaci�n del suelo en sus jurisdicciones territoriales; intervenir en la regularizaci�n de la tenencia de la tierra urbana; otorgar licencias y permisos para construcciones, y participar en la creaci�n y administraci�n de zonas de reservas ecol�gicas. Para tal efecto y de conformidad a los fines se�alados en el p�rrafo tercero del art�culo 27 de esta Constituci�n, expedir�n los reglamentos y disposiciones administrativas que fueren necesarios.

En los planes de desarrollo municipal y en los programas que de ellos se deriven, los ayuntamientos le dar�n participaci�n a los n�cleos de poblaci�n ubicados dentro de la circunscripci�n municipal, en los t�rminos que establezca la legislaci�n estatal. Asimismo, las leyes locales establecer�n mecanismos de participaci�n ciudadana para coadyuvar con los ayuntamientos en la programaci�n, ejercicio, evaluaci�n y control de los recursos, incluidos los federales, que se destinen al desarrollo social.

VI. Cuando dos o m�s centros urbanos...

VII. El Ejecutivo Federal y los gobernadores...

VIII. Las leyes de los estados...

IX. Se respetar� el ejercicio de la libre determinaci�n de los pueblos ind�genas en cada uno de los �mbitos y niveles en que hagan valer su autonom�a de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el art�culo 4o. de esta Constituci�n.

Las comunidades de los pueblos ind�genas como entidades de inter�s p�blico, y los municipios con poblaci�n mayoritariamente ind�gena, tendr�n la facultad de asociarse libremente a fin de coordinar sus acciones, respetando siempre la divisi�n pol�tico-administrativa en cada entidad federativa. Las autoridades competentes realizar�n la transferencia ordenada y paulatina de recursos, para que ellos mismos administren los fondos p�blicos que se les asignen. Corresponder� a las Legislaturas estatales determinar los recursos y, en su caso, las funciones y facultades que pudieran transfer�rseles, y

X. En los municipios, comunidades, organismos auxiliares del ayuntamiento e instancias afines, de car�cter predominantemente ind�gena y para el ejercicio de sus formas propias de gobierno interno, se reconocer� a sus habitantes el derecho para elegir a sus autoridades o representantes internos, de acuerdo con sus pr�cticas pol�ticas tradicionales, en un marco que asegure la unidad del Estado nacional y el respeto a esta Constituci�n. La legislaci�n local establecer� las bases y modalidades para asegurar el ejercicio pleno de este derecho.

Las Constituciones y leyes locales establecer�n los requisitos y procedimientos para constituir como municipios u �rganos auxiliares de los mismos, a los pueblos ind�genas o a sus comunidades, asentados dentro de los l�mites de cada estado.

Art�culo 18

S�lo por delito que merezca...

Los gobiernos...

Los gobernadores...

La Federaci�n...

Los reos de nacionalidad...

Las leyes fijar�n los casos en que la calidad ind�gena confiere el beneficio de compurgar las penas preferentemente en los establecimientos m�s cercanos a su domicilio, de modo que se propicie su reintegraci�n a la comunidad como mecanismo esencial de readaptaci�n social; asimismo determinar�n los casos en que por la gravedad del delito no gozar�n de este beneficio.

Art�culo 26

El Estado organizar�...

Los fines del proyecto...

La ley facultar� al Ejecutivo...

La legislaci�n correspondiente establecer� los mecanismos necesarios para que en los planes y programas de desarrollo se tomen en cuenta a los pueblos ind�genas en sus necesidades y sus especificidades culturales. El Estado promover� su acceso equitativo a la distribuci�n de la riqueza nacional.

En el sistema...

Art�culo 53

La demarcaci�n territorial...

Para establecer la demarcaci�n territorial de los distritos electorales uninominales, deber� tomarse en cuenta la ubicaci�n de los pueblos ind�genas, a fin de asegurar su participaci�n y representaci�n pol�ticas en el �mbito nacional.

Para la elecci�n...

Art�culo 73

El Congreso tiene facultad:

La XXVII...

XXVIII. Para expedir las leyes que establezcan la concurrencia del gobierno federal, de los gobiernos de los estados y de los municipios, con el objeto de lograr los fines previstos en los art�culos 4o. y 115 de esta Constituci�n, en materia ind�gena;

XXIX a XXX...

Art�culo 116

El poder p�blico de los estados...

I. ...

II. El n�mero de representantes...

Los diputados de las legislaturas...

En la legislaci�n electoral...

Para organizar la representaci�n de los pueblos ind�genas en las legislaturas de los estados por el principio de mayor�a relativa, en la conformaci�n de los distritos electorales uninominales se tomar� en cuenta la distribuci�n geogr�fica de dichos pueblos.

Esta 'soluci�n', en la opini�n muy personal de nosotros, es INACEPTABLE. �Que Opina Usted? 









(footnote continued)



PAGE  6


PAGE  7


 

 








 Centro de Investigaci�n para la Paz
 La Jornada, 12 de enero de 1997 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\China.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	The history of China is embeded with revolution and tension dating back to the feudal periods and the " first unified Chinese empire under Qi Shi Huang Di in 221 B.C. "  The Confucianism ideology entrenched in the minds of the Chinese people with its conservative base and the need to achieve harmony in society has yet to be reached and most likely, never will.  The proletariat is at the heart of the Marxist-Maoist approach to politics and the basic way of life for the Chinese masses considering that "...roughly 85% of the population is based in peasantry..."  While Marxism, as implemented by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Nationalism have historically hindered the people of China; a growing need to conform to capitilism is plainly obvious if there will ever be success in the global market.
	The Marxist theory is based on a classless society where the proletariat or working class is given the opportunity to exist on an equal social level with the remainder of the people while given a form of leadership of its own for the first time.  The dictatorship of the proletariat in communist China called the " peoples democratic dictatorship "   is considered by the Chinese Communist Party to be truly democratic, since it is the dictatorship of the vast majority, the 'people' over a tiny minority of reactionaries.  The Chinese Communist Party formed in 1921 is founded upon strict Marxist beliefs that 

											D. Marcon 2.
coincide with ideas expressed in the Communist Manifesto.  
			" The CCP has, as it's mission the creation 
			of a stateless classless society.  Because the 
			dictatorship of the proletariat must be led by
			 the party of the proletariat, the CCP by virtue 
			of being the vanguard of the working class, and 
			because of its knowledge of Marxism-Leninism 
			and its organizatioal capacities, is best able to 
			understand and realize the interests of all people. "    		
The Communist Manifesto described the " conquest of political power by the proletariat " as the objective of the Communist. "  The fundamentals of the CCP were originally based on extreme 'leftist' views that centered around the proletariat.  The party would virtually work for the victory of socialism in China while at the same time, looking to dismiss capitalism.
	Mao Zedong, one of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921 had views on the need to switch from an orthodox Marxist strategy which called for the party to seek roots among the urban working class, to a rural strategy centered on the exploited peasants, was interrupted by the leadership CCP and its sponsors in Moscow.
	The Chinese Communist Party was by no means a military power and it was unable to sustain itself and flourish in the Nationalist-controlled cities.  The Kuomintang, a 

											D. Marcon 3.
nationalist party was set out to unify China under one central government.  The KMT had in  its possession adequate means to quash the idealistic CCP  and did so on a number of occasions.  Some of which led to rebellions such as the Long March led by Mao Tse-tung.
	China, over history has experienced phases of both Nationalism and Sinocentrism, both of which can be damaging to a developing country attempting to compete economically in the global market.  These ideas can relate back to the ancient religion of confucianism. " Confucianism has been instramental in the shaping of China's leadership.  Not only does it emphasize a rigid hierarchy kept in place by virtuous behavior. But it also holds that strict adherence to proper behavior actually leads to correct thinking. " 	Accompanying Nationalism and Sinocentrism was rebellion and unrest.  Twenty-four historic dynasties followed a common pattern of development.  At the beginning of a new dynasty, a period of national unity under virtuous and benevolent rule flourished and usually was accompanied by intellectual excitement.  A Mid-Cycle did exist where a period of mediocre rule was present, implying corruption and unrest followed by an End-Cycle, or natural disaster where the the ruler was unable to provide workable remedies.  Rebellion or invasion would insue sending the country spiralling.  The Sinocentric and Nationalist approach China maintained during the Industrial Revolution resulted in the innablity to 

											D. Marcon 4.
reap its benefits at an early stage.  The Sinocentric world view the government applied not only hindered the success the Industrial Revolution had to offer, it also blinded its own views of the growing powers in the West.  " China had once considered itself the center of the world and in it's long history....Since the Opium War in 1840, however, China was increasigly forced to retreat by the superiority of the Western powers. " Sinocentrism and Nationalism are issues in Chinam that have historically had disasterous affects on the country at the time as well as affects carrying over into the new age of capitalism.
	Capitalism is at the root of economic success in most countries.  Organizations such as the World Trade Organizaition have accumulated countries based, in part on thier way of life.  Communism has not traditionally coincided with economic success globally and the trend exists in the countries that are currently members of the WTO.  Presently there does not exist a communist based country in the group of members.  
	The governmental approach as to limiting goods through central leadership has become known as a...
			"...centrally controlled command economy.  
			That is the central leadership detirmined the 
			economic policies to be followed and allocated 
			all of the country's resources....Once the Communist 
			Party leadership determined the country's political 
			goals and the correct ideology to follow, the State 
			Planning Commission and the State Economic 
			Commission then decided how to implement these 
			objectives through specific policies for agriculture and 

											D. Marcon 5.
	
		industry and the allocation of resources. "   

An approach of this kind to a country containing such vast potential and immense population does not offer an opportunity to the proletariat class to produce a means that would better his or her own personal lifestyle.  The average worker realistically has no reason to strive to produce a greater number of goods or to produce those goods with any means of quality.  " Enterprises were subordinated to their higher authorities on all issues concerning production, employment, investment and finance.  Wages were set accordingly to seniority rather than ability or effort. "   Intellectuals such as Deng Xiaopeng have realized the need to conform to the capitilist way of life.  Since Deng Xiaopeng came into power in 1978 real per capita gross national product has virtually tripled.  
	The idea of capitalism is in direct contrast with the historical Marxist-Leninist and Mao Zedong Thought and because of its deep roots in the Chinese way of life it has taken until present day for the political rulers to realize its potential.  Deng Xiaopeng once said " I don't care whether the cat is black or white so as long as it catches mice. "  However, the forces within the Chinese Communist Party forced Deng to conform to their principles and retreat from his own.  Deng had to do so in order to remain in control and maintain his 

											D. Marcon 6.
position. In 1990 Deng resigned from the position which he held within Chinese politics, the chairman of the State Military Commission.
	An issue that must be kept in mind is that while it appears that China might be  attempting to adapt to the ways of the global market it must keep in mind the risks that an rapidly expanding country once took, the United States and the tragic Black Tuesday stock market crash of 1929.
	Marxism, Nationalism and Sinocentrism have all presently or over time worked against China flourishing into the new world of capitalism and free enterprise.  In order for China to succeed and reach the 'harmony' its Confucian ideology promises, Marxism, nationalism and sinocentrism must all be abandoned in the attempt to reach a democratic, capitalist lifestyle and business practice. 









BIBLIOGRAPHY	Hay, Morris, Lin, and Yao.  Economic Reform and State owned Enterprises in           	China ,1979-87
		Clarenden Press: Oxford. 1994

	Infeld, Al.  China as a Model of Development
		Orbis Books: New York. 1976

	Kraus, Willy.  Economic Development and Social Change in the Peoples Republic 	of China
		Springer-Verlag: New York, Heidelberg and Berlin. 1990
	
	Leonhard, Wolfgang.  The Three Faces of Marxixm
		Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, Chicago and San Fransisco. 1974

	Ogden, Dr. Suzanne.  China (Sixth ed.)
		Dushkin Publishing Group/Brown and Benchmark Publishers: Connecticut. 		1995
		
	Waller, Derek J.  The Government and Politics of Communist China
		Anchor Books: Garden City, New York.  1991

	World Press Review - Understanding China
		March, 1996.
	
	M. Zuckerman.  U.S. News and World Report - China's New Reality.
		March 15, 1995.  

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Christianity.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Christianity



 



The Christian religion, like all other religions has its strengths and



weaknesses in our modern society. Perhaps the strengths out weight the



weaknesses as this is one of the largest religions in the world. Hundreds



of people follow the Catholic/Christian religion yet still a greater number



follow yet other religions. Perhaps this is because they see the



weaknesses or perhaps it is simply because their parents have taught them



that it is a sin to follow this religion.



 



The Christian religions do however present much more of an appealing



atmosphere than such other religions which are as large as the Christian.



The Christian religion is one of few religions where punishments for sins



are not severe. In the Christian religion, even if you have lived a life



of sin, so long as you repent in the end, you will be saved and given



eternal life. This is not so in other religions. Such religions as



Hinduism for instance do not believe this. For everything you do wrong you



will be punished. For every action, there is an equal and opposite



reaction, if not in this life, then the next. Hindu's also believe that



punishing the body is part of the path to salvation. Christianity is



nothing like this. Many Christians live in high(c)class society.



Christianity is one of the most appealing in that any sins may easily be



corrected and that Christians may live comfortable, if not wealthy lives



without guilt.



 



Christianity, like other religions though, has many weaknesses.



Although as time goes on, Christianity is slowly evolving and trying to



become even more appealing to society, there are still many downfalls. One



thing with Christianity is that from day one we are given a guilt trip. We



are born evil. We are born with "the original sin". We are at the mercy



of God. If we beg forgiveness however, it shall be granted. My



grandmother for instance has been a firm believer in the Roman Catholic



faith. She, being taught in the old style, firmly believes in going to



confession weekly and begging for forgiveness. It has been taught to her



that man is born evil. All we can do is pray, beg and hope for



forgiveness. With such a guilt upon his sub(c)conscience, man can never be



truly happy.



 



Yet another strength with the Christian faith is that it is one of the



more flexible religions. Under the leadership of the pope(s), the Catholic



faith has evolved with modern society and become a more "reasonable" faith.



Such practices as not eating meat on Fridays, and so forth, have been



abolished as the Christian faith has bent to conform with modern society.



Some people may see this as a weakness. This is not so. The Christian



religion has modified its rituals yet the central beliefs have not been



altered since the very beginning of this religion. This is actually quite



a good thing. A religion should change as the modern society does and



conform to a more "acceptable" approach to continue its



teachings/practices. This is one great thing about the Christian faith.



 



A small, often overlooked draw back to the Christian faith is that



there is not any solid proof that Jesus existed. To the Christian faith,



Jesus is the central figure. A Christian will tell you that the Bible is



proof that Jesus existed. The Bible however was written much later, after



Jesus' death. Therefore the stories contained have been transferred by



word of mouth, which has certainly been distorted and exaggerated. The



Shroud of Turin used to be the Christian religion's artifact which was



believed to be the original shroud that Jesus was wrapped in when he was



buried and therefore solid proof he existed. Recently due to modern carbon



dating, this "artifact" has been proven to have been created with paint



approximately one thousand years after the day Christ died. To a



non(c)believer, this is a major drawback.



 



One very strong point about the Catholic/Christian religion is that



they strongly believe in correcting our corrupted world. Many missionaries



are sent yearly to third world countries where they help educate, feed and



provide moral support for a people who have nothing. With such a practice



in place, the Christian religion has put a smile on faces which normally



would never know anything more than tears. Probably one of the greatest



features of the Christian church which helps it survive in modern society



is the hierarchy system upon which this religion is based. Such strong



organization structure help this religion in well organized money



distribution, etc. In a modern society, such structure is necessary.



 



As one of the largest religions, the Catholic/Christian religion is one



of the great religions which stills lives strongly among us in our



increasingly modern society. Despite its many weaknesses, the Christian



faith has even more strengths upon which its survival is based. Times may



change, technology may advance, but essential beliefs never alter. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Christs Victory.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


 



VICTORY!!



 



"It is finished!" John 19:30. What Christ is referring to here is the



accomplished salvation of the people. What that means is that when we are



saved, we do not have to put out burnt saccrifices up to Him. It is no



longer needed because Christ died for us, which took away the iniquities of



our sin. He did this out of great love for us. This is exemplified in



John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son



that who so ever belief in him shall have eternall life!". That verse is



very important to us, or should be, because in a way, one could base



his/her relationship with the Lord upon it. The reason is because God



loved us so much that he did that for us so that is the least that we could



do. In Genesis 3:15 it says that we will be punished for our sins. Yes,



that is true, but God will forgive and forget them if we repent. You see



this is not possible without Jesus dying for our sins. In Romans 5:6-8 it



says that Christ died for all of us. Even the bad ones, ALL. This is a



sign of the Victory that Christ had won a victory here. The reason is



because of all of the lifes that he saved and will later be saved. In



Romans 5 it says that Jesus died for All Sinners! We are all sinners so



his death was for all.



 



When Jesus says that "It is finished", he can also be reffering to the



older predictions of Christs' life. There is one in particular that it



might have been talking about in Isaiah. That is the one in which Isaiah



talks of the life of Jesus and the crusifiction, in very short and brief



detail.



 



The suffering in which Jesus took for us lasted all through the night,



and then in the morning the thrusted a sword into His side to see if he was



alive. After the water poored out of His side, you can say that it is



officially over. In my heart it is not completely over, just that of that



era. Jesus will always live in my heart and not until the very end times



is it over in my heart.







When the life of Jesus was over, at the same exact time God tore the



cloth in the temple from the top to the bottom. The reason it had to have



been God is that no one would be capable of tearing it from the top. This



was to show the wrath of God that He had upon the world at this time. I am



sure that He felt bad for His son for having to go through all of this.



God loved the world so much that He did this for us though. We should all



acknowledge the fact that is the reason for the crucifiction.



 



This little message actually means a whole lot to me. I feel that



when he said that "It is finished", he was reffering to the fact that we no



longer have to sacrifice. I believe that this is a very strong statement



to believers, that they would acknowledge the love and a lesson to the



non-Christians that they would possibly just think about it a little and



maybe they will also think a little more about how they are living their



life. I feel that we all DO fall short of the glory of God, but we a



supposed to do the best we can to be more and more like Him. I love my



lord with all my heart and will continue to my whole life. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Clinton Foreign Policy.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	The topic for this paper is the United States policy towards the Caribbean country
of Haiti during the Clinton administration.  The subjects which will be discussed are the
issues of: Refugees, Foreign Aide as well as human rights the United States involvement
in Haiti issues of  national interests.  What will also be examined is what the Clinton
administration trying to achieve concerning Haiti. What the United Nations and the U.S.
roles were, and what the public thought was concerning these issues. Also why the
United States was involved with the internal dispute of a third world country where the
national interest was not clearly defined.  The issue of  why was it or was not  so
important for the United States to send troops to Haiti will also be discussed. The
problem in Haiti was the pro democratic elected president Aristide was exile from Haiti
during a military coup.  Several issues arose out of Haiti after the exile of Aristide. 
Issues of: human rights there were reports that the new regime brought back "death
squads" killing people who opposed the new leaders.  One of the main targets of the
Clinton policy is a group called the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti of
FRAPH.  The administration has targeted this group for their continued backing and
support of General Cedras, for their human rights violations.
 	Issues of , refugee's illegally trying to enter the United States creating an
economic burden on much of south Florida.  All of these issues arose during president
Bush's term in office.  The Bush administration was to turn back the refugee's.  The Bush
administration saw no vital national interest in concerning it self with the internal
problems of Haiti ,because there were so many problems at home in the United States,
other than to turn the refugee's away from south Florida.  When president Clinton took
over the office of the presidency he would become very indecisive and weak on the issue
of Haiti.
	President Clinton began badly on Haiti.  With his continual indecision and lack of
any real back bone to the policies which were decided upon. "First, he gave charge of his 


maccarone2
policy to Bush administration holdovers who over the previous year had made clear their
intent to construct in Haiti a version of democracy that left the president in exile but with
an Aristide - appointed prime minister and cabinet.  This tortured scenario was doomed
to failure because over  two thirds of the Haitian people equated democratic government
with the return of Aristide and no arrangement that excluded his presence could rule
without massive repression."
	"The Clinton foreign  policy team so recognized this error and appointed a former
ambassador wise in the ways of Latin American dictators, Lawrence Pezzullo to head up
Haitian policy.  Things began to move.  In mid 1993, a United Nations sponsored
agreement was signed a Governors Island, New York.  In return for removal of the oil cut
off which Clinton administration had promoted within the United Nations, plus a four -
month transition period,  the army agreed to the return of President Aristide, the
installation of a consensus  government and replacement of the army high command."  It
looked as though a transition from arbitrary, oligarchic rule towards constitutional
government had been found.
	In short the Clinton foreign policy towards Haiti was to remove the leaders of the
military coup and return exiled President Jean - Bertrand Aristide to power.  The policy
was also designed to put pressure on the military government in the way of a United
Nations trade embargo.  the hope was to bring the leader of the new government to their
knees and hope the leaders would return the government back to the people of Haiti.
	The history and the political background of Haiti is a history of oligarchic rule,
and fear of  the government.  Their country in the early part of the century until 1950's
was basically under the thumb of the United States government.  "In 1915, the United
States , acting under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, occupied Haiti to
straighten out its finances, pay off foreign debts , and ensure stable government. 

maccarone3
 When the Marines departed in 1933, their principal legacy was a constabulary officered
by light - skinned  mulattos.  The tension between the ruling mulatto elite and the black 
majority runs like a discordant motif through Haiti's turbulent history."
	In 1956, blacks surged into control with the election of Francois "Papa Doc"
Duvalier.  Papa Doc installed a reign of terror directed primarily against the elite
professional class.  His son, Jean Claude,  "Baby Doc" became president  -for - life  upon
the death of the elder Duvalier.  Baby Doc possessed  none of his father's political
dexterity.  His marriage into one of Haiti's richest families cost him popular support. 
High levels of corruption combined with sporadic te 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Cogressional Term Limits.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
In 1994, for the first time in 40 years, Congress was drastically changed.  The Democratic majority was uprooted and new, lively, freshmen were instated with a job to undertake.  As part of the Republican=s AContract with America,@ these new Republicans had to revise the current Congressional term limit status.  In undertaking this task, these men and women ran into a seemingly stone road-block.  This roadblock consisted of long-term, carreerists who were unwilling to change. The problem was not that there were no Congressmen  who were committed to real change elected in 1994 because there were, but Congress was highly dominated by long-term careerists in both parties who seemed to have more loyalty to the system than to their constituents. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." (Oxford dictionary of quotations, p.272)  Over time, career legislators are more likely to promote the interest of the establishment of which they are part than that of the larger public. This fact is not surprising. If most of a persons time is spent meeting with lobbyists, constituents, and bureaucrats, that person may actually come to believe what these influential people are saying.  This is why new blood needs to enter Congress more frequently, in order to avoid the highly influenced Congress that is filled with old people with old ideals.  Needless to say the once optimistic freshmen were unsuccessful in their task, and it=s plain to see why.  Until that changes, Congress is not going to change.  Congressmen need to get back to basics and realize that they are in office to serve their people, and not themselves.
What would change Congress is term limits.  By the middle of last year nearly half of the states had restricted, almost all of them by popular vote, the number of terms that their members of Congress could serve. But then the Supreme Court intervened. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc., et al. v. Thornton et al., a narrow five-to-four majority voided these restrictions, stating that "allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, to form a Amore perfect Union.@ (US Law Week, 1995) 
Congress, naturally, refuses to approve a constitutional amendment on term limits. Most state legislatures also refuse to approve term-limit measures. And now the Supreme Court refuses to allow the people to approve term limits.  This fact shows the importance of developing new strategies for subjecting members of the U.S. Congress to term limits.  There are many ways in which this could occur, but before one can decide which might be the most effective, one must first realize why they are so necessary.
The election of 1994 was supposed to be one of dramatic change.  Three dozen Democratic incumbents fell, but the overall House reelection rate still ran roughly 90 percent with 314 of the 348 members remaining unmoved, and the Senate reelection rate ran 92 percent with 24 of the 26 members up for election unmoved.   Absolutely no Republican incumbents, no matter how flawed, lost in the election of 1994.  These sad statistics show that no matter revolutionary the voters get, most incumbents still win, and careerists still largely dominate policy.  Edward H. Crane states that, "Those who run for Congress these days are generally those who find the prospect of spending a significant portion of their lives as a politician to be an attractive option.  Politicians are less likely to have a real life before entering politics.  Many political pros start out as state legislators in their early twenties and never stop.  (Crane (2), p. 251) Validating this statement is Senator Warren Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire, who explained that he retired because  "the longer you stay in public office, the more distant the outside world becomes." (Wall Street Journal, p. A22) But he is one of the few to voluntarily step aside when his proper time was up.  According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, senior 
representatives are more likely than junior legislators to vote for pork and special-interest economic intervention.  (Moore, p.21) The National Taxpayers Union figures, in a recent survey, demonstrate that, on average, spending rises with terms served. (Payne, p.175)   Just as important, perhaps most importantly, is the corrupting influence of power. With seniority comes influence, and with influence often comes corrupting power.
The constant worry of the upcoming re-election is also a contributing factor in a Senators actions, even the most ideologically committed representative may slip into putting his career before his ideology. Incumbency has become an invaluable aid to reelection because of the benefits of power, which usually mean using government to direct resources to their own districts to make themselves look good.  Incumbents also raise funds and win votes by posing as defenders of individuals, organizations, and regions threatened by taxes and regulations which were imposed by other legislators, they usually do this to win votes in their districts or states.  So, as they are in office they focus on reelection.  Even legislators with very strong principles are likely to find themselves defending individual programs and projects as they attempt to make their people believe that they shun overall government spending and regulation.  This manipulation of the people leads any incumbent to a very good chance of re-election, and in our current status, there is no end in sight for these career legislators.
Political careers in Congress can be battled in various ways. One could attempt to limit incumbents' electoral advantages such as fund-raising, postal franking, and their large, very important, legislative staff.  The people could also attempt to eliminate campaign finance restrictions which may allow a wealthy individual to donate as much as they want to a candidate they believe in making the incumbents= AWar Chest@ slightly less intimidating.  One other way that Congress could be slightly more regulated is by restricting the amount of lobbying taking place. (Smith, p.A15)  While all of those possibilities might be helpful, they would not be easy to achieve.  In order to tackle the real problem you must seek out the problem, and that problem is political careerism. Today the entire political system is biased toward long-term legislative service. The only way to counteract that bias is term limits.  The limits should be shorter rather than longer. Three terms for the House would, for instance, have a much more powerful transforming effect than would the six terms favored by many officeholders. (Bandow, p.221)  81.3 percent of voters who support term limits prefer three terms; just 15.8 percent favor six terms.  (McLaughlin, p.1)  Shorter term limits would better ensure distribution of leadership positions on criteria other than seniority, giving bright new Congressmen the hope of holding a position of responsibility before returning to private life. 
So what can be done to change this horrible trend?  The Supreme Court decision to void Astate-imposed@ limits on congressional terms requires either a judicial reversal or approval of a constitutional amendment. Neither would be easy to obtain but there are ways in which they might occur.  A constitutional amendment can only come by either action by either Congress, whose members would be affected by such term limits, or two-thirds of the states.  Supporters of term limits need to apply continuing pressure on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment. Obviously this strategy faces many barriers.  There is one other way in which an amendment can be passed in the United States.  States can call for a constitutional convention to draft a 
term-limits amendment for submission to all the states for approval. Getting backing from the 
necessary 34 states will be no easy task.  The problem with calling a convention is that once it is called it is very possible that term limits will not be the only issue on the agenda.  This sets the United States up for a, Arunaway Convention,@ in which those states could very possibly come out of the convention with a whole new Constitution instead of only a term limits amendment.  Pressuring Congress is by far the most advantageous choice.  Even the mere thought of a possible Constitutional Convention may cause Congress to realize the people=s strong feelings on the term limit issue, thus forcing them to draft their own amendment in order to keep the states out of a Convention. (Clegg, 1995)
The problem concerning term limits will not just simply fade away.  The longer there are incumbents gaining power, the worse off the people of the United States will be.  The American people need to stage a political uprising by using their power to amend the Constitution and impose term limits on their legislators.  This power can be direct through the convention or indirect by their overwhelming influence, but it needs to arrive soon.  I see an end coming soon to this issue because of the great amount of public concern.  Congress will do something soon, because if the do not, they are too afraid to see what the people will do themselves.

                                  



















References


Bandow, Doug.  "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever," Cato Institute Policy Analysis 
April 6, 1995. (www.cato.org)

Clegg, Roger.  AIs It Time for a Second Constitutional Convention?@ Washington: National Legal 	Center for the Public Interest, 1995. (www.clegg.com)-I used this site for reference only

Crane,Edward H.(1)  "Campaign Reforms vs. Term Limits," Washington Times, June 26, 1996, p. 
A15. 

Crane, Edward H.(2),  "Six and Twelve: The Case for Serious Term Limits," National Civic Review, 1991. P. 251. 

Jefferson, Thomas. "Letter to Tench Coxe" 1799, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 3d ed. 
New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 272. 

McLaughlin, Fabrizio,  Memorandum to "all interested parties," February 6, 1996, p. 1. 	(www.poilticalscience/pub/quotes.com) 

Moore, Stephen and Steelman, Aaron.   "An Antidote to Federal Red Ink: Term Limits," 
Cato Institute Briefing Paper no. 21, November 3, 1994, p. 21. (Http://www.cato.org) 

Payne, James, AThe Culture of Spending: Why Congress Lives beyond Our Means@ University 	Press, 1991 p. 175-80.

Smith, Bradley A.  "Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic 	Consequences," Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 238, September 13, 1995,  p. A15 	(www.cato.org)

U.S. Term Limits, Inc., et al. v. Thornton et al., 63 U.S. Law Week 4413, 4432.  May 22, 
1995. 

Wall Street Journal "Conflict in Congress," Wall Street Journal, April 22, 1996, p. A22. 



 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Cold War vs United States.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
      Cold War vs. United States
 The Cold War ended in 1991 after the Soviet Union fell apart. Since then, Russia's economy paralyzed, and the United States is three trillion dollars in debt, and both counties were weakened by the Cold War because of military spending. To have world peace does not mean that United States should increase its military strength. The Realist theory would argue that military strength is important to maintain peace both domestically and internationally. Even though the United States as the only superpower remains in certain perspective, the U.S can not be the peace keeper for the whole globe and every state on it.
      First of all, there are more than two hundred sovereign states in the whole world, and to have world peace requires every sovereign states' effort not only the United States but also every other states. A good example was the coalition force led by the United States under UN command which defeated Iraq's invasion army  in Kuwait City in 1991. But the United States still respected Iraq's sovereignty under international rules. That was probably the reason why President Bush did not order the U.S army to invade Iraq after the U.S led coalition force expelled Iraq's force in Kuwait. Another example would be when Iraq's  government massacred thousand of ethic minority Kurds when the Kurds rebelled against Iraq government in northern Iraq. The United States did not do a lot to help the Kurds because United States and the rest of the countries around the world recognized Iraq as a sovereign state in the international community even though that United States had a large military presence in the Persian gulf area during that time.
        More and more, non goverment organizations also play very important roles in world peace. Since 1945, the United Nations, a non government organization, has helped to bring cease-fire agreements to numerous hot spots around the globe in place like Cambodia or the Mid-East. Individual persons also play important roles in world peace. Such as former President Jimmy Carter, who helped negotiate the peace agreement that restored the democratic elected President Aristide back to his office in Haiti and avoided a direct military confrontation between the United States and the Haiti's military government in the last minute.
       Secondly, the cold war made  former Soviet Unions bleed to white but also put the United States three trillion dollars in debt, and the debt is going up too. According to the IRS, the United States government is spending fifteen percent of gross annual revenue just paying off the interest of the three trillions deficits in 1996 (3). So people in the United States wonder where did all the deficit come from? The answer is that during the Cold War, especially during the Reagan administration, military spending skyrocketed because of the fear and mistrusts of a Soviet Union which would pose a threat to world peace. That was the Realism's way of thinking, that in order to contain the threat of the Communist Soviet Union, the United States spent billions ands billions of dollars on new weapons, such as the Star War program to increase  military strength. Now it is such a big financial burden that the issue of deficits made the United States government shut down twice in 1996 and it continues to be one of the topics of the 1996 presidential election. People could imagine that the United States government could go bankrupt in the future if it keeps on spending and wastes its moneys without certain limits. Another issue here is the environment. Because the United States government built thousands of nuclear bombs to increase its military  strength during the cold war, it costs more money now to take the bombs apart and safely store all the hazardous material without polluting the environment. It seems to makes absolutely no sense at all to spend money on something and turn around and spend more money to take it apart. the United States should wake up from its Cold War dream and start to face the reality of the twenty first century. Increasing military strength  always leads to a fear and mistrust by other countries and an arms race by Realism's way of thinking. There is no real winner or loser in an arms race. At the begin of the Cold War right after World War II, the United States was the strongest state in the world by far. It manufactured  about fifty percent of goods  and had about seventy percent of the gold reserves in the world at the time.(1) But fifty years later in 1996, the United States has the biggest national deficit ever seen in the whole world.
     When we walked in to twenty first century, there are more ways  to keep the world in peace than just military strength, and economic strength also plays important role in world environment. It was Japan and Germany, the two economic giants, helped to pay for the  gulf war. Without them paying the bill(2), United States could not handle the financial burden from the war by itself.
      Thirdly, the U. S military force is trained to defend America and not to be a global policeman. I often heard the complaints from fellow soldiers who got deployed overseas on such peace-keeping missions because they were going to be away from their family and moral of the troops was not too high  when I was in the army. Sometimes, such global police action does not work out as it has planned, for example the country has a major ethnic conflict such as in Somalia, the U. S military was supposed to bring peace to the people of Somalia and feed the hungry in 1993. A year later, the U. S military did not bring peace to this chaotic state, but instead heavily engaged in fighting with the warlord in its civil war. It is possible to recall the vivid image of a dead U.S service man's body which was dragged by the warlord's soldier across the street of  Mogadishu         on CNN. Then United States quickly took all of its military forces out of Somalia  in 1994 and the fighting is still going on to this day.
       Finally, the United States should use its other influences than its military strength to keep the world in peace. Every country in the world looked at the U.S as the leader of democracy, and today U.S is still the most powerful country in terms of economic.  All the international trade is calculated in the demontion of U.S dollars and the United States manufactures about 25 percent of goods in global trade. Sometimes economic strengths are more powerful and work better in dealing with other countries. A good example was the global joint effort of economic sanctions against  the South African government which subsequently gave up its discriminating racial policies and released it leading civil right leader, Mr. Nelson Mandla, who was elected as the first black President in South Africa's history in 1995.  Another example was when by keeping the communication channels opening, and with its influences, the United States helped Israel and Palestine       to sign the historic peace agreement  between these two states at the white House in 1995. This ended the forty years of fighting between these two states. The agreement brought peace to the mid-east area at last and ended the ethnic fighting for good. Another good example was  the joint efforts from United States, Russia and China, to bring about a free election in the small South-East Asia country of Cambodia after thirty years of civil war. Democracy was back to camblia and the people of Cambodia could enjoy their peaceful lives finally.
      Having world peace does not mean that the United States must wave a big stick at other countries so everybody else in the international community behaves according to the standard of the United States. Realism thinks that by having larger military with greater strength alone will maintain world peace, but global cooperation and communication are probably more important than  military strength. Instead of military confrontation, the United States should assume its responsibilities as the leader of democracy by keeping cooperation and communication channels open with other countries so that world peace will and can be preserved.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Communism vs Democracy.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Essay 2

People all over the world look to the United States for the latest trends, fashions, and technology. The United States have set all these standards during the majority of the last century, by being a government that represents freedom. All over the world people who were trapped in Communist governments hope that one day they too can be as fortunate as the people living in America; to them this freedom is part of their American Dream.
	The world during most of this and last century was ruled by two different political viewpoints. These points were portrayed in two different forms of government. Today, democratic governments are taking over most other forms of government. It is a race of countries and nations, trying to gain an edge onto each other.
 Communism is a system that follows the roots of Marxism. It unites the people into one class and call for industrial power. All the people work, the people are all at the same social level. It creates a false sense of unity. Most of these communist governments are dictatorships; the government oppresses all opposing views. Communist polices deny people their basic rights and freedom. The people cannot even own their own private property. The methods of Communism have been varied slightly by each different government. Stalin and Lenin were the driving forces behind Russia's Socialist Workers party.  Fidel Castro ran the party in Cuba. Mao Tung ran the Chinese Workers party.
Democratic governments support basic rights and freedoms. People in the United States can participate in government activities by voting and opposing their views. People are protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents lay down the blueprint for freedom. As a man, women, or child, you are affected by these important documents they guarantee your basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and economic freedom. Lincoln best put it in his Gettysburg address stating, " A government of the people, by the people, for the people". People can control and sway political parties by placing their vote to make a difference. It is based on the concept of one man, one vote.  In theses democratic parties, there is a distinct difference of social classes. People of power commending prestige and money. Others not so fortunate live off of welfare. 
	The USA has been the status quo of places to live for a number of reasons. Everybody has his or her own reasons to appreciate the freedom that we have. We as the people have the power to change, impeach, and lobby for what we believe in. A democracy is a form of government in which substantial portion of the citizens directly or indirectly participates in ruling the state. Besides the United States, the Parliament of Great Britain represents similar viewpoints as our government. They gained power over the crown for a short time, but lost it when they couldn't decide on a constitution
	Democratic and Communist governments do have a few basic similarities.
The both hold a vote to voice the opinion of the people. However, most modern communist dictatorship does not even use these votes for elections. They are just used to locate public resentment or opposing views, and then the secret police take care of these outlaws. Censorship is used in every form of government to hide secrets to cover up opposing opinions. The Soviets had complete control over all the media, by doing so people only hear politically correct information. It is a way to brainwash someone into believing his or her views. In the United States, the schools sometimes decide to ban media because of what it promotes. It is rare to have this event happen. 
	Communism and Democracy have more differences then similarities. A democratic government allows people to participate in public affairs. Democracy also can allow the people to rule. People who live in America have their basic freedoms (Speech, Religion, and Economic) they are free to choose what they say or do to a point. Communist governments do not approve of this, by controlling their freedom. The government can rule the people's daily lives. America is formed as a political state in which we as people give up our personal right to interpret the law (anarchy) for a guarantee that the community will protect their natural right of life, liberty, and property.
People living under communist rule have very few personal belongings; the government took most of theirs. The communists try to make everyone equal by not allowing personal property. They also state that everyone must work. Economic freedom allows people in democratic countries to get ahead in social status and wealth. The economic and social classes of the people in the US illustrate this point. Under communist rule, Nobody can cross the dictator or oppose his or her views it would certainly be considered treason and the consequences lethal. 

Over the last few years, The crash of the Iron Curtain was inevitable, starting with the fall of the USSR, continuing with the Berlin Wall. It is signaling the failure of communist governments worldwide. Communism is in decline.  Only a handful of Communist dictatorships remain in the world today. Cuba and China are the last two major communist governments in the world today. Together, They both suffer isolation and lag in technology because of the UN trade embargoes and bad diplomatic relations with democratic governments and leaders. 
	
 

 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Community Policing.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Crime is defined as:  commission of an act or act of omission that violates the law and is punishable by the state.  Crimes are considered injurious to society and the community.  As defined by law, a crime includes both the act, or actus rea, and the intent to commit the act, or mens rea.  Criminal intent involves an intellectual apprehension of factual elements of the act or acts commanded or enjoined by the law.  It is usually inferred from the apparently voluntary commission of an overt act.  Criminal liability is relieved in the case of insanity.  Legal minors are also relieved of criminal liability, as are persons subjected to coercion or duress to such a degree as to render the commission of criminal acts involuntary.   In most countries, crimes are defined and punished pursuant to statutes.  Punishments may include death, imprisonment, exile, fines, forfeiture of property, removal from public office, and disqualification from holding such office.
	Unless the act of which a defendant is accused is expressly defined by statute as a crime, no indictment or conviction for the commission of such an act can be legally sustained. This provision is important in establishing the difference between government by law and arbitrary or dictatorial government.
	Under common law, a crime was generally classified as treason, felony, or misdemeanor, but many offenses could not be defined exactly, and the rule was adopted that any immoral act tending to the prejudice of the community was, per se, a crime, and punishable by the courts.  Crimes are now usually classified as mala in se, which includes acts, such as murder, so offensive to morals as to be obviously criminal; and mala prohibita, which are violations of specific regulatory statutes, such as traffic violations, that ordinarily would not be punishable in the absence of statutory enactments prohibiting the commission of such acts.  In most cases, crimes, including treason, that are mala in se are called felonies and are punished more severely than those that are mala prohibita, most of the latter falling into the category of misdemeanors.
	Nearly everyone in America has been touched by crime in one way or another.  There are reports of murders, arson, robberies, etc. every night on the news.  However, the viewer is constantly bombarded with reports that there is either a crime wave or that crime is receding.  This can confuse even the most adamant viewer.  The book The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice by Kappeler, Blumberg, and Potter breaks down the essentials and gives the reader ideas on what exactly crime is, how it is represented by the media, and how Americans respond to it.  In Chapter 2, the authors discuss crime waves and their effects on society.
	In Chapter 2, the authors point out the main contributing factor to crime in the United States--poverty.  According to the text, the main contributor to crime in the United States is a young, black male living in an urban environment.  The text also notes that blacks commit crimes at three times the rate of their percentage in the national population.
	The official crime rate in the United States is measured by the Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform Crime Reports.  However, there is strong criticism for the FBIs measurement of crime using the UCR.  For example, the FBI does not require that any person be arrested for crimes that are reported.  All that is required is for someone to believe that a crime actually took place.  One can see where this could create misleading statistics.  For example, if someone were to lose a checkbook at a local mall, they could report that a pickpocket had stolen the checkbook from them.  Under the FBIs UCR, this would be labeled as a crime, even though the checkbook was misplaced and was in fact not stolen.
	Another source of crime information is found in the National Crime Victimization Survey.  This survey is conducted through 100,000 households across the country by the Department of Justice.  This survey is superior to the FBIs UCR in the fact that they measure both reported and unreported crime, are unaffected by technological changes in police record keeping, levels of reporting by the victims to the police, and other factors.  Even though the data may be represented in various ways among the media, the NCVS is considered scientifically valid.
	Chapter 2 also makes reference to race and crime.  There has been wide speculation that most crimes as committed by minorities against whites in the United States.  However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has documented several crimes that make this assumption void.  For example, seventy-five percent of white crime victims are victimized by whites, and eighty-five percent of black victims are victimized by blacks.  This is contrary to the popular coverage that most media gives Americans.  The authors note that most crime covered by Americans tabloids show such crimes as young African American men shooting white tourists at rest stops, gang attacks on innocent civilians in the cities, and attacks against minority youth appeal.  All in all, the victims are the same race as the offenders in 80% of all violent crimes.
	The last topic discussed in The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice is crime and perception.  When most people are asked to imagine a crime, they tend to think of violent crime (i.e., murder, arson, robbery).  One must realize that shoplifting, slander, even jaywalking is considered a crime in the United States.  The authors note that many tabloid television shows such as Hard Copy and A Current Affair show violent crime instead of petty thefts.  The reason for this is clear--not many viewers would turn to watch a show that discussed petty crimes.  The media has made crime into a great moneymaking opportunity.  By viewing television shows like these, the viewer comes to believe that the only crimes that exist are violent crimes.  This is due to the fact that the media spends so much time covering violent crimes here in the United States.
	As you can see, there are many factors in deciphering crime today.  Different reports and different presentations by the media can lead the public to believe that minorities commit crimes against the white majority, almost all crimes committed today are violent, most crimes are committed by young, urban black males, and the list goes on.  The best way for people to understand crime or a crime wave is through the use of statistics.  Since most crime covered on television, radio, or through other media sources focuses on violent crimes, these statistics can be very confusing.  As the authors point out in The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice by Victor E. Kappeler, Mark Blumberg, and Gary W. Potter, crime can be perceived in nearly every fashion.  Unfortunately, crime is reported in ways that are not always accurate solely to influence the public.


pg.  39
pg. 39
pg. 47
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Community Service.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


The Greenwich Association for Retarded Citizens (G.A.R.C.) of Greenwich High is a group of students interested in interacting with disabled students.  These students go to the high school as well, and look forward to getting to know us.  Each of the students have different disabilities but they each have the desire to make friends.  This group is totally volunteer basis for all of it's members, no one has to attend.  I have been a member of this group for the three years I have attended in Greenwich High.  Spending a lot of time with these children I have learned to understand that they are just looking to make friends.
	I joined this group as a freshman because I had worked with children with Down Syndrome during the eighth grade at Central Middle School.  My interest carried on through out the years because of the numerous fun times I have had, and have made friends with many of the girls.  They are all very personable and pleasant to talk with.  They each have special characteristics defining them from the others, making each of them special in different ways, just like the rest us. 
	Aside from the meetings that we have every so often to discuss activities we can do, we usually do fun and interesting activities.  We go out for pizza frequently because it seems to be the group consensus on what we would all like to eat.  During the holidays we celebrate in interesting ways; on Halloween we have a party where every one gets dressed and brings candy.  For the Christmas season we are going to celebrate with a party at a members  house and listen to Christmas carols, and have dinner.  We have had bake sales and have sold candy in order to raise money for the clubs activities.  These are usually a success because every one participates and we all seem to function well as a group.  When there are dances or football games at school we each take one of the girls and it's good for them because they get to interact with the rest of the school at a big function.  
	This club is not only fun, but it's like going to a meeting with some of your friends.  We are a small group and we all get along.  Since we are a small group it is also difficult for us to do a lot of things. It is difficult to educate the larger part of the public who doesn't know what these kids are like. It is also hard to raise money to do many activities.  It would be great if more kids would join each year, and it would be great if the ignorance level had lowered.  Many students just don't want to know anything of these kids.  I chose to discuss G.A.R.C. because it is a group that could use help from the community at Greenwich high, and I thought I could help by explaining exactly what we do. Why talk about something else, when I could tell of something I enjoy and that needs more attention.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\comparison and contrast of US and German executive branches.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
									Steve Rice
									Political Science 90
									Computer Project

	The German system of government is often referred to as a �Chancellor
democracy� owing to the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Chancellor, head of
federal government. The Chancellor is directly elected by the bundestag, Germany�s
parliament, upon the proposal of a candidate from the Federal President, currently Prof.
Dr. Roman Herzog. The Chancellor is the only member of the government elected by the
parliament and he alone is accountable to it. The Chancellor chooses the federal
ministers that will compose the cabinet and proposes them to the President for
appointment or dismissal. He also determines the number of ministers and their
responsibilities. The guidelines of government policy are set by the Chancellor, placing
him in a particularly strong position in government. That the Chancellor is accountable to
parliament is evidenced by the inclusion of the �constructive vote of no confidence� in
the Basic Law. A vote of no confidence in the the current Chancellor must also be a vote
of confidence for a successor. It was in this way that the current Chancellor, Dr. Helmut
Kohl, was elected in 1982.
	The chancellor
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Congressional legislation.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The notion that a Congressman ran for office for unselfish goals and went away to Washington to serve his country and represent his neighbors seems quaint and luaghable compared to the way that we currently regard members of congress. Recent views have suggested that most people felt that while the institution on the whole was corrupt, but that their representative was a good person and servant of the electorate. More and more each member is scrutinized and judged harsher by their constituencies, the media, their own party and the numerous interest groups and cuacuses that make it possible for them to act as Senators and Representatives. The Congress and President  work together through their own institutions in the common goal of running the worlds most powerful nation. The legilative powers were divided this way to ensure that all new laws would be debated and decided not by a few but through a heirarchy that gives every citizen a part to play in our collective decision making.
Each of the individuals in the House has an equitable voting relationship with the others, 1=1=1, when it come to passing legislation, but in the earlier phases of formulating policy some relationships are dominant over others. The only ones that would be lower than a freshman Democrat in the 105th Congress from a rural, low industry district are probably those that represent our protectorates Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. Many levels within the parties and the institution afford some members leadership roles and positions that they can use to sway the other members. The Whips, Majority and Minority leaders and the Speaker of the House are looking for party cohesion and also bi-partisan support for a bill. Coalitions are forged or broken depending on the issue at hand. Individual committee positions are another point were some are more powerful than others. The committees are major superintendents of some agencies and members not on that particular committee may be ignored or relegated to other tasks while the major decisions are being made. Since much of policy direction is dominated by the two party system they are able to use the majority selected rules and procedures of the House to their advantage. In the more collegial and congenial Senate power is more diffused and shared between the members and minority rights are protected.
In the parties the leaders are able to use their personalities and power to influence the agenda that is agreed upon. The way the House is run leaves a great deal of discretion to the leaders of the parties and committee members regarding which specific measures will be debated and concentrated on.  The comeupance of Newt has shown how a member of the House can predominate a political agenda th4at has broad support. The boisterous Newt has brought to the House a new sense of power and prestige for the Republican party and also to the office of Speaker of the House. Newt has lost some of his political steam in the midst of ethics investigations and the friction caused by his abrasive personality. Starting the 104th congress as a revolutionary leader bent on a smaller more efficient government his power has been diminished as his corps of freshmen have become increasingly independent. The democrats chipped away at him and his support by casting a shadow over each of the Republicans in the house as cronies of Newt. During the recent campaigns Newt tried to lay low except for in his home district as thousands of ads linked the Republicans to Newt. As he has down in the last congress he will continue to be a force in the shaping and direction of any new policies.                      
Since the retirement from the Senate of Bob Dole, Trent Lott has taken over leadership duties for the Republican party in the Senate and has personally become more prominent as a Republican player while Newt has been forced to defend his policy agenda and his personal conduct from all sides. As a powerful personality like Gingrich, Lott will have a great influence. Almost every piece of legislation is going to have hiss blessing or input within it. Lott has brought to the position experience that makes as a good requisite foe the job. He has served in the House as party whip and made many improvements in the position that he later used as a whip in the Senate. These changes streamlined many operations that made party coordination and cohesion easier. Now as Senate Majority Leader he is in a great position to influence the President and to persuade the public to help advance his parties goals.
	The president is also a major player in shaping what comes out of congress. He is able to use various tactics that blur party lines in the rhetorical war of words. Congress and the President work together daily, but not in harmony. Many of their efforts are contradictory because they represent different constituencies and are faced with different pressures. Party lines are not the only ones that dived when it come to policy making. Carter and Clinton both saw the difficulty incurred, even in unified government, to formulate policy. These separation of powers forces the burden of policy making to be done even though many competing individuals fight for their agendas to be fulfilled. Sometimes Presidential priorities and congressional desires coincide to create a win-win situation. Reagan was able to do it for a while when his agenda of cutting taxes and increasing defense played directly into the hands of a Democratic congress that was more than happy to bring home a slice of pork to their districts and states. Some policies were reactive to Reagans desires for a stronger military and other benefits for big business. The distributive policies passed out many perks that were divided among the members homes and many regulatory policies were written by congress to benefit large corporations. 
Most inherently in our political system is a set of divergent forces that cause the two branches to check and conflict with each other and react to major concerns of the electorate. When the President proposes any policy he is acting as a legislator for the entire country. He can make public appeals for support from the masses to pressure their representative to support an idea. One of his greatest powers to shape what comes out of congress is his power to veto. Even the threat of such action is sometime enough to influence policy while it is still being formulated. The President must constantly be aware of the power shifts and public perceptions that people have between these two branches of government. It can shift quickly producing conflict and also compromise. It may produce a better bargaining relationship where the two try to accommodate each others agenda's where they overlap.
The President is also able to influence congress down to the individual members by lobbying them directly for their support or by giving or withdrawing patronage services. Members of the same party as the President can greatly benefit from a close relationship and ride on their coattails come election time or be diparaged for his ties to to the executive branch. Natural allegiances between the President and members of congress, such as party, geographic concerns and economic priorities help greatly to advance a President's goals. These members may be an advocate all the way to the floor and within the committees. Other informal ties help to influence the Executive-Legilative relationship as they work together. For the first two years of Clinton's term, he worked with a unified government to pass many of his ideas that he gained support for through public appeals. Many of the members who supported the President were passed over for re-election for the sole reason of supporting him. Many were perceived to be acting as trustees and were ousted in favor of Republicans who promised to be more like delegates of their constituency. Clinton was able to gain the upper hand in public support after the governmental shutdowns were judged to be the fault of a radical congress that tried to pass an unacceptable budget proposal into law.
Along side of the competing forces between the legislature and President are the organized interest groups whose sole purpose is to promote their own agendas. They are all fighting each other for the lawmakers' attention to benefit themselves and their members. Our general desire to associate with like minded people has exploded by the need to make the views and inputs of each of these groups known on a wide scale. These groups are able to spread their influence to all levels of government. They are able to give committees support on initiatives, advice about a problem, and information that may or may not be biased to help their cause. Representatives that are sympathetic to the groups cause can also secure votes and monies for their campaigns for office.
Different interest groups have different levels of power and influence depending on their organization and strength. The two main ingredients for a successful interest group are money and personnel. They also need a well organized flow of information to the members that they need to influence and also to their own members that may be called on to protest a program or donate to a candidate. The personnel are there to lobby for their interests everywhere the lawmaker turns. In the past they may have been offering sweetheart deals for proposed legislation to be passed, but now with our closer scrutiny of lawmakers they must be more aware of how there voting patterns will be judged when compared to who has given them money. The lobbyist is not  looking so blatantly to buy a legislator but they have never been shy about letting them know how they feel about what is done for or against them to forward their goals. This can be done by attending committee meetings to asses tendencies of a Rep and to gather information  to give to a legislative proponent. The lobbying does not stop in the Capitol but goes on at social functions such as fund raisers and vacation retreats as favors are passed for political promises. Lobbying can reach the grassroots level when a group gives cues to constituents that in turn press on their representative for action. Some of the members of these groups have gotten there positions by going through he revolving door of public service and private influence. This happens when a person has worked for an agency that implements policy or for a political insider, then they take their knowledge, expertise and political contacts and use them to work for the benefit of the group that want to have influence over policy making.
 An organized interest groups most powerful weapon is its' money. Money makes their influence possible because if they had none, they would never have been able to reach an influential audience at all.. Groups also use money to support candidates. At the same time that cand 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Conservative.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
1.	Conservative
	From the introduction, we know that the performance has begun to suffer under Jack's style of leadership.  It is mainly due to the personality of Jack. He is a quite conservative person who has a tendency to maintain a state of affairs without great or sudden change. Also, his style of leadership is task and production-oriented.  Task-oriented leadership tends to emphasize task effectiveness.   So, from the case, we can see that he would turn down the subordinates* suggestion whenever new ideas come. Jack seems to define role and tell people what, how, when and where to do various tasks only.  On the other hand, Jack isn't  a relationship-oriented leader as he doesn't emphasize the building of relationships with employees.  Accordingly, Jack can't maintain a good relationship with his subordinates.  In his mind, he thinks that there is no equality status between the superior and the subordinates.  He would highly respect the superior order without questioning.  Thus, we can see that Jack is very loyal to Carfax Corporation and works hard to follow the company policies and procedures and the orders of the managers above him.
	Under such leader, the performance of the financial section has begun to suffer.  Due to his conservative personality, the tendency to face changes is very low.  When sudden changes occur and as the same time the upper doesn't give guidelines immediately, Jack can't handle well under this situation.  Then the flexibility and imagination in facing different situations tend to absolutely low.  Because his task-oriented leadership, he always neglects the new ideas and unresponsive to change. 
	Mostly important, Jack doesn't realize the importance of staff motivation.  Subordinates think that the budget in their section is comparatively lower than other department.  As a result, they feel they are underpaid and overworked.  Overwork implies that the shortage of workforce.  And underpaid mean that the workload is greater than the payment for it.  As Jack has such "easygoing" manner, considerable dissatisfaction in the department is resulted and everyone thinks that Jack is just a puppet for management. 

2.	Team Work
	
	Not only the conservative personalities cause the financial section to suffer, but also he has neglected the importance of team work. Team work means that two or more people who interact with an influence each other  towards a common interest.  Financial section is actually a  team work.  However, from the case, we can see that Jack doesn't manage his subordinates to be a team work.  Instead, he looks them as labors.  He only orders his subordinates what to do and how to do without any subordinates* ideas.  Then it just like a factory labor who is in the assembly line does a task within the instruction and guidelines.  On the contrast, an effective team can facilitate cooperation and improve employee morale.  So, team work can increase job satisfaction.  Also, implementing work teams allows managers to redirect their energy toward bigger issues such as long-term plans. Furthermore, if the manager can move decision-making vertically down to teams, it allows the organization greater flexibility for faster decisions.  Because team members are closer to those problems, they are more familiar with the situation and can easily solve them.  For this reason, team work performance is higher than the same job achieved by the same individuals working alone.  Due to Jack's style of leadership, direct participation of subordinates in the financial section is nearly absent.  If the subordinates can have more direct participation, they would be more understanding and supportive of organizational decisions.  As the direct participation is so low that the subordinates feel that Jack never really pushes hard enough for a more substantial slice of the budget. 
As a result, the dissatisfactions among the subordinates occurred.  Then the turnover rate and absenteeism may be high under Jack's style of leadership.  Inefficient and inefficiency may be resulted.  In this way, the performance for financial section has begun to suffer under Jack's style of leadership.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Constitutional Democracy.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY

	The basic premise of a constitutional democracy is that government has rules and all of the people have voices.  Through free and fair elections we elect candidates to represent us.  The Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to do this, and to live democratically.  The framers attacked tyrannical government and advanced the following ideas: that government comes from below, not from above, and that it derives its powers from the consent of the governed; that men have certain natural, inalienable rights; that it is wise and feasible to distribute and balance powers within government, giving local powers to local governments, and general powers to the national government; that men are born equal and should be treated as equal before the law.  The framers of the U. S. Constitution sought to make these ideas the governing principles of a nation.  Constitutional democracy has three basic elements.  Those being interacting values, interrelated political processes and interdependent political structures.  
	The first idea of interacting values is popular consent.  Popular consent means that government must obtain consent for its actions from the people it governs.  It is similar to majority rule, a political process, in that the most popular acts or ideas of the people will be adopted by our government.  There must be an allowance or willingness on behalf of the unpopular group to lose.
	Popular consent may provide a means for judging parental consent laws for minors seeking abortion. Since minors are not legally allowed to be competent to engage in sex, to enter into contracts, or to form sufficient "informed consent" to agree to their own medical treatment, it is incredible that
they would be regarded as competent to make a life and death decision about something that later in life they might themselves regard as a real person, with individual rights
	Drawing on several major contributions of the enlightenment, including the political theory of John Locke and the economic ideas of Adam Smith, individualism posts the individual human being as the basic unit out of which all larger social groups are constructed and grants priority to his or her rights and interests over those of  the state or social group. 
	Individualism in its original form means looking at people as discrete but whole units, without all the impressions of his social standing, the make of his car or his postal code. It is a way of deliberation, to tune out the clink of money in the background when you talk to  somebody, so that you can concentrate on that person's message and judge it on its own merits. 
	It means looking at someone and not saying to yourself, "That's my aunt" or "That's my boss,"
but rather, that is someone with his or her own inclinations and desires, in other words, a true Individual who incidentally happens to have this relation to me, as a relative or a superior.
	On a grander scale, individualism is putting the individual above the state and country. In those countries that have always been proud of their traditional values of emphasis on the family or the country above self they see Individualism as a direct attack on these values.  However, we live in a democratic country and we believe in individualism and equal opportunity for all persons.
	Equal opportunity for everyone  is idealistic. Roosevelt outlined a second bill of rights which the book states answers the question, "what kind of equality?"  This second bill of rights was four freedoms.  They were freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of speech & expression and freedom of worship. There are laws and acts to guarantee equal opportunity.  For example, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 which requires equal pay for equal work and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in programs receiving Federal funds.
	But on a more personal level, we don't all start at the same line.  What about children beared with AIDS, or children born to the poor?  Is it believable that they have the same opportunities as a child born to middle class parents who are still married?  While every American can be denied almost nothing because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability, a lot of Americans aren't in the position to be discriminated against.  This means that many Americans do not have the opportunity to fully exercise their liberty.  Personal liberty is freedom.  It means all persons must be given the opportunity to realize their own goals.  It translates to self-determination.  
	The Constitution states all people have the right to life, liberty and freedom.  This is a bit idealistic because one person's liberty may infringe upon another person's freedom.  Take abortion for example.  Although it is legal and feminists consider it liberty, it takes away another persons freedom to life.  The Constitution did not provide protection of rights to the unborn.  Another issue, if a person has a right to life and self-determination, do they have a right to end their life if they are in severe pain and suffrage?  Dr. Jack Kevorkian provides assisted suicide, but it is not legal.  Why is it deemed legal to kill an innocent child on a whim or for any reason, but illegal to kill yourself if you are in constant turmoil?
	There are conflicts that will not be resolved for a long time, but one political process which is not in controversy is the right to vote in free and fair elections.  They are held with the premise that opposition will be loyal.  The winning party will not interfere with the defeater's attempts to regroup for next election and vice versa.  Election officials shoulder the great responsibility of making sure that the election process is conducted under free and fair conditions without any regard to the influence of individuals, factions and groups.  The elections for the legislative body in any country are considered crucial for laying the foundation of a genuine democracy. In any country, if the credibility of elections becomes suspect, the entire political fabric of that country will break down.  Free and fair elections are the only means to maintain and enhance the credit and prestige of the country's prevailing system -- not the victory of this or that faction or group.
	The electorate with the most votes wins the election.  This process is known as majority rule, but it is not a clear-cut process.  Some would say majority is 50 + one, but votes can be so staggered that the winner may not have had 50% of the votes, but only the highest percentage.  The framers took care to foresee that some groups may take advantage of the plurality rule and have their way.  When there is an issue, it is debated, compromised and then a decision is made after the majority and minority have spoken.
	In order for people to become educated to cast their votes they must have access to information about and from the candidates.  A good deal of this information is obtained from the media.  The media must exist without government regulations to be unbiased.  To achieve that,  freedom of expression must exist.  It is one of the most fundamental of our freedoms summarized by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	Freedom of expression includes everything listed in the First Amendment -- freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of petition and freedom of assembly. Unfortunately the founding fathers couldn't see into the future, and so omitted an equally important aspect of freedom of expression: freedom of communication in any form, including broadcast and electronic.  
	On February 8, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Reform Bill which took away our basic rights to free speech and freedom of expression on the Internet.  Our E-mail letters are now wide open for the U.S. Government to read and they will imprison us if the content is deemed "indecent.".  While child pornography and national security interests should be subject to censorship, our correspondence should not.  The Internet has always enjoyed the freedom of democracy.  This may be another issue that we will have to fight for to be regarded as an unalienable right. 
	If we gathered and fought for this right, we would be exercising our right to assemble and protest.  A recent occurrence was in April, in Los Angeles where there were two reactions to the beating of several undocumented immigrants by Riverside County sheriffs. On the city's west side 200 middle-aged and older white people gathered in front of the Westwood Federal Building to cheer in support of the police and opposition to immigration. Simultaneously, downtown, more than 6,000 marchers -- mostly Latinos, with Black and Asian contingents, chanted through the streets of City Hall.
	So, even within our rights we exhibit opposing views.  The right to assemble & protest can conflict with individualism.  We live in a constitutional democracy and we believe in individualism.  Every person has the right to assemble and protest, but what if they are interfering or disrupting the lives of other individuals? Whose right comes first?  The protester or the burdened?  The U.S. Constitution leaves that decision to the states.
	Beyond our values and process, political structures exist.  Among these structures is federalism.  The framers of the U. S. Constitution were strongly influenced by the advantages of separation of powers and of checks and balances.  These theories had been in practice in the governments of the American colonies, and they underlie the fundamental laws of the United States. The Constitution distinctly separates the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
	The doctrine of the separation of powers means that in a free society, the liberty of citizens is secured by separating Parliament's power to make laws, from the Executive's power to administer laws, and from the Judiciary's power to hear and determine disputes according to the law.   It is crucial that Judges know they can apply the law without political intimidation.
	The creation of three separate branches within the federal structure, each in numerous ways dependent upon the others for its healthy functioning, afforded another way to ensure that federal power would not be used indiscriminately.  The extensive powers of the president likewise were proscribed in a number of places by designated responsibilities. The judicial power was to be wielded by judges.  Explicit jurisdiction of the courts was subject to congressional definition.
	Checks and balances are the constitutional controls whereby separate branches of government have limiting powers over each other so that  no branch will become supreme. Perhaps the best known system of  checks and balances operates in the U.S. government under provisions of the federal constitution. The operation of checks and balances in the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution.
	The Constitution of the United States has afforded us many rights.  At times, those rights are in contention.  At others, we would be in anarchy without them.  Constitutional democracy is a beautiful thing.  Although we may not all have the same amount of wealth, we have the liberty to.  We have the right to be heard.  And how is this right anymore exemplified than voting?  Our representatives will do what we want, and if they don't give us a couple of years and we'll find someone else who will promise to.  AMEN. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Constitutionality of Same Sex Marriage in the United States.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	The proposed legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. Presently, it is one of the most vigorously advocated reforms discussed in law reviews, one of the most explosive political questions facing lawmakers, and one of the most provocative issues emerging before American courts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, it could be one of the most revolutionary policy decisions in the history of American family law. The potential consequences, positive or negative, for children, parents, same-sex couples, families, social structure public health, and the status of women are enormous. Given the importance of the issue, the value of comprehensive debate of the reasons for and against legalizing same-sex marriage should be obvious.  Marriage  is much more than merely a commitment to love one another. Aside from societal and religious conventions, marriage entails legally imposed financial responsibility and legally  authorized financial benefits. Marriage provides automatic legal protections for the spouse, including medical visitation, succession of a deceased spouse's property, as well as pension and other rights. When two adults desire to "contract" in the eyes of the law, as well a  perhaps promise in the eyes of the Lord and their friends and family, to be responsible for the obligations of marriage as well as to enjoy its benefits, should the law prohibit their request merely because they are of the same gender? I intend to prove that because of Article IV of the United States Constitution, there is no reason why the federal government nor any state government should restrict marriage to a predefined heterosexual relationship.
  	 Marriage has changed throughout the years. In Western law, wives are now equal rather than subordinate partners; interracial marriage is now widely accepted, both in statute and in society; and marital failure itself, rather than the fault of one partner, may be grounds for a divorce. Societal change  have been felt in marriages over the past 25 years as divorce rates have increased and have been integrated into even upper class families.   
	Proposals to legalize same-sex marriage or to enact broad domestic partnership laws are currently being promoted by gay and lesbian activists, especially in Europe and North America. The trend in western European nations during the past decade has been to increase legal aid to homosexual relations and has included marriage benefits to some same-sex couples. For example, within the past six years, three Scandinavian countries have enacted domestic partnership laws allowing same-sex couples in which at least one partner is a citizen of the specified country therefore allowing many benefits that heterosexual marriages are given. In the Netherlands, the Parliament is considering domestic partnership status for same-sex couples, all major political parties favor recognizing same-sex relations, and more than a dozen towns have already done so. Finland provides governmental social benefits to same-sex partners. Belgium allows gay prisoners the right to have conjugal visits from same-sex partners. An overwhelming majority of European nations have granted partial legal status to homosexual relationships. The European Parliament also has passed a resolution calling for equal rights for gays and lesbians.
	In the United States, efforts to legalize same-sex domestic partnership have had some, limited success. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. reported that by mid-1995, thirty-six municipalities, eight counties, three states, five state agencies, and two federal agencies extended some benefits to, or registered for some official purposes, same-sex domestic partnerships. In 1994, the California legislature passed a domestic partnership bill that provided official state registration of same-sex couples and provided limited marital rights and privileges relating to hospital visitation, wills and estates, and powers of attorney.  While California's Governor Wilson eventually vetoed the bill, its passage by the legislature represented a notable political achievement for advocates of same-sex marriage.
  	The most significant prospects for legalizing same-sex marriage in the near future are in Hawaii, where advocates of same-sex marriage have won a major judicial victory that could lead to the judicial legalization of same-sex marriage or to legislation authorizing same-sex domestic partnership in that state. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court, in Baehr v. Lewin,  vacated a state circuit court judgment dismissing same-sex marriage claims and ruled that Hawaii's marriage law allowing heterosexual, but not homosexual, couples to obtain marriage licenses constitutes sex discrimination under the state constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Equal Rights Amendment. 
  	The case began in 1991 when three same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the Hawaii Department of Health brought suit in state court against the director of the department. Hawaii law required couples wishing to marry to obtain a marriage license. While the marriage license law did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage at that time, it used terms of gender that clearly indicated that only heterosexual couples could marry.  The coupl sought a judicial decision that the Hawaii marriage license law is unconstitutional,  as it prohibits same-sex marriage and allows state officials ro deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples on account of the heterosexuality requirement. Baehr and her attorney sought their objectives entirely through state law, not only by filing in state rather than federal court, but also by alleging exclusively violations of state law--the Hawaii Constitution. The state moved for judgment on the pleadings and for dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim; the state's motion was granted in October, 1991. Thus, the circuit court upheld the heterosexuality marriage requirement as a matter of law and dismissed the plaintiffs' challenges to it.
	Yet recently the Circuit Court of Hawaii decided that Hawaii had violated Baehr and her partner's constitutional rights by the fourteenth amendment and that they could be recognized as a marriage. The court found that the state of Hawaii's constitution expressly discriminated against homosexuals and that because of Hawaii's anti-discrimination law they must re evaluate the situation. After the ruling the state immediately asked for a stay of judgment, until the appeal had been convened, therefore putting off any marriage between Baehr and her partner for at least a year.
  	 By far Baehr is the most positive step toward actual marriage rights for gay and lesbian people. Currently there is a high tolerance for homosexuals throughout the United States and currently in Hawaii. Judges do not need the popularity of the people on the Federal or circuit court level to make new precedent. There is no clear majority that homosexuals should have marriage rights in the general public, and yet the courts voted for Baehr. The judiciary has its own mind on how to interpret the constitution which is obviously very different then most of American popular belief. This is the principal reason that these judges are not elected by the people, so they do not have to bow to people pressure.
	The constitutional rights argument for same-sex marriage affirms that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marry, or a broader right of privacy or of intimate association. The essence of this right is the private,  intimate association of consenting adults who want to share their lives and commitment with each other and that same-sex couples have just as much intimacy  and need for marital privacy as heterosexual couples; and that laws allowing  heterosexual, but not same-sex, couples to marry infringe upon and discriminate against this fundamental right.  Just as the Supreme Court compelled states to allow interracial marriage by recognizing the claimed right as part of the fundamental constitutional right to marry, of privacy and of intimate  association so should states be compelled now to recognize the fundamental right of homosexuals to do the same. 	
If Baehr ultimately leads to the legalization of same-sex marriage or broad, marriage like domestic partnership in Hawaii, the impact of that legalization will be felt widely. Marriage recognition principles derived from choice-of-law and full-faith-and-credit rules probably would be invoked to recognize same-sex Hawaiian marriages as valid in other states. The impact of Hawaii's decision will immediately impact marriage laws in all of the United States. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that full faith and credit shall be given to the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
  	Marriage qualifies for recognition under each section:
1) creation of marriage is "public act" because it occurs pursuant to a statutory scheme and is performed by a legally designated official, and because a marriage is an act by the state;
2) a marriage certificate is a "record" with a outlined legal effect, showing that a marriage has been validly contracted, that the spouses meet the qualifications of the marriage statutes, and they have duly entered matrimony. Public records of lesser consequence, such as birth certificates and automobile titles have been accorded full faith and credit;
3) celebrating a marriage is a "judicial proceeding"  where judges, court clerks, or justices of the peace perform the act of marriage.
	It would seem evident that if heterosexual couples use Article IV as a safety net and guarantee for their wedlock then that same right should be given to homosexual couples. This Article has often been cited as a reference point for interracial marriages in the south when those states do not want to recognize the legitimacy of that union by another state. As this is used for that lifestyle, there is no logical reason it should be denied to perhaps millions of homosexuals that want the opportunity to get married. The obstacles being out in front of homosexual couples is in the name of the "normal" people that actively seek to define their definition to all. It is these "normal" people that are the definition of surplus repression and social domination. Yet as they cling to the Constitution for their freedoms they deny those same freedoms to not "normal" people because they would lose their social domination and could be changed. Therefore it would seem they are afraid to change, and have not accepted that the world does change.
	Unfortunately the full faith and credit clause has rarely been used as anything more then an excuse to get a quick divorce. A man wants a divorce yet his wife does not or will not void their marriage. He then goes to Reno, Nevada, buys a house and gets a job for six weeks. After that six weeks when he can declare himself a legal resident he applies for a singular marriage void and because Nevada law allows one side to void their marriage is they are a resident of Nevada their marriage is now void. The man now moves back to his home state, and upon doing so this state must now recognize the legitimacy that Nevada has voided out the marriage. Even if the wife does not consent, the new state cannot do anything about it. That is what usually full faith and credit is used under.
		Legislation enacted by President Clinton from Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has allowed individual states to react differently to any intrusion of marriage that they feel is not proper. DOMA states "marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."  "Supporters of DOMA also claim clear constitutional warrant, and that Congress is exercising its own authority under Article IV to prescribe the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, shall be proved." However it would seem that by allowing individual states to alter and change what the meaning of marriage is, it could create a disaster if even heterosexuals want to wed. The underlying principle in DOMA is that states now have the right to redefine what they feel is or is not appropriate behavior and shall be allowed or illegal in their state. It is also apparent that the signing of DOMA by President Clinton was more of a presidential campaign gesture then an actual change in policy. While he has shifted considerably from his platform in 1992 this move was specifically designed to change his image among more conservative voters. It is also apparent that this move did not work because a majority of conservative Americans still voted for Bob Dole in the 1996 Presidential election. Clinton, now that he has been re elected, partially under the front of a more moderate administration, should seriously rethink its policy on social change and whether he wants to go out as the President that denied hundred of thousands of people the opportunity for equal rights.
	In 1967 the Supreme Court announced that "marriage is one of the most basic civil rights of man....essential to the pursuit of happiness."  Having the highest court on the land make such a profound statement about something which current politicians think they can regulate like phone or tv's is something short of appalling. For who is to say what happiness can be created from wedlock but the people that are in the act itself, per couple, household and gender. The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act proclaim that "All marriages contracted....outside this State that were valid at the time of the contract or subsequently validated by the laws of the place in which they were contracted...are valid in this State". This Act has been enacted in seventeen states and could be the foundation for full faith and credit if marriages were to take place in other states. 
	However as much as the right wing conservatives wish to pursue an aggressive anti-gay/lifestyle agenda the DOMA act has been widely criticized as intensely unconstitutional. It is bias and discriminatory toward homosexuals and there fore against the United States Constitution and once again the fourteenth amendment proclaiming all citizens equal. 
  	Fearing that the state may have to recognize same-gender marriages from Hawaii, because of the controversy over DOMA the state legislatures of Arizona, South Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, and Georgia, have made preemptive strikes and enacted state legislation which bars recognition of same-gender marriages. Several other state legislatures, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina and Wisconsin, have attempted to enact similar legislation, but failed. After Hawaiian marriages are brought to these states for enforcement, these laws will lead each state into a potential separate constitutional challenge of its same-gender marriage ban. Those cases could be the new foundation for a sweeping change in popular American politics and thought and will perhaps pave the road for increased awareness of this human rights issue.
	 Leaving aside, as government should, objections that may be held by particular religions, the case against same-gender marriage is simply that people are unaccustomed to it. Bigotry and prejudice still exist in our evolving society, and traditionally people fear what is strange and unfamiliar to them. One may argue that change should not be pushed along hastily. At the same time, it is an argument for legalizing homosexual marriage through consensual politics as in Denmark, rather than by court order, as may happen in Hawaii. 
  











	Works Cited		
   "Gay marriages should be allowed, state judge rules," The Wall Street
	 Journal,  Dec. 4, 1996, 1996
   "Hawaii judge ends gay marriage ban," New York Times, Dec. 4,
 	1996
   "Hawaii ruling lifts ban on marriage of same-sex couples" Los Angeles Times, Page 1A, 1996 	Dec. 4, 1996
   	"Announcing same-sex unions," The Boston Globe, Page 15A,  Dec. 2, 1996
	
Bonauto, "Advising non-traditional families: A general 	introduction," OCT B. B.J. 10, September-October 1996,
Cox, Barbara "Same sex marriage and choice of law", 1994 		Wisconsin Law Review, 
Gibson, "To love, honor, and build a life: A case for same-gender
marriage," 23-SUM Hum. Rts. 22, Summer 1996,
Reidinger, Paul,  American Bar Association Journal, Oct 1996
Stoddard, Thomas, "Gay marriages: Make them legal", Current 	Issues and Enduring Questions, Bedford Books, Boston, 1996
Wiener, "Same-sex intimate and expressive association: The 		pickering balancing test or strict scrutiny?" 31 Harv. 	L. Rev. 561, Summer 1996
"In sickness and in health, in Hawaii and where else?: Conflict 	of laws and recognition of same-sex marriages," 109 Harv. L. 		Rev. 2038, June 1996
Levendosky, Charles, Greensboro News and Record, "Congressional 	Intrusion Into Marriage Just Gets DOMA and DOMA", May 20 	1996

Baehr v.Miike,  910 P.2d 112 (Hawaii Jan 23, 1996)
Baehr v. Lewin,  852 P.2d 44, (Hawaii May 5, 1993)

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted 1996
Article IV, sec.1 United States Constitution
Handbook on Uniform State Laws, United States Code, Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act 

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Contemporary political theory exam 1.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Question #1 : Please discuss the political organization of the Greek city- states, particularly Athenian democracy at the time of Pericles, Plato, and Aristotle.  Also discuss the backgrounds of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and the fate of the Greek city-states historically.

	During the time of Pericles, Plato, and Aristotle, Greece was divided into city-states with a wide variety of constitutions, ranging from Sparta's military dictatorship to Athens' direct democracy.  
	Most city-states had about 300,000 people, each divided into one of three classes : citizens, metics, or slaves.  The citizens represented a total of one - third the population.  The members of this class participated  directly with politics in the various institutions, and decisions were derived by popular vote, known as direct democracy.  This class was further divided into three councils : Assembly of Ecclesia, Council of 500, and the Council of 50.  The largest council was the Assembly of Ecclesia, which was a body of all male citizens over the age of twenty.  The Council of 500 consisted of 500 members, chosen from lottery and election from the Assembly of Ecclesia.  The Council of 50 was made up of 50 members chosen from the Council of 500.  The second class of people in the city-states was the Metics.  This class was made up of people that were not citizens, either because they were not born in the city-state, or they were prevented from being citizens.  The third class were the slaves.  These people were captured from wars and subject to serve the city-state without pay.  The interesting observation in the organization of the Greek city-state is that only one-third the population had any power.  The other two thirds (made up of metics and slaves) were subject to the decisions derived by the citizens, and contained no power nor voice in the political system.  Athenian Democracy had such a division of classes.  This democracy had a minority who ruled over the majority, each citizen participated directly in the affairs of the city.  The Greek city-state contained a body of up to 500 jurors who would try cases.  
	There also existed a body of ten elected generals who would oversee foreign policy and war.  One such elected general of Athens was a political idealist, Pericles.  Pericles had singular control of the Athenian democracy and was involved in a war against Sparta and its allies that was concluded in 446-445 B.C.. After peace was declared, he tightened Athenian control of the empire. "He crushed major rebellions, imposed democratic government, dispatched colonies of Athenian citizens to strategic areas, and made tribute collection (the main source of Athenian wealth) more efficient. Convinced of the inevitability of war with Sparta and the Peloponnesians, Pericles made  an alliance with Corinth's enemy, Corcyra , knowing that it could lead to armed hostilities. He refused Sparta's demand that he revoke the Megarian decree, which denied Megara access to the harbors of the empire. These actions led to the Peloponnesian War . Pericles, who was relying on the fleet and the empire's resources, planned to avoid a pitched battle with the Peloponnesians and to abandon the countryside to them. He fell victim to the plague, however, never to know that the war he initiated would result in the disastrous defeat of Athens. "(GME "PERICLES")
	Socrates, was a Greek thinker whose work marked a decisive turning point in the history of philosophy. He invented a method of teaching by asking questions (the Socratic method), pioneered the search for definitions, and turned philosophy away from a study of the way things are  toward a consideration of virtue and the health of the human soul. Socrates believed that to do wrong is to damage one's soul, and that this is the worst thing one can do. From this it follows that it is always worse to do wrong than to be wronged, and that one must never return wrong for wrong.  He was born in Athens and lived all his life there, leaving only to serve as a soldier in the Peloponnesian War.  He attracted a number of prominent disciples in his role as a teacher of wisdom. One such disciple was Plato.
	Plato was born in Athens around 430 BC. Both his parents were of distinguished Athenian families, and his stepfather, an associate of Pericles, was an active participant in the political and cultural life of Periclean Athens. Plato seems as a young man to have been destined for an aristocratic political career. The excesses of Athenian political life, however, both under the oligarchical rule (404-403) of the so-called Thirty Tyrants and under the restored democracy, seem to have led him to give up these ambitions. In particular, the execution of his friend and teacher Socrates had a profound effect on his plans. Greatly influenced by Socrate's teachings, he  founded the Academy, an institution devoted to research and instruction in philosophy and the sciences.  
	A student of Plato at the Academy was Aristotle. He was born in Stragira, a Greek colonial town on the Macedonia coast. In 367, Aristotle went to Athens to join Plato's Academy, first as a student, then as a teacher.  He traveled widely and spent several years as a tutor for Philip of Macedon's son, Alexander.  	
	The fate of the Greek city-states historically is grim.    The destructive conflict, the Peloponnesian War, marked the end of the Greek way of life.  The Spartans, now leaders of the Greeks, soon aroused widespread enmity by their high-handed rule.
A monarchy in the north soon arose to dictate the fortunes of the Greeks.  The brilliant statesman and warrior Philip II became regent of Macedonia in 359 and its king in 356.  Under his leadership,  this newly centralized kingdom gradually overwhelmed the disunited land.  By easy stages Philip advanced into central Greece, winning control of Delphi as a result of the Third Sacred War (355-47) against Phocis.  In 338 he destroyed a Theban and Athenian army on the field of Chaeronea. He imposed a short-lived federal union on the Greeks and made himself their commander in chief in anticipation of a war against Persia.  He was assassinated in 336, however, before the war could be fought. 
	The defeat of the Greek city-states at Chaeronea ended an era of Greek history.  Neither Sparta, Athens, nor any other city-state had proved capable of uniting Greece under its leadership.  Intense mutual jealousies, sharpened by the egoistic abuse each polis dealt the others whenever circumstances permitted, made unity a hopeless dream. 

Question #2 : Please compare and contrast the political thought of Plato and Aristotle, in particular their competing conceptions of an ideal polity.  Which do you prefer and why?

	Central to Plato's thought is the power of reason to reveal the intelligibility and order governing the changing world of appearance and to create, at both the political and the individual level, a harmonious and happy life.  His ideal society was outlined in the Republic.  The search for truth is predominant in his society.  In order to find this truth, Plato divides his society into three classes. The first class is the Guardians.  These members are the political leaders of the society, and live entirely different from the other classes.  "The preparation of the rulers begins before they are born, as the very pairing of the parents is arranged by a preconceived plan that is to insure the highest physical and mental qualities of the offspring to be bred.  Nothing is left to personal whim or accident from infancy on, and the process of education, both theoretical and practical, continues until the age of fifty.  Literature, music, physical and military instruction, elementary and advanced mathematics, philosophy and metaphysics, and subordinate military and civilian-service assignments are the stages of the planned program of training philosopher-rulers."(E. & E. , pg 7)  This class of people exclude individual interests, such as private property, material possessions, and love.  This class puts wisdom above all else, and eventually this class will figure out what is the best way to run the society, called by Plato as "the Truth."
	The second class, called the Auxiliaries, are in charge of keeping the peace militarily both internally and externally.  They too exclude individual interests.  They are to place courage first.  The Auxiliaries are subject to the Guardians, and are picked and trained by them.  Some of these members become Guardians. 
	The third class, called the Artisans, is the largest class.  They make up the working population.  Their primary concern is appetite, and by working they satisfy that need. They do not participate in politics.  They are to run the society economically as the Guardians and Auxiliaries run the society politically.  
	Another interesting aspect of Plato's Republic is the use of a medicinal lie.  In order for the people to believe in the class system, Plato uses a fable.  According to this fable, God put gold into those who are fit to rule, silver into the auxiliaries, and iron and brass into the farmers and craftsmen.  This was to make each class think of each other as "brothers born of the same soil."  Each element serves a purpose and thus makes each class feel useful and necessary.
	Aristotle, on the other hand, has a much broader way of looking at things.  He traveled much thought the known world, and thus has seen other political theories in action.  He divides government into three types : kingship, aristocracy, and constitutional government.  He prefers kingship, or monarchy, as the best.  He believes that if a man is found "preeminent in virtue", then he should rule.  Because of the superior virtue and political capacity, it gives him that right.  He also believes that only people of leisure should participate in politics because these people have the free time to study, learn, think, and thus are better qualified.  Unlike Plato, however, he defends property rights.  Aristotle believes that owning property gives incentive and progress, pleasure that the ownership gives, generosity, and has been a custom for ages.  He defends slavery as well by stating that some people were destined for certain things, one of which being slavery, referred to as "a tool with a voice."  He believed that equality is justice.  He also divides the human race into two categories : Greeks and Barbarians.  
	On the whole, I would have to agree with Aristotle.  Plato is excessively skeptical about democracy, which I am a firm believer in, and also is too idealistic.  I don't believe that anyone will swallow a medicinal lie.  The people are divided so harshly: one group is trained for politics, another for war, and another for production.  This is wrong.  This division will lead to turmoil.  The Guardians are so far detached from the people that they will not be able to serve them justly.  Maybe the Guardians would reach "the Truth," that the people should have the right to decide their own destinies, that no one should be classed and separated from the others.  The people should have the right to own property and to choose who they have sex with. A small aristocratic group with the control over an army is not my idea of government.  The Auxiliaries are nothing more than the Guardians' dogs. That is why I would have to agree with Aristotle.  He believed that equality is justice, that constitutionalism is the way to go.  I want to have the right to own property and decide my own destiny.


Question #3 : In two or three pages briefly describe the philosophies of Epicureanism and Stoicism, especially in terms of how they vary from Plato and Aristotle's conceptions of human behavior and ideal societies.  Please explain what you find to be useful or distasteful about Epicureanism and Stoicism and discuss the influence of Stoicism on Christianity and Roman legal thought.
	
	The Epicureans believed that the purpose of government is to keep people from interfering with each other's "pursuit of happiness."  The major belief of Epicureans was to remove worry to cultivate personal happiness.  They disagreed with Plato's belief of public satisfaction.  They believed that there is no satisfaction in politics, only in reason, friendship, and moderation of material possessions.  The most important thing according to Epicureans was finding satisfaction in personal relationships.  Laws are only necessary to avoid pain, worry and anxiety.  The laws should merely protect man and thus serves a purpose.  This violates Plato's belief that only an elite class of highly trained people should rule and decide what is best for the people.  This also violates Aristotle's belief that only through a compromise of freedom and wealth can justice be served.  
	The Epicureans also believed that absolute justice is nonexistent and the only justice is legal convention. Plato and Aristotle would disagree, that through reason one could reach "the Truth," as Plato would put it, or that through reflection one may find absolute justice, that equality is justice. Religion and superstition was merely a dream and worried man unnecessarily.  This contradicts Plato's medicinal lie.   Death is nothing, and thus should not be dwelled upon.  
	Another words, let the people do what they want as long as they don't hurt anybody else and follow a very limited set of laws.  Live life to it's fullest, enjoy it, and don't worry about anything.  This philosophy is indeed different from Plato's Republic and Aristotle's constitutional monarchy.  
	Stoicism divides mankind into two types : the wise and the fools.  The wise act according to reason and self control while the fools do not.   The Stoics believed that there was more to life than just pursuing happiness.  They believed that man was predestined by a higher power to a role in society and that man should not only accept his role, but also to partake in his role the best he can.  This belief encouraged endurance, fortitude, and courage.  The Stoics believed that men are different in learning but equal in reason.  Plato and Aristotle would argue that only through education can one obtain reason.   We all have the ability of deciding what is right from wrong, regardless of education.  The Stoics also believed that the law should be obeyed by the rulers and the ruled.  Plato's Republic was just the opposite : the Guardians decided how the artisians would live.  They believed that all of mankind were brothers and that we should love all men as we love ourselves.  Aristotle believed that you were either a Greek or a Barbarian, thus there existed no common brotherhood.  Plato divided his society so drastically that there is no way any Guardian could view a member of the class of pigs as a brother. The Stoics believed that what goes on in the world is because of some divine providence or a god.  Plato would disagree stating that there is no providence or god, only reason.  Aristotle would say that the state is the highest which only through them can the highest good be obtained.  
	I would have to agree with the idea that satisfaction is derived from the personal satisfaction of reason, friendships, and moderation of material possessions.  I do not think that satisfaction is a public matter.  I disagree with the Epicurean belief that religion is a waste of time.  Sure, some people really get wrapped up in it, but I believe that there is something better, that I am part of some plan, that I am here on earth to serve a purpose.  This conception gives me hope, it gives me a sense of belonging, it makes me want to do what is right.  I don't follow all of the strict rules and regulations of my religion, but I still believe, I still have faith.  I don't believe that religion is a waste of time, rather, that religion is a method of learning to do the right thing, and a way to tie all of mankind together.  As far as Legal convention is concerned, I agree.  What is Absolute Justice, anyway?  There is no absolute justice, only popular vote.  If it hurts, it's wrong.  Everyone has their own interpretation of what is justice, but only by vote can a fair decision be drawn.  What is right now may not be right twenty years from now.  This is because what people think is just changes, hence, no Absolute justice exists.
	For me, Stoicism sounds great.  I believe that all of mankind are brothers(we all have minds and blood), that we should all get along in order to provide a better world in which to live.  I disagree with the idea of accepting things the way they are.  I believe that if a person doesn't like the way things are, that he should do what ever possible within reason to change it for the better.  If everybody accepted things the way they were, then progress would cease to exist and the world would become a stagnant pool of waste.  It is human nature to want better things out of life, and I think people should act on it.  It gives people hope, it gives them a goal, it gives them something to work for.  As far as knowing what is right and what is wrong I must disagree with.  Reason is not a universal trait among mankind, rather, it is an individual analysis of the world around them.  For example, one may feel it is right to help those in need.  Another may feel that it is wrong to do so, in that it destroys initiative of the those in need.  The needy person will grow to depend on others for help, and the needy person will never do anything for himself.  Look at it this way : two children, each brought up in different households are brought up in two distinct ways.  Child A is given everything he wants and never has to do anything for himself.  Child B is brought up with the idea that if he wants something, he must work for it.  Child B will appreciate things more because his hard work shows results, while child A thinks that everything can be handed to him without any effort on his part.  Everyone is different, and everyone's interpretation of what is right and wrong differs as well.  I agree with the Stoic belief that one should love man as they love themselves.  We may not be the same, but that isn't a reason to be at each other's throats.  We should all appreciate another's ideas, and work together for the good.
	The influence of Stoicism on Christianity is easily seen in the belief that one should love all men as we love ourselves.  The Christian version of this same belief is the golden rule : "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Also, the belief that there existed something higher in life than mere pursing of pleasure.  The Christians believe that  heaven exist, which is something higher than pursing pleasure.  The Stoics often made reference to a higher power, such as Pliny, "God is man's helping hand."  The ideal of Aurelius, "man should depart from lying, hypocrisy, luxury and pride," is a shared belief with Christians as well.  
	The influence of Stoicism on Roman legal thought existed as well.  The Roman legal system under the influence of Stoicism placed much more emphasis on civic duty, social responsibility, the importance of good law, and the equal basic rights of all human beings.  


Question #4 : Please describe St. Augustine's background and his conception of the two city states.  Also, explain Plato's influence on Augustine and provide your opinion of the philosophy of the most renowned of the early Church fathers.
	
	Augustine was born at Thagaste , a small town in the Roman province of Numidia in North Africa. His mother was a devout Christian, but his father never embraced the Christian faith.  He received a classical education that both schooled him in Latin literature and enabled him to escape from his provincial upbringing. Trained at Carthage in rhetoric , which was a requisite for a legal or political career in the Roman empire, he became a teacher of rhetoric in Carthage, in Rome, and finally in Milan, a seat of imperial government at the time. At Milan, in 386, Augustine underwent religious conversion.  He retired from his public position, received baptism from Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, and soon returned to North Africa.  In 391, he was ordained to the priesthood in Hippo Regius and  five years later he became bishop. 
	After the fall of Rome and the pagan attacks that blamed Christians for it, St. Augustine set out to meet the challenge.  In 413 he started the City of God  which was completed in 426, twenty-two books later.  In his books, St. Augustine divides the human race into two parts, "the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God.  And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil."(E & E pgs 117-118)  
	According to St. Augustine, there exists two cities: the Earthly and the Heavenly city.  " two cities have been formed by two loves : the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self." (E.E. pg 117)  The heavenly city symbolically represents the church, and the Earthly city represents the state.
		St. Augustine sees  value and function in the state in terms of justice and reason.  "But the earthly city, which shall not be everlasting (for it will no longer be a ciy when it has been committed to the extreme penalty), has its good in this world, and rejoices in it with such joy as such things can afford." (E.E. pg 118).  The state provides social tranquility here on earth, but it is not as important as the tranquility that awaits those in the heavenly city.  He does not see the Earthly city as evil.  In fact, he believes that the state is necessary for providing earthly tranquility.  However, St. Augustine believes that this earthly peace is not nearly as important as the peace that awaits those of the Earthly city. "But the things which this city desires cannot justly be said to be evil, for it is itself, in its own kind, better than all other human good." (E.E. pg 119).  The only real difference between these two cities is that the people of the Earthly city "neglect the better things of the heavenly city, which are secured by eternal victory and peace never-ending, and so inordinately covet these present good things that they believe them to be the only desirable things, or love them better than those things which are believed to be better- if this is so, then it is necessary that misery follow and ever increase." (E.E. 119).  
	Plato influenced St. Augustine, and can be seen in his writings.  For example, Plato addresses the problem of the just society, that each individual has his own version of what is just.  Plato writes that, " But in reality justice, though evidently analogous t this principle, is not a matter of external behavior, but of the inward self and of attending to all that is, in the fullest sense, a man's proper concern... Justice is produced in the soul, like health in the body, by establishing the elements concerned in their natural relations of control and subordination..." (E.E. pgs 43-44) St. Augustine agrees with Plato's idea that justice is an individual case and writes that, "all men desire peace with their own circle whom they wish to govern as it suits themselves.  For even those whom they make war against they wish to make their own, and impose on them the laws of their own peace." (E.E. pg 123)
	On the whole, I admire St. Augustine for his answer to the pagan charge that the fall of Rome was because of the Christians.  I don't think anyone could have chosen a more tactical and impressive rebuttal than him.  He felt that Rome fell because the people running Rome lived in the earthly city.  That because the rulers ruled for themselves and not for God, that God punished them.  And to write twenty-two books is simply amazing.  I agree with St. Augustine on the slavery issue.  St. Augustine felt that slavery is wrong, that God intended man to rule over the beasts, not for man to rule over fellow man.  Slavery is a sin, and I agree with St. Augustine that every man in the eyes of God is equal, that all men are of the same blood.


Question #5 : Please review the various conceptions of the proper role of the relationship between Church and State discussed in class.  Write a short explanation for why you agree or disagree with the various conceptions.

	The issue of the relationship between Church and State has been a major issue that faced European man for centuries.  Many theories and ideas have been presented, with logical and illogical ideals to support them.  To this day it is still a topic of debate.  Simplistically there exist four possibilities : State over Church, Church over State, an even division of Church and State, or a combination of Church and State together.  
	The doctrine of the relationship  of church and state has undergone, and is undergoing, constant modification. Its origins long predate the wars of religion. 
	Plato and Aristotle argued that only through reason and through politics can truth be found.  They preferred the State over religion.
	The Epicureans saw no use in religion, arguing that "man's belief in gods arises from dreams and the realization that gods play no role in human affairs constitutes a human awakening." (Manning)
	Jesus Christ had made a clear focus on religion above politics when he said, "My kingdom does not belong to this world.  If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews.  But as it is, my kingdom is not here."(NAB pg 1163)  Jesus also makes a call for a separation of Church and State when he says, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."(NAB pg 1126)
	Saint Augustine considered all earthly governments, regardless of their form, as representative of the fallen and imperfect "city of man" or Earthly City.   The state provided the "sword" to discipline sinful man through law and education. The church, for Augustine, represented the perfect and eternal "city of God,", or Heavenly City, preserving the divine, otherworldly values of peace, hope, and charity. Church and state were separate but related: they occupied different realms and held different values, but both existed in this world. Not only does Augustine make the clear division of Church and State, he also states that only those in the Heavenly City shall be saved, thus preferring Church over State. He wrote, " And therefore the wise men of the one city, living according to man, have sought for profit to their own bodies or souls, or both, and those who have known God 'glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise'- that is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed by pride - 'they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like the corruptible man...' " (E.E. 117)  
	Saint Thomas Aquinas defined the state as author and executor of human law, whose charge is the punishment of vice and encouragement of virtue. The church is the interpreter of divine law through natural law, of which human law is an inferior part.For Aquinas, the church properly advises the state on many matters, especially those relating to moral legislation. He said, "The ministry of this kingdom of God is not in the hands of earthly kings, but of priests, and- above all - the chief priest, the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, to whom all kings are to be subject as to Christ himself." (E.E. pg 137)  Aquinas thus makes a blend of Church and State.  Each serves its purpose, and both are needed.  The Church acts as a guide for the State, allowing the State to make the correct decisions and to act according to the will of God.  Again, Aquinas sees the Church superior to the State.
	Saint Paul viewed the State as an obstruction to the Church, and therefore the Church should be superior to the State.  In one of many letters he wrote to the Philippines, he wrote, "For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ.  Their end is destruction.  Their God is their stomach; their glory in their shame.  Their minds are occupied with earthly things.  But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." (NAB pg 1290)  He makes the rulers of the Earth and everything they have to offer insignificant to what awaits them in heaven, and therefore the State is not important when compared to the Church.
	Tertullian took a very radical view toward the relationship between the Church and State.  He argued that the State was evil, and opposed to the ways of God. He stated, "The fact that Christ rejected an earthly kingdom should be enough to convince you that all secular powers and dignities are not merely alien from, but hostile to, God." (Manning)  He believed that Christianity and philosophy were irreconcilable, that "heresies are the result of philosophy, and that there was the danger of a 'mottled Christianity' of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic elements."(E.E. pg 132) 
	As a Christian, particularly a Roman Catholic, I agree with the idea of a clear separation of Church and State.  I believe that the purpose of the state is to provide social order here on earth, and the purpose of the Church is to provide certain guidelines for people to follow in order to have a peaceful, enjoyable life.  Christianity teaches morals and helps those who are confused.  It gives people hope.  The state provides a similar set of guidelines for people to follow in order to have a peaceful, enjoyable life.  So to answer the question as to where the two stand, I would have to argue that they are both important and should be separated from each other.  A person should have the right to decide whether or not to believe in an after life, how to live there lives, or how to go about doing things.  Therefore, it is the responsibility of the State to insure that that right is not obstructed nor oppressed.  History has shown us what happens when one is above the other.  During the days before the fall of Rome, the State was above the Church.  Rome was corrupt, destructive of other civilizations, and unmerciful.  During the Middle Ages the Church took control, and learning and progress was slowed considerably.  Thus, I would have to agree with Aquinas' belief that through the guidance of the Church, the State can provide the necessities of man kind.  In our own country people have the right to decide what religion to follow or to follow none at all, and it is working.  Let the Pope handle spiritual matters and the President handle politics.  It is very similar to the checks and balances theory.  Only together can the progress of mankind go on.  The Church guides the State, but never should one be superior to the other.  A clear separation but compromise between the Church and State seems to me the best and safest route to take.




Question#6 : Please describe the background of St. Thomas Aquinas and compare and contrast his views with those of Augustine.  Discuss how Aquinas incorporates Aristotlianism into Catholicism.

	Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican theologian, met the challenge posed to Christian faith by the philosophical achievements of the Greeks and Arabs.  He effected a philosophical binding of faith and reason.
	Thomas d'Aquino, the son of a count, was born in his family's castle at Roccasecca, central Italy, in 1224.  At about the age of five, Thomas was placed by his parents in the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino.  His uncle had been abbot of the monastery, and his family had similar ambitions for Thomas. When Monte Cassino became the scene of a battle between papal and imperial troops Thomas withdrew and enrolled at the University of Naples.  There he came into contact with members of the Dominican order and, against the violent opposition of his family, became a Dominican friar.  He then went north to study at Paris and Cologne under Albertus Magnus.
	  His Summa contra Gentiles was written in 1258-60, and his greatest work, the Summa Theologiae, occupied him from 1267 to 1273.  Thomas also wrote a series of commentaries on Aristotle and the Bible. "Unlike many theologians, he welcomed the Latin translation of Aristotle's complete writings, although he opposed the radical advocates of Aristotelianism, the so-called Latin Aviarists. "(GME "Aquinas")
	The views of Saint Thomas Aquinas are both alike and different from those of Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine met the allegations and challenges of the pagans and concerned mostly with the view of Church and state as separate but related spheres: they occupied different realms and held different values, but both exist in this world.  Saint Aquinas reconceptualized the relationship between faith and reason, and argued that "man is a social animal and that the superior wisdom of the ruler makes legitimate his rulership." (E.E. pg )  
	Augustine's thought was that through faith one may attain an understanding. This concept is exposed when he said, "Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand." (E.E. 132)  He believed that reasoning originates in the act of faith. He also believed that " because of Original Sin, no one can entirely govern his own motivation and that only the help of God's Grace makes it possible for persons to will and to do good."(GME "Augustine").
	 Saint Thomas Aquinas' thought embodied the conviction that faith and reason are aspects of a single truth and cannot be in conflict with one another. According to Aquinas,  "people know something when its truth is either immediately evident to them or can be made evident by appeal to immediately evident truths."(GME "Aquinas").  They believe something when they accept its truth on authority.  Religious faith is the acceptance of truths on the authority of what God tells them.  Despite the fact that this seems to make knowledge and faith two utterly distinct realms, Thomas held that some of the things God has revealed are in fact knowable.  He called these "preambles of faith," including among them the existence of God and certain of his attributes, the immortality of the human soul, and some moral principles.  The rest of what has been revealed he called "mysteries of faith," for example, the Trinity, the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, the resurrection, and so on.  He then argued that, "if some of the things God has revealed can be known to be true, it is reasonable to accept the mysteries as true."(GME "Aquinas").
	Saint Thomas Aquinas incorporated Aristotlianism into Catholicism.  For example, Aristotle classifies government into pure and perverted forms of government, and from that makes a choice of the best type based on that classification. He chose a monarchy as the best choice based on the fact that if a person is found to be "preeminent in virtue," then that person is fit to rule. Aquinas also classifies government into good and bad types and agrees that monarchy is the best choice.  However, he "derives his preference for the monarchical form of government from his religious view of the world."(E.E. pg 139)  
	Aristotle's philosophy that the end, or good, of humankind is not merely to live, but to lead a good, flourishing life that "manifests the rational nature of humanity and thus satisfies human needs"(GME "Aristotle")  was incorporated by Aquinas and tied in with Christianity in his four forms doctrine of law.  
	Aquinas distinguishes four forms of law : eternal law, natural law, divine law, and human law. The pursuit of happiness is a search for the good life, which is composed of virtuous actions and falls under the realm of divine law.   Generosity consists in giving neither too little nor too much.  Aristotle also describes intellectual virtue and moral virtue, which correspond to the soul, or as Aquinas classified it, part of the Eternal law.  The effort to perform virtuous acts creates the desire to do the right thing for its own sake and also creates practical wisdom.  Because human beings are not purely rational a flourishing, happy, human life demands the exercise of both the intellectual and the moral virtues, all of which are interpreted by Aquinas and classified accordingly. 










Works Cited
1. (E.E.)Introduction to Political Thinkers William Ebenstien and Alan O. Ebenstien Harcourt Brace College Publishers (c)1992 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

2. (NAB) The New American Bible for Catholics World Catholic Press (c)1970 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

3. (Manning) Dr. Kerry James Manning 

4. (GME) Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (c)1995 by Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Cry for Freedom.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Robert Hernandez
English 11
Moore-4
October 4, 1996
	Cry for Freedom
	Although Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King, Jr. are both skilled orators and use similar rhetorical devices to appeal to their audiences, they call for freedom for two totally different kinds of people. Both Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King, Jr. show their strengths as speakers through their use of these rhetorical devices. Among these are parallelism, allusions, metaphors, and rhetorical questions. Both speakers use these devices well. Martin Luther King, Jr. is infamous for using parallelism when he states, "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" Martin Luther King, Jr. also alludes to the Declaration of independence many times in his speech. "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." These rhetorical devices help Martin Luther King, Jr. keep his audience attentive and highly interested.
	Patrick Henry uses biblical allusion when he states, "It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our  Country."  Another rhetorical device that Henry uses well is imagery. A good example of Henry's imagery is, "The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!" Henry uses these and many more devices to keep the attention and the open mind of his audience who was mostly opposed to his viewpoint.
	These two speeches were much more different than they are alike. The main difference between the two speeches, in a general sense was that one calls for a change through violence 
										Cano-2

and war, while the other calls for a peaceful solution. Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses calls for a revolution against Great Britain. This must have been a difficult speech for Henry to deliver because he was speaking to a group of people who were opposed to his ideals. They gave the speech pre-revolution and was an attempt to persuade the Virginia delegates to solve the colonies' problems with the British through war.
	Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech was much different than Henry's. First of all, King was asking for a peaceful solution to the problems between the white Americans and the African- Americans. This speech was also different from Henry's because he was speaking to a crowd that was supportive of what he had to say. They aimed this speech, given on the Lincoln Memorial in the early 1960's, at persuading African-Americans to solve their problems with whites through a peaceful method.
	Both Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches had their similarities and differences. Among their similarities are that both were good orators. They displayed this through the good, similar rhetorical devices that they used, and through the way their audience reacted to their speeches. Both men were taking risks by speaking the ways and at the times they did speak. Among the differences between the two speeches are the change that they are causing, and the way in which the change is to be made. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Cultural Diversity in Local Politics.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Diversity in Local Politics
Overview
This paper explores the limits and potentials of ethnic and racial coalition building in Los Angeles. The demographic changes that have occurred in Los Angeles during the past twenty years have been extraordinary, both in scope and diversity. 
The area has witnessed a literal boom in population growth, increasing from 7 million in 1970 to 8.8 million in 1990. (US Bureau of the Census) However, it is the dramatic change in ethnic and racial diversity of the population which has caught most observers attention.
Los Angeles has taken on a new form in terms of its racial diversity, moving from a biracial to a multiethnic setting. The non-Hispanic White population has declined from its 71 percent share in 1970 to a narrow numerical plurality of 41 percent of the county's population in 1990.
Meanwhile, the Latino and Asian Pacific population witnessed a doubling  -- from 15% to 39% -- and near quadrupling - from 3% to 11% of their population shares respectively. Meanwhile, African Americans, while slightly growing numerically, were a constant share of the county population (11%) during this period. (Oliver and Johnson:57-94)  Thus, on the eve of the twenty-first century, Los Angeles has one of the most ethnically diverse populations of any metropolitan area in the country.
What does this ethnic diversity mean for multiethnic coalition building in the politics of Los Angeles County? Does the changing demography increase the opportunity for ethnic cooperation? Or, has the ethnic changes increased rather than decreased the prospects of interethnic conflict?

Introduction
After the 1992 riots, a clarion call was issued from all corners for the emerging multiethnic majority to take its rightful place in the politics and leadership of the city. A multiethnic coalition, it ws suggested, could lead the city to a new multicultural future. 
This call was clearly built on the assumption that three divers groups - African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders and Latinos - could come together and pursue a coalition built on their common interests. 
But what do we do know about the prospects of multiethnic coalitions? There is voluminous literature on urban politics. However, this literature has been shaped principally by the question of racial politics. (Browning, Marshall and Tabb) That is, how have traditional urban politics, read White politics, been affected or impacted by the role of Blacks on the urban scene.
Probably the most influential work on Black/White urban political coalitions was Carmichael and Hamilton's Black Power. (Carmichael and Hamilton)  In this work, as in most of the literature, the foundation of coalitions were based on common interests. 
They argued that all political relations are based on common self interest - benefits to be gained and losses to be avoided. From this perspective, Carmichael and Hamilton argued, there were no permanent friends or enemies for Blacks in their struggle for freedom and power - only temporary alliances when self interests coincide. 
Thus, they rejected the notion that White liberals, whose ideological orientation was favorable to Black aspirations, should be viewed as reliable and enduring allies. Rather, they were perceived as one among many which could be either potential allies or potential adversaries on the road to power. 
Carmichael and Hamilton's emphasis on interests and ideology alone, when extended to the multiethnic scene of Los Angeles, portends a rather bleak future for multiethnic coalitions.
Alliances forging common interests are not readily evident or clear among the diversity of racial and ethnic groups in Los Angeles. Moreover, class and ethnic divisions between and within ethnic and racial groups have structured competing and cross-cutting interests that, on the face, appear to be overwhelming.
Ethnic groups, for example, have diverse interests based on such factors as citizenship, ethnicity and class. Latinos are divided by the diverse interest of an immigrant noncitizen population and citizen native population. This became evident in the aftermath of the riots when the mostly Mexican Americans, citizen-based East Los Angeles leadership attempted to disassociate themselves from the more Central-American and recent Mexican immigrant-based residents of South Central Los Angeles. (Ramos and Wilkinson) 
This division  expressed a long standing concern that the Latinoization of Los Angeles politics was in fact being ushered in under Mexican hegemony. Likewise, diverse interests are apparent on the basis of national origin. 
Among Asian Pacific Islanders, long standing historical divisions between Koreans, Japanese, and Chines cause, in some critical cases, group enmity as opposed to unity. And even African Americans have strong class cleavages that, despite the concerted attempts of some middle class Blacks to reach out to the needs and the concerns of their less advantaged brethren, show increasing signs of developing into two separate communities. 
Thus, in the context of Los Angeles, it is increasingly difficult to conceive of common interests among groups who do not themselves have monolithic interests.
Making common interest the basis of coalitions is exacerbated by the more enduring and seemingly intractable issues that derive from the structural concerns cited earlier. Given the economic changes that have pitted some groups against others for scarce social and economic resources, conflicting interests have begun to emerge around at least four central areas: Jobs, education, crime, and the role of government.

Economics
	Since the rebellion, the issue of jobs has become a centripetal force in intergroup relations in Los Angeles. While most studies indicate that there is relatively little or no displacement of Blacks by immigrants in the labor market, public opinion polls consistently show that Blacks are more likely than any other racial group to believe that immigrants take jobs away from native-born Americans. (Oliver and Johnson:449) The most general expression of this belief in Los Angeles was the action of Danny Bakewell and the Brotherhood Crusade which picketed rebuilding sites after the riots in an attempt to ensure that Black labor was involved in the rebuilding of South Central Los Angeles. (Boyarsky:b2)  Many Blacks look at Latinos going to work everyday and ask why they themselves do not do not have jobs? While at the same time, many Latinos look at Blacks who are not working and perceive Blacks as lazy and irresponsible. Thus, two groups ravaged by poverty are divided by their diverse experience in the labor market.

Education
	Education, like jobs, appears on its face to be an area of common interest for the emerging multiethnic majority. The lack of education, or poor education, is directly related to economic disadvantage. It would thus appear that issues such as the reform of public education would be in the interest of all of these groups. But, like the issue of jobs, separate interests permeate the educational arena, reflecting both cultural and structural issues. Nascent cultural conflicts exist over the issue of bilingualism in the schools. Whites, Blacks, and other native-born English speakers express a certain degree of concern over the importance of bilingual education for non-English speakers - the recent thrust of the English-only amendments is but one example.(Horton:578) 
Blacks are concerned on a number of fronts. Given that Blacks and Latinos share school facilities more often than Whites and Latinos, Black parents express a certain hostility to bilingualism, fearing that it will hamper their children's already fragile commitment to education. 
A Black father in a focus group immediately following the riots noted that he moved his child out of the Lynwood District following a parent-teacher conference in which " ... the teacher comes and tells me that he's (his son)  sleeping in class." The father finds out from his son that he is sleeping because "They're all speaking Spanish."(LASUI:1992) 
Likewise, this issue has a structural side to it as well. Blacks are concerned that bilingualism will become another screening device to deny Blacks access to both teaching positions and administrative positions in public bureaucracies. 
Proponents of bilingualism, on the other hand, rightfully point out the increasing necessity of a bilingual curricula as the proportion ofd nonnative English-speaking students mushrooms. Thus, education becomes another forum where access to jobs, prestige, and income become the basis for differing multiethnic interests.

Crime
	Another area of apparent common interest is in the fight against street crime. Crime, especially street crime, affects communities of color much more seriously than Anglo areas. However, immigrant and native minorities have far different interests and opinions regarding how crime should be addressed. For Blacks and native Latinos, the "get tough, more police, longer jail sentences" strategy is viewed with a certain amount of suspicion. While these policies are generally perceived as valid, there is a concern that these policies will disproportionately adversely affect the youth in their communities. Police brutality will increase, youth will end up with criminal records that affect their ability to get a job, and long sentences will lead to the development of a hardened criminal subculture. On the other side, recent immigrants who are already involved in entrepreneurial activities find the "get tough on crime" agenda the seemingly panacea for a life of constant threat on the streets. Mired in some of the most dangerous and vulnerable areas of the city, this group sees street crime as their biggest enemy in the fight for economic and physical survival. Their concern is immediate and a heavy handed police and judiciary is seen as the most efficient means to address the issue.

Role of Government
	Finally, on the ideological level, there are some systematic differences between native and immigrant minorities. Native minorities see the role of government in much more positive ways. After decades of fighting for basic civil right, the state is seen as an important protector of those rights. Legislation designed to bar discrimination in employment, public settings, education and housing are viewed as necessary and important implements to secure these rights. The role of government is to intervene, to make the playing field fair, and, to insure that minorities are protected from the abuses of the majority. Immigrant minorities, particularly those who have a strong entrepreneurial impulse, are much less sanguine about the role of government. They are more likely to resemble "Republicans" in their laissez faire view of the role of government. This is particularly the case in the area of any state intervention in the economy - an area in which native minorities have been calling for greater involvement, not less.
	Taken together, the preceding issues portend that it will be highly unlikely for the multicultural coalition to emerge. They essentially show that a narrow approach to coalitions based on common interests and ideologies almost dooms the development of multiethnic coalitions from the start.
	
The Crisis of Progressive Politics: The 1993 Los Angeles Mayoral Election
	The second largest city in the US., Los Angeles is home to a durable and powerful biracial coalition - the twenty year alliance that sustained Tom Bradley's mayoralty. Principally built by African Americans and liberal Jews, the Bradley coalition grew to encompass business and labor, Latinos and Asian Americans. 
But Los Angles itself has changed dramatically in recent years. In the wake of devastating civil violence in 1992, the Bradley coalition, already deteriorating - fell from power with the election of a conservative Republican as mayor in 1993. The Black and White populations in the city were challenged by a huge rise in other groups, particularly Latino and Asian Americans. Thus, Los Angeles has moved from the model of biracial politics to the more problematic center of multiethnic political theorizing, severe social conflict, and the rollback of minority gains. The more vexing issue is the uncertainty about direction and vision. On what basis should coalitions be built - color, class, race, or some other common factor? Two prominent paths for progressive politics are rainbow and biracial coalitions.
In the "rainbow" theory, coalitions can best be formed among people of color, with the participation of a small number of progressive Whites. The alliance will be held together by a common alienation from a White-dominated society, along with a progressive ideology and common economic interests. It's roots lie in the theory of coalition espoused in Carmichael and Hamilton's Black Power, calling on African Americans to build coalitions not on liberal ideology but on self interest and a more radical critique of the system.(Carmichael and Hamilton) It's popularity grew with the naming and promotion of the coalition by Jesse Jackson in his presidential campaigns.
The rainbow model contrasts with the biracial or interracial coalition, in which minority unity is supplemented by extensive links to liberal and moderate Whites, The most prominent White participants in such coalitions are Jews. Shared liberal ideology allows members of these coalitions to temporarily build bridges across racial lines. Such coalitions have provided the basis for the rise of minority political power in a wide variety of settings and for the Bradley coalition in Los Angeles.(Browning, Marshall and Tabb)
Despite the Riordan election being a sort of ideological anomaly, it was nonetheless very important. It marked a powerful shift at city hall from a Westside-minority coalition to a Valley-centered regime with limited minority power. A feature of the Bradley years had been the dominance of city commissions by liberals from Westside and minority areas.(Sonenshein:Ch9) Riordan was in a position to change the direction of the government, and more important, to establish the leadership credibility of the conservative side. If he were to succeed, he would place progressives in a weakened position for some time to come. And in time this might lead to a more conservative electorate.
In the short run, however, there was not a fundamental shift to the right among the cities voters. Underlying the Riordan victory were two other important factors: interest conflicts among the city's groups and the quality of the leadership in various communities. Research on interracial coalitions suggests that ideology, interest and leadership are the determining factors in the formation and survival of such alliances.(Sonenshein)
By 1993, the public's perception of life in Los Angeles had reached critical lows, moved steadily along by the fear of crime and disorder, and then exponentially by the riots in 1992. LA was a very unhappy city, not just in the inner city areas, and certainly in the suburban San Fernando Valley. White disaffection with the status quo was less visible, but given the White dominance of the voter rolls, it carried a great electoral punch.
Interminority conflict had been growing as well for a number of years; and the city became even more crowded, grittier and crime-ridden as groups contended over spaces that had previously been separate. Approximately 400,000 more people lived in Los Angeles than a decade before. The engine driving the population increase was immigration by Latinos and Asians. Suddenly the immigration issue was becoming explosive.
All this took place in the midst of a blistering recession that hit LA and all of California extremely hard. A major proportion of all jobs lost nationally were lost in California, particularly in Southern California.
South Central Los Angeles, once a Black bastion, is now a contested area among Blacks, Latinos and Korean American storekeepers.(Oliver and Johnson:449) Koreatown is now divided between Korean Americans and Latinos. The near San Fernando Valley, once all White, is now heavily Latino. The notion that Los Angeles was living a charmed urban life, immune from the difficulties of other big cities was destroyed in the violence of April 1992. Korean American stores were attacked in both South Central LA and in Koreatown.
The 1993 mayoral election coincided with the sudden disappearance of a whole generation of leaders. Within a very short span, Mayor Tom Bradley, Police Chief Daryl Gates, District Attorney Ira Reiner, and county supervisor Kenneth Hahn left office. Those who remained in office were either too raw and new, or too tied to their own communities to build coalitions. Others made their deals with Richard Riordan. Few who would lead at the grass roots had the clout or the interest in building citywide coalitions. Never in the thirty-year span of biracial politics had there been so few well-known people trying to do this work. The most widely known progressive leaders in the city was probably the new police chief from Philadelphia, Willie Williams.
Beyond the fall of these leaders was the loss of confidence created by the devastating violence of 1992. The Watts uprising of 1965 brought confidence to progressives. They were out of power, and could view the violence as a failure of the conservatives sin power.(Sonenshein)  No such view could be credible in 1992, after nearly twenty years of biracial liberal rule. The fiasco of turning over the reconstruction of South Central to businessman Peter Ueberroth bespoke a sense of weakened legitimacy at city hall. And would that not be indirectly an argument for the election of a businessman like Riordan a year later?

Conclusion
The 1993 election of Richard Riordan was a [powerful defeat for progressive politics in LA. Already fading as the new decade came in, the ruling biracial coalition lost its way completely after the civil unrest of 1992. With its leaders aging or leaving office, with an electorate disenchanted with government policies and with the state of their city, circumstances favored the conservative outsider with unlimited funds and a simple message.
But the meaning of the election was much more complex than a simple shift to the right. The ideological basis of coalition politics remained intact, and in that sense the Riordan campaign represented an accommodation to the overall liberal/moderate nature of the city's voters. Even an ineffective liberal candidate got 46 percent of the vote. The ideological potential also counted for less than in the past, now that the city was filled with interest conflicts and uncertain leadership. After Yorty's defeat in 1969 to Tom Bradley, liberalism was weaker as an electoral base than it is today, but leadership and interest were far stronger in the direction of successful coalition and victory.
The persisting debate between  rainbow and biracial coalition politics  finally led to the defeat of both. The rainbow model, by contrast to the interracial approach, is too narrow to be successful. If progressives concede the bulk of the White vote to the conservatives, and confine their minority appeals to the rainbow ideology, then they will be facing defeat for a long time to come. Latinos and Asian Americans must be approached on their own terms, not simply as shades of the rainbow. Their interests are unique, and their concerns must be taken seriously. Jews should not be arbitrarily excluded from progressive coalitions, they still represent the single greatest link between minority communities and Whites. It is crucial to build cross-town coalitions, not simply to try and build an inner-city alliance against everybody else.
To hold power, progressives need to realize that the other side is more formidable than in the past. Conservatives have gone beyond trashy demagoguery - or at least they do not need to  prime the pump anymore - and are arguing that they can govern. This approach makes them a devastating threat to take control of the center. And the center matters again in urban politics; if progressives want justice and conservatives want peace, the balance of power increasingly rests with those who want both peace and justice.
In the broadest sense, the 1993 LA elections shows the importance of the debate between biracial and a rainbow model of minority politics. In the long run, the cost of unexamined assumptions on this question may be profound. - the rollback of hard-won minority political gain. To apply the lessons of biracial coalition politics to a new generation of progressives in LA is the most important task in the years to come.
 Bibliography
Boyarsky, Bill. "Competing for Jobs in the New LA," Los Angeles Times, June 19, 1992., sec. B, p.2.

Browning, Rufus, P., Dale Rogers Marshall and David Tabb, Protest is Not Enough: The Struggle of Blacks and Hispanics for Equality in City Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

Carmichael, Stokely, and Charles V. Hamilton, Black Power (New York: Vintage Books, 1967).

Horton, John. "The Politics of Ethnic Change: Grass Roots Responses to Economic and Demographic Restructuring in Monterey Park, California," Urban Geography 10:6 (1989): 578-592.

LASUI (Los Angeles Survey of Inequality) Focus Group Interviews, 1992.

Oliver, Melvin L., and James H. Johnson, Jr., "Interethnic Conflict in an Urban Ghetto: The Case of Blacks and Latinos in Los Angeles," Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change 6 (1984): 57-94; US Bureau of the Census.. op. cit.

Oliver and Johnson, see above; Also by  Oliver and Johnson, "Interethnic Minority Conflict in Urban America: The Effects of Economic and Social Dislocations," Urban Geography 10 (1989): 449-463.

Ramos, George and Tracy Wilkinson, "Unrest Widens Rifts in Latino Population," Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1992.

Sonenshein, Rafael J., Politics in Black and White: Race and Power in Los Angeles (Princeton: NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).

US Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing. (Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census, 1970).





 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Declaration of Individualism.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Declaration of Individualism and The Encouragement of Protest from Birmingham Jail


        Although the time periods and goals may be different the method for bringing about change is usually the same, this method is protest.   This method is supported by two different people, in two different time periods, with two different goals; these two people are Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Junior. 



        Martin Luther King Junior's letter from Birmingham Jail was an expression of his encouragement for protest against tradition and established laws and a justification for his actions.   King, a leader of a civil-rights group that supported protest against traditional views, encouraged protesting against tradition and established laws that are unjust.  In his letter from Birmingham Jail King states: 



"It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.  Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.  If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's anti-religious laws." 
  
  



This excerpt shows that King encourages protest because in some situations he deems it necessary, be it in Hitler's Germany, a Communist country, or any situation in which injustices are occurring.  In the last sentence of the excerpt King openly admits that he would protest against established laws or traditions.  King was against the traditional views and unjust laws, which discriminated against him and his fellow people.  He felt that the only way that these unjust laws and traditional beliefs would ever change would 



Greco 2 



be by means of protest.  He felt that without protest the laws and traditions would remain the same forever.  Along with encouraging protest, King's letter was also a justification of his actions.  The letter was written to his fellow clergymen to explain his prior actions and to attempt to justify them.  In the letter he tried to explain to the clergy that his actions although illegal were justified and appropriate for the situation.  He expressed that he exhausted every other option possible and direct action was the only available option left, which could make a difference. 



        Similarly to King's letter from Birmingham Jail, The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson to encourage the protest of established laws and justify possible actions.  But unlike King, Jefferson also encouraged individualism in his declaration.  His views are distinctly stated in the first sentence of The Declaration of Independence: 



"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation." 
  
  



In this single sentence Jefferson states his support for the encouragement of individualism 



and the need for protest against established laws. The declaration was written to bring about unity to our nation.  Even though it was meant to bring unity and similarity as a group it still encouraged individualism, just on a larger scale.  The document states that we, the entire country, need to unite to become an individual separate from England.  Jefferson feels that it is in the course of human event for individualism to occur, and that 
  
  



Greco 3 



without individualism change would never occur.  The entire document is basically a declaration of individualism.  "The Declaration of Independence", along with the 



encouragement individualism supports the protest against established laws.  The laws of England were the established laws at the time prior to the writing of the declaration, and Jefferson felt that everyone should have the right protest against any laws that they feel are unjust no matter how well established they may be.  Throughout the entire declaration Jefferson states how he, and the majority of the nation, felt that the established laws of 



the time were unjust and deserved protest.  Jefferson's view on protest is clear in one specific sentence of the declaration, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it".  Since the laws of the time were thought to be unjust, protest was appropriate and well justified in Jefferson's eyes.  Jefferson stated multiple reasons to justify his view that the colonies needed to separate from England.  This document was not only meant to bring about individualism and protest, but justify the future action that would occur to achieve it.          Martin Luther King Jr. and Thomas Jefferson were both leaders of revolutions, and though each revolution was vastly different, they believed in the idea that change would not occur unless it was forced along.  They believed that change among established laws and traditions could only occur through protest.  Two different men, nearly two hundred years apart, with two different goals, and nearly identical methods of achieving their goals 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Democracy .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Democracy


I.   Meaning of Democracy
II.  Summary of Places and Dates
III. Features of Democracy
IV. Types of Democracy
V.  Early Democracy       
       A. Athens
       B. Rome
VI.  Middle Ages and England 
VII. The Renaissance
      A. United States of America
      B. France
VIII. Modern Times
IX. Important People 





	






	



	

	Demos Kratia, or democracy, as it is used today, means " the people rule."
A democracy is a form of government is run by the people of that country through
elections and representation. A democracy is really a form of a republic known as a
democratic republic. A republic is a government where officials, elected by a small
group of people,  make the important decisions.
	Democracy has been around for almost 2500 years since Athens, Greece
became the first democracy. The Romans also experimented with democracy,
however it was more a republic, and not a democracy. Around 1200 England laid
the groundwork to become a republic. Later, in the 1700's, United States of
America, became a democracy.  	
	There are many features of democracy. Most of these features are the same,
but individual countries use varations of the main ideas. The main feature of
democracy, which determines a true democracy, is free, competitive elections. 
Sometimes however, women or minorities don't have the right to vote. Some of
these other features, such as checks on power, help to limit the strength of any one
person or party. Other features like free elections, and majority/ minority rule, help
to make elections fair, since the judgment of many people is generally better then
the judgment of a few people. Political parties keep one government, or idea of
government form holding all power. These features let the people to govern
themselves without the country being torn apart.
	There are two true types of democracies, direct democracies, and
representative democracies. In a direct democracy all the people meet to discuss
problems and creat laws. A direct decision consults all the people for the
decisions.. Since that is unpractical in todays world, a new form of democracy, the
representative democracy has arisen. This form of democracy has elected
representatives making most of the day to day decisions, while the main groups of
citizens consulted for only the most important decisions.
	One of the earliest known democracies was in Athens, a city-state in
southern, ancient Greece. Around 620BC, Athens became the first true democracy.
In Athens the ruler Draco tried to make many reforms in the city state. Draco
organized laws by putting them in a written code, letting everyone know what the
laws were and how they applied to everyone. He also gave the people the right to a
trial. The next ruler Solon, the next Athenian ruler also helped Athens become a
democracy. He also wrote many reforms into the laws and gave all citizens the
right to vote, an important step in the origins of democracy. Some of his reforms
created problems for other people, who wanted to become citizens. In 500BC,
Athens looked like a modern democracy. The main lawmaking body was known as
the assembly, and all free male citizens could be in the assembly. The assembly met
about forty times a year to discuss and vote on the issues. The council of 500, 
which was made of volunteers from all ten districts, helped sort out the assembly's
business. An even smaller council, a counsel of fifty men, made the daily decisions
of the city-state. The largest problem of Athens democracy were that only a few of
the people could become citizens, therefore limiting the power to a small group.
This problem caused many slaves, and other non-landowners to be disappointed.
Athens, no matter what the problems, was the first true democracy. 
	Rome, around 500 BC, became a republic. A republic is not a democracy,
but is very similar to a democracy. In this republic, the elected officials only
represented a small fraction of the people. Some of the ideas Rome used, mainly
the practice of elected  officials helped to shape the ideas of a representative
democracy. 
	In Rome, the wealthy people, the patricians, had much more power then the
poorer people, the plebeians. Despite the fact that the plebeians had very little
power, the fact that they had any power at all was a step foreword for democracy.
As a part of Romes government, there was a senate and two assemblies. The
senate, made up of senators, proposed laws and ratified treaties. The Assembly of
Centuries directed military members, and the Assembly of Tribes represented all of
the people. In theory the assembly would be made up of both plebeians and
patricians. However it was proved that the patricians were very adept at controlling
the plebeians and thus held all the power at the assemblies. Despite the fact that the
Roman people had overthrown the king, they still felt the need for supreme
leadership. Because they felt they needed a powerful leader they decided to
appoint consuls, a pair of officials who carried out Romes laws. The consuls ruled
for one year, commanded their own army, and had the power to veto any of the
other consuls decisions. Another thing the Romans did was make it so a dictator
could rule for a six-month period of time so quick decisions could be made in a
crisis. The dictator, although he could make decisions, he could not change the
base laws for the country. 
	In the middle ages Christianity tought people that they not only were
citizens of the earth, but they were also members of Gods kingdom. Since people
were tought that they were citizens of both, nobody could be expected to be totally
loyal to their country and be totally loyal to their religion. During the middle ages,
in most of Europe, people lived under a feudal system. Under feudalism, people
pledged their skils and loyalty to other people in exchange for land, food, and
protection. Another idea feudalism supported was that individuals had certain
rights and privileges. During the middle ages, the Magna Carta was signed by
King John in England. This document has become a very important symbol of
human freedom and liberty. It was used to support demands for trials with juries, it
protected people from unlawful arrests, and it made the policy of no taxation
without representation. During the next several hundred years, English democracy
evolved slowly. In 1628 Parliament passed the Petition of Right, this petition told
King Charles I to stop collecting taxes without the consent of Parliament. This
petition let Parliament meet at regular intervals. When King Charles refused to
agree to this petition a civil war broke out fought between the Puritans, led by
Oliver Cromwell, and the followers of the king. When the followers of the king
were defeated, King Charles I was beheaded. The Revolution of 1688 established
the supremacy of Parliament and John Locke, a philosopher of the revolution
stated the power should belong to the people. In 1689 Parliament passed the Bill of
Rights, which assured people many basic civil rights. He also stated that the
government was there for protecting the peoples liberties, property, and lives. In
1689 Parliament passed the Bill of Rights, which assured people many basic civil
rights.
	In the Renaissance, the first modern democracies emerged. One of the main
reasons democracies emerged was because the Renaissance tought independence
and individual thought. This new way of thinking helped to influence political
thinking and to speed the growth of democracy. The growth and evolution of
democracy was caused by the demands of greater freedom from many different
people. 
	As a result of the new individual ideas people began to think differently in
many ways. One of the areas where there were many problems was religion. In
some countries, there was only one religion allowed by law. Despite these laws
many people wanted to be able to freely practice their own religion. A result of this
want was that many people left England to colonize newly discovered countries. A
group of these people came to America and founded new colonies. One group of
these people, the Pilgrims singed the Mayflower Compact, which stated that all
people were to obey "just and equal laws." In 1775 the America revolution began
between the colonists in America, and British over unfair taxes and unfair
representation. In 1776 the Declaration of Independence was drafted, and singed.
This Declaration stated that the colonies of Britain were their own country, the
United States of America with their own laws, government, and taxes. The
founding fathers of the United States of America didn't trust the Athenian form of
democracy, direct democracy, because they feared giving the people too much
power. Instead they divided the power between the federal government, and the
state government. They then divided the power between the legislative, executive,
and judicial branches. Also, they made it so the president, who had power similar
to the Roman consuls, would be elected by an electoral college, instead of by a
direct vote. In the long term almost all adult citizens have been given the right to
vote. 
	The French Revolution, which was spurred on by thinkers like
Montesquieu, Roseau, and Voltaire because their writings, some which were
banned, told people of the freedoms they "should" have. This revolution, although
it didn't make France a democracy, did limit the power of the French King, and it
also promoted the ideas of liberty and equality. 
	Today many types of governments claim to be democratic. Communism
governments are known as "peoples democracies." Tese are not considered "true"
democracies by many people, because they limit he rights of many people. The
reason many people don't consider these governments true democracies is because
they limit freedom of expression, and competitive elections. 
	There have been many important people in the development of democracy.
Draco, Solon, and Cleisthes were all important contributors to democracy. These
Athenian rulers laid the groundwork for our modern democracies. King John, who
signed the Magna Carta and changed turned England into a republic opened the
door to many individual freedoms. John Locke, Montisquieu, Roseau, Voltaire,
Ben Franklin, and Thomas Paine who helped to shape democracy through their
writings, their teachings, and their ideas. Thomas Jefferson who drafted the
Declaration of Independence helped to lay the groundwork for the United States of
America, which is considered the "benchmark" of democracy. All these people,
and many others,  made very important contributions to the evolution of
democracy.




































Democracy






Andy Carroll
July 8th, 1996
7th Grade




Alexander J. Groth  "Democracy"  The World Book Encyclopedia.
Volume 5, 126-130p. Chicago: World Book, Inc, 1990

Jeffrey M. Ikler, Nancy Rogers, and others. The Pageant of World History.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Prentince Hall, 1994

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\democracy and constatutionalism.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Throughout time the debate upon which is the best system of government has been an ongoing debate.  Somewhere between the realms of democracy, socialism, fascism, communism, and monarchism lies the answer to the perfect system.  Traditionally speaking, North America has always tried to remain democratic in ruling.  The democratic system, unlike it's alternatives, encourages equality and liberty among the people which in modern society, makes it the most attractive system of government today.
	Arguably, equality is the goal of many governments today.  But what one must realize is that equality cannot be reached without giving someone else inequality.  While democracy influences equality, communism and socialism frown upon the very idea that all people should be treated equal.  	The very idea that all men are created equally is very misleading.  All men are not created equally.  Human beings are unequal in essence because they are unequal in most physical and psychological characteristics along with health, intelligence, and emotional balance.  For most of us, living amidst inequality is common.  Equality is said to be having the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.  In modern society this is very true to a certain extent.  The only thing equal about people is that we are all born and eventually we all die.  In North America, I believe that equality among people is nearly impossible.  The education is the main source of the problem.  Education itself created inequality between children at an early age.  Since no two persons are created equally, they will not have the same opportunities, nor will they make use of opportunities offered to all people like the education system.
	One of the most important things to a person living in North America is liberty.  Liberty	Liberty can be defined as limited only be laws established on behalf of the community .  To a certain extent, this enables people to be in control of their own lives.  The individual has the right to choose how they conduct their lives.  In the U.S. people rely on the Bill of Rights to protect themselves from government and other people.  This bill of rights includes freedom of speech, press, and assembly.  Among these freedoms is also the freedom of religion and freedom from unreasonable searches by the law.  In Canada we have a similar system called the Bill of Rights and Freedoms that is made up with similar beliefs of it's counterpart.  Liberty is possibly the most important attribute in American and Canadian society.  What people want is the ability to make their own decisions and go about life with the freedom to do so.
	In a democratic society, people are able to voice their opinions to government and ultimately play an important role in the make up and organization of society.  To a new nation, these attributes of our society are quite attractive.  Many new nations today are making the switch to democratic government.  The problem with this is that most of these nations have never been democratic before.  Therefore, new nations are having great difficulty because such a switch is not easily accomplished.  To develop a democratic society it has taken some more more than an entire century.  These new nations tend to rush the change and in the end they become frustrated because such a switch is not as easily accomplished as thought.  The features of a modern democratic state are firstly a society dedicated to the preservation of rights and freedoms.  From that, a government system must adhere to developing a form of government which encompasses the values of a working society.  In other words, a government for the people, run by the people, and a system into which they have invested.
	An excellent example of a nation that comprises the rights and freedoms of its people is Canada.  As a nation we live by our rights and freedoms and use them as a guide to act accordingly.  We the people, as part of Canadian society, are able to participate in the workings of our country.  This is represented in our political cycle.  I call our political system "the feedback cycle".  In this cycle, demands and supports are inputted into the administration, voted on, and eventually outputted into society and the cycle continues.  Our political system enables us to have our say through representation of an elected official in government.  Ultimately, the power is not solely in the hands of government.  When people are unsatisfied with government they take the necessary steps to replace the person or people that are not doing their job properly.
	Affirmative action programs are put in place to increase the number of minorities in the work place.  But again, this creates inequality because there is not an equal opportunity for all races to get the job is they still practice discrimination.  By this I am referring to the discrimination of white males.  I agree that there are not enough ethnicities represented in our work place but I also strongly believe that if a person is qualified for a job than skin color shouldn't matter.  This statement can work both ways too.  If a person of black skin applies for a job, and is better qualified for the job than a white person, but still is not granted the job than not only is it racist but by not hiring the black person the position is not being properly filled.  Nothing is gained accept for an insufficient worker.  Since we live in a democratic society, people are assumed to have the same opportunities and chances as the next person.  So in my belief, affirmative action is failing society and causing more inequality.  Affirmative action will never be a solution to racism.  It is more a way of controlling racism.  Ideologically, affirmative action is a great idea but in our society racism plays such a major role that it only makes the problem of racism worse.  To racists, when things like affirmative action show up it only enrages them further.  Seeing a person with white skin losing a job to someone who looks different is the last thing some racist wants to see.  To the disbelief of many there is such a thing as equal opportunity.  We are told we are all equal by our government but why aren't we all treated equally then?  The answer is because it has taken far too long for goverment to step in and state that all men deserve the same opportunities despite their skin color or race.  And in the end it doesn't matter how much power a government has.  It will never be enough to abolish hundreds of years of racism.
	Government is the most powerful institution crated by man.  Power is limitless.  Since government cannot be under the same moral limits as individuals there are two limits on power; 1-moral, 2-constitutional.  Morally, a government has its limits just as you or I have ours.  Constitutionally, the government has it's rules and we must follow them.  Social order would collapse if private individuals considered themselves free to break the moral law when their interests require it.  Since constitutionalism is how we arrange to situate our liberty to the state, then constitutionally speaking we are in charge of ideals and conduct preached to us by government.  So in way government is a way of telling ourselves that although morally we know what is correct we are not capable of doing so without outside interference.  In other words we know that it's wrong to commit a crime but we choose to have police watch over us to make sure we don't break the law.  The whole idea that society needs police to watch over us to keep us from doing what we already know is wrong is absurd.  This leads me to believe that society is incapable of moral thinking.  Why would someone do something they know is wrong.  The answer is because society makes it ok for people to make mistakes.  Perhaps punishments are not strong enough but I tend to agree with the theory of natural law.    Our society will never overcome its barbaric ways if we do not use morals and our better judgment.
	When speaking about freedom it is necessary to state that although being able to live your life as you choose, no person is ever guaranteed freedom.  Yes we are free to make our own choices but the word freedom leads you to believe one may do what ever they please.  But that is not the case.  You are free to make your own choices but when you make the wrong one and break the law your liberty is taken away.  Without one's liberty you are in control of the state and unable to make your own choices.  It is almost like freedom is suppressed.  When a person is no longer at liberty they cannot make their own decisions and they fall under government restraints.  The only way you may be able to guarantee freedom is to follow certain conditions specified by government which tell you how to conduct your life.  The structure of government provides a constitutional system to show us how to act accordingly.  Liberty is far more likely to be attained if all conditions are abided by a society as a whole instead of for instance a place that does not meet these conditions.  
	A democratic society cannot function properly without liberalism.  Liberalism is an ideology.  It is a whole way of thinking.  To be liberal means you are optimistic.  Liberty and equality are the two things that separate our society from that of a communist or fascist government system.  With things like the civil rights movement our society is slowing becoming more aware of the world beyond that our immediate environment.  Ethnic groups and minorities are better represented our society than they were fifty years ago.  You can no longer discriminate against someone because of there skin color which makes our world a more politically correct environment.  Being democratic gives all people an equal chance to prove themselves in life.  One thing I have learned about democracy is that is important to be open and not to think in the same mind set.  Rules are meant to be broken.   I have always thought that part of being democratic means making room for new ideals and theories that make society function better as a whole and in the end  be more capable in handling problems in society.  With all this in mind, freedom is in the hands of the individual and it is their choice what to do with it. 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\democracy in Ecuador.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Briefly, democracy is a matter of degree and quality.  Confusion often arises in discussion about democracy.  This stems from the different premises people have in mind when they use the term.  In my opinion, most people fail to specify their underlying premises, and we often incorporate into our sense of democracy disparate factors that may or may not relate to it.  To avoid such confusion, we must identify the key ideas central to democracy and clarify precisely how the term will be used.  The best way to study democracy is to learn the other countries, so in this time I choose one of Latin American countries, Ecuador for well-understanding of the process of democracy.   
	
	Ecuador is graphically one of the world's most varied countries despite its small size, which at 283520 sq. km is about the size of either New Zealand or Nevada State.  Ecuador staddles the equator on the Pacific coast of South America and is bordered by only two countries, Colombia to the north and Peru to the south and east.
	The estimated population of Ecuador in 1991 was 10,800,00.  This is approximately 10 times the number of Indian estimated to have been living in the area at the time of the Spanish conquest.  The population density of about 38 people per sq. km is the highest of any South American nation.
	Like other Latin American countries, the major religion is Roman Catholicism.  Some of the older cities have splendid 16th and 17th-century Catholic churches.  Although churches of other faiths can found, they form only a very small minority.  The Indians, while outwardly Roman Catholic, tend to blend Catholicism with their traditional beliefs.  In Ecuador, Spanish is the main language.  Most Indians are bilingual, with Quechua being their preferred language and Spanish their second tongue.  
	
	Ecuador, that is the smallest of the Andean countries, is a republic with a democratic government headed by a president.  The first constitution was written in 1830, but has had several changes since then, the most recent in 1978.  Democratically elected governments have regularly been toppled by coups, often led by the military.  Since 1979, however, all governments have been freely elected.  All literate citizens over 18 have the vote and the president must receive over 50% of the vote to be elected.  With at least 13 different political parties, 50% of the vote is rarely achieved, in which case there is a second round between the top two contenders.  A president governs for a maximum of five years and cannot be reelected.
	The recent elections were in 1988, with 10 candidates running for president.  In the first round, held in January, Rodrigo Borja and Abdala Bucaram achieved 24.1% and 17.6% of the votes.  In the August runoff, Borja of the Izquierda Democratica (Democratic Left) received a 52% majority and was elected.  
	The president is also the head of the armed forces and appoints his own cabinet ministers.  There are 12 ministries forming the executive branch of the government.  The legislative branch of government consists of a single Chamber of Representatives (congress) which has 69 members.  The congress appoints the justices of the Supreme Court.  There are 21 provinces, each with a governor appointed by the president and democratically elected prefects.  The provinces are sub-divided into smaller political units called cantones; each canton has a democratically elected alcalde (mayor).

	Most histories of Ecuador begin with the expansion of the Incas from Peru in the 1400s, although archaeological evidence indicates the presence of people in Ecuador for many thousands of years before then.  The history of pre-Inca Ecuador is lost in a tangle of time and legend.  Generally speaking, the main populations lived either on the coast or in the highland.
	At the time of the Inca expansion the Duchicela descendants still dominated the north, and the south was in the hands of the Canari people.  The Canari defended themselves against the Inca invaders, and it was some years before the Inca, TupacYupanqui, was able to subdue them and turn his attention to the north.  During he fathered a son, Huayana Capac, by a Canari princess.  The subjugation of the north took many years and Huayana Capac grew up in Ecuador.  He succeeded his father to the Inca throne and spent years traveling all over his empire, from Bolivia to Ecuador, constantly putting down uprisings from all sides.  
	The year 1526 is a major one in Ecuadorian history.  The Inca Huayna Capac died and left his empire, not to one son as was traditional, but to two, thus dividing the Inca Empire for the first time.  In the same year, on 21 September, the first Spaniards landed near Esmeraldas in northern Ecuador.  They were led south by the pilot, Bartolome Ruiz de Andrade, on an exploratory mission for Francisco Pizarro, who himself remained further north.  Pizarro was not to arrive as conqueror for several years.
	Meanwhile, the rivalry of Huayna Capac's two sons grew.  The Inca of Cuzco, Huascar, went to war against the Ecuadorian Inca, Atahualpa.  After several years of fighting, Atahualpa defeated Huascar near Ambato in central Ecuador and was thus the ruler of the weakened and still divided Inca Empire when Pizarro arrived in 1532 with plans to conquer the Incas.

	Pizarro's advance was rapid and dramatic.  His horse-riding, amour-wearing and cannon firing conquistadors were believed to be godlike and, although few in number, spread terror among the Indians.  In late 1532, a summit meeting was arranged between Pizarro and Atahualpa.  Although Atahuaipa was prepared to negotiate with the Spaniards, Pizarro had other ideas.  When the Inca arrived at the pre-arranged meeting place on 16 November, he was ambushed by the conquistadors who massacred most of his armed guards and captured Atahualpa.  Atahualpa was hold for ransom, and incalculable quantities of gold, silver and other valuables poured in to Cajamarca.  When the ransom was paid the Inca, instead of being sentenced to death.  His crimes were incest, polygamy, worship of false gods, and crimes against the king.  He was executed on 29 August 1533, and the Inca Empire was at an end.

	From 1535 onwards, the colonial era proceeded with the usual intrigues amongest the Spanish but with no major uprisings by the Ecuadorian Indians.  Lima, Peru was the seat of the political administration of Ecuador during the first centuries of colonial rule.  Ecuador was the first known as a "gobernacion" (province) but in 1563 became the "Audiencia de Quito," amore important political division.  In 1739, the "audiencia" was transferred from the viceroyalty of Peru, of which it was a part, to the viceroyalty of Colombia (then known as Nueva Grenada).
	Ecuador remained a peaceful colony during these centuries, and agriculture and the art flourished.  Various new agriculture products, such as cattle and bananas, which still remain important in Ecuador today, were introduced from Europe.  There was prolific construction of churches and monasteries which were decorated with unique carvings and paintings resulting from the blend of Spanish and Indian art influences.
	Life was comfortable for the ruling colonialists, but the Indians and later "mestizo", were treated under their rule.  A system of forced labour was not only tolerated but encouraged, and it is no surprise that by the 18th century there were several uprisings of the Indians against the Spanish ruling classes.  

	The first serious attempt to liberate Ecuador from Spanish rule was by a partisan group led by Juan Pio Montufar on 10 August 1809.  The group managed to take Quito and install a government, but this lasted just 24 days before troops of the King of Spain were able to regain control.
	Independence was finally achieved by Simon Bolivar, the Venezuelan liberator who marched southward from Caracas, feed Colombia in 1819, and supported the people of Guayaquil when they claimed independence on 9 October 1820.  It took almost two years before Ecuador was entirely liberated from Spanish rule.  The decisive battle was fought on 24 May 1882 when Field Marshal Sucre, one of Bolivar's best generals, defeated the royalists at the Battle of Pichincha and took Quito.  
	Bolivar's idealistic dream was to form a united South America, so he began by amalgamating Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador into the independent nation of Gran Colombia.  This lasted only eight years and Ecuador became fully independent in 1830.  In the same year a treaty was signed with Peru, drawing up a boundary between the two nations.  This is the boundary that is marked on all Ecuadorian maps.  In 1942, after a war between the two countries, the border was redrawn in Rio de Janeiro and it is this border that is found on non-Ecuadorian maps.  However, it is not officially acknowledged by Ecuadorian authorities.
	Independent Ecuador's internal history has been a typically Latin America turmoil of political and open warfare between liberals and conservatives.  Quito emerged as the main centre for the church-backed conservatives and Guayaquil has traditionally been considered liberal and socialist.  This rivalry continues on a social level today.  Qiitenos have nicknamed Guayaquilenos as "monos" (monkeys) and the lively coastal people think of the highland inhabitants as very staid and dull.
	The rivalry between the groups frequently escalated to extreme violence: conservative President Gracie Moron was shot and killed in 1875 and liberal President Eloy Alfaro was killed and burned by a mob in Quito in 1912.  The military began to take control and the 20th century has seen more periods of military rule than of civilian. 
	
	Ecuador's most recent period of democracy began in 1979 when President Jaime Roldos Aguilera was elected.  He was killed in an aeroplane crash in 1981 and his term of office was completed by his vice president, Osvaldo Hurtado Larrea.
	In 1984, the conservative, Leon Febres Cordero, was reelected to the presidency.  Following the democrat, Rodrigo Borja, became president and the government leant to the left.  The next elections are due in 1992.  These are not easy to follow, because there are at least 13 political parties in Ecuador.  There are also a number of communist, socialist, and revolutionary political movements which are not officially recognized.  These do have a certain amount of political power which they exercise by forming alliances with one of the official parties.
	In conclusion, despite intense and bloody rivalry between liberals, conservatives and the military during the earlier part of this century, Ecuador has remained peaceful in recent years and is one of the safest countries in South America at present.  Everybody thinks that democracy is the most advanced government form all over the world.  However, we all should remember that it is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that our world is shaped.  


 






























BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR ECUADOR

   Hurtado, O. Political Power in Ecuador (Westview, 1985).

   Linke, L. Ecuador: Country of Contrasts (Oxford, 1964).

   Luzuriaga, C. Income Distribution and Poverty in Rural Ecuador (Arizona State Univ. Press, 1983).

   Redclift, M.R. Agrarian Reform and Peasant Organization in Coastal Ecuador (London Univ. Press, 1978).

   Schodt, D.W. Ecuador (Westview, 1986).

   Whitten, N.E., ed. Cultural Transformations and Ethnicity in Modern Ecuador (Univ. of Ill. Press, 1981).

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Democratic World Government An Outline Structure.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Democratic World Government - An Outline Structure

--------------

Introduction - problems and benefits of World Government

The idea of world government has not received a good press for many years.
It tends to make most of us think of Stalinist dictators and fascist
domination of the globe. I wish to argue, though, that there is a viable
form of democratic world government which could bring many benefits.

A democratic world government that really worked would lead to a major
increase in the freedom enjoyed by all people on the planet. It would also
make more equitable the international balance of power which currently so
heavily favours the rich developed nations and their citizens at the expense
of the much larger numbers of citizens in the underdeveloped world.

The billion-dollar question is, though, whether there could be a form of
democratic world government which was workable and sustainable, not
inefficient and expensive, and above all which was fair?

Conventional ideas about world government, which typically picture it in the
form of a global parliament passing universal laws in order to create an
identikit legal framework for all world citizens, suffer from three severe
problems. Firstly, the near-impossibility of persuading all of the world's
countries to hand over their sovereignty to a global government of this
sort. Secondly, the risk - of which we are, and must always be, very aware -
of permitting a future global dictatorship of a particularly intransigent
kind (imagine how difficult it would be to dislodge a Hitler if he was in
possession of the kind of absolute power available through such a form of
government). And thirdly, as we see sometimes today in the European
Community, the tendency of such a large-scale government to create detailed,
uniform laws for the entire area it governs; the impetus would be towards a
sort of global standardisation, almost certainly based in the cultural
attitudes of the West, which would massively erode the rich cultural
variations which exist in the world.

A preferable system of world government, if such could be invented, would
meet all of these objections, as well perhaps as providing a global
framework designed to encourage the democratic possibilities of all nations.
Perhaps such a system might look something like the one I shall now
describe.

New form of World Government - outline structure

The new World Parliament would be a single elected chamber, possibly similar
in format to the House of Commons in the UK but with places for up to 1000
elected representatives - Members of the World Parliament, or 'MWP's. The
MWPs would be elected from national or supra-national constituencies, one
per so many head of population (but probably with a minimum of at least one
per nation, at least in the early decades [There are approaching 200 nation
states in the world at the moment, with populations ranging from 50,000 - St
Lucia - to 5,000,000,000 - China. This represents a variance of a factor of
100,000, so the disparity in representation could not be tolerated
indefinitely. In due course some notion of communal MWPs, shared by small
countries of reasonably alike culture, would have to be introduced.]). They
would be subjected to re-election every 5 years. The world government
envisaged here would have no army and would require only minimal
administrative support. As a result, its costs would be small. It would not
be allowed to raise any taxes, instead being funded in a similar way to that
in which the United Nations is today, by contributions from the
nation-states which make up its membership. Such nation-states would
continue to exist in the new system just as they do now, forming an
essential balancing power to that of the world government, and would be
without significant loss of sovereignty.

Membership of the new system which the world government represented would be
voluntary for each nation in the world, just as membership of the United
Nations currently is [Some democratic nations choose not to join the United
nations even today, Switzerland being a prime example.]. Becoming a member
would involve them adding their signature to a world treaty, which decision
would need to be ratified by the population of the country in a referendum.
Only upon so joining the 'club' would a country's people have the right to
vote into the world government one or more MWPs, and in turn the world
government would only have the right to instigate actions which related to
countries within its membership. Once in the system a country would be able
to extricate itself only by majority vote of its population in another
referendum.

The world government's purpose would be to enact laws by normal majority
voting within its chamber, but laws which were couched in general terms.
Because presented in general terms, the laws would permit individual
countries to retain or create their own culturally-based detailed laws and
social practices as long as these did not conflict with the general
world-law.

The laws, although couched in general terms, would be very real. A World
Court would exist, providing a top-level of appeal for individuals once they
had exhausted their domestic forms of justice and where they thought they
were innocent under the general world law (much as we in Europe can now make
an ultimate appeal to the European court).

But what would the powers of the world government be? The new system must
not permit the world government to enforce its desires in an absolute way
upon the world population because that would immediately raise the twin
dangers of global dictatorship and imposed cultural uniformity.

World Government's only power - enforced referenda

Instead, nations would be allowed to transgress world-laws - to pass local
laws, or otherwise operate, in contradiction to them - but only where the
population of that country was in agreement with its government in that
course of action. The principal element of the new world constitutional
system would be the provision of just such a check that any country which
went against a world-law was expressing the will of its people. So the world
government's one and only direct power would be that of requiring any nation
within its membership to undergo a binding referendum on any issue, and
ultimately if necessary a general election, which would be conducted
according to a set of internationally agreed standards. These standards,
written into the world treaty, would include the fact that the world
government must be given equal opportunity to present its arguments to the
country's people as the host government.

So say, for example, that a generalised human rights law had been passed by
the World Parliament. At some later point in time a majority of MWPs might
come to consider that a particular member country was violating this law,
either in its current activities or in a new law which it had enacted
locally. Then the world government could require a binding referendum to be
held in the offending country, so that the people of that country could have
a democratically-valid opportunity to decide whether they wanted their
national government to adhere to the world-law on this point.

If the result of the referendum was in the local government's favour then it
could continue to operate as it had chosen, and no further action would
follow. On the other hand, if the outcome favoured the world government's
view then its general law would take precedence in the nation. If in turn
that fact was not promptly acted upon, then the world government could
enforce a general election. The country's population would thus become the
final arbiters of the question.

The effects of this sort of setup are fairly clear. On issues where most
human individuals are likely to be in agreement irrespective of their
background, such as on the immorality of torture, the imposed referendum
would ensure that governments tending towards dictatorship would be stopped
in their tracks. But where a putative world government law was based on
cultural prejudices the local population would almost certainly be in
agreement with their own government's decision to ignore the global law and
would vote in favour of the local decision. In doing so of course they would
have effectively taken their nation out of the world system as regards this
one issue, and would therefore have to forego access for themselves to the
World Court on the global law in question.

Constraint on World Government

How would the world government be constrained to only pass laws couched in
general terms? Well, if it passed laws which were too detailed they would
almost certainly be rejected by many populations supporting their domestic
governments in internal referenda. Concern about high-levels of such
refusals would probably in itself be enough to restrain the world government
from being too precise on many issues. To buttress this impulse, though, a
constitutional mechanism would be built into the world treaty, sucha that
the MWPs themselves would be automatically subjected to a general world
election en masse if more than, say, 10-20% of countries rejected a world
law in national referenda.

But how would a world government which had no military power of its own
impose referenda and elections and make them binding? What if a country's
government, perhaps tending towards dictatorship, chose simply to ignore the
world government's requests for it to hold a referendum on some issue?

Enforcement

The answer is simple, and maintains the principle that the world
government's only direct power should be to enforce referenda. Faced with
this sort of threat the world government would be constitutionally allowed
to initiate synchronised referenda of the populations in, say, 5
randomly-chosen nations in order to sample world opinion at a
statistically-significant level. It would put before those populations its
suggestions as to what co-ordinated sanctions should be used by all
countries against the offending nation. The result of the vote would dictate
what collective world action could be taken. The action to be taken might be
initially an economic blockade by all member countries, but ultimately if
the crisis escalated could become a collective invasion of the offending
country. It would be up to the polled populations, acting as a world jury,
to decide on behalf of the whole world whether they were going to allow the
principles of world government to be upheld by voting for such sanctions, or
were going to let the world slip back into its messy and dangerous old ways.

In practice the mere threat of the tight, global economic sanctions which
could be invoked by this method would in most cases very rapidly bring a
recalcitrant member country back into line. But if not such sanctions could
quickly be put in place after the sampling referenda. If they in turn proved
inadequate and if a sampling world vote upheld military intervention then
ultimately an invasion could be carried out. As the world government itself
would have no army, this would be planned and mounted by a collective
military force made up of units from all, or a selection of, the armies of
each member country of the world - in the same way as the UN Peacekeeping
forces are today. (Once again, in many cases the mere planning of such an
action would persuade the country to drop its resistance.)

If however the sampling votes activated in such a crisis failed to back the
world government then at best the world government itself should be
subjected to an immediate election, and at worst the entire system of world
government would be threatened and might start to unravel. The important
point here is that economic and military action would be decided upon by
vast numbers of ordinary people, rather than by governments swayed by all
sorts of 'interests' and biases. In a very clear way a responsibility for
the future of the world would reside with each of us. The fact that it would
so reside with the people of the world would be a safeguard as ultimate as
could ever be achieved against the possibility of a dictator assuming global
power through the apparatus of the world government. The dictates of such a
despotic world government would doubtless very soon cause it to lose such a
sampling referenda, and it would not itself be in possession of any miltary
power on which it could call.

The system of global governance, composed of the world government in
co-existence with multitudinous nation states, would thus embody a balanced
set of powers and checks. Nation states would retain much power, although
subject to the general will of the world government. As long as they acted
in accordance with the wishes of their citizens they would be able to
implement any policies they pleased. They could probably also defy the world
government without the backing of their citizens to a small extent with
ease, but any larger revolt would be prevented by the need to carry a
majority of the population. If they pursued their defiance they would face
the ultimate threat of economic and then military isolation in the world.

Or at least, that is how things would be as long as the world government
confined itself to passing humane and unbiased laws. It itself would be
subject to a strong counter-balance to its powers. If it showed any tendency
to err from such a widely accepted moral basis then the continued existence
in the world of a large number of varied and independently-willed nation
states would guarantee that transgressions of unpopular global laws would
commence fairly rapidly. Referenda would follow, in which local populations
would almost certainly vote against the world government line and thus
eventually force its members to face re-election.

The world government would in fact only be able to operate by sticking to a
very broadly accepted seam of morality. Indeed it is more than likely that
after an initial phase of establishing a basic canon of general world-laws,
the main emphasis of the world government would turn to reviewing the
practices of nations of the world. There would of course always be
occasional requirements for new general laws, or amendments to existing
ones, but much of the work of the mature world government would probably
consist in monitoring national conformance with world-law and deciding upon
appropriate actions in cases of transgression.

Benefits - Reducing militarisation

Could the existence of the world government do anything to reduce
conventional military tensions in the world? Well, there seems no reason why
the world government should not take the view that unsanctioned war between
countries should be totally illegal, and pass a law to such an effect. Then
if war did break out between any two countries, the standard procedure of
global-sampling referenda could be invoked to enforce devastating economic
sanctions against both of the warring nations, or to raise a collaborative
army with which to overwhelm them and enforce peace. In effect this would be
an active version of what is currently the passive UN Peacekeeping Forces.
Furthermore, the world government could impose limits on the size of armies
and quantity of weapons any country could be permitted, and then over time
gradually force these down, so producing a world which in the long-run would
become stable and virtually military-free.

In the absence of a fool-proof 'Star Wars' system providing a defensive
umbrella-shield against inter-continental missiles and planes, a
precondition of such action and of the functioning of the world government
as a whole, would be some sort of collectivisation of nuclear weapons and
any other vastly destructive technology. An individual country in possession
of and willing to use nuclear weapons could resist all of the co-ordinated
international power at the disposal of the world government unless at least
a comparable destructive capacity could be rapidly switched against it as a
deterrent. So, as part of signing the world government treaty countries in
possession of such technology would have to agree to make a proportion of it
available for use in such circumstances. Such weapons might be sited in a
neutral, and sparsely-populated territory such as on one of the polar
ice-caps, and would remain under the control of the individual owning
countries. However in circumstances in which an individual nuclear power was
resisting the world government, and agreement on scales of activity had been
defined by a global-sampling referendum, the possibility would exist for
such countries through the world government to co-ordinate their use of them
in retaliation against a nuclear strike. No one country need possess a huge
number of such weapons as long as the collective total would together
outweigh those owned by any individual recalcitrant nation, and as before
there would be every reason to hope that the world government could
gradually force the levels down to their minimum throughout the world.

Benefits - International ecology

Urgent international ecological problems, such as the excessive production
of ozone-destroying chemicals and the destruction of rainforests, could also
be dealt with by this sort of world government. It could pass laws which
acted across countries in mutual ways, backed up ultimately by the
possibility of enforcement via the global-sampling system. For example, the
world government might enact a balanced general law which imposed severe
limits on rainforest destruction, and also appropriately penalised wealthier
economies whose economic activity tends to encourage it. As always such a
law could be neutralised by a population for their own country (although I
would argue that we would be much more likely to see a positively altruistic
response from ordinary people than from their governments, which tend to
react to public pressure, rarely to lead it). But if such a law actively
broke down because of high levels of veto, the world government could try to
resort to a global-sampling referendum to 'enforce it' using the threat of
economic sanctions. Again the 'jury' of randomly-chosen populations would
become the conscience of the world in deciding how important the problem
was.

There could also be an emergency procedure whereby nations affected in a
negative way by the policies of their neighbours - a good ecological example
of this is provided by the Scandinavian nations, which currently suffer from
acid-rain generated largely in the United Kingdom - could request the World
Parliament to enforce a combined binding referendum of all of the involved
populations on the topic. There might also be a procedure where a petition
signed by 0.1% of the population of a country could lead to a binding
referendum on any issue within that country via the powers of the World
Parliament.

Democratic assumption

It might be argued that such a system of world government, while allowing
considerable cultural variation among its member countries, nevertheless
makes the assumption that democracy is acceptable and desirable within all
cultures. This is true, but there are two mitigating points to be made.
Firstly, it should be remembered that membership of the world system would
be voluntary, depending on governments responding to public pressure to join
it, and in each case would only be deemed to be ratified by a majority vote
in a popular referendum. Where democracy was genuinely not acceptable to a
culture then there would be no such internal pressure, or membership would
fail at the initial referendum stage, and such a country would then
voluntarily remain outside the system. In practice, if people were polled by
fair referendum, it seems most unlikely that there would be any cultures,
except perhaps the most primitive, which would reject the basic
preferability of democracy over dictatorship.

Secondly, the international standards for democratic practice need neither
be uniform nor blindly instantiate the common model of Western European or
American practice. Individual nations could use any method apporved by the
standards - and there would almost certainly at the very least be a spectrum
of possibilities from the 'one person one vote' method to many types of
proportional representation - for both the election of their MWPs and the
conduct of internal referenda. There is no reason why forms of fair practice
which arise from other cultural backgrounds should not be incorporated. As
long as some fundamental general criteria were met by a procedure for
establishing the will of a populace then it could be approved. The criteria
might include such things as freedom of expression without fear of reprisal,
and no inequitable influence on the outcome by minority groups [%f: For
example, it is not obvious that some procedures used in small tribal
communities for arriving at consensus, although secret voting is not
involved, are not fair in this fashion].

Indeed it could even be stated in the world constitution that any form of
procedure would be acceptable as long as it was approved once by a member
nation's population in a referendum carried out using an already approved
practice. It might well be the World Court in which the interpretation of
the standards and the arbitration on practices would best ultimately lie.

Getting from here to there - Step 1

But isn't this all just a pipe-dream? Could we ever get from where mankind
is now to this seemingly ideal situation? Could it be done without force?

Funnily enough, it may not be too difficult. One of the beauties of this
system is that it threatens the sovereignty of individual countries only to
a minimal degree, making it difficult for them to have grounds for resisting
popular pressure to join in.

The full system could possibly be achieved in three graduated steps over a
period of a number of decades. The process would start with the setting up
through the UN of an international organisation of Electoral Observers,
rather like the current Electoral Reform Society but on a much larger scale
and on a more formal basis. Their aim would be to produce the international
set of standards and procedures for the conduct of democratic referenda and
governmental elections, allowing for the many different systems of direct,
proportional and other representation which might be used. These standards
would no doubt cover issues such as how to keep votes unattributable to
individuals, procedures for fair counting of votes, and safeguards against
victimisation of voters. The job of the UN Electoral Observers would then be
to monitor the actual practices of democracy in the world against them. That
this is all not an unrealistic scenario is shown by the fact that in 1991
the countries of the Commonwealth gave serious consideration to the
development of just such an organisation.

No doubt many democratic countries would have no objections to the UN
Electoral Observers monitoring and reporting on their practices. Over time
they would become a familiar and accepted feature of democratic practice in
numerous countries, although clearly there would remain many countries which
would continue not to welcome them.

Getting from here to there - Step 2

After some years or decades, once the UN Electoral Observers were well
established, a voluntary treaty would be drawn up by the UN to develop the
system to a second level. The treaty would commit signatory countries to
make use of the Electoral Observers for all subsequent elections and
referenda, and to repeat any which the Observers classed as failing to meet
their basic standards of democratic practice. The established, mostly
developed democracies would almost certainly, if there was a sufficient
groundswell of public opinion in favour of such a strategic move towards
underpinning the basic quality of democracy, again tend to accept this
treaty and operate under its regime. As a result a considerable weight of
moral and public pressure would build on other governments in the world to
follow suit. Gradually other countries if they had any pretence to democracy
would be forced by both internal and external opinion into the fold. It has
taken Britain many centuries of the 'democratic-habit' to build up genuinely
democratic practices, and such a system of independent international
observers with enforceable standards could go a long way to assuring
populations, especially those of underdeveloped countries in Africa, South
America and Asia, of the viability of proper democracy in their countries.

Getting from here to there - Step 3

It might well take decades before numbers had grown significantly, but
eventually there would come a time when a significant percentage of the
world's population, living in a considerably wider variety of cultures than
the merely European and American, were enjoying governmental systems which
operated within the system of democratic safeguards. Finally, at that time,
a world government treaty would be drawn up incorporating the full system of
global government described earlier, for countries again to sign
voluntarily. As an additional 'smoothing in' mechanism, for perhaps the
first 50 years of its life the World Parliament might have the existing UN
as its 'upper-house' - able to review its laws and at least suggest
amendments. It would also probably be sensible for global financial
institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to
eventually be brought under the control of the world government. These very
significant global powers would then be under a more direct democratic
control, and would be more likely to make a fairer spreading of the world's
financial resources into the impoverished underdeveloped world.

As before there is every chance that there would be enormous popular
pressure on most national governments to back this final phase of
development and to join the world government system, because people would
see that its effect would be to ensure deeper and fuller democracy
throughout the world. Perhaps again the initial core of member-countries at
each step would be made up of the mature western democracies, but because of
this pressure it would not be long before membership became wider.

Conclusion

We have all witnessed in recent years the populations of many countries (the
Phillipines, China, the USSR, Eastern Europe, etc.) doing their best to
bring about local democracy. In some cases this seems to have worked
reasonably smoothly (eg. Poland) but in others (the Phillipines) the
resulting government has always been balancing on a knife-edge, threatened
on all sides by despotic forces; in some cases (China) the population has
failed to win through. One of the major benefits of the full world
government system would be that populations would only have to force their
governments to sign the voluntary world government treaty, by the sort of
courageous popular action we have seen so much of, in order to ensure their
country's future democratic health; from this single action all else would
safely follow. If their government subsequently started to digress from the
democratic path, or was overthrown and replaced by a totalitarian
alternative, no doubt it would soon fall foul of some world government laws,
and would then leave itself open to the full range of sanctions which the
world government could persuade other populations to bring against it.

A fitting plan for the opening decades of the 21st century? Perhaps. If it
worked such a system of world government would almost certainly represent a
quantum leap forward in the levels of freedom enjoyed by the poorer citizens
of the world, as well as to some extent those of us in the developed
nations. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Development of Major Political Parties in America.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Development of Major Political Parties in America


The first two major polititcal parties were the Jeffersonian and the Federalists.  The 
Jeffersonians believed in a decentralized government and foreign policy that supported France 
rather than England.  The Federalists were in existance only a short time because of 
disagreement of the leaders, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.
The United States was a one party nation from 1800 to 1820.  In 1828 the Jeffersonain 
(Democratic Republican) Party split  into the Democrats and the Whigs.  The Democrats 
wanted the states to have more power and the Whigs wanted stronger federal government.  
When Andrew Jackson was elected President in 1828, his attempts to decentralize the 
government were opposed by the Whigs.  That party later deteriorated when the conflict over 
slavery began.
The Republican Party started in 1854.  This party was former Whigs who were opposed 
to slavery.  Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, was elected in 1860.  This party was 
dominant until 1932.  It has a platform based on probusiness policies, a belief in volunteerism and the ability of the American people to take care of their own problems without government intervention.  The Democratic Party came back into control during the Great Depression when the Republican Policy was ineffective in relieving the economic problems.  The Democrats dominated for the most part through the 1960s.  However, the Republicans have won five of the last seven presidental elections.  The current President is a Democrat but it is not clear if the Democratic Party will be able to continue to dominate.  There have been 900 other "third" parties throughout history but the Republican and Democratic Parties have remained the leaders of the two party systems since 1854.
Realignment of the parties have occurred about every 30 years.  The first four were in 1828, 1860, 1896 and 1932 due to democratization of parties, slavery and the Great Depression.  The Vietnam War and urban unrest caused what may have been the most recent realignment of the parties but the Republicans have not been altogether successful in this attempt, partly due to the Watergate scandal.  We may be in the midst of another realignment at this time but it will take some time to tell if it is realignment or dealignment.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Diplomatic Immunity.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Diplomatic Immunity

INTRODUCTION

United Kingdom, 1982 

While unloading the ship which carried the embassy's materials, one box marked "household effects" dropped from a forklift. More than six hundred pounds of marijuana worth 500,000 British pounds (1982 prices) spilled dockside. 

For centuries governments have used ambassadors, and diplomats to represent their nation. These special envoys have done everything from resolving years of conflict, deciding on how much humanitarian relief will be sent to a nation, or just being present at diplomatic dinners and ceremonies. These people have been the vital link between nations, and they have enjoyed complete immunity from the law of the host nation. Originally this immunity was extended as a courtesy to allow for an uneventful stay in the host country. While in a foreign country on official business, the diplomat would be granted exemption from arrest or detention by local authorities; their actions not subject to civil or criminal law. For the longest time this privilege produced little or 
no incidents. However, this unique position of freedom that diplomats, their family, and staff have been graced with has not been so ideal. Recently the occurrences of abuse for personal or national 
gain has grown out of proportion. What once protected the diplomat and his staff from parking tickets and some differing social laws, now grants them protection under the law to commit crimes 
such as drug trafficking, kidnapping, rape, and murder. Even though serious crimes are rare and punishable to various extents in most countries, domestic authorities were forced to look the other 
way. While it would be convenient to believe that the six hundred pounds of marijuana was sent for personal consumption at the embassy, it is evident a small drug trafficking ring was being protected under the guise of diplomatic immunity. 

HISTORY/DESCRIPTION

The international community has tried to develop a universally accepted set of norms governing the conduct and privileges of diplomats abroad. These few Articles from the convention show the good faith of the convention: 

Article 29: Diplomats are inviolable; exempt from any arrest/detention. 

Article 31: Diplomats are exempt from criminal jurisdiction, they can be tried only if immunity is waived. 

Article 32: Only the sending country can waive immunity 

Article 41: Diplomats should still respect the laws and regulations of the host state. 

Baring few changes, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations remains the basis for interaction between states. This convention tackles the problem by dividing the privileges of immunity into four classes. The diplomat and his family enjoy "complete" immunity. They cannot be arrested, detained or taxed. They do not fall into the realm of jurisdiction of the host country. Further they cannot be asked to stand trial or submit to having their possessions searched. The 
diplomatic staff are granted these same rights while performing official diplomatic business. Private servants have only been granted immunity from taxation. The privilege of complete immunity allows 
for the use of the "diplomatic pouch". This not an actual pouch, rather it is the power to declare any belongings off limits. The crate being removed from the ship (above story) was considered diplomatic pouch. 

The introduction of the term "diplomatic pouch"; brings us to one of the major problems with the standards regarding conduct of diplomats. Originally the concept of diplomatic pouch was used to permit secrecy on official visits by foreign staff. This policy of ultimate secrecy becomes important when diplomats are venturing into unfriendly territory. Further, an explicit trust is granted to the diplomats to allow for free communication between the diplomat and their sending country. However this gracious offer of trust allows for easy abuse. A British foreign affairs committee declared, "The only way, in fact, to find out if diplomatic bags contain prohibited items would be to 
drop them while unloading them from the aircraft and hope that they would split open" ("First Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons," p. 617). 

Smuggling of drugs, weapons, and priceless artwork are all to common. In these cases, abuse of the diplomatic pouch is obvious, yet in some instances the sending country is also involved. Once a diplomat is accused of a crime in the host country the only means possible to bring the diplomat to justice is to have the sending country waive the diplomat's immunity. In most cases the sending country wishes to protect its reputation and ultimately the reputation of the diplomat, therefore refusing to give up immunity. 

The question of rescinding immunity brings up the second major aspect of this topic. When a crime is committed what options do the two countries have to solve the problem? The first option is to have the sending country waive the diplomat's immunity, allowing the diplomat to be punished for the crimes committed in accordance with the laws of the host nation. While this is a preferable solution, it is not very common as explained earlier. Another solution is to declare the diplomat in question "persona non grata" (unacceptable). This forces the sending nation to recall the diplomat or remove the diplomat from the post all together. The third solution is the complete severing of all diplomatic ties. The latter two solutions present many problems. Rejection of a diplomatic mission produces unwanted tension between nations and jeopardizes current progress. Many times the crime goes unpunished. 

Something must be said for the diplomats doing their job every day and making this world a little safer to live in. Most diplomats are courteous law abiding citizens of the sending country. Out of 
respect for the host country and to protect the integrity of the mission most diplomats follow the laws and social graces of the host nation. However the Vienna Convention allows for an incredible amount of personal liberties, which can be easily abused. 

There are a myriad of problems with diplomatic immunity. However all of the solutions fall into the category of international relations. When crimes of an individual are compared with interactions between two or more nation states, the alleged individual crimes become less important. 
Nonethess, it is the truth and reality therefore we must deal with it accordingly. There have been many explanations supporting the need of diplomatic immunity. The many ideas can be reduced to three ideas. The first dates back many centuries. The diplomat was considered an arm of the government represented. Thus an insult to the diplomat was an insult to the sending ruler. The second idea is one of extraterritoriality. In short the diplomat never officially leaves the sending country. Just as embassies are considered territories of the countries the represent, the diplomat would remain within jurisdiction of the sending country while in the host country. The third idea and the by far the most popular explanation is one of :functional necessity." The privilege of diplomatic immunity is argued to be necessary component of the diplomatic mission. Debate continues on the extent of this immunity, yet the agreement continues on the idea that nothing should impede the 
promotion of peace. However as of 1977, $5,000,000.00 in uncollected parking tickets are attributed to UN officials in New York City. 

Another example occurred in July of 1984. Customs officials in Rome were checking bags when they heard moans coming from one of the bags. The bag was marked "diplomatic bag" and belonged to the foreign minister in Cairo. When the bag was opened a drugged Israeli was found inside. The bag was evidently used often. It was lined in leather and had a chair fitted to the bottom. There was helmet for the persons head and various straps to contain the person properly. The Israeli was released and nothing was done. 

North Koreans were caught smuggling marijuana in Oslo, Helsinki, and Copenhagen in 1976. Earlier officials had been detected carrying 400 kilos of hashish into Cairo. In all of these occurrences nothing could be done because of diplomatic immunity. 

The abuses of immunity are becoming increasingly worse. While functional necessity is a valid argument, a solution to the problem is needed. 

CURRENT STATUS

The current status of diplomatic immunity has been constant since the original draft of the Vienna Convention in 1961. On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Vienna Convention, the Legal Committee of the General Assembly reported that they were satisfied with the convention as it stood (A/RES/41/79). In 1989 the Legal Committee decided to examine the courier and his status. Experts were brought in at the next session to informally discuss the individual clauses and answer questions. Again the final response was that everything was acceptable (A/RES/45/43). The closest the United Nations has come to re-examining the entire convention was in 1985, when a opinion was drafted explaining the technicalities. (A/CN.4/SER.A/1985/Add.1( Part 2)) The United Nations has recognized the problem, but there currently remains no solution. 

Solutions have been formally discussed yet no amicable resolution has been produced. Two ideas that have been discussed are based on the idea of insurance. The first theory proposes that a diplomat and the staff must buy an insurance policy. The second theory proposes a claims fund. 
Both theories allow countries to have a way to remunerate those who have suffered from criminal acts but it still does not insure the bringing to justice of the alleged perpatrator. 

The most popular idea is the creation of a permanent international diplomatic court. Ideally the alleged would be brought to answer for the crime in front of his peers. However a myriad of problems arise. First, you must be able to bring the accused to the court to answer for the crime. Second, you must form a jury composed of enough countries to prevent a bias. Third you must account for a drastic difference in the underlying fabric of each countries values. Fourth and probably the hardest problem to deal with is the maintenance of the infrastructure needed to support this international court. Or in short who is going to pay for it? The United States has tried to change the situation at home. In 1987 the Senate passed a resolution making it a felony for anyone with a diplomatic immunity to use a firearm to commit a felony, with the exception of self-defense. Nonetheless, a solution should be produced by the whole international community. 

COMMITTEE MISSION

Your mission is to solve some of the problems that diplomatic immunity has presented. As you know you must gather a majority to pass the resolution, so I will pass on a few tips and some questions you should consider. You must remember that sovereignty is basis for the United Nations. Therefore no resolution can violate the sovereignty of a nation. All resolutions should aspire to solve the problem and attempt to please all the parties directly and indirectly involved with the problem.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Disability in the Workplace.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 
DISABILITY IN THE WORKPLACE
 
	"The Americans With Disabilities Act is one of the most significant laws in
American History.  The preamble to the law states that it covers 43,000,000
Americans."(Frierson, p.3)  Before the Americans With Disabilities Act(A.D.A.)
was passed, employers were able to deny employment to a disabled worker, simply because he or she was disabled.  With no other reason other than the persons
physical disability were they turned away or released from a job.  The Americans With Disabilities Act prevented this type of discrimination by establishing rules and regulations designed to protect persons with physical disabilities.  With a workforce 
made up of 43,000,000 people, it is impossible to ignore the impact of
these people.  The Americans With Disabilities Act not only opened the door for
millions of Americans to get back  into the workplace, it is paving the road
for new facilities in the workplace, new training programs and creating
jobs designed for a disabled society.
	I believe the Americans With Disabilities Act is the most important precedent
set in the struggle against all discrimination for persons with disability.  In
this paper I will give a brief description of the statutes set by the Americans
With Disabilities Act, pertaining to disabilities in the workplace.  I will
then discuss what employers are required to do according to the A.D.A. and some
of the regulations they must abide by.  The next section of this paper will
discuss the actual training of employees with disabilities with a highlight on
training programs for workers with mobility and motion disabilities.  The
following section of this paper will discuss the economic effects of a
vocational rehabilitation program.  Finally this paper will conclude with a
brief discussion of what the measures set by the Americans With Disabilities
Act means to the actual workers and people it benefits.

The Americans With Disabilities Act
	The Americans With Disabilities Act has a section devoted to nothing but
practices by employers regarding the treatment of applicants and on staff
workers based on their physical condition or any health problems they may have.
 Some of the disabilities included are vision, hearing, motion, or mental
impairments.  "Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits
employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities
in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job
training and other terms and conditions of employment"(The Americans With
Disabilities Act).  According to the Americans With Disabilities Act, the only
way an employer can refuse to hire an employee based upon a disability is
if that persons disability imposes an undue hardship on the operation
of the employer's business.  Then the question arises, what is considered an
undue hardship?  The Americans With Disabilities Act states that an undue
hardship is any action that is considered to be in excessive cost to the
employer, or if the reforms are too extensive, substantial, disruptive to the
goings on of the company or anything that would substantially change the
operation of the business.
	In addition to this, the Americans With Disabilities Act provides some information on what employers cannot do.  For instance the A.D.A. states that
"employers may not ask job applicants about the existence, nature, or severity
of a disability"(The Americans With Disabilities Act).  This is a very
important step in that it cancels out any possible internal prejudice the
employer may have despite the regulations set by the A.D.A.  For example if the employer has a pre-concieved notion of what he or she believes a disabled person can do, this rule will protect the applicant from such prejudice.  Also, the employer
cannot require an applicant take a medical examination before a job is offered.
Furthermore, that a job can only be conditioned based on the results of a medical
exam if those conditions apply to all workers.  This aspect is important
because it places all the employees of that company on the same level right
form the beginning.
	These measures have been set not only to put persons with disabilities on level
ground with other applicants, it also protects thier rights as to the kind of
treatment they will recieve.  Because of this, more and more people with
disabilities are going out and applying for jobs.  With the added
assurance and comfort the A.D.A. provides, disabled workers can go out with
confidence and apply for almost any position.
	There is a certain classification set by A.D.A. on what constitutes a person
with a disability, that is if the person has a physical or mental disability
that substantially limits a major life activity.  Also, in order to be protected by the A.D.A. this person must have a long standing record of this disability and how it impairs his or her life.  Once this has been established and the person has been hired there are still other guidelines set by the A.D.A. on how the employer goes about bringing this person into the company.
	This can be a very sensitive area for employer, applicant and existing
employees.  Because of the fact that the person has a disability, undue assumptions made by all parties involved.  For instance, the new employee with the disabilitiy may assume that the existing employees will think that he or she needs help with many trivial things. Or the employer may tell the other workers to watch over this person for a while.  What should be happening is what ever happens when any other person comes in for a new job,
that is introductions, respect, and of course training.     The guidelines for introducing a disabled worker are manualized in a book entitled "Employers Guide to The Americans With Disabilities Act, Second Edition."
 
Requirements of the Employer
	Probably the most important aspect of hiring a person with a disability is to
determine if that person is qualified to perform the job that he or she is applying for.  There is a standard definition of what defines a qualified person, "...an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodations, can perform the essential function of the employment position that such individual holds or desires"(Frierson, p. 106).  This means that a worker is qualified to hold any job that he or she can perform without an excess of changes to the business itself, as stated by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
	There is one aspect of the hiring process that could be mistaken as discrimination, but is not.  That is the employer is free to hire the most qualified person for the job.  For example, if there are two applicants for a secretarial job, applicant A types 65 words per minute and applicant B, who happens to have a disability only types 50 words per minute, even if the slower typing rate is caused by the disability, the employer should hire applicant A because A is the most qualified for the job.  However, there are exceptions to every rule, and this is no different.  Each instance is case sensitive and must be handled accordingly.  If there were two applicants for a telephone operator, both are equally qualified but one has a hearing impairment which would require an amplifier placed on the headset.  This is not cause for choosing the applicant with no disabilities, for the
reason that a telephone amplifier only costs a few dollars and is not considered to be an excessive accommodation.
	In Frierson's book, "Employers Guide to The Americans With Disabilities Act",
There are five practical tips on hiring practices which will keep employers
from violating any laws on hiring practices as stated in the A.D.A.:
 	1.  In determining if a person with a disability can perform the job,
	     consider only essential tasks of the job.
	2.  Consider all reasonable accommodations.
	3.  After applying 1 and 2, treat job applicants with disabilities the same
	     as applicants without disabilities.
	4.  Hire the person who is most qualified.
	5.  Avoid blanket rules.  Look at each applicant as an individual.
       	     Decide if the individual is the most qualified to perform the
	     essential job tasks, after reasonable accommodations are considered.
 
These steps are very important not only to the disabled worker, but to the
person hiring the worker.  This protects the employee's right to choose whomever he deems to be the most qualified.  After everything is said and done and the employer selects the most qualified worker, and that worker happens to be disabled, there are some accommodations to the workplace that may have to take place.
 	Accommodations made for the disabled are essential to that person becoming a
successful team member of any organization, for the reason that it allows this
person to do things independently and without having to wait for assistance.
"The Americans With Disabilities Act requires employers to make:  reasonable
accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise
qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or an employee..."(Frierson, p.138).  There is a list of reasonable accommodations as stated by the A.D.A., such changes include making existing facilities accessible to those who have a disability.  Also acquisition or modification of existing equipment to accommodate all workers.  On the other hand, there are no set lists of examples that are considered to be in excess for an employer to provide, however there are some basic guidelines for them to follow when making this decision.  For example, the accommodations are too expensive for that
particular company to provide.  Also, the accommodation is seen to interfere
with the facility's ability to conduct business. An employer can be charged
with discrimination if that employer claims excess accommodation without researching all the possibilities.  An employer should never assume that accommodation is impossible, there is a service provided by the "President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, called the Job Accommodation Network(JAN).  JAN has literally tens of thousands of ideas and suggestions on successful changes that have been made to companies"(Frierson, p.165).  So now there is no excuse for employers to make about hiring a disabled worker, regardless of the situation.
	The first two steps in the addition of a disabled worker are in place, the
hiring and the accommodations.  Now there need to be programs in place in order
to effectively train these workers so they can be introduced into the workplace
and become successful.
 
Training of Employees (with motion disabilities)
	Among all the disabilities a person can face these days, whether it be vision,
hearing, physical or mental disabilities, there is one aspect of disability
that tops the list of concern.  That is a disability which impairs motion or
mobility of a worker.  "Whether it is moving from home to work, form one work
area to another, or traveling long distances, the ability to get there tops
everyone's list of concern"(Tracey, p. 175).  When a person has a disability that they never had before, and they find that they cannot get around the way they did before, it can be very traumatic to this individual.  For instance it can cause feelings of entrapment and loss of freedom.  However with the assistance of a wheelchair and a specially adapted vehicle, this person can regain that lost sense of freedom and begin to re-build some lost self-esteem. Because most jobs out there require some sort of physical or manual labor, a
person with a motion impairment of the arms, hands, legs or fingers can cause
some complications.  However with a little effort and possibly imagination of a
few people almost all of these obstacles can be overcome.
	There are numerous motion or mobility disabilities that an employer may have to
handle.  Some of them are people with amputations, arthritis, brain damage, or
spinal cord injuries.  Just because there are some individuals with these and
many other impairments, does not mean they should be denied the same
opportunities as any other person has in the workplace.  In most cases there
are some assistive technologies available for companies and employers to take
advantage of.  All of these are not considered to be an excess accommodation.
The most obvious of aids available to a disabled person returning to work is a
wheelchair or cane.  These provide freedom of movement and independence in and
out of the office.  Another very important, and relatively inexpensive modification are the installments of ramps and lifts.  If a worker has a disability which prevents him or her from climbing stairs, ramps or lifts are essential.  With all of the advancements in modern technology, even a quadriplegic can hold down a job.  There are actually innovative programs in place to integrate the use of these workers either in an office setting or in
their own home. As mentioned earlier, freedom of movement is important and without it a disabled person cannot even go out to apply for a job. 
	 This is where vehicle adaptations play a big role in the lives of Americas disabled citizens.  Help with making these adaptations to the vehicles of disabled workers can be sought through that persons company.  Also there are many vehicle manufacturers that
will re-imberse some of the expense put out by a company.
 
Personal Impacts made by The A.D.A. Regulations
	One of the most important characteristics, we as humans posses is that of
self-respect.  And in many cases of disability, individuals were not born with
any particular impairment.  Once a disability has taken hold a persons life it
can cause drastic changes in that persons self-concept, self-worth, and the way
that person views the world.  Before the Americans With Disabilities Act  established a foothold on ending discrimination against persons with disabilities, these valuable citizens could begin to crawl their way out of obscurity and into the light of a completely new world.  Regardless of whether or not the A.D.A. is around, disabled citizens are going to apply for positions.  They had been doing so for fifty years before the
A.D.A.  In that time, the numbers of workers with disabilities grew from a few,
to a few thousand, to a few million.  The change in trend is in direct correlation to the A.D.A. and the statutes set by it in the workplace.  First of all, Title I of The Americans With Disabilities Act, ends all discrimination against disables workers.  This gives an opportunity for some people who might have been to scared to apply, a chance to do otherwise and to do so on equal grounds.  It also relieved some of the stress that may have been felt by the employer because the guidelines are very clear and they are very easy to understand.
	Also when it comes to the actual job performed by the disabled worker, this
worker wants the opportunity to perform his or her job to the best possible
standards, just like any other worker.  This is where the importance of the
special training programs and associations that are designed to aid in this
aspect come into play.  Not only are the regulations helpful to the employer and the employee, but a creative person can provide a sense of accomplishment
and even help to create a bond of understanding around all who are involved.
For example,  the case of "a potato inspector who was required to core out bad
spots in potatoes.  Carpal tunnel syndrome drastically reduced his ability to
perform the task.  An adapted potato corer mounted on a table allowed him to
continue working at a cost of less than $33"(Frierson, p.161).  It is things
like this that allow persons with disabilities to function as a productive
member of society.  Or what is thought to be a productive member, in that this
person can be completely independent both in the home and in the workplace.
	Technology, persistence, and understanding makes it all happen.
Now go back and look at the person who had a disability take control of his or
her life.  That person is no longer, hiding in the shadows, he is out, proudly
contributing and living his life to the best of his ability.  Also this person
can support himself with a regular paycheck, not a government aid or the help
of family and friends.  This aspect in particular is of extreme importance to
many disabled Americans.  The ability to survive on their own, not having to be
dependent on someone or some group to provide food, clothing or shelter, isn't
that what we all want anyway?  That is why the Americans With Disabilities Act
is the most important precedent set in the struggle to end all discrimination against disabled people.  Although there will always be some discrimination and
prejudice against all groups in society, at least now one of those groups has
the opportunity to prove themselves in an unforgiving society.
 
 
 
 
 








WORKS CITED
 
 
	1.  The Americans With Disabilities Act Title I, 1994
 
	2.  Frierson, James G. EMPLOYERS GUIDE TO THE AMERICANS WITH 	  	     DISABILITIES ACT, SECOND EDITION, The Bureau of National Affairs, 		     Inc., 1995
 
	3.  Tracey, William R.  Training Employees with Diabilities,  American
	     Management Association,  1995


 



 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 















WORKS REFERENCED
 

	1.  The Americans With Disabilities Act Title I, 1994
 
	2.  Frierson, James G. EMPLOYERS GUIDE TO THE AMERICANS WITH 	   	     DISABILITIES ACT, SECOND EDITION, The Bureau of National Affairs, 		     Inc., 1995
 
	3.  Tracey, William R.  Training Employees with Diabilities,  American
	     Management Association,  1995
 
	4.  Conley, Robert W.  The Economics of Vocational Rehabilitation,  The Johns 		     Hopkins Press,  1965
 
	5.  Urbain, Cathleen  Supported Employement: A Step by Step Guide,
 	     PACER center  1992
 
 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Doublespeak.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is the home of a large, efficient, and
threatening
nuclear power plant, Three Mile Island.  Nuclear power plants have the
awesome
ability to create large amounts of power with very little fuel, yet they
carry the
frightening reality of a meltdown with very little warning. Suppose you
live in
Harrisburg and you here that the nearby nuclear plant had a partial
meltdown, how
would you react? When most people here the word meltdown, they
automatically think
radiation,  cancer, and death. Now suppose your living in Harrisburg and
you here the
nearby power plant experienced a "normal aberration", you would probably
react
differently.
	Even with the highly proven safety of nuclear power, there is
still fear from
citizens and the chance of an accident. The nuclear power industry uses
misleading
language, and words understood by nuclear employees only, or euphemisms
and jargon,
to mislead the public and make them believe that there is nothing to be
afraid of and
that there is no possibility of a major accident. They take the public's
biggest fears,
meltdowns and contaminations, and make them into "events" and
"infiltrations." This
use of doublespeak is misleading to the public and may make them believe
that a major
accident hasn't happened, or the accident was a normal event or minor
incident.
	In 1979 a valve in the Three Mile Island stuck open, allowing
coolant, an
important part of the plant, to escape from the reactor. An installed
emergency system
did its job and supplied the reactor with necessary coolant, but the
system was shot off
for a few hours due to employee error. Corrective action was eventually
taken, and only
a partial meltdown occurred. The plant's containment building was able to
hold most of
the radioactive products from entering the local environment. Only a
small amount of
activity escaped, that activity was carried by coolant water that had
overflowed into an
auxiliary building and then to the environment. Though the event didn't
pose any
extreme harm to citizens, this one billion dollar incident wasn't an
everyday event or
normal occurrence, as the industry's doublespeak makes you believe.
	In 1986 a similar but more serious event occurred in the USSR. A
nuclear
power plant at Chernobyl exploded and burned. The explosion was caused by
an
unauthorized testing of the reactor by its operators. Radiation spread
rapidly forcing
135,000 evacuations within a 1000 mile radius, and more then 30 immediate
deaths.
This event was more severe then an "energetic disassembly" with "rapid
oxidation", it
was a severe incidence.
	The nuclear power industry is opposed by many groups,
organizations, and
congregations. The industry recognizes the fears of people and they
realize the danger
of an accident. Instead of comforting and calming their fears with
straight facts, they
choose to deceive and mislead them with doublespeak. This may settle the
concerns of
the public, but it hides from them the possibility of danger, and the
reality of what a
meltdown can cause. This is dangerous for the citizens, and dishonest of
the industry. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCES.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
                                                                      1
                        "DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCES"



       My essay is on "Drinking and Driving Offences".  In my essay I will

tell you the various kinds of drinking and driving offences, the penalties,

and the defences you can make if you are caught drinking and driving.


       Let me tell you about the different offences.  There are six offences

in drinking and driving.  They are "driving while impaired", "Having care

and control of a vehicle while impaired", "Driving while exceeding 80 m.g.",

"Having care and control of a vehicle while exceeding 80 m.g.", "Refusing

to give a breath sample", and "refusing to submit to a roadside screen test.

These are all Criminal Code Offences.


       Now lets talk about the penalties of drinking and driving.  The 

sentence for "refusing to give a breath sample" is usually higher than  

either of the "exceeding 80 m.g." offences.  Consequently it is usually

easier in the long run for you to give a breath sample if asked.  If, for

example you are convicted of "Refusing ato give a breath sample" for the

first time, but was earlier convicted of "Driving while impaired", your

conviction for "Refusing" will count as a second conviction, not a first,

and will receive the stiffer penalty for second offences.  


       For the first offence here is the penalty and the defences you can

make.  Driving a vehicle while your ability to drive is impaired by alcohol

or drugs is one of the offences.  Evidence of your condition can be used

to convict you.  This can include evidence of your general conduct, speech, 

ability to walk a straight line or pick up objects.  The penalty of the 

first offences is a fine of $50.00 to $2000.00 and/or imprisonment of up

to six months, and automatic suspension of licence for 3 months.  The second

offence penalty is imprisonment for 14 days to 1 year and automatic suspen- 

sion of licence for 6 months.  The third offence penalty is imprisonment

                                                                        2


for 3 months to 2 years (or more) and automatic suspension of licence for

six months.  These penalties are the same for the following offences.


      "Having Care and Control of a Motor Vehicle while Impaired" is another

offence.  Having care and control of a vehicle does not require that you

be driving it.  Occupying the driver's seat, even if you did not have the 

keys, is sufficient.  Walking towards the car with the keys could be suffi- 

cient. Some defences are you were not impaired, or you did not have care and  

control because you were not in the driver's seat, did not have the keys,

etc.  It is not a defence that you registered below 80 m.g. on the breath- 

ayzer test.  Having care and control depends on all circumstances.  


        "Driving While Exceeding 80 m.g. is the next offence.  Driving a

vehicle, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion

of alcohol in your blood exceeds 80 miligrams of alcohol in 100 mililitres

of blood.  Some defences are the test was administered improperly, or

the breathalyzer machine was not functioning properly. 


        "Having Care and control of a Motor Vehicle while Exceeding 80 m.g."

is the next offence I will talk about.  This offence means having care and

control of a vehicle whether it is in motion or not, having consumed alcohol

in such a quantity that the proportion of alcohol in your blood exceeds 80

miligrams of alcohol in 100 mililitres of blood.  The defences are the test

was administered improperly, or the breathalyzer machine was not functioning

properly.  To defend against breathalyzer evidence you must understand how

the test should be administered.  The proper procedure for a breathalyzer

test is as follows.  Warming up the machine until the thermometer registers

50 degrees centigrade.  This should take at least 10 minutes.  The machine

should then be turned to zero (by using the "adjust zero control") and a

comparison ampoulel (of normal air) inserted. if the metre remains at zero,

the test can proceed.  An ampoule with a standard solution is then inserted.

                                                                        3


If the metre reads high or low by more than .02% on two successive tests,

the machine should not be used.  If the trial is valid, the machine should

be flushed with room air and the pointer set at start.  You will then be

asked to provide two breath samples, about fifteen minutes apart. Normally

they will take the result of the lowest result and use it as evidence  

against you.


        "Refusing to Give a Breath Sample" means refusing without a

reasonable excuse to give a sample or refusing without a reasonable excuse

to accompany a polic officer, when demanded by the police officer.  Before
 
demanding by the police officer, he must have reasonable and probable  

grounds to believe that you are committing or at any time in the preceeding

two hours have committed, one of the offences of driving or having care and

control of a vehicle while impaired or while having a blood alcohol level in

excess of 80 m.g.  You can refuse to give a breath sample until you have

communicated in private with your lawyer even if this takes you beyond the

two hour period, unless it is shown that your request for a lawyer was not

genuine and merely to delay the testing.  The test can be done after the two

hour period, but a technician must testify in court as to what your blood

alcohol would have been in the two hour period.  You cannot refuse to accom- 

pany the officer until you see your lawyer.  You can argue that the officer

didn't have reasonable and probable grounds to suspect you, but this however

depends on the circumstances.


        "Refusing to submit to a Roadside Screening Test" is the last  

offence.  When you commit this offence you are refusing without reasonable

excuse to give a breath sample for a roadside screening device, or refusing

without reasonable excuse to accompany a police officer for the purposes of

giving such a sample, when demanded by an officer.  Before the officer  

demands a breathalyzer he must reasonably suspect that you have alcohol in

your blood.                                                              
                                                                        4
     

        The maximum penalties for impaired driving causing bodily harm to  

someone is up to 10 years in prison and up to a 10 year prohabition from

driving.  The maximum penalties for impaired driving causing death is up

to 14 years and a 10 year prohabition from driving.  The maximum penalty

for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death is up to life in

prison and up to a lifetime prohabition from driving.


        I think that these penalties for all the drinking and driving   

offences are very appropriate, but I think impaired driving causing death

should be a lifetime imprisonment.  Also if a person is impaired and

causes bodily harm to some one they should have their licence suspended

from him for 20 years instead of 10 years.
                                BIBLIOGRAPHY



Highway Traffic Law, (Copyright January 1986: Community Legal Education
Ontario) p.17-32



Government Document, Canada Law Reform Commision Report on Investigative
Tests: Aclohol, Drugs, and Driving Offences (1983).



Erwin,Richard E. M.Bender ,Defence of Drunk Driving Cases, Criminal Civil 
(Albany 1986) p.79-81



Purich, Donald John, Drinking and Driving:What To Do If Your Caught
(International Self Counsel Pr. 1978) p.22-25



Verticle File at Hill Crest Library, Drinking and Driving-Offences ands
penalties:A Summary (1988) p.2



Verticle File at Hill Crest Liabrary, Criminal Code-Part 6 (1989), 
section 3, section 11.



Verticle File at Hill Crest Library, HighWay Trafic (1989), section 26 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Dual Executive.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
							
								10/10/96
				      
					  Dual Executive

	
	The idea of an elective head of state for the American chief executive, in its conception, was virtually without precedent. The idea of an American dual presidency, split between domestic and foreign arenas is itself without precedent. A dual presidency  would suit America well due to the pressures of the office of President of the United States. As Commander-in-Chief, the President bears incredible pressures and responsibilities. The President not only has power in the United States, but also tremendous influence throughout the world. It is not arrogant to change the presidency in order to manage America's vast interests all over the globe. The US is certainly not isolationistic anymore, so creating an office for a foreign affairs executive is simply realistic. Thus, the President is not only torn between domestic and foreign responsibilities, but s/he must find time to campaign. A dual presidency with a domestic and foreign leader could divide these campaigning duties. In addition, a dual presidency is better adapted to handle  simultaneous crises. A dual presidency is a modern day answer to the realities of the American  presidency.
	Essentially, the idea of a dual executive is rooted in the concept of a plural
executive. Back in the time of the writing of the Constitution, some anti-federalists wanted a weak executive. This weak executive was called a plural executive or an executive council. (Storing 49) The purpose of such a plural executive was not only to weaken the executive, but also to prevent a monarchy from ruling. In fact, an anti-federalist named Randolph  opposed an executive-of-one so much that he believed it to be the "foetus (fetus) of the monarchy."(Storing 93)  Yet today the threat of monarchy is laughable. 
	The proposed dual executive has no intentions of weakening that branch. Rather, a dual executive makes the branch more efficient, focused, and in touch.
	'Plural' is not a fitting term for the dual executive. This is because a plural executive implies several office holders, or a committee. The more people, the more chaos and disunity occurs. 
	In the 70th chapter of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made a case for an executive with a great deal of unity. If power was concentrated in a single  chief magistrate, then the branch would be more cohesive. Hamilton relied on the failures of plural executive in the history of Rome and Greece to make a case against executive councils.
	Some may argue that by dividing the executive office, it saps the energy and vigor required of the job. Inversely, it can be argued that the President has so much to do that his energy is weakened by simply being spread too thin. The latter is true since America is such an 
incredible world power. When Hamilton was writing against a plural executive, he never could have predicted America's role in the world.
	An example of what this dual executive is not, is Uruguay's multi-member presidency. From 1918 to 1933 the directly elected nine-member National Council of 
Administration shared executive power with the President. The Council took care of domestic affairs. Note that there is a divide between domestic and foreign duties.
	Such a presidency was intended to be more representative, but simply made the government more fragmented. Within time, Uruguay's multi-member presidency fell to a dictator because it was an ineffectual entity. There were simply too many members. That is why this dual presidency is composed of only two members of the same party who would run together, and rule together.  
	The proposed dual presidency is quite united. The job of the President has expanded, and so should the office. A dual presidency should be thought of as an extension of the single presidency.
	These two leaders would run together in elections under the same party. Both would have the same four year terms, with two term limits. The idea is that the presidency is still one entity. It is the same job as a single executive, but the responsibility is thinned out. Each bill, treaty, or appointment would be approved by both Presidents. Some bills, treaties, and 
appointments could affect both Presidents, which is why dual approval is necessary. Such 
precautions must be taken to maintain unity in the executive branch.
	Both the domestic and the executive President would choose a vice-president. Essentially four people would end up running under one party. Other than that, the presidential election process would remain the same.
	Meanwhile, the impeachment process should apply only to the individual offender. One President cannot help it if the other committed an impeachable offense. 
The other should not be punished for it. The vice-president for the person who was impeached would fill the office in that situation. After the vice-president, the succession process would remain the same.
	The foreign affairs President would be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces in actions abroad. Yet, the domestic President could use the armed forces on American soil for natural disaster relief, or whatever else it is used for today. In addition, the Presidents would also have the power to grant reprieves and pardons. Both actions are subject to dual approval.
	When disputes arise between the two Presidents, the issue would be formally put in writing. The issue could then be put before a two-thirds house vote for approval. The house would be the Presidential mediator. In the oath of office, the Presidents should be reminded that they are not supposed to be working against each other, but working together.
	Both Presidents would give a State of the Union address. The domestic address would be more of a summary of the state of the Union. Meanwhile the foreign address would be about the state of the Union in relation to the rest of the world.
	The foreign President would receive ambassadors and other public ministers. Meanwhile the domestic President would be to meet with state Governors, members
of Congress, and so forth. Any situations that fall in between those two categories should be addressed by both Presidents.
	One special power the domestic President would have would be that of nominating judges to the Supreme Court. The foreign President's approval would not be necessary. Thus, the final approval for the judges would be carried out the traditional way.
	The cabinet would be divided along presidential lines, and would be appointed by the corresponding President. The domestic President would need the Attorney-General , Postmaster-General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Labor. The foreign President would need the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce. Both would share the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, and other Secretaries as needed.
	One beneficial aspect of having a dual presidency is that it may take some of the media's scrutiny off the office. In other words, it may displace the blame. Yet, by breaking up the focus, the personality and charisma of a President would become less of an issue. It must be kept in mind that this is just speculation.
	In conclusion, turning the presidency into two halves of a whole would alleviate some of the vast responsibilities of being leader of the world's largest superpower. Hamilton was right that the executive needs unity. Yet unlike Hamilton's views, the presidency can be divided, and kept a harmonious body.
	
	

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Economnic terrorism.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE
ESSAY #1

	A small Mississauga electronics safety equipment company is broken
into. Although filing cabinets and desks were rummaged through, nothing
was seemingly taken. An officer discovered the company had drawn up a bid
for $7 million dollar contract a day or so before the break-in. The contract in
question was for a foreign country. It was later discovered that the company
in question was known for its aggressive economic espionage. An iron ore
shipping company was also broken into. At first it was thought that the target
had been the firms computers. But, nothing was taken, it was assumed that
the burglars had been scared off.  Within thirty minutes it was discovered that
the company was approaching its fiscal year end. staff eventually found that
most of the recent database backup tape was missing.  A Quebec based
company with the laser-based system for inspecting materials used in, among
other things, the stealth aircraft, had three computers stolen.  On their
harddrives were confidential codes for specialized software used by the
Canadian Armed forces. The above are all  true examples of  the modern
threat facing international business today known as industrial or economic
espionage.  The end of the cold and economic pressures have increased the
risk of economic espionage.  The collapse of the Soviet Union has left
unemployed KGB and other former communist bloc intelligence agents
selling everything from Russian night vision devices to completely assembled
and functional bugging devices. Even friendly western European
governments have been caught spying on private corporations based in the
U.S. and other countries, while industrial competitors sometimes hire private
companies to collect competitive intelligence from their corporate rivals(
Lester:96). What exactly is economic espionage?  how prevalent is it? Who
does it? How do they do it? and what can we do to stop it. These are the
questions that will be looked at  in the following pages. 
	First lets look at, what exactly is economic espionage. Espionage and
intelligence is no longer the exclusive domain of monarchs and governments,
it has become a must for modern international business.  Large corporations
around the world particularly in western Europe and Asia now hire agents to
gather intelligence on their competitors and other countries.  The goal of
economic espionage is to steal trade secrets, plans and confidential
procedures or anything to give your company or country a competitive edge
over another (Perry:1996).  The areas that interest industrial spies the most
include radiation transfer technology,  systems diagnostic and testing
software, traveling wave tubes,  aviation technologies,  microwave
monolithic integrated circuits,  inferred signature measures software, radar
technologies, wet processing systems,  information management and
processing,  simulation technologies, physical security technologies, ram-jet
engine and ram-jet technologies.(Special Security news letter:1995). 
Although this is not all of the areas that modern spies target, it will give you
an idea of the scope of the problem.  Peter Schweiser author of the book
"Friendly spies" speculates that for the most part, modern industrial spies are
motivated by pure greed of money. If we look back in history we can see that
the majority of the spies that were caught, were motivated by the money. 
John walker head of the notorious Walker spie ring, sold submarine secretes
to the Soviets for 17 years for one million dollars.  Larry Wu-Tai Chin and
analyst of  the CIA,  passed secrets to China and was paid $180,000 over a
three year period.  Richard Miller worked for the FBI and was to be paid 2
million dollars to pass counter-intelligence secrets to the Soviets, but he was
caught and was only paid one quarter of this amount. It is easy to see that
spying for friendly countries is a profitable business.
	Is economic espionage really as bad as it is made out to be?  Since
1985 economic espionage directed at American companies has increases 260
percent and the FBI's industrial espionage caseload has jumped to well over
five hundred investigations.  Espionage is costing American companies well
over a 100 billion dollars a year in lost sales infact some sources put the loss
at 260 billion.  In Canada that Number translates to 10 billion a year and
companies with overseas operations are estimated to lose 140 billion dollars
per year.  It is hard to get accurate numbers when it come to losses due to
espionage for the simple reason that companies don't want to admit to being
victims,  in fear of  undermining the confidence of their suppliers and
shareholders (Lester:1996).  The visible damage of economic espionage takes
the from of  Lost contracts, jobs and markets, and overall a diminished
competitive edge. 	The companies that are hurt the most are the ones that
earn under 11 million dollars annually. 
	How do industrial spies go about collecting information. It is a well
known fact that modern spies have used all of the collection methods used
during the cold war for collecting information on industrial competitors. 
Practitioners of  modern espionage seldom use one method by itself, but
combine them into concerted collection programs.  countries and corporations
have been known to turn legitimate transactions or business relationships
stealthy collection opportunities. Some of the methods of information
collection listed below are most often used for legitimate purposes. Including
them here is not to imply illegal activity, they are used to show as potential
elements of a broader, coordinated intelligence effort(Security
Online:1996:5). 
  	Classic agent recruitment is an intelligence collectors best source. This
method provides a trusted member inside a company or organization who the
collector cans task to provide classified information.  An information
collector's interest in recruiting personal is not limited to a high ranking
personal in a company or organization.  It is true that researchers, key
business managers, and corporate executives are a good target for industrial
spies, but support personal such as secretaries, computer operators,
technicians, and maintenance personal are also targeted.  The latter may
behave the best access to competitive information, and their low pay may
provide good ground for manipulation by intelligence agencies.(Security
On-line: issue 1) 
	Next spies use what is called us volunteers.  The people that have the
easiest access to companies information is the companies own employees. 
Employees who steal information from their companies exhibit the same
motivations as the typical spie or thief, illegal or excessive use of drugs or
alcohol, money problems, personal stress, and just plain greed.
	industrial spies will use ordinary surveillance and simple break and
enter to gain access to sensitive information.  Companies have reported break
and enters were only laptops and disks were stolen when items of much more
value were close by.  Some countries pursuade hotel operators to give their
spies access to visitors rooms and luggage.  during these break-ins known as
"bag ops" luggage is searched for sensitive information and any useful
documents are copied or simply stolen.(Security On-line: issue 1) 
	Specialized technical operations constitutes the largest part portion of 
economic espionage.  This type of collection includes computer intrusion,
telecommunications targeting and intercept, and private-sector encryption
weaknesses.  Corporate telecommunications especially international
telecommunications provide a highly vulnerable and lucrative source for
anyone interested in obtaining trade secrets or competitive measures because
they are so easily accessed and intercepted.  Due to the increased use these
links for computer transmission and electronic amil, intelligence collectors
find telecommunications interception cost-effective.  For example, foreign
intelligence collectors intercept facsimile transmissions through
government-owned telephone companies, and the stakes are large,
approximately half of all overseas transmissions are facsimiles.  innovative
hackers connected to computers containing competitive information evade
the controls and access companies information. In addition many American
companies have begun using electronic data interchange, a system of
transferring corporate bidding, invoice, and pricing data electronically
overseas. many foreign government and corporate information collectors find
this information invaluable.(Security On-line: issue 1)   
	Another tactic used in the world of corporate espionage is economic
misinformation.  Some governments use misinformation campaigns to scare
their domestic companies and potential clients away from dealing with US
companies.  The press and governments agencies often discuss foreign
economic and industrial intelligence activities, often in vague non-specific
terms.  The issue has been to paint foreign competitors or countries as
aggressive and untrustworthy, even if the accuser has no proof  of any
collection activity.  Some countries have widely publicized their efforts to set
up information security mechanisms to protect against their competitors
penetration attempts, and frequently the United States id mentioned as the
primary threat.(Security On-line: issue 1) 
	Tasking foreign students studying in the US and other countries. 
Some governments task their students studying in a different country to
aquire information on a variety of economic and technical subjects.  In some
cases the students are recruited before they start their studies, others are
approached after and are recruited or pressured based on loyalty, fear for
their countries government or intelligence service.  In some cases, at an
intelligence collectors request, foreign graduate students serve as assistance at
no cost to professors doing research in target areas.  These students then have
access to the professors research and learns the applications of the
technology.  As an alternative to compulsory military service one government
has an organized programs to send interns abroad, often with the specific
task of collecting foreign business and technological information.(Security
On-line: issue 1)   
 	As well as recruiting students studying abroad, information collectors
will task foreign employees of  North American firms and agencies.  The
information collector will recruit or task compatriot employee in A North
American firm to steal information.  Although similar to the clandestine
recruitment used by intelligence agencies, often no intelligence service is
involved, only a competitive company or non-intelligence government
agency. The collector then passes the information directly to a foreign firm or
the government for the use in it research and development activities.(Security
On-line: issue 1) 
	Debriefing of foreign visitors to North American countries is another
method collectors use.  Some countries actively debrief their citizens after
travel in North America, asking information acquired during their trips
abroad.  Sometimes this debriefings are heavy handed, with foreign scientists
describing them as offensive.  In some countries, they are simply and
accepted part of traveling abroad.(Security On-line: issue 1) 
	Recruitment of emigres, ethnic targeting is another way information is
collected.  Frequently, intelligence collectors find it effective to target persons
of their own ethic group.  Persons working for the Us military and research
and development who have access to classified technology.  Several countries
have found repatriation of emigre and foreign scientists to be the most
beneficial technology transfer methodology.  One country, in particular,
claims to have repatriated thousands of ethnic scientists back to their home
country from the United States.  Ethnic targeting includes attempts to recruit
and task naturalized US citizens and permanent resident aliens to assist in
acquiring secret information.  Frequently, foreign intelligence collectors
appeal to a persons patriotism and ethnic loyalty. Some countries collectors
resort to threatening family members that continue to reside in their home
country.(Security On-line: issue 1) 
	Information collectors will also use what is refereed to as elicitation
during international conferences and trade fairs.  Events such as international
conferences on high-tech topics, trade fairs, and air shows-attract many
foreign scientists and engineers, providing foreign intelligence collectors with
concentrated group of specialists on a certain topic.  Collector target these
individuals while they are abroad to gather any information the scientists or
engineers may posses.  Sometimes depending on the country and the specific
circumstances these elicitation efforts may be heavy handed.  Intelligence
collectors sometimes try to recruit scientists by inviting them on all expense
paid trips abroad for conferences or sabbaticals.  The individuals are treated
royally, and their advice sought on areas of interest.  When they return to
their country,  collectors recontact them and ask them to provide information
on their areas of research. (Security On-line: issue 1)  
	Commercial data bases, trade and  scientific journals, computer bulletin
boards, openly available US government data, corporate publications are
another source.  Many collectors take advantage of the vast amount of
competitive information that is legally and openly available in the United
States.  Open source information can provide personality profile data, data on
new research and development and planned products,  new manufacturing
technics, and competitor strengths and weaknesses. Most collectors use this
information for its own worth in their business competition.  However, some
use openly available information as leads to refine and focus their clandestine
collection and to identify individuals and organization that posses desired
information.(Security On-line: issue 1) 
  	Foreign government use of private-sector organizations, front
companies, and joint ventures is the next way collectors use to gather
intelligence.  Some foreign governments exploit existing non-government
affiliation organizations or create new ones-such as friendship societies,
international exchange organizations, import and export companies, and other
entities that have frequent contact with foreigners to gather intelligence and
to place intelligence collectors.  They conceal government involvement in
these organizations and present them as merly private entities in order to
cover their intelligence operations.  These organizations spot and assess
potential foreign intelligence recruits with whom they have contact.  Such
organizations also lobby US government officials to chanfe policies the
foreign governments consider unfavorable.(Security On-line: issue 1)
	Corporate mergers and acquisitions.  Several countries use corporate
mergers and acquisitions to aquire technology.  The vast majority of these
transactions are made for legitimate purposes.  Sometimes though they are
made to specifically to allow a foreign company to aquire North American
technology without spending their own resources on research and
development.  According a 1994 US government document entitled " Report 
on US critical technology Companies" 984 foreign mergers and acquisitions
of US critical technology companies occurred between January 1st 1985 and
October 1st 1993.  All but a handful of these mergers and acquisitions were
friendly, and four countries accounted for 68 percent of them.  Of the total 60
percent of them involved US companies involved in advanced materials,
computers including software, peripherals, biotechnology, areas relative US
professional and scientific instrumentation, communications equipment,
advanced manufacturing, and aircraft and spare parts. (Security On-line:
issue 1)  
	The next way information is collected is refered to as headhunting or
hiring competitors employees.  Foreign companies typically hire
knowledgeable employees of competing US firms to do corresponding work
for the foreign firm.  At times, they do this specifically to gain inside
technical information from the employee and use it against the competing US
firms.(Security On-line: issue 1) 
 	Corporate technology agreements is another way information collectors
assemble technological information.  Some foreign companies use potential
technology sharing agreements as condiuts for receiving propriety
information.  In such instances, foreign companies demand that, in order to
negotiate an agreement, the North American company must divulge large
amounts of information about its processes and products, sometime much
more than is justified by the project be negotiated.  Often the information
requested is highly sensitive.  In some of these cases, the foreign company
either terminates the deal after receipt of the information or refuses to
negotiate further if denied the information.(Security On-line: issue 1)
	Foreign companies will often use the favorable research climate in
North America.  Foreign countries will sponsor research activities at the
North American university and research centers.  Generally everyone benefits
from the finished research.  At times, however, foreign governments or
companies use the opportunity as a one sided attempt only to collect research
results and proprietary information at the North American facility.  Foreign
intelligence services also use these efforts to insert intelligence officers who
act solely as information collectors. (Security On-line: issue 1)  
	Hiring information brokers, consultants. Information brokers scour the
world for valuable information.  What they can not obtain legally or by guile
some information brokers will purchase.  The broker then verifies the data,
puts it into a usable and easily accessible format, and delivers it to interested
clients.  The following example, that was printed in the Asian Wall Street
Journal in 1991 and illustrates this type of activity.  The ad was followed by a
phone number in western Europe. 
	" Do you have advanced/privileged information on any type of
	project/contract that is going to be carried out in your country?  
	We hold commission/agency agreements with many large
	European companies and could introduce them to  "your"
	project/contract.  Any commission received would be shared with
	yourselves."
	 Some countries frequently hire well connected consultants to write
reports on topics of interest and to lobby North American government
officials on the countries behalf. Often, the consultants are often high ranking
US government officials who maintain contacts with their former colleagues. 
They exploit these connections and contract relationships to acquire protected
information and gain access to other high level officials who are currently
holding positions of authority through whom they attempt to further aquire
protected information.(Security On-line: issue 1) 
	Fulfillment of classified US government contracts and exploitation of
department of defense sponsored technology sharing agreements.  At times,
classified government contracts are awarded to companies that are partially or
substantially controlled by foreign governments.  Although the US
governments security agencies closely monitor these contracts, they still
provide foreign governments with unauthorized access to information. 
Traditional allies of the US are most likely to use this method, since
non-allies seldom are included in such contracts.(Security On-line: issue 1)
	The last method of information collection we will look at tasking
liaison officers at government to government projects.  During joint research
and development activities, foreign governments routinely request to have
on-site liaison officers to monitor progress and provide guidance.  Several
allied countries have taken advantage of these positions as cover for
intelligence officers assigned with collecting as much information about the
facility as possible.  Using their close access to their US counterparts 
conducting  joint research and development, particularly in the defense arena,
liaison officers have been caught removing documents clearly marked as
restricted or classified. (Security On-line: issue 1) 
	Now that we have looked at how foreign countries and companies go
about collecting information from North American companies.  The FBI
investigations reflect that 23 countries are currently engaged in espionage
against North American countries.  France is one of the countries that we will
look at.  
	The French currently commit 200 full-time agents world wide. These
agents are known as the " General de la Securite Exterieure" and concentrate
on the soft business targets.   The other full-time group in the French
intelligence service is the "Service 7". This group of spies is also known as
the action unit.  They carry out all of the operations that require a deft
hand,IE break-ins, buggings and covert operations.  These full-time agents
are only part of the story, France also has part-time information collectors
called "Honorary correspondents".  This group of people includes a large
number of corporate officials living overseas.  Some of these people work for
money, but others see it as part of their jobs.  An example of this type of
information collectors a man by the name of Pierre Marion.  Pierre was a Air
France representative who lived in Japan.  His job was to collect information
about Japanese social circles particularly as it related to Japanese political
officials.
	For its size no other country in the world has the intelligence capability
of South Korea.  The Korean intelligence service is called the "National
Security Planning Agency" and is active around the world providing a variety
of intelligence and espionage services to Korean interests. South Korean
agents operate in North Korea, China and the Soviet Union, but the United
States and Japan is were they are most active.  US intelligence sources have
bee heard to say that the NSP is more effective than Israelis Mossad.  The
NSP has a technically proficient agents, enormous financial resources, and a
well-organized group of informers.  An example of an operation the South
Koreans carry out is called " Operation Laughing Bird".  This operation was
conducted in Japan and was designed to gather technological information to
support South Korean industry.  It was put into action in 1981.  It included
more than 200 agent.  These agents engaged in electronic eavesdropping, the
planting of moles and agents, the use of organized crime syndicates in Japan
and the recruitment of Japanese and American workers to act as agents.
	Israel is the next country that we will look at.  The Israeli economic
espionage collection agency is called the " LAKAM", and is one of Israel's
most effective intelligence organizations> LAKAM is an Hebrew acronym
for Israeli Defense Minuister's Scientific Liaison Bureau.  Its agents operate
in United States, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Switzerland,
and Sweden.  LAKAM's biggest operation is in the US.  Their agents operate
out of the Israeli ambassy in Washington  as well as two other shops, in Los
Angeles and the other in New York.  Theri operations in these cities are
believed to include thirty five full-time agents with a several dozen informers. 
companies that benefit the most in Israel include aerospace, chemical
producers, and electronics firms.  In addition to regular agents the Israelis use
dee cover agents posing as business people and scientists traveling to the
United States.  Most of the time the agents are in direct contact with the
Prime Minister through the telephone and telex, but if it is something that is
extremely sensitive diplomatic pouches are used to transport it.
	Next lets turn our attention toward Germany.  Germany's intelligence
service is called the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND).  Since the 1960's the
Germans have been actively involved in spying on the US, France, Great
Britain, and Italy.  The BND regularly monitor telecommunications of
foreign corporations bases in Germany.  he BND is very active in the US. 
German agents have cultivated mole or spies in Us high-tech firms.  The
BND is gathering extensive information in the fields of economy, technology
and industry.  
	These United States is not completely innocent in the world of
espionage.  Now that the cold war is over the CIA officials have latched onto
the idea of collecting economic data to justify the inflated budget of the
agency.  Dozens of US corporations from fortune 500 companies to small,
high tech firms, are secretly assisting the CIA, allowing the agency to place
full-time officers from its operations division into corporate offices abroad. 
Serving under what is refereed as "nonofficial cover" (NOC), CIA officers
pose as American businessmen in friendly countries, from Asia to Central
America to Western Europe.  Once there, they recruit agents from the ranks
of foreign officials and business leaders, pilfer secrets, and even conduct
speacial operations and parliamentary activity  (Dreyfus:95:1).  Proof that the
United States is engaged in  this type of  espionage  happened in 1995 when
the French government demanded that four business officials leave the
country because they were allegedly caught gathering French economic and
political secrets. Three businessmen were posing as American diplomats and
the fourth was operating under a business cover( Time: March 6:1995).
	As stated above Espionage is not the exclusive domain of governments
anymore. Some corporations have intelligence organizations that rival that of
a small country.  other companies that do not have intelligence organization
of their own retain or hire private investigators when espionage is required.
An example of the use of company spies happened in July 1989. A du pont
chemical plant was the site of an well planned espionage scheme.  Visitors
from a German chemical company were visiting the plant.  One of the
visitors, while looking over a table accidentally dip the tip of his tie into a vat
of chemicals.  Company officials at first were very apologetic and offered to
replace the tie.  The visitor insisted o keeping the tie because it was from his
family. Only after an experienced company security official protested to
company leaders that the accident was probably a scheme to obtain a
chemical sample did the company insist on keeping the
tie(Scheizer:1993:253).
	Lastly we will look at some of the ways that companies can protect
themselves against economic espionage. The following was taken from a
paper written by Kevin d. Murray A certified protection professional called
"10 Spy-Busting Secrets".
	According to Murray,  espionage is preventable if you know the
vulnerabilities, you can take the proper precautions.  Murray presents a list of
the top ten ways to fight back against economic espionage.
	The first thing Murray examines is what is called trash trawling. this is
simply digging through garbage.  This activity is legal.  The simple
counter-espionage tactic for this is to reduce that availability of what he
refers to as puzzle parts.  companies must encourage destruction of waste
paper by purchasing shredders appropriate to the needs of the company, Use
crosscut destruction for high level security,  computer paperwork and large
volume waste require a central bulk shredder.  do not leave confidential
papers in a box under desks for later shredding shred it now,  Do not entrust
wastepaper destruction to paper recycling vendors destroy it before recycling. 
The big shredder purchasing mistake is buying just one shredder for everyone
to use.  Some people are to busy to be bothered.   Murray recommends the
use of several convenient desk-side shredders.  
	Bugs and wire tapping is the next area examined by Murray. 
Electronic spying is the most devastating spy trick there is.  A common
mistake is saying"Oh I'm just being paranoid" when you suspect electronic
surveillance.  Murray recommends not discussing your suspicions with others
unless they have a real need to know,  do not discuss your suspicions in the
suspect areas,  don't attempt a do-it yourself solution,  don't waste money
buying spybuster toys, seek professional guidance without delay.  Contrary to
what is seen on television and in catalogs, detection of bugs and wiretaps is
equipment and knowledge intensive work.  Expect a professional sweep team
to have about $100,000 dollars invested in their equipment as well as an
extensive background in security, investigations, telecommunications and
electronics. These types of professionals will not  be found in the yellow
pages, you must contact a corporate security professional for a
recommendation.
	The drop by spies is the next area of interest.  Check and photocopy
credentials and work orders of anyone performing technical work in or
around your offices.  Verify the work was actually requested and most of all
necessary.  This included telecommunications technicians, office equipment
repair persons, paper recycles, cleaning crews, electricians etc. Have
someone that represents the interests of your company accompany these
individuals while on your property.  Outsider contractors and unauthorized
company employees should never br allowed to roam free unescorted.  One
professional snoop brags openly that any building can be entered at any ti 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Economy of China.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
China between the fall of the KMT and Mao Tse-Tung's death

        The time from 1949-1976 was a time of transition for China.  Many social and
economic changes occurred through this period.  When the Kuomintang government
collapsed and Mao Tse-Tung assumed control, this marked the beginning of massive
reformation for what would become the People's Republic.
        With Mao Tse-Tung's rule came governmental reform which led to social
betterment.  His first years of rule included careful development and reorganization
backed by Soviet support.  The landlord class was wiped out with the nationwide land
reform and the land was divided among the peasantry.  Equality prevailed for women and
attacks where made on official corruption.  Efforts were made to improve sanitation and
literacy among the people.  These changes generated patriotism during China's
involvement in the Korean War.
        While social reforms proved to be beneficial to China, attempts for  industrial and
agricultural growth were not as successful.  From 1953-57 industrial production was
expanded and agriculture was collectivized.  But disappointing agricultural production
led to the frenzied Great Leap Forward of 1958-60.  This program, initiated by Mao, was
designed to step up industrial production to a level with Britain and create a truly
communal society without Russia's aid; all in the course of 15 years.  The project was a
failure and Liu Shao-Ch'i temporarily took over Mao's position as head of state.
        When differences between party leaders arose, and Mao Tse-Tung began feeling
that the revolution was exhausted, he launched the Cultural Revolution of 1966-69.  This
was intended to stir up the conservative government/military and add more revolutionary
elements, ridding the nation of  the 'four olds':  old ideas, old culture, old customs, and
old habits.  These revolutions often turned into violent acts.  When stability was restored,
foreign relations was vastly improved.  The People's Republic of China was admitted into
the United Nations in 1971.
        The time period between the fall of the KMT and Mao Tse-Tung's death was an
era of revolutionary transition into a nation for the people.  At one point nearly leading
into a civil war.  The key developments that occurred during this span were greatly
significant in shaping China into what it is today.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Effects of Youth Violence.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
									

EFFECTS OF YOUTH CRIME
 

	A kid walks down the crowded hallway at school.  He is late to his class so he is going as fast as he can.  In his hurry, he accidentally bumps into another kid.  The other kid backs off and starts yelling at the first one.  He asks why he  bumped into him, and was he trying to start something?  The first kid hastily apologizes as he turns and starts to race down the hall toward his third period class.  The second kid takes this the wrong way and pulls out a handgun, the crowd around him quickly disperses as they see the gun.  He aims his gun at the first kid and says take this you punk!  He quickly pulls the trigger several times, the bullets tearing through the first's body.  He falls to the ground, dead.  Things like this happen every day.  Kids hurting other kids, it's not something that should be happening.  Because of things like this, there are many rules and regulations at schools and other places that there wasn't before.  Youth violence happens every day and it is tearing society apart.
	A lot of crimes now days are committed by kids, people under the age of 21.  They do all sorts of crime, they murder one another, they steal things, they paint graffiti on the wall.  Crime is worse than it ever has been.  It used to be the mob that people were scared of, now it's the gangs.  If you cross a member of a gang, you can bet that his friends will get you back for him.  Gang wars are especially dangerous, it starts with just two people, one from one gang and one from another gang.  One of them does something to the other, like stab him, and then the victim's friends will get the attacker.  It continues to escalate until it is all out war.  Stopping gang wars is just one small step to stopping youth violence.
	Gangs are not the only youth's who commit crime.  There are tons of kids who steal from stores, do and sell drugs, vandalize buildings and a lot of other things as well.  These kids are just as large of a problem as the gang members are.  Some kids think that stealing a candy bar here, a pair of jeans there, is totally harmless.  They think that they aren't stealing that much, so it doesn't really matter.  Or some kids think that they are beautifying the city by painting on the sides of buildings.  Both are wrong, what they are doing is a crime.  They shouldn't be doing it, and have got to stop.  A lot of kids complain that they have no freedom, or that there are to many rules and restrictions at school or in society.  The reason that there are so many rules and restrictions is because of all the youth crime there is.  If kids would learn to stop stealing, doing drugs, being in gangs and all of the other crimes they do, a lot of the rules and restrictions would be lifted and they would have more freedom.
	At school, kids are not allowed to wear hats or bandannas.  They cannot wear these because they are "gang" related.  Many gangs have formed, most have their own special colors, almost like school colors.  They were their gang colors with pride as school kids wear their school colors with pride.  When one group of kids from one gang, sees another group of kids from another gang, fighting can occur.  Sometimes the fighting can lead to more serious stuff like stabbings, shootings, and murders.  Because of youth violence, there are many restrictions at school.
	A kid walks down the crowded hallway at school.  He is late to his class so he is going as fast as he can.  In his hurry, he accidentally bumps into another kid.  The second kid backs off and says that he is sorry.  The first one apologizes in turn and they both turn away from each other without another word.  What could have been a disaster was diverted, with a little common courtesy a conflict was resolved.  This is how it could be, should be.  Everyone should treat each other with respect.  Gangs have got to stop, and kids have to stop committing crimes, no matter how insignificant they might think they are.  Only when this has happened will youth violence stop.
	 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Election.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


1. The reason why elections are less democratic is because some people say that money is taking away from our well known democracy, but in other instances we have the greatest democracy compared to other countries of our vast magnitude.

2. Throughout the nineteenth century campaigns were ran and geared toward the party.  Instead of voting for a person you were voting for an individual party either federalist or  democratic-republican. Today, in the twentieth century, we vote for the candidate and their true character or what they have to offer us.  To run a successful campaign now-a-days you need money, a good pollster, well organized debate, direct mail, and positive publicity. 

3. "Money is the mother's milk of politics" if you don't have you aren't going to go any where.  Campaign money is received part from federal and part from private donors in a presidential election, but congressional elections are all private donors.  Most of the money for a congressional leader comes from individual donors, but they also have political action committees (interest groups) that raise money for their campaign.  Presidential candidates also raise money from individual donors because the federal government will match them dollar for dollar.  Reform has been successful in the fact that it minimizes some fat cat buying his or her own pet politician, but it also takes away from the parties, provides an advantage to wealthy challengers, gives advantages to candidates with high ideological appeal, penalizes those who start late in the campaign, and helps incumbents and hurts challengers.

4. The Democratic Party has more registered voters so logically the democrats should win.  The reasons why they don't always win is because those who are democrats are not firmly stuck with their party like republicans are, republicans also do better with the independent voters, and more republicans actually come out and vote than democrats.
5. Realigning elections are also known as critical elections.  It happens when a major party suffers such a defeat (because of a major issue that comes about and separates the party) that it disappears or it is the shifting of voters between major parties.  There has been three major realigning elections:  1860, 1896, and 1932.  In 1860 it was the slavery issue, in 1896 it dealt with economic issues, and in 1932 it occurred because of an economic depression.  Some people say we are getting ready to have one because of the effects of the New Deal, but others say it won't happen again because party labels have lost their meaning.

6. For any given party to win an election you must retain your old voters, but always gain new ones.  The people usually  targeted are young voters coming of age, immigrants becoming citizens, and blacks that are now eligible to vote.

7. Policy is rarely effected by an election in our government compared to other countries such as Britain.  The reason why is that there are so many offices to be filled that it is to hard for everyone to be united under one policy.  In 1860 a party came to power that was opposed to slavery, in 1980 a party came to power that reversed the direction of policy in the last half-century, and party platforms either pass laws through the House of Reps. or in the Senate.  
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Essay on Judicial Choices.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Judicial Choices

	Supreme Court conformations, much like everything else in politics 
and life, changed over the years.  Conformations grew from insignificant and
routine appointments to vital  and painstakingly prolonged trials, because of 
the changes in the political parties and institutions.  The parties found the 
Supreme Court to be a tool for increasing their power, which caused an 
increased interest in conformations.  The change in the Senate to less 
hierarchical institution played part to the strategy of nomination for the 
president.  The court played the role of power for the parties, through its 
liberal or conservative decisions.  In Judicial Choices, Mark Silverstein 
explains the changes in the conformations by examining the changes in the 
Democratic party, Republican party, Senate, and the power of the judiciary.

	Conformations affected political parties a great deal because they 
created new constituency and showed a dominance of power.  The lose of the 
Democratic party's hegemony  caused it to find new methods of furthering its 
agenda. Prior to the 1960s, the Democratic party maintained control of the 
electorate with an overwhelming percentage.1  The New Deal produced interest 
from a "mass constituency" for the Democratic party because of the social 
programs.  Many white southern democrats became republicans because of the 
increased number of blacks in the Democratic party.  Many white union members 
and Catholics also left the party because they no longer thought of 
themselves as the working middle class.  "The disorder in the party produced 
among other things a new attention to the staffing of the federal 
judiciary."2  Because of the lose in constituency, the Democratic party no 
longer had control of the presidency so it needed to find other means to 
further its agenda.  The supreme court was that other method as displayed by 
the Warren Court after deciding liberal opinions like Roe v. Wade.  The 
conformations of judges became essential in this aspect to the Democrats in 
order to keep liberals on the court. 

	The Republican party wanted to gain the New Right as part of its 
constituency.  The New Right had very conservative views and it was against 
the liberal agenda of the Warren Court.  Nixon campaigned against the court 
not his opponent for the presidency to gain the New Right.  Nixon said he 
would change the court by nominating conservative judges who would "balance" 
the courts.  Nixon nominated conservative judges to the court like Burger who 
was easily accepted to the court.  His second and third nominations were 
fought and rejected by Congress partly because of their strong conservative 
views.  By the time of the Reagan-Bush era, nominees needed to have some 
quality to counteract the fact that they were conservative to receive a 
conformation for the liberal Congress.  Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day 
O'Connor, a woman, and George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a black man, to 
ease liberal apposition.  No longer does the president think who is the best 
person to be on the court when determining a nomination.  It is a combination 
of political strategies to gain a partisan member to the court and to deter 
opposition.

	The Senate became less hierarchical making Supreme Court 
conformations unpredictable and difficult.  The Senate of the pre-1960s  had 
a strict set of unwritten rules and pathways to power.  The Senate conformed 
to a single mold where everyone spoke well of the other senators, no one 
brought attention to him or herself at a national level,  everyone 
specialized in one field, and new senators were like children, who would not 
speak or be heard.  In 1948, Hubert Humphrey did not maintain these standards 
when he was elected into the Senate and he was shunned by most senators.  By 
the 1960's, the Senate began to transform into an open forum of debate 
between all senators.  Senators became generalized with knowledge in many 
fields, and national recognition was sought after.  This change made it very 
difficult to for presidents when nominating a justice because, in the old 
Senate, the president only needed the vote of the powerful senators, 
"whales," and everyone else would follow their example.  Now, the senate is 
made up of a diverse group who do not seek conformity so "whales" are no 
longer the key to a conformation.  This change was displayed when Lyndon B. 
Johnson nominated Abe Fortas as chief justice.  In 1968, Johnson got the 
"whales" of the Senate to support Fortas.  The scenario of a changing senate 
and rebellious "minnow" prevented Fortas from being chief justice.

	The power of the judiciary went through a tremendous transformation 
from nonexistent to overwhelming.  In the 1800s, the Supreme court had no 
active role in government until Marbury v Madison.   This case set the 
precedent of giving the Supreme Court the power to declare acts void through 
constitutional interpretation.  In the twentieth century, the court has not 
changed in terms of its power of deciding cases.  It has on the other hand 
changed in terms of who is represented on the court, liberals or 
conservatives.  Representation plays a key role in the conformations of 
justices and the change in difficulty of the conformations.

	The parties seek power through Supreme Court conformations.  
"Political power in the United States is a function of constituency."3  
Democrats had an immensely large constituency.  When it decreased to a less 
substantial size,  Democrats used the Supreme Court to pursue their agenda as 
a means of a show of power instead of a "mass constituency."  Republicans 
used the Supreme Court for power by increasing its constituency through 
political campaigns against liberal a Supreme Court.  This battle over power 
and the new unpredictable  Senate caused Supreme Court conformations to be 
vital, strategic, and difficult.

Footnotes
1 Mark Silverstein, Judicious Choices, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1994), p. 76.
2 Ibid., p. 87.
3 Ibid., p. 34.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Euthanasia The Right to Die.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


Euthanasia: The Right to Die











College Writing

11/8/93



Euthanasia: The Right to Die

Thesis: Euthanasia should be legalized so, if we ever have a 
	   loved one that is suffering and death is certain, 	
	   that we have the choice to ease their pain if they 	
	   want.

	I.   Introduction
		
		A. Examples showing why euthanasia is                 
		   receiving national attention.

		B. A summary of reasons offered by those opposed
		   to euthanasia is given.

		C. A summary of reasons offered by those in favor
		   of euthanasia is given.

		D. Transition into my argument.

	II.  Body

		A. A person has the right to die with dignity.

		B. Everything should not be done to prolong life
		   if the patient does not want it.

		C. Doctors are not always responsible to do 		  
		   everything they can to save somebody.

		D. Refute the argument that euthanasia is 	
		   unethical.

	III. Conclusion

		A. Thoughts on freedom people have.

		B. A quote to end with.	

"A dying man needs to die, as a sleepy man needs to
sleep, and there comes a time when it is wrong, as well
as useless to resist."
			-Steward Alsop, Stay of Execution


	Euthanasia has become an issue of increasing attention
because of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicides.  As of
October 21 Kevorkian has assisted in nineteen suicides. 
Because of the increasing number of suicides in Michigan,
Gov. Engler signed an anti-suicide law in late February that
made doctor-assisted suicides a felony.  During the 21-month
trial period of the new law anyone assisting in a suicide
can be sentenced to up to four years in prison and fined
more than $2,000 (Reuters, 1993).
	With the passing of this law I thought that most people
would be against the right-to-die, not so. In a poll cited
in a 1991 issue of USA Today eighty percent of Americans
think sometimes there are circumstances when a patient
should be allowed to die, compared to only fifteen percent
think doctors and nurses should always do everything
possible to save a person's life.  It also showed that eight
in ten adults approve of state laws that allow medical care
for the terminally ill to be removed or withheld, if that is
what the patient "wishes", whereas only thirteen percent
disapproved of the laws. Also seventy percent think the
family should be allowed to make the decision about
treatment on behalf of the patient, while another five
percent think this is suitable only in some cases (Colasnto,
1991, p. 62).
	The results on mercy killing surprised me even more. 
Seventy percent think it is justified at least sometimes for
a person to kill his or her spouse, if he or she is
suffering terrible pain caused by a terminal illness.  Even
suicide is starting to be accepted.  About half the public
think a "moral right" to suicide exists if a person has an
incurable disease or is suffering great pain with no hope of
recovering(Colasnto, 1991, p. 63).
	About half of those with living parents think their
mothers and fathers would want medical treatment stopped if
they were suffering a great deal of pain in a terminal
disease or if they became totally dependant on a family
member, and forty percent of their parents would want
medical treatment stopped if daily activities became a
burden(Colasnto,1991, p. 63).
	With the continuous coverage of Dr. Kevorkian the views
of people will continue to change.  Euthanasia will continue
to become more of an issue.
 	As with any issue, each viewpoint is supported by many
reasons.  Those who oppose euthanasia argue that the medical
profession must always be on the side of "preserving life"
(Schofield, 1988, p. 24).  Another reason is euthanasia will
lead to the "devaluation of life" (Low, 1989, p. 37).  Also
they think it will force doctors and family members to
"judge the value of a patient's life".  Critics also say
that acceptance will spread from the terminally ill to the
less serious ill, the handicapped, or the mentally retarded.
(Russ, 1989, p. 117)
	One reason that just about everyone who favors
euthanasia agrees with is that a person has the right to a
death with dignity.  Another reason is a person should be
allowed a "natural death" instead of a prolonged death with
medical equipment(Battin, 1985, p. 19). Still another reason
is that doctors are supposed to ease the pain of people not
prolong it (Battin, 1989, p. 19).
	Death is one of the few things that all people have in
common.  This means that there is a chance for anyone to
face the decision of letting someone go.  Euthanasia should
be legalized so people will only have to think about the
difficult decision of the present and not about the
consequences of the future.
	One of the base reasons people for euthanasia give is,
a person has the right to die with dignity.  People should
be allowed to control their own deaths.  Why should a
patient be forced to live if they think their present
standard of life has "degenerated to the point of
meaningless", when doctors can no longer help, and perhaps
the pain has become unbearable?  At this point, if the
person is of sound mind, they should have the choice to
continue on or to peacefully die, even if they need
assistance in doing so(Larue, 1988, p. 153).  
	If the person is not able to make this decision there
should be a few options, a living will, the family's choice,
and the doctor's choice.  A living will should be allowed to
control the outcome if the person is unable to.  If there is
no living will the family, consulting with a qualified
physician, should be allowed to decide for the patient.  The
one situation that is most controversial is a patient with
no family or no family member qualified to make the
decision.  Some think the doctor should be able to make the
decision for the patient.
	I believe that the doctor should be allowed to decide
if the patient has reached the point of only getting worse
and in considerable pain.  In any of these situations a
doctor should be at least an advisor, they are the ones with
the medical knowledge, and know the present condition of the
patient and the alternatives.  "In any humane or humanistic
view of what is good, it is morally wrong to compel
hopelessly suffering or irreversible debilitated patients to
stay alive when death is freely elected" (Larue, 1988, p.
151).
	In some cases, like terminal illness, "death is often
better than dyeing", mainly due to the way that the person
will die. They may have to go thorough a long period of pain
and suffering. Ask yourself which you would choose, early or
prolonged death (Larue, 1988, p. 153).  Even if you do not
think that you would end your life or another's life should
personal views decide that it is not the right thing for
another to do.  Does any person have the right to control
the choices of others?
	Another argument is that not all the should everything
be done to preserve a life.  The natural balance of life and
death has been disturbed by the advances of technology. No
longer does a person die when they are supposed to; life-
support now prevents that.  Opponents say doctors should not
play God by killing patients ,but do they realize that by
prolonging death the medical profession is doing exactly
that?  Christian Barnard, at the World Euthanasia
Conference, was quoted as saying, "I believe often that
death is good medical treatment because it can achieve what
all the medical advances and technology cannot achieve
today. and that is stop the suffering of the patient"
(Battin, 1987, p. 21).
	A differant version of the same argument is, doctors
are not always responsible to do everything they can to save
somebody.  If a doctor's duty is to ease the pain of his
patients, then why should this exclude the possibility of
letting them die?  If a patient has a terminal illness and
is in great pain and the patient thinks they would rather
die now than continue living the with the pain, the doctor
should be allowed to help.  What about a person who is in a
vegetative state for a prolonged period of time with no hope
of recovery, should the doctor do everything?  Howard Caplan
gives an example of this.
I have on my census a man in his early 40s, left an
aphasic triplegic by a motorcycle accident when he was
19. For nearly a quarter of a century, while most of us
were working, raising children, reading, and otherwise
going about our lives, he's been vegetating.  His
biographical life ended with the crash.  He can only
articulate - only make sounds to convey that he's
hungry or wet. If he were to become acutely ill, I
would prefer not to try saving him. I'd want to let
pneumonia end it for him" (1987, p. 92).
I believe that a doctor should do what he can up to a point. 
If a person is at the point where death is a blessing a
doctor should not be forced to save a person if they go into
cardiac arrest.  Also it might be the patients decision for
nothing to be done, in this case the doctor should do as
instructed. 
	Is euthanasia unethical?  That is what the opposition
argues.  They preach that doctors too often play God on the
operating tables and in the recovery rooms and doctors must
always be on the side of life (Battin, 1987, p. 24).  They
say, "Life is to be preserved and suffering was to be
alleviated", but in fact the American Medical Association
said, "Physicians dedicate their lives to the alleviation of
suffering, to the enhancement and prolongation of life, and
the destinies of humanity".  They clearly state the
"alleviation of suffering" before "the enhancement and
prolongation of life".  So if the reduction of pain would
mean letting the person pass on, why would that be wrong and
unethical?  They also claim euthanasia is a "breach of the
laws of humanity", what about the laws of nature?  These
laws were established long before mankind.  Humanity
breached the laws of nature, long before the "laws of
humanity" were broken, with advances like respirators. 
People are the ones upsetting the balance of nature when
they try to keep persons alive who are supposed to die.  The
planet has survived for a long time without the laws of
humanity, so what makes them right? (Schofield, 1988, p. 26)
	Opponents also claim that euthanasia is against God,
therefore it is unethical. Yet passive euthanasia, or
refraining from doing anything to keep the patient alive,
has been in practice since four centuries before Christ; and
in the centuries that followed neither the Christians nor
the Jews significantly changed this basic idea.  It was
killing they were opposed to.  Also in 1958 Pope Pius XII
emphasized  that we may 'allow the patient who is virtually
already dead to pass away in peace' (Rachels, 1986, p. 43). 
How can anybody say mercy is against God?  to me it would
seem that God would want people to die in peace and without
pain.  If anything is against God it is trying to live
longer than God had intended you to.
	The United States was founded because people wanted to
be free.  Americans have fought for freedom ever since.  If
euthanasia is made illegal it will take away one of the
founding freedoms, the freedom of choice, the freedom for a
person to choose a death with dignity and free of pain and
suffering for themselves and their families.  As Seneca
quoted in Bolander writes, "A punishment to some, to some a
gift, and to many a favor"(1984).


References
Battin, M. (1987). Euthanasia: the time is now. In Bernards,
N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints.
Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints.
Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Bolander, D. (1987). Instant quotation dictionary. Little
Falls: Career Publishing, Inc. 
Caplan, H. (1987). It's time we helped patients die. In
Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing
viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Colesanto, D. (1991, May). The right-to-die controversy. 
USA Today. pp. 62-63.
Larue, G. (1988). Euthanasia. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989).
Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Low, C. (1988). A deadly serious dilemma: evaluating the
right to die. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia:
opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
McCuen, G. & Boucher, T. (1985). Terminating life. Hudson:
Gary E. McCuen Publication, Inc.
Michigan governor signs anti-suicide law. (1993, February
25). Ruters.
Rachels, J. (1986). The end of life: euthanasia and
morality. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia:
opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. Russ, S.
(1988). Care of the older person: the ethical challenge
of american medicine. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989).
Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Schofield, J. (1988). Care of the older person: the ethical
challenge to american medicine. In Bernards, N. (Ed).
(1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven
Press, Inc.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Euthanasia.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
                                                                                                             
                                                    Euthanasia                                                         
                                                                                                             
                                                                                                           


	"It is conceivable, that life can deteriorate to the point where persons lose their
dignity and self-respect and are unable to communicate;  life in such a form no longer
meets meets the basic criteria of human-ness."  (O'Keefe, A1)  Under these circumstances
only should Euthanasia be practiced and then only passively ("pulling the plug").  "Dutch
Death", Euthanasia, doctor assisted suicide, whatever you want to call it, it should not be
legalized.

People should live their lives for as long as long as it is worth living.  As long as someone
can still have experiences and communicate with others, they should go on living. 
Someone may have six months to live and decides to end their life prematurely, saying that
they are going to die anyway, why bother with waiting.  It is the same with anyone. 
Everyone will eventually die, so why doesn't every one just kill themselves now?  It is
because there are things they want to do and see, there is life they still have yet to
experience.  The same thing is true for a terminably ill person, they could do alot in that six
months.  They write an autobiography or a novel, do a lot of reading or traveling, who
knows?  It has been said that trials and pain make us stronger.  Even if someone is in pain,
that pain could make them mentally stronger than if they give up and take the easy way
out.  Life is pain, everyone goes through pain in their lives, but most stick it out to the end,
not giving up taking the easy way out.  As long as a person still is able to know what is
happening around them and can interact with the world around them it should be illegal for
doctors to aid in their suicide.  

	"Some say that doctor-aided  death is widespread already, only covertly, and that
the Netherlands is a model of how to establish the right to die by bringing the practice out
in the open, where the medical and legal system can oversee it.  (O'Keefe, A1+)"  This
issue is compared to how abortion was before it was legalized.  "The main reason for
legalization of abortion was because it was being done anyway.  People HAD access to
abortion, it was just being done terribly.  We're in exactly the same situation today:  People
do have access to assisted suicide--it's just being done so badly.  (Shavelson, 39)"  Just
because something is done does not mean that it should be legal.  Many things that are
illegal are done anyway.  Look at drugs, underage drinking, drunk driving, and speeding;
these things are all illegal and are frequently practiced.  Should these or other things be
legallized just because they are done anyway?  This is not a valid reason for leagalizing
anything.

	Where would it end if the practice of euthanasia were to be legalized, how far
would it go?  Would it end with assisted death for the terminably ill?  The world looks to
the Netherlands as the only working model of assisted death, a nation known for its open
aproach to abortion, prostitution and drug use.  "A 'coffieshop' next to an Amsterdam
police station has on its menu hash and maijuana, one-forth of an ounce for 25 gulden,
about $15.  A block away a movie theater is showing the film, 'Brutally Raped,' 
accompanied by an advertisement that it is banned in most countries.  Hookers stand in
store windows of the red light district.  (O'Keefe, A1+)"  This country has an open
approach to things that most people frown on and yet many "right to die" activists look to it
as an example of what to make ourselves into.  If we started with the terminably ill, would
we stop there, or would we continue on.  Perhaps any physically deformed people, then
anyone with a disease, next any elderly people without much will left.  Maybe the doctors
would start going around euthanizing anyone they deemed fit for death.  Then perhaps we
would become like a dog or cat and instead of bothering to heal us we would just be put
down.  Who knows where it would end.  These examples are pretty radical, but once we
take that first step there is no telling where it will end.  

	Sometimes change is needed in society, sometimes things must change to fit
societies needs.  Some things, however, can never change;  it will always be wrong to steal,
it will always be wrong to kill, and it will allways be wrong to kill someone.  





















Works cited

		Henry, Sarah                                       
	"The Battle Over Assisted Suicide:  A Time to Die"
	California Lawyer, January, 1996


		O'Keefe Mark
	"Doctor Assisted Suicide:  Dutch Death"
	The Oregonian,  January 8, 1995.  ppA1+
	

		Shavelson  lonny
	A Chosen Death;  The Dying confront Assisted Suicide
   	January, 1994    




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Farewell to Manzanar.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	In the true story "Farewell to Manzanar" we learn of a young girl's life as she grows up during World War II in a Japanese internment camp.  Along with her family and ten thousand other Japanese we see how, as a child,  these conditions forced to shape and mold her life.  This book does not directly place blame or hatred onto those persons or conditions which had forced her to endure hardship, but rather shows us through her eyes how these experiences have held value she has been able to grow from.  
	Jeanne Wakatsuki was just a seven year growing up in Ocean Park, California when her whole life was about to change.  Everything seemed to be going fine, her father owning two fishing boats, and they lived in a large house with a large dining table which was located in an entirely non-Japanese neighborhood.  The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was the moment Jeanne's life was critically altered.  This started WWII and all Japanese were seen as possible threats to the nations safety.  It is not difficult to see, but difficult to justify this view, and therefore Jeanne Wakatsuki, just a child, was now seen as a monster.  Her father was immediately arrested and taken away, being accused with furnishing oil to Japanese subs off the coast.  And now, Jeanne left without a father, her mother was trapped with the burden of Jeanne's rapidly aging grandmother and her nine brothers and sisters.  Too young to understand, Jeanne did not know why or where her father had been taken.  But she did know that one very important part of her was gone.
	Jeanne's father was a very strong, military-like, proud, arrogant, and dignified man.  He was the one who was always in control, and made all the decisions for the family.  He grew up in Japan, but left at the age of seventeen, headed for work in Hawaii, and never again went back.  Leaving his own family behind and never contacting them ever again.  But now it was time for  Jeanne's family to do something.  They found refuge at Terminal Island, a place where many Japanese families live either in some transition stage or for permanent residents.  Jeanne was terrified.  " It was the first time I had lived among other Japanese, or gone to school with them, and I was terrified all the time."  Her father, as a way of keeping his children in line, told them, "I'm going to sell you to the Chinaman."  So when Jeanne saw all these Japanese kids she assumed she was being sold.  They were soon given 48 hrs. to find a new place to stay.  Again they found refuge in a minority ghetto in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles.  But then the government issued Executive Order 9066 which gave the War Dept. power to define military areas in the western states.  Anyone who could possibly threaten the war effort (Japanese) were going to be transported to internment camps.
As Jeanne boarded the Greyhound bus someone tied a number tag to her collar and one to her duffel bag.  So, for now on all families had numbers to which they could be identified.  No longer people, but animals hearded off to some unknown place.  This was to be their destiny for the rest of the war, and long after.
	Being a child, Jeanne was too young to comprehend what all this really meant.  She knew that her dad was away and her family was moving a lot.  At first, for Jeanne this seemed exciting, like an adventure, since she had never been outside of L.A. before.  Jeanne is a Nissei, a natural born citizen of the United States.  But, again this really didn't  mean much to her.  What could she do, and what could she know?  Up to this point her life had been relatively simple.  As a 7-yr. old one doesn't really no much of life anyway!  This was soon to change for her, as she is now being forced into a world guarded behind barbed wire.
	Manzanar, located near Lone Pine, California was the camp Jeanne's family, kept together only by an effort made by Jeanne's mother, was assigned to.  The conditions were raw, cold, windy and unfriendly.  In a sense a metaphor for Jeanne, their treatment, and the unstable condition of her family and life.  10,000 Japanese shoved into a quarter mile piece of dust-land surrounded with barbed wire, and guard towers.  The living quarters were shabbily constructed wooden barracks which didn't provide any shelter from the blistering cold wind and the dry dust.  Not quite a concentration camp, but not quite adequate either.  
	At first Jeanne actually didn't mind the situation that much.  She referred to as like camping.  But for the adults and her older brothers and sisters, including one newlywed couple sharing a barrack with a family with two young kids, it was hell.  6-8 people sharing a 15 by 20 foot space with a cot, two army blankets, and a stove which didn't work very good.  "Animals don't even live like this," was a comment made by Jeanne's mother after her oldest brother Woody tried to ease their mama's pain.  As months rolled by and their father still imprisoned at Fort Lincoln, Montana Jeanne began to notice her life changing.  Japanese families had always been very tight units and this was beginning to break down.  As  a family they would always eat together, but the conditions of the mess halls to eat at and Jeanne's Grandmother unable to make the walk to dinner, this tradition ended. Adults ate seperately from the children, and this in itself begins to break down the structure and unity of the family.  The parents lost control over their children.  The barracks were too small for any in-home activity and the children were forced, not like they objected, to be outside all the time.  The housing units were strictly for coming home at night to sleep in.  This break down of family structure forced the kids to find alternate ways of occupying themselves, rather than having parental guidance or some type of authority to watch over them.
	After nine months Jeanne's father finally returned.  Jeanne admitted that she really didn't think about him that often.  When he arrived no one rushed to greet or hug him, only after a brief hesitation did Jeanne approach and serve as the entire family's welcome home party.  They Were silent because he seemed to be a changed man.  He was again using the cane he had carved years back which he used to extend a type of military authority over everyone.  Before being imprisoned, as I said, he had great dignity, but now seemed to have lost that.  He had lost it because all his loyalty and honor was repeatedly questioned there.  Drinking began to take control of him and he never would leave the barracks.  He brewed his own rice wine and brandy, and became a drunken tyrant.  Jeanne was never aware that her mother and father used to fight the way they did there.  Because she always had a room to escape to.  She began to despise her father and his authority.  
	Jeanne was discovering new things, and  before her father's return became seriously interested in Catholicism.  She loved all the women martyr stories, and possibly could relate to them or to some aspect in them.  But before she could get baptized her father had come back and exercised his control over it, and wouldn't allow it.  He told her that their family was Buddhist and that she was to young to even understand what Catholicism was.  Even though they never practiced the religion only celebrated a few holidays.  She was confused and wanted acceptance in any way she could find it.  She took up the baton and became very skilled at it.  But her father criticized this activity, saying she should not try to become American, but rather take up some traditional Japanese activity, like Odori dancing.  Even though he himself left that life behind him in Japan to move to America.  He could not expect his children growing up in America to only do Japanese things, even though this place they were trapped in wasn't what America should be for them.  She began to desire the outside world.  It was where everything was, but couldn't be reached.  She would see things in the Sears Roebuck catalogue and dream of that place out there that has all these things.  She even referred to this catalogue as the same as God.  She was now aware that this place she was in was not where she should be.
	Manzanar became to her and her family their home.  They had food, clothes, and shelter.  It had become their world all rolled up within a quarter mile, with baton lessons, dance, schools, religion, and even a band.  But the war was ending and the camps due to close in December,  1945.  Where were they to go and what were they to do?  These questions frightened her and her parents.  There were no answers.  How could a government take everything away, put us in camps, then let us loose with nothing?  And how were they to be treated once they were out there.  Fearing the stories they heard that earlier released internees had been beating or even killed.  But when they finally left it was different.  They expected people lining the streets with guns, or billboards reading "go home you dirty Japs" on them.
	They were put up in a housing compound in Cabrillo.  It was small but her mom now could cook and the cold winds didn't get in.  Jeanne enrolled in Jr. high school, and her mother got a job at a cannery.  Her father refusing to stoop that low didn't find a job for a long time.  Her first experience on the outside of Manzanar had the lurking of all her fears of not being accepted.  When asked to read in class as the new student, she stood up and read well.  Then a girl said something that haunts her to this day.  "Gee I didn't know you could speak English."  This remark made by a white girl, whom she became friends with later, made her realize that this is how things were going to be.  They weren't going to beat or injure her, they were going to see she has slanted eyes and assume that she is different.  She only wanted acceptance.  And realized that it was going to happen unless she proved something to them.  She did.  Since she had taken baton at Manzanar she made the marching band as majorette.  The first Japanese majorette ever at her school.  Then on to win beauty queen in high school.  These things made her feel accepted, one of the others.  But she was denying the fact that she was doing this for them not completely for herself.  She realized this when she was walking down the isle to receive her carnival queen award.  A kind of revelation hit her that none of this really mattered any more, and wished she had taken Odori classes like her father wanted her to.  I think this revealed that she had finally found herself among all these other people and didn't have to be the same as them, she could now be her, for herself.  
	Nearly 30 yrs. Later when she herself was married and had 3 children of her own was she able to accept that part that over the years she tried to forget.  She said that she was always putting off trips to Manzanar because she was afraid it might have the same effect on her as it did when she was young.  That feeling of inferiority and nothingness in this world she had always been a part of.  She used to hate herself for the way white people would get to her with one little comment like "Oh! You speak English," that she would feel completely foreign in her world.  When she finally visited the ruins of Manzanar she "no longer wanted to lose or have those years erased. Having found it, I could say what you can really say when you've truly come to know a place:  Farewell."  This says it all.  She had finally been able to see that Manzanar was one giant stepping stone she had climbed, and that gave her worth, so she could feel at peace with herself.  Her life had really begun at Manzanar, but she isn't about to let it end there.
	In conclusion, this story was well written and I could sympathize with every trial and tribulation she encountered.  Some may say she didn't value her Japanese heritage enough or was pitying herself for being Japanese.  But she, in my view is a hero because she took everything that was imposed on her and endured through it.  She was able to accept herself through a kind of spiritual growth, which was both revelational, and inspirational.  I only hope that one day I can make some sense of the things gone wrong in my life, or at least grow from them.  Jeanne is a woman now, who as a child was thrown around in a racial roller coaster, and can accept herself as an important part of society and life, rather than needing others to accept it for her.  


Note:  I really enjoyed this book and the next time I head out to Mammoth Lakes I will definitely try and find Manzanar.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Frame works.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The importance of theoretical frameworks is essential for understanding foundations for political science.  The definition of the word framework is a theory which can be used as a lens to look at a set of facts. (E.g., journalist look at a set of facts that tell a story of what happened).   These frameworks in political science help build a strong foundation and advocate a precise sense of racial balance in the political arena.  A social scientist tries to organize a set of facts into systemic theoretical passion.  The Social scientists are trying to accomplish  the facts  they create can be used to explain a theory that can be applied to other sets of facts.  The importance of these frameworks helps people gather important information and compare and contrast their different  strengths and weaknesses.

The first traditional and most dominant framework to examine is Pluralism.
Pluralism can generally be defined as group politics in a free market society.  Pluralism takes its roots from the founding of the nation.  James Madison saw the United States as a stronger nation if there was conflict rather than a consensus.  Madison points out in Federalist #10 that citizens would be divided into many factions that would compete for benefits.  The chief cause of division when Madison wrote this was economics in origin, but now race has emerged as a major factor in dividing American society.  Robert Dali founder of Pluralism modernizes Madison's theory into theory of American democracy to incorporate into the theory of pluralism.  

 Pluralism explains minority group politics in a process that attempts to show the strength of groups in the minority.  In pluralism the theory assumes that there are non-cumulative inequalities in American politics.  These inequalities would mean no group would be on the minority of a law being passed every time and that no group dominates every time either.  The second part of the pluralism theory suggests that there is a multiple power center.  A definition of multiple power center is when a minority group is denied access to influence one branch of government but may be able to influence politics or policy change in another part of the arena.  Example, a group may be unable to pursue its goals of influence of the legislative branch but it might be able to influence the executive branch.  The third assumption of the pluralist theory  is non-cumulative groups have a number of political resources at their disposal.  If a group does not have financial means it might make up for it numbers at the election booth.  These assumptions of the pluralist theory shows advantage of group politics to the minority group but does account for some of the disadvantages of group politics  in the entirety.  

The pluralist theory has several weaknesses for minority groups of the political arena.  Some Political groups do not have equal access to the political process.  For example groups that don't have numbers and those without money  are at a disadvantage.   The significance of a prejudice society in the pluralist theory shows no significance of mention when talking about ethnic and racial minority groups. The minority and ethnic groups that this model represents are European immigrants.  This theory also fails to represent  the racial imbalance of groups that are deficient in lack of education, and  job growth in an urban society.  These are some of the major weaknesses that are dispersed when talking about Pluralism theory. 

 A traditional theory in political science that is always brought to light when talking about minority groups in the political area is the framework called the Elite theory.  This theory is simply a Marxist type of government.  People are afraid to admit that it is part of the society the people of the United States live in.   The Elite theory suggest there are two kinds of people in society, the small but powerful elites and the large powerless masses.  The racial and ethnic minorities are just part of the powerless masses.  The Elite theory helps point out the problems facing the blindness in America.   

The Elite theory  strengths explains group politics by bringing  to attention the weaknesses of  the people as a whole including minority group politics, that minorities are just the same as everyone else other then the elite.   The Elite's give a few crumbs to the masses to keep the people hopeful of the future.   The masses will always be just one diversified group with no means of really getting anything accomplished.  There has been a sociological reasoning of understanding the importance of social stratification that has allowed groups in positions to influence politics.  As each and every position that group holds, puts some sort of implication that begins by distributing of power in the political system.   Although the masses elect these officials, the officials are also bought  by the elite, by giving them campaign contributions.

The weaknesses of the elite theory show an unclear system of how it reaches its goals.  Its does not explain how it gathers and lumps all the minorities into the same group.  It also doesn't consider the implications of a society that is not run by money but out of concern of future well being of its citizens.  

 There are some major similarities of the two frameworks of  the pluralist theory and elite theory.   Both of these frameworks explain group politics generally conceived to be implied only to race.   Those who are on the lower rung of the socioeconomic ladder and less educated seemed to be disadvantaged by these two frameworks.  The overlapping issues between these two theories help political scientists obtain a better understanding of minorities in political groups.

The Pluralism framework also has some conflicting interest with the Elite framework.  The Elite framework is basically a type of communist government that its history lies with Marxism, which only a few people rule.  While the pluralist type framework has some history as the goal of the framers,  the United States Constitution gives the people the right to rule.  The Pluralist framework allows minority groups to actively participate and change policies, while the Elite framework say minority groups cannot affect policy that they are just part of the masses.  The Pluralist framework represents a strong nation which no one is always the minority when trying to get legislature passed.   But the elite theory represents a weak nation because only things that get passed through legislation  is only beneficial to the elite.  These two frameworks that are so different  have come to represent the ideas of  the people of the United States have substantial differentiation between one idea to incorporate each other but have failed to give an actual compromise of balance. 

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Freedom in America.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
  No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America.  Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression.  When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism.  Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history.
        The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect toward the freedom of religion.  It also prevents the government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Since the early history of our country, the protection of basic freedoms has been of the utmost importance to Americans.  
        In Langston Hughes' poem, "Freedom," he emphasizes the struggle to enjoy the freedoms that he knows are rightfully his.  He reflects the American desire for freedom now when he says, "I do not need my freedom when I'm dead.  I cannot live on tomorrow's bread."  He recognizes the need for freedom in its entirety without compromise or fear.
        I think Langston Hughes captures the essence of the American immigrants' quest for freedom in his poem, "Freedom's Plow."  He accurately describes American's as arriving with nothing but dreams and building America with the hopes of finding greater freedom or freedom for the first time.  He depicts how people of all backgrounds worked together for one cause:  freedom.
        I selected Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 as a fictitious example of the evils of censorship in a world that is becoming illiterate.  In this book, the government convinces the public that book reading is evil because it spreads harmful opinions and agitates people against the government.  The vast majority of people accept this censorship of expression without question and are content to see and hear only the government's propaganda.  I found this disturbing yet realistic.  Bradbury's hidden opposition to this form of censorship was apparent throughout the book and finally prevailed in the end when his main character rebelled against the practice of burning books.
        Among the many forms of protests are pickets, strikes, public speeches and rallies.  Recently in New Jersey, more than a thousand community activists rallied to draft a "human" budget that puts the needs of the poor and handicapped as a top priority.  Rallies are an effective means for people to use their freedoms effectively to bring about change from the government.
        Freedom of speech is constantly being challenged as is evidenced in a recent court case where a Gloucester County school district censored reviews of two R-rated movies from a school newspaper.  Superior Court Judge, Robert E. Francis ruled that the student's rights were violated under the state Constitution.  I feel this is a major break through for students' rights because it limits editorial control of school newspapers by educators and allows students to print what they feel is important.
        A newly proposed bill (A-557) would prevent school officials from controlling the content of student  publications.  Critics of the bill feel that "student journalists may be too young to understand the responsibilities that come with free speech."  This is a valid point; however, it would provide an excellent opportunity for them to learn about their First Amendment rights that guarantees free speech and freedom of the press.
        In his commencement address to Monmouth College graduates, Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School defended the broad right to free speech.  He stated, "My message to you graduates is to assert your rights, to use them responsibly and boldly, to oppose racism, to oppose sexism, to oppose homophobia and bigotry of all kinds and to do so within the spirit of the First Amendment, not by creating an exception to it."  I agree that one should feel free to speak openly as long as it does not directly or indirectly lead to the harm of others.
        One of the more controversial issues was the recent 2 Live Crew incident involving obscenity in rap music.  Their record, "As Nasty as They Wanna Be," was ruled obscene in federal court.  They were acquitted of the charges and quickly became a free speech martyr.  Although many stores pulled the album, over two million copies sold as a result of the incident.  I feel that in this case the principles of free speech have been abused because young children can purchase and listen to this obscene music.
        The American flag, symbol of our country's history and patriotism, has also become a topic of controversy.  The controversy was over the right to burn the flag without punishment.  Supreme Court      Justice William Brennan offered the response that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."  Burning the flag is considered a form of symbolic speech and therefore is protected under the First Amendment.  As in the 2 Live Crew case, I feel that we are protecting the wrong people in this case.  The minority is given precedence at the sacrifice of the majority.
        The book, American Voices, is a collection of essays on the freedom of speech and censorship.  I chose to put this collection of essays into my book because they represent the strong central theme of freedom of expression as the cornerstone of American government, culture and life.  Each essay strongly defends a case for free commercial speech.  Each was generally in favor of fewer limitations on freedom of expression.
        The American voice on freedom has been shaped throughout the course of history by the initial democratic notions of the immigrants to the same desire for greater freedom that we have today.  The freedom of speech has constantly been challenged and will continue to be challenged in the future.  It is important that we learn from the precedented cases of the past of our constitutionally protected rights so that in the future authority will not violate our freedoms or oppress our liberty.       
        Ever since colonial times, the protection of personal freedoms in the United States has been significantly important.  Even in the early stages of American history there was an urge to put legally protected freedoms into written government documents.  The result was the drafting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, by James Madison.  The applications of the personal freedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and elsewhere.  These incidents and challenges of authority reflect the defensive American attitude toward the ever important freedom of expression and the growing significance of personal rights throughout American history.
        In Colonial America, members of diverse nationalities had opposing views on government, religion, and other subjects of interest.  Serious confrontations were prevented because of the vast lands that separated groups of varying opinions.  A person could easily settle in with other like believers and be untouched by the prejudices and oppression of others.  For this reason, Unitarians avoided Anglican or Puritan communities.  Quakers and Anabaptists were confined to Pennsylvania and Rhode Island while Catholics were mainly concentrated in Maryland.  As the United States grew larger and larger, these diverse groups were forced to live together.  This may have caused individual liberties to be violated because of the distrust and hostile feelings between ethnic and religious groups.
        Most of the initial assemblies among the colonies considered themselves immune from criticism.  They actually issued warrants of arrest, interrogated, fined, and imprisoned anyone accused of libeling the assembly as a whole or any of its members.  Many people were tracked down for writing or speaking works of offense.
        The first assembly to meet in America, the Virginia House of Burgesses, stripped Captain Henry Spellman of his rank when he was found guilty of "treasonable words."  Even in the most tolerant colonies, printing was strictly regulated.  The press of William Bradford was seized by the government when he printed up a copy of the colony's charter.  He was charged with seditious libel and spent more than a year in prison.
        A more famous incident was the trial of John Peter Zenger which established the principle of a free press.  In his newspaper he published satirical ballads regarding William Cosby, the unpopular governor, and his council.  His media was described "as having in them many things tending to raise seditions and tumults among the people of this province, and to fill their minds with a contempt for his majesty's government."  The grand jury did not indict Zenger and the General Assembly refused to take action.  The defendant was acquitted on the basis that in cases of libel the jury should judge both law and the facts.
        James Alexander was the first colonial writer to develop a philosophy on the freedom of speech.  He founded the American Philosophical Society and masterminded the Zenger defense.  Alexander's chief conviction was "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar in a free government:  when this support is taken away, the constitution is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins."
        The original Constitution did not contain a bill of rights because the convention delegates felt that individual rights were in no danger and would be protected by the states.  However, the lack of a bill of rights was the strongest objection to the ratification of the Constitution.  
        Less than a decade after the Bill of Rights had been adopted it met its first serious challenge.  In 1798, there was a threat of war with France and thousands of French refugees were living in the United States.  Many radicals supported the French cause and were considered "incompatible with social order."  This hysteria led Congress to enact several alien and sedition laws.  One law forbade the publication of false, scandalous or malicious writing against the government, Congress or the President.  The penalty for this crime was a $2,000 fine and two years in prison. 
        The public was enraged at these laws.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison pleaded for freedom of speech and the press.  The alien and sedition laws became a prime issue in the presidential election of 1800.  Soon after Jefferson was elected, the Sedition Act expired and those who had been convicted under it were immediately pardoned.  
        The next attack on the First Amendment occurred in 1835.  President Andrew Jackson proposed a law that would prohibit the use of mail for "incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection."  John C. Calhoun of South Carolina led a special committee that opposed the proposal on grounds that it conflicted with the First Amendment.  The proposal was defeated because it was a form of censorship.
        The next violation of the principles contained in the First Amendment came on January 2, 1920.  Under the direction of A. Mitchell Palmer, Woodrow Wilson's Attorney General, about 500 FBI agents and police raided 3,000 Russians and other European immigrants, looking for Communists to deport.  The victims were arrested without warrants, homes were ransacked, personal property was seized, and they were hauled off to jail.  
        An even more vicious episode was known as "McCarthyism," an incident in the 1950's when Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin proclaimed that the federal government had been thoroughly infiltrated by Communist agents.  His attacks on United States information libraries abroad led to the burning of some books accused of being Communist propaganda.  Reduced congressional support caused many librarians to resign and the closing of libraries.
        On the morning of December 16, 1965, thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker went to school in Des Moines, Iowa.  She and her fifteen year old brother, John, had decided to wear black armbands as a protest to the Vietnam War.  In advance to their arrival, the principal had decided that any student wearing an arm- band would be told to remove it, stating that, "The schools are no place for demonstrations."  If the student refused, he would be suspended until the armband was permanently removed.  On December 16, the Tinkers refused to remove their armbands.  They were suspended and did not return to school until after January 1, when by a previous decision the protest had ended.  
        The students brought suit in federal court to confirm their First Amendment right to wear the black armbands.  They lost in The Federal District Court on grounds that this type of symbolic expression might disturb school discipline.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was divided equally      (44) so the decision remained unchanged. 
        On February 24, 1969, the United States Supreme Court decided in the students' favor by a vote of 7 to 2.  The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District decision was a landmark case for students' rights and liberties.  Speaking for the majority of the Court, Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
        During the sixties and early seventies a new wave of court battles for First Amendment freedoms emerged.  The freedom of speech was recognized as a vital element in a democratic society.  Censorship and the infringement of First Amendment rights, especially among students and their newspapers, could not and would not be tolerated.  American citizens took a firm stand against the government and authority at important times when they could have yielded to the oppressive violations of their rights.





        ENDNOTES

        "Amendments to the Constitution."  Collier's Encyclopedia, 1965 ed.
        Langston Hughes, The Panther and the Lash (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1967), 55.
        Langston Hughes, Selected Poems (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1981), 291-293.
        Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 (New York:  Ballantine Books, 1973).
        Donna Leusner, "Social Services Advocates Rally for 'Human' Touch in State Budget," The Star Ledger,    9 April 1991:  A-3.
        "Student Wins Freedom of Speech Case," Daily Record, 24 April 1991:  A-2.
        Bob McHugh, "'Free Speech' Moves for School Newspapers," The Star Ledger, 4 May 1991:  A-3.
        Cathy Bugman, "Monmouth Grads Hear Top Lawyer Defend Broad Right to Free Speech," The Star Ledger,  27 May 1991:  A-9.
        David Gates, "The Importance of Being Nasty," Newsweek, 2 July 1990:  52.
        Walter Isaacson, "O'er the Land of the Free," Time, 3 July 1989:  14-15.
        American Voices (New York:  Phillip Morris, 1987).
        The First Freedom Today (Chicago:  American Library, 1984), 3.
        The First Freedom Today, 4.
        The First Freedom Today.
        The First Freedom Today, 5.
        The First Freedom Today.
        American Voices (New York:  Phillip Morris, 1987), 292.
        The First Freedom Today, 5.
        The First Freedom Today, 7.
        Nat Hentoff, The First Freedom (New York:  Dell Publishing Co., 1980), 4.
        Hentoff, 5.

        BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Amendments to the Constitution."  Collier's    Encyclopedia.  1965 ed.
American Voices.  New York:  Phillip Morris, 1987.
Bollinger, Lee. C.  The Tolerant Society.  New York:
        Oxford University Press, 1986.
Bradbury, Ray.  Fahrenheit 451.  New York:  Ballantine  Books, 1973.
Bugman, Cathy.  "Monmouth Grads Hear Top Lawyer Defend  Broad Right to Free Speech."  The Star Ledger,          27 May 1991:  A-9.
First Freedom Today, The.  Chicago:  American Library   Association, 1984.
Gates, David.  "The Importance of Being Nasty."         Newsweek, 2 July 1990:  52.
Hentoff, Nat.  The First Freedom.  New York:  Dell      Publishing Co., 1980.
Hughes, Langston.  The Panther and the Lash.  New York:
        Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1967.
Hughes, Langston.  Selected Poems.  New York:  
        Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1981.
Isaacson, Walter.  "O'er the Land of the Free."  Time, 
        3 July 1989:  14-15.
Kalven, Harry, Jr.  A Worthy Tradition.  New York:      Harper and Row, 1988.
Leusner, Donna.  "Social Services Advocates Rally for   'Human' Touch in State Budget." The Star Ledger, 
        9 April 1991:  A-3.
McHugh, Bob.  "'Free Speech' Moves for School   Newspapers."  The Star Ledger, 4 May 1991:  A-3.
"Student Wins Freedom of Speech Case."  Daily Record, 
        24 April 1991:  A-2. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Freedom Of Expression.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
8-19-95
Freedom of Expression


	No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America.  Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression.  When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism.  Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history.
	The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect toward the freedom of religion.  It also prevents the government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."1  Since the early history of our country, the protection of basic freedoms has been of the utmost importance to Americans.  
	In Langston Hughes' poem, "Freedom," he emphasizes the struggle to enjoy the freedoms that he knows are rightfully his.  He reflects the American desire for freedom now when he says, "I do not need my freedom when I'm dead.  I cannot live on tomorrow's bread."2  He recognizes the need for freedom in its entirety without compromise or fear.
	I think Langston Hughes captures the essence of the American immigrants' quest for freedom in his poem, "Freedom's Plow."  He accurately describes American's as arriving with nothing but dreams and building America with the hopes of finding greater freedom or freedom for the first time.  He depicts how people of all backgrounds worked together for one cause:  freedom.3
	I selected Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 as a fictitious example of the evils of censorship in a world that is becoming illiterate.  In this book, the government convinces the public that book reading is evil because it spreads harmful opinions and agitates people against the government.  The vast majority of people accept this censorship of expression without question and are content to see and hear only the government's propaganda.4  I found this disturbing yet realistic.  Bradbury's hidden opposition to this form of censorship was apparent throughout the book and finally prevailed in the end when his main character rebelled against the practice of burning books.
	Among the many forms of protests are pickets, strikes, public speeches and rallies.  Recently in New Jersey, more than a thousand community activists rallied to draft a "human" budget that puts the needs of the poor and handicapped as a top priority.5  Rallies are an effective means for people to use their freedoms effectively to bring about change from the government.
	Freedom of speech is constantly being challenged as is evidenced in a recent court case where a Gloucester County school district censored reviews of two R-rated movies from a school newspaper.  Superior Court Judge, Robert E. Francis ruled that the student's rights were violated under the state Constitution.6  I feel this is a major break through for students' rights because it limits editorial control of school newspapers by educators and allows students to print what they feel is important.
	A newly proposed bill (A-557) would prevent school officials from controlling the content of student  publications.  Critics of the bill feel that "student journalists may be too young to understand the responsibilities that come with free speech."7  This is a valid point; however, it would provide an excellent opportunity for them to learn about their First Amendment rights that guarantees free speech and freedom of the press.
	In his commencement address to Monmouth College graduates, Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School defended the broad right to free speech.  He stated, "My message to you graduates is to assert your rights, to use them responsibly and boldly, to oppose racism, to oppose sexism, to oppose homophobia and bigotry of all kinds and to do so within the spirit of the First Amendment, not by creating an exception to it."8  I agree that one should feel free to speak openly as long as it does not directly or indirectly lead to the harm of others.
	One of the more controversial issues was the recent 2 Live Crew incident involving obscenity in rap music.  Their record, "As Nasty as They Wanna Be," was ruled obscene in federal court.  They were acquitted of the charges and quickly became a free speech martyr.  Although many stores pulled the album, over two million copies sold as a result of the incident.9  I feel that in this case the principles of free speech have been abused because young children can purchase and listen to this obscene music.
	The American flag, symbol of our country's history and patriotism, has also become a topic of controversy.  The controversy was over the right to burn the flag without punishment.  Supreme Court	Justice William Brennan offered the response that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."10  Burning the flag is considered a form of symbolic speech and therefore is protected under the First Amendment.  As in the 2 Live Crew case, I feel that we are protecting the wrong people in this case.  The minority is given precedence at the sacrifice of the majority.
	The book, American Voices, is a collection of essays on the freedom of speech and censorship.  I chose to put this collection of essays into my book because they represent the strong central theme of freedom of expression as the cornerstone of American government, culture and life.11  Each essay strongly defends a case for free commercial speech.  Each was generally in favor of fewer limitations on freedom of expression.
	The American voice on freedom has been shaped throughout the course of history by the initial democratic notions of the immigrants to the same desire for greater freedom that we have today.  The freedom of speech has constantly been challenged and will continue to be challenged in the future.  It is important that we learn from the precedented cases of the past of our constitutionally protected rights so that in the future authority will not violate our freedoms or oppress our liberty. 	 
	













	Ever since colonial times, the protection of personal freedoms in the United States has been significantly important.  Even in the early stages of American history there was an urge to put legally protected freedoms into written government documents.  The result was the drafting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, by James Madison.  The applications of the personal freedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and elsewhere.  These incidents and challenges of authority reflect the defensive American attitude toward the ever important freedom of expression and the growing significance of personal rights throughout American history.
	In Colonial America, members of diverse nationalities had opposing views on government, religion, and other subjects of interest.  Serious confrontations were prevented because of the vast lands that separated groups of varying opinions.  A person could easily settle in with other like believers and be untouched by the prejudices and oppression of others.  For this reason, Unitarians avoided Anglican or Puritan communities.  Quakers and Anabaptists were confined to Pennsylvania and Rhode Island while Catholics were mainly concentrated in Maryland.12  As the United States grew larger and larger, these diverse groups were forced to live together.  This may have caused individual liberties to be violated because of the distrust and hostile feelings between ethnic and religious groups.
	Most of the initial assemblies among the colonies considered themselves immune from criticism.  They actually issued warrants of arrest, interrogated, fined, and imprisoned anyone accused of libeling the assembly as a whole or any of its members.  Many people were tracked down for writing or speaking works of offense.
	The first assembly to meet in America, the Virginia House of Burgesses, stripped Captain Henry Spellman of his rank when he was found guilty of "treasonable words."13  Even in the most tolerant colonies, printing was strictly regulated.  The press of William Bradford was seized by the government when he printed up a copy of the colony's charter.  He was charged with seditious libel and spent more than a year in prison.
	A more famous incident was the trial of John Peter Zenger which established the principle of a free press.  In his newspaper he published satirical ballads regarding William Cosby, the unpopular governor, and his council.  His media was described "as having in them many things tending to raise seditions and tumults among the people of this province, and to fill their minds with a contempt for his majesty's government."14  The grand jury did not indict Zenger and the General Assembly refused to take action.  The defendant was acquitted on the basis that in cases of libel the jury should judge both law and the facts.
	James Alexander was the first colonial writer to develop a philosophy on the freedom of speech.  He founded the American Philosophical Society and masterminded the Zenger defense.  Alexander's chief conviction was "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar in a free government:  when this support is taken away, the constitution is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins."15

	The original Constitution did not contain a bill of rights because the convention delegates felt that individual rights were in no danger and would be protected by the states.  However, the lack of a bill of rights was the strongest objection to the ratification of the Constitution.  
	Less than a decade after the Bill of Rights had been adopted it met its first serious challenge.  In 1798, there was a threat of war with France and thousands of French refugees were living in the United States.  Many radicals supported the French cause and were considered "incompatible with social order."16  This hysteria led Congress to enact several alien and sedition laws.  One law forbade the publication of false, scandalous or malicious writing against the government, Congress or the President.  The penalty for this crime was a $2,000 fine and two years in prison. 
	The public was enraged at these laws.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison pleaded for freedom of speech and the press.  The alien and sedition laws became a prime issue in the presidential election of 1800.  Soon after Jefferson was elected, the Sedition Act expired and those who had been convicted under it were immediately pardoned.17  
	The next attack on the First Amendment occurred in 1835.  President Andrew Jackson proposed a law that would prohibit the use of mail for "incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection."18  John C. Calhoun of South Carolina led a special committee that opposed the proposal on grounds that it conflicted with the First Amendment.  The proposal was defeated because it was a form of censorship.
	The next violation of the principles contained in the First Amendment came on January 2, 1920.  Under the direction of A. Mitchell Palmer, Woodrow Wilson's Attorney General, about 500 FBI agents and police raided 3,000 Russians and other European immigrants, looking for Communists to deport.  The victims were arrested without warrants, homes were ransacked, personal property was seized, and they were hauled off to jail.  
	An even more vicious episode was known as "McCarthyism,"19 an incident in the 1950's when Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin proclaimed that the federal government had been thoroughly infiltrated by Communist agents.  His attacks on United States information libraries abroad led to the burning of some books accused of being Communist propaganda.  Reduced congressional support caused many librarians to resign and the closing of libraries.
	On the morning of December 16, 1965, thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker went to school in Des Moines, Iowa.  She and her fifteen year old brother, John, had decided to wear black armbands as a protest to the Vietnam War.  In advance to their arrival, the principal had decided that any student wearing an arm- band would be told to remove it, stating that, "The schools are no place for demonstrations."20  If the student refused, he would be suspended until the armband was permanently removed.  On December 16, the Tinkers refused to remove their armbands.  They were suspended and did not return to school until after January 1, when by a previous decision the protest had ended.  
	The students brought suit in federal court to confirm their First Amendment right to wear the black armbands.  They lost in The Federal District Court on grounds that this type of symbolic expression might disturb school discipline.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was divided equally      (4 4) so the decision remained unchanged. 
	On February 24, 1969, the United States Supreme Court decided in the students' favor by a vote of 7 to 2.  The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District decision was a landmark case for students' rights and liberties.  Speaking for the majority of the Court, Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."21
	During the sixties and early seventies a new wave of court battles for First Amendment freedoms emerged.  The freedom of speech was recognized as a vital element in a democratic society.  Censorship and the infringement of First Amendment rights, especially among students and their newspapers, could not and would not be tolerated.  American citizens took a firm stand against the government and authority at important times when they could have yielded to the oppressive violations of their rights.





	ENDNOTES

	22"Amendments to the Constitution."  Collier's Encyclopedia, 1965 ed.

	23Langston Hughes, The Panther and the Lash (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1967), 55.

	24Langston Hughes, Selected Poems (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1981), 291-293.

	25Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 (New York:  Ballantine Books, 1973).

	26Donna Leusner, "Social Services Advocates Rally for 'Human' Touch in State Budget," The Star Ledger,    9 April 1991:  A-3.

	27"Student Wins Freedom of Speech Case," Daily Record, 24 April 1991:  A-2.

	28Bob McHugh, "'Free Speech' Moves for School Newspapers," The Star Ledger, 4 May 1991:  A-3.

	29Cathy Bugman, "Monmouth Grads Hear Top Lawyer Defend Broad Right to Free Speech," The Star Ledger,  27 May 1991:  A-9.

	30David Gates, "The Importance of Being Nasty," Newsweek, 2 July 1990:  52.

	31Walter Isaacson, "O'er the Land of the Free," Time, 3 July 1989:  14-15.

	32American Voices (New York:  Phillip Morris, 1987).

	33The First Freedom Today (Chicago:  American Library, 1984), 3.

	34The First Freedom Today, 4.

	35The First Freedom Today.

	36The First Freedom Today, 5.

	37The First Freedom Today.

	38American Voices (New York:  Phillip Morris, 1987), 292.

	39The First Freedom Today, 5.

	40The First Freedom Today, 7.

	41Nat Hentoff, The First Freedom (New York:  Dell Publishing Co., 1980), 4.

	42Hentoff, 5.













	BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Amendments to the Constitution."  Collier's 	Encyclopedia.  1965 ed.

American Voices.  New York:  Phillip Morris, 1987.

Bollinger, Lee. C.  The Tolerant Society.  New York:
	Oxford University Press, 1986.

Bradbury, Ray.  Fahrenheit 451.  New York:  Ballantine 	Books, 1973.

Bugman, Cathy.  "Monmouth Grads Hear Top Lawyer Defend 	Broad Right to Free Speech."  The Star Ledger,  	27 May 1991:  A-9.

First Freedom Today, The.  Chicago:  American Library 	Association, 1984.

Gates, David.  "The Importance of Being Nasty."  	Newsweek, 2 July 1990:  52.

Hentoff, Nat.  The First Freedom.  New York:  Dell 	Publishing Co., 1980.

Hughes, Langston.  The Panther and the Lash.  New York:
	Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1967.

Hughes, Langston.  Selected Poems.  New York:  
	Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1981.

Isaacson, Walter.  "O'er the Land of the Free."  Time, 
	3 July 1989:  14-15.

Kalven, Harry, Jr.  A Worthy Tradition.  New York:  	Harper and Row, 1988.

Leusner, Donna.  "Social Services Advocates Rally for 	'Human' Touch in State Budget." The Star Ledger, 
	9 April 1991:  A-3.

McHugh, Bob.  "'Free Speech' Moves for School 	Newspapers."  The Star Ledger, 4 May 1991:  A-3.

"Student Wins Freedom of Speech Case."  Daily Record, 
	24 April 1991:  A-2.






 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Freedom through the press.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	FREEDOM THROUGH                      THE PRESS

	by 

Tears streamed down a broken face
That stared to the ground where his father lay
At lexington was he dying this day
For a battle lost, and a war begun.

In a young boys hand, A father lifted his head
To look at a son, so confused and afraid
Who understood not, for what his father bled
Why he would fight, What reason for death.

And so as they looked eye to eye
The boys innocent lips formed the question, why?
Then With inhuman strength, A father lifts dying fingers to sky
Pointing to a cloth, flying on high
His heart burns like fire, beats like a drum
As with his last breath he whispers 
FREEDOM!

56 men signed a Declaration of Independence, risking their lives.
1000's of men and boys died in the Revolutionary war,
And 100's of 1000's more fought and died in wars to come.
56 men created and signed a document of government so perfect it has endured the test of time for over 200 years.  
Millions of people have given precious support in the fight for equality and against racism.     For what reason did many people risk their lives and sacrifice so much?
democracy:  n. gov. by the people...
	Their hearts burned brightly with the fires of freedom.
	We have been handed a Democracy, handed freedom.  And now we must either throw this heritage away, by taking it for granted or we must fight our own battle, a battle without bullets or threats, a battle for democracy.  For Freedom isn't Free.  We must rule ourselves.  It is an almost an obvious fact that in order for us to rule, we need information.  If the ruling body does not have information than it can do nothing but act blindly, without direction.  This information comes from the media but, in order for the media accomplish this informative purpose, so that we the people can rule ourselves, can have a democracy, and can be free, we must do three things:  Redefine democracy, Listen to the press, and control our press.  
Our first problem is to redefine democracy.
	Imagine, a young polish factory worker reads daily in papers that tell him he is free, because the communistic government allows elections.  The Press tells him his government has the economy under control.  Yet he finds himself spending his time and money standing in line to buy over-priced bread so his babies can live another day.  Among the graffiti that began to appear in Poland was an especially significant complaint, Prasa klamie ("The press lies").  
	However, free media from countries like the U.S. filtered to the Polish people revealing the truth about their economy.  Once the people heard the truth,  they gained power and this lead to the elections of 1989,  their first non communist Prime Minister in years.  Knowledge is power.   A free press is still necessary to a democracy even when free elections occur.
  And having a  free media will lead to a more democratic form of gov.  
            Countries get away with being called democracies when, by definition they are not.  We must redefine democracy as the Freedom of the press, not the voting in elections.
	In the situation of Poland as in countless others, power can be linked directly to information.  
	In early America, whites kept power over their black slaves by forbidding them to learn to read.  they held the information and thus the power.
	In the U.S. we have the information, but to hold it, we must grasp it.
	Our second problem is hearing the press
	In the mid 1980's a young journalist in his twenties got the job of his dreams when Time magazine assigned him to cover the Middle East.  A month later his feedback of information stopped and there was silence.  Frantic officials followed this trail of silence.  It led to Islamic terrorists who bragged they had kidnapped an "American spy."  for a year,  this young journalist's right hand and foot were chained to a radiator.  He was starved and violently beaten many times without purpose.  When his release was finally negotiated,  he came back to the United States and had enough strength to report on his year in captivity.  
	At times the information being casually read by American citizens over the breakfast table is information sealed by a reporter's blood.  That is his part in a free press government.    All that is needed now, is that we do ours, read it!
	Without information a populace cannot rule.  And if a populace cannot rule, then, by definition there is no democracy.   We are so proud in United States for being a democracy.  But, if we do not stay informed, then by definition we are not .  We must grasp the information to hold the power.
	I am not, however saying that we should blindly and undoubtingly follow the information of the press, for we have an extra challenge.  
	Our third problem controlling the press.  
	U.C.L.A. sociologist James Q. Wilson points out the curious fact that on city streets where broken windows go unrepared, crime rate soars. Why?  the windows make an announcement:  Here standards have been broken down, here no authority applies;  Come and do what you like without consequences.  Today, media has become a gigantic broken window to the world.  Portrayal of life without consequences sends the message that chaos reigns.  A common claim of the media is that they just show real-life. Really?  Around 350 characters appear on prime time,  studies show an average of 7 of these are murdered each night.  If this rate applied in reality, then in just around 50 days everyone in the entire U.S. would be killed.  And the last one left could shut off the T.V.  Ralph Nader states that "The media has 2 purposes, to inform, and to entertain, and though the informing part is good, the entertaining part will often focus on the horrid and the vulgar.  Perhaps a free media does not always do what we bargained for.  Perhaps the media doesn't always mirror life.  Perhaps life might also mirror the media.
	So, what do we do?  Thomas Jefferson, too, wondered about the free media: "I deplore, the putrid state into which the press has passed, and the vulgar spirit of those who write them."  Could we not put strong government controls on the media to reduce such vulgarity?  In answer, Thomas Jefferson gives us another more simple truth: "Our Liberty depends on freedom of the press, that cannot be limited without being lost."   Disturbing elements will never entirely disappear from the media-nor should they-but we must continue to speak out against the wrong, and advocate the good.  Also, the press prints what people read.  We cannot simply tell the media we think this isn't right, we must show them through what we read.  And in the future we may even have a chance to enjoy a media as fundamentally decent as the people who live in this great country.
	In summation,  we must first redefine democracy as NOT the freedom to vote, but actually, freedom through the press.  Secondly, we must listen and become informed of our media. And Third, we must control or censor the press through what we read.  And for what reason must these things burn like fire in our hearts?
Democracy: n. Freedom.
	Those who have died in the struggle for free media do not die in vain.  They die a hero's death in the struggle for democracy.  
Then With inhuman strength, A father lifts dying fingers to sky
Pointing to a cloth, flying on high
His heart burns like fire, beats like a drum
As with his last breath he whispers 
FREEDOM!
	 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Gangs .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Gangs
	Gangs are a violent reality that people have to deal with in today's cities.  What has
made these groups come about?  Why do kids feel that being in a gang is both an acceptable
and prestigious way to live?  The long range answer to these questions can only be speculated
upon, but in the short term the answers are much easier to find.  On the surface, gangs are a
direct result of human beings' personal wants and peer must find the way that these morals are
given to the individual.  Unfortunately, these can only be hypothesized.  However, by looking at
the way people are influenced in society, I believe there is good evidence to point the blame at
several institutions.  These include the forces of the media, the government, theatre, drugs and
our economic system.
	On the surface, gangs are caused by peer pressure and greed.  Many teens in gangs will
pressure peers into becoming part of a gang by making it all sound glamorous.  Money is also
an crucial factor.  A kid (a 6-10 year old, who is not yet a member) is shown that she/he could
make $200 to $400 for small time gang jobs.  Although these are important factors they 
are not strong enough to make kids do things that are strongly against their morals
	One of the ways that kids morals are bent so that gang violence becomes more
acceptable is the influence of television and movies.  The average child spends more time at a
TV than she/he spends in a classroom.  Since nobody can completely turn off their minds, kids
must be learning something while watching the TV.  Very few hours of television watched by
children are educational, so other ideas are being absorbed during this period of time.  Many
shows on television today are extremely violent and are often shown this from a gang's
perspective.  A normal adult can see that this is showing how foully that gangs are 
living.  However, to a child this portrays a violent gang existance as acceptable.  'The Ends
Justifies the Means'  mentality is also taught through many shows where the "goody guy" 

captures the "bad guy" through violence and is then being commended.  A young child sees this
a perfectly acceptable because he knows that the "bad guy" was wrong but has no idea of what
acceptable apprehension techniques are.
	  Gore in television also takes a big part in influencing young minds.  Children see gory
scenes and are fascinated by these things that they have not seen before.  Older viewers see
gore and are not concerned with the blood but rather with the pain the victim must feel.  A
younger mind doesn't make this connection.  Thus a gore fascination is formed, and has been
seen in several of my peers.  Unfortunately kids raised with this sort of television end up
growing up with a stronger propensity to becoming a violent gang member or 'violent-
acceptant' person.
	  "Gangs bring the delinquent norms of society into intimate contact with the
individual."1, (Clinard).  So, as you can see if TV leads a child to believe that violence is the
norm this will manifest itself in the actions of the child quite, often in a gang situation.  This is
especially the case when parents don't spend a lot of time with their kids at 
the TV explaining what is right and what is wrong.  Quite often newer books and some types of
music will enforce this type of thought and ideas.
	Once this mentality is installed in youngsters they become increasingly prone to being
easily pushed into a gang situation by any problem at home or elsewhere.  For instance, in poor 
families with many children or upper-middle class families where parents are always working,
the children will often feel deprived of love.  Parents can often feel that putting food on the
table is enough love.  Children of these families may often go to the gang firstly out of boredom
and to belong somewhere.  As time goes on, a form of love or kinship develops between the
gang members and the child.  It is then that the bond between the kid and the gang is completed
because the gang has effectively taken the place of the family.
	The new anti social structure of cities also effects the ease in which a boy/girl can join
a gang. " The formation of gangs in cities, and most recently in suburbs, is facilitated by the
same lack of community among parents.  The parents do not know what their children are doing
for two reasons: First, much of the parents' lives is outside the local community, while the 

children's lives are lived almost totally within it.  Second, in a fully developed community, the
network of relations gives every parent, in a sense, a community of sentries who can keep him 
informed of his child's activities.  In modern living-places (city or suburban), where such a
network is attenuated, he no longer has such sentries."2, ( Nisbet).
	In male gangs problems occur as each is the members tries to be the most manly.  This
often leads to all members participating in "one-up-manship".  Quite often this will then lead to
each member trying to commit a bigger and more violent crime or simply more crimes than the
others.  With all members participating in this sort of activity it makes for a never ending
unorganized violence spree (A sort of Clockwork Orange mentality).  In gangs with more
intellegent members these feelings end up making each member want to be the star when the
groups commit a crime.  This makes the gang much more organized and improves the morale of
members which in turn makes them more dangerous and very hard for the police to deal with
and catch (There is nothing harder to find and deal with than organized teens that are dedicated
to the group).  This sort of gang is usually common of middle or upper class people although it
can happen in gangs in the projects and other low rent districts too.  
	This "one-up-manship" is often the reason between rival gangs fighting.  All gangs feel
powerful and they want to be feared.  To do this they try to establish themselves as the only
gang in a certain neighborhood.  After a few gang fights hatred forms and gang murders and
drive-by's begin to take place.  When two gangs are at war it makes life very dangerous for
citizens in the area.  Less that 40% of drive-by's kill their intended victim yet over 60% do kill
someone.  This gang application is one of the many reasons that sexual sterotypes and pressure
to conform to the same must be stopped.
	Lastly one of the great factors in joining a gang is for protection.  Although from an
objective point of view, we can see joining a gang brings more danger than it saves you from, 
this is not always the way it is seen by kids.  In slums such as the Bronx or the very worst case,
Compton, children will no doubt be beaten and robbed if they do not join a gang.  Of course
they can probably get the same treatment from rivals when in a gang.  The gang also provides
some money for these children who quite often need to feed their families.  The reason kids 

think that the gang will keep them safe is from propoganda from the gangs.  Gang members will
say that no one will get hurt and make a public show of revenge if a member is hurt or killed.  
	People in low rent areas are most often being repressed due to poverty and most
importantly, race.  This often results in an attitude that motivates the person to base his/her life
on doing what the system that oppresses them doesn't want.  Although this accomplishes little it
is a big factor in gang enrollment.
	So, as you have seen gangs are a product of the environment we have created for
ourselves.  Some of these factors include:  oppression, the media, greed, violence and other
gangs.  There seems to be no way to end the problem of gangs without totally restructuring the
modern economy and value system.  Since the chance of this happening is minimal, we must
learn to cope with gangs and try to keep their following to a minimum.  Unfortunately there is
no real organized force to help fight gangs.  Of course the police are supposed to do this but
this situation quite often deals with racial issues also and the police forces regularly display
their increasing inability to deal fairly with these issues.  What we need are more people to
form organizations like the "Guardian Angels" a gang-like group that makes life very tough for
street gangs that are breaking laws.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Gays in the Military a matter of national insecurity.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
     Very often political institutions reflect the will of society and set the precedent for norms that will be expected of its members. The United States Military is still enforcing archaic policies which threaten to harm the principles our nation was founded upon. The principles of freedom and equality are those that every American holds closest to their heart, that is unless you are in the military and are gay. The issue of gays in the military has developed into a case of  whether our country should discriminate against a group merely because of involuntary sexual orientation. Two persistent principles are evident within this topic: that homosexuals are ever present throughout all branches of the military and  a persistent hostility against this group is in American society and the military. In order to effectively examine this topic the following concepts will be discussed: an analysis of the current Department Of Defense policy concerning gays, solutions to reduce homophobia in the military, a policy model concerning homosexuals in the military ( Lepicer 1-14 ). 


     Prior to the arrival of the Clinton Administration with its agenda to radically revise military policy regarding the acceptance and treatment of homosexuals, Department of Defense policy was well established and clear. Legal questions began to be raised in civilian courts challenging the military exclusion and discharge policies in the 1960's and 1970's. The services were forced to explain and clearly justify specific limits and procedures used in relation to service members claiming to be homosexual or convicted of such behavior. During the Carter Administration a clear policy was signed into law. It reads:
 Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of 
 persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to                       engage in such  conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such   members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale: to foster  mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services: to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security ( Lepicer ).  

     Everyone agrees that gays were already in the military, but gays want to serve their country out of the closet. This concept pitted the gay community against the traditionalists who want to keep them out. The result is a compromising "Don't ask / Don't Tell"  policy which prevents recruiters from inquiring about an enlistees sexual preference. The purpose of the military is to kill people and complete the mission at hand. Therefore anything that hinders the military from fulfilling this role is a potential threat to national security and must be looked at in an objective manner. The military's attitude towards homosexuals dates back to the Revolutionary War when General George Washington approved the discharge and court martial of an officer for attempted sodomy. Every year more than 800 service members are separated from the military based on sexual orientation. The Department Of Defense current policy is both discriminatory and ineffective. Homosexuals should have the right to serve their country as long as their job performance is not affected by their private life. Currently the military does not actively seek out and prosecute heterosexual service members who engage in sodomy but they will go to great lenghts to investigate mere claims of homosexual conduct. Often history repeats itself and the integration of African Americans into the military was one which met great opposition but is now an accepted principle. We as a country can see the foolishness and downright prejudice that was involved in the opposition of integration of minorities  into our military, one which in 20 years we may equate with the current arguments involving gays in the military ( Wornsop 195-212 , Schlueter 393-432).
      
     In his article , "Not Asking or Telling: No remedy," in the March 25, 1995, edition of the National Journal, David Morrison suggests that President Clinton's policy of "Don't ask , Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" has done little to end the controversy. The new policy is nothing more than a reworded version of the old policy. The new policy forbids inquiries based on "rumor, suspicion, or capricious claims regarding a member's sexual orientation." But in reality this has not stopped some commanders. The Service Members Legal Defense Network cites these cases: a service member investigated after an anonymous phone call, and another investigated because he had taken notes for a class on homosexuality. These cases show clearly how military leaders blatantly violate both current policy and individual rights (Morrison 748-749).

     Defense Department officials say that the policy appears to be working because the number of discharges is down. There appears to be a distinct conflict between the cases that are reported and the Pentagons statements that center around the premise that there have been no violations of the policy. In her book , Homosexuals And The Right To Serve, Major Melissa Wells-Petry discusses the military's objections to lifting the ban. One of the main issues is that of gender segregation. The author explains that gender segregation is based on two principles: " People have a preference for people of the opposite sex and they should be allowed to choose to whom they expose an aspect of their sexuality." Lifting the ban would expose the charade that their are no homosexuals in the military. The argument is often brought up that says the presence of homosexuals detracts from the military mission is present in both written policy and actual belief. In reality anyone engaging in any sexual activity in the military environment threatens the mission of the military. The distinction of homosexual activity has no validity or bearing on the truth of the matter. It is impossible to see how homosexuals can detract from the maintenance of good order when nearly 75% of those already in the military are never discovered. If a person causes a problem with order, morale or discipline they should be separated from service regardless of sexual orientation                ( Wells, Davis 54-107).

     The idea that homosexuals pose a security risk is clearly unfounded since in a House Of Representatives Committee on National Security report proves gays are less of a risk. Of the 117 reported espionage cases between 1945 and 1991 only 6 involved homosexuals. The key to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military is to bring an end to homophobia or antigay bias. In the book    After The Ball : How America Will Conquer It's Fear & Hatred Of Gays In The 90's, the authors explore the ways to help America accept homosexuals. The techniques proposed are desensitization, jamming, and conversion. Desensitization aims at attempting to lower the level of anti-gay rhetoric. If we can effectively integrate homosexuals in the military then the novelty of homosexuals will diminsh and so will the associated prejudice. Jamming is an aggressive and active approach which uses a psychological process that uses two competing theories that are associated. One example of jamming  the military could use is  sensitivity training which will both educate the ignorant individual and also get the individual to feel shame for having such an unsupported prejudice for an oppressed group. The concept of of conversion is actually changing ones views and beliefs. This idea is most effective when people are exposed to homosexuals in their everyday lives. If the military continues to create conditions which discourage an individual from openly declaring their homosexuality then prejudice will continue and the us vs. them mentality will flourish. If someone discovers a friend is homosexual but is still very much like themselves then the concept of homosexuality becomes irrelevant. When people have prejudice against a certain group they rationalize  by saying how different they are from them. It is evident that the issues involved with lifting the ban on African Americans in the military has some very distinct similarities with the issue of homosexuals. Tim Mcfeeley , executive director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund states,  "Homosexuals are being persecuted in the military for being different from the mainstream, just as blacks were maltreated in the 1940's and 50's"  ( Duke A1, House Of Representatives 95-21).


     From the Revolutionary War to present day homosexuals have served in the military with distinction and pride. Yet although many have died in defense of the principles upon which our nation was founded they are being denied the fundamental rights of liberty and equality. Thousands of members of our military have been denied their right to serve their country and a career in the military essentially because they are gay. In the process of instilling archaic principles upon the military our nation has compromised its combat effectiveness and undermined institutional integrity. In his speech announcing the " Don't ask Don't tell," policy President Clinton makes a very compelling argument against discrimination. Because the military " is an institution that embodies the best in America and must reflect the society in which it operates, it is also right for the military to make changes when the time for change is at hand. I strongly believe that the military , like our society, needs the talents of every person who wants to make a contribution..." Certainly the time for change is upon us. The military must stop discriminating based upon sexual orientation. If job performance is affected by any factor then the service member must be allowed to correct the deficiencies or be separated. But if the basis for investigation is mere suspicion or beliefs that such behavior may affect the organization this is not a valid principle. The military must not allow illogical prejudices to drive personnel policies. The growing number of military organizations and para- military organizations that accept openly gay individuals proves the Pentagons fears are unfounded. The Pentagon has stated that openly gay service members threaten morale and fighting effectiveness. A General Accounting Office review found that out of seventeen foreign military forces only four explicitly ban homosexuals from service. This shows America is in need of a policy change and it must be fair and succinct ( House Of Representatives ).
      Many veterans and soldiers feel that even if the ban were lifted it would not improve conditions or increase acceptance levels of gays in the military. But lifting the ban would relieve the pressure on gay members which would translate into an increased proficiency of job performance. Lifting the ban would also allow law enforcement and investigory agencies to re-direct their resources toward criminal violations rather than enforcing morals upon the minority. Research indicates that in foreign countries that allow homosexuals to serve the number of openly gay individuals is quite small. The majority of the members were discrete and there were few problems caused by the presence of homosexual members. Very often the banning of a specific group causes members of society to hold irrational beliefs and then engage in violent activity against those classes of people they believe are a threat to the groups integrity. Heterosexuals are often more accepting of those with alternate lifestyles when this group is not banned by the predominant authority. Emphasis must be placed on behavior, conduct and work performance. Military leadership must reassure both the minority and the majority by supporting everyone's right to choose ( Lolorado C1 ).

     Clearly the evidence supports the lifting of the gay ban in full. The military's discrimination of individual based on sexual orientation is not only morally wrong but collides with the principles our country was founded upon, equality and freedom. Our nation has learned important things from the integration of African Americans into our military. The success of both our nation and military depends upon the utilization of all of the resources that are available. America cannot compete effectively if it relies upon outdated prejudices which are completely without merit. Sexual orientation is a personal private issue and not one which compromises national security.  
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Government Argument Welfare.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 




	For a long time now, since the accomplished formation of a stable government, the U.S government has had programs and passed laws that either dealt with issues of or influence family. Many of these "family" programs and laws currently in place today are frequently and commonly debated. One of the most debated and most labored over "family" programs or law is Welfare. The argument is whether or not to, and how welfare should be cut or minimized.

	The debate is simple enough, but the argument on welfare's benefits and  drawbacks is not. On the pro side of the argument, on which I stand, welfare aids poor families as well as the economy and may help to reduce crime. Welfare's benefits far out weigh its drawbacks. Welfare generally helps poor families survive in today's economy by providing a means for them to obtain food while they search for a job. These families receive foodstamps, to purchase food, and a small amount of dollars to aid with either rent or utilities. Because of this income from welfare, crime is reduced. This is because there is now more income so the poor no longer have the need to go out  and commit crimes to attain that income. Welfare also aids in improving the economy because the children of these families can afford to go to school and have a chance to make someone of themselves. Instead of enrolling in welfare themselves, in the future these people will make contributions to the economy and will be tax paying citizens.

	On the contrary, welfare is currently a great government expense that tax payers pay for. Federal tax rates throughout the country are extremely high and welfare, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are main contributors. The purpose of welfare is to aid a person with monetary need in getting by until they can find a job to support themselves, but this seldom occurs. Some argue that there are plenty of poor families that get along without welfare and its benefits. These people argue that the heads of these families have multiple jobs and work extremely hard to get by, while others just sit and collect a welfare check from the government. I feel that this is unfair to the hard workers,  and unfair to us tax payers. Others say that these people are in their present situation because of their own ill choices in life and that the government owes them nothing. It is also true 




that there exist a great number of people that abuse the welfare program. These individuals may enroll in welfare without the intention of ever getting a job. Others trade foodstamps for cash or drugs. These ideas, or facts, can be used as a valid argument for the dismantling, or at least minimizing, of the welfare program.

	Currently steps are being taken by the government to reduce the number of welfare recipients as well as to minimize spending on the program itself. The president recently introduced his "Workfare" plan. This plan, by forcing individuals to both work and search for work and by ultimately truncating their welfare benefits, should reduce both the number of people on welfare and the number of future enrollments.

	The pro's and con's of welfare are clear. I am somewhat partial to the idea of down sizing, but am not a hard-line thinker and believe that the program should be left in place. The drain from welfare on  tax payer money, although great , is decreasing as more and more people get off welfare and begin work.   
                                                  










	For a long time now, since the accomplished formation of a stable government, the U.S government has had programs and passed laws that either dealt with issues of or influence family. Many of these "family" programs and laws currently in place today are frequently and commonly debated. One of the most debated and most labored over "family" programs or law is Welfare. The argument is whether or not to, and how welfare should be cut or minimized.

	The debate is simple enough, but the argument on welfare's benefits and  drawbacks is not. On the pro side of the argument, on which I stand, welfare aids poor families as well as the economy and may help to reduce crime. Welfare's benefits far out weigh its drawbacks. Welfare generally helps poor families survive in today's economy by providing a means for them to obtain food while they search for a job. These families receive foodstamps, to purchase food, and a small amount of dollars to aid with either rent or utilities. Because of this income from welfare, crime is reduced. This is because there is now more income so the poor no longer have the need to go out  and commit crimes to attain that income. Welfare also aids in improving the economy because the children of these families can afford to go to school and have a chance to make someone of themselves. Instead of enrolling in welfare themselves, in the future these people will make contributions to the economy and will be tax paying citizens.

	On the contrary, welfare is currently a great government expense that tax payers pay for. Federal tax rates throughout the country are extremely high and welfare, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are main contributors. The purpose of welfare is to aid a person with monetary need in getting by until they can find a job to support themselves, but this seldom occurs. Some argue that there are plenty of poor families that get along without welfare and its benefits. These people argue that the heads of these families have multiple jobs and work extremely hard to get by, while others just sit and collect a welfare check from the government. I feel that this is unfair to the hard workers,  and unfair to us tax payers. Others say that these people are in their present situation because of their own ill choices in life and that the government owes them nothing. It is also true 




that there exist a great number of people that abuse the welfare program. These individuals may enroll in welfare without the intention of ever getting a job. Others trade foodstamps for cash or drugs. These ideas, or facts, can be used as a valid argument for the dismantling, or at least minimizing, of the welfare program.

	Currently steps are being taken by the government to reduce the number of welfare recipients as well as to minimize spending on the program itself. The president recently introduced his "Workfare" plan. This plan, by forcing individuals to both work and search for work and by ultimately truncating their welfare benefits, should reduce both the number of people on welfare and the number of future enrollments.

	The pro's and con's of welfare are clear. I am somewhat partial to the idea of down sizing, but am not a hard-line thinker and believe that the program should be left in place. The drain from welfare on  tax payer money, although great , is decreasing as more and more people get off welfare and begin work.   
                                                  























	For a long time now, since the accomplished formation of a stable government, the U.S government has had programs and passed laws that either dealt with issues of or influence family. Many of these "family" programs and laws currently in place today are frequently and commonly debated. One of the most debated and most labored over "family" programs or law is Welfare. The argument is whether or not to, and how welfare should be cut or minimized.

	The debate is simple enough, but the argument on welfare's benefits and  drawbacks is not. On the pro side of the argument, on which I stand, welfare aids poor families as well as the economy and may help to reduce crime. Welfare's benefits far out weigh its drawbacks. Welfare generally helps poor families survive in today's economy by providing a means for them to obtain food while they search for a job. These families receive foodstamps, to purchase food, and a small amount of dollars to aid with either rent or utilities. Because of this income from welfare, crime is reduced. This is because there is now more income so the poor no longer have the need to go out  and commit crimes to attain that income. Welfare also aids in improving the economy because the children of these families can afford to go to school and have a chance to make someone of themselves. Instead of enrolling in welfare themselves, in the future these people will make contributions to the economy and will be tax paying citizens.

	On the contrary, welfare is currently a great government expense that tax payers pay for. Federal tax rates throughout the country are extremely high and welfare, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are main contributors. The purpose of welfare is to aid a person with monetary need in getting by until they can find a job to support themselves, but this seldom occurs. Some argue that there are plenty of poor families that get along without welfare and its benefits. These people argue that the heads of these families have multiple jobs and work extremely hard to get by, while others just sit and collect a welfare check from the government. I feel that this is unfair to the hard workers,  and unfair to us tax payers. Others say that these people are in their present situation because of their own ill choices in life and that the government owes them nothing. It is also true 




that there exist a great number of people that abuse the welfare program. These individuals may enroll in welfare without the intention of ever getting a job. Others trade foodstamps for cash or drugs. These ideas, or facts, can be used as a valid argument for the dismantling, or at least minimizing, of the welfare program.

	Currently steps are being taken by the government to reduce the number of welfare recipients as well as to minimize spending on the program itself. The president recently introduced his "Workfare" plan. This plan, by forcing individuals to both work and search for work and by ultimately truncating their welfare benefits, should reduce both the number of people on welfare and the number of future enrollments.

	The pro's and con's of welfare are clear. I am somewhat partial to the idea of down sizing, but am not a hard-line thinker and believe that the program should be left in place. The drain from welfare on  tax payer money, although great , is decreasing as more and more people get off welfare and begin work.   
                                                  






















                                    GOVERNMENT ARGUMENT-WELFARE


	For a long time now, since the accomplished formation of a stable government, the U.S government has had programs and passed laws that either dealt with issues of or influence family. Many of these "family" programs and laws currently in place today are frequently and commonly debated. One of the most debated and most labored over "family" programs or law is Welfare. The argument is whether or not to, and how welfare should be cut or minimized.

	The debate is simple enough, but the argument on welfare's benefits and  drawbacks is not. On the pro side of the argument, on which I stand, welfare aids poor families as well as the economy and may help to reduce crime. Welfare's benefits far out weigh its drawbacks. Welfare generally helps poor families survive in today's economy by providing a means for them to obtain food while they search for a job. These families receive foodstamps, to purchase food, and a small amount of dollars to aid with either rent or utilities. Because of this income from welfare, crime is reduced. This is because there is now more income so the poor no longer have the need to go out  and commit crimes to attain that income. Welfare also aids in improving the economy because the children of these families can afford to go to school and have a chance to make someone of themselves. Instead of enrolling in welfare themselves, in the future these people will make contributions to the economy and will be tax paying citizens.

	On the contrary, welfare is currently a great government expense that tax payers pay for. Federal tax rates throughout the country are extremely high and welfare, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are main contributors. The purpose of welfare is to aid a person with monetary need in getting by until they can find a job to support themselves, but this seldom occurs. Some argue that there are plenty of poor families that get along without welfare and its benefits. These people argue that the heads of these families have multiple jobs and work extremely hard to get by, while others just sit and collect a welfare check from the government. I feel that this is unfair to the hard workers,  and unfair to us tax payers. Others say that these people are in their present situation because of their own ill choices in life and that the government owes them nothing. It is also true 




that there exist a great number of people that abuse the welfare program. These individuals may enroll in welfare without the intention of ever getting a job. Others trade foodstamps for cash or drugs. These ideas, or facts, can be used as a valid argument for the dismantling, or at least minimizing, of the welfare program.

	Currently steps are being taken by the government to reduce the number of welfare recipients as well as to minimize spending on the program itself. The president recently introduced his "Workfare" plan. This plan, by forcing individuals to both work and search for work and by ultimately truncating their welfare benefits, should reduce both the number of people on welfare and the number of future enrollments.

	The pro's and con's of welfare are clear. I am somewhat partial to the idea of down sizing, but am not a hard-line thinker and believe that the program should be left in place. The drain from welfare on  tax payer money, although great , is decreasing as more and more people get off welfare and begin work.   
                                                  























































 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Governments in the movie star wars vs governments in the home.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Governments In Star Wars V.S. Governments in the Home

In the movie "Star Wars" their exist many different forms of government.  In this essay I
will be comparing those forms in the movie to the ones found in the home.  I will be starting
with the most basic form of government and working up to the most complex.

	The most basic form of government is anarchy, The total absence of government. 
In the movie the best example of anarchy is Yoda, living by himself on Dagohba without the
interference of any one apart from self.  An example of this at home would be when children are
left at home while their parents are away for any extended period of time.  Unlike Yoda though,
the children do not live in a total anarchist state for they will eventual have to answer to their
parents when they return.

	The next most primitive form of government is a direct democracy as shown by
the Ewoks.  The Ewoks probably started out as many small groups that lived separate from one
another and grew into what they are now through the evolution theory where, over time banned
together in order to provide an easier means to access the necessities of life for the groups.  At
the time you see them in the movie they seem to be using a tribal form of government where the
elders make up the governing body, but  let every one else take part in the policy making
process. Besides using a tribal form of government they also believe in divine right, or a god
given someone the right to rule them as demonstrated by the Ewoks immediate worship of
C3-P0 upon sight.  This can be compared to any modern family a moving into an apartment
along with many other families where there is a manager, but the every one living in the building
can have a say of what goes on with the policy for the building.  

	Another basic type of government is a dictatorship where only a small group or
one person have control of a group of people.  There is two different examples of a dictator ship
in "Star Wars", one is the Emperor's, which will be discussed later, and that of  Jabba's.  Jabba
is a gangster on Lukes' home planet which is controlled by the empire.  Jabba has a dictatorship
over a small group of people and has a territory in which he has sovereignty, and therefore has
all the qualities of a state.  He has total control of his area including  without having to give to
the will of the people he governs.  he also has control of the making and enforcing of policies
which is the role of government.



The Imperial Empire is also an dictator ship as stated above but with a couple minor
differences.  At one time there was no such thing as the empire but through many battles the
emperor gain control through the use of force, establishing his government as the governing body
for the universe.  In the early days of the empire there was an imperial senate that shared powers
with the emperor in a federalist type of government where the different planets each sent their
own representative to the senate.  In an effort to gain more control over the universe the emperor
destroyed the senate by assassinating its members.  As a result of this the power than fell to a
small group of generals who elected Darth Vader as there leader and second in command much
like a parliament would.  After the first Death Star was blown up the emperor took total control
of the government and using Darth Vader as his go between with his generals.  As you can see
the Empire had evolved from some what of a democracy into a unitary dictatorship where every
thing revolves around the emperor.  Given that the emperor wasn't taking away freedoms as a
punishment but to further his own control of the galaxy, but if you look at the progression that
took place it can be compared to how parents might react when their children get out of line.  At
first they may limit some of their freedoms, and then if they continue to do the things that the
parent deem wrong they might get all of their freedoms taken away.

	The most complicated of the governments in the "Star 
Wars" movies would be that of the Rebel Alliance.  From what you see one can conclude
that the rebels are a confederacy born with the sole purpose of over throwing the Imperial
Empire.  The reason this is the most complicate in my mind is that they must get many different
planets to join and contribute money and people to the cause while trying to avoid the emperor. 
Also they must elect a leader from the many different planets to head up the alliance.  An
application of this form of government could exists when the neighborhood could ban together
to protest a city ordinance or building project.  Where the sole purpose of the group is to stop the
city or come to a compromise that settle the matter, but when the matter is finally resolved the
group will disband for there would be no need for it anymore after accomplishing its goal.

	Over all the many different forms of government displayed in "Star Wars" can be related
and observed through out home life.  Though there might not be one perfect form of government
since they all have their drawbacks it might be in the best interest to study all of the different
approaches to maybe come up with a combination of many different forms of governing to make
a more perfect government., or at least be willing to change a little before a major downfall
occurs. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Gulf War Syndrome A Reality.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
An American Crisis:  Gulf War Syndrome

Imagine a soldier that is willing to die for his country in the Persian Gulf region, so that Americans could pay less for petroleum products in the Gulf, the soldier serves his country, with honor, loyalty, and dignity.  In an attempt to win the war, Saddam Hussein launches a chemical attack on American troops, leaving some soldiers with a lot of incurable symptoms.  Such symptoms include headaches, diarrhea, bleeding gums, chronic fatigue, joint and muscle pain, and rashes which are being grouped as Gulf War Syndrome (Fischer 148).  Then the soldier receives a good old American welcome back home from supporters of the troops.  After the parades and ceremonies are finished the veteran experiences recurring headaches and chronic fatigue.  The veteran seeks treatment at a VA hospital, saying his illness is a result of serving in the Gulf.  Instantly, he is denied benefits and services for making a claim that he cannot prove.  Why would the US government want to deny combat veterans of his claim?  What is American government trying to hide?  I believe that Gulf War Syndrome is a side effect of  low-levels of chemical and biological warfare agents the troops were exposed to during their service in the Persian Gulf.  I can justify my belief by the number of ailing vets and Saddam's stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
The use of chemical warfare in the Gulf is a reality.  First there was the Iraqi Arsenal, they possessed several weapons of the death.  They were building nuclear weapons and already had chemical and biological weapons.  Iraq owned 1500 gallons of anthrax which were in 50 bombs and 10 missiles, and 100 bombs and 15 missiles were loaded with the toxin agent Botulinum that destroys the nerves and eventually chokes the inflicted to a horrible death.  Also Iraq possessed a nerve agent called Ricin that could kill with only a single drop (Hedges and Cary 41).
Classified reports from the Pentagon also support the veterans claim that they were exposed to chemical warfare.  The documents reported that chemical agents were detected and that some chemical weapons were left on the battlefield.  Also our allies, the Czech and French forces detected chemical agents with their detection devices in Northern Saudi Arabia during the beginning of the Gulf War, but US commanders ordered that any warning coming from the Czechs were to be ignored.  When the Marines first landed in Kuwait, chemical detection devices sound (Hedges and Cray 43).  Also a former CIA analyst, Patrick Eddington, revealed records from the 101st Airborne division that showed the division detected exposure to chemical agent. (AP 5)
Besides the alerts and chemical warfare arsenal there were also Saddam's orders and threats.  Iraqi papers that were intercepted by US intelligence reveals that Saddam  ordered that chemical warfare was to be used on Allied targets, but his orders were not to be followed through.  Saddam did this so he would not be responsible for the chemical attacks.  Within other documents were instructions on how and when the chemical and biological weapons were to be released.  The initial attack would come when troops invaded Iraq.  Saddam had drawn defense lines across Kuwait and if that the final line were crossed the Iraqi were ready with a chemical or biological attack on the Allied Forces (Timmerman 14).
A chemical attack is not the only possibility on how the troops were exposed.  The second possibility is that the troops could have been exposed when the Allied forces conducted installation bombings raids on Iraqi targets. "Considering the above factors [concentration of agent, the elevation of the agents plume, and environmental factors such as wind speed and inversion conditions and wind direction] many thousands of fatal casualties could be realized in neighboring countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Iran and the Soviet Union," (Timmerman  14).   A 100 kilograms of anthrax could drop entire communities of people. After the bombings, chemical and biological weapons were found.  In one site near Baghdad, "75 tons of sarin, 60 to 70 gallons of tabun, 250 tons of mustard gas and stocks of throdiglycal, a precursor used in mustard gas." (Fisher 151).
"And then on the morning of  January 17, 1991, the first day of the Gulf War, the official government newspaper in Baghdad announced that Iraq would unleash a secret weapon threat would 'astonish our enemies and fascinate our friends and release an unusual force'" (Fischer 151).  This "unusual force," was predicted to be chemical and biological weapons by US experts and officials.
What more proof does one need?  You have the weapons, the motive, and the chemical detection alarms ringing.  If this were a criminal  case, a guilty verdict would have already been passed down.  We were at war with Iraq, Saddam had the weapons, the one question how why didn't he launch a full chemical attack?  I believe the answer is he did not want the Allies to launch a nuclear attack.
If a full chemical assault were to happen on American Troops, less than half would survive according to Army chemical experts.  This is due to their outdated and obsolete chemical gear. American troops have had to use the same model of gas masks since the 1960's and even back then the masks were not safe.  The main problem is leakage (Sherwood 11).  In order for the mask to function proper an airtight seal is a must.  The problem lies in the mask because the seal does not fit some face shapes and sizes.  This problem would cause leakage, when subject to a chemical attack in up to 50 percent of the masks.  When the General Accounting Office conducted exercises to test the effectiveness of the gear, seven of twenty-three soldiers neglected to get the proper airtight seal, without the air tight seal, the mask would leak and thus be ineffective. The main reason why the soldier could not put on the mask properly is that the soldiers never did receive the proper training, which is four hours in full chemical gear (Sherwood 12).
Some flaws were also associated with the chemical protected suits worn by the army.  The gloves were thick which made pulling the trigger of their guns difficult.  The boots could "protect long enough to escape after an attack, but not long enough to stand and fight" (Sherwood 11).  Both boots and gloves were so chunky, they took 15 minutes just to get them on.  Also with the extreme heat in the Gulf region added to that the thick, bulky chemical suit this caused heat stress among the troops (Sherwood 11).
Nick Roberts of Alabama is one of the 70,000 veterans that are afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome.  After realizing that the War caused his ailments, became an advocate for the vets ailing from Gulf War Syndrome.  Roberts had always wanted to serve his country.  He enlisted in the Navy at the end of the Vietnam war, he did not have a chance to go over. The threat of war in the Gulf was growing and now was his chance to serve his country, but he was almost 40, almost too old to serve in combat.  Roberts' Lieutenant told him he could be excused because of some training he had missed but Roberts had to "set him[lieutenant] straight: 'I'm going[to serve in the Persian Gulf] and that's that.'"(Fischer 148)
Roberts was stationed 200 miles outside of Kuwait where he saw the effects of war.  His unit's well had been poisoned with arsenic and cyanide.  "On other occasions, his comrades related to him that they saw hundreds of dead animals-- sheep, goats, and dogs-- lying along the highways.  Curiously, some animals had blue bags over their heads" (Fischer 140)  Blue bags are the NATO signal for biological and chemical warfare.
On January 20, 1991, Roberts was awakened by the sound of explosions.  The message of "'Confirmed gas attack.  Go to full Mopp-4.'  Panic set in as troops were ordered in full chemical gear," (Fischer 148).  Roberts skin burned and lips were numb and his nose ran followed by the taste of a copper penny in his mouth. Later that night Roberts went to Harold Edwards, a decontamination officer, who told Roberts that he detected mustard gas and lewisite in the area.  (Fischer 148).  Roberts just received his first dose of chemical warfare.  The next day Roberts commander told his troops the explosions were sonic booms and the claims were false.  And Robert was now experiencing flu-like symptoms accompanied with a rash.  "He reported to sick bay every few days.  Each time, the medic made a second of his complaints gave him Motrin and told him what the military doctors would tell him over the next two years-- he was just stressed out."(Fischer 150).  
"When it came to compensation, the department adopted the same stance toward these vets as it had taken with Vietnam Veterans in the late Seventies: no proof, no compensation." (Fischer  151).  The VA had denied because there was no numerical code in VA diagnostic book.  Without a code for the symptoms, the VA would not help the vets.
Tired of not receiving treatment, Roberts decided to see a private doctor, paying the medical bills out of his pocket.  His doctor treated him and discovered that Roberts had developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or cancer.  "In another six to eight weeks, the doctor told him, the tumor would have shut down his kidneys and thrown him  into a coma--or killed him.  The close call made it clear to Roberts that 'had I relied on the VA, I'd be dead now' "(Fischer 152).
Besides chemical warfare, there are two more remote possibilities that explain Gulf War Syndrome.  The first is the depleted uranium coating that is on artillery tips.  The coating made the tips harder, which then could penetrate stronger targets.  When the shell explodes it releases radioactive dust, this which in turn would cause the troops to become ill. (Fischer 150).
The second explanation comes from possibility of multiple chemical sensitivity  syndrome. The oil fires, pollutants, petrochemicals were too much for the soldiers immune systems. The chemicals broke down their immune systems.  Instead of not being unaffected by common chemicals, they are extremely sensitive to them.  The symptoms of gulf war syndrome are present.(Fischer 150).
In my opinion Gulf War Syndrome is comparable to the Agent Orange Scandal in Vietnam.  Both instances troops were afflicted with pain and suffering from chemicals, and the government was unwilling to pay the veterans the benefits they deserve.  After a decade of the Vietnam veterans pleading their claims to the government, the government finally caved in and paid the benefits to the vets.  The vets in Vietnam were sprayed by a chemical defoliant called Agent Orange which caused a wide variety of illnesses like the Gulf War vets are experiencing Gulf War Syndrome (Fischer 151).
Why does the government cover-up these kinds of topics?  Is it so they will not have to pay millions of dollars in benefits?  I think the answer is no.  In my opinion the government wants to keep the topic of chemical warfare a secret.  The American government wants to be seen as an invincible super power.  Imagine if the threat of chemical warfare was a part of everyday life. We would be living in a nightmarish world.  Chemical warfare is a threat to America's status as an invincible superpower.  One drop of chemical agent could kill or injure thousands.  I believe the reason why America covers up this type of situation so that the citizens can believe that they are safe at all times.  Also I believe that the politicians who sent the troops into war do not want to take responsibility for their actions.  We helped Iraq injure some of our troops.  In the Iraqgate scandal we aided Saddam in beating the Iranians by selling them strains of chemical agents.  In turn with these strains the Iraqis could grow their own chemical agents (Fischer 203).  With the ability of to make chemical agents, they could load the agent in weapons and use them against American troops, thus the problem of Gulf War Syndrome in the troops arise.
 
Works Cited
"Ex-CIA analyst accuses Pentagon of hiding data on Gulf War illness."  Kansas State Collegian    	31 Oct. 1996:  5.
Fischer, Mary.  "Dying for Their Country."  Gentleman's Quarterly  May 1994:  147-153, 203-     	206.
Hedges, Stephen and Peter Cary.  "Baghdad's Dirty Secrets."  U.S. News and World Reports  11    	Sept. 1995: 41-43.
Sherwood, Ben.  "Toxic Shock."  The New Republic.  6 May 1991:  10-12.  
Timmerman, Kenneth.  "The Iraq Papers."  The New Republic.  29 Jan. 1996:  12-15.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Gun Control 2.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Gun Control

Government 2301
02 November 1996
Gun Control

A Well regulated militia, being necessary to the 
security of a free State, the right of the people 
to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed.
                                                    Amendment II, Bill of Rights
                                                            Constitution of the U.S.

	The Second Amendment has been a major issue in American politics since 1876.  In question is the intent of this Amendment.  Was it meant to insure that people in general have arms for personal service, or was it intended to insure arms for military service?  The nation's powerful gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, holds that it means the right to keep and bear arms -any arms.  This privileged right is given to those 60-65 million people who choose to own guns.  The NRA also believes that human character defects cannot be changed by a simple regulation of guns.  They argue that problems with firearm ownership cannot be, in any way, associated with criminal violence.  The lobbyist give credibility to this statement by adding that criminal violence continues to increase in cities like New York and Washington DC, even though gun control statutes were put into affect.  They point out that gun laws would not have stopped most addicted killers.  According to the NRA, anti-crime measures are the way to conquer urban violence, not anti-gun measures.  The hope of most members in the association is to educate people about guns.  The association is willing to reveal proper usage of guns to non-gun owners.  They feel that this training could help reduce some of the tragedies involving guns.
	The issue of gun control has become a dividing line in America.  To gun control activists, the issue is about crime and the regulation of the weapons used to commit these crimes.  In their opinion, law abiding citizens should have no need for guns.  In this respect, the big controversy seems shallow .  However, to the NRA population, a much deeper issue is in question, the issue is freedom.  The members believe that the Second Amendment is crucial to the maintenance's of the democratic process.  From their point of view, people who advocate gun control are ready to disregard a constitutional right.  They believe that, if the Second Amendment is abridged, the First Amendment will be the next to go.  

	The Executive Branch of the Federal Government is in a high-profile position on the issue of gun control.  During this current Presidential election season, much rhetoric is being exchanged on the issue.  It would almost appear that one must play to either camp in order to receive the desired endorsement of the strong political lobby groups.  In the case of Bob Dole, the Republican Presidential candidate, his platform on gun control at times are contradictory, but his pattern of voting on gun-related issues in the senate seem to follow the characteristic Republican-NRA view on gun control.
	President Clinton takes a very different stand on gun control.  His current re-election platform calls for further restrictions on guns and on people who buy guns.  This characteristic "Democrat" attitude on gun control closely follows the view of Handgun Control, Inc., a political lobby group dedicated to governmental control and regulation of guns in the United States.  Gun control and drug control are usually associated with opposite ends of the political spectrum.  Presidents Reagan and Bush were eager to pursue the war on drugs but generally wary of gun control.  However, President Clinton has made gun control a major goal, while his drug strategy is almost invisible.  
	
During President Clinton's administration, the Brady Bill on gun control was passed. This bill was gridlocked in the House for seven years.  The Brady Bill (named for James Brady, press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, who was seriously injured when he was shot during a 1981 assassination attempt against Reagan) was signed by President Clinton, on November 30, 1993, and took effect in March 1994.  This measure imposes a 5-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns and provides for the creation of a national computer network to check the backgrounds of gun buyers.  The Clinton Administration was also able to pass an assault-style firearms bill that banned the sale and distribution of certain types of automatic weapons.  The ban, part of a 1994 crime bill, took effect just months before Republicans gained control of Congress.  
	During the past year, President Clinton's Administration pushed to get a terrorism bill passed and signed into law.  During the whole fight, the President and his allies insinuated more than once that opponents of the bill were weak on crime.  Gun laws tend to be passed in an atmosphere of hysteria that discourages critical reflection. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was approved soon after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. In fact, on the very day that Kennedy died, President Johnson issued an emotional appeal to Congress demanding passage of a federal gun-control law.  Two dramatic incidents had helped create a sense of crisis, which Johnson used to his advantage. 
	President Clinton tried to do something similar after last December's shootings on the Long Island Railroad.  Indeed, supporters of gun control are usually quick to seize upon sensational acts of violence to justify more regulation.  The attempted assassination of President Reagan in 1981 ultimately gave us the Brady law, and the Stockton massacre generated assault weapon legislation throughout the country. 
	According to The Washington Post, the President is now quietly working to repeal certain parts of the terror bill which are clearly unconstitutional.  The immigration reform bill (S. 1664), which is now in a conference committee, will be the chosen vehicle for undoing some of the unconstitutional points in the terror bill.  The Clinton administration, however, has proven to take a hard stand for tougher gun restriction laws, and if reelected will push harder for more gun control laws.
	The President of the United States is responsible for enforcing the legislation passed by Congress and to enforce the rulings of the Supreme Court.  The President is the gatekeeper in the area of National Agendas.  The outcome of the Presidential Election this November 5th  will determine Administrative agenda and policy on crime, guns, and gun-control into the twenty-first century.

	The Legislative branch of the government controls the enactment of laws and the legislative process.  While the president may be in charge of national agendas, it is ultimately up to congress to pass bills into law.  When Clinton first came into office, Congress was dominated by the Democrat Party.  As mentioned earlier, Clinton was able to get the Brady Bill signed into law, as well as get the ban on assault weapons passed through Congress before the majority of the House shifted to favor the Republicans.  
	Laws passed in the States of Florida and Texas have gone in the opposite direction.  The Right to Carry Laws, were designed to reduce violent crime by making personal weapons an equalizer between violent criminals and potential victims.  The Fort Worth Star Telegram recently reported that the fears raised about those laws had been proven unfounded, that the feared "Bloodbath" had not come, and never would.  And according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, in those states that had passed Right To Carry laws, Violent Crime had been reduced.  
	After the Congressional shift took place, the president found it tougher to have his political agenda on gun control carried out.  Instead, the Republican congress attempted to reverse some of the laws passed by the previous session of Congress.  In March of this year, House Republican leaders, fulfilling a longtime promise to the National Rifle Association, voted to repeal the ban on assault-style firearms. 
	Representative Charles Schumer, chief author of the 1994 legislation (that banned the weapons), described the expedited scheduling of the vote, announced by House Majority Leader Dick Armey, as "a sneak attack".  The measure had not even been scheduled for action by the Rules Committee, which must act before a bill goes to the floor.  The ban, part of the 1994 crime bill, took effect just months before Republicans gained control of Congress despite active lobbying against it by the NRA. Overturning it has been the association's top legislative priority.
	The House of Representatives voted to repeal the ban on 19 types of semiautomatic weapons, but President Clinton said he would veto the legislation if it gets to his desk.  The vote came on a bill to remove the ban on weapons like the AK-47 and the Uzi from the 1994 crime bill that passed when Democrats controlled Congress.  The final vote was 239-173.  "It is an outrage for the Congress to vote to repeal the assault weapon ban. It's an IOU to the National Rifle Association," Vice President Al Gore said at a news briefing. Supporters of the bill said the ban was ineffective and violated the constitutional right of Americans to own guns.  Clinton had denounced the bill earlier, saying, "I believe it would be deeply wrong for Congress to repeal this assault weapon ban. It doesn't need to be voted on in the House or the Senate and if it is passed, I will veto it." 
Several House Republican freshmen have been pressuring leaders for the repeal, which they promised during their 1994 campaigns that created the House's first Republican majority in 40 years.  "Promises made. Promises kept," Armey said.  The majority leader's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, added later: "House Republican leaders are fulfilling a promise made in January of 1995 to Republican and Democratic members who asked for and were told they would get a vote on repeal sometime in this Congress."  Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, was furious.  "The NRA must consider the Republican Congress the gift that keeps on giving," Conyers said. "Last week, the Republicans destroyed the anti-terrorism bill because the NRA didn't like it, and now they want Uzis and AK-47s back in mass production."  Both House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, who clinched the GOP nomination for president Tuesday, promised last year to put repeal to a vote. The terror bombing of Oklahoma City's federal building and the stalemate with the Clinton administration over the federal budget helped keep the measure off both chambers' schedules.  On March 22, 1996 the bipartisan House voted to repeal the Clinton gun ban and get tough with armed criminals was achieved despite efforts by Administration allies who resorted to personal attacks.
"What we are going to have is a partnership of strengthening laws against the criminal misuse of firearms, which everyone agrees is the real problem issue, and eliminating harassment of law-abiding gun owners who are not the problem."
                                                                        --House Speaker Newt Gingrich
183 Republicans and 56 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives backed up those words when they voted to repeal the 1994 Clinton gun and magazine ban.  

	Last year, Bernie Ward, a prominent Radio Talk Show host on KGO radio out of San Francisco said "The Supreme Court has yet to strike down any law affecting gun control" and he is right.  The Supreme Court has not heard a case involving gun control since 1934.  In that case... a man was to defend his right to possess a sawed off shotgun.  The ruling was such that, since he could not prove that the shotgun was standard military equipment, he had no right to possess it.  Therefore, had it been military equipment, he had the right to own the weapon.  Sawed off shotguns are banned in the United States as a result.
	The same thinking went into the "Ban" of fully automatic fire arms, such as the Tompson Sub Machine Gun, which was popular with organized crime during the '20s and '30s.  Lawmakers did not "ban" the weapon, so much as control it by making it a requirement to register and obtain a license to own one.  As a result, sales of the Tommy Gun dropped to nothing until World War II when the weapon was used extensively by US forces, and those of other nations.  Had the weapon been "banned," the Supreme Court would undoubtedly have overturned the law.  The myth that the sub machine gun was banned, however, has persisted.
	In April, 1995 the Supreme Court ruled that gun possession at school was not a federal offense, (U.S. v Lopez, No. 93-1260, April 26, 1995).  In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority to intervene in local affairs when it enacted the 1990 Gun Free School Zone, a federal law banning possession of a gun within a 1000 feet of a school.  What's at issue here is how much authority Congress can exercise over the states.  Since 1930, Congress has relied heavily on a clause in the Constitution giving Congress power to "regulate commerce...among the several states," to enact a slew of federal laws formerly left-up to the states.  Congress has only had to show that the activity somehow involved interstate commerce to justify making a federal law against it. 
	In the Lopez ruling, Chief Justice William Rehnquist called the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act "a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise."  He also stressed that federal authority to regulate interstate commerce cannot be used to "obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."  
	The outcome of the Lopez ruling was that Congress received a strong message from the Supreme Court to curb it's practice of broadly interpreting the commerce clause to enact legislation that can be handled by the states.  It is too early to know how or if this decision will impact other gun laws, but it is a move that may help to reduce the scope of the federal government.
	The gun controllers like to argue that the courts have found no constitutional right of individuals to bear arms. That merely means that the courts have seldom had occasion to rule on gun control laws.  As The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court notes, one reason for the absence of court rulings on the Second Amendment is that, for much of American history, there were few regulations concerning firearms ownership.
	In June of this year, The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the Brady Law.  Soon after the law took effect, lawsuits were filed in federal district courts in seven states.  The plaintiffs in those cases were local sheriffs, whom the law requires to conduct background checks of handgun purchasers.  Each of the suits alleges that the Brady Law violates the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects state and local governments from certain types of federal mandates.
	Within the last year, three circuits of the U.S. Court Of Appeals have issued rulings.  In two cases, the Ninth Circuit and Second Circuit, the courts ruled that the background check provision of the law did not violate the 10th Amendment.  The Fifth Circuit rendered a different decision -- striking down the background check as a violation of the 10th Amendment.  No court has ever struck down the waiting period.  "We are confident that the Supreme Court, upon hearing the case, will agree with the decisions made in the Ninth and Second Circuits," said Sarah Brady, chairperson of Handgun Control, Inc.  "We are not surprised that the Supreme Court agreed to examine the case given the split in the circuits.
	Since going into effect on Feb. 28, 1994, the law has stopped tens of thousands of prohibited individuals from making over-the-counter handgun purchases.  Furthermore, polls have consistently shown more than 90 percent of the American public supporting the law.
	As stated earlier, there is little jurisprudence in the area of gun control by the Supreme Court.  Until the Lopez case, which is really a commerce clause case, not a gun control case, the Supreme Court had not heard a gun control issue since the Miller case in 1939.  This, however, seems to be changing with the announcement that the Supreme Court will review the Brady Bill Case.  The issue of gun control is heating up... soon it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide on the Constitutionality of gun control.

	Special interest groups have been part of the American political process since its beginning and have been viewed ambivalently for more than 200 years. As early as 1787, James Madison warned about the "mischiefs of `factions.'"  Beginning in the late 1970s, pressure groups took on new importance in U.S. politics.  In the area of gun-control, political special interest groups are polarized.  There is no middle of the road groups, they are either devoutly for or against gun control.  On either side of the gun control issue are two very prominent, high profile groups, the NRA and Handgun Control, Inc.  
	The NRA (National Rifle Association) strongly opposes any type of gun regulation.  The NRA publishes "fact sheets" and "congressional ratings sheets" to inform their members and non-members on their views and how their Congressional representative rates in the area of gun-control laws.  In 1992 the organization had about 2,500,000 members.  With headquarters and a strong lobby in Washington, D. C., the NRA mobilizes its members through some 14,000 affiliates.  Its activities are both educational and recreational (educating police firearms instructors, sponsoring shooting competitions, promoting safety) and political (lobbying against gun-control legislation). Although polls show that the U. S. public favors gun-control laws, the NRA has so far successfully, if less and less decisively, opposed broad-based legislation.
The NRA has a slogan: "guns don't kill people, people kill people."  Groups for stricter gun control, such as Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), argue that guns do kill people.  They think that it is the gun that makes people feel they are in the right and have the power to take someone's life and control a situation.  
	Handgun Control, Inc. is the nation's largest citizens' gun control lobbying organization.  HCI, based in Washington, D.C., works to enact stronger federal, state, and local gun control laws, but does not seek to ban handguns.  Founded in 1974, HCI has more than 400,000 members nationwide.  The Brady Law, which was passed in February 1994, was strongly lobbied for by interest groups such as HCI.  These types of interest groups are actively working to counteract the NRA's force in Washington.
	The NRA, HCI, and other interest groups endorse political candidates to give members a means of knowing where that candidate stands on an issue.  This ''single-issue politics," creates a political race where many individuals and groups support or reject candidates based solely on their views on particular questions.  Interest groups are increasingly supplying the public with more and more guidelines on how its members should vote for candidates.

The preamble of the United States Constitution clearly states its objective: to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
	The bill of rights is the set of amendments to the constitution intended to secure these objectives for the individual citizens of the United States. The second amendment states:  A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  This amendment was written in the wake of the revolutionary war, when the ability to raise arms against the imperial force made the new republic possible. Securing the ownership of arms, as a right, was central to creating a government that would not infringe on the liberty of its citizens. The use of arms, however, is the last option reserved when all other attempts at the preservation of liberty have failed.
	Today we live in a much different world than that of our founders. The rise of the United States into world dominance, the shift of population into the cities, and the increase of drug use and violence have produced great change in our society. Americans once feared the loss of the free state would come from foreign invasion or political corruption, but now the greatest threat is the violence we see on the evening news. The increase in violence and murder has sparked the greatest debate over gun ownership in our nation's history. The second amendment has been reinterpreted by those who feel the mere presents of guns have led to increased violence. I believe that the threat violence poses to personal liberty is the best reason to protect gun rights.
	We must assume that the founders understood the responsibilities that are inherent with gun ownership.  The exclusion of criminals and the insane had to be seen in the interest of the republic.  These specific decisions are constitutionally the responsibility of individual states.  The regulations placed on the ownership of guns fall into two categories.  The first set of regulations are penalties and deterrents for those who should not have guns.  Second is the regulations that help to protect law abiding gun owners.
	Guns must be regulated to prevent criminals and others who might use weapons against the good of the state from attaining weapons legally or illegally. President George Bush indicated the true problem in a 1992 speech, when he said, "I am firmly committed to keeping guns out of criminals hands and keeping criminals off the street.  Ultimately, the only gun control that will really work is crime control."
	Several reforms are needed in order to decrease the number of criminals in possession of guns.  Mandatory sentences should be established for criminals who perpetrate crimes using guns and for felons caught with guns.  This regulation will serve as a deterrent for using guns, and will help keep the armed criminal behind bars.  A minimum sentence for the theft of firearms may help to slow down the flow of guns into the black market.
	A waiting period or a pre-check system on all gun purchases will help keep ineligible buyers from attaining guns legally.  The system must be efficient and accurate before the cost to taxpayers can be justified.  Stricter rules for the licensing of gun dealers will help to limit the number of people with access to new weapons.  Stricter business regulations and an effort to increase compliance will help to weed out the bad dealers.  The most stringent of regulations can not solve the problem of violence in America.  The black market is strong and will continue to serve the needs of the criminal.  The United States has no hope of truly improving its social dilemma without a return to values.
	Until the situation improves, the lawful citizen must be allowed to protect him/herself in the spirit of the second amendment.  Compliance with simple regulations that will help protect the owner and others demonstrates responsibility in gun ownership.  I feel that gun ownership should be handled in the same fashion as car ownership.  The first step should be thorough training.  Mandatory safety classes will teach how and when the use of a gun is appropriate.  When the training is completed, a gun can be registered and a license for use issued.  Despite all the training in the world, accidents still occur.  A gun owner liability policy should be required for anyone who wishes to own or use a gun.  This policy would probably become part of a homeowners policy, and could be used as a pre-checking system for the purchase of handguns.  This would place the responsibility of background checks on the insurance companies rather than the taxpayer.  It would also allow those with a policy to pick out and take home a gun the same day of purchase, eliminating the need for a waiting period.  The insurance industry is the foremost expert in the prevention of accidents.  The regulations they would place on gun owners would be more effective than any the government bureaucracy could develop for the prevention of accidents.
	In any situation, guns should be seen as the last option.  In some cases, however, the use of deadly force is your only protection.  In 1992, firearms were used for self-defense over 82 thousand times.  In 63% of these incidents, the victim only had to show the gun to stop the attack.  With proper training, a gun is an effective deterrent and a lethal defense.
	Perhaps the people who know the best about gun control are police officers. In a 1988 survey of police officers, most unanimously agreed on mandatory prison sentences, stricter laws on handgun sales, and increased requirements for handgun dealers.  In this same survey, they also agreed that citizens should be allowed guns in their homes for self protection. This shows that police officers know they can not protect everyone at once; at times it falls on the individual to make up their own mind regarding self defense.
Bibliography

Anand, Rajen S., "The Government Terror Bill," Asian Week September 21, 	1996: pp. 23-26.

Baer, Donald  and Ted Gest, "Guns," US News and World Report May 1989: pp. 	21-25.

Cassidy, Warren, "The Case For Firearms," Time 19 January 1990: p. 23.

Congressional Records, May 29, 1995, p. S 7610

Evans, James T., Where Liberals Go To Die (Houston, Texas: Commonwealth 	Publishing, 1994) p. 201.

Grey, Ian, "Guns, Militia, and the Constitution," Newsweek 16 September 1996: 	pp. 41-42.

Holms, Ronald M., A Primer on the Sociology of Crime (New York, NY: McGraw-	Hill, Inc, 1991) p. 39.

Ifill, Gwen, "Another Victim?" The New York Times 24 March 1996, sec. N-1: p. 	13+.

Institute for Legislative Action, "NRA Firearm Fact Card 1996," National Rifle 
	Association 6 February 1996: p. 1.

Malone, Michael, "Clinton's Gun Control Legacy," The Washington Post May 01, 	1996, Home ed., sec. 2nd: p. 11.

NRA Firearm Fact Card 1996. p. 13

Snyder, Jeffery R., "A Nation of Cowards," The Public Interest Vol./Issue (Fall of 	'93): pp. 24-31.

Sowell, Thomas, "Gun Control Proponents Have Hidden Agenda," The Times-	Mirror 02 February 1996, Evening ed., sec. Metro: pp. 7+.

U.S. Department of Justice, April 1994
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Gun Control in the United States.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
     Regulation of guns is a necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives.  A good
definition of gun control is needed to understand the sides and issues.  Gun control is an effort to stop
the rise in violent crime by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms.  Persons in the group
against gun control believe that gun control is wrong, and that it is a violation of constitutional rights. 
Those in favor of gun control believe that gun control is good, that the Second Amendment does not
apply to regular citizens, and that guns should be taken out of the hands of criminals.
     There are several major anti-gun control groups.  These groups include the National Rifle
Association (NRA), and the Gun Owners of America (GOA) .  The NRA is a national group
dedicated to the upholding of the Second amendment of the Constitution (See Appendix).  In their
magazines, American Hunter and American Rifleman, they say "The NRA,  . . .  believes that every
law-abiding citizen is entitled to the ownership and legal use of firearms,  . . . "  The NRA does many
things to help display their beliefs and persuade others to their beliefs.  This association also has a
strong pull on legislation, because it  has many lobbyists and supporters in government.  This group
has many members in Congress, and former presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan are NRA
members.  The NRA lobbies for several types of legislation.  For example, the NRA is currently trying
to repeal the ban on assault weapons.  A lot of money is spent each year on legislation (See Appendix
for figures).
     The Gun Owners of America is another group that is against gun control.  The GOA 
preserves and defends the rights of gun owners through legislation.  They publish books, articles, and
videos on gun issues and how those issues affect people.  They also conduct seminars for the press
and Congress about issues on the Second Amendment, and gun issues.  The GOA opposes bans on
semiautomatic weapons, armor piercing ammunition, and handguns.
         There are also many groups that are pro gun control in the United States.  The major group for
gun control is Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), which is headed by Sarah Brady.  Mrs. Brady is the wife
of James Brady, who was shot during an attempt on president Reagan's life in 1981.  Another major
group is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), which was formerly known as the National
Coalition to Ban Handguns.  The CSGV believes that handguns should be outlawed completely, with
a few exceptions, such as the military, police and sportsmen who keep their guns locked up together
in a gun club.  
               Some accomplishments of HCI are laws prohibiting the interstate sale of handguns, and laws
prohibiting the sale of "assault weapons."  The main goal of this organization was to pass the Brady
Bill.  Some of its other goals are to ban multiple sales of handguns, to create gun-free zones around
all of the schools, and to establish control over who can manufacture and sell weapons.  HCI is
working very hard to achieve these goals.  
               The CSGV is dedicated to the total removal of guns from the hands of citizens, with a few
exceptions.  The CSGV is trying very hard to put gun banning legislation in the law.  They believe
that if there are fewer guns out on the streets, then there will be fewer gun crimes committed.
               The anti-gun control people believe in several major ideas.  They believe that the second
amendment rights apply only to militia, which they define as a group such as the National Guard and
not regular citizens.  These people also believe that by controlling numbers of guns on the streets gun
violence can be reduced.
               The national government doing working with the issue of  gun control.  There have been
several bills passed in the last ten years that have to do with gun control.  First, there was the Gun
Control Act of 1986, which banned all fully-automatic weapons from the hands of citizens.  Then in
1988 there was the Brady Bill, which made a seven-day waiting period mandatory for all handgun
purposes, this law passed the House of Representatives in 1991, but part of it was ruled
unconstitutional in 1994.  Most recently there was the ban on assault weapons, which bans the sale
and manufacture of what the government considers assault weapons.  Both the NRA and HCI have
fought very hard against one another to pass some bills, and to keep some bills from becoming law. 

               Both sides of this argument present very strong cases.  They have many facts and statistics
to use as weapons (see Appendix for data of both sides).  The stronger case being presented by the
pro-gun control groups.  The NRA has several good points, but HCI has points that are more relevant
to the society we live in.  Pro-gun control groups can prove that crime can be reduced with more gun
control laws by showing death statistics in countries with stricter gun control laws (Figure 1.1).  The
NRA argues differently, but does not have the extremely convincing evidence to back their ideas up. 
To save more lives from death by firearms, some compromise must be made between these groups. 
Losing some time or money to buy a gun could save many lives.  The NRA argues that people are
guaranteed the right to own guns in the Second Amendment (See Appendix for the text of this
amendment), but anti-gun control groups say that the law applies only to militia, not individuals.  The
pro-gun control groups have the stronger case because they can prove that lives will be saved.  Take
away the guns, and there will be no gun violence, it makes sense.



















Appendix  
Figure 1.1
Handgun Control, Inc.
     "In 1988, handguns killed 7 people in Great Britain, 19 in Sweden, 53 in        Switzerland, 25 in Israel, 13 in Australia, 8 in Canada, and 8,915 in the United          States."
Figure 1.2 
1989 Federal Lobbying Reports
This figure shows the amount of money spent by both pro and anti gun control groups in 1989
lobbying for legislation
                            (1st Half Gross Receipts)
                    Handgun Control, Inc.              $3,287,020
          National Coalition to Ban Handguns    265,719
          ANTI-GUN TOTAL                $4,092,739
          Citizens for the Right to Keep and
          Bear Arms                     $1,158,572
          NRA/Institute for Legislative Action        915,603
          Gun Owners of America              361,715
          PRO-GUN TOTAL                 $2,435,890
          ANTI-GUN ADVANTAGE            $1,656,849
Figure 2.1
The Second Amendment to the Constitution
     "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of            
   the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Definitions
     Ammunition.  The shells or cartridges fired from a gun.
     Anti-gun control.  Favoring no restrictions on the access of  law-abiding citizens to          firearm ownership.
     Armor-piercing bullets.  A type of bullet that can penetrate protective vests or other         gear sometimes worn by law-enforcement officers.
     Background check.  A type of gun control requiring review of the background of a          potential gun owner to check for a criminal record or history of drug or        alcohol abuse.
     Ban.  A law or act that prohibits the acquisition or sale of a particular item, such as a           gun.
     Firearm.  A device for storing, and firing of ammunition.
     Fully-automatic weapon. A gun that can fire many rounds with one pull of the    trigger,
such as a machine gun.
     Gun-control law.  Any law that restricts the ownership or sale of firearms.
     Handgun.  A short, thick-barreled firearm that can be handheld.
     Lobby.  An organization that uses its political power to promote causes supported by      its membership.
     Militia.  1. As defined by the Constitution it includes all able-bodied men between 18    and 45 2. Defined by the pro-gun control groups, it means the members of groups      such as
the National Guard and the armed forces 
         Pro-gun control.  Favoring restrictions on the access of citizens to firearm ownership.         
 Rifle.  A long, thick-barreled firearm with a handle that fits to the shoulder.
     Semiautomatic.  A firearm with a removable magazine and a trigger that must be  pulled
once to fire each shot.


















                             Endnotes













                          Works Cited
Alba, John. "Outspoken Lawman." American Survival Guide Jan. 1996: 88-90.
Gun Control. Ed. Bruno Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1992.
Little, Christopher. "The Disarming President." American Survival Guide May 1995: 46-49.
McClure, Sashai A. "An Analysis of Handgun Control, Inc.";downloaded from the Combat      Arms BBS, Castro Valley, 3-5-96.
Newton, David E. Gun Control: An Issue for the 90's. Hillside: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Strahinich, Helen. Think About Guns in America. New York: Walker and Company, 1992.
United States.Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.Your Guide to Firearms R 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Gun Control.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Automobiles must only be licensed for use upon public roads, and licenses are not required for the purchase of cars.  There are no waiting periods or background checks on the purchase of cars.  People who misuse their cars are punished for their own actions, and particular types of cars aren't banned or taken away from those who use them safely.  Unlike driving on public roads, which is a privilege, owning a gun is a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution .  The right of self -defense is fundamental and inalienable, but requiring a license to own the means of self defense gives government the power to deny that right, for whatever reason.   Licensing of law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon is permissible, because, like driving, the government has an interest in maintaining public safety by ensuring as best it can that only the law-abiding carry in public.  However, some supporters of the right to keep and bear arms oppose requiring a permit for concealed carry, and prefer a permitless system like that of the state of Vermont, which simply punishes misuse of guns, rather than restricting their lawful use.  Restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms on their own property, and in defense of their homes and families, punishes them before they have even done anything wrong.
	In 1990, guns, which gun control supporters claim are "designed only to kill," were involved in about 1,400 accidental deaths, 18,800 suicides, and 13,600 murders, for a total of 33,800 firearm-related deaths.  There are more than 200,000,000 firearms in private hands in the United States.  Also in 1990, motor vehicles, which are not "designed to kill" were involved in about 46,000 accidental deaths and 1,900 people decided to suck on an exhaust pipe to end their lives, for a total of  47,900 motor-vehicle related deaths.  There are about 143,000,000 passenger cars in use in the United States.  From looking at the numbers, these licensed and registered vehicles routinely kill more people than the unlicensed and unregistered deadly weapons do.  This isn't because these devices "designed only to kill" aren't used a lot; U.S. gun owners go through roughly 4,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition a year. 
	Much has been made by some gun control advocates of the fact that there "are more gun dealers than gas stations" in the United States. While arguably true (there were 269,079 Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) in 1990 according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and about 205,000 gasoline service stations and auto dealers combined in 1990), it doesn't require a federal background check to run a gas station or to sell cars so those numbers aren't definitive.  Those Federal Firearms License holders who had no retail location, often called "kitchen table dealers" by anti-gun activists (and who, until recently, were a significant percentage of FFL holders), got their licenses primarily for the added convenience of being exempt from waiting periods or to facilitate purchases from out-of-state dealers or mail-order companies.
	There's nothing wrong about wanting to be exempt from the regulations which the supporters of  gun control have placed on the right to keep and bear arms.  By undergoing the FBI background check required in order to get an FFL, these people have shown that they are law-abiding.  Such low-volume gun "dealers" have been the target of BATF policy makers recently, and many have had their licenses revoked for not having a retail location.  It should be noted that in many areas, the private sale of firearms by unlicensed individuals who the BATF does not consider to be in business are legal, and almost completely unregulated.  After all, firearms are considered property, and so long as the owner does not knowingly sell or transfer a gun to a person who is underage or who is forbidden by law from owning firearms (such as felon), one may dispose
of one's own property as one sees fit.  How ironic that the low-volume "dealers" who have gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining an FFL are the ones the BATF has chosen to target, rather than going after armed felons and the illegal and/or unlicensed dealers who supply them. 
	The fact is, most people use guns at least as responsibly as they use their automobiles, and the vast majority of gun owners never harm anyone. That being the case, why punish everyone for the wrongs committed by a few, whether they be criminal car drivers or criminals with guns?
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Harmless Offensive Language.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Why the !@#$ would any &*$% head want to censor @#$ &*$% offensive language?  I mean what the !@#$??
	Did any of that offend anyone?  Would it if I had used the actual words?  I hope it wouldn't because I sure didn't intend for it to.  But then again, if it did, well, don't take this personally, but, you don't need to be reading this.  I'm sorry, but I am not forcing you to.  No one is.  Close your eyes if someone puts it in front of you, sing the Macarena a loud if someone reads it to you, whatever.  The fact of the matter is, freedom of speech is the law.
I have in my hand, not that you would know this, the Constitution of the United States of America.  In this constitution, there is this little thing called the Bill of Rights which contains the first ten amendments, the first being the freedom of speech.  Article I of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."  Translated, this asserts that I can say what ever the !@#$ I want to.�  Ooh, I'm sorry, I hope you closed your eyes and washed your ears out with soap.  If not, too $%@# bad!
	My belief is that nothing should be censored.  Nothing.  It is every person's right and responsibility to shield him or herself from any language and other audio and visual 
			
� provided I do not say anything false which could hurt another person's reputation
messages that is found demeaning to the individual.  One person may find my !@#$%& language offensive, yet another may find my language rather humorous and meaningful.  I feel that when I use offensive language, I am more thoroughly stressing my point.  Allow me to demonstrate my point.  I have just been shot in the knee cap on my way to the Noble Prize Award Dinner, and I will now be disqualified as a contestant for the Noble Peace Prize.  I then say to the bad man, "Ow...that hurt.  Why...did you...do...that...to me?"  The man who has done this awful deed will feel no remorse and carry on whistling It's a wonderful life.  Now, let's try this again with a more meaningful message.  "Son of a !@%$#!!!  What the !@#$ did you @#$ &*$% do that for you #$%& ^*%&$ #$$ %&$% $&*% &$ $%*$%????"  The man will now have a better sense of what pain he has brought me.  He will still obviously run and hide and do nothing about what he did, but he'll more than likely feel more guilty for what he did.
	Censoring is a big issue in this country, yet there is no need for all this pointless arguing and bickering.  There is nothing that gets displayed on television, in the movies, or on the radio that is not already roaming the streets in the real world.  Everyone uses offensive language.  Why should it be censored on television?  It is not causing anyone any harm.  "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  This old rhyme makes a valid point.  If I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, I'll more than likely hurt you; if I say you are a @#$%, I've only offended you but have caused no real damage. Everyone should learn this phrase and keep it around to remind themselves that no harm is being done to them.  And if they still feel as though they do not want to hear anything that they find offensive, then they should just turn down the volume, walk away, dance a jig while singing the theme to "Barney", or all three at once.  I don't care.
There is only one concept that can even begin to argue for the side of censorship and that is morality in conjunction with personal feelings.  However, that is not good enough because no one has the same personal feelings on morality, and no one can compete with the law.  As long as there is balanced dispute among the people of the United States, the law will not and can not change.  People can argue it, people can attempt to change it, but for now the law declares that every person has a right to their freedom of speech, and until that law is changed, which would be unconstitutional to do so, censorship of language is illegal.  Unfortunately, no compromise can legally be made on this issue.  The only way to legally have forced censorship is to change the law, and in order to do that, the country will need some new congressmen.  To put it simply, no one can be forced to censor obscene language until the law is changed.
All the people of the world have their own beliefs.  Mine is simple.  I am strictly against the censoring of harmless obscene language.  In fact, one could say that I even encourage it.  It really helps to get one's feelings across to other people.  And in addition to this, there is the legal issue which states that no rights of speech will be abridged by Congress.  And if you know me, you'd know that I'd be the first to follow the law and back the government up.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\HAS POLITICAL ISLAM FAILED IN ALGERIA .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Has Political Islam Failed in Algeria? 
 A Question One Can Ask.

	The question whether Political Islam has failed or not due to the internal structure of the Islamic political movement, in either Algeria or any other country in the Islamic World, is an important question for the analysis of the politicized Islamic phenomena.  Olivier Roy sees the movement as a failure, not only in Algeria but also in the whole area from Casablanca to Tashkent, the movement has resulted in failure due to many reasons that are seen as common among all the divisions of the movement regardless of their different socio-economic and political background that are more or less responsible of the generation of such movements.  The Algerian case is the best case one can see as a direct application of Roy's theoretical analysis of the Failure of political Islam.  
	
	The Islamic movement started in Algeria by the end of the 1980's, after a long era of the corrupt regime and it's economic in efficiency that led the country to live under extremely harsh standards of living for the average individual.  While most of the Algerian citizens are under 30, namely 75%, which means a huge number of people in need for a high rate of creation of jobs, especially with the growth rate of population that is up to 3%, thirty percent of the Gross National Product used to go to service the payment of the national debt .  This, of course, resulted in the decline of the growth rate of the GNP. What made it even worse is the fall of natural gas revenues during the 1980's.  "In the days after the dual fall of the price of oil and the value of the dollar, the demographic expansion had pushed the GNP's growth curve below the horizontal for the first time in years. "

	Such economic conditions were very much responsible for the instability and the weakening of the legitimacy of the FLN government.  "The plummeting of oil prices in the 1980's combined with the mismanagement of Algeria's highly centralized economy brought about the nation's most serious economic and social since the early days of independence. " Housing conditions were extremely bad and it was normal for the average citizen to live in one room with six other people.  The economic frustration was a general of the Algerian citizen and still is.  This economic frustration led to street riots  that were not characterized by an Islamic attitude but rather a normal frustration that any population would feel towards an inefficient corrupt regime that seems to be directly responsible for such economic status.  "The masses that took the streets of Algerian cities, in October 1988, were not only Islamists but workers, students, secularists, leftists, feminists and Berberists, all demonstrating their disillusionment with the FLN (National Liberation Front).  " The FLN government responded by the Army intervention and the arbitrary arresting of the protesters.  They used torture against people which ultimately created a high measure of resentment and destruction of the government legitimacy.   Moreover, the government doctrine to reform the Algerian economy was so much supportive to those who had money already, which gave no benefit to the crushed masses that were striving under poor standards of life, which is the case in most countries that undergo transitional periods of economic reform where the desperate need for investment forces the government to grant the investors more rights and less duties to assure an attractive business environment.  However, the corrupt regime seemed to do that for its own benefit since most of the rich Algerians were practically either government officials or having strong connections with the authority.  Thus, the economic reform fired back on the FLN.  

	Meanwhile, there was another severe problem that affected the countries domestic politics; the problem of identity.  As a French colony under the French authority, prior independence, Algeria suffered what Arab writers and journalists call "farnasah" which means Frenchization of Algeria.  This is what is noticeably seen in most if not all French colonies.  Spencer mentions that "Largely -but not exclusively- because of the colonial legacy of France, language has been politicized since independence and continues to present problems for national unity. "  The French suppressed any attempt to apply Arabization of education and thus succeeded in creating an elite of French speakers.  After independence, Arabization of education in Algeria started to grow which gave the rise to a frustrated Arabic speaking population that suffered from the lack of job opportunities for them which was a sort of discrimination against those who cannot speak or write French in a country that is a member of the Arab League with an official religion that has Arabic as a necessity.  In 1979 the so called Arabised demonstrated their frustration through the use of mass mobs asking for equal rights with the French educated.  Chedli Benjadid, the Algerian president tried to rectify the bias against Arabic educated but still they felt that discrimination.  The Islamists, always encouraged Arabization to create a national identity separated from France.  The problem of national identity and unity is basically drawn along linguistic lines, especially with the existence of the Berbers who have their own language that has never been recognized by the authority as an official language although the Berbers constitute 15-20% of the Algerian population.  In addition, being a French speaker has been stereotyped as being a pro-France anti-Islamic .  Thus, the Algerian society suffered from both cultural divisions and economic frustration which gave rise to the FIS.   
	
	As a way to gain the lost legitimacy the mono-party people's assembly approved a new multi-party constitution under which the formation of the FIS ( Islamic Salvation Front) took place.  In one year time, FIS was very successfully able to spread its popularity among the frustrated population by a doctrine to solve the national identity problem, since practically all Algerians are Muslim despite the clear bias of the FIS to Arabic because of its Islamic appeal.

	The main success of FIS was that it could quickly unify the Islamic ideological fanatics under its banner, getting over the differences of the streams between the groups forming this organization.  This is why it is seen that FIS is a revolutionary type organization which is willing to take of power using all necessary means, as power is the major objective because it is the tool with which change might be a possible act.  The founders of the FIS were able to permit ideological quarrels between its members and postpone them till they assume power, which was the basic objective .  Since the FLN was supported by the most powerful institution in the country which is the army, violence was not to serve the FIS and would not assure them the assumption of power.  The democratization process that was taking place in Algeria was a golden change to try to peacefully change the current regime by stepping firstly in the local government level to increase their popularity.

	What shows that Olivier Roy was right to categorize the FIS as a neo-fundamentalist group is their political attitude.  The definition he sets for a neo-fundamentalists' approach is the strive for power whatever it costs.  Violence, compromise, mobilization of masses and whatever it takes to get to power is possible as it serves the ultimate goal which is establishing the Islamic state, since no virtuous population without the establishment of an Islamic state.

	This is what seemed to be a vicious circle for Roy "How can one escape the cycle: no Islamic state without  virtuous Muslims, no virtuous Muslims without Islamic state. "  This might seem Machivillian to a large extent.  Yet, the FIS was able to do that in more than one case to assure reaching the domination of the National Popular Assembly.  "The two most spectacular examples of this were the mobilization over the United Nations' war against Iraq in January 1991, and the mobilization over unfair electoral laws in May-June 1991"  .  This happened despite the fact that Iraq is dominated by the infidel Ba'athists who cannot be Islamic.  Forming a party, in itself, is not something that Islamists should do since they would have to compromise with the mass support by neglecting some of their principles for the sake of mobilization of voters .  

	In June 1990, the municipal and provincial elections were held and they resulted in an extensive defeat for the ruling FLN.  Their loss was the FIS's gain since they were the only main player on the political scene.  Of course there were so many others since Algeria opened up to the multi-party system to the extent that something like 50 parties or even more appeared at once.  Yet, there were only two main parties and the others were real not political parties but they were mostly "debating societies around one or more old politician" .   The FIS was able to run the local provinces efficiently while preparing for the elections for the National Popular Assembly (APN), that was supposed to be held in the first quarter of 1991.  The government, however, delayed the election to the June 1991 and then it was held in December 1991.  

	The FIS was able to survive the elections victoriously at the first round of elections when they won 188 seats, with about three million votes while the FLN got half of the number of the votes but only 16 seats in the assembly.  This was due to the system of election individual election in which one votes for a person not for a party as it is in the proportional representation system electoral system.  This was seen as unfair since the ruling FLN had gotten half of what the FIS had while the FLN won 188 seats the FLN only gained 16 seats.  This is why, Liamine Zeroual, supported by most of the political figures in Algeria, has decided to change the electoral system to the proportional representation instead of voting for individual candidates.  Thus, a balanced parliament would be conceivable given the nature of the political life in Algeria .

	What made it possible for the FIS to achieve such a victory over the FLN although it could not socialize its Islamic ideology as much as the results of the elections of 1991 may show, was the weak position of the FLN that had ruled the country for three decades and resulted in ultimate failure.   Most of the voters, according to Burgat and Dowell statistics, 55 to 82 %, voted for the FIS although they had no Islamic ideological orientation.  They call these votes "rejection votes".  The FIS had used the other weapon the FLN used to use, which is nationalism.  

	They seemed to be able to find a paradigm that can unify the country under one banner no matter what  it is and decrease the separationist trend in the country .  The voters had decided to bring the FLN down because of their frustration and despair of this ruling party that brought all of these problems to the country. This seems to be the case in, not only Algeria, but also in so many other Muslim societies where the population is very frustrated because of the severe economic conditions and the repressive behavior of their government.  The Islamic solution attracts the attention of the crushed cynical population that lost hope in the current regimes.

	Nevertheless, no one can argue whether the FIS were successful at maximizing their benefit out the frustrated masses and they could mobilize them in more than one incident.  This is a very strong point that shows how organized the FIS was and how it could lead the government to do whatever the FIS wanted.  On the 29th December 1989 they mobilized the "one of the most important opposition demonstrations in the history of independent Algeria."  The mob was asking for the application of Sharia law and the abolition of mixed education.  They wanted different schools for the different genders. 

	The FIS did that again on 20th of April.   Despite the fact that the government tried its best to scatter the mob and used some other Islamists like Nahnah and Sahnoun to counterattack the FIS, the popularity of the FIS and its massive support of its followers, who are very politically articulate, managed to keep the struggle which led the government to go for the election which was the beginning of the end of the FLN control of the situation.  

	After the first round of the election and the overwhelming defeat of the FLN, Chdli still thought that he could keep his position without the FLN in parliament.  Yet, the army stepped in and took power with a military coup d'etat against him on Jan 11, 1992.  This anti-democratic move of the army that was keeping an eye on the event and ready to intervene was the worst move in Algerian history.  This started the bloody story between the military transitional government and the FIS, which is still going on up till now with almost no significant government control over anything.  The situation in Algeria is a civil war that no one can win. 

	The dissolution of the FIS, although it seemed to be the only possible way to get rid of their huge influence, was a very unsuitable thing to do.  Both of Abbassi Madani and Belhadj were put in prison.  Democracy was killed and the FLN lost its credibility forever because it committed itself to democratization and it then, after they lost elections, are there with an iron fist to crush the civilians who have all the right to choose whom to rule the country.  

	Now Algeria is in civil war, decline of GNP, foreign debt accumulation and all sorts of problems that appear due to lack of governmental control over the society that turned wild.  Estimations of casualties and deaths among the fighting armed groups with the state authority ranging from 30,000 to 50,000 deaths.  The destruction of the infrastructure of the country and the impossibility of development is such a situation makes it seem like a nightmare.  

	Nevertheless, it is quiet obvious that political Islam has succeeded in Algeria in many ways while it did not have the chance to be tested in others.  The theory of Olivier Roy is, therefore, subject to question.  It is true that some of what Roy says about political Islam in general has happened in reality in Algeria.  It is also true that he has done a very good analysis and characterization of the FIS as the main Islamic force in Algeria.  Yet, there is a sort of underestimation of the success of the political movement.  Such an organization that can force the government to get in elections that was known to be lost from the very beginning deserves to be acknowledged for what it has done in unifying the country under its banner.  Whether they succeeded or not to get the official control is another issue, since their victory was aborted illegitimately by the force of the army.

	Roy categorizes the types of Islamic groups into three main categories.  Firstly, there is the Islamists or the extremists who are trying to change the society from top down by means of assuming political power.  Their aim is to get the power using any means possible to be able to impose the Shari'a Law so that they can make the people virtuous by order as they will get habituated to what is imposed on them.  Secondly, there is the religious fundamentalists who are peaceful groups that are trying to change the society by grass roots technique with no need to authoritarian powers.  The basic aim is to provide the population with a model of how to be a good Muslim rather than forcing them to be so.  Thus, they are not very much into conflict with the governments under which they live.  Thirdly, the most radical of all is the neo-fundamentalist groups, like the FIS who are striving for power no matter what it takes to do so.  He sees the FIS as the clearest example of that kind of Islamic groups.  I agree as I mentioned before on that issue since the nature of their political behavior is typical of a neo-fundamentalist group.  

	The main question is "Has political Islam failed in Algeria or not?  And if the answer is yes, did it fail for the reasons he mentioned in his book?"  Roy, sees the failure of political Islam as a result of many factors that are common among the different Islamic movements from Casablanca to Tashkent.  The case study of Algeria is a good example of what Roy is mentioning in his book as reasons for the failure.

	"The absence of an Islamic Alternative" is one of the main points behind the failure of political Islam in the Muslim World.  Roy argues that Islamist thinkers did not provide the population with any other alternative to the existing situation that is the main reason for their frustration.  Saying that Islam is the solution would not help decreasing the both internal and external debt, raising the rate of growth of the GNP, develop up to date technical assistance to develop industrial infrastructure and high value added products or solve the problem of repression and authoritarianism.  In addition, the Islamists do not have a clear political agenda to tell what they are going to do with the banking system that is based on interest.  Neither do they have a clear view of how to keep the government budget and save it from deficit while canceling out taxes according to the Shari'a Law, depending only on Zakat which is only 5-10 % of the yearly income of the population . 

	For the Algerian case, Roy makes perfect sense.  Hugh Roberts reports on that by saying, "Yet, in fact Algerian Islamists had virtually nothing to say about economic policy.  Not only did not have positions of its own, it did not even bother to canvass the kind of notion concerning properly Islamic banking and so forth that has been fashionable in international Islamist circles since the Iranian revolution."  In addition the FIS did take the government side on the issue of economic reform and saw that privatization of government's enterprises .   This resulted in the decline of their popularity among the workers in Algeria.

	  The notion of "Bleak Society" is mentioned by Roy to emphasize that the Islamic movement have drawn an image of their ideal society which seems rather bleak and depressing.  All entertainment methods would be "Haram" banned because they are either Western or they are helping the bad habits to spread away among people which makes them not virtuous.  The Islamists, he argues, want to live in the past while it is impossible because people have gotten used to entertain themselves in many way that are not harmful.  Closing cinemas, theaters and night clubs and  banning music would be very unacceptable by the population.  This is exactly what the FIS did when they controlled the local level of the society after the local elections.  They banned the Rai Music and they banned serving alcohol.  

	This is a very valid point that Roy makes.  Yet, the Algerians themselves participated in mobs, as mentioned above in one of the greatest demonstrations ever seen in Algeria since independence.  A huge number of people have adopted the ideas of how the society should be.  The ideology of the FIS was well known by the Algerians and every one knew what they would do if they assume power in the Parliament.  Still, the first round of the elections gave them 188 seats while the FLN got only 16.  The movement has succeeded to socialize and sell their ideas to the population.  This results should not be considered as a failure by all means.  

	The notion of "Islam of Resentment" was mentioned by Roy to illustrate why these movements got established from the very beginning.  For Algeria, with its history of being a colony of France till the mid 1960s, and the FLN failure to find a paradigm to solve the problems of the society with its socialist model, it is quiet probable that resentment was a basic factor for the creation of the movement and its success among the population.  The socialization of the FIS was more than excellent, especially if one takes in account the very short period it took to form a political party and defeat the ruling regime.    

	 In conclusion, the failure of political Islam is a theory, although seems to apply successfully to the Algerian model, but it is rather a mistake to think that Islam has failed in Algeria.  Although the FIS did not have a real economic plan that could save the Algerian economy, one cannot say that if they are to come back and elections are to be held again democratically they would loose the elections because they have failed.  The FIS had been very successful in convincing the masses with their plans and what they would do.  Yet, the extremely undemocratic action that was carried out by the army to cancel the elections was what prevented the movement from doing something to save Algeria.  In fact, no one can say whether or not Political Islam would have  failed  in Algeria hadn't the army intervened to cancel the elections.  Yet, it is very obvious that the FIS would have had a really hard time to solve these problems and, at the same time, keep their popularity among the crushed masses that were striving under very poor conditions.

	
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\heavy weather at american.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


Business Week
Heavy Weather at American
Jan.27 1997
pg 32

"Heavy Weather at American"
	There is a big shake up at American Airlines.  The pilots want more money but
management has already spent it.  Another strike you say.  Yip, looks like it.  The chief
executive of  American Airlines was stunned when on January 8, by an overwhelming
vote, pilots rejected a tentative contract.  Pilots then got a message from the company
president saying "For the first time in many years, we fear for the future of our company."
	The reason that this strike could spell disaster for one of the leading airlines in the
world is the rather large order of new aircraft American ordered from Boeing.  American
says that having to pay higher pilot salaries and buy new aircraft makes it an uneconomical
investment, in other words they can not do both and still stay in business.  A strike could
even threaten a purposed alliance with British Airways.  American in not alone though.
With industry profits on the constant rise, employees of other airlines are pushing for
higher pay also, but undeniably American is in the worst position right now.
	It looks to me like the pilots were not very happy with the decision to purchase
new aircraft from Boeing back in November when it was first voted on.  It seems as
though instead of purchasing new aircraft the pilots wanted a pay increase.  What the
pilots want is a pay increase of 11% over the next four years.  What the have been offered
is a 5% increase.  The argument that the pilots have put forward is the fact that their offer
does not even keep up with inflation.  It looks as though a strike would be very unlikely
because of the amount of money involved, somewhere around fifty million a day would be
lost by American.  That big of a loss could be very detrimental to any company.
	What can management do with a dilemma like this?  It seem that they departed
without knowing where they were going to land.  They should have made sure there
would not have been an uprising in any part of the company before the took measures as
drastic as ordering six-billion dollars in new aircraft.  It looks to me like there needs to be
better communication between all facets of management in this company.
	The only way out of this mess that I can see is to reduce the order from Boeing so
that they can afford to give the pilots there precious pay increases.  This could cause more
problems depending on how lenient the contract between Boeing and American is.  I'm
pretty sure that Boeing would like to make some money out of the deal too.  So, I'm
betting that if American wanted to make a smaller order it would probably suit both
companies better in the long run.
	From the employees point of view, it would look like American is kind of a greedy
bunch.  The pay raise that was offered does not even keep up with current inflation rates,
yet they can justify spending six-billion on new equipment, when the truly do not need to
replace it that quickly.  A small scale replacement of equipment would probably make
everyone much happier.
	It could get pretty messy in the end even if the strike ended.  If Boeing wants to be
greedy about the whole thing, there could be lawsuits involving breech of contract and all
sorts of ugliness.  I'm just glad that I'm not in charge of cleaning up this mess. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\herman Melville.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 



                                          Herman Melville

	In 1850 while writing The House of the Seven Gables, Hawthorne's publisher introduced him to another writer who was in the midst of a novel. This was Herman Melville, the book Moby Dick. Hawthorne and Melville became good friends at once, for despite their dissimilar backgrounds, they had a great deal in common.  Melville was a New Yorker, born in 1819, one of eight children of a merchant of distinguished lineage.  His father, however, lost all his money and died when the boy was 12.  Herman left school at 15, worked briefly as a bank clerk, and in 1837 went to sea.  For 18 months, in 1841 and 1842, he was crewman on the whaler Acushnet.  Then he jumped ship in the South Seas. For a time he lived among a tribe of cannibals in the Marquesas.  Later he made his way to Tahiti where he idled away nearly a year.  After another year at sea he returned to America in the fall of 1844.


	Although he had never before attempted serious writing, in 1846 he published Typee an account of his life in the Marquesas.  The book was a great success, for Melville had visited a part of the world almost unknown to Americans, and his descriptions of his bizarre experiences suited the taste of a romantic age.  
	
	As he wrote Melville became conscious of deeper powers. In 1849 he began a systematic study of Shakespeare, pondering the bard's intuitive grasp of human nature.  Like Hawthorne, Melville could not accept the prevailing optimism of his generation. Unlike his friend, he admired Emerson, seconding the Emersonian demand that Americans reject European ties and develop their own literature. "Believe me," he wrote, "men not very much inferior to Shakespeare are this day being born on the banks of the Ohio." Yet he considered Emerson's vague talk about striving and the inherent goodness of mankind complacent nonsense.


	Experience made Melville too aware of the evil in the world to be a transcendentalist. His novel Redburn  based on his adventures on a Liverpool packet, was, as the critic F. O. Matthiessen put it, "a study in disillusion, of innocence confronted with the world, of ideals shattered by facts."  Yet Melville was no cynic; he expressed deep sympathy for the Indians and for immigrants, crowded like animals into the holds of transatlantic vessels.  He denounced the brutality of discipline in the United States Navy in White-Jacket.   His essay The Tartarus of Maids, a moving if somewhat overdrawn description of young women working in a paper factory, protested the subordination of human beings to machines.


	Hawthorne, whose dark view of human nature coincided with Melville's, encouraged him to press ahead with Moby Dick.  This book, Melville said, was "broiled in hellfire." Against the background of a whaling voyage, he dealt subtly and symbolically with the problems of good and evil, of courage and cowardice, of faith, stubbornness, pride. In Captain Ahab, driven relentlessly to hunt down the huge white whaleMoby Dick, which had destroyed his leg, Melville created one of the great figures of literature; in the book as a whole, he produced one of the finest novels written by an American, comparable to the best in any language.


	As Melville's work became more profound, it lost its appeal to the average reader, and its originality and symbolic meaning escaped most of the critics. Moby Dick, his masterpiece, received little attention and most of that unfavorable. He kept on writing until his death in 1891 but was virtually ignored. Only in the 1920s did the critics rediscover him and give him his merited place in the history of American literature. His "Billy Budd, Foretopman," now considered one of his best stories, was not published until 1924.

  


                                          
                                           




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\High Hopes.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
			High Hopes 

Throughout Stanley Renshons' book, High Hopes:  The Clinton Presidency and the Politics of Ambition, the president's ability to govern has to do with three main concepts:  ambition, courage, and integrity.  Proving this, Renshon believes that the presidents psychology explains everything.   "By examining the range of choices available to the president as well as those he selects, both within and across circumstances, one can begin to discern the underlying patterns of psychology that shapes his behavior" (4).  I tend to agree with Renshon when he states that Clintons' psychology has a lot to do with how he reacts to a given situation and performs all  tasks bestowed upon him.
"The term character is derived from the Greek word meaning 'engraving'" (38).  It can be defined as a trait or distinctive combination of traits.  Bill Clinton's personality, beliefs, and attitude are a very distinctive part of his character.  As Renshon states, "Character shapes beliefs, information processing, and, ultimately, styles of behavior.  It is therefore deeply embedded in the foundation of psychological functioning" (38).  The three elements of character that Renshon  states as being the "core" factors of a persons character are:  ambition, character integrity, and relatedness.
Ambition is a strong element is one's character which can be defined as; a persons achievement and self regard.  I tend to disagree with Renshon, when he states that their is a danger with ambition, it "reinforces their sense of being special... it may facilitate their grandiosity" (40).   According to Microsoft Bookshelf '95, grandiosity is someone or something that is characterized by the greatness of scope of intent.  Renshon says that childhood grandiosity is the foundation of adult ambition and that this is all instituted by a person's parents.   I believe that a person's ambition is something that should be elaborated on more often.  It shows a person's moral and ethical beliefs.
A person's integrity is an important element when shaping a person's ambition and relatedness, according to Renshon.  Throughout the book, when Renshon refers to a person's integrity, in actuality he is referring to their honesty and how well they adhere to commendable values.  The reason he is using the vocable, character integrity is, the term shares the same perspectives but uses a more "psychologically grounded perspective" (41).   He believes that ideals are an important part of the word integrity's definition.  He states that they are the framework for interpersonal and personal ethics, they show how a person conducts themselves when dealing with many different types of situations, they are a person's goals.   "Ideals are aspirations that are often easier to hold in the abstract than they are to live by the face of real-world temptations and disappointments" (41). I feel that one's ideals are obtained early on in one's life.  In Clinton's experiences, those who influenced him and prepossessed his ideals the most were his mother and stepfather.  A president's integrity, or lack of, suggests his basic motivations, skills, and ideals into an coherent understanding of who he really is.  
When one speaks of relatedness, I feel that they are referring to one's relationships with others and how it is formed. Renshon used a very interesting quote from Freud, which he first stated in 1921.
The contrast between individual psychology and social or group psychology, which at first glance may seem to be full of significance , loses a great deal of it's sharpness when it is examined more closely...In the individual's mental life someone else is invariably involved, as a model as in object, as a helper, as an opponent:  and so from the very first individual psychology...is at the same time social psychology as well  (qtd. in 46).
Through the use of this quote, Renshon was able to prove that from the start, "analytic theory stated that the others are always central to an individual's psychological development and functioning" (46).
	Every since Clinton was a child, he was always involved in many activities.  He had to always come out on top and be the best of the best, he was always full of ambition.  Throughout his presidency, Clinton has also shown to be a very ambitious man.  After an intense three hour meeting with the president, Alan Greenspan  said, "He wouldn't need a chief of staff.  He would be his own.  The president-elect was not only engaged, he was totally engrossed (56).
	Even though I feel that having a lot of ambition is a positive quality in a person, I have noticed that there are also a few downfalls to it.  Renshon feels that there are four skills that have facilitated Clinton's ambition.     They are:  a high level of physical and emotional energy, the ability to invest in one's work, a high level of understanding, and the ability to express one's self and to engage in meaningful conversation.  
	Renshon says that, "a president who feels he can or must do everything will not be able to delegate and will have problems setting appropriate limits for himself and others" (57).  He also states that since the president is so motivated to be unconditionally involved, he runs the risk of overextending himself both physically and psychologically.
Another complaint that has been made about Clinton's ambition, is his need and ability to "wing it."  Critics say that since Clinton is so intelligent, he has a great advantage.  This great ability allows him to rely on his ability to pull something together at the last minute, and has been fairly dependable in the past.  However, Renshon feels that for a president this a potentially dangerous psychology. 
	Intelligence is not equivocal with good decision making, or the level he applies himself, these are matters of judgment and character.  Intelligence also doesn't guarantee that a situation is always going to go the way it was planned.  Just because he is president, doesn't mean he won't make mistakes, but it alleviates the chances that it will reoccur.  Understanding that once in a while he will make mistakes, although he is not the type of man to openly admit it, Clinton began his term by stretching the limits of government. 
In the recent past we have learned again the hard lessons that there are limits to what government can do-indeed, limits to what people can do.  We live in a world in which limited resources, limited knowledge and limited wisdom must grapple with the problems of staggering complexity (66). 
I feel that this quote has more to do with Clinton protecting himself and all of his decisions throughout all of his term, instead of admitting there was a problem.  
	Taking his ambition to the limit, Clinton proposed that he was "a president who would return to traditional values and who, in discussing the importance of personal responsibility, seemed to be conveying an appreciation of the limits of government" (67).  This new approach that Clinton swept his nomination away with, is commonly being referred to as a New Democrat.  Through this approach Clinton believed he understood the limits of government, but, upon gaining office he attempted to launch an, "ambitious personal and public agenda" (68).         
	"Character integrity reflects our fidelity to our own ideals as we pursue our ambitions and forge out identities" (69).  Realistically and psychologically a president must be committed to his own ideals and values.  It seems to be very important that a president's integrity reflects his ability to maintain boundaries.  Renshon ultimately refers to two specific questions that can help one determine about character integrity:  Is Clinton honest?  Can Clinton be trusted?
	When examining the president's integrity, there are four interrelated dimensions that must be examined.  The first is the president's ideals and values; where he draws the line that "separates right from wrong, yes and no" (73).  The last three concern fidelity and follow through, president's own fidelity, and last is the concerns the president's degree of self confidence in himself and his personal identity.
	Political identity requires a clear, general consistent set of ideas and values.  When one refers to the "traditional Democrat, "New Deal liberal, "goldwater conservatives," or "new Democrat," according to Renshon, they are all relatively the same basic idea.   Clinton and Gore have stressed that a New Democrats policies are, "neither liberal of conservative, neither Democratic of Republican.  They are new. They are different.  We are confident they will work" (74).  
	When it comes to fidelity, "it reflects a person's willingness and capacity to follow through on the commitments that he has chosen to the best of his ability" (76).  According to Microsoft Bookshelf '95, Fidelity means faithfulness to obligations, duties or observances.  I feel that in this circumstance a related synonym that could be used is allegiance.  In my opinion, I feel that this is one of the most important characteristics a president should have.  Renshon points out many instances that Clinton has backed out of his promises at the time, but some of the situations have become law since this book was written.  For example, one of Clinton's campaign promises was to raise the minimum wage, and he never followed through.  Again, in the 1994 midterm election, in his State of the Union Address, again Clinton promised to purpose an increase in the minimum wage, to only withdraw his statement the next morning.  During the last few months though, Clinton has been arguing with Congress to get an increase past.  After many hours of heavy dispute, Clinton got a bill passed and the new minimum wage went into affect October 1, 1996.  
	Many might say that Clinton was just following through with his promises, I still feel the only reason he did this was because he realized that the '96 election is approaching faster than he thought and wanted to make a better presentation to the public.
	Throughout this argument, the opposition stated that Clinton "could change his mind in an instant" (83).  This could be denoted as a logical and psychological oxymoron.  Renshon agrees with this metaphor but argues that, 
"it is not impossible for a president to find some merit in divergent views and still be able to apply his own developed framework  of ideals and values to sort through them.  Not all views can have equal weight, and not all claim equal worth.  The ability to make these distinctions ultimately what distinguishes judgment for empathy" (83).
Another instance where Renshon rebukes the "myth" about Clinton is when critics viewed Clinton as a, "rambling, insistent defense of his own character."  Renshon feels that Clinton's self image is:  "fair, open, honest, and genuinely interested in responsive to others' points of view and concerns," (85) He also feel that Clinton reflected a strong component of self-idealization, which most people wish to think of themselves as.  
Personally I feel that being ambitious is a very good quality but,  I also feel that there is a time when you are ambitious or over-confident.  I feel that this is one of Clinton's downfalls.  For instance, Clinton feels that he can make speeches without any notes, he can just do it off the top of his head.  Some might argue that a high level of confidence masks a deeper sense of insecurity or it can even lead to vulnerability.  
When one speaks of relatedness, one could also say, in psychological theory, affiliation motive.  Affiliation motive is the most common way of examining a person's connection with others.  To affiliate means to want to belong, they are joiners and want to spend most of there time with others.  In others words, I feel that you can classify this type of person as being insecure.  
Throughout this book, one can see that Clinton doesn't need to be liked, he just desires the need for validation.  "Validation is a more comprehensive concept than respect, affection, or, more generally, an individuals need for external assurances of his own positive self-image" (330).
On the outside, Clinton appears to be a very, "attractive, outgoing, charming" man but in the inside, he has a very, "angry, demanding, entitled inner psychology" (104).  Many of his friends say that he wears a mask on the outside hoping that it won't eventually reveal his inner-self.  
"Clinton has been characterized frequently as a man who is too trusting, but his persistent use of charm suggests otherwise.  The use of charm can also stem form the belief that if you don't use it, you cannot depend on others to respond to you.  Clinton's tendencies to mislead and equivocate, to market and sell his policies rather than deal with his cost and implications honestly, and his rages ..." (105).  To me, this again leads to a very interesting question, Is Mr. Clinton trustworthy?
From the beginning of this book,  I have been pondering that question.  Renshon makes many statements that could rebuke my idea, but I found that there are many gaps in a lot of Clinton's ideas.  He has made many promises but has not followed through unless his idea's were going to be viewed in a positive manner.  I believe that he has plenty of good ideas and he is a very intelligent man, but I tend to agree with critics when they say he is too smart for his own good.  He feels that he can do anything and with that ambition, it leads him to overexert himself.       
Through this book, I have learned to respect Clinton in a different way.  I have realized that there are reasons he reacts in the way he does.  I believe that he is a reliable man and can be trusted to a point.  I would recommend this book for one reason, to understand how the president reacts.  I found it very interesting to see how Clinton was so much like his mother.  The whole section revealed how Clinton became the man he is.  Understanding Clinton to the extend I know do makes me want to learn more about Dole so I can make a more educated vote this November.    

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Homosexuals A Suspect Class .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Homosexuals:  A Suspect Class?

	The struggle for minority protection by lesbians and gay men has moved to the center of American life at the outset of the 1990's.  It is almost certain that lesbian and gay issues will be a more eminent aspect of the public consciousness and American political scene in the coming decade than in any other time in American history.  Policy changes early in Bill Clinton's administration created a heated debate over the military presence of gays and lesbians, several states have passed amendments prohibiting laws that protect homosexuals from discrimination, and nearly every religious organization in the nation is facing tough questions ranging from the ordination of homosexuals to homosexual marriages.  Furthermore, the homosexual community is more prominent than ever:  Lesbians and gay men are fighting for civil rights in the courtroom and in Congress, there are gay characters on prime-time television shows, well-known public figures openly discussing their homosexuality, and there is virtually no one who can claim that they have never had contact with a homosexual.  In the middle of all this publicity, there lingers a pending Supreme Court case in which the fate of the homosexual lies:  Romer v. Evans, a case that dominated Colorado that has come to "symbolize the controversy over gay legal rights" throughout the nation.  This paper will trace the elements behind that case, and attempt to focus on the steps the Supreme Court will follow to determine whether homosexuality must be legally considered a "suspect class" for the purposes of "quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination" as outlined by Colorado's now-famous Amendment 2.
	Amendment 2 does away with any attempt to protect homosexuals as a group that needs special rights because of discrimination.  It was enacted after a statewide referendum, in which 53% voted for the measure.  Richard Evans sued the state and Governor Romer (who, ironically, opposed the amendment) under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, saying that Amendment 2 infringes upon the homosexual's "fundamental right to participate in the democratic process."  Romer v. Evans has had amicus curiae or "friend of the court" briefs filed for both sides--briefs that have pitted state against state and church against church.  Colorado officials are quick to say that their state is not acting out of hate, but merely deciding in a democratic fashion whether homosexuals need to be singled out for protection against discrimination.  The Colorado Supreme Court, however, struck down the amendment, saying: 
	[Amendment 2] bars gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from having an effective voice in governmental affairs, insofar as those persons deem it beneficial to seek legislation that would protect them from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The United States Supreme Court must now determine whether or not to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, despite the results of the referendum that was basically a public affirmation of orthodox Christian beliefs.
	For hundreds of years homosexuality has been uniformly condemned by traditional Christian societies as immoral.  On that ground, it was never contested that sodomy should remain illegal and unprotected by any legislation--homosexuals were considered unnatural sexual deviants, and were treated as such.  In recent years, however, startling new research has indicated that homosexuality is possibly inherited and determined by chromosomes.  A 1992 study directed by neuroscientist Simon LeVay showed that a tiny area believed to control sexual activity known as the hypothalamus was less than half the size in gay men as in heterosexual men.  This study raises an interesting question:  If homosexuality is hereditary, is there any basis for societal discrimination against something innate?
	The reactions of the homosexual community have been mixed.  As many see it, looking for a "cause" of homosexuality suggests that it is an abnormality, and implies that it is deviant from a "normal" heterosexuality.  On the other hand, history has shown that society's perception of gay activities can be threatening, if not deadly.  Over the centuries they have either been merely "intolerated" or, more often, detested.  After a 13th century sermon from Saint Thomas Aquinas, society began to view gays as "not only unnatural but dangerous."  A genetic component in sexual orientation would tell homosexuals and the world that homosexuality is not a fault, and not the fault of anyone other than nature.
	Society's traditional stance on homosexuality has often subjected homosexuals to a horrifying list of "cures" at the hands of psychiatrists and psychologists--usually aimed at heterosexual reorientation.  Treatments like these have almost invariably involved a "negative value judgment concerning the inherent character" of homosexuality.  Among these "cures" have been such surgical measures as castration, hysterectomy, and vasectomy; others have included electric and chemical shock treatment, aversion therapy, and drugs.  As recent as 1967, hypnosis was still being used to treat "deviant behavior."  Now, in the shadow of the aforementioned studies, psychiatrists and psychologists alike are taught that they should help homosexuals to feel more comfortable with themselves and their sexual orientation.  It is hoped that such treatment will not only help homosexuals feel more at ease with their sexuality, but also give society a different, more "educated" view of the gay community and lifestyle.
	The traditional moral view of homosexuality is legally irrelevant, however.  The thing that truly hampers the homosexual's case in Romer v. Evans is a previous Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick.  In this case, Michael Hardwick, the plaintiff, was "charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another male in the bedroom" of his home.  His suit was based on his belief that the law violated his fundamental right to homosexual activity because it is "a private and intimate association beyond the reach of state regulation" by reason of the Ninth Amendment, which states "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny of disparage others retained by the people", and by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Supreme Court ruled against Hardwick in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Constitution did not "extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy."  In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger, quoting an old English statute, describes homosexuality as: 	"The infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature" and "a crime not fit to be named" . . . To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

Since the Court found that private acts of sodomy are not constitutionally protected, Georgia was permitted to bar homosexuality on merely "rational" grounds--a far cry from the "compelling state interest" it would have had to meet if the sodomy had been protected.  The rational reason, the Supreme Court said, was that:
 	The law . . . [was] constantly based on notions of morality . . . if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.

	The new evidence of inherited genes for homosexuality, however, will force the Supreme Court to reexamine the way it looked at Bowers v. Hardwick.  In order to determine the legality of  discriminating against certain individuals, the Court must examine factors that will possibly identify that group as a "suspect class."  If the Court recognizes those individuals as a suspect class, it makes any discrimination (such as that contained in Colorado's Amendment 2 statute) very difficult on the part of the state.  
	The first factor the Supreme Court generally considers is whether the group at issue has suffered a history of purposeful discrimination.  In the case of homosexuality, there is no question that homosexuals have historically been the objects of vicious and sustained hostility, as outlined earlier in this paper.  Homosexuals have been the frequent victims of "gay-bashing," and have been excluded from jobs, schools, housing, churches, and even families;  with this evidence it is plain that homosexuals in our society have faced as much hatred as other suspect classes such as blacks or people of a particular national origin.
	The second factor the Supreme Court considers when analyzing suspect classes is "whether the discrimination embodies a gross unfairness that is sufficiently inconsistent with the ideals of equal protection to term it invidious."  The interpretation of this factor can be further broken down into three separate terms.  The Court considers first whether the group is defined by a trait that frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.  It is evident, by the powerful and responsible positions of many gay men and women in America, that sexual orientation plainly has no relation to a person's ability to perform in society--thus, homosexuals meet this standard.  The second thing the Court considers is whether negative societal concepts stem from inaccurate stereotypes.  The homosexual is rarely, as widely believed to the contrary, a threat to all people of their sex or immature children; in fact, the majority of the homosexual population remains quietly in their homes--thus, homosexuals meet the second term as well.
	It is the third term of this second factor that will be called into question by the Court when deciding Romer v. Evans.  The Court must determine whether homosexuality is immutable, or, at a minimum, requiring a major physical change or a traumatic change of identity.  If only five out of the nine Supreme Court justices determine that the aforementioned studies conclusively show that homosexuality is an inherent trait, the Colorado Supreme Court decision that Amendment 2 is unconstitutional will be upheld.
	The third and final factor the Supreme Court considers in suspect class analysis is whether the discriminated group lacks the political power necessary to redress the government.  Even when homosexuals are able to pursue their rights openly in the political arena, society's view of them probably makes their efforts ineffective.  Elected officials, sensitive to their constituents' opinions may be swayed to vote against legislation that even has the appearance of condoning homosexuality.  Undoubtedly, homosexuals meet this third and final factor.
	It is possible, but not certain, that homosexuals are a suspect class, and as such Amendment 2 will be subject to much greater judicial scrutiny.  If this proves to be the case, it is highly probable that Romer v. Evans will be upheld and it is also possible that there will be legislation in Congress to include homosexuals on the growing list of those entitled to be considered minorities, receive quota preferences, and  be protected from discrimination by law.
	Even if homosexuals are not considered a suspect class by the Supreme Court, Amendment 2 may be struck down under the Fourteenth Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, which declares that a state may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."  Jean E. Dubofsky, the lawyer for Richard Evans in the case, said "the Court need not rule homosexuals a specially protected class to find that Amendment 2 infringes upon their rights."  Specifically, Dubofsky  believes the amendment takes away the ability of homosexuals to urge their city councils to accord them the specific protection that other groups have the right to seek--denying them equal protection in the democratic process.  If the Court agrees with that argument, Amendment 2 will be considered unconstitutional, whether homosexuals are a suspect class or not.
	My personal opinion, however, is rooted in my belief in a natural law.  I am a Christian, and have been taught all my life that homosexuality is a sin, and I still believe that.  That does not change the fact that history is undeniably cruel to the homosexual--it is possible that "no single group of human beings has been subjected to greater injustice, persecution, and suffering than they."  I find it personally appalling that homosexuality is treated by Christians as a sin that is "worse" than most other sins.  Our society has been conditioned into an emotional revulsion so bitter that we even avow that we would rather see our children "dope addicts or murderers" than homosexuals.  This is not right.  Christianity is based on God's unconditional love for the sinner, despite his hatred of the sin.  Our efforts to reach homosexuals should not be out of uneducated fear or inaccurate stereotypes, but founded in the same love for every man and woman that God has.  Acceptance, not sermons, changes the homosexual.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia expresses my sentiments exactly:
	It should be stressed that a homosexual is just as pleasing to God as a heterosexual, as long as he makes a sincere effort to control his [homosexuality] with the help of grace.  Although the individual may feel certain that his inversion is so deep that he cannot redirect his tendencies, he must accept them and seek to fulfill some purpose in the world.

	Although this sort of thinking bears little consequence on Romer v. Evans, I believe there is one other aspect to the case that must be dealt with.  The studies of Simon LeVay are certainly inconclusive, regardless of how they are looked at.  Although they showed without question that the hypothalamus is smaller in gay men, there are still many other things to be considered, chiefly:  Could sexual orientation affect brain structure, instead of vice versa?  Kenneth Klivington, an assistant to the president of the Salk Institute, points to a body of evidence revealing that "the brain's neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain experiences."  For example, one study found that the area of the brain controlling the reading finger grew larger in people who read Braille after becoming blind.  It is possible then, that the hypothalamus is affected in the reverse way--a lack of heterosexual activity may shrink that area of the brain.  Even LeVay admits that "that's a distinct shortcoming" of his study, because he knew "regrettably little" about his subjects' sexual histories.
	It seems more likely, then, that homosexuality would be a product of both genetics and learned behavior.  As evidence of this, I submit my mother's side of the family, which contains many alcoholics.  In my mind, the evidence overwhelmingly supports that a predisposition to alcoholism is hereditary.  Yet, the Bible says "do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery."  I cannot explain why there is an inherited trait for something condemned as a sin, nor will I attempt to.  My point is that if there are genes that sway people toward homosexuality, they are to be fought just like the predisposition to alcoholism I have inherited must be.  Things that "feel" more natural are not always inevitable, and simply because I have the genes to make me more likely to be an alcoholic does not mean I will be an alcoholic.
	If the Court interprets the genetic components of homosexuality the way I do, Romer v. Evans will be overturned because Bowers v. Hardwick will stand.  In other words, if homosexuals are not considered a suspect class, then their activity can be made illegal in Colorado by legislation:  Therefore, it would  be ridiculous to have special rights that protect criminals, and Amendment 2 will be constitutional.
	I am not a bigot, or a homophobe, or a right-wing religious zealot.  Homosexuals should have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone else--that is a fundamental facet of our nation's democracy.  Nevertheless, to place them in a class with other minorities like blacks, the disabled, or illegitimate children would be to sanction their behavior-- a behavior that appears to be as much learned as inherited.  Until that debate is settled, I believe it is not necessary to protect homosexuals by quota preferences or protected status, and in my opinion, Amendment 2 is both legally and morally appropriate. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\How Bob Dole Could Have Won The Election Of 1996.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	How Dole could have used the issues to his advantage
     
     In a more or less conservative country, the more or less conservative candidate, Bob Dole, should have been a lock for the presidency; the only problem was President Clinton.  Clinton had moved rightward positioning himself between Newt Gingrich's zealous revolutionaries on the right and liberal democratic barons on the left. Clinton's speeches started sounding like a Republican was giving them.  Bob Dole had followed the Nixon ideology of going "starboard" in the primaries and coming back to the center in the general election.  The only question was whether Dole had gone too far right and would not be able to recover in time.  With Clinton's move to the right and his advantage of incumbency, Bob Dole would have to present some exciting new ideas to win over the American people. 
     Throughout the history of presidential elections, there have been a few issues that always appear: abortion, crime and the economy.  The position taken by candidates on these issues could make or break their campaign.
     The first of these issues, abortion, has been a hotbed of controversy.  The pro-life versus the pro-choice groups.  Throughout his political career, President Clinton has been adamant on supporting a women's right to choose.  Clinton stands firm on the fact that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare"  without many unnecessary restrictions.  To further show his hard stance on abortion, Clinton vetoed a bill in April that would have banned a rarely used procedure termed "partial birth abortions."  President Clinton defended his decision, calling it justifiable in extreme situations, such as cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.  Unlike Bosnia and gays in the military, Clinton has not wavered on this issue.  Bob Dole on the other hand has taken just the opposite stance on abortion.  Dole opposed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.  In 1983 he voted for a constitutional amendment to overturn this settlement but has since softened his stand and supported an amendment to restrict abortion except in cases of rape, incest and if the life of the mother is in danger.  Dole, not surprisingly, supported a ban on "partial birth abortions" and has condemned President Clinton for vetoing it, saying, "A partial birth abortion blurs the line between abortion and infanticide, and crosses an ethical and legal line we must never cross."  Dole's position could pose a potential obstacle to the presidency.  His stance is responsible for his huge gender gap.  Women perceive Dole as rigid and insensitive to their needs.  What Dole must do is stick to his guns but reassure the nation that even though we do not all agree, we must not let it divide us.
     Another mainstay, in terms of issues, is that of crime.  With gun control legislation being debated in the congress and rising rate of drug use among teenagers, the nation as a whole is acutely aware of this persistent dilemma.  Clinton is the first Democrat in a long time to take the crime issue from the Republicans.  A law and order president, Clinton has supported the death penalty, and backed the "three strikes you're out" policy of life sentences for three time convicted criminals.  The President also signed the Brady bill establishing a five day waiting period to buy handguns and also pushed the mainly Democratic, 1994 crime bill which sanctioned 100,000 new community police officers.   Dole has supported almost every anti-crime legislation that has passed his desk in his 35 years in Congress, but in a show of partisan politics led an opposition fight against Clinton's crime bill.  He called it "pork laden" for its support of such frivolous programs such as midnight basketball, which called for a program to open up school gyms to inner city youth in order to keep them off the streets.  Dole also tried unsuccessfully to undo the provision for 100,000 police officers, arguing instead that communities should be free to spend their money in any manner they wish and supported overturning the ban on assault weapons.  In addition Dole has been critical of Clinton's judicial appointments calling them soft on crime.  He has pledged to appoint tough judges who will be tough on crime, especially drugs.  Dole must use this issue relentlessly.  Even though crime numbers are down, crime is still a problem.  Dole must repeat his call for prisoners to work 40 hours a week to help compensate their victims and then move quickly to the drug epidemic.  Dole must use Clinton's slip ups against him.  Recall that Clinton said that if he had to do it all over again, he would inhale.  Dole must also use fellow Democrats against Clinton, such as representative Charles Rangel, who has been quoted as saying, "I've been in congress for over two decades and I have not seen a President who cares less about this issue."

     With the federal deficit in the trillions of dollars, the government has been increasingly trying to cut back spending but more must be done.  The American public has grown very wary of the excess money being spent by government.  Any presidential hopeful must address this issue adamantly.  Clinton took many steps early in his first term to show his New Democrat ideology through heavy deficit cutting, and due to a big tax increase, the deficit has fallen from $290 billion to $130 billion during his first four years.   He also called for a line-item veto, a Republican idea, for three years before getting it passed.  Clinton would use this as a waste cutting tool.  Since that, however, Clinton has neglected the issue, particularly on the balanced budget, suggesting 10, 8, and 7 year proposals.  Last year his opposition to a 7-year balanced budget forced two partial government shutdowns. 
     During his congressional career, Bob Dole was a deficit buster, supporting a balanced budget while belittling supply side tax cutters.  In an effort to combat Clinton's double digit lead in the polls, Dole has reverted to a plan for a three year, 15 percent income tax cut and a $500 per child tax credit.  Although this would still up the deficit by $550 to $800 billion, Dole insists he can still balance the budget through a Reaganomics style economic growth.   Even though support for Dole's 15 percent tax cut has declined he must still harp on it.  It will look much more coherent if it is used in context with the cost of college, home prices and the problem of caring for the elderly.  Dole must also stress the fact that Clinton is for big government, which means spending big money.  This will also make his tax cut more compatible to the people.  If all else fails, just say, " The best way to keep government officials from spending your money is not to give it to them in the first place." It worked for Reagan.
     Dole did not use the issues effectively, and he did not show confidence in his ideas.  Clinton presented himself as a brake between Dole and Gingrich's conservatism and it worked.  Dole presented facts and figures, then expected the American public to applaud him.  But we're dealing with reality here, to win, he should have been more aggressive and tackled the issues head on.  In the end, by not addressing the issues clearly, Presidents Clinton's centrist stand, coupled with the good economy and aggressive campaigning, was too much for Bob Dole to over come.             


































 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\How free is too free .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Today, in the 1990's, citizens in our society are being bombarded with obscene material from every direction.  From the hate lyrics of Gun's 'N Roses to the satanic lyrics of Montley Crue and Marilyn Manson to the sexually explicit graphical content of today's movies, the issue is how much society is going to permit and where we, as a society, should we draw the line.  The freedom of speech has always been considered a right, but that doesn't mean that you can shout, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.  The real question is whether such material is harmful or dangerous to our society.
	Many people are asking whether or not we should censor offensive material.  They believe that some material is too obscene for society to hear or see.  The advocates of censorship get riled up because the movie rating council doesn't give a move an R-rating for having the occasional f-word.  One rap group, 2 Live Crew, has already had one of their albums banned because in one song they used explicit references to male genitals and 87 references to oral sex.  They used the word "bitch" more than 100 times and the f-word more than 200 times.
	Although most people agree that we are being overwhelmed with offensive material, there is no consensus on how to deal with the problem.  There are three possible solutions.  The first is the possibility of government censorship, which would include laws and penalties for breaking these laws.  The second solution is self-imposed censorship by individuals and corporations.  The third solution is total free speech with no censorship.
	The first possible solution is government censorship.  In the past government legal actions have been taken to control offensive messages.  For example, in 1988, the Ku Klux Klan wanted to appear on a Kansas City, Missouri public access cable channel.  The city council decided that it would be better to shut the public access cable channel down instead of letting the KKK air their show.  Later, under the pressure of being sued, the city council reversed their decision.
	Critics of this sort of action agree that these offensive messages do exist, but legal action is not the way to deal with them.  They believe that no individual acts the way the messages portray just because the messages exist.  Another belief is that legal actions will intimidate creative people because it makes them afraid of having to pay a fine to the government for violating obscenity laws.
	The second possible solution is private-sector censorship.  While some people feel that government officials are the best way to restrict offensive messages, others feel that self- censorship is a more effective method.  A recent series of incidents suggests that executives in many private firms have begun doing just that.  Book publishers, TV stations, and others have drawn the line when faced with words or images that are tasteless or offensive.  For example, in 1990, Andy Rooney, a CBS news correspondent, was suspended for his racist remark, "Blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones... have the most children."
	Another episode of self-imposed censorship is when George Michael released his song "I Want Your Sex."  In 1987, AIDS and other sexual diseases were rampantly spreading and his song condoned casual sex.  The MTV executives also sent the video for this song back because of the explicit, sexual images.
	A third incident happened when MTV drew the line again, this time with Madonna's video for "Justify My Love."  They said that the video illustrates Madonna's erotic fantasies.  It was said to be "too hot to handle."
	The advocates of the second solution agree that America is suffering from a deluge of offensive messages, but they feel that the best way of dealing with the problem is not government censorship, but private-sector censorship.
	The critics of this point of view think that private-sector censorship will not be enough.  They believe that the entertainment industry will not be able to control itself.   Private-sector restrictions do not have the authority of the law, therefore they cannot successfully draw the line between what can and cannot be said in public.
	The third and final possible solution is no censorship at all.  While many Americans are troubled by what they feel is offensive speech, and feel that it should be restricted by law, advocates of the third solution disagree.  They feel that there is more harm in restricting free speech than by the offensive speech itself.  In the bill of rights, the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no long abridging the freedom of speech."  The first amendment was intended to protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majorities.  The advocates of this view feel that the minority has a right to express themselves regardless of the opinion of the majority.
	Free speech matters because it encourages creativity.  Without the freedom of speech, America would probably be dull and drab like a communist country such as the former USSR.  For example, the comedy of Andrew Dice Clay, considered offensive by some, shouldn't be censored from those who find him humorous
	Freedom of speech is an important part of any democratic country.  While some people may find Rush Limbaugh's portrayal of President Clinton offensive, his show should not be censored.  This is the price that we pay to live freely in a democratic society.
	 Censorship does not have to be the solution.  You always have the right to change the channel or put down a book.  You have control over what you hear, see, or read.  You are not forced to see or hear the offensive speech.
	Opponents of the "first amendment view" believe that "just saying no" is not enough.  For example, children most likely will not say no.  This is why these people believe that the government should at least have the right to censor what children see.
	Some people believe that censorship is the answer, others do not.  I believe that this issue will be left up to the courts to decide.  I fear that the media may become a swamp of regulations with no more entertainment value whatsoever, and I hope that this never happens.  I think that the first amendment is a great right and that we should never abridge it.  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\How Should We Treat The Homeless.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
                                          
How Should We Treat the Homeless? 


	I think that to treat all homeless people in one certain way would be hard for 

me to do because there are many reasons for a person to be homeless, and some of 

them should be treated differently from others.  I feel that the runaways and drug 

addicts don't deserve as much as the unemployed and war veteran types.  But I feel 

in my heart that all people with no homes, or lives for that matter, should get some 

sort of help to survive and get back on their feet so that they can become a pro-

ductive member of society.

	Lars Eighner, a homeless man, wrote a book entitled "Travels with Lizbeth: 

Three Years  on the Road and on the Streets" in which he describes in one chapter 

"the process of scavenging Dumsters for food and other necessities."  Eighner states 

that even though he is homeless with not much money, he still eats and sometimes 

finds money from scavenging Dumpsters.  This seems like  a form of self-reliance for 

him.

	In his story, Eighner tells us what is safe to eat, how to tell if it is safe, and 

where to get the food.  He states that a lot of people throw away perfectly good food, 

and when they do he finds it.  Eighner says the food "can be evaluated with some 

confidence largely on the basis of appearance."  In my opinion, I don't care if the 

food looks perfect, I wouldn't eat garbage unless I was dying from hunger.

	But eating is only one problem facing the homeless.  Their second priority 

should be shelter.  Where will they go if it is freezing or something?  Many large 

cities have homeless shelters, but sometimes they get full and the last to arrive might 

not be allowed in due to overcrowding according to fire laws.  I wish that they 

would let these people sleep on the floor or something rather than sleep outside and 

freeze to death.  I think that if the government can't help these people get back on 

their feet, then they should build larger shelters to house all of them.  They could 

even serve more food at the shelters so the homeless won't have to eat garbage.  I 

know my city is building a very large shelter to take in the homeless and I hope other 

cities follow.

	Homeless people have many problems to face.  If this country would 

organize more programs to help the homeless, we might see some really low-class" 

panhandlers" become productive citizens if they choose to.  Then the people who 

have been helped could help more homeless to get back on their feet.  It could be a 

chain of homeless helping homeless. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\How Technology Effects Modern America.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
How Technology Effects Modern America



The microeconomic picture of the U.S. has changed immensely since 1973, and the trends 

are proving to be consistently downward for the nation's high school graduates and high 

school drop-outs.  "Of all the reasons given for the wage squeeze - international 

competition, technology, deregulation, the decline of unions and defense cuts - technology 

is probably the most critical.  It has favored the educated and the skilled," says M. B. 

Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News &amp; World Report (7/31/95).  Since 1973, wages 

adjusted for inflation have declined by about a quarter for high school dropouts, by a sixth 

for high school graduates, and by about 7% for those with some college education.  Only 

the wages of college graduates are up.



Of the fastest growing technical jobs, software engineering tops the list. Carnegie Mellon 

University reports, "recruitment of it's software engineering students is up this year by over 

20%."  All engineering jobs are paying well, proving that highly skilled labor is what 

employers want!  "There is clear evidence that the supply of workers in the [unskilled labor] 

categories already exceeds the demand for their services," says L. Mishel, Research Director 

of Welfare Reform Network.



In view of these facts, I wonder if these trends are good or bad for society.  "The danger of 

the information age is that while in the short run it may be cheaper to replace workers with 

technology, in the long run it is potentially self-destructive because there will not be enough 

purchasing power to grow the economy," M. B. Zuckerman.  My feeling is that the trend 

from unskilled labor to highly technical, skilled labor is a good one!  But, political action 

must be taken to ensure that this societal evolution is beneficial to all of us.  "Back in 1970, 

a high school diploma could still be a ticket to the middle income bracket, a nice car in the 

driveway and a house in the suburbs.  Today all it gets is a clunker parked on the street, and 

a dingy apartment in a low rent building," says Time Magazine (Jan 30, 1995 issue).  



However, in 1970, our government provided our children with a free education, allowing 

the vast majority of our population to earn a high school diploma.  This means that anyone, 

regardless of family income, could be educated to a level that would allow them a 

comfortable place in the middle class.  Even restrictions upon child labor hours kept 

children in school, since they are not allowed to work full time while under the age of 18.  

This government policy was conducive to our economic markets, and allowed our country 

to prosper from 1950 through 1970.  Now, our own prosperity has moved us into a highly 

technical world, that requires highly skilled labor.  The natural answer to this problem, is 

that the U.S. Government's education policy must keep pace with the demands of the 

highly technical job market.  If a middle class income of 1970 required a high school 

diploma, and the middle class income of 1990 requires a college diploma, then it should be 

as easy for the children of the 90's to get a college diploma, as it was for the children of the 

70's to get a high school diploma.  This brings me to the issue of our country's political 

process, in a technologically advanced world.



Voting &amp; Poisoned Political Process in The U.S.



The advance of mass communication is natural in a technologically advanced society.  In 

our country's short history, we have seen the development of the printing press, the radio, 

the television, and now the Internet; all of these, able to reach millions of people.  Equally 

natural, is the poisoning and corruption of these medias, to benefit a few.



From the 1950's until today, television has been the preferred media.  Because it captures 

the minds of most Americans, it is the preferred method of persuasion by political figures, 

multinational corporate advertising, and the upper 2% of the elite, who have an interest in 

controlling public opinion.  Newspapers and radio experienced this same history, but are 

now somewhat obsolete in the science of changing public opinion.  Though I do not 

suspect television to become completely obsolete within the next 20 years, I do see the 

Internet being used by the same political figures, multinational corporations, and upper 2% 

elite, for the same purposes.  At this time, in the Internet's young history, it is largely 

unregulated, and can be accessed and changed by any person with a computer and a 

modem; no license required, and no need for millions of dollars of equipment.  But, in 

reviewing our history, we find that newspaper, radio and television were once unregulated 

too.  It is easy to see why government has such an interest in regulating the Internet these 

days.  Though public opinion supports regulating sexual material on the Internet, it is just 

the first step in total regulation, as experienced by every other popular mass media in our 

history.  This is why it is imperative to educate people about the Internet, and make it be 

known that any regulation of it is destructive to us, not constructive!  I have been a daily 

user of the Internet for 5 years (and a daily user of BBS communications for 9 years), which 

makes me a senior among us.  I have seen the moves to regulate this type of 

communication, and have always openly opposed it.



My feelings about technology, the Internet, and political process are simple.  In light of the 

history of mass communication, there is nothing we can do to protect any media from the 

"sound byte" or any other form of commercial poisoning.  But, our country's public 

opinion doesn't have to fall into a nose-dive of lies and corruption, because of it!  The first 

experience I had in a course on Critical Thinking came when I entered college.  As many 

good things as I have learned in college, I found this course to be most valuable to my basic 

education.  I was angry that I hadn't had access to the power of critical thought over my 

twelve years of basic education.  Simple forms of critical thinking can be taught as early as 

kindergarten.  It isn't hard to teach a young person to understand the patterns of 

persuasion, and be able to defend themselves against them.  Television doesn't have to be a 

weapon against us, used to sway our opinions to conform to people who care about their 

own prosperity, not ours.  With the power of a critical thinking education, we can stop 

being motivated by the sound byte and, instead we can laugh at it as a cheap attempt to 

persuade us.



In conclusion, I feel that the advance of technology is a good trend for our society; 

however, it must be in conjunction with advance in education so that society is able to 

master and understand technology.  We can be the masters of technology, and not let it be 

the masters of us.



 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Human Cloning isnt as scary as it sounds.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Human Cloning Isn't as Scary as It Sounds

                    
                     The recent news of the successful cloning of an adult sheep-in which the
                     sheep's DNA was inserted into an unfertilized sheep egg to produce a lamb
                     with identical DNA-has generated an outpouring of ethical concerns. These
                     concerns are not about Dolly, the now famous sheep, nor even about the
                     considerable impact cloning may have on the animal breeding industry, but
                     rather about the possibility of cloning humans. For the most part, however,
                     the ethical concerns being raised are exaggerated and misplaced, because
                     they are based on erroneous views about what genes are and what they can
                     do. The danger, therefore, lies not in the power of the technology, but in the
                     misunderstanding of its significance. 

                     Producing a clone of a human being would not amount to creating a "carbon
                     copy"-an automaton of the sort familiar from science fiction. It would be
                     more like producing a delayed identical twin. And just as identical twins are
                     two separate people-biologically, psychologically, morally and legally,
                     though not genetically-so a clone is a separate person from his or her
                     non-contemporaneous twin. To think otherwise is to embrace a belief in
                     genetic determinism-the view that genes determine everything about us,
                     and that environmental factors or the random events in human development
                     are utterly insignificant. The overwhelming consensus among geneticists is
                     that genetic determinism is false. 

                     As geneticists have come to understand the ways in which genes operate,
                     they have also become aware of the myriad ways in which the environment
                     affects their "expression." The genetic contribution to the simplest physical
                     traits, such as height and hair color, is significantly mediated by
                     environmental factors. And the genetic contribution to the traits we value
                     most deeply, from intelligence to compassion, is conceded by even the most
                     enthusiastic genetic researchers to be limited and indirect. Indeed, we need
                     only appeal to our ordinary experience with identical twins-that they are
                     different people despite their similarities-to appreciate that genetic
                     determinism is false. 

                     Furthermore, because of the extra steps involved, cloning will probably
                     always be riskier-that is, less likely to result in a live birth-than in vitro
                     fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer. (It took more than 275 attempts
                     before the researchers were able to obtain a successful sheep clone. While
                     cloning methods may improve, we should note that even standard IVF
                     techniques typically have a success rate of less than 20 percent.) So why
                     would anyone go to the trouble of cloning? 

                     There are, of course, a few reasons people might go to the trouble, and so
                     it's worth pondering what they think they might accomplish, and what sort
                     of ethical quandaries they might engender. Consider the hypothetical
                     example of the couple who wants to replace a child who has died. The
                     couple doesn't seek to have another child the ordinary way because they feel
                     that cloning would enable them to reproduce, as it were, the lost child. But
                     the unavoidable truth is that they would be producing an entirely different
                     person, a delayed identical twin of that child. Once they understood that, it
                     is unlikely they would persist. 

                     But suppose they were to persist? Of course we can't deny that possibility.
                     But a couple so persistent in refusing to acknowledge the genetic facts is not
                     likely to be daunted by ethical considerations or legal restrictions either. If
                     our fear is that there could be many couples with that sort of psychology,
                     then we have a great deal more than cloning to worry about. 

                     Another disturbing possibility is the person who wants a clone in order to
                     have acceptable "spare parts" in case he or she needs an organ transplant
                     later in life. But regardless of the reason that someone has a clone produced,
                     the result would nevertheless be a human being with all the rights and
                     protections that accompany that status. It truly would be a disaster if the
                     results of human cloning were seen as less than fully human. But there is
                     certainly no moral justification for and little social danger of that happening;
                     after all, we do not accord lesser status to children who have been created
                     through IVF or embryo transfer. 

                     There are other possibilities we could spin out. Suppose a couple wants a
                     "designer child"-a clone of Cindy Crawford or Elizabeth Taylor-because
                     they want a daughter who will grow up to be as attractive as those women.
                     Indeed, suppose someone wants a clone, never mind of whom, simply to
                     enjoy the notoriety of having one. We cannot rule out such cases as
                     impossible. Some people produce children for all sorts of frivolous or
                     contemptible reasons. But we must remember that cloning is not as easy as
                     going to a video store or as engaging as the traditional way of making babies.
                     Given the physical and emotional burdens that cloning would involve, it is
                     likely that such cases would be exceedingly rare. 

                     But if that is so, why object to a ban on human cloning? What is wrong with
                     placing a legal barrier in the path of those with desires perverse enough or
                     delusions recalcitrant enough to seek cloning despite its limited potential and
                     formidable costs? For one thing, these are just the people that a legal ban
                     would be least likely to deter. But more important, a legal barrier might well
                     make cloning appear more promising than it is to a much larger group of
                     people. 

                     If there were significant interest in applying this technology to human beings,
                     it would indicate a failure to educate people that genetic determinism is
                     profoundly mistaken. Under those circumstances as well, however, a ban on
                     human cloning would not only be ineffective but also most likely
                     counterproductive. Ineffective because, as others have pointed out, the
                     technology does not seem to require sophisticated and highly visible
                     laboratory facilities; cloning could easily go underground. Counterproductive
                     because a ban might encourage people to believe that there is a scientific
                     basis for some of the popular fears associated with human cloning-that
                     there is something to genetic determinism after all. 

                     There is a consensus among both geneticists and those writing on ethical,
                     legal and social aspects of genetic research, that genetic determinism is not
                     only false, but pernicious; it invokes memories of pseudo-scientific racist
                     and eugenic programs premised on the belief that what we value in people is
                     entirely dependent on their genetic endowment or the color of their skin.
                     Though most members of our society now eschew racial determinism, our
                     culture still assumes that genes contain a person's destiny. It would be
                     unfortunate if, by treating cloning as a terribly dangerous technology, we
                     encouraged this cultural myth, even as we intrude on the broad freedom our
                     society grants people regarding reproduction. 

                     We should remember that most of us believe people should be allowed to
                     decide with whom to reproduce, when to reproduce and how many children
                     they should have. We do not criticize a woman who takes a fertility drug so
                     that she can influence when she has children-or even how many. Why,
                     then, would we object if a woman decides to give birth to a child who is, in
                     effect, a non-contemporaneous identical twin of someone else? 

                     By arguing against a ban, I am not claiming that there are no serious ethical
                     concerns to the manipulation of human genes. Indeed there are. For
                     example, if it turned out that certain desirable traits regarding intellectual
                     abilities or character could be realized through the manipulation of human
                     genes, which of these enhancements, if any, should be available? But such
                     questions are about genetic engineering, which is a different issue than
                     cloning. Cloning is a crude method of trait selection: It simply takes a
                     pre-existing, unengineered genetic combination of traits and replicates it. 

                     I do not wish to dismiss the ethical concerns people have raised regarding
                     the broad range of assisted reproductive technologies. But we should
                     acknowledge that those concerns will not be resolved by any determination
                     we make regarding the specific acceptability of cloning. 

                             




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Hutu and Tutsi Report.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
       The Hutu and Tutsi's tribes of Rwanda have been at war for centuries.  The fighting began 5 centuries ago when the Tutsi a warrior tribe of Hamatic origin invaded Rwanda from the North.  The Hutu a peaceful tribe of farmers could not defend themselves and were reduced to serfdom, each Hutu choosing a Tutsi master.
     In the 18 century the Hutu rebelled and took control of the government and mistreated the Tutsi.  The president a Hutu, Habyiberman, was accused of being to lenient with the Tutsi's and he was removed from office.  A Hutu General named Gregor Mendil took over the office.  
    In 1952 a plane went down with a Hutu leader on board the Hutu blamed this on the Tutsi.  The same thing happened except there was a Tutsi leader on board.  This was enough to get the two tribes fighting again.  
    Right now the economy is in shambles because there is not enough people working.  
    Most of the killers are under 18 and the courts are deciding what to do with them.  The judicial sytem is very slow and the trials are not schelduled until June.
   Right now the Tutsi have control of Northern Rwanda and Zaire, while the Hutu have Southern Rwanda and Burundi. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\hvorfor krig .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Hvorfor krig ?

I de senere �r har Verden set flere og flere konflikter, der i nogle tilf�lde har udviklet sig til borgerkrige eller reelle krige mellem to lande.
Der findes mange forskellige grunde til, at en krig opst�r. I Golfkrigen var det et sp�rgsm�l om, at Irak �nskede fuld kontrol over de meget profitable oliekilder, som Kuwait besad. Dette medf�rte at de invaderede Kuwait, og herefter opstod Golfkrigen. Det var ikke en krig mellem Irak og Kuwait, men derimod en krig mellem den vestlige verden, der frygtede for deres �konomiske interesser, hvis Irak fik kontrollen over oliekilderne.
En anden krise der har v�ret meget oppe i medierne, er krigen i Tjetjenien. Her var der tale om at et muslimsk samfund, der f�r var en del af det tidligere Sovjetunionen, �nskede at l�srive sig fra Rusland for at danne en ren muslimsk stat. S� her var der tale om en krig med religi�se og demokratiske aspekter.
Den krig som vi i Danmark har v�ret mest ber�rt af, er helt klart krigen i det tidligere Jugoslavien. Denne krig er egentlig temmelig absurd, fordi den opstod blandt folk, der i �revis havde levet fredeligt side om side. Men s� var der nogle af landets ledere der begyndte at tale om et �ldgammelt �nske. Nemlig at danne et stort Serbien.
Dette medf�rte at der kom nogle sp�ndinger mellem serberne, kroaterne og muslimerne, som til sidst medf�rte krigen.
Der er i mine �jne ingen tvivl om, at det var den �ldgamle serbiske dr�m, der var skyld i at krigen udbr�d. Men da selve krigen var i gang, s� ved jeg ikke, hvem af parterne der var v�rst. I medierne fors�gte man ofte, at fort�lle hvor grusomme serberne var, og hvor uskyldige ofre kroaterne var. Muslimerne fors�gte man at f� forbundet med de mellem�stlige muslimer, og p� den m�de skabe en ond stemning imod dem. Denne mediep�virkning er utrolig effektiv, fordi medierne selv bestemmer hvad der skal trykkes eller vises, og derved kan de f� drejet en sag i den retning de selv �nsker.
Det er ogs� igennem medierne, at min generation har f�et sit syn p� krig. Hver gang man t�nder fjernsynet for at se nyhederne eller tv-avisen, s� kan man v�re n�sten helt sikker p� at se et indslag, der p� en eller anden m�de har tilknytning til krig.
Det vil nok v�re sv�rt for mig at karakterisere hele min generations syn p� krig, fordi jeg tror ikke, at det er s� let at generalisere p� et s� komplekst dilemma. Hvis man f.eks. tager krigen mellem Rusland og Tjetjenien, s� er der sikkert mange, der mener, at tjetjenerne har ret til at f� deres eget land, nu n�r der ikke l�ngere er noget, der hedder Sovjet. P� den anden side kan man ogs� godt forst�, at russerne er imod, at tjetjenerne river sig l�s, og dermed ogs� tager en hel r�kke af landets sydlige oliekilder med sig. For det er ingen hemmelighed, at Rusland er i en dyb �konomisk krise, og derfor har brug for s� mange indt�gter som muligt. S� her drejer det sig om, om det vigtigste er, at tage hensyn til en lille gruppe menneskers friheds�nske, eller om man skal se p� et helt lands �konomiske behov. I en krig vil der altid v�re mods�tningsforhold, og derfor er det umuligt for mig at tale p� en hel generations vegne. For vi har alle forskellige syn p� hvad der er rigtigt og hvad der er forkert. I mit tilf�lde er jeg, i lige n�jagtig denne krig, p� Ruslands side. Det h�nger formentlig sammen med at tjetjenerne er muslimer, og jeg er nok ikke den mest muslim-venlige person p� denne jord. Og det, tror jeg, h�nger sammen med den p�virkning, medierne har haft p� mig. Jeg har ofte h�rt om muslimske fundamentalister, der har spr�ngt busser i luften, kapret fly eller ud�vet andre terrorhandlinger for at g�re opm�rksom p� dem selv. Dette billede af muslimer bliver automatisk overf�rt til alle muslimer. Ogs� dem der m�ske bliver uretf�rdigt behandlet i en krig. 
En krig opst�r altid som f�lge af en forudg�ende krise. Men for at f� l�st krisen beh�ver man ikke n�dvendigvis starte en krig. En anden l�sning er forhandling.
En forhandling g�r ud p�, at man tilkalder en forhandlingsmand, som helst ikke er alt for partisk. I Jugoslavien brugte man f�rst Thorvald Stoltenberg fra Norge, og derefter Carl Bildt fra Sverige som til sidst fik l�st krisen.
Det sv�re i en forhandling er, at begge parter mener, at det er dem, der har ret. Man skal hele tiden indg� kompromiser, som ikke n�dvendigvis er retf�rdige. 
En anden ulempe ved forhandling er, at de meget tit g�r i h�rdknude, og for den almene befolkning er det ikke tilfredsstillende. Det vil se resultater, og derfor ser man ofte, at de griber til vold, fordi det kan man m�le p� en eller anden m�de. Det er da nemt at sige, "I dag har jeg dr�bt 5 fjender, s� derfor har jeg medvirket til, at vi snart f�r fred", i stedet for at f� f�lgende meddelelse over fjernsynet, "Vi har i dag afholdt 5 m�der ang�ende en fredelig l�sning af krigen, s� vi h�ber, at der snart bliver fred". Jeg kan egentlig godt forst�, at folk hellere vil v�re med til at bestemme deres egen sk�bne, end at overlade den til �n mand, de ikke har noget forhold til. Det er dog min klare holdning, og formentlig ogs� mange fra min generations, at l�sningen p� en konflikt, ikke skal ske med vold. Den skal ske ved hj�lp af forhandling. 
Krig er et eller andet sted meget primitivt, og hvis man ser p� soldater som en helhed, s� tror jeg, at de er flokdyr. De d�kker sig ind under hinanden, og derfor beg�r de alle de grusomme handlinger s�som voldt�gt, meningsl�se henrettelser, grov vold og plyndringer. Hvis hver enkelt soldat blev stillet til ansvar for sine handlinger, s� er jeg sikker p� at 99 % af dem ville bryde gr�dende sammen. 
Jeg tror ogs�, at det tit er tilf�ldigt, hvem der overlever og hvem der d�r. En krig har ikke noget at g�re med menneskelige v�rdier. Blot fordi man er god og k�rlig mod andre, kan man sagtens blive henrettet uden nogen grund. Et eksempel p� dette kunne byen Mostar, hvor en gruppe serbiske soldater tog alle byens muslimske m�nd og drenge med ud p� en mark. Her blev de anbragt i en klump, og serberne begyndte at skyde l�s p� dem. Derefter blev de alle skubbet ned i et hul og d�kket til med jord.
 I krig er mennesker mindre, v�rd end det gev�r de holder i h�nden, og det er i mine �jne forkert, at noget s� unikt som et menneskeliv, bliver misbrugt p� en s�dan m�de. 
Udover de folk der bliver sl�et ihjel under en krig, s� er der ogs� dem, der overlever. Og jeg ved n�sten ikke, hvem jeg har mest ondt af. De der er d�de, vil trods alt aldrig mere blive ber�rt, af det der skete under krigen. Derimod vil de der overlever altid leve med de frygtelige minder om krigen. De fleste af dem har sikkert mistet et eller flere familiemedlemmer, nogle af dem har m�ske v�ret presset til at ud�ve grusomheder, som de ikke selv havde lyst til. 
Alle disse ting vil nok tit dukke op i deres erindring, og de vil sikkert derfor tit v�re deprimerede.
Alt dette g�r, at jeg ikke umiddelbart kan se nogle fordele ved at g� i krig. Grunden til at folk alligevel g�r i krig er m�ske, at de ikke er klar over, hvilke konsekvenser en krig rummer. Det har sikkert ogs� noget at g�re med, at de magthavere der starter krigen, nok ikke bliver s� personligt ber�rt af krigen, som den menige indbygger i det p�g�ldende land.
Jeg tror, at min generation er ved at v�re tr�tte af at h�re om krig og elendighed. Vi er efterh�nden blevet vant til at se d�de mennesker og bombede huse. Og det har ogs� medvirket til, at man lettere kan lukke af for de ubehagelige indtryk. Selv om det ikke hj�lper noget at lukke af for problemerne, s� er det nu alligevel det letteste. Man skal ogs� t�nke p�, at alle de krige vi h�rer om, ikke har nogen relation til Danmark. Og derfor kan vi jo i bund og grund v�re ligeglade. Alligevel er der mange fra bl.a. min generation, som melder sig til FN tjeneste for p� den m�de at v�re en del af det fredsskabende initiativ.
Jeg n�vnte tidligere, at tv og aviser har stor indflydelse p�, hvilke holdninger der kommer ud til den enkelte borger. Nyhedsmediet har alligevel et vist ansvar, i hvert fald i Danmark, i og med at en sag skal d�kkes s� objektivt som muligt. Dette ansvar har filmverdenen ikke, og krigsfilm har i tidernes l�b v�ret en god indt�gtskilde for alverdens filmselskaber. Nogle film har v�ret mere objektive end andre, og is�r de mindst objektive har ofte glorificeret krigsbegrebet. Dette kan g�res ved, at man har de gode og de onde. Et s�dant firkantet syn p� hvordan en krig er, kan m�ske f� nogle til at blive fascineret af krigsbegrebet. Her t�nker jeg is�r p� de, i mine �jne, mindrebegavede unge m�nd, der synes, det er fedt at se en masse blod og vold. Man kan jo sige, at det bare er fiktion, men jeg synes alligevel, at man latterligg�r krigsbegrebet, og derved yder man ikke respekt til alle de mennesker, der er blevet ramt af krigens ulykker.
N�r opgavestilleren skriver, "rummer en fascinationskraft for mange mennesker", s� betyder det i mine �jne at man er fortryllet af krig (eller rettere sagt i fremmedordbogens �jne). Denne fortryllelse kan g� ud p�, at man ser op til, at folk kan finde sig i de mest umulige ting under en krig. Det er ogs� i mine �jne imponerende, at folk der ikke har mad eller varme, kan overleve p� viljen alene (selvf�lgelig har de lidt mad og vand). Nogle af de mennesker der er blevet tilbage i Bosnien, har set alle deres ejendele blive stj�let, deres hus blive skudt i stykker og deres k�re blive dr�bt. Alligevel har de haft s� megen stolthed, at de har n�gtet at forlade deres hjem. 
Derudover opst�r der ogs� et sammenhold blandt landets indbyggere. Et sammenhold hvor alle er br�dre, og alle v�rner om alle. Dette skyldes truslen om, at hvis man ikke holder sammen, s� har fjenden nemmere ved at skabe splid. S�dan et sammenhold skabte Hitler p� forbl�ffende vis. Han pr�sterede at f� folk til at f�le, at de var en del af noget, og at de bet�d noget. Det de var en del af var m�ske ikke s� heldigt, men jeg er sikker p�, at de havde det godt i det sammenhold, der blev skabt.
Jeg tror aldrig, at vi slipper af med krig. Der vil altid v�re folk, der ikke kan acceptere hinanden, og derfor vil de gribe til v�ben. Jeg tror p� den anden side heller, ikke at krig vil blive accepteret som den bedste l�sning. Man vil altid pr�ve at forhandle. B�de for at spare menneskeliv, men m�ske endnu vigtigere (set ud fra en statsleders synspunkt); for at spare penge.



 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Ideology and politics.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	The purpose of this paper is to treat the similarly and differences of liberalism.  I
will use John Locke and Adam Smith to represent classical liberals.  John Stuart Mill and
John Maynard Keynes will be used to show contemporary liberals.

John Locke
	In John Locke's Second Treatise of Government he develops a theory of
government as a product of a social contract, which when broken justifies the creation of
a new government for the protection of life, liberty and property.  He begins his argument
by developing a theory of the state of nature which is
	...what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom 
	to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they 
	think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or
	depending upon the will of any other man.1
The state of nature includes the "...law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone;
and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it..."2  The state
of nature also includes inequality
	...since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of a man in proportion 
	to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value only from the consent of men,
	whereof labour yet makes, in great part, the measure, it is plain that men 
	have agreed to a disproportional and unequal possession of the earth.3 
	In Locke's state on nature there are also three distinct problems. 
First there is no established settled known law.  As each man consults his own law of
nature he receives a slightly different interpretation.   
Secondly there no known and indifferent judge.  Which creates the problem of trying to
decide which is the correct law of nature which will be followed in an impartial manor.
Thirdly there is insufficient force of execution.  This is the problem of how to carry out
the decision of the law of nature on another when he has a different interpretation or
doesn't consult the law of nature.
	Locke states that the three problems in the state of nature would be best solved by
coming together to form a new government to protect there property.
	The great and chief end therefore, of men's coming into commonwealths, 	
	and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their 	
	property...4
And goes further into what this new government should be empowered to do
	firstly...established, settled known law, received and allowed by common 
	consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to 
	decide all controversies between them...secondly...there wants a known 
	and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to
	the established law...thirdly...There often wants power to back and support 
	the sentence when right, and to give it due execution.  They who by any 
	injustice offend, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good 
	their injustice...5
	In Locke's government men only give up the right to the above mentioned things,
to create the law for themselves, to judge the law for themselves, and to execute the law
for themselves.  These are the only rights that the government has the right to interfere in
as it is the only reason that people entered into a commonwealth.  Locke also explains the
new social contract that the new government should operate under.  The first point of the
contract is that the people agree to form a body politic, in which the majority rule. 
Second the body politic selects a government of the day. (elects people on a regular basis
to the government to legislate the law) 
	Locke laid out who should be allowed the right to vote, who shouldn't be allowed
to vote and gives his reason why.
	...all men as members for the purposes of being ruled and only men of estate 
	as members for the prepossess of ruling.  The right to rule (more accurately, 
	the right to control any government) is given to the men of estate only: it is 
	they who are given the decisive voice about taxation, without which no
	government can subsist.  On the other hand, the obligation to be bound by law 
	and subject to the lawful government is fixed on all men whether or not they 
	have property in the sense of estate, and indeed whether or not they have made 
	an express compact.6

Johns Stuart Mill
	There is no difficulty in showing that the ideally best form of government is that 
	in which the sovereignty, or  supreme controlling power in the last resort, is
	vested in the entire aggregate of the community.7
	It is with this statement that Mill begins his augment in The Ideally Best Polity
showing his believe in Locke's democracy but saying that all people could be best served
by the government if everyone could vote.  As this is the only way the government learns
what it needs to know in order to govern.  He comes to this concussion by saying that
participatory democracy is the best answer to the two questions that he poses as to what
makes a good government.
	...namely how far it promotes the good management of the affairs of society 
	by means of the existing faculties, moral, intellectual, and active, of its various
	members, and what effect in improving or deteriorating those faculties.8
	Mill believes that it is necessary to expand the role of government not only to
protect the people from the government but to promote liberty by putting limits on what
can be expressed as public opinion against a minority, and to involve people in the
government so as to give them stimulation and help them develop.
	In Mill's writings he also discuses the idea of liberty and what limits government
and public opinion should have on interfering with a individuals liberty.
	...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any 
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to 
others.  His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.9

Differences Between Locke and Mill
	Although Locke and Mill both believe in government by and for the governed
there chief difference is in the idea of who the government is for. Where Locke believes
that the purpose of government is to protect property, there for if you did not have
property you didn't have anything to protect and shouldn't have a voice in the
government.  Mill believes in an participatory democracy in which everyone should have
the right to vote as it is a way of bettering society as a whole and making sure that
everyone's interests are consulted.  They also differ on the role the government should
play in the lives of the governed.  Locke advocates a government which doesn't have any
power to interfere in the lives of the governed out side of protecting their property. 
Where Mill would like to see a government which attempts to better the lives that it
governs and protect them form the tyranny of the majority.

Adam Smith
	In 1776 Adam Smith published a book titled The Wealth of Nations in which he
recorded his ideas on the way the money and the economy worked.  He had came to
some important concussions about how the market worked which went hand in hand with
why the government shouldn't interfere in its workings.
	There are three main points in his idea of capitalism the first was self interest 
	...a drive to maximize income...by concluding the best possible bargain on 
	the marketplace into which everyone ventured, either to sell his or her labor 
	power or other resources, or to purchase goods.10  
Second competition would act as a regulator
	For each man, out to do the best for himself with no thought of others, is 
	faced with a host of similarly motivated individuals who are in exactly the 
	same position.  Each is only too eager to take advantage of his competitor's 
	greed if it urges him to raise his price above the level "set" by the market.11
Thirdly the idea of supply and demand would automatically regulate what is produced,
the quantity produced, quality of goods, and increase efficiency in the production
process. "...the changing desires of society lead producers to increase production of
wanted goods and to diminish the production of goods that are no longer as highly
desired."12

John Maynard Keynes
	While Keynes agreed with Adam Smith on the way the market place works he
noted that the wealth of an economy depends on the amount of money flowing and the
rate at which it flows.  This means that the market place was prone to certain types of
macro economic illness.  These illesses are 
	First, that an economy in depression might well stay there; there was nothing
	inherent in the situation to pull it out.  Second, that prosperity depended on 
	investment; for if savings were not put to use, the dread spiral of contraction
	began.  And third, that investment was an undependable drive wheel for the
	economy threated with satiety, and satiety spelled economic shrinkage.13
Keynes reasoned that
	...if investment could not be directly stimulated, why then, at least 
	consumption could.  For while investment was the capricious element 
	in the system, consumption provided the great floor of economic activity...14
He looked to the government to maintain the macro economy.  Saying that if
consumption could be controlled in a way to heat up the economy when it is running cold
and cool it down when it is running hot.  This was to be done through the policies of
	...monetary control, mainly centered in the Federal Reserve banking system.  
	By easing or tightening the reserve requirements that all banks had to maintain
	behind their deposits, the Federal Reserve was able to encourage or 
	discourage lending, the source of much economic activity.  In addition, by 
	buying or selling government bonds, the Federal Reserve was able to make 
	the whole banking system relatively flush with funds when these were needed, 
	or relatively short of funds when money seemed in excess supply.
	...second was tax adjustment...By raising or lowering taxes, particularly 
	income taxes, the government could quickly increase or diminish this broad 
	flow of purchasing power.
	...third was the federal budget...In inflationary times, a budget surplus would 
	sere to mop up part of the inflationary purchasing flow.  In depressed times, 
	a budget deficit (covered by borrowing) was a mechanism for generating a 
	desired increase in that flow.15

Similarities common to liberals
	Classical liberals held the believes that the government should be for thoughts
who were governed and held property.  Inaddision that the governments only role should
be to protect peoples property and shouldn't interfere in any other part of peoples lives.
	Contemporary liberals believe that the government should take a much more
active role in the lives of the governed both to better society and to protect it form
fluctuations of the business cycle.
	All liberals believe that government should be held responsible to the governed to
serve there secular purposes.  That capitalism is the corner stone of the free market
society and that the government should not directly interfere in the micro economy.  And
lastly in individualism that we are all free, rational, equal, act only according to our own
consent, and have a right to voluntary association.

Concussion
	In drawing this brief account of the liberal-democratic analysis of equality to 
	a concussion we are properly struck by the significant distance which separates 
	the contemporary, revisioist idea from that of its classical predecessors.16 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Illegal Immigration.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
                            Illegal Immigration

     Immigration, legal or otherwise, is a huge issue right now. 
Debates rage about how many immigrants should be allowed into the
country and how zealously we should guard out border from illegal
intruders.  To a point, these people are correct, illegal
immigration is something that should be stopped.  People should
not cross the border illegally or overstay on visits.  The
important question is, however, does illegal immigration deserve
the massive amount of attention it receives?  No, it does not. 
By looking at the respected immigrants of the past and thinking
about the issues in a clear and objective way, it becomes
apparent that illegal immigration (and legal immigration, for
that matter) is not as vital an issue as many consider it to be.
     A key point in this discussion is that many of those who are
vehemently opposed to illegal immigration are also opposed to
large amounts of legal immigration as well.  These thinly hidden
agendas mean that often the debate on illegal immigration cannot
be separated from the debate on legal immigration. 
     According to Negative Population Growth (which is a suspect
source), Americans are firmly believe in tough laws against
illegal immigrants and that 70% of Americans want no more than
300,000 legal immigrants to enter the U.S. per year.  In fact,
N.P.G. says that 20% of Americans want immigration completely
stopped.  Taking these numbers as the truth, it is clear that
America thinks that we have too many immigrants. 
     Such a dislike of immigration is interesting considering the
success of past immigration.   Many people would say that today's
immigrants are somehow different than those of the past.    
However, the truth is that the similarities between the
immigrants of today and those of the past are numerous.  Their
reasons for coming to this country are often similar.  Many of
the immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were
compelled to leave their homes by the rapidly changing nature of
their countries.  In the Europe of the 19th century, this meant
quickly growing population and a rapidly industrializing economy. 
In nations like Mexico and Vietnam, the same thing is happening
today, they "are undergoing the same convulsive demographic and
economic disruptions that made migrants out of so many nineteenth
century Europeans" (Kennedy p.64).  
       Those who are against the immigration of the 1990's also
say that the European immigrants of the past were culturally
similar to Americans, and that they were more willing to
assimilate and become "American."  Neither of these things are
true.   Old immigrant groups like the Italians and may be seen as
generically "white" and "American" now, but when they first began
moving to the United States, they were as alien as the immigrants
are today are.  They were seen as culturally (and even
physically) inferior to native Americans.  Old immigrant groups
had significant cultural differences that caused friction between
them and the natives.  Those immigrants of the past also did not
come to America and instantly throw off all semblances of their
and language and society.  On the contrary, according to David
Kennedy, "many...exerted themselves to sustain their religions,
tongues and ways of life" (Kennedy p. 64).  Current opponents of
mass immigration also point to the large numbers of crimes
committed by immigrants.  They are forgetting that the immigrants
of past had similar problems.
     When illegal immigration is not confused with legal
immigration, debate can take place in a sane matter.  As George
Borjas noted on page 77 of his article, the economic consequences
of illegal immigration are unclear.  Convincing cases can be made
that illegals hurt and help the American economy.  I have heard
that the United States needs the cheap and undiscriminating labor
of illegal immigrants to do the "dirty work," and that illegals
take jobs away from natives.  Until more convincing data is
available, the approach to illegal immigration should be
sensible.  Outlandish solutions like building a huge 2,000 mile-
long fence and gathering a virtual army to defend the border from
Mexicans are not the answer.  Making legal immigration easier and
more common is the best solution that we have now. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Immigration Reform.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Immigration Reform


	At this time, the United States has allowed more immigrants to enter the country than at any time in its history. Over a million legal and illegal immigrants take up residence in the United States each year.  Immigration at its current magnitude is not fulfilling the interests or demands of this country. With the country struggling to support the huge intake of new comers, life in America has been suffering tremendously. The excessive stress put upon the welfare system, overuse of the family reunification laws, and the exploitation of employment based immigration in the computer industry are reasons for immigration reform.

	The United States welfare system has difficulties supporting the huge numbers of immigrants coming into the country each year.  A majority of the immigrants are from poor countries and come to the U.S. looking for work.  A research organization called Urban Institute revealed that immigrants use more welfare and earn  lower incomes than natives, which results in immigrants paying less taxes.  The Urban Institute is a non-profit organization that investigates the social and economic problems of this country.  Statistics from a Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) newsletter shows, ". . . the share of immigrant households below the poverty line (29 percent) is much higher than the share of native households that are poor (14 percent)--more than twice as high."  Due to the large numbers of poverty stricken immigrants, they are more likely to take part in means-tested programs such as AFDC.

	Family reunification laws generally do not serve the purpose implied by their name.  These laws create a problem that researchers call chain migration.  According to the FAIR organization, "because of chain migration--one immigrant sponsors several family members as immigrants, who then sponsor several others themselves, and so on. Since chain migration began in the mid 1960s, annual immigration has tripled."  Many sponsors have not met those they have helped, or much less have the desire to be reunited with them.  The laws are often used to further economic goals rather than joining families.  People migrate to the United States with pipe dreams of financial securities.  The high rates of family sponsored immigration from poor countries such as China and the Philippines rival those of richer countries such as Japan.

	Immigration reform not only has a strong following but an equally large opposition as well.  The opposition argues that immigrants create job and do not take jobs from U.S. citizens.  Several studies demonstrate that there is a positive relationship between states who admit immigrants and employment.  One study found between 1970-1980 Mexican immigration to Los Angeles County was responsible for 78,000 new jobs.  They claim that the U.S. work force, especially the computer industry, will suffer from the withdrawl of highly skilled workers.  The current unemployment rates are blamed on the relocation of multinational companies overseas to countries like Ireland and India.  

	Many big computer companies claim that employment based immigration is vital for the survival of our economy.  They feed upon the myth that the U.S. computer industry depends on immigrants for its technological edge.  In reality, a majority of advances in the computer field have been made by the U.S.  For example:
...of the 56 awards given for American industrial advances in software and hardware by the Association for Computing Machinery, only one recipient has been an immigrant.  Similarly, of 115 computer-related awards given to U.S. engineers by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, only nine recipents have been immmigrants. 
Employers state that they need to go search other countries to find new talent but the statistics show that their interest lies in finding bargain priced labor.  UCLA professor Paul Ong performed a statistical analysis in 1990 which determined that the average salaries  for foreign born computer professionals were almost $7,000 lower than American born workers of the level of education.

	Immigration is not to blame for the all the country's problems but they are increasing the effects and making them harder to solve.  At the present time the numbers are too high, creating difficulties for natives and immigrants a like.  With logical policies and better planned numbers, immigration is a good thing.  Policy improvements will help this country regain control of its borders and better provide for the people.  Modest reductions in our immigration policies are both are fair and ethical.  Too much of a good thing does more harm than good. 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Imperial Presidency Presidential.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
										            Imperial Presidency / Presidential Power

Imperial Presidency 				      Presidential Power
Arthur Schlesinger            			       Richard Neustadt
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1973            Simon & Schuster
copyright (c) 1973 by Arthur Schlesinger	       copyright (c) 1986 by Macmillan College 
505 pp.                                                                     Publishing Company, Inc.

Overview: Imperial Presidency
	In his book, The Imperial Presidency, Arthur Schlesinger recounts the rise of the presidency  as it grew into the imperial, powerful position that it is today. His writing reflects a belief that the presidency is becoming too powerful and that very few people are making a real effort to stop it. He analyzes the back and forth struggle for power between Congress and the Presidency. Schlesinger breaks up the first half of the book chronologically. He begins by discussing the areas concerning the presidency where the founding fathers agreed and also the areas where they disagreed. He then goes on to analyze the rise of the imperial presidency through war and recovery, with emphasis on the events of the twentieth century. After the war in Vietnam, Schlesinger divides the book based on the specific nature of the events that had an impact on presidential power. He divides it based on domestic policy, foreign policy, and the affairs that go on in secrecy.
	Schlesinger provides an incredible amount of evidence to recount the ups and downs of the imperial presidency. He provides a base for his argument with an in-depth view of what the framers intended and how they set the stage for development over the next two centuries. An issue that Schlesinger focuses on is the presidents ability to make war. The decisions of the founders in this area would have a huge impact on the power contained in the office of the president. The consensus amongst the framers was that the president, as Commander in Chief, had the ability to defend the United States and its interests, but the ability to declare war was vested in the Congress. This decision set the stage for the struggles between the president and congress. He also discussed the debate over the power institutionalized in the presidency. At the time, there were two schools of thought on the subject. Hamilton supported an active president, while Jefferson argued in favor of a passive president. The final draft included a compromise of the two theories. There was also some debate over the power of the president versus the power of congress. Additionally, there was a compromise made over this issue when writing the final draft. The spirit of compromise amongst the founders was what provided a viable and secure base for the future of the presidency.
	After his discussion of the founders, Schlesinger shifts to the president's powers of war. He analyzes every war, excluding the Revolution, that the United States has participated in up to and including the war in Vietnam. He discusses the specifics of each scenario and the way in which the president handles it. Schlesinger develops the slowly growing power of the presidency by recounting the actions that the president carried out on his own as well as those that required the consent of Congress to be accomplished. As time progressed, Schlesinger made note of all the major events that increased and decreased the power of the presidency. For example, he discusses the almost dictatorial power of Lincoln during the Civil War and then the impeachment of Andrew Johnson shortly thereafter. These are two events that are indicative of the seesaw struggle between the presidency and Congress. Schlesinger goes on to discuss additional examples of conflict between the presidency and Congress such as the dominance of Congress during the late 1800's, the annexation of Texas, the Great Depression, W.W.II, the Korean War, and the war in Vietnam. 
	Schlesinger focuses a great deal of attention on the events of the twentieth century, because, in part, this was when the power of the presidency vaulted to the level that it currently maintains. The reason for this, in addition to what the early presidents had done, was that the government was growing fast and the role of the government was increasing. There were many gray areas in which the president could extend his power. The power of the president to make war as Commander in Chief is an example of a gray area where the presidency was able to gain much power. Schlesinger discusses how the president was able to gain  power through the clause in the Constitution that gives the president the power to mobilize the military, without the consent of Congress, in the name of national defense. This clause allowed the president to deploy forces around the world. The grayness of this area comes from the fact that what one man may consider an act of defense, another man may consider to be an act of aggression, and vice versa. Because of this, the presidency was able to gain a leg up on Congress. 
	Schlesinger also discusses the actions taken within the inner sanctum of the White House. His focus is on the presidents from FDR through Nixon. Many of these men made many controversial decisions while in the oval office. Schlesinger goes over these actions with a microscope. For instance, he discusses the extreme secrecy and deception that Nixon practiced while in office. He analyzes the specific actions of the administration, the reasons for the actions, and the result of the actions. According to Schlesinger, the result of Nixon's extreme secrecy led him to be withdrawn from the rest of the country. He eventually created his own reality within the White House. It was a self-perceived reality where he could do whatever he wanted, right or wrong. This led to a somber, macabre mood throughout the White House, and eventually led to Nixon's downfall. He goes over the administrations of the modern presidents with a fine-toothed comb. He reviews their actions in reference to their specific nature (i.e., internal policy and foreign policy). Schlesinger also spends a chapter discussing the classified actions that only the officials in Washington knew about. He reviews the covert actions throughout the history of the presidency, not merely the twentieth century. Although, as is the case with most other topic areas, he focuses on the modern presidents. The majority of these secret actions involved either the CIA or the military. Even though we are unaware that these actions are occurring, they have a big impact on both our lives and the imperial power of the office of the presidency.

Methodology & Evidence: Imperial Presidency
	Schlesinger proves his thesis by following American politics from the founding fathers up through the Nixon administration. He recounts the major political actions taken by the presidents over the first two-hundred years of the United States. He shows how the presidency grew in power and stature by reviewing the specifics of the actions of the individual presidents. Through these actions, Schlesinger shows how the presidency gradually accumulated power. He shows how the presidents wrestled power away from Congress bit by bit over time. The reactions of Congress are analyzed as well as the rest of Washington, and the general public. Schlesinger describes how the president gradually, over time, began to make more and more decisions on his own, leaving Congress in the dark. His incredible historical knowledge allows him to justify all his arguments. He provides more than sufficient specific information on what was really going on in Washington and the White House. It seems as though Schlesinger knew the specifics and background of every major presidential decision and treaty every made. 
	
	As he moves into the twentieth century, Schlesinger expresses the opinion that the presidency is gaining too much power and that Congress has not taken the necessary measures to prevent this. Schlesinger expresses disapproval of the secrecy that presidents have been exercising and their practice of circumventing Congress. He directs the most disapproval towards the Nixon administration. He speaks of Nixon as the most secretive and the most independent from Congress. The Nixon administration was characterized by the sneakiness that Schlesinger most strongly disapproved of. Schlesinger does not express his opinions outright, but infers them through the tone of his writing.

Presidential Power
	In his book, Richard Neustadt discusses the quest for power and influence that has become necessary for a modern president to be effective. He believes that the constitution provides only for the president to be a clerk. This is why it is necessary for a president to be thirsty for power to be effective. There is very little power provided for the constitution. He has to have the initiative to make things happen.  The key to power, he believes, is the ability to persuade people. Neustadt contends that the power of the President is constantly in jeopardy, and that the ability to persuade is necessary for the president not only to gain power, but to also maintain his power. Also, Neustadt believes the president's ability to influence people is necessary to move the three branches of government into action. He says that there are several necessary qualities that a president must have in order to exert this influence. The president must be tenacious while also understanding of others. If he wants to get anything done, he must be persistent, but it is necessary that he listen to the opinions of others and use their suggestions. As an aspect of his persistence, a president must be able to rebound from adversity. Then, he will have the respect and confidence of the people.
		Neustadt writes the book from the perspective of the general public looking in from the outside. He shows much understanding of the presidency and an awareness of the position the president is placed in. His great knowledge of the presidency and his first hand experience with the institution provide him with the basis for his argument. He contends that the presidency is not as powerful as we think it is. In fact, he believes that an increase in presidential power would be good for the country and is not to be feared. In essence, he contends that presidents should strive for power and strive for it on their own.

Conclusion 
	Schlesinger and Neustadt both have an incredible knowledge of the history of American politics, and both have had first hand experience as counsel to the president. Although, in their respective books, Schlesinger and Neustadt express distinctly different opinions. Schlesinger is more wary of presidential power than Neustadt. Neustadt believes that presidents should try to accumulate as much power as possible for the good of the country. Schlesinger, on the other hand, believes that the presidency has accumulated more than enough power, and the other branches of government should take action to check the trend. Neustadt believes that presidents gain power through good, hard work and persuasion. Schlesinger writes that power is the result of sneakiness and boldness. In short, Neustadt thought that an increase power would be positive, and Schlesinger thought it would be a detriment.
	Each author supported his argument by personifying it in a specific president. Neustadt used FDR, while Schlesinger used Nixon. Neustadt felt that FDR exemplified all the qualities necessary for an effective presidency. He was vigorous, experienced, confident, and a sincere person. He was willing to do what it took to get things done in the best interest of the country, and he did it ethically. According to Schlesinger, Nixon was also willing to do whatever it took to make things happen, but ethics were of little importance to him. Schlesinger discussed how he gained his power by keeping Congress, the media, and the public ignorant of his actions, legal and illegal. His sneaky, underhanded ways were what led to his downfall. He had become too powerful. He felt he could get away with anything.
	Neither man is wrong. They just maintain different views. Neustadt focused on the good things that have come from presidential power (FDR), while Schlesinger pointed out the negative (Nixon). Although, each man's argument is not completely right. Neustadt displays a bit too much optimism. He does not take in to account the abuses of power that are likely to happen if a president becomes too powerful. He doesn't consider the fact that not all presidents are completely ethical. Schlesinger expresses a bit too much pessimism. This is a result of the Johnson and Nixon administration. Schlesinger may have been reacting to all the negative things that were coming out as a result of Vietnam and Watergate. The Imperial Presidency was written at a time when political efficacy was very low. Had Schlesinger written the book at any other time, he probably wouldn't have been that wary of an overly powerful president. If I had to make a recommendation, I would endorse both. The seem to compliment each other. Neustadt discusses how presidential power can improve the presidency and the government, and enumerates the traits necessary to achieve it. Schlesinger helps to warn us of the problems that can arise from too much power. Together, they provide us with both sides of the argument.   



 






										            Imperial Presidency / Presidential Power

Imperial Presidency 				      Presidential Power
Arthur Schlesinger            			       Richard Neustadt
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1973            Simon & Schuster
copyright (c) 1973 by Arthur Schlesinger	       copyright (c) 1986 by Macmillan College 
505 pp.                                                                     Publishing Company, Inc.

Overview: Imperial Presidency
	In his book, The Imperial Presidency, Arthur Schlesinger recounts the rise of the presidency  as it grew into the imperial, powerful position that it is today. His writing reflects a belief that the presidency is becoming too powerful and that very few people are making a real effort to stop it. He analyzes the back and forth struggle for power between Congress and the Presidency. Schlesinger breaks up the first half of the book chronologically. He begins by discussing the areas concerning the presidency where the founding fathers agreed and also the areas where they disagreed. He then goes on to analyze the rise of the imperial presidency through war and recovery, with emphasis on the events of the twentieth century. After the war in Vietnam, Schlesinger divides the book based on the specific nature of the events that had an impact on presidential power. He divides it based on domestic policy, foreign policy, and the affairs that go on in secrecy.
	Schlesinger provides an incredible amount of evidence to recount the ups and downs of the imperial presidency. He provides a base for his argument with an in-depth view of what the framers intended and how they set the stage for development over the next two centuries. An issue that Schlesinger focuses on is the presidents ability to make war. The decisions of the founders in this area would have a huge impact on the power contained in the office of the president. The consensus amongst the framers was that the president, as Commander in Chief, had the ability to defend the United States and its interests, but the ability to declare war was vested in the Congress. This decision set the stage for the struggles between the president and congress. He also discussed the debate over the power institutionalized in the presidency. At the time, there were two schools of thought on the subject. Hamilton supported an active president, while Jefferson argued in favor of a passive president. The final draft included a compromise of the two theories. There was also some debate over the power of the president versus the power of congress. Additionally, there was a compromise made over this issue when writing the final draft. The spirit of compromise amongst the founders was what provided a viable and secure base for the future of the presidency.
	After his discussion of the founders, Schlesinger shifts to the president's powers of war. He analyzes every war, excluding the Revolution, that the United States has participated in up to and including the war in Vietnam. He discusses the specifics of each scenario and the way in which the president handles it. Schlesinger develops the slowly growing power of the presidency by recounting the actions that the president carried out on his own as well as those that required the consent of Congress to be accomplished. As time progressed, Schlesinger made note of all the major events that increased and decreased the power of the presidency. For example, he discusses the almost dictatorial power of Lincoln during the Civil War and then the impeachment of Andrew Johnson shortly thereafter. These are two events that are indicative of the seesaw struggle between the presidency and Congress. Schlesinger goes on to discuss additional examples of conflict between the presidency and Congress such as the dominance of Congress during the late 1800's, the annexation of Texas, the Great Depression, W.W.II, the Korean War, and the war in Vietnam. 
	Schlesinger focuses a great deal of attention on the events of the twentieth century, because, in part, this was when the power of the presidency vaulted to the level that it currently maintains. The reason for this, in addition to what the early presidents had done, was that the government was growing fast and the role of the government was increasing. There were many gray areas in which the president could extend his power. The power of the president to make war as Commander in Chief is an example of a gray area where the presidency was able to gain much power. Schlesinger discusses how the president was able to gain  power through the clause in the Constitution that gives the president the power to mobilize the military, without the consent of Congress, in the name of national defense. This clause allowed the president to deploy forces around the world. The grayness of this area comes from the fact that what one man may consider an act of defense, another man may consider to be an act of aggression, and vice versa. Because of this, the presidency was able to gain a leg up on Congress. 
	Schlesinger also discusses the actions taken within the inner sanctum of the White House. His focus is on the presidents from FDR through Nixon. Many of these men made many controversial decisions while in the oval office. Schlesinger goes over these actions with a microscope. For instance, he discusses the extreme secrecy and deception that Nixon practiced while in office. He analyzes the specific actions of the administration, the reasons for the actions, and the result of the actions. According to Schlesinger, the result of Nixon's extreme secrecy led him to be withdrawn from the rest of the country. He eventually created his own reality within the White House. It was a self-perceived reality where he could do whatever he wanted, right or wrong. This led to a somber, macabre mood throughout the White House, and eventually led to Nixon's downfall. He goes over the administrations of the modern presidents with a fine-toothed comb. He reviews their actions in reference to their specific nature (i.e., internal policy and foreign policy). Schlesinger also spends a chapter discussing the classified actions that only the officials in Washington knew about. He reviews the covert actions throughout the history of the presidency, not merely the twentieth century. Although, as is the case with most other topic areas, he focuses on the modern presidents. The majority of these secret actions involved either the CIA or the military. Even though we are unaware that these actions are occurring, they have a big impact on both our lives and the impe 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Important Elements of a Campaign Strategy.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Important Elements of a Campaign Strategy


	Campaigning for any type of elected office requires a sharp eye for detail in regard to what voters are looking for in a candidate.  A campaign strategy should be comprehensive in its efforts to reach as many voters as possible.  Yet, without a solid base of ideas from which to expand upon, the message being conveyed can easily be lost or taken out of context.  In order for a campaign manager to avoid this blunder from occurring and maximize the candidate's chances of victory, he or she must pay attention to a few basic campaigning elements before attempting to stretch the campaign to its maximum visibility. First, the campaign manager must identify the important issues in the election as well as the voters supporting the candidate and those who are undecided. Developing a general campaign theme, preferably one with a catchy phrase to use in speeches, is the second critical element.  Finally, an important concept that must be incorporated throughout the campaign is the wise use of the media, both paid and earned.
	Identifying the important issues and the voting makeup of the constituency is a preparatory task that should be done mainly before the start of the campaign.  The decline of partisanship has led to a rise in issue-based voting, therefore making a candidate's knowledge of the issues a much greater factor. Yet, simply having knowledge of an issue is not sufficient.  A concrete stance should be taken on positional issues.  The phrase "concrete stance" tends to imply that the position taken should be somewhat extreme when all it really infers is that it should be a belief held consistent throughout the campaign.  In all actuality, it is in a candidate's best interest to avoid taking any extreme views if at all possible.   Recognizing the voters who are supporting the office seeker is important in managing a campaign because it helps to ensure retaining those voters.  More importantly, the undecided voters or those who are "on the fence" must be targeted for relentless campaigning.  This group contains the "sway votes" which are an integral part of winning any election.  Understanding the issues and the voters is something that should be done when running for any office.  Obviously, it would be easier for someone in the race for county commissioner to achieve a sharp awareness of his or her constituency than it would for a presidential nominee.  Still, it is vital for a candidate at any level to develop a grasp of the different groups that will decide his or her fate.  As stated earlier, this dimension of the campaign process is primarily dealt with before the campaign commences.  Once completed, the popular definition of the word campaign takes form.  
	Conveying a message to the voters in the form of speeches, advertisement, and public appearances is the primary objective of a political campaign.  This lets the public know what any given candidate can offer them if elected to office.  The simplest manner in which to convey whatever message is to incorporate it into a campaign theme.  "It is a serious mistake to assume that voters are paying close attention to your election, or any election" (Shea 1996, 148).  The fact is that most voters do not go out of their way to make the right voting choice.  All a voter wants is a quick and simple reason to vote for a candidate.  If every voter researched the possible candidates before each election, campaigning would be obsolete.  The political campaign serves as a vehicle to inform voters.  The best and most effective way for a candidate to do this is with a campaign theme.  A campaign theme should be general in nature.  It should be an idea that a large group can grab hold of.  If  the theme selected is too precise, it portrays the candidate as narrow minded.  Simply put, the broader a theme is, the more voters it attracts (Shea 1996, 150-151).  Naturally, an election on a smaller scale will probably allow a more specific theme.  We have seen the importance of a campaign theme recently in the 1996 presidential election.  The incumbent, Bill Clinton made himself out to be a candidate concerned about our future.  He backed this idea with his support of education.  Furthermore, he reiterated this theme throughout the campaign with his catch-phrase, "Building a bridge to the 21st Century".  His main adversary, Republican Bob Dole, focused on the issue of taxes and more specifically, his proposal of a flat tax rate.  In contrasting the themes of each nominee, we can see a glaring difference.  President Clinton portrayed himself as the president that was right for our future.  This was something that everyone wanted his or her president to be.  Senator Dole, on the other hand, while focusing mainly on taxes, shunned many voters that did not see a revamped income tax system as major concern.  Albeit clich�, Clinton's theme appealed to voters who could not be burdened with keeping up on complex tax proposals and obscure issue stances.
	The growth of the media has made it into a powerful force in politics.  This is especially evident at election time.  Candidates can use television, radio, and the internet as a way of reaching voters with their message by way of paid advertisement.  However, with both candidates usually utilizing the media in this fashion, it often results in a stalemate.  What then becomes increasingly meaningful is the coverage given to each candidate by the press.  This has been termed "earned" media as opposed to the aforementioned "paid" media.  If a candidate can use the press to shape the image of a likeable and trustworthy public servant, he vastly improves his or her chances of election.  However, the news media is a "two way street".  Scandal and controversy can also be exploited by the media, thus greatly reducing a candidate's chances.  The clever manipulation of the media in order to attract "good press" and deter "bad press" is becoming an increasingly vital part of a campaign strategy. (Shea 1996, 226-227)
	A campaign strategy is a complex process of acquiring and allocating resources, polling, image creating, and persuading.  The elements discussed here do not produce a truly comprehensive strategy.  However, if adhered to, they allow for other aspects of a campaign to fall into place.
Important Elements of a Campaign Strategy


	Campaigning for any type of elected office requires a sharp eye for detail in regard to what voters are looking for in a candidate.  A campaign strategy should be comprehensive in its efforts to reach as many voters as possible.  Yet, without a solid base of ideas from which to expand upon, the message being conveyed can easily be lost or taken out of context.  In order for a campaign manager to avoid this blunder from occurring and maximize the candidate's chances of victory, he or she must pay attention to a few basic campaigning elements before attempting to stretch the campaign to its maximum visibility. First, the campaign manager must identify the important issues in the election as well as the voters supporting the candidate and those who are undecided. Developing a general campaign theme, preferably one with a catchy phrase to use in speeches, is the second critical element.  Finally, an important concept that must be incorporated throughout the campaign is the wise use of the media, both paid and earned.
	Identifying the important issues and the voting makeup of the constituency is a preparatory task that should be done mainly before the start of the campaign.  The decline of partisanship has led to a rise in issue-based voting, therefore making a candidate's knowledge of the issues a much greater factor. Yet, simply having knowledge of an issue is not sufficient.  A concrete stance should be taken on positional issues.  The phrase "concrete stance" tends to imply that the position taken should be somewhat extreme when all it really infers is that it should be a belief held consistent throughout the campaign.  In all actuality, it is in a candidate's best interest to avoid taking any extreme views if at all possible.   Recognizing the voters who are supporting the office seeker is important in managing a campaign because it helps to ensure retaining those voters.  More importantly, the undecided voters or those who are "on the fence" must be targeted for relentless campaigning.  This group contains the "sway votes" which are an integral part of winning any election.  Understanding the issues and the voters is something that should be done when running for any office.  Obviously, it would be easier for someone in the race for county commissioner to achieve a sharp awareness of his or her constituency than it would for a presidential nominee.  Still, it is vital for a candidate at any level to develop a grasp of the different groups that will decide his or her fate.  As stated earlier, this dimension of the campaign process is primarily dealt with before the campaign commences.  Once completed, the popular definition of the word campaign takes form.  
	Conveying a message to the voters in the form of speeches, advertisement, and public appearances is the primary objective of a political campaign.  This lets the public know what any given candidate can offer them if elected to office.  The simplest manner in which to convey whatever message is to incorporate it into a campaign theme.  "It is a serious mistake to assume that voters are paying close attention to your election, or any election" (Shea 1996, 148).  The fact is that most voters do not go out of their way to make the right voting choice.  All a voter wants is a quick and simple reason to vote for a candidate.  If every voter researched the possible candidates before each election, campaigning would be obsolete.  The political campaign serves as a vehicle to inform voters.  The best and most effective way for a candidate to do this is with a campaign theme.  A campaign theme should be general in nature.  It should be an idea that a large group can grab hold of.  If  the theme selected is too precise, it portrays the candidate as narrow minded.  Simply put, the broader a theme is, the more voters it attracts (Shea 1996, 150-151).  Naturally, an election on a smaller scale will probably allow a more specific theme.  We have seen the importance of a campaign theme recently in the 1996 presidential election.  The incumbent, Bill Clinton made himself out to be a candidate concerned about our future.  He backed this idea with his support of education.  Furthermore, he reiterated this theme throughout the campaign with his catch-phrase, "Building a bridge to the 21st Century".  His main adversary, Republican Bob Dole, focused on the issue of taxes and more specifically, his proposal of a flat tax rate.  In contrasting the themes of each nominee, we can see a glaring difference.  President Clinton portrayed himself as the president that was right for our future.  This was something that everyone wanted his or her president to be.  Senator Dole, on the other hand, while focusing mainly on taxes, shunned many voters that did not see a revamped income tax system as major concern.  Albeit clich�, Clinton's theme appealed to voters who could not be burdened with keeping up on complex tax proposals and obscure issue stances.
	The growth of the media has made it into a powerful force in politics.  This is especially evident at election time.  Candidates can use television, radio, and the internet as a way of reaching voters with their message by way of paid advertisement.  However, with both candidates usually utilizing the media in this fashion, it often results in a stalemate.  What then becomes increasingly meaningful is the coverage given to each candidate by the press.  This has been termed "earned" media as opposed to the aforementioned "paid" media.  If a candidate can use the press to shape the image of a likeable and trustworthy public servant, he vastly improves his or her chances of election.  However, the news media is a "two way street".  Scandal and controversy can also be exploited by the media, thus greatly reducing a candidate's chances.  The clever manipulation of the media in order to attract "good press" and deter "bad press" is becoming an increasingly vital part of a campaign strategy. (Shea 1996, 226-227)
	A campaign strategy is a complex process of acquiring and allocating resources, polling, image creating, and persuading.  The elements discussed here do not produce a truly comprehensive strategy.  However, if adhered to, they allow for other aspects of a campaign to fall into place.
Important Elements of a Campaign Strategy


	Campaigning for any type of elected office requires a sharp eye for detail in regard to what voters are looking for in a candidate.  A campaign strategy should be comprehensive in its efforts to reach as many voters as possible.  Yet, without a solid base of ideas from which to expand upon, the message being conveyed can easily be lost or taken out of context.  In order for a campaign manager to avoid this blunder from occurring and maximize the candidate's chances of victory, he or she must pay attention to a few basic campaigning elements before attempting to stretch the campaign to its maximum visibility. First, the campaign manager must identify the important issues in the election as well as the voters supporting the candidate and those who are undecided. Developing a general campaign theme, preferably one with a catchy phrase to use in speeches, is the second critical element.  Finally, an important concept that must be incorporated throughout the campaign is the wise use of the media, both paid and earned.
	Identifying the important issues and the voting makeup of the constituency is a preparatory task that should be done mainly before the start of the campaign.  The decline of partisanship has led to a rise in issue-based voting, therefore making a candidate's knowledge of the issues a much greater factor. Yet, simply having knowledge of an issue is not sufficient.  A concrete stance should be taken on positional issues.  The phrase "concrete stance" tends to imply that the position taken should be somewhat extreme when all it really infers is that it should be a belief held consistent throughout the campaign.  In all actuality, it is in a candidate's best interest to avoid taking any extreme views if at all possible.   Recognizing the voters who are supporting the office seeker is important in managing a campaign because it helps to ensure retaining those voters.  More importantly, the undecided voters or those who are "on the fence" must be targeted for relentless campaigning.  This group contains the "sway votes" which are an integral part of winning any election.  Understanding the issues and the voters is something that should be done when running for any office.  Obviously, it would be easier for someone in the race for county commissioner to achieve a sharp awareness of his or her constituency than it would for a presidential nominee.  Still, it is vital for a candidate at any level to develop a grasp of the different groups that will decide his or her fate.  As stated earlier, this dimension of the campaign process is primarily dealt with before the campaign commences.  Once completed, the popular definition of the word campaign takes form.  
	Conveying a message to the voters in the form of speeches, advertisement, and public appearances is the primary objective of a political campaign.  This lets the public know what any given candidate can offer them if elected to office.  The simplest manner in which to convey whatever message is to incorporate it into a campaign theme.  "It is a serious mistake to assume that voters are paying close attention to your election, or any election" (Shea 1996, 148).  The fact is that most voters do not go out of their way to make the right voting choice.  All a voter wants is a quick and simple reason to vote for a candidate.  If every voter researched the possible candidates before each election, campaigning would be obsolete.  The political campaign serves as a vehicle to inform voters.  The best and most effective way for a candidate to do this is with a campaign theme.  A campaign theme should be general in nature.  It should be an idea that a large group can grab hold of.  If  the theme selected is too precise, it portrays the candidate as narrow minded.  Simply put, the broader a theme is, the more voters it attracts (Shea 1996, 150-151).  Naturally, an election on a smaller scale will probably allow a more specific theme.  We have seen the importance of a campaign theme recently in the 1996 presidential election.  The incumbent, Bill Clinton made himself out to be a candidate concerned about our future.  He backed this idea with his support of education.  Furthermore, he reiterated this theme throughout the campaign with his catch-phrase, "Building a bridge to the 21st Century".  His main adversary, Republican Bob Dole, focused on the issue of taxes and more specifically, his proposal of a flat tax rate.  In contrasting the themes of each nominee, we can see a glaring difference.  President Clinton portrayed himself as the president that was right for our future.  This was something that everyone wanted his or her president to be.  Senator Dole, on the other hand, while focusing mainly on taxes, shunned many voters that did not see a revamped income tax system as major concern.  Albeit clich�, Clinton's theme appealed to voters who could not be burdened with keeping up on complex tax proposals and obscure issue stances.
	The growth of the media has made it into a powerful force in politics.  This is especially evident at election time.  Candidates can use television, radio, and the internet as a way of reaching voters with their message by way of paid advertisement.  However, with both candidates usually utilizing the media in this fashion, it often results in a stalemate.  What then becomes increasingly meaningful is the coverage given to each candidate by the press.  This has been termed "earned" media as opposed to the aforementioned "paid" media.  If a candidate can use the press to shape the image of a likeable and trustworthy public servant, he vastly improves his or her chances of election.  However, the news media is a "two way street".  Scandal and controversy can also be exploited by the media, thus greatly reducing a candidate's chances.  The clever manipulation of the media in order to attract "good press" and deter "bad press" is becoming an increasingly vital part of a campaign strategy. (Shea 1996, 226-227)
	A campaign strategy is a complex process of acquiring and allocating resources, polling, image creating, and persuading.  The elements discussed here do not produce a truly comprehensive strategy.  However, if adhered to, they allow for other aspects of a campaign to fall into place.
Important Elements of a Campaign Strategy


	Campaigning for any type of elected office requires a sharp eye for detail in regard to what voters are looking for in a candidate.  A campaign strategy should be comprehensive in its efforts to reach as many voters as possible.  Yet, without a solid base of ideas from which to expand upon, the message being conveyed can easily be lost or taken out of context.  In order for a campaign manager to avoid this blunder from occurring and maximize the candidate's chances of victory, he or she must pay attention to a few basic campaigning elements before attempting to stretch the campaign to its maximum visibility. First, the campaign manager must identify the important issues in the election as well as the voters supporting the candidate and those who are undecided. Developing a general campaign theme, preferably one with a catchy phrase to use in speeches, is the second critical element.  Finally, an important concept that must be incorporated throughout the campaign is the wise use of the media, both paid and earned.
	Identifying the important issues and the voting makeup of the constituency is a preparatory task that should be done mainly before the start of the campaign.  The decline of partisanship has led to a rise in issue-based voting, therefore making a candidate's knowledge of the issues a much greater factor. Yet, simply having knowledge of an issue is not sufficient.  A concrete stance should be taken on positional issues.  The phrase "concrete stance" tends to imply that the position taken should be somewhat extreme when all it really infers is that it should be a belief held consistent throughout the campaign.  In all actuality, it is in a candidate's best interest to avoid taking any extreme views if at all possible.   Recognizing the voters who are supporting the office seeker is important in managing a campaign because it helps to ensure retaining those voters.  More importantly, the undecided voters or those who are "on the fence" must be targeted for relentless campaigning.  This group contains the "sway votes" which are an integral part of winning any election.  Understanding the issues and the voters is something that should be done when running for any office.  Obviously, it would be easier for someone in the race for county commissioner to achieve a sharp awareness of his or her constituency than it would for a presidential nominee.  Still, it is vital for a candidate at any level to develop a grasp of the different groups that will decide his or her fate.  As stated earlier, this dimension of the campaign process is primarily dealt with before the campaign commences.  Once completed, the popular definition of the word campaign takes form.  
	Conveying a message to the voters in the form of speeches, advertisement, and public appearances is the primary objective of a political campaign.  This lets the public know what any given candidate can offer them if elected to office.  The simplest manner in which to convey whatever message is to incorporate it into a campaign theme.  "It is a serious mistake to assume that voters are paying close attention to your election, or any election" (Shea 1996, 148).  The fact is that most voters do not go out of their way to make the right voting choice.  All a voter wants is a quick and simple reason to vote for a candidate.  If every voter researched the possible candidates before each election, campaigning would be obsolete.  The political campaign serves as a vehicle to inform voters.  The best and most effective way for a candidate to do this is with a campaign theme.  A campaign theme should be general in nature.  It should be an idea that a large group can grab hold of.  If  the theme selected is too precise, it portrays the candidate as narrow minded.  Simply put, the broader a theme is, the more voters it attracts (Shea 1996, 150-151).  Naturally, an election on a smaller scale will probably allow a more specific theme.  We have seen the importance of a campaign theme recently in the 1996 presidential election.  The incumbent, Bill Clinton made himself out to be a candidate concerned about our future.  He backed this idea with his support of education.  Furthermore, he reiterated this theme throughout the campaign with his catch-phrase, "Building a bridge to the 21st Century".  His main adversary, Republican Bob Dole, focused on the issue of taxes and more specifically, his proposal of a flat tax rate.  In contrasting the themes of each nominee, we can see a glaring difference.  President Clinton portrayed himself as the president that was right for our future.  This was something that everyone wanted his or her president to be.  Senator Dole, on the other hand, while focusing mainly on taxes, shunned many voters that did not see a revamped income tax system as major concern.  Albeit clich�, Clinton's theme appealed to voters who could not be burdened with keeping up on complex tax proposals and obscure issue stances.
	The growth of the media has made it into a powerful force in politics.  This is especially evident at election time.  Candidates can use television, radio, and the internet as a way of reaching voters with their message by way of paid advertisement.  However, with both candidates usually utilizing the media in this fashion, it often results in a stalemate.  What then becomes increasingly meaningful is the coverage given to each candidate by the press.  This has been termed "earned" media as opposed to the aforementioned "paid" media.  If a candidate can use the press to shape the image of a likeable and trustworthy public servant, he vastly improves his or her chances of election.  However, the news media is a "two way street".  Scandal and controversy can also be exploited by the media, thus greatly reducing a candidate's chances.  The clever manipulation of the media in order to attract "good press" and deter "bad press" is becoming an increasingly vital part of a campaign strategy. (Shea 1996, 226-227)
	A campaign strategy is a complex process of acquiring and allocating resources, polling, image creating, and persuading.  The elements discussed here do not produce a truly comprehensive strategy.  However, if adhered to, they allow for other aspects of a campaign to fall into place.
Important Elements of a Campaign Strategy


	Campaigning for any type of elected office requires a sharp eye for detail in regard to what voters are looking for in a candidate.  A campaign strategy should be comprehensive in its efforts to reach as many voters as possible.  Yet, without a solid base of ideas from which to expand upon, the message being conveyed can easily be lost or taken out of context.  In order for a campaign manager to avoid this blunder from occurring and maximize the candidate's chances of victory, he or she must pay attention to a few basic campaigning elements before attempting to stretch the campaign to its maximum visibility. First, the campaign manager must identify the important issues in the election as well as the voters supporting the candidate and those who are undecided. Developing a general campaign theme, preferably one with a catchy phrase to use in speeches, is the second critical element.  Finally, an important concept that must be incorporated throughout the campaign is the wise use of the media, both paid and earned.
	Identifying the important issues and the voting makeup of the constituency is a preparatory task that should be done mainly before the start of the campaign.  The decline of partisanship has led to a rise in issue-based voting, therefore making a candidate's knowledge of the issues a much greater factor. Yet, simply having knowledge of an issue is not sufficient.  A concrete stance should be taken on positional issues.  The phrase "concrete stance" tends to imply that the position taken should be somewhat extreme when all it really infers is that it should be a belief held consistent throughout the campaign.  In all actuality, it is in a candidate's best interest to avoid taking any extreme views if at all possible.   Recognizing the voters who are supporting the office seeker is important in managing a campaign because it helps to ensure retaining those voters.  More importantly, the undecided voters or those who are "on the fence" must be targeted for relentless campaigning.  This group contains the "sway votes" which are an integral part of winning any election.  Understanding the issues and the voters is something that should be done when running for any office.  Obviously, it would be easier for someone in the race for county commissioner to achieve a sharp awareness of his or her constituency than it would for a presidential nominee.  Still, it is vital for a candidate at any level to develop a grasp of the different groups that will decide his or her fate.  As stated earlier, this dimension of the campaign process is primarily dealt with before the campaign commences.  Once completed, the popular definition of the word campaign takes form.  
	Conveying a message to the voters in the form of speeches, advertisement, and public appearances is the primary objective of a political campaign.  This lets the public know what any given candidate can offer them if elected to office.  The simplest manner in which to convey whatever message is to incorporate it into a campaign theme.  "It is a serious mistake to assume that voters are paying close attention to your election, or any election" (Shea 1996, 148).  The fact is that most voters do not go out of their way to make the right voting choice.  All a voter wants is a quick and simple reason to vote for a candidate.  If every voter researched the possible candidates before each election, campaigning would be obsolete.  The political campaign serves as a vehicle to inform voters.  The best and most effective way for a candidate to do this is with a campaign theme.  A campaign theme should be general in nature.  It should be an idea that a large group can grab hold of.  If  the theme selected is too precise, it portrays the candidate as narrow minded.  Simply put, the broader a theme is, the more voters it attracts (Shea 1996, 150-151).  Naturally, an election on a smaller scale will probably allow a more specific theme.  We have seen the importance of a campaign theme recently in the 1996 presidential election.  The incumbent, Bill Clinton made himself out to be a candidate concerned about our future.  He backed this idea with his support of education.  Furthermore, he reiterated this theme throughout the campaign with his catch-phrase, "Building a bridge to the 21st Century".  His main adversary, Republican Bob Dole, focused on the issue of taxes and more specifically, his proposal of a flat tax rate.  In contrasting the themes of each nominee, we can see a glaring difference.  President Clinton portrayed himself as the president that was right for our future.  This was







 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Individual Rights vs States Rights.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Lance Ito
Essay #1
February 12, 1997

	
	In the reviewing the case of Planck v. Indiana, many complicated  issues arise.  Included in those,  individual rights conflicting with the public good are among the most difficult.  According to Mr and Mrs.  Planck's attorney, John Price, the Planck's religious beliefs prohibit them from accepting professional medicine practice, as they practice alternative medicine and home school their children.  After a complaint from an older Planck daughter, who did not embrace or respect her family's lifestyle, the state was called in to investigate the health of the Planck children.  In a preliminary check by the state of Indiana for eyesight, Lance Planck was found not to be in need of any service.  Despite this finding, the Madison County Superior Court ordered that all of the Planck's children's eyes be examined by the state.  One month after the Court ordered this, twenty armed officers with guns drawn came to the Planck's residence and commanded Mr. and Mrs.  Planck to give up their children.  Mr. Planck told the officers that he did not know why they were there, was pushed to the ground and had loaded rifles pointed at him.  The children were then forcibly removed from their parents custody, and at no time was any identification shown by the officers.  Curt, Lance Planck's younger brother, resisted this removal from his house, and was threatened by an officer that he would be "dragged out of here."  After this scene, Emily, Stephen, and Curtis Planck were loaded into a van and driven to an eye doctor in Anderson, Indiana.  The examining doctor, Dr. Joseph Woschitz, came to the conclusion that no treatment was needed for any of the children.  How can the state justify this type of behavior?  Is ripping a child unwillingly from his mother's arms in the best interest of the public good?  What does society have to benefit from this?  In short, this does not affect the public good per se, but does affect the Plancks and any other family that practices a religion that is not widely accepted.  
	Following the above events, Mr. and Mrs.  Planck were subsequently arrested, had their First Amendment rights violated, and had their home invaded by armed SWAT team members who fired a CS tear gas canister into their house.  Simply, Mr. and Mrs.  Planck and their children were targeted by the state selectively because of  their religious beliefs which they manifested in home education and the practice of alternative medicine.  The fundamental argument here is that the Planck's rights have been violated, and the State of Indiana has overstepped its duty of caring for the Planck's children.  
	Thomas Jefferson described our fundamental rights as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," however, the Planck's exercise of these rights have been violated by the State of Indiana.  The Plancks seem to have been happy before this fiasco started, but since they state has interfered and then raided their house with tear gas and pointed a rifle at Mr. Planck, that happiness has seem to been withdrawn.    
	The State of Indiana should have the right to look after the children's health in an emergency, but it needs to be done in a reasonable way that still respects the Planck's religious beliefs.  On the other hand, it is imperative that the state does not infringe upon the individual's beliefs by intervening for the sake of the public good.  Where is the line that says the family has exceeded its rights, or that the state has exceeded theirs?  There is no line, and that is why this argument is so difficult.    
	While the state is responsible for a child's health, education and welfare, why do we not see the state swarm into a house with a SWAT team that home-schools their children?  If those children do not learn as much as their counterparts in public schools, is the state justified in ripping them out of home-school and pushing them  into a public school?  In a sense, this is what has happened in the Planck case, however, the end result was the unfortunate death of their son Lance.  
	The other side of this argument, that the state is justified in taking the Planck's children,  is also difficult to argue because of the effect it has on the public good.  The outcome of this court case will have repercussions that will echo to groups, religious and otherwise, that the line between individual rights and state responsibilities has been redrawn.  The State of Indiana's duty and responsibility is to make sure the welfare, health, and education of its children is satisfactory.  But in doing so, especially in this case, it is problematic to assume that the Plancks should not be treating their own kids with alternative medicine.  Since no parent would want their own child to die, the state has stepped in to serve as the care giver to Lance Planck.  But when Mr. and Mrs.  Planck decline this care, should the state defy the parent's right to decide what is best for their child, or should it comply with the parents wishes of letting Lance continue untreated?  The Planck's religion instructs them that professional medical treatment should not be accepted, and that any sickness that affects them should be treated by the family, at home.  This involved the public good because while the majority of parents would allow medical treatment to their children, there is still a small percentage that does not want it.  As a state, and for the public good, we must respect their beliefs--within reason--so that their rights as Americans, especially the First Amendment, are not violated.   Since the Planck's religion is such that medical care should not be accepted, when the state steps in to assist Lance, they are inadvertently violating the Planck's First Amendment rights.  Since this case is still pending in the courts, it will be interesting to see the outcome of its decision and its effects on us as Americans, and as individuals.   




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Influence of Green Groups on the Policy of the United States.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Influence of Green Groups on the Policy of the United States 

Abstract: This research examines the relationship between environmental groups and the policies of the United States.
The United States political system has been historically anthropocen-tric, or human centered.  Environmental groups 
have been attempting to change this to a biocentric or ecocentric viewpoint, which includes the rights of animals and 
the environment.  These views are nature centered instead of human centered.  This study will answer the question of 
whether these groups have been effective at altering United States policies.  This will be done through the study of 
views offered by both sides.  Also, a survey will be used to determine whether congressmen views are consistent with
 environmentalist views.  It will also present whether policy change has taken place, and if these changes have 
remained intact through the study of past congressional decisions.



Research Problem


1. Research Question
Have environmental groups' strategies been successful at altering the policies of the United States?

2. Rational for the Research

This research will help environmental groups to identify the effectiveness of their strategies.  This is necessary for 
these groups to effectively alter the policies of the United States, which is one of the largest polluters in the world.
If their strategies are ineffective then it will be necessary for them to reassess their methods.  Without the use
productive methods these groups will not be able to protect the environment.  Animals, plants and the entire ecosystem
must have the same protection as humans have.  An ecocentric viewpoint establishes the right of the environment to have
legal standing.  This gives people the ability to defend the right of an animal to exist with the same rights as 
humans.   Without this protection, people will be just as negatively affected as the environment.  The earth must be
thought of as a living organism, if one part is hurt then the whole planet will feel the effects.  Unfortunately,
business and governments take the stance that the earth is more like a machine.  That is, at times if a part is hurt it
can be repaired, without it effecting the whole system.

Literature Review

The literature on environmental groups and their influence and activities is vast.  Several themes concerning the 
groups' influence in changing United States policy exist.  The American Psychological Association has done studies on 
ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes (Thomas, 1994).  Ecocentric values have arisen recently as environmental 
problems have come to the public's attention.  Anthropocentric values have existed much longer.  They have become 
institutionalized into our political and economic system.
The movement toward environmental awareness arose in the political activism in the 60's.  Although these values have 
recently been declining according to Finger (1993).  These biocentric and anthropocentric views are also examined by 
Wildes (1995).  Wildes also explains the beginning of the movement in the 60's, and the number of similar theories 
developed during the same era.  In his study he applies neo-marxism to the relationship towards Man and Nature.  By 
doing this he shows how the government and industry uses the environment for its own use, often neglecting the 
resulting effects.
Dodson (1995) examines if either of these opposing viewpoints offer plausible answers to current problems.  Dodson 
also explains how the groups interact.  Through this interaction they form political policy.
Hampicke (1994) address the vulnerability of the species and ecosystems to permanent destruction.  Also shown is how 
conserva-tion costs are not excessive as some in our government believe.
Lichterman (1995) shows that green groups not only have problems relating towards our government, but also 
multicultural obstacles.  These groups must bring together several interests in order to form a unified strategy to 
present to the United States government.
Environmental lobbyists have so far been unsuccessful in their efforts to amend existing environmental laws.  Chemical 
manufactur-ing and other industry's lobbies have been able to block their efforts.  They have used promising of 
campaign funding to influence Congress to support industries (Dowie, 1995).
Senator Ted Stevens opposed the building of a pipeline across Alaska's coastal plain in 1977.  He pointed out the 
tragic environmental costs of oil development in his home state.  Now he is a part of a group of senators who are 
leading efforts to roll back environmental laws (Foley, 1995).
Congress has been modifying the country's environmental policy to suit business interests during its first eight 
months in power.  Senator Bob Dole sponsored a risk assessment bill.  This bill required that new federal human health 
and safety standards be weighed against their economic costs.  This bill was defeated by the Natural Resources Defense 
Council lobby.  Congress has also attached over fifty riders to various appropriations bills to all anti-environment 
projects while minimizing public knowledge of the bills (Adams, 1995, 3).  One of these riders was to a federal budget 
cutting bill.  This rider allowed private companies to salvage damaged trees in national lands.  Other similar riders 
include making it legal to consider the sale of public assets toward the reduction of the budget deficit.  Another 
bill passed banned the addition of more species to the Endangered Species list and allows increased logging at Tongass 
National Forest (Adams, 1995, 2).
Environmental policy is positively affected by pressure from customers, shareholders, government regulations, 
neighborhood groups and community groups.  Although environmental policy is negatively affected by lobby pressure from 
other groups.  This is from empirical data from firms that have an official policy for dealing with environmental 
questions (Henriques, 1996).
Tension between social equity and environmental politics has existed in the United States over the past thirty years.  
This tension has existed on a social classes basis, a gender basis, a racial basis, and an economic basis.  Several of 
these tensions however are more perceived than real.  There is a possible common grounds for these two goals (Paehlke, 
1993).

Research Concepts and Hypotheses

1. Research Concepts and Variables
Change In United States policy is dependent upon the action of interest groups.  These groups are only able to alter 
policy if there actions are effective at promoting their cause.  This can be done through the support of the people, 
or the voters.  It can also be done by directly lobbying Congress for the passage of a law, or lobbying to prevent a 
passage of law.  It is also possible to directly gain public and political attention through protests and other 
actions that draw people's attention.  The voting records of congressmen and their current view will be examined.  
Environmental lobbying efforts will also be examined in order to conduct this research.

2. Research Propositions and Hypotheses
The United States government is anthropocentric in its attitude towards the environment.  Although there was a surge 
of environmental awareness in the 60's this has declined in the recent decade.  Green groups have been trying to shift 
this viewpoint towards a biocentric view.  They are faced not only with the problem with relating to government, but 
also to different cultures.  With effective strategies they will be successful at influencing political decision 
making.  The effectiveness of their methods must be analyzed in order to ensure that what they are doing is 
worthwhile.  

Methodology

In order to research the effectiveness of environmental groups at altering policy of the United States government, a 
close-ended questionnaire will be created.  This questionnaire will be sent to congressmen.  The questionnaire will 
attempt to determine the congressmen's standing on different issues.  These issues will be theoretical policy 
choices.  The policy choices will either have a biocentric standing or a anthropocentric standing.  A Likert scale 
will be used to determine how the congressman stands on an issue. A sample of the survey is included at the end of 
this proposal.
It will also be important to determine whether the congressman is a Democrat or Republican.  The state that the 
congressman is from will also be important to determine.  These two indicators are important because of possible 
alternative influences on the congressman.  Validity of the answers can be determined by comparing answers with recent
voting habits of individual respondents.
The lobbying efforts of green groups will also be studied by examining their political activities, which include 
lobbying and other forms of political pressure.  If there is a change in the congressmen's environmental positions 
over a period of time this will need to be examined closely.  The political pressure from environmental groups at the 
time of change will also need to be examined.
If there has been consistent change in congressmen's views and pressure from environmental groups at that time, then 
this will be considered as a positive influence by the green groups.  If there is a change in policy and no pressure 
from green groups is noticeable then the reasons should be deduced.  The reasoning behind this change could be used to 
help the environmental groups.  If there has been no change in policy or policy has changed against the environment, 
then the methods used by green groups will not be seen as effective.  The importance of determining this is to give 
the groups an opportunity to change there methods in order to be more effective.

Work Schedule

It will take about one week to prepare the survey and mailing list.  After this the results should be back within four 
to six weeks.  While waiting for the results, the voting record of congressmen will be examined.  Also during this 
period, recent lobbying efforts by environmental groups will be recorded.  It will then take about two more weeks to 
compare the data.	

References

Adams, John H. 1995. Breaking Faith. Amicus Journal. 17, 3: 2. 
Adams, John H. 1995. Special Report: Congress and the Environment.
Amicus Journal. 17, 3: 3.
Dodson, A. 1995. The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green
Political Theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dowie, Mark. 1995. Greens Outgunned. Earth Island Journal. 10, 2:
26.
Finger, Matthias. 1992. The Changing Green Movement - A
Clarification. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and
Change. 2: 229-246.
Foley, Dana Nadel. 1995. A Congressional Sampler: Rollbacks,
Rhetoric, and Greenbacks in the World of Washington's Anti-
Greens. Amicus Journal. 17, 3: 13.
Hampicke, U. 1994. Ethics and Economics of Conservation. Biology
Conservation Journal. 67, 3: 219-231.
Henriques, Irene and Perry Sadorsky. 1996. The Determinants of an
Environmentally Responsive Firm: An Empirical Approach.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 30, 3:
381.
Lichterman, Paul. 1995. Piecing Together Multicultural Community:
Cultural Differences in Community Building among Grass-Roots
Environmentalists. Social Problems Journal 42, 4: 513-534.
Paehlke, Robert. 1993. Environment/Equity: Tensions in North
American Politics. Policy Studies Journal. 21, 4: 672.
Thomas, Dietz. 1994. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.
Journal of Social Issues. 50, 3: 65-84.
Wildes, F. T. 1995. Recent Themes in Conservation Philosophy and
Policy in the United States. Environmental Conservation
Journal. 22, 2: 143-150.

Survey

1) What is your political affiliation?

2) Which state do you represent?

Please answer the following questions in terms of (1) for strongly agree to (10) for strongly disagree.

3) Should genetic engineering be allowed to increase the production of a farm even if there is a slight risk to the 
environment?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4) Should a nuclear power plant be allowed to be built to meet the local energy needs of an area?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5) Should there be mandatory recycling laws even though not all areas have an existing recycling system?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6) Should residents be allowed to set thermostat readings to desired levels even though it may use more energy?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7) Should farmers be allowed to protect their livestock by hunting indigenous wild animals?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8) Should public parks be open to increased mining or logging to spur the economy of an area?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



9) Should federal laws outlawing the possession of feathers or other parts of birds of prey be strictly enforced?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10) Should industry be forced to reduce air and water pollution originating from its factories even if it means loss of employees and reduced job opportunities?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11) Should the use of private automobiles be restricted in order to reduce air pollution?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12) Should the government increase taxes on products that harm the environment?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\International Relations of Strategic Geometry.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF ASIA

STRATEGIC GEOMETRY

	"This is the only region in the world where so many combinations and permutations of two- three and four- and even two plus four or three plus three- power games can be played on the regional chessboard with all their complexities and variations."

introduction
	The  concept of strategic geometry comprises the notion that that the interactions and interconnections between a number of political actors within a particular system of international relations, either global or regional can be seen in terms of geometric patterns of strategic configurations. It can be a case of simple geometry, in which A interacts with B: but in a more complex system such as that of Asia, with the presence  of more than one major actor, each with  their distinct, sometimes conflicting political agendas, the interaction between A and B will be likely to affect C or influenced by C. 
	The concept of an international 'system' itself implies that events are not random, and units within the system are interrelated in some patterned way. This 'patterning' maybe envisaged or conceptualized as patterns of strategic geometry.
	Any attempt to analyze  the transition from a Cold War system of international relations to a post Cold War one, will incorporate an analysis of the general nature of the system itself, in this case the system of international relations in Asia; of the actors involved and their respective roles; how changes in the political environment and  in specific policies of the actors shape the evolution of a new system; and finally the nature of the new system with its own actors, their new roles, and new concerns.  

	The concept of strategic geometry  enables us to understand these changes in the political dynamics from one system to another, in our case the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War era, by serving as an analytic tool. If we view the international relations of Asia, more and the interactions of the main actors  in terms of strategic configurations and geometric patterns of alignments and oppositions, then we can  assess changes in the political system over time by way of the changes in the strategic geometry. Some strategic configurations  change,  others remain the same, while new patterns of strategic geometry appear, as the old forms dissolve--the explanations behind the shifting pattern of strategic geometry is what enables us to understand the transition from the Cold War era to the post Cold War. 
	Geopolitical and politico-economic factors have in some cases changed the content, but not the form of the particular strategic configurations and in some cases however, we find  both form and content are changed. In my essay I will focus on this dual analysis of the content and form of the major patterns of strategic geometry and their change over time  from Cold War to post Cold War. In order to assess the usefulness of the concept of strategic geometry, we must first see how well the concept is expressed in the  international relations of Asia. Firstly I will briefly outline the general strategic concerns or tenets of the Cold War era, the roles and interactions of the actors involved,  and the major  strategic geometric patterns this produced.  The second part of my essay will comprise an analysis of the evolution of the system, and the tenets of the new post cold war system, drawing attention at the same time to the usefulness of the concept of strategic geometry to explain the transition.

 quadrangles and triangles
	One may even conceptualize pre -Cold War international relations in strategic geometric terms: the past is replete with instances of three-way  interactions between  Japan, China and the Soviet Union. According to Mandlebaum, the fate of the region has "for the last two centuries' depended 'on the fate of three major powers--China, Japan and Russia, on the stability and tranquillity of their mutual relations." Hence we may presume that it is  not novel or unknown to apply the concept of strategic geometry to Asia and as I shall illustrate it will prove particularly useful in  understanding the  transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War era. 
 	Let us begin with a simpler model of strategic geometry which existed in Europe during the Cold War. From 1948 onwards,  a more or less clear-cut line divided Europe into two main political and military blocs: the communist bloc and the free world of Western Europe, resulting in an almost perfect bipolarity. However, the politics in Asia during the same period were  more dynamic and nuanced than just the simple East-West divide of Europe.  Here, there was none of "the sharp structural clarity of Europe,"  no drawing of a line, no Iron Curtain; rather, there existed a  more complex web of international relations, because of the physical presence of three great powers: the Soviet Union, China and Japan.  And from 1945 onwards, another great power, the United States, took up  a permanent political and military residence in the region. These four major powers have dominated the East Asia region both during the  Cold War and continue to do so in the post- Cold War era, hence according to Mandlebaum, "the appropriate geometric metaphor was and still is the strategic quadrangle."  The interactions of these four main powers-sometimes in cooperation, other times in conflict- have shaped the international relations of Asia. How this took place during and after the Cold War is in many ways quite dissimilar. However, more importantly than the all encompassing quadrangle, it is the strategic geometry within the quadrangle that is most interesting and illustrates best, the changes and nuances in the transition from Cold War to post Cold War. The interactions within the strategic quadrangle itself, have been generally  of a bilateral or triangular nature.  As Mandlebaum suggests "Indeed in Asia, the structure of politics all along  has been more complex than the stark bipolarity of Europe. Rather than two competing systems, Asia's international order was a clutter of triangles." The triangle is the predominant strategic geometric metaphor characterizing the  nature of interactions in East Asia, especially during the Cold War and to a less intense degree in the post Cold War era.

	the Cold War era
		The Cold War system of international relations was  a geopolitical  intermixing of security, ideology and the balance of power, especially military power. Everything  took root from two essential conflicts: firstly,  the US-Soviet opposition and secondly, from the 1970s onwards the Sino-Soviet split; and from one essential alliance: the US-Japanese partnership. Each of these bilateral alliances or oppositions affected in some way a third party. 'The most well-known and widely debated triangle being the Sino-Soviet-US grouping with at least 4 possible configurations." 
	One may just turn towards one actor in the system, or one player in the Strategic Quadrangle, to see the preoccupation with strategic geometry. As Mandlebaum states: "For no country more than the Soviet Union did the underlying structure of Asian international politics revolve about a complex  interconnected set of triangular relationships. The most obvious and famous of the triangles linked the Soviet Union, China and the United States, but the Soviet-US- Japan triangle was also important. In addition, five others also helped to shape Soviet policy 1. Sino-Soviet -Japanese triangle 2. Sino-Soviet-North Korean triangle 3. Sino-Soviet-Vietnamese triangle  4. Soviet-Vietnamese-ASEAN triangle 5. Sino-Soviet-Indian triangle. Though from this perspective, certain things stand out. First, China's centrality: China figures in nearly all of the triangles, not even the US affected Soviet policy to this degree. Second, the full set of triangles that impeded, shaped and invigorated the policies of Gorbachev's predecessors varied greatly in importance, all of them overshadowed by the crucial Sino-Soviet-US triangle. Indeed the others owed much of their dynamic to the course of events in this main triangle."  Through the 1960s, there were 4 main triangles in the Asian political arena: Soviet Union-China-North Vietnam, Soviet Union-Japan-US, Sino-Soviet-Indian- and Soviet Union-China-North Korea.  In the 1970s, however this changed not only because more triangles were added, but because they included a new kind of triangle, the Sino-Soviet-US triangle.
 	"Normally triangles are not thought of as a stable form  in social or political relationships nor as a stabilizing influence within a larger setting.  The great post-war exception was the Soviet-US-Japan triangle. Relationships among the three countries scarcely changed, apart from fluctuations in US-Soviet and US-Japanese relations from time to time. Its immobility may have been the single most stabilizing element in post war Asian politics."  The Soviet-Japanese-American triangle drove Soviet policy towards Japan, since the Soviets viewed Japan as a creature of American engagement in Asia. A whole series of strategic triangles were borne out of the cold war climate which make strategic geometry  very useful and illuminating model to study the international relations of Asia during the period. However, our emphasis is on the usefulness of the  concept for studying the 'transition' from Cold War to post Cold War. This requires an analysis of both systems, in order to assess the process of change. 

the post-Cold War era: changes in the system
	Today, we are in a relatively 'open' period of history, free from the polarized nature of  the Cold War, yet  "more than ever each of the four powers has compelling stakes in its relations with the other three. More than ever each of the four counts as a separate and independent player, none has the power or inclination to destroy the equilibrium." But what about strategic geometry? With the disappearance of the Soviet threat is it still a useful model for the study of international relations in Asia? Or is its use limited to the great power play of the Cold War? And most importantly, how can the concept of strategic geometry  lend to our understanding of the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations in Asia?
First, I will briefly outline the features of the transition.
	The tenets of the post Cold War system seem to be the predominance of economic considerations, national welfare and stability.  Mandlebaum expresses his view of the transition from a Cold War to a post Cold War system, when he states: "nations, including those in East Asia, crossed into a world in which they had more to bear from dangers than enemies....dangers of political, economic, and ecological disorder...the primary stakes ceased to be security, but welfare...no longer war and peace, but the vitality of societies and the dynamism of economies."  	
	To begin with what constitutes 'power' has changed dramatically in wake of the demise of the Soviet Union. The shift from a military to an economic definition of power, from "a geopolitical to a geoeconomic axis" resulting from "wholesale change in the entire military-strategic edifice in Asia," has in its turn, produced "a radically different range of collaborations among the four major powers."  Though,  military concerns still warrant a significant priority, as some of today's triangles demonstrate, especially considering the presence of three out of five of the world's nuclear powers in the region. On the whole however, today's Asia is one of mutually dependent economies "where economics is the name of the game." The concept of strategic  geometry has a reduced validity or maybe more aptly termed 'economic geometry.' With the rise of the Asian tigers, and Japan's status of an economic superpower,  coupled with greater  regionalism such as embodied by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and ASEAN,  there is more diversification of power in East Asia, at least in economic terms. 
Understanding the change from a Cold War to a post Cold War system also requires an understanding of the transition in terms of military power. China and Japan are the rising military powers, while Russia is a declining one. Strategic geometry very useful in assessing the transition in these terms. Instead of Japan and the US balancing Russian military power, today Japan and the US act to balance Chinese military power. I will elaborate on this issue later, in my discussion of the Japan-US-China triangle. 
Democracy and prosperity, two traditional goals are back on the US agenda after the disappearance of the Soviet threat. Yet for the US, like for the others, the post Cold War is still dominated by considerations of power and wealth; fear of the first and  lure of the second keeping the US engaged in East Asia. 
Russia's preoccupation with internal restructuring and the rise of Central Asia has meant that Russia's role in the strategic quadrangle has become as "less of a player than a problem."  Within the quadrangle, Russia has replaced the Soviet Union. "The radical revision of Russia's surroundings not only profoundly affects Russian foreign policy and therefore indirectly East Asia, but it directly affects East Asia because of the new, intervening reality of Central Asia. From the standpoint of the others, the Soviet threat is not of warfare but of diminished national and international welfare." 
China's emphasis on economic modernization. China has been the least changed by the ending of the Cold War since its great shift in course  came a decade earlier, at the end of 1970s which saw the development of Deng Xiaoping's program of economic reform. The post Cold War era sees China more firmly committed to a capitalist vision, with its focus on economic modernization and growth. This in turn has produced China's 'omni-directional' foreign policy. The prospects accruing from Chinese economic modernization and at the same time, the specter of Chinese growth as it affects the other powers has given rise to new forms of strategic geometry, or provided the  old forms of strategic geometry with a renewed basis.
The post Cold War era is also characterized by Japan's increasingly independent stance from the United States and its attempts at greater  militarization. 
A major feature of the transition form a Cold War system to a post Cold War system is the reversal in roles of the major powers. China has basically become a status-quo  power, the United States has become something of a revolutionary state, seeking to transform the others and mould them in its own image ( exemplified by the stress on democracy, economic liberalization, human rights ).
We also witness the  reversal of Japan's and Russia's post war roles, with  Russia now being the one buffeted in the goings-on between China  and Japan.
Furthermore, the continental landmass of Asia, dominated by Russia and China occupies the physical and strategic core of the area, a core that has radiated its effects through the sub-regions of the Korean peninsulas, and SEA and to the surrounding archipelagos. "Today the core is weak and unsure of itself, while the periphery is solid and confident."  This change in fortune from the Cold War to the  post Cold War era can be seen by way of the new strategic geometry and the rise of new triangles of interactions, especially including Korea. 
Hence, we see the emergence of new actors, or old ones with new powers to influence the international relations of the region,  most importantly North and South Korea and the issue of their unification, and the issue of the island of Taiwan. 
	
	These myriad of changes that constitute the transition from the  Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations in Asia;  both changes in the general political climate and the changes in individual political agendas can be seen through the new and modified patterns of strategic geometry. I will focus on three such patterns: 1. the US-Japan-China triangle, where the form of the strategic geometry has stayed the same but its content has altered with a greater emphasis on economics 2. the content and form of triangles involving Russia 3. the new form and content of triangles involving Korea. An analysis of these three examples of strategic geometry in the post Cold War era will highlight the usefulness of the concept in analyzing the transition in the system from one era to the next.  

the US-Japan-China triangle
	An analysis of the US-Japan-China, an old triangle with new content illustrates many features of the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations. During the Cold War "both Tokyo and Washington developed their China policies in part to thwart Moscow's designs towards China and Asia." The US and China no longer act together to balance Soviet power; the US-Japan alliance no longer serves as a weight against balancing the power of both China and the Soviet Union; and Japan and China do not architect their relationship in light of US policies. The US-Japan-China triangle in the post cold war era rather illustrates all three nations' concern with economic prosperity and trade: American policy of placing trade at the center of US-Japan relations; China's emphasis on economic modernization constituting the cornerstone of its foreign policy; Japan's policy of 'expanding equilibrium.' Today's US-Japan-China triangle also reveals  Japan's increasingly independent stance from the US, the US's stress on democracy and human rights, the reversal of the roles of China and the US, greater China-Japan bilateralism.  The game  of power - the attempts at gaining military , and more importantly economic leverage for oneself and controlling that of the other powers- is still evident, despite the dissolution of a 'universal' threat.  But it is only who's playing against who that has changed. So the concept of strategic geometry is still valid and applicable. "Potential competition and mutual distrust between China and Japan were it to grow into something large would replace the post war contest between the US and the Soviet Union as dominant feature of international politics in Asia." During the Cold War, US military presence in Asia served as a deterrence against the military power of the Soviet Union; in the post Cold War era, it is a form of reassurance against the rise of Chinese military power.  
	Relations with Japan is the most important bilateral relation Beijing has, after that with Washington. "PRC leaders see an intimate connection between their policies towards Washington and Tokyo. From Beijing's perspective there is a 'strategic triangle' in Asia (US, Japan and China) and it is Beijing's purpose to utilize that three way relationship to its advantage." Beijing seeks to use the prospect of improved political and economic ties with Japan to induce Washington to be more politically cooperative, relax sanctions and encourage more American investment. On the other hand, "Japan is the principal economic and security challenge looming in China's future." Despite greater bilateralism between Japan and China based on the economic stakes and increasing volume of trade, China still harbors a fear of Japanese economic domination and a deep distrust in general.  America's capital, willingness to transfer technology and ability to restrain Japan all serve China's interests. The disappearance of the Soviet threat has  undermined the stability of the US-Japanese partnership, hence the distance between Japan and US has meant that China has become all the more important to Washington. A closer security relationship between US and China would further diminish the strategic importance of Japan to the US. At the same time "China looms all the more important for Japan as US interest, presence and influence in Asia seem to diminish." This means America's differences with China over human rights issues could also drive a wedge between US-Japan relations, since Japan would not join the US in imposing trade sanctions on China, owing to its own bilateral stakes. However, "in the long run Japan's ability to counter the geopolitical challenge from China depends on maintaining a robust alliance with the US."  Furthermore, in the post Cold War era, the  island of Taiwan is reshaping politics of the Quadrangle, adding another dimension to the US-Japan-China triangle, since the US's ideological proclivities towards Taiwan are in opposition to Japan's economic proclivities  towards the mainland. According to Peter Hayes, North East Asia is overlaid by twin informal strategic triangles: the US "has linked China and Japan in an informal security triangle, and the common hypotenuse between this great power triangle on the one hand, and the informal security triangle among South Korea, US and Japan on the other." 

Korea
	Another major strategic change involves the economic rise of South Korea and isolation of the North. The rise of North and South Korea as major players in the Asian political arena is emblematic of the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations in the region. "Korea was important to the US only as a strategic tripwire for its Japan centered extended deterrence in the region." Korea was symbolic of  America's cold war  resolve to draw the containment line in East Asia. Political alignment in the region vis-a-vis both Koreas is demonstrative of differences between Cold War and post Cold War. The evolution of triangles involving the two Koreas highlight the decreasing role of ideology, socialist confrere and geopolitical rivalry, and the increasing importance of stability, world order, regional peace             and economic prosperity.  During the Cold War there existed two basic triangles involving Korea: one comprising the  US, Japan, South Korea and the other comprising North Korea, Soviet Union, China. Since 196 5 the US-Japan-South  Korea triangle, as Kent Calder argues emerged as another key feature of the highly dynamic but unbalanced economic and security relations of the region.  In 1993, the scenario was entirely different with the  US-Japan-South Korea-China-Russia all against North Korea, owing to its forward nuclear policy. 
	The "rapid progress in Moscow-Seoul relations, coupled with an equally rapid decompression of Moscow-Pyongyang relations, has taken the sting out of the long festering ideological and geopolitical rivalry China, and the former Soviet Union engaged in over North Korea. The ending of Cold War bipolarity has meant the demise of not only the vaunted China card in the collapsed strategic triangle (North Korea-China -Soviet Union) but also the Pyongyang card in the old Sino-Soviet rivalry." The rapprochement between China and South Korea in 1992, as a means to establish regional peace,  hinted a possible emergence of a triangular relationship with the PRC in the best position to influence the two Koreas. The increasing economic interaction between China and South Korea, a major inspiration and product of the rapprochement is coupled with North Korea's attempts at gradually adopting the South Korea model of economic development transmitted through China.  Through this triangle we see the emphasis on political stability and economic prosperity, quite different to the post Cold War concerns involving Korea and China.  The rapprochement between North and South Korea has also forced Japan to build her ties with the former.  From Japan's point of view this is necessary for the building of a 'new international order,' while from North Korea's perspective this represents an opening for economic assistance from Japan. Everyone  now wants a piece of the pie, even North Korea! 
	Moreover, during the Cold War, the US consistently supported and enhanced South Korea in its rivalry with North Korea.  With the demise of the Soviet Union, the US endorsed South Korea's ambitious northern diplomacy (Nordpolitik) that was primarily designed to normalize its relations with the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe, but was also intended to ease its frozen confrontation with North Korea. During the Cold War the US regarded its military position in the Korean peninsula as a pivotal buffer to protect Japan's security interests and to counterbalance strategic ascendancy of the Soviet Union and China. According to Curtis, today "US troops serve as a buffer between the two Koreas, as a check against Japan's military expansion and as a message to China and Russia that the US will remain a Pacific power. It is the most visible evidence of the US resolve to protect US economic interests." Hence, the politics of  the Korean peninsula, which have become so integral to the system of international relations in Asia can be seen in terms of a whole set of triangular interactions. 

Russia
	Another way in which strategic geometry is a useful concept for understanding the transition from a Cold War to a post Cold War system is through the disappearance and obsoleteness of some of the old triangles. Russia is such as case in point. 
	The collapse of the Soviet Union has radically altered the face of international politics in East Asia, beginning with Gorbachev who revised three central features of post war Soviet policy in Asia by: 1. freeing it from the albatross of Sino-Soviet conflict  2. by suppressing the dominating idea of an East-West contest, shifted Soviet policy towards Japan. 3.by ending the Sino-Soviet conflict meant that China was no longer the motivation for Moscow's preoccupation with quantity and quality of arms, and hence did away with the significance of the Sino-Soviet-US triangle. "By altering Soviet priorities and by changing with whom and for what reason the Soviet Union would compete, Gorbachev brought an end to the pernicious geometry of the previous three decades. Triangles, by definition, are inherently tension filled; they are tripolarity with built in antagonism. Until, Gorbachev the quadrangle was in fact, two- perhaps-three-triangles. He terminated two triangles in which Soviet Union had a part." 
	In the post Cold War era, "Russia's relevance is not likely to be a factor affecting the basic equilibrium in East Asia." According to Mandlebaum, Russia and her new neighbors have become of marginal importance to the central concerns of the other three powers. The fall of communism and Russia's less intrusive  role in Asia has meant that many of the old interactions and old triangles have ceased to be relevant.  This power who to the greatest extent,  viewed the politics of Asia in terms of strategic geometry,  today,  has a diminished presence, if virtually a non-existent one in the regions major strategic geometry. Asia to the Russians has become Central Asia. "The Soviet Union's security agenda whose focus divided entirely between China and US-Japanese connection, while not wholly abandoned has for the new Russia shifted dramatically towards Central Asia." Subsequently this has meant China's increased importance among East Asian states for Russia. Currently, Russia's most important ally in Asia is Kazakhstan, having taken on the role of Kazakhstan's nuclear protector (not unlike the US with Japan), but Russia also cares about internal developments within Kazakhstan and the evolution of its foreign relations, particularly with China. There maybe prospects here for a lesser regional triangle between Russia-China-Kazakhstan.
	A study of the strategic geometry involving Russia today sheds light on many aspects of the shift from a Cold War to a post Cold War system. According to Mandlebaum, "the collapse of the Soviet Union has already given rise to a debate on the possibilities of a new strategic triangle involving the US, Japan and Russia." Russia's role in today's Sino-Japanese-Russian triangle is in balancing the power of both China and Japan. Russia and Japan have reversed roles in the post Cold War--Japan is now the major league player and Russia is the secondary player, buffeted by the happenings in  Sino-Japanese relations. "Should the Sino-Japanese-Russian triangle revive, it will be much more dramatic than the late 19th century and Cold war versions," posits Mandlebaum. The new basis for Japan-China-Russia triangle is also to maintain a more congenial regional environment. The emphasis has shifted to stability and peace.  
	Today Sino-Russian bilateral relations are based on a 'constructive partnership' for accelerated economic cooperation including Russian arms sales to China and an overt 'meeting of the minds' on Central Asia. Tensions will again rise, especially since Sino-Russian competition for influence in the buffer states of inner Asia that are now emerging will be permanent. According to Mandlebaum, "we have not seen the end of their rivalry." On the other hand, is the view that neither country has much the other needs, with both looking towards Japan and America for capital. Economics is the name of the game in East Asia, and Russia looks like a minor league player to Chinese, coupled with a  deep level of cultural suspicion. 
	On the other hand, the most crucial of the Cold War triangles, the Russia-US-China triangle seems to  hold relatively little significance.  However, two political games of today, might still substantiate the existence of this triangle 1.the crux of Chinese analysis--  that there is an inherent conflict between Moscow and Washington, on matters of aid and weapons build down which will provide openings for its own diplomacy 2. the weapons issue-- "the US fears China's success in skimming cream of weapons experts from Russia." The latter is a very Cold War type of concern: the issue of military strength, which continues to interlock the three major military powers. 
	In reference to the US-Japan-Russia triangle, the Japan-Russia part of the triangle still remains quite undeveloped.  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Invaded by Immigrants.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Invaded By Immigrants

Canada being a relatively new country, as far as the history of the world
goes was built by immigration.  Every single resident of North America
can trace his ancestry back to the cradle of life in Europe.  Even Native
Americans found their way to the new world over a frozen ice pack,
spreading out across the land, weaving a rich culture and prospering. 
The Canada that we know today began only in the last 200 years. 
Settlers poured in from all over the world, tempted with free land and
religious liberty Europeans settled in Canada by the thousands.  They
brought with them traditions and a legal system modeled after the
English governments.  
	Although is undeniable that Immigration made Canada into the
strong nation that it is, I feel that Immigration as it is set up these days
does not build our country but tears it down.  The open gates policy
implemented by our government leaves the Canadian social system
wide open to be abused by would-be migrants in other countries.  It is
quite obvious that the system currently running is quite imperfect.   This
paper will attempt to show flaws in Canada's immigration policy and
suggest new policy's which fit better with Canada's social landscape.

	All over the world populations are growing at tremendous rates.  
Nothing in this world happens by accident, the populations are moving
because they expect an increase in quality of life in the new country. 
Country's all over the world view Canada as a great place to live, the
United Nations bills Canada as the best place to live.  When third world
people look at their present situations, they think that they could instantly
improve their surroundings by moving to Canada.  By pure logic it would
seem like madness to open Canada's doors wide open to any immigrant
which wishes to come to Canada.  We would be swamped! But that is
precisely what Canada has done.  There is no end in sight.  With a growing
world population more and more people will see Canada as the premier
place to live and will come flocking to our gates.
	Many Canadian's do not agree with the current immigration policy
our the idea that we should let even more immigrants in.   Many issues
need to be debated and settled such as should we allow further
immigration into Canada, to what degree should immigrants segregate or
integrate, who should be allowed to immigrate, and on what conditions. 
These are very serious questions and the answers to them will have a
profound effect on life in Canada and indeed all over the world.  
	Until the great depression at the beginning of the century Canada
had encouraged immigration from Europe, especially Britain.  During the
Great Depression Immigration was brought to a halt, the reason being that
foreign workers coming to Canada looking for jobs were unwanted.  Bands
of men roamed the country searching for any kind of work.  After W.W.II
Canada's economy grew so fast that thousands of immigrants were let in,
mostly from Europe.  The time in-between Canada shut it's gate to when it
reopened them is called the first great digestion period.  
	A period with no immigrants allowed Canada to set up social
programs, make jobs, and integrate the existing new citizens into our
economy. Since W.W.II the basic immigration policy has remained the
same with no such period, we have steadily let larger numbers of
foreigners into our country.  In the past 60 years there has been no such
period and the population has outgrown the job base.  One of the main
arguments that immigration enthusiasts use is that Immigrants will fill jobs
and produce more then they consume.  At this moment Canada has
upwards of eleven percent unemployment.  What use do we possibly have
for thousands of new people flooding the job market.  Our  economy needs
to strengthen and grow so it can support itself before we burden our
welfare system by bringing in more unneeded workers.
	The issue of immigration is permanently with Canada and  important
because every single Canadian can trace his lineage back to an immigrant
somewhere.  The flow of people into Canada is not going to stop unless we
pass and bill to make immigration standards tougher.  Lately there has
been a movement to remove discriminatory law from the Canadian
constitution and it is getting so we are too politically correct.  In 1996 so
many Asians flooded Vancouver that a separate school system had too be
set up to accommodate these students who would not learn English or fit
into the full English schools.  This represents astronomical costs to British
Columbia's already stretched educational system all because Canada does
not regulate the flow of immigrants from any country.  This type of law
would be "discriminatory".  Another example of where Canada's polite
policy falls short of common sense is that we let cancer patients, and
people who carry the virus that leads to AIDS into our country where they
are sure to cost thousands of dollars to our health care system, and those
with the virus could pass it on.  Common sense says that if a immigrant is
going to cost a lot of money to support and then die without contributing to
the society then that immigrant should not be granted entrance.
		If Canada wants to keep it's status as a wealthy country, and a
good place to live it had better modify it's immigration policy.  Canada's
multicultural policy where immigrant's are not expected to assimilate and
the unchecked flow of immigrants from countries abroad has led to visible
minorities in Canada which do not want to be "Canadian", but want to set
up communities like the ones they once occupied in their old countries. 
The Doukhobour sect in Canada declares "They have never given, nor will
they ever give their votes during elections, thereby are free from any
responsibility before God or man for the acts of any government
established by men"
	A truly assimilated immigrant would be unrecognizable in the host
society.  There are essentially 2 types of assimilation, the first of which is
behavioral assimilation.  In behavioral assimilation all minority groups
adhere to the values of the majority and behave accordingly.  This theory
could be applied to the American model.  Immigrants are expected to learn
English, dress, and behave like "Americans" do.
	The second type of assimilation is structural assimilation.  In this
system all groups in the society have equal access and utilize the same
institutions, and social structures but do not necessarily behave or believe
alike.  This theory is especially well adept to describing the Canadian
multicultural system.  It has been argued that by keeping their old identities
immigrants "enrich and strengthen" our society.  What this has ultimately
resulted in is isolating these groups from society.  When we think of what
being Canadian means, no one is quite sure.
	Multiculturalism has resulted in several visible minorities.  These
minority's because they generally vote together control a considerable
portion of the vote.  One of the best examples of this is The French
speaking population is the province of Quebec.  The population of Quebec
makes up about thirty percent of the Canadian population yet has
succeeded in running the Canadian agenda for over 30 years.  Politicians
scrambling to please this large section of voting power has given Quebec a
level of power and voice in the federal government that is ridiculous and
bordering on dangerous.  Quebec has demanded special status, gets four
new seats in the house of commons at every census and has set up
discriminatory language laws in the province in order to keep it's own
English minority under check.  This is a prime example of how a minority
has refused to assimilate and ends up causing problems for a country.  
	The more functions that a ethnic group can perform inside a closed
community the less obligation it's members will feel to learn the law,
language, and traditions of the host culture.  This creates a isolated
communities where the people of the community don't feel part of the
society in which they live.  One solution for this is to spread immigration
from a country out over our country, this would prevent closed community's
to a large degree.  When immigrants come they swear allegiance to
Canada and they should respect our culture and try to fit in a little bit.

	The plain fact is that immigration is bad for the economy.  The
majority of immigrants that come to Canada have no material possessions
at all.  Screening immigrants based on wealth is illegal by our constitution. 
Before the Immigrants arrived on Canada's shores there was already 11%
of Canada's citizens which had no jobs.  With each new arriving immigrant
this figure will increase.  In 1990, spent $16 billion more in welfare
payments to immigrants that they paid back in taxes.  Perhaps what is most
disturbing is that immigrants feel they can steel from us in order to maintain
a high standard of life in our country, immigrants compose 25 percent of
the prisoners in federal penitentiaries, which our taxes support.
	The fact is that the immigration problem is not going to go away.  By
2050 third world country's with 245 million people will have population
density's of 1,700 people per km2.   Our cities are already flooded
with millions of jobless immigrants annually, this problem is only going to
get worse.  As the citizens in a democracy we must give the government a
mandate to shut down, or slow down as much as possible immigration! 
Canada does not have a lot of money to share with the worlds poor, we
have created a system which makes money and we cannot let immigration
get in the way of the welfare of Canada's citizens.  If a potential immigrant
can show convincingly that he can bring a meaningful contribution to our
country's welfare he is welcomed, but the practice of letting immense
amounts of immigrants must be brought to a halt.  


Bibliography

1.  Curran, Thomas; Xenophobia And Immigration.  Boston:  Twayne, 1975.

2.  Globerman, Steven; Immigration Delemma. Vancouver:  Fraser, 1992.

3.  Hawkins, Freda;  Canada and Immigration.  Montreal:  McGill, 1970.

4.  Knowles, Valerie;  Strangers at Our Gates.  Toronto:  Dundurn,1992.

5.  Malarek, Victor;  Haven's Gate.  Toronto: Macmillan, 1987.

6.  Munro, Iain; Immigration.  Toronto:  Wiley, 1941.

7.  Norris, John; Strangers Entertained. Vancouver: Evergreen, 1971.

8.  Sharma, Satya; Immigrants and Refugees In Canada. Saskatchewan;
	University, 1991.

9.  Sillars, Les. "Something Stinks In Immigration."  Alberta Report, August 12,
1996, pp. 12.

10.  Stoffman, Daniel.  "Canada's Farcical Refugee System." Readers Digest,
Sept. 1995, pp.  53-57. 

11.  Taylor, Rupert; Canada and the  World.  Waterloo; Ebsco, 1994.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Is Government Dominated by Big Business.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Is Government Dominated by Business
	Special interest groups have dominated government since the advent of America's 
political system.  Special interest groups or lobbies are collections of individuals who 
join together to pursue common interests and to influence the decisions on public 
policies.  Many people view special interest groups as an integral part of the political 
process, legitimized by the first amendment of the Constitution.  In that way, special 
interest groups are good.  The point that disgusts many people is that more often then not 
money overpowers the right decision;  that is why Big Business is a problem.  The  richer 
the companies and organizations, the better chance they have to persuade the government 
officials.
	In the United States alone there are thousands of special interest groups working 
for their own cause.  Some of the causes they are working for are:  business, banking, 
labor, environment, women, seniors, the economy, and farming just to name a few.  
Some groups or businesses which partake in lobbying are:  N.O.W., Green Peace, AFL-
CIO, Teamsters, Sierra Club, N.R.A., Tobacco industry and the ACLU.  These groups 
often work at the national, state, and local levels attempting to influence government 
policy.  Many groups have permanent offices in Washington DC.  The primary goals of 
these groups are the passing, blocking, or amending legislation to achieve a favorable 
ruling for their own benefit.  In Washington the groups primary targets are the House and 
Senate sub-committees which are the key places where legislation is considered.  The 
groups often speak in front of Committee hearings to put their views on the record.  
	One of the most well known special interest group is the National Rifle 
Association.  This group has done tireless work in Washington trying to stop Gun Control 
bills from passing in Congress.  The worst blow that happened to the NRA was the 
passing of the Brady Bill and the Assault Rifle Ban.  The NRA believes this is an 
infringement on the constitutional rights of all Americans.  Recently after a huge lobby in 
Washington, the NRA forced the Senate to have another vote on the Assault Rifle ban.  
The way the NRA forces the senate is as followed:   the NRA gets together with some 
senators that they know want to repeal the ban.  The NRA gives money to the senators for 
their campaigns, etc.  The senators then persuade other senators and the NRA has them 
on their side as well.  When the NRA captures enough senators, it forces Congress to 
bring it to the floor and debate about the issue.  In this case, the NRA failed.  However, 
the NRA will continue to support the senators that are a help to the cause and will 
eventually force another vote in Congress.  This happens daily in Washington.   All 
segments of business and industry have lobbyists.  It seems that private citizens are the 
only group on their own. 
	The lumber and paper industry is an important business to many people.  They too 
lobby in Washington to ensure that no restrictions are put on their jobs.  There is another 
group fighting against the lumber industry and that is the environmentalists.  The 
"Greens" feel that the loggers should not be allowed to cut down as many trees as they 
do.  These two groups confer with senators at the state and national level trying to 
persuade them to their side.  However, the loggers' unions join the big companies to 
protect their jobs.  This is a very steep obstacle for the "Tree Huggers" to overcome.  The 
lumber industry wins due to the money they have at their disposal.  
	Political Action Committees are other groups which help in the persuasion of 
Congressional people.  PAC's are organizations established by private groups to support a 
candidate for public office.  "In 1971 PAC's became increasingly popular because the ban 
on the use of corporate money to set up PAC's was lifted"(Groliers "PAC").  PAC's 
contribute enormous amounts of money into the campaigns for political candidates.  The 
amounts are increasing every year and it is a multi- million dollar business.  Single Issue 
politics is also a problem.  This form of politics is quite popular these days, it is when 
individuals or groups support or reject a candidate based on one view of a certain issue.  
The types of issues include abortion and gun control to name two. 
	It is now a lot easier for the Special Interest Groups to persuade the lawmakers.  
The spread of direct primaries, television-based campaigning, and the decline of the 
traditional political party strengths has left many legislatures vulnerable to special 
interest groups.  The advances in technology have strengthened these groups power since 
they can be heard by more people.  This access to mass medid also makes them more 
appealing to the candidates.
	The amount of money spent through lobbying is outrageous.  "In the first half of 
1996 lobby's spent at least $400 million dollars to influence the federal government" 
("Lobbyists").  "One of the largest spenders being Phillip Morris which has spent an 
estimated $11.3 million dollars in the first half"("Lobbyists").  This exorbitant amount of 
money being spent by one of the largest tobacco companies can  be attributed to the 
governments recent threats made against the industry.  Philip Morris is obviously trying 
to coheres anyone into believing in their case.
	Big Business seems to have dramatically impacted  the political system of this 
country.  The United States is a country of equality and freedom of speech.  These 
lobbying groups hurt the integrity of what this country is all about.  We think of the 
United States as a country ruled by a democracy.  The lobbying groups view this country 
as their country, they tell the legislatures to do something hand them a check the receiver 
will do what the group wants, not what the people want.  We do not elect Congress 
people to be puppets for the rich businesses and groups who are self-centered and only 
care about themselves.  We elect them to do what is best for the public.  
	I believe there has to be a limit with what the lobbies can do financially.  I know 
there has been attempts made to control the groups but, it is not enough.  The United 
States needs to continue to give people equal say in the laws which govern our society.  
Our lawmakers can not listen to the voice of reason in one ear and hear the crinkling of 
money in the other and have to make a decision.  It is human nature to want money.  It is 
sad but true for the right price almost anyone can change there mind on something.  The 
only way for this equality to happen is to get rid of these special interest groups and 
PAC's and lobbies.  The answer is YES government is dominated by Big Business.
 

Works Cited:

"Political Action Committee." The 1995 Groliers Multimedia Encyclopedia. CD-ROM.

"Lobbyists spent $400 million in first half of year." Portland Press Herald 23 Sept. 1996























 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Is the prime minister too powerful .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

There are a lot of political issues in Great Britain today.  United Kingdom is a large, industrialized democratic society and as such it has to have politics and therefore political issues.  One of those issues how should executive branch work and whether the Prime Minister has too much power.   Right now in Great Britain there is a great debate on this issue and I am going to examine it in detail.  The facts I have used here are from different writings on British politics which are all listed in my bibliography, but the opinions are my own and so are the arguments that I used to support my views.
First let me explain the process through which a person becomes a Prime Minister.  The PM is selected by the sovereign.  He (or she) chooses a man who can command the support of majority of the members of the House of Commons.  Such a man is normally the leader of the largest party in the House.  Where two are rivals in a three party contest such as those which occurred in the 1920s he is usually selected from the party which wins the greatest number of seats.  The Prime Minister is assumed to be the choice of his party and nowadays, so far as he can be ascertained, participation of a monarch is a pure formality.  Anyone suggested for this highest political office obviously has to be a very smart and willing individual, in fact it has been suggested that he be an "uncommon man of common opinions"(Douglas V. Verney).  Not all Prime Ministers fitted this bill exactly, but every on of them had to pass one important test: day-to-day scrutiny of their motives and behavior by fellow members of Parliament before they were ultimately elected to the leadership of their party.  Unlike Presidents of the United States all Prime Ministers have served a long apprenticeship in the legislature and have been ministers in previous Cabinets.  Many Presidents of our country have been elected and on many occasions they have never even met some of their future co-workers, such as case of Kissinger and Nixon who have never even met prior to Nixon's appointment.  
Let's now examine the statutory duties and responsibilities of the Prime Minister.  Unlike the United States where the President's duties are specifically written out in the Constitution, the powers of the Prime Minister are almost nowhere spelled out in a statute.  Unlike his fellow ministers he does not receive the seals of office:  he merely kisses the hands of the monarch like an ambassador.
The Prime Minister has four areas of responsibilities.  He is a head of the Government; he speaks for the Government in the House of Commons; he is the link between the Government and the sovereign; he is the leader of the nation.  He is chief executive, chief legislator and chief ambassador.  As we can see the PM has an wide range of powers, maybe too wide.  As head of the Government the Prime Minister has the power to recommend the appointment and dismissal of all other ministers.  Far from being merely first among equals, he is the dominant figure.  Ministers wait in the hall of PMs office on No.10 Dowling Street before being called into the Cabinet room.  He may himself hold other portfolios such as that of Foreign Secretary(as did Lord Salisbury) or Minister of Defense(as did 
Mr. Churchill).  He has general supervision over all departments and appoints both the Permanent Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary.  The Cabinet office keeps a record of Cabinet decisions to make sure that PM has up to date information.  He controls the agenda which the office prepares for Cabinet meetings.   There is a smaller Prime Minister's Private Office which consists of a principal private secretary and a half a dozen other staff drawn from civil service.  Perhaps owing to American influence the two offices are becoming increasingly popular and there are signs that the Prime Minister is no longer content to be aided by nonpolitical  civil servants.  There is little doubt that if he chooses the PM can be in complete command of his Cabinet.
	The PM must also give leadership in the House of Commons, though he usually appoints a colleague as Leader of the House.  He speaks for the Government on important matters-increasingly, questions are directed to him personally-and controls the business of the House through the Future Legislation Committee of the Cabinet which he appoints mainly from the senior nondepartamental ministers.  Since the success of his legislative program depends mainly on support of his party he must as a party leader attend to his duties and ensure that the machinery of his party is working properly and in the hands of men he could trust.  Basically the PM controls his party and in essence he controls the Parliament, but that is not all.  The PM alone can request the sovereign to dissolve the Parliament and call a new election, it is open to debate whether it is this power 
to allow him the control of the party and the Parliament.  I agree with this argument completely because if the PM doesn't like the way it is going with his party he can always announce new election so the Parliament pretty much backs up whatever the PM proposes.  This is my main argument for this paper.  In United Kingdom there is no system of checks and balances like there is in United States.  In UK the PM and the Cabinet make a decision which is then almost blindly supported by the Parliament.  A real democracy cannot function this way where there is one person of power and the rest can hardly do anything about it.  Members of the majority party will not go against the will of PM because it means going against the will of their own party and that is unheard of in England, members of the opposing party cannot do anything because they are a minority.  The Queen herself is a figure-head and does not have any real power.  The PM is a link between the monarch and the Government, he keeps the Queen aware of what goes on with the Cabinet, the Government and the world at large.  Although the Queen is a fictional figure and has no real power she can damage the reputation of the Government and the entire country by one careless word.  It is the Prime Minister's responsibilities to keep the monarch well informed.  Other ministers however can only see the monarch with the PMs permission (the monarch however can see whomever she chooses).  As we can see, here is another illustration of PM
having too much power.  He basically has an exclusive relationship with the monarch and controls who can see the Queen and who cannot.  In US this is unthinkable, any congressman can request an audience with the President if he wants and if let's say the Chief of Staff wanted to limit that in any way then he would run into some serious problems.  
	Finally the PM is the leader of the nation.  In time of crisis the people expect him to make an announcement and to appear on television.  Increasingly he should be a man who can not only secure the confidence of House of Commons, but of the man in the street or rather the man in the armchair in front of the television.   Elections are ostensibly fought between two individual parliamentary candidates, but in practice they are contests between national parties which offer their own political and economical programs.  The parties convey an "image" to the nation through the voice and appearance of their leaders.  The Prime Minister must outshine his rival, the Leader of the Opposition.  In the 1964 election, when the Liberals doubled their vote, much importance was attached to the TV performance of the Liberal leader, Jo Grismond.
	The Head of State and traditional "symbol of the Nation" may be the Queen and the Royals, but the chief executive is in reality the PM.  It is to his desk that ultimately all difficult problems come whether these involve participation in NATO, the balance of payment crisis, the budget-or even the royals' love affairs(as in 1936 and again in the 80's and 90's).  It is the PM that has to symbolize his country's policies abroad and it is he who must personally convince political leaders in other countries that his Government can be relied upon.  
	The Prime Minister is also chief legislator.  Through the Future Legislation Committee, he determines which bills the House of Commons will discuss during the session, and can attach whatever importance he chooses to the Immigration Bill or Steel Nationalization Bill.  With few exceptions bills are introduced in the House by the Government and if they are important they require the backing of the Premier.  
	Also he is the chief administrator.  Not only does he supervise the departments and chair Cabinet meetings but he directs the Cabinet Office and the Office of Prime Minister.  In economic affairs he decides governmental strategy in conjunction with his Chancellor of the Exchequer and Minister of Economic Affairs, if there is one, and leaves these ministers to implement his policies.  In defense policy he chairs the Defense Committee of the Cabinet, leaving the details to the Secretary of Defense(Army, Navy and Air Force) and the Chiefs of Staff.  Foreign Affairs,  normally the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary, require the intervention of the PM when really important decisions have to be made.  
	As we can see the PM is potentially a very powerful figure. Everything depends on how he chooses to use this power and the success with which he delegates some of his responsibilities.  
	All PMs have had an inner circle of ministers to which he turns when quick decisions have to be taken.  The more important departmental ministers tend to be the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but these may not compose the inner circle of the given PM. Senior ministers don't have to be the members of the inner circle.  They usually are, but not all the time.  The Cabinet is usually as follows: the PM, three to six inner circle members and the remainder of the Cabinet which number about fifteen.  I think it is obvious to see why the PM needs an inner circle.  In United States for example the President can approve the appointment of a person to a high political position without having ever met him/her.  In Britain this would sound ridiculous, all major political figures know each other for years having probably gone to same schools together.  The Brits believe that good friends make good decision makers which to me sounds very reasonable.  This fact can be viewed from two different perspectives: some people say that when a new PM is elected he usually appoints all his friends to high positions by doing this he creates an inner clique with which he governs as an absolute ruler,  the opposing view says that you need to know your colleagues for years in order to successfully work with them.  Both views have a point and this is a very hot topic in British politics right now.  Personally I thin 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Italian Men .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	One day I'ma go to a bigga hotel.  Ina da morning I go downa to eatta breakfast.  I
tella da waitress I wanna two pisses toast.  She bring only one piss.  I tell her I wanna two
pisses.  She say to go to da toilet.  I say you no understand, I wanna two piss on my plate. 
She say you better not piss on the plate, you sonna ma bitch!  I don't even know da lady
and she calla me a sonna ma bitch!

	Later I go to eatta lunch at da Duke Resturaunte.  Da waitress bringa me a spoon
and knife , but no fock.  I tella her I wanna fock.  She tella me everybody wanna fock.  I
tella her, you no understand...I wanna fock onna da table!  She say you better not fock
onna da table you sonna ma bitch!

	So I go backa to my room inna hotel.  There's no shits onna my bed.  I calla da
manager and tella him I wanna shits.  He tella me to go to the toilet.  I say you no
understand...I wanna shits onna da bed.  He say you better not shit on the bed you sonna
ma bitch!

	Then I go to check out of  da hotel, and da same man at the desk say "Peace to
you!"  And I say "Piss on you too, you sonna ma bitch.  I'm gonna go backa to Italy!!!" 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Jack and Roger.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	           	     Jack and Roger

	 Jack and Roger are two allegorical characters in the story: "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding. They are both characterized as killers but they are very different from one another.  The two young boys start off with the same intentions but as the story progresses we begin to see the differences in their personalities.  While Jack's power hunger grows, Roger's sadistic nature also grows as well.

	
	The character of Jack is an obvious id, he is a power hungry ruthless killer that would do anything for power.  Jack is not always a killer, the events on the island lead up to his behavior.  For example, when Ralph, Simon and Jack are in the forest and they see the pig for the first time Jack does not kill it no doubt from the taboo of killing.  The second time he meets the pig he kills it with his knife and this is only the beginning of the change in his behavior.  Jack's wanting of meat turns into obvious bloodlust later on in the novel, for example  he kills the mother pig without even thinking if it was wrong: "Kill the pig, cut her throat, bash her head in!".  Jack's decapitation of the dead mother pig proves that he is no longer the Jack that could not kill the pig but a much more blood-thirsty one that only wants to kill and not be rescued. Although Jack is not satanic like Roger, he loses all sense of reason, he is nevertheless a killer.  Jack tries his best to do what is best for the boys but his power hunger actually makes the situation much worse: "The chief snatched one of the few remaining spears and poked Sam in the ribs" (P.182) Jack's own name has even become a taboo, he has almost god-like power and uses it for 'evil'.  If it were not for the rescue of the boys, Jack's power-hunger and bloodlust would have eventually gotten them all killed.


	The character of Roger is also an id but he is a satanic killer.  Unlike Jack  Roger's bloodlust can never be satisfied.  He is a brutal killer and a perfect example of this is when he kills Piggy with the giant rock.  Roger also has a mind of his own, he is a free spirit that does not follow orders.  For example, Jack never ordered him to drop the rock on Piggy, it was purely Roger that did it on his own free will.  He is a sick and twisted individual, another example of this is the way he brutally kills the mother pig.  He would also show no hesitation to take a human life, not only does he kill Piggy but he also sharpens a stick at both ends for Ralph so he was obviously going to do to him what he did to the mother pig.  Roger is just a worse version of Jack and like Jack too control of Ralph's power he would have taken control of Jack's power with an even more sadistic culture then the one that Jack has created.  

	
	Jack and Roger are both killers, one more ruthless and power-hungry then the other.  Ralph lost his power to a person more sadistic, what is to say that Jack will not lose his power to Roger? and who would have been next after Roger? eventually the culture would become so sadistic and ruthless that death would be a regular event.  Jack and Roger are both sadistic killers and one might argue that it does not matter if you are a killer or a ruthless killer because either way you are still a killer but one can also argue: "Do you honestly think that the boys would be the same is it were Roger and not Jack that became chief? 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Jail.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of
popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early
Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them
for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But they went on with the conviction that
they were a "colony of heaven," and had to obey God rather than man. They were too
God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." They brought an end to such ancient evils as
infanticide and gladiatorial contest.

Things are different now. The contemporary church is often a weak, ineffectual voice with an
uncertain sound. It is so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the
presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's
silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not
recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of
millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.

Maybe again, I have been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status
quo to save our nation and the world? Maybe I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the
church within the church, as the true ecclesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to
God that some souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing
chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom [justice] ... 

Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been kicked out of their churches and lost support
of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have gone with the faith that right defeated is stronger
than evil triumphant. These men have been the leaven in the lump of the race. Their witness has been
the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have
carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr. wrote these words from the confines of the Birmingham jail. "The noble
souls" to whom he referred were the precious ones who were willing to lay down their lives for the
freedom of others. This group of warriors fought the "good fight of faith" knowing that the victory
was won by "loving not their lives even unto death." The evils of that day were conquered by their
undaunted trust in God and by the cross in action. Sons and daughters, parents and grandparents
were beaten, ridiculed and scorned, jailed and even killed. 

Sadly enough, as Martin Luther King states in his letter, the majority of the church of that day stood
by paralyzed by their need to conform to the status quo. And, I might add, paralyzed by their own
fears, petty excuses and criticisms of those who challenged the unjust system of that time.

Today, once again, the church is challenged to rise up and fight the battle. Once again, Satan has
waged war against the hearts and minds of God's people. But this time the battle fields are in front
of the abortion mills of America where the most innocent are being offered to the blood thirsty gods
of this age, convenience and selfishness. God's most precious gifts to mankind are being ripped
apart in their mother's wombs while the church's silence holds back the awesome power of victory
which the church alone controls.

As a pastor of a local church in downtown Birmingham, "Doers of the Word," I work a lot with
youth. We have several outreaches to the youth of the city, prison (juvenile) ministry, music ministry,
etc. I minister to the worst kids in Jefferson County, Alabama. There is gang activity everywhere in
Birmingham. In one recent incident, gang members came out and stood in front of our church and
tried to stare down some of our young people. Several of them have come into our Bible studies. I
have personally seen many of these kids come out of gangs, lay down the gun and pick up the
Sword of the Spirit. 

On Holy Week of 1994, I saw approximately 50 teens arrested near the University of Alabama for
simply praying on a sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic. These kids are the cream of the crop. It
broke my heart to see these kids go to jail for praying on the sidewalk. A few days before the
arrests, we took our young people on a tour of the Civil Rights Institute here in Birmingham. They
saw how the young people in Birmingham were let out of high school and took to the streets in
1963. They were willing to die to challenge the evil laws of their land. Our young people realized
that it was the youth who turned the tide of the Civil Rights movement. This really impacted our
young people and they haven't been the same since. Now it's their turn to take up the standard in
the pro-life movement. 

God called me to train young people to do the work of the ministry of Jesus Christ. They are the
ones who are going to change our nation, not just with regards to the abortion issue, but by closing
down a crack house or a pornography shop, or whatever else God has called them to do. Adults
have to lead the young people. I took a survey in a youth detention center in Birmingham - I found
that 95 percent of the young men don't have fathers at home. They don't have role models. My
prayer is that God will raise up men to be role models - to be fathers for these young men.

We have begun to see black and white churches in Birmingham come together over the abortion
issue. We've seen black and white, young and old, come together for the sanctity of human life. In
the 1960s, the civil rights movement was mostly black. But today the pro-life movement in
Birmingham is about half white and half black - equal representation. We see people from all races
and all denominations involved in this issue. It has brought them together like no other issue has ever
done in the past. 

Statistics on abortion for blacks show that approximately one-third - or 10 million black babies -
have been victims of abortion, but blacks make up only 12 percent of the population. Newer studies
have shown that now there have been 12 million abortions among the black population and that
blacks now make up only eight percent of the population. This is due to 20 years of legalized
abortion. This is black genocide. 

The motive of Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was genocide. Former Planned
Parenthood president, a black woman named Faye Wattleton, and abortion advocates, such as
Jesse Jackson, do not represent the majority of blacks. The overwhelming majority (statistics
indicate over 70 percent) of black people believe that abortion is wrong. But the so-called leaders
are really speaking for only a minority of blacks.

I personally went to some of the black civil rights leaders in Birmingham regarding the events we
had planned for Holy Week, but we did not get a response from them. They have not come out nor
have they made any statements at all in support of what our young people are doing. It is a travesty
that the so-called civil rights leaders of Birmingham would not speak up on behalf of the children. 
But there is a new generation coming. This generation of young people are the ones who go to
school with the drug dealers and the gang leaders toting guns. They know that they are the only
hope. These young people don't have any fear. They don't have any jobs to lose or careers to
protect. When they are filled with the Spirit of God, they will lay down their lives for what is right.
The elderly consider what they have to lose, but young people are not afraid. If the youth can band
together; if they get a sense of belonging and unity; if they get impacted with the Spirit of God; if
there is a group that loves Jesus with all their hearts, then they will believe that they can do anything.

This is the beginning of a new move of God in Birmingham, Alabama. In the 1960s, Martin Luther
King was pleading for the church to just be the church - and today we are seeing a group of young
people who want to be like Jesus; who want to be deemed worthy to suffer for what they believe;
who will risk going to jail for what they believe. It is time for the church to recapture the sacrificial
spirit of the early church. I have seen more young people respond to this call than adults. There is a
real difference in this generation. They are willing to sacrifice for what they believe.

The "gates of hell" cannot prevail against the church. Will we utilize the power of the cross to
overcome this present darkness? Who will join the ranks? Victory will only be won through
sacrifice. Who is willing to take up the cross and run toward the demon giant of child sacrifice? The
victory is ours if we heed the call to battle.

Pastor "A.J." serves as a full-time minister of a youth congregation in downtown Birmingham,
Alabama. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\James Buchannon.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
           James Buchanan
        James Buchanan was born in April 23, 1791 in a cabin in Cove Gap, Pennsylvania.
James father came to America as a Scotch-Irish in 1783. At the age of six his family
moved to Mercersberg PA. where his father would open a general store . James was the
second of eleven in his family. James was able to go to school where he lived but when
he was not studying he was helping his father in the shop.
        James father made James work hard and taught James that he must be ready to take
care for his brothers and sister when James father died. At the age of sixteen James
father sent him to Dickinson College in Carlisle PA. James was a serious student but he
also wanted to have a good time. He began to smoke a drink with the other students, and
later was expelled from college. He begged for them to take him back, and he would turn
over a new leaf. He was allowed to return and graduated on high honors. After college he
left and went to study law in Lancaster PA. James worked hard and later became a
successful lawyer. He made more than 11,000 a year. James became a canidate for the
Pennsylavania legislature in 1814. But the war of 1812 was growing fast. The British Had
just burned down Washingto D.C. James volunteered to serve his country so he joined a
calvary company. Buchanan returned for the election and won a seat in legislature in
1814. He served another term and returnd to Lancaster.
            James Buchanan became a popular person in Lancaster and was invited to many
partys and dinners. At one party he met a girl named Ann Coleman. They later got
engaged. In the spring of 1819 there were rumors that James was seeing another girl. Ann
got upset and went to stay with her sister in Philadelphia. Later she died over an
overdose of landuam. James promised to never marry again.
            James went back to politics to try to forget about Ann. The federlists party was
looking for someone to run for candidate for congress. James agreed and in 1820 he was
elected to House of Represtatives. He served for 10 years. During the time in Congress
Buchanan changed his part to Democratic. In 1831 President Jackson asked James to
become minister to Russia. James agreed and went to Russia the next year. While he was
in Russia he made the first trade agreements between United States and Russia. When he
came back to the USA he was elected to the Senate. There he would serve till 1845.
           By 1844 he waited for the president nomination and gave all his support to James
Polk. James Polk won the nomination and election. Then President Polk assigned James
Buchanan to the secratary of state. While Polks term of President a war brokeout between
USA and Mexico. James Buchanan as Secratary of State arranged a peace treaty in 1848.
By this treaty United States purchased all the land from Texas to the Pacific Ocean.
           When Polk left office Buchanan also retired. For four years he lived in the country
and bought a Mansion near Lancaster PA.
          James could not stay away from politics. In 1852 he was a canidate for the running
of president. He was beaten by Franklin Pierce
          President Pierce made James minister to Great Britain in 1853. While Buchanan was
in england congress passed the Kansas-Nebrasa Act it permitted slavery in regions of the
Northwest. When the Democratic met in 1856 to pick a candidate for president they
wanted someone who would be wanted by the north and the south. They elected
Buchanan and he beat Millard Fillmore in the race. Buchanan became the first bachelor to
become president. He also became the first man from PA to become president. On March
4, 1857 James was elected president.
          Two days after Jame's inauguration the Supreme Court declared the Dred Scott
case that Congress did not have any power over slavery. James played a big role in
slavery. After James  retired from politics he went back to Lancaster were he would die
seven years later.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Jesus The First Anarchist.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
JESUS : THE FIRST ANARCHIST
an essay by George Stark


  "In God We Trust," reads the American dollar, mouths the American government.  The bosses put their hands on bibles and take office, they put their hands on bibles and swear to be truthful and honest and follow the teachings of the people's God.

  But are they following God's will?  Have they ever been?

JESUS: AN ANARCHIST?

  Throughout history Jesus Christ has been regarded as a revolutionary, but an anarchist?

  Yes, the answer.  As time has passed and covered the once passionate spirit in commonality, however, Jesus' true meaning has been lost in Sundays and collection baskets.  Jesus' true meaning is that of the anarchist.

  "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God," said Jesus to his disciples in one of many stories in which he shunned wealth and society's view of 'success'.  We see in the story of the poor widow's contribution Jesus' message of devaluing money, and placing the true importance on the spirit in which it is given.  We see Jesus sit down and observe how the people give money to the treasury, and his commentary on the donations shocks his disciples.  

  "Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury.  For they have contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood," says Jesus, teaching us an important lesson, one he stressed throughout his ministry.
Jesus taught that the poor would be raised up, that the powerful, the bosses as modern day anarchists say, will be layed low.  Jesus talks of the kingdom of God, we today talk of Anarchy.

  The gospel of Luke, chapter 12, presents to us a wonderful group of stories in which Jesus' underlying Anarchism is revealed.  Luke 12:15, "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possesions."  And what is capitalism but a system by which the greedy and scrupulous are made stronger, the dependant and the honest pushed aside?  Luke 12:18-21, "There was a rich man... and he said, 'This is what I shall do:  I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones.  There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, "Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!"  But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?'  Thus will it be for himself but is not rich in what matters to God."  And what, asks the capitalist as he sits in church on Sunday, matters to God?  Your neighbor matters to God, says Jesus.  The way you treat him and the way you must love him and care for him.  That is what matters to God.

  "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear.  For life is more than food and body more than clothing... instead, seek [God's] Kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides."  This is the bible that the president of the United States of America has sworn upon, weeks before renewing trade with China, America's current Most Favored Nation.  The same China that has enslaved the country of Tibet in what is no less than a modern day holocaust, killing over a million Tibetans and exiling over 100,000 since 1950.  6,000 monasteries have been destroyed, 1 in 20 monks are allowed to practice.  Wildlife has been depleted to extinction, famines have occured for the first time in history, natural resources are devasted.  Peaceful demonstrations by nuns and monk and laypeople have led to deaths, and Tibetans are a minority in their own country.  The U.S. congress heard all of this, including testimonies by numerous senators and citizens of Tibet against renewal of China's trade status, and in the end voted to renew China's Most Favored Nation status.  The Chinese government arrests those who speak out as political prisoners, torturing them and holding them in sub-human conditions.  The Tibetan culture is nearly gone, but goddamn those Chinese make a great automobile.  

  In the face of these atrocities done in the name of the dollar, would Jesus be a capitalist today?  Would he sit in his high rise while the wretched of the earth struggled and died below his feet?  Or would he love, serve, and protect his brothers, in the way that his God loved him, in the way that is the nature of humans, the nature of Anarchists?

  "Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy," says Jesus, and provide it, by loving your neighbor.       

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\John Paul Stevens BIO.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
JOHN PAUL STEVENS Bio

John Paul Stevens, the 101st Justice to serve on the supreme court of the United States, and the first appointed by President Gerald R. Ford.  John Paul Stevens became a member of the high court in December of 1975. Stevens, a middle aged man, with a reputation as a sharp-minded, hardworking lawyer, and first rate judge was given the highest evaluation from the American Bar Association committee that examined his record.  �A superb judicial craftsman� and a Judge�s judge,� are two of the praises that Stevens has received from the United States Court of Appeals. 
	Stevens was voted into the supreme court with a  vote of 98-0. In that time, Stevens was considered by the press, to be a moderate or moderate conservative in his legal thinking, and would take sides with other justices Powell, Stewart, and White.

John Paul was born on Apr. 20, 1920. Stevens, the youngest out of 4 sons, Stevens was also considered to be the smartest of the 4 . At the age of six, his brother Ernest Stevens noted to a New York Post reporter, �I guess we always knew he was going to make something of himself. He was always awfully smart....When John was six, he could play better bridge then most adults today>� 
	Stevens attended the University of Chicago High School, and then later went to the University its self. In 1941, he left the University with a Phi Betta Kappa key, and a B.A.  degree. He joined the navy, after the U.S entered World War 2. Stevens was stationed in Washington D.C, as a intelligence officer on the staff of admiral Chester W. Nimitz. He worked with a group assigned to break Japanese codes. for doing this, he was awarded the Bronze Star. After he returned to Chicago, (at the end of the war) he enrolled himself into Northwestern University School of Law to earn his J.D. degree, where he graduated first in his class. Not long after that, he was admitted into the Order of the Coif and the Phi Delta Phi law society. 
	From 1947 to 48, Stevens spent the year as a clerk to supreme court justice Wiley Rutledge. After that, he joined his first law firm, Poppenhausen, Johnston, Thompson & Raymond. A Chicago based firm, that he was inducted to as an Associate. 
	This was in 1948. With expert guidance from a Senior in the firm, Stevens acquired the expertise in antitrust, that law, that stood him a good stead during 51 and 52, for when he spent time on the Capitol in D.C as an associate counsel of the house Judiciary committee�s subcommittee on the study of monopoly power and then from 1953 to 55  where he was a member of the attorney generals national committee to study antitrust laws. 
	Finally on December of  1975, John Paul Stevens became Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens where he served a lengthily term and ruled justly over all of the cases placed before him.  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Joseph P Kennedy II.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
  United States Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II is a Democratice representative from the

State of Massachusetts.  He represents the district formerly represented by Thomas  "Tip"

O'Neil, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States.  His formal

education includes a bachelor's degree from the University of Massachusetts in l976.  He is

married to the former Beth Kelly and is the father of two children.  His father was the late

Senator Robert Kennedy of New York and his uncle was the late President John F. Kennedy.


      Congressman Kennedy's political background includes a strong family history in public

service.  Upon his graduation, his occupation was to form a non profit company devoted to

providing heating oil at affordable prices for the poor and the working poor.  He successfully

manged this company before being elected to Congress in l986.  His interests in Congress

have included affordable health care, as well centering on price fixing issues in the home heating

oil industry.  He has also been mentioned for national office due to the prominence of his surname

and his activities in the national Democratic party.

       Joseph Kennedy has shown himself to be politically to the left of the Democratic party

in Congress.  While his district includes both blue collar workers and the elite of Cambridge,

he has demonstrated a committment to liberal postions on welfare, labor issues, and taxation.

If he were to become a national figure,  the suspicion is that he might move slightly toward a 

more moderate political position in order to enhance his national appeal. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Jury Duty.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
SUMMONS FOR JURY DUTY

TO:							          GREETINGS:



You are hereby summoned to appear before the County Court of Burleson County, Texas, on the 3rd floor of the Burleson County Courthouse, Caldwell, Texas at 9:00 a.m.  on Thursday January 23, 1997, to serve on the petit jury in the civil and criminal courts of Burleson County, Texas.

The law allows certain exemptions from jury service.  If you claim one of the exemptions listed below, please mark the correct box, sign and date this form, and return it to the County Clerk's office at least 3 days before the date set forth above.

CERTIFICATION OF EXEMPTION:  The following persons may exempt themselves from jury service:

[ ]	Person more than 65 years of age.
[ ]	A person who has legal custody of a child or children under the age of 10 years
            when jury service would necessitate leaving the children without supervision.
[ ]	A student attending a public or private secondary school.
[ ]	A person who is enrolled and in actual attendance at an institution of higher
             education.
[ ]	An officer or employee of the Senate, House of Representatives, or of any
            department, commission board, office, or other agency in the legislative branch of
            State Government.
[ ]	The primary caretaker of a person who is an invalid unable to care for himself.

These are the only exemptions allowed by the law.  You may not claim an exemption for any other reason, such as inconvenience, illness, personal hardship, economic conditions, or business or employment obligations.  These are excuses which the Presiding Judge will consider after the Jury Panel is called into court.  If you do not meet one of the exemptions set forth above, do not call the Judge of the Court or the County Clerk to be excused; neither of them has the authority to excuse you until the case is called for trial, except for emergencies.

Under penalty of perjury, I do hereby certify that I am exempt because of the reason checked above.

_______________________ 				          __________________________________
            DATE                                                                                          YOUR SIGNATURE


NOTE:  For various reasons, a case may be postponed.  Please call the County Clerk's office at 567-4326 by 4:00 p.m. the day before the trial to determine if you presence is necessary.

FAILURE TO  RETURN THIS FORM CLAIMING AN EXEMPTION, OR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE TIME AND DATE SET FORTH ABOVE, WILL BE CONSIDERED CONTEMPT OF COURT AND A FINE MAY BE ASSESSED AGAINST YOU.







 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Justice Machiavelli Locke or Hammurabi .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE PAPER
IS THIS TRUE JUSTICE?


      
    Justice is responsible for making sure the country is taken care of and that all dangers or problems be taken care of as well. It is essential that the citizens be treated equally, and they all get the freedom to share what they think. Justice can never be served without equality and freedom involved, or problems will arise.
    Locke fits the idea of justice the best out of the three (Locke, Hammurabi, Machiavelli). One of the things he said was "government exists to preserve justice and equality". Both Hammurabi and Machiavelli said government was here to hold power and order, but, neither of them mentioned anything about equality. Infact, Hammurabi said that the rich are good and the poor are bad. Machiavelli believed humans are basically bad and not to be trusted.
     Governments using inequality or not granting freedom to its citizens have been known to have problems. Countries with dictatorships  or communist governments are becoming obsolete because people are finally speaking against their one sided beliefs. The Ceaucescu Revolution was a good example of a dictatorship brought down by its people. The people were driven beyond the limit and over powered their bad governmental leaders for both their own good and their nations well being. Another instance where this was displayed was when the Berlin Wall was torn down by the people of Germany. They tore down the barrier that was made by their leaders that had kept them from their families for over 30 years. The laws of Hammurabi and Machiavelli would be going through these problems if they were still being frequently used today. 
    Locke also said that "government which does not bring about public benefit should be disposed", this goes right along with the defintion of justice. If the government is lying about everything or hiding important things from its people, it must be disposed. They are elected to help us and let us know about our nation and if they are telling us lies, or keeping stuff from us, they are not benefiting the public. If the public wants to know, then it shouldn't be the government who decides if information benefits the public or not. It is their duty to share it with us. We elect people who say they will do this and if elected to represent our nation, keep us informed. But when they do get elected, they turn on us and lie to us. The U.S. displayed the use of this when the people revolted against Richard Nixon and drove him out of office for his lies. When the government or people in it are corrupt it is crucial that we "dispose" them. 
         Although our government may not be following Locke's laws or may be as perfect as we want, we should be glad that they don't use the laws of Machiavelli or Hammurabi. If we used their laws we would all be in trouble. Never the less, true justice can't happen for  anyone if equality and freedom are not involved. People must be able to speak their mind and be kept well informed on the status of what's occuring in their nation, city or whatever. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Juvenile crime.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 



Team B: Affirmative Brief

	
	Juvenile crime is increasing rapidly and is a problem that plagues America. 
The murder rate by 18 year olds has increased 467% since 1965! The current policy
maintained for the last number of decades is clearly not effective. An increase of 
207% in the number of murder cases committed by 15 year olds from 1985 to 1993
is not a sign that current policy is effective.  Changes must be made.  The best way
to address the problem is through government funded preventative programs.  The
affirmative intends to prove, and stands resolved, that the federal government should
establish a program to substantially reduce juvenile crime.
	This, by definition, means that the federal government would benefit the
country by taking action and making government programs that will decrease the
number of crimes committed by minors.  Contention I: The status quo is only
harming the people of the united states by remaining. Subpoint A: It has become
clear that the state and local governments have failed  in  correcting the nation wide
epidemic of juvenile crime, since juvenile crime rates are rising so rapidly.  
Subpoint 1:An example of an ineffective state plan is  that many states are
attempting to incarcerate juveniles along with adults.   Putting juvenile offenders in
with adults increases their chances offending again when they are released by  65%.
Subpoint 2:  SHOCAP, a local crime reduction plan, was shut down because it was
ineffective.  Subpoint B: Local plans are too diverse and lack uniformity.  Subpoint
1:  A  plan that can lift up the entire country are far superior to those that can only
effect small parts..  Iowa may indeed have smaller problems than New York but
Juvenile crime exists everywhere.   Subpoint 2:In the hands of the federal
government, a more effective, tax worthy and moral shaping plan can be spread
throughout the entire united states and benefit the country as a whole.  Utilizing this
information from the faults and few successes of the states, will help correctly fund
and perfect an active plan which will indeed begin to substantially reduce juvenile
crime, before it happens...through the methods of prevention.  
	The plan that we the affirmative propose is one that institutes a combination
of different preventative programs which the federal government will entirely set up,
fund, and work with these community efforts.  
	Plank I:  This preventative program will be funded through the organization of
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention program, a federal agency which
consists of 17 separate groups involved in delinquency prevention.  They are
equipped with 144 million dollars with which they can assist the communities to
create these life saving programs.  Money will come both from them and federal
government funding.  The government pays money to the states to use their own
programs to diminish juvenile crime, but because this has proven ineffective through
the rising juvenile crime rates, this money can be better used on federal programs. 
We must recognize how much this problem is hurting us, and be prepared to pay
taxes .  But with the help of the organization of juvenile justice, the taxes should be
minimal.  
	Plank II:  The OJJDP will encourage these preventative plans with and
through the federal government to the states.  This organization will consist of the
current members, plus volunteers and paid officials who will work  in communities
all over the U.S. 
	
Plank III: Mandates
	Mandate 1.  Schools will teach choice exercises, discourage violence and
teach law and consequences to younger children in public elementary schools all
over the country.  It is obvious from the crime rates that children are not learning
simple morals in their homes!  Materials would be supplied through the federal
government. This method which will help the youth of tomorrow to think about
situations before impulsively acting on them.   
	Mandate 2. "Street workers" will work with juveniles.  Boston has had
wonderful success with street workers,  volunteer conflict resolution officers.  Their
job is to talk to groups of children and teens who hang out on city streets. 
Supplying such a program to large cities all over the country would prove beneficial
to both the youths and people of the communities. Also, peer mediation, similar to
street workers, has proved successful in many schools across the country, and
bringing it to all schools will  help many more children.  
	Mandate 3.Schools, gyms, churches, community centers and parks should be
encouraged to supply supervised after school activities which can be funded by the
federal government.   Children take to the streets when they are left home alone
while parents are working.  This is a preventative method of giving something for
youths to say yes to while bringing out their talents.
	Mandate 4.  Juveniles who have already been in trouble need professional
counseling.  Fully funded counciling , similar to drug rehabilitation programs, will
help in the prevention of further offenses.  Putting offenders into these corrective
programs can be sentenced in juvenile courts.  However, not only do we have to
concentrate on the offender, but parents should also be required to attend
concealling.  The lack of parental guidance is a major root to America's juvenile
crime problem.  When the parents are more willing to work with their children, the
chances of that child living a normal life without crime is increased.  
	Mandate 5. A budget problem that some of the cities in the US share is
funding for the police department.  The only way to pay for more police is through
taxes.  According to a nation wide survey, 80% of the people didn't mind paying
taxes for a better police force.  These will have to be local taxes, but the federal
government should encourage the states to increase funding for the police.  The
federal government will also assist in funding all local police.  A standard may have
to be made to determine how much of state funds should go to the police.
	Plank IV:  Enforcement.  The affirmative prevention plan shall not be
"enforced", in the sense that the states must accept the assistance, but strongly
encouraged and fully funded for.  The volunteers and workers will be controlled and
all programs will be uniform nationwide.  When problems arise and sections of the
plan prove ineffective, revision will be allocated for if necessary.  The plan will
begin in January of 99, giving time for research and set-up. 		
	This affirmative prevention plan will have the following advantages. 
Advantage I. Prevention works.  Prevention is a way we can both stop crime before
it happens and  have the advantage of helping juveniles to learn important lessons
they can take with them in life.  Nation wide prevention has already been endorsed
by President Clinton in his state of the union address when he said, 

"...We have seen a stunning and simultaneous
breakdown of community, family, and work.  This has
created a vast vacuum which has been filed by
violence, drugs and gangs.  So I ask you to remember
that even as we say no to crime, we must give people,
especially our young people something to say 'yes'
to"


	Advantage II. The federal government has deeper pockets than the local
governments and therefore the affirmative plan is more cost effective than the status
quo.  Money that the states need for schools can be conserved.  When comparing
the revenues of a state to the federal government of the U.S.A,  it is obvious that the
federal government simply has more money to spend.  Also, the plan works better
on a larger scale where the country can benefit, not just cities with enough funding
to cover a single small program.  
	Advantage III. This nationwide focus on the children of America will help
give them a direction in life.  Since the focus is on the education of juveniles and
parents, the family structures in America may be improved.  There are many success
stories such as John Walker, age 11, who had the habit of getting into trouble with
the law, including drugs and gang violence.  After some professional counseling, he
made straight A's every quarter and was student of the month twice.  The generation
of the future may have a future after all if these prevention plans go into effect
	  This preventative program will allow the federal government to substantially
reduce juvenile crime.  Once this net of small plans is integrated into the system, it
can help to solve the problems that are thriving  under state control.  With the
juvenile crime rates rising so rapidly nation wide, we cannot reduce anything
without a nation wide program.  We must rescue our children.   




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\LAwrence Ferlinghettis Politics.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Lawrence Ferlinghetti's Politics

I hope I won't seem too politically incorrect for saying this but after immersing myself in the writings of the guilt-obsessed asexual Jack Kerouac, the ridiculously horny Allen Ginsberg and the just plain sordid William S. Boroughs... it's nice to read a few poems by a guy who can get excited about a little candy store under the El or a pretty woman letting a stocking drop to the floor ("Literary Kicks").
For casual reading, Lawrence Ferlinghetti's poetry is cheerful and humorous.  At best it is a welcome break for the mainstream of the "beat generation."  Inside his poetry, deep rooted criticisms of the United States exist.  Ferlinghetti has had an anti-government attitude since the 1950's.  His beliefs strengthened when he was put on trial for publishing a highly controversial collection of poems written by Allen Ginsberg.  Lawrence Ferlinghetti has chosen to express his political views through his poetry.  Additionally, Ferlinghetti became more vocal with the use of protests and further publication of controversial and/or anti-government materials through his publishing house, New Directions.  By using poetry, Ferlinghetti was able to reach a vast audience including those whom he was criticizing.  Through his poetry, Lawrence Ferlinghetti blatantly and subtly criticized the American democratic system and politicians.
	In 1957, Ferlinghetti received his first national attention.  Ferlinghetti was arrested and brought to trial as the publisher of a collection of obscene poetry, Howl and Other Poems by Allen Ginsberg (Alspaugh 1148).  Eventually he was cleared of the charges of "publishing and sale of obscene writings."  Since his involvement in the obscenity trial, Ferlinghetti became quite cynical of the government.  After the trial ended, Lawrence Ferlinghetti canceled all government grants coming to him and to any  writers under his publishing house.  Currently he still disallows the acceptance of government grants to any of his writers (Alspaugh 1146). Economically speaking, Ferlinghetti did benefit from the trial.  The publicity created by the trial attracted new names to New Directions Publishing.  The publicity also was great enough to propel Lawrence Ferlinghetti's image to the degree where he could successfully release his second collection of poetry, A Coney Island of the Mind.  In most of Ferlinghetti's work, he has shown a concern with political issues.  "His poetry often addresses political subjects..."  (Nasso 196).  The Kennedy Assassination, McCarthyism and the Vietnam conflict were all topics in several Ferlinghetti poems (Oppenheimer 136).  Lawrence Ferlinghetti's past incidents involving the government influenced his poetry and consequentially he has little respect for government.  "Ferlinghetti's... poetry offered blatant tirades against the destructive tendencies of America's political leadership" (Trosky 136).  
	Politics are themes in virtually all of Ferlinghetti's works.  A Ferlinghetti poem cannot be appreciated without examining the entire poem and finding all of the subtle and open criticisms of the government.  For example, the poem "Underwear" is a light-hearted, comedic poem... or so it appears.  Ferlinghetti begins with the  comedic approach mocking a typical underwear advertisement as he says:
You have seen the three color pictures / with crotches encircled / to show the areas of extra strength / and three way stretch 
Further through the passage, his word choice becomes conspicuous.  "Don't be deceived / It's all based on the two party system / which doesn't allow much freedom of choice."  The phrase where Ferlinghetti's word choice begins to hint a theme other than a parody of an underwear advertisement is "...promising full freedom of action."  Specifically, the choice of the word "freedom" as opposed to "elasticity" or "range" is ambiguous.  In the lines which follow, Ferlinghetti makes it clear that he is criticizing the government.  The reader is blatantly warned not to "...be deceived / It's all based on the two-party system / which doesn't allow much freedom of choice."  In this passage, Lawrence Ferlinghetti is clearly stating what is wrong with the political system in the United states.  He is saying how the suppression of freedoms by the government is deteriorating our government.  
	Ferlinghetti expressed his opinion about the Government in "The World Is A Beautiful Place" by making a blunt statement of his beliefs.  Not only did Ferlinghetti attack government (specifically his target in this poem was the House Un-American Activities Committee), but he attacked segregation, high ranking officials, and the lack of diversity in society.  The following excerpt contains examples of each.
Oh the world is a beautiful place / to be born into / if you don't much mind / a few dead minds / in the higher places / or a bomb or two / now and then / in your upturned faces / or such other improprieties / as our Name Brand society / is prey to / with its men of distinction / and its men of extinction / and its priests / and other patrolmen / and it various segregations / and congressional investigations / and other constipations / that our fool flesh / is heir to.
Evidence of criticism of political officials clearly comes from the phrases "if you don't much mind / a few dead minds / in the higher places."  This is showing a lack of faith of the elected officials holding esteemed offices.  "Or such other improprieties / as our Name Brand society / is prey to" expresses Ferlinghetti's disapproval of the lack of diversity in society.  By coining the public as a "Name Brand society," Ferlinghetti shows that the mainstream will conform to the status quo.  His use of capitalization in "Name Brand" emphasizes the generic quality bequeathed upon the public.  Later Ferlinghetti mentions that segregation is a problem.  Ferlinghetti also mentions that "congressional investigations" plague the world.  This is a reference to the House Un-American Activities Committee, which persecuted artists and idols in the film industry for their actions and words.  Lawrence Ferlinghetti's "The World Is A Beautiful Place" provides a little more focus on specific issues which are disheartening to Ferlinghetti while maintaining a clear anti-government theme.
	Expanding upon his anti-government theme in "Dog," Ferlinghetti also introduces a belief of non-alliance to a conformist government and political parties (i.e. Democrat/Republican).  Also present is the disapproval of the House Un-American Activities Committee.  Various lines of the poem "Dog" can be used to prove both of the aforementioned argument.
A real live / barking / democratic dog / engaged in real / free enterprise / with something to say / about ontology / something to say / about reality.
The dog represents Lawrence Ferlinghetti in society.  The dog will not conform to society's political notions.  The dog is not a Democrat or a Republican; however, it is at least "democratic" (Alspaugh 1150).  There are also several slurs directed to the House Un-American Activities Committee.  
He doesn't hate cops / He merely has no use for them / and he goes past them / and past the dead cows hung up whole / in front of the San Francisco Meat Market / He would rather eat a tender cow / than a tough policeman / though either might do / And he goes past the Romeo Ravioli Factory / and past Coit's Tower / and past Congressman Doyle of the un-American Committee / He's afraid of Coit's Tower / but he's not afraid of Congressman Doyle / ... / He will not be muzzled / Congressman Doyle is just another / fire hydrant / to him.
The continual references to a "Congressman Doyle" were referring to the Congressman Doyle of the House Un-American Activities Committee (Alspaugh 1150).  The dog has respect for several things: the San Francisco Meat Market, Coit's Tower, and to an extent the police.  Although the dog does not hate the police, he will stand up to and condemn them should they be wrong.  This is evident by the statement "He would rather eat a tender cow / than a tough policeman / though either will do."  The dog does not exhibit any respect for Doyle as evident by the lines "Congressman Doyle is just another / fire hydrant / to him."  Use of the term "fire hydrant" expresses Ferlinghetti's theoretical actions towards Mr.  Doyle.  Government in general was a "fire hydrant" to Ferlinghetti.
	Ferlinghetti used his poetry to express his opinions, dissent and dissatisfactions about the United States government.  In poems like "Underwear," Ferlinghetti warns the unenlightened to beware of a government which is not what it seems.  With moving verses such as those in "The World Is A Beautiful Place," Lawrence Ferlinghetti named several specific downfalls in twentieth century society and politics.  These included the ignorance of the public with their willingness to conform, segregation, and government restriction of freedoms.  In vicious attacks such as the ones present in "Dog," Ferlinghetti dealt scathing words on specific ills which plague him and his fellow non-conformists.  Lawrence Ferlinghetti has moved the readers of his poetry and shown that the idealistic view of America may not be as rose colored as it appears.  Ferlinghetti suggested that the citizens should examine individuals and institutions rather than automatically granting trust because of their position.  "It should... be realized that a significant amount of his work is social poetry.  ...Ferlinghetti sees himself as a prophet, he clearly has a sense of audience that many other poets do not" (Hopkins 176).  Lawrence Ferlinghetti has taken on the responsibility of informing the public of a lurking evil entity, the government.  Ferlinghetti has shown his readers that "The world is a beautiful place... if you don't mind a touch of hell now and then."
 					Works Cited

Alspaugh, John.  "Lawrence Ferlinghetti."   Magill's Critical Survey of 	Poetry.  Vol. 3.  Ed. Frank H. Magill.  Englewood Cliffs: Salem Press, 	1992. 1145-1151.
Ferlinghetti, Lawrence.  Endless Life: Selected Poems.  San Francisco: 	New Directions, 1981.
Hopkins, Crale D.  "The Poetry of Lawrence Ferlinghetti: A 	Reconsideration."   Italian Americana, 1974, 59-76.  Rpt. in 	Contemporary Literary Criticism.  Vol. 10.  Ed. Dedria Bryfonski.  	Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1979.  174-178.
"Literary Kicks: "Lawrence Ferlinghetti."  (Internet Search).  	http://www.charm.net/~brooklyn/people/lawrenceferlinghetti.html.
Nasso, Christine. ed.  "Lawrence Ferlinghetti."   Contemporary Authors: 	New Revision Series.  Vol. 3.  Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1981.
Oppenheimer, Joel. "Weathered Well."   The New York Times Book 	Review, 1981, 40-41.  Rpt. in 	Contemporary Literary Criticism.  Vol. 	27.  Ed. Jean C. Stein.  Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1984.  136-139.
Trosky, Susan M.  ed. "Lawrence Ferlinghetti."  Contemporary Authors: 	New Revision Series.  Vol. 41.  Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1994.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Lebanon.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 

Written by: The Prophet

Edited by: The Metallian

 

Lebanon, a nation that once proudly called itself the Switzerland of the

Middle East, is today a country in name only. Its government controls

little more than half of the nation's capital, Beirut. Its once-vibrant

economy is a shambles. And its society is fragmented - so fragmented, some

believe, that it may be impossible to re-create a unified state responsive

to the needs of all its varied peoples.

 

Lebanon lies on the eastern shore of the Mediterranea n Sea, in that part

of southwestern Asia known as the Middle East. Because of its location -

at the crossroads of Asia, Europe, and Africa - Lebanon has been the center

of commerce and trade for thousands of years. It has also been on the

route of numerous conquering armies.

 

With an area of 4,015 square miles, Lebanon is one of the smallest

countries in the Middle East. It is smaller than every state in the United

States except Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Lebanon is

sandwiched between Syria in the north and east and Israel in the south.

The maximum distance from the nation's northern border to the southern one

is only 130 miles. And the maximum distance from the Mediterranean Sea to

the Lebanon-Syria border is 50 miles. In the south, along the border with

Israel, Lebanon's eastern border is only 20 miles from the sea.

 

Although a tiny land, Lebanon boasts a great diversity in its landscape

which makes it one of the most picturesque countries in the world. The

coast line is br oken by many bays and inlets of varying size. At some

points, the mountains wade silently right into the sea - then climb

suddenly tier on tier away from the Mediterranean to the sky. Because of

the limitation of flat agricultural land, all but the steepest hillsides

have been patiently and neatly terraced and planted with garlands of

twisted grapevines. The mountains lend a great variety of hues - pale

pink, rosy red, forest green or deep purple - to the landscape. Depending

on the time of day, they never appear the same twice, and from time to time

whipped white clouds hide all except their snow-capped peaks. Even on the

darkest night, the lights of the villages perched on the mountains shine in

small clusters as a reminder of their presence. On c loser view, the

mountains become a jumble of giant gorges, many of them over a thousand

feet deep, with rocky cliffs, steep ravines and awesome valleys. These

unassailable bastions have offered a secure hideaway, throughout history,

for hermits and persecuted groups seeking refuge.

 

Lebanon has four distinct geographical regions: a narrow - but fertile -

coastal plain; two roughly parallel mountain ranges that run the full

length of the country - the Lebanon, which rises in the west to an alpine

hei ght of 11,000 feet while the eastern range, the anti-Lebanon, is

crowned magestically by the snow-capped Mount Hermon at 9,232 feet. The

two chains of mountains shelter between them a well-cultivated plateau

extending seventy miles in length and fifteen miles in width. This

tableland is called the Bekaa. This is a fertile strip of land 110 miles

long and six to ten miles wide. Zahle, the third largest city in the

country, is in the valley. The country's two most important rivers, the

Litani and the Orontes, rise in the northern Bekaa near Baalbek, a city

that dates to Roman times. The Litani flows southwest through the Bekaa

Valley and then empties into the Mediterranean Sea north of Tyre. Its

waters are used for irrigation, so it becomes a mere tr ickle by the time

it gets to the sea. The Orontes rises not far from the Litani, but it

flows northward between the two mountain ranges, wending its way into

Syria. Beyond the Bekaa and the anti-Lebanon mountains, the Syrian desert

only stretches east f or about 800 miles to the valley of the Tigris and

Euphrates rivers. This geography has been a determining factor for

millenia in keeping Lebanon turned toward the West.

 

The landscape cannot be described without mentioning the most celebrated

tree o f Lebanon, the cedar. Called by the Lebanese "Cedar of the Lord,"

this famed tree retains somewhat of a sacred aura this day. It has become

the symbol of Lebanon and appears in the center of the flag, on the coins,

and often on postage stamps. Since an cient times the cedar constituted a

valuable export which provided King Solomon with timber for the

construction of his Temple, the Phoenicians with wood for their seafaring

galleys , the Egyptians with lumber for their palaces. Unhappily only a

few grov es of these stately trees have survived the ax of the builder, the

seeker of fuel, or the hunger of goats. Cedars generally grow on the

highest mountain tops so it is not surprising to find an ancient grove of

450 trees nestled under the highest peak. Th is grove, the only remaining

large one, may be seen as small dark specks on the bare face of the

mountain side from a distance of many miles. A few of the existing trees

may be 1,000 years old, and it is estimated that twenty of them have grown

for more than 400 years. The largest measure about twelve feet in

circumference, eighty feet in height and their branches spread an

unbelievable 100 feet.

 

The olive, another tree closely associated with Lebanon, is extensively

cultivated, and old gnarled oli ve groves cover many of the lower hills and

valleys. For centuries olives have been a staple in the diet while their

oil has taken the place of butter among the peasants who still firmly

believe in the medicinal benefits of warm olive oil applied to stra ins,

sprains and earaches. The diversity of soil and the elevation produce a

great variety of other trees including oaks, pines, junipers, firs, cyprus,

sycamore, fig, banana, acacia and date palm. Orange, lemon, apple and

other fruit trees have been ra ised commercially in recent years. Besides

supplying the local market with a great variety of delicious fresh fruit,

the harvest is exported to neighboring countries and provides Lebanon with

a main source of income.

 

The narrow plain along the Medit erranean coast is the most densely

populated part of Lebanon. Here and there the Lebanon Mountains push down

to the sea, and thus there is no coastal plain. In other spots the plain

is so narrow that there is barely enough room for a road. However, in a

number of places the coastal plain is wide enough to accommodate population

centers, and it is here, between the foothills of the mountains and the

Mediterranean Sea, that two of Lebanon's most important cities - Beirut and

Tripoli- are located. Be irut - Lebanon's capital, largest city, and major

port - is located at about the midpoint of the country's coastline. Today,

much of Beirut lies in ruins. It has been a battlefield on which the

contending forces of have warred to see who could cause the greatest

destruction. But before 1975, when the civil war erupted, Beirut was the

nation's cultural and commercial heart and on of the most beautiful and

prosperous cities in the Middle East. Lebanon's second largest city,

Tripoli, is also on the c oast, some 40 miles north of Beirut. Because most

of the people in this city are Sunni Moslems, it had, until 1983, escaped

the destruction brought to Beirut by the Moslem- Christian fighting. But in

late 1983, warring factions of the Palestine Liberati on Organization

fought their battles in and around Tripoli. Hundreds of Lebanese were

killed, buildings were destroyed, and oil-storage tanks were set ablaze. A

large part of Tripoli's population fled the battle area, but returned in

December 1983 after the PLO forces loyal to Yasir Arafat were evacuated.

 

Other important cities on the coastal plain are Juniye, Sidon, and Tyre.

Sidon and Tyre are south of Beirut and have been occupied by Israeli troops

since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

 

In 1984, the population was estimated at 3,480,000 Lebanese (these are

estimated because no poll has been officially taken since 1932). Almost

all of these people, whether they are Christian or Moslem, are Arabs, and

Lebanon is an Arab country. Mo st of the people can speak French or

English or both, but Arabic is the national language. However, the

national unity that usually comes from a common language and heritage has

eluded the Lebanese people. In many ways, the country is less a nation

than a collection of fuedal- like baronies based on religious lines. Each

religious community has its own leaders and its own fighting force, or

militia. It is reminiscent of China during the early years of the

twentieth century, when that nation had a weak central goverment and was

ruled by various warlords scattered throughout the country, each seeking

political and economic dominance.

 

The Moslems, who now constitute more than half the population, are

divided into three major sects: the Shiites, the S unnis, and the Druse.

The Christians include the Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics,

Orthodox and Catholic Armenians, and Protestants. But neither the

Christians nor the Moslems are truly unified; throughout their history

Moslem and Christian se cts have fought for political and economic gain.

 

The Moslems, who in 1932 were in the minority, now make up 56 percent of

the population in Lebanon. The Shiites, the poorest of the Moslem sects,

number about 1 million. They are concentrated in West Beirut and in the

city's southern suburbs, as well as in southern Lebanon in and around

Baalbek in the Bekaa Valley.

 

The Sunnis number about 600,000 and are concentrated in West Beirut,

Tripoli, Sidon, and Akkar, in the northernmost part of the count ry.

Rashid Karami, a former Lebanese prime minister, is the leader of the

Sunnis in Tripoli and the most influential Sunni in the country. The

militia, Morbitun, a force of 5,000 well-trained fighters, is stationed in

West Beirut, Tripoli, and other Su nni areas.

 

The Druse, a secretive Moslem sect, number about 350,000, but their

influence is greater than these numbers would indicate. The Druse live

primarily in the Shuf mountains and in other areas to the south and east of

Beirut. They now have close ties to Syria, where there is a large Druse

community. The Syrians have supplied the Druse with a large assortment of

weapons, including artillery and tanks. The Druse militia numbers about

4,000 men and has joined forces with the Shiite militia i n and around West

Beirut to battle the Christian-dominated Lebanese army and the Christian

militias.

 

Another major Moslem force in the country - and a constant threat to it -

are the 500,000 Palestinian refugees and the remnants of the PLO. Their le

ader, Yassir Arafat, and thousands of his troops were forced out of Beirut

by the Israelis in 1982 and out of Tripoli by Syrian-backed PLO dissidents

in 1983. The dissident PLO forces no longer recognize Arafat as their

leader because of his lack of mili tancy in the fight with Israel. The

Syrians, in addition to controlling these dissident members of the PLO,

also control the 3,500-man Palistine Liberation Army.

 

The Christians, who in 1932 made up a majority of the Lebanese

population, are now only about 44 percent of the population. The largest

Christian sect - and thus far the dominant one in the nation's political

and economic life - are the Maronites. They number about 580,000 and make

up 38 percent of the Christian population and 17 percent of the national

population.

 

The Phalange party, headed by Pierre Gemayel, is the most important

Maronite political group. The Phalangist militia is the largest of the

Christian militias. It controls East Beirut, the area along the coast just

north of the capital, and some areas in southern and central Lebanon. This

militia has been heavily armed by the Israelis.

 

Each of these peoples has played an important role in Lebanese history.

Moslems and Christians have lived in harmony for long period s of time, but

they have frequently engaged in bitter warfare, much as we are seeing

today.

 

For nearly a decade this hapless nation has suffered continuous civil war

among its various religious and ethnic groups. It has been invaded twice

by Israel, which now controls all of southern Lebanon, and it has been

occupied by Syria, which controls most of eastern and northern Lebanon.

Nearly 500,000 Palestinians - refugees from the Arab-Israeli wars - live in

Lebanon, where they have formed a "state with in a state." And a succession

of peacekeeping forces - Arab, United Nations, and Western - have not only

failed to establish peace, but have exacerbated the already horrific

situation.

 

Why haven't the Lebanese people been able to put aside their sec tarian

differences to work toward a stable government that represents all of the

people? The complete answer to this question lies deep within the unique

history of Lebanon. In 1943, the year that France, which ruled Lebanon as

a League of Nations manda te, reluctantly gave the nation its independance.

As independence approached, the nation's two most populous and powerful

sects, the Maronites and the Sunnis, formulated what is known as the

National Pact - an unwritten agreement that spelled out the cou ntry's

political makeup as well as its general orientation in foreign affairs.

 

The National Pact allocated political power to Lebanon's religious sects

on the basis of population. The census in 1932 showed that the Christians

had the majority with j ust over 50 percent of the population. As a

result, it was agreed that the President of Lebanon would always be a

Maronite Christian and the prime minister would always be a Sunni Moslem.

Other important positions were given to other sects. The Preside nt of the

Chamber of Deputies, for example, would always be a Shiite Moslem and the

defense minister would be a Druse. In addition, the Christians were to

have six seats in Parliment for every five seats held by Moslems. This

system guaranteed the Maron ite Christians control of Lebanon.

 

This system worked well enough for fifteen years. From 1943 until 1958

the nation's economy boomed and Beirut was transformed into the showcase

city of the Mediterranean. The government seemed stable enough, but th ere

were problems boiling beneath the surface and in the mid-1950s the system

began to come apart. For one thing, the Moslems, especially the poorer

Shiites, had a substantially higher birthrate than the Christians; many

people believed that the Shiites had surpassed the Maronites in population.

But the Christians would not allow a new census to be taken, for this would

have meant a reallocation of the nation's political power, with the Moslem

sects gaining at the expense of the Christians. With their hopes for

political gains dampened, the Shiites became disenchanted.

 

Why is this once prosperous nation on the verge of total collapse? There

are a number of reasons, but the primary one is that the Lebanese people

belong to at least fifteen differe nt religious sects and their loyalty to

these sects is greater than their loyalty to a united Lebanon. Had the

people's sense of nationhood been stronger, they would not have suffered

the destruction of the past decade. 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\legislative proposal for new indecency language in telecom bi.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Legislative Proposal for New Indecency Language in Telecom Bill.
	I.  Summary
	Although the October 16, 1995 legislative proposal purports to regulate "computer pornography",  the proposal contains fatal flaws which render the proposal at best counterproductive and at worst devastating to on-line communications.  First, it prohibits, but fails to define, "indecent" speech to minors -- a dangerously vague, medium-specific, and, after decades of litigation, still undefined concept, which may include mere profanity.  This may tie up successful prosecution of the law in courts for years to come, while courts wrestle to divine a constitutional definition of "indecent"  -- and while companies are left with uncertain liability.
	Second, the October 16 proposal may actually hold systems liable for communications over which they have no specific knowledge or control.  The proposal purports to target those who "knowingly" send prohibited communications -- itself a relatively low standard of liability that may not even require actual intent or willfulness.  Nevertheless, because the proposal i) defines the elements of criminal liability in vague and contradictory terms, and ii) eliminates safeharbors in the Senate bill that would define a clear standard of care, it might hold systems liable for actions that don't reach even a "knowingly" standard of liability.  As a result, access providers, system managers and operators, and employers may potentially be liable for actions of users over which they have no specific knowledge, intent, or control.
	For any company that communicates by computer, the proposal:
1)  Creates liability for, but never defines, "indecent" speech, a dangerously vague standard that could leave companies criminally liable for use of mere profanity;
2)  Establishes vague and contradictory standards of liability that could leave innocent companies vicariously liable for communications over which they have no control;
3)  Strips workable affirmative defenses from the Senate bill, eliminating a clear standard of care for companies.
	Not only does the proposal endanger companies, it fails to protect children.  The indecency standard guarantees that enforcement will be tied up in the courts for years to come. Companies will be particularly reticent to identify and eradicate prohibited communications when they are incapable of discerning which communications are "indecent" and when the company's consequent knowledge of the communications may actually make them liable.  At worst, the proposal will either shut down systems entirely or will shut down any attempts to constructively monitor and screen systems, as providers take a know-nothing stance to avoid prosecution for purported knowledge.
	II. The "Indecency" Standard and Uncertain and Conflicting Standards of Culpability Implicate Innocent Companies But Fail To Protect Children.  
A.  The undefined "indecency" standard is possibly unenforceable and certainly counterproductive. 
	Although the October 16 proposal purports to regulate "computer pornography", it actually prohibits all "indecent" communications by computer or "telecommunications device" (an undefined term that presumably includes telephones and facsimiles) to persons under 18.  Because the term "indecent" is a medium-specific term that, after decades of litigation, remains undefined, it is uncertain precisely what would be prohibited by this section.  In the context of broadcasting, the Supreme Court has defined mere expletives as indecent See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).:  Would the use of an expletive in a communication that is made available to a minor trigger a criminal felony? 	An illustration.  After this law passes, a 17-year old college freshman is writing a paper on the "indecency". He decides to look at Supreme Court cases to determine what he is prohibited from seeing.  The university librarian, who believes the student looks young for a freshman, directs the student to the Supreme Court Pacifica case, which defined "indecency" for the purpose of broadcast media.  If the librarian directs the student to the bound version of the Supreme Court Reporter, she has done her job well.  If she sends an electronic version on-line, she goes to federal prison for 5 years.  The Pacifica case contains as an appendix a transcript of the George Carlin monologue on "Seven Dirty Words", which the Court found indecent for purposes of broadcasting.
	The Supreme Court had no qualms about printing the case, because it was in a different medium than broadcasting -- one requiring someone to access it and requiring literacy.  The October 16 proposal recognizes no such distinction between media, however.  Nor does it define "indecency".  Indeed, it treats all "indecency" as "pornography".  Would the Pacifica case be banned from on-line access by our schools and libraries by the October 16 proposal?  It would by any normally prudent access provider who wanted to avoid the possibility of spending 5 years in federal prison.
	Other examples:  (i) a sender posts a message to a Bulletin Board that contains an expletive or a medical or literary passage that is "indecent" and is then read by a minor; (ii) a university provides on-line access to all students, including some freshmen under the age of 18, to its library, including works containing "indecent" passages; (iii) a company that employs a high school senior as an intern knowingly posts a message from an employee that contains some of the "Seven Dirty Words" on an employee bulletin board. Under a plain language reading of the proposal, any of these actions might subject the sender to a criminal felony conviction.  Given such potential liability, companies may be faced with avoiding liability by either shutting down screening of communications, or shutting down systems entirely.
	At best, the indecency provisions are simply unenforceable. In regulating indecent speech, the courts have held that the government must take into account the medium being regulated, must use the least restrictive means to further its articulated interest, and may not curtail all adult discourse to only what is fit for children. Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126, 128 (1989).   The Department of Justice noted that the language upon which Sec. (d) of the proposal is based raises constitutional questions due to the lack of criminal intent required for the age element. Letter from Kent Markus, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to Sen. Leahy (June 13, 1995), 141 Cong. Rec. S 8344.  The Justice Department stated its concern that "this subsection would consequently have the effect of regulating indecent speech between consenting adults".  Such a holding by a court could render the indecency standard constitutionally unenforceable.
	The indecency standard is counterproductive.  First, it ensures that rather than effectively protecting children on the Internet, the law will be caught up in fruitless litigation for years to come.  The much less expansive statutory limitations and subsequent FCC regulations on dial-a-porn engendered ten years of litigation before a constitutional standard was established.
	Second, companies are apt in the face of uncertain liability and an undefined standard of "indecency" to abdicate any positive role in screening rather than risk liability for discovered or imputed knowledge.  Companies would be particularly vulnerable during the years of litigation it would take to establish a constitutional standard of  "indecency" by computer communications.  At worst, the indecency provisions would shut down entire networks.
	At the very least, the indecency standard establishes a separate standard of liability for the Net, relegating it to second class citizenship among all media.  Information which is freely available in bookstores, libraries, and record shops could be banned on the Internet.  The electronic editions of newspapers could at times be prevented from publishing stories appearing in the printed version.
	In place of a nebulous indecency standard, children would be far better protected by a "harmful to minors" standard that spells out explicitly what type of material is prohibited.  Such a standard is currently in place in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia and has been upheld consistently be the courts.
B.  Vague and contradictory standards of liability threaten innocent companies.
	The dangerously vague "indecency" standard is compounded by vague and contradictory criminal elements in the Title 18 and Title 47 offenses.  According to a former federal prosecutor in our firm, depending upon how courts read such ambiguous elements, innocent companies might be left vicariously liable for communications over which they have no specific knowledge or control.  This danger is particularly acute given the incredibly large amount of information that flows over systems and the utter impossibility of companies to screen, review, and remove all "indecent" communications -- even if they could define such communications.  Imagery and graphics are particularly troublesome, as they can be screened only by the old fashioned way -- by human inspection, conceivably necessitating an indecency inspector at every company using on-line systems.
1.  Vague and Contradictory Standards of Intent and Control
 Subsection (d)(1) holds a person or company liable for "knowingly making available" any prohibited communication, "regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication(s)".  Disturbingly, "knowingly" and "makes available" are undefined. According to a former federal prosecutor at our firm, "knowingly" is a relatively low standard of liability, that does not require willfulness or intent.
	The standard of duty to prevent communications once a company is on notice that they exist is unclear.  If notified that a potentially offending communication exists on a bulletin board on the system, is the system manager now culpable of "knowingly . . . making vailable" the communication?  If notified that an offending communication exists somewhere on a company's system, is there then a duty to hunt for the material and delete it?  Once given notice, is there a duty to prevent retransmission?  These problems are compounded because even if a company is informed of the existence of an offending communication, it may not know whether the communication is "indecent".  Indeed, the company may be precluded by state, local, or federal privacy statutes or other laws from interfering with or even reviewing the communication.
	 The Title 18 offense and the Sec. (d) offense lack crucial elements provided in the Sec. (a) offense that are necessary to ensure that companies are held liable only for communications that they exert control over and intend to send.  Specifically, Sec. (a) provides that a sender must knowingly both (i) "make[], create[], solicit[]" and (ii) "purposefully make[] available" or "initiate[] the transmission of" a communication in order to be held liable for it.  Courts would presumably attempt to reconcile the differences in identical crimes in the same bill in a way that gives meaning to each word of the legislation. Consequently, courts may read the lack of such elements in the Title 18 and Sec. (d) offenses to implicate company-operated systems by vicarious liability for the actions of users.
2.  Vague and Contradictory Standards of Knowledge.
	Furthermore, the Title 18 and Title 47 indecency to minors provisions create vague and inexplicably conflicting standards of culpability as to the age of a communication recipient.  Both sections begin with a "knowingly" requirement.  The Title 18 provision, however, requires in addition that the communicator or transmitter "believes" that the recipient has not attained the age of 18, and "know(s)" that the communication "will be obtained by a person believed to be under 18 years of age".  The Title 47 provision contains no such additional requirements.
	The Title 18 offense itself is dangerously vague on whether specific or general knowledge of the recipient is required.  If a communication is posted to a bulletin board to which the sender "believes" or "knows" that children have access, is the sender in violation?  Is the bulletin board operator?  Is the system upon which the bulletin board is located?
	Even more disturbing is the discrepancy between the elements of liability in Titles 18 and 47.  Again, courts would presumably attempt to reconcile discrepancies in identical crimes in the same bill in a way that gives meaning to each word of the legislation.  Consequently, courts may read the statute to establish that the level of knowledge or belief required to establish liability under the Title 18 provision is greater than the level required for liability under the Title 47 provision. Thus, someone might be prosecuted under Title 47 despite the fact that he does not believe the recipient of a communication is a minor, and despite the fact that he does not know whether the communication will actually be received by a minor.  Such a reading would be supported by the fact that the Title 18 offense is punishable by a longer term (5 years) than the Title 47 offense (2 years).
	This standard is particularly troublesome for companies that operate systems or bulletin boards that have the capacity of being accessed by minors, as do nearly all systems or bulletin boards interconnected by the Internet.  If one need not know whether the recipient of a communication is a minor, or whether a communication will actually be received by a minor, posting a communication to a system potentially accessible by a minor, which in fact is accessed by a minor, may render one liable, under such a reading, under the Title 47 offense.
C.  Sec. (d)(2) Protections for Companies Gutted.
	As drafted, Sec. (d)(1) effectively guts the protections that Sec. (d)(2) is intended to provide to businesses and other systems.  Sec. (d)(2) establishes protection against vicarious liability for system operators and managers under Sec. (d)(1), by limiting liability for a "telecommunications facilities" under one's control to where one has "knowingly permit(ted)" the facility to be used for a prohibited Sec. (d)(1) purpose, "with the intent" that it be so used.  Sec. 223(d)(2).  This protection is particularly important given the recent court holding in Stratton Oakmont that systems may be liable for every single communication sent over their network, regardless of their knowledge of the nature of the communication. Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., No. E31063/94 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995).
	The offense in Sec. (d)(1) is so broadly drawn, however, that it guts this defense.  Sec. (d)(1) holds liable anyone who "makes or makes available" a prohibited communication, "regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication".  Sec. 223(d)(1).  Any Sec. (d)(2) offense would presumably entail a violation of this provision.  Thus, rather than being protected by a higher standard of liability, facilities could be doubly liable, under Sec.s (d)(1) and (d)(2), for a prohibited message sent by a user.
D.  Affirmative Defenses Gutted.
	Although the October 16 proposal's authors purport to hold liable only systems or access providers that knowingly transmit prohibited communications -- itself a low threshold -- the proposal guts safeguards in the Senate-passed telecommunications bill that would have ensured even that:
1.  Mere Provision of Access.
 	First, the proposal strips a Senate defense that would protect access providers against liability "solely for providing access" to a network or system not under their control.  (Subsec. 402(f)(1).)  Given the uncertainties of application of the "knowingly" standard, this defense is necessary to ensure that access providers are not held liable for material of which they have no knowledge or over which they have no ontrol.
2.  Employer Defense.
	Second, the proposal strips a Senate defense that would protect employers from being held liable for the unauthorized actions of a rogue employee.  The Senate-passed bill established that employers shall not be held liable for the actions of an employee or an agent such as a subcontractor unless the employee or agent's conduct is "within the scope of his employment or agency and the employer has knowledge of, authorizes, or ratifies the employees or agent's conduct".  (Subsec. 402(f)(2)).  A former federal prosecutor in our firm indicates that absent this defense, a company might be held liable under a theory of agency or vicarious liability for the actions of an employee whether or not the company intended those actions.
3.  Screening and Compliance With FCC Regulations.
	The sole remaining affirmative defense, which provides protection from prosecution under Sec. (d) for compliance with access restrictions and subsequent FCC regulations, is worthless to companies.  First, this defense is meaningless without a comparable defense to prosecution under Title 18, for which companies are liable for even higher penalties (5 years in prison vs. 2 years in prison) for the same behavior (an "indecent" communication to a minor).  The October 16 proposal provides no comparable Title 18 safeharbor, rendering the Title 47 safeharbor worthless.
	Second, the proposal prescribes restrictions with which companies must comply until FCC regulations take effect, but the restrictions, lifted wholesale from FCC dial-a-porn regulations, are inapplicable to most companies and would be impossible to comply with.  The interim restrictions require companies to block or restrict access to any person under 18 through the use of a verified credit card, adult access code, or adult personal identification number (PIN).  Such restrictions are workable for a dial-a-porn provider who provides restricted access to a telephone number for a commercial charge.  Such restrictions are antithetical, however, to unrestricted, intentionally open connections, such as within a company's computer network between systems.
	Companies are required to comply with the interim restrictions until FCC regulations become effective, which, because the proposal restricts constitutionally protected indecent speech, could take a decade or more.  The dial-a-porn regulations on which the interim restrictions are based took ten years for constitutionally sustainable regulations to finally take effect.  Thus, companies could be left without a defense for a decade or more, while the FCC attempts to fashion constitutional regulations -- which may be nevertheless prove useless to companies.  Indeed, if the FCC regulations resemble the interim restrictions in the proposal, they will in fact be useless to most companies.







	Legislative Proposal for New Indecency Language in
   				   Telecom Bill.





								







	 


 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Lester B Pearson.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Lester B. Pearson lived from 1897-1972.  He was born on April 23 1897, in Newtonbrooke
Ontario (now part of Toronto).  He died on December 27 1972.  He was born the son of a 
Methodist parson.  As a child he worked very hard in school, and he became one of the minority of
high school graduates who went on to college.
In his studies he went to Victoria College and the Methodist College inside the University of
Toronto.  In his free time he played hockey and baseball.  He then became a medical doctor in the
Royal Flying Corps.  He was Private Pearson in the Canadian Army Medical Corps.  This took him
to numerous foreign countries from 1915-1917.  When he returned he went to Oxford University
under the guidance of the poet Robert Graves.  When he graduated he enrolled for the assignment of
the Royal Flying Corps.  He then began taking flight training but as fate would have it he was hit by a
London Transport Bus.  He remained in the hospital until he revived in the spring of 1918.
In November 1918 he enrolled in the University of Toronto again.  On June 5 1919 he graduated. 
Like many other young veterans he was at a loss for something to do.  Law was a respectable
profession at the time so he ground away at the ungrateful task of articling for law.  After a week he
decided that business was more promising.  He worked at a number of places but in the end he
decided to teach at the University of Toronto.  
He taught history in the University of Toronto from 1924-1928.  All his students said he was a very
unique teacher.  In March 1924 one of his students, Maryon Moody decided to ensure getting her
degree by becoming engaged to her teacher.  And it worked.  On August 22, 1925 Lester Pearson
and Maryon Moody got married in Winnipeg.  From there on they lived just outside of Toronto.
Later he signed up for a position in The Canadian External Affairs Department.  The government
officials at first thought he had some sort of mental disorder due to the way he dressed and acted.  In
1928 he got a position in the Canadian Department of External Affairs despite their beliefs.
At the time Pearson had a very important position because Canada had finally achieved a feeling of
nationalism.  Canada also had hardly any diplomatic relations with other countries because Great
Britain still handled most of it's affairs.  For that reason when Great Britain went to war with
Germany, so did Canada.  In 1948 he was named Secretary of State for external affairs.  He
promoted proposals for western alliance tied in with the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO).  He was the chairman of the NATO project at the time of the Korean War. 
He sat on a three man committee that negotiated the Korean cease-fire.  In 1952-1953 he was the
president of the UN general assembly.
In 1957 he won the Nobel Peace prize.  It was mainly for creating the UN emergency force which
helped settle the Suez Canal crisis of 1956.  When the Conservative Party under John Diefenbaker
defeated The Liberals in 1957 Pearson was out of public office for the first time in nearly 30 years.
In 1958 Pearson replace St. Laurent as head of the Liberal Party and became leader of the
opposition in the house of commons.  As Leader of the Opposition he advocated close relations
between Canada and the US.  When Diefenbaker refused to accept nuclear warheads from the US
it caused the fall of his government in 1963.  In 1968 the Liberals won 129 seats, four short of a
majority.  The conservatives 95, the Socreds 24, and NDP 19 which made Pearson Canada's 14th
Prime Minister.  People knew he would do a good job and they also thought the Liberals would
bring economic stability.
Pearson's first move was to restore relations with US and Great Britain that Diefenbaker had
destroyed.  Pearson became good friends with John F. Kennedy while trying to resolve the nuclear
weapons issue.
One of Pearson's major moves was the Canada Pension Plan.  The Canada Pension Plan was
available to anyone with a job.  It had to be decided on by all the provinces.  The only one who
gave trouble was Quebec.  They said that the money should be used to benefit their provinces.  In
1965 Quebec finally agreed.
The slogan "Sixty Days of Decision" had created the illusion that the Liberals would transform the
country during their first 2 months in power where in reality they hadn't.
Pearson's government finally became aware of Quebec nationalism and separatism problems when
French terrorists in Quebec city planted bombs in public buildings and mailboxes.  The most
dramatic indication was when the Queen visited Montreal and was confronted by a large mob.  The
treatment towards the Queen from Quebec shocked Pearson and the rest of the government. 
Pearson started to worry about a full scale revolution in Quebec.
Pearson's only mistake was to take power right after WW II because that was the time the
provinces needed revenue the most.  While Pearson was in government Quebec announced that it
didn't want to be run by a English government.  They said that they needed a French government for
the "awakened" Quebec.  Pearson said that this problem could only be resolved by cooperation. 
During his first year and a half Pearson called more meetings than Diefenbaker had in his six year
reign.  Even though Pearson's knowledge lay mostly in external matters he had little time devoted to
foreign affairs in his time of Prime Minister.
In May 1964, Pearson put a maple leaf on the Canadian Flag without any consent with the cabinet
members.  People criticized the new flag greatly.  Some said that they liked the old flag because it
was the one that they had fought under during the war.  Others said that it was a desperate attempt
to appease Quebec.  Pearson's original design was three maple leafs on a white background with a
blue strip on either side to represent the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.  When an opinion poll was
taken it showed that only 44% of all Canadians liked the flag.  Pearson said that the new flag would
show Canada's independence and national unity.  Diefenbaker said that it would destroy Canada's
unity.  Pearson answered by saying that it was time Canada got a new flag that could be easily
identified and not mistaken for another countries.  Also the Union Jack should still be flown in
Canada as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth and of its loyalty to the crown,
but just not as the national flag.  Despite his argument that the acceptance of the new flag didn't
imply any disrespect to the Union Jack or to Canada's history.  Pearson was almost drowned out by
boos and insults.
When Pearson was going to retire he had to choose someone to succeed himself.  His first choice
was Jean Marchand because in his mind a French-Canadian candidate was absolutely essential to
maintain the credibility of the Liberal Party as a bi-racial institution, but Marchand refused.  However
he, suggested Pierre Trudeau.  Pearson was surprised when Marchand mentioned Trudeau as a
possible leadership candidate.  Until then there had been little discussion of him in inner political
circles, although there was a forlorn hope outside.  Pearson met Trudeau and conferred a qualified
blessing on him, but he would have to get elected first.  Trudeau won and succeed Pearson.
Pearson accomplished many things in his life and was very well known and liked by people across
Canada. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\letter to editor Why abortion is liberal.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Error] - File could not be written...


f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\liberalism.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Steven Spielberg


	As  a kid in Phoenix, Steven Spielberg charged admission to his home movies while his sister sold popcorn.  Although Spielberg excelled at making movies he was not a good student.  He hated school and was one of the most unathletic students there.  His movie making career began at the age of twelve when his father bought a movie camera that Spielberg used all the time.  Instead of doing his school work he was using the camera.  While he was working with his mom and sister on his projects, his father helped him make miniature sets out of paper mache.He turned out his first production, with script and actors, when he was thirteen, and a year later he won a prize for a forty minute war movie titled Escape to Nowhere. At the age of sixteen, his 140-minute production, Firelight, was shown in a local  movie theater. In college, his short film, Amblin was shown at the Atlanta Film Festival and led to the boy genius's Universal Studios directing contract at the age of twenty. 
	Spielberg learned his craft doing television work, which included an episode of the Rod Serling series Night Gallery and the classic cult movie Duel. His first feature, The Sugarland Express, was released in 1974, and he was soon offered the chance to direct a thriller about a great white shark terrorizing a small New England beach town. Jaws cost $8.5 million and grossed $260 million. Spielberg followed it up two years later with Close Encounters of the Third Kind, earning a Best Director Oscar nomination and proved to the world that he was one of the best directors of the time.  
	However, he followed Close Encounters with the disastrous Movie, 1941, which was his first attempt at comedy and his first true failure. He didn't take long to regain his form, both commercially and artistically. Teaming up with his pal George Lucas (whose Star Wars came out the same year as Close Encounters, and made even more money), Spielberg created an action-adventure picture based on the old continuing stories, better known as serials, that they both loved as kids. Called Raiders of the Lost Ark and detailing the adventures of an archaeologist named Indiana Jones, it earned him another Best Director nomination and made a ton of money at the box office.
	A year later, Spielberg surpassed not only himself but Lucas's Star Wars--his E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial was one of the biggest domestic moneymakers of all time. Further profiting as a producer of other directors' hits (including Poltergeist and Back to the Future), Spielberg became one of the richest men in Hollywood. In 1984, he created his own independent company, Amblin Entertainment, and the following year, reacting to criticism that he couldn't make an adult picture, he attempted The Color Purple. Criticized for sentimentalizing the material, he was publicly embarrassed when the film pulled down eleven Oscar nominations, but not one for its direction. In a goodwill gesture, though, the Academy came through for Spielberg with the honorary Irving G. Thalberg Award in 1987.
	Over the next few years, with Always, Empire of the Sun, and Hook, Spielberg's golden touch seemed to be failing him. His personal life was also in turmoil: he and actress Amy Irving divorced, and he married his Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom leading lady Kate Capshaw. Professionally, he came back with two huge movies in 1993, Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. Jurassic Park grossed $100 million in nine days and went on its way to breaking  E.T. 's box-office record.  Spielberg's Schindler's List  looked at the good-hearted Nazi Party member Oskar Schindler and the terrible times Jews went through during the Holocaust. Even though Spielberg never expected it to be a box office smash he chose to make this movie because he felt that given his gifts, he could make a movie to help people understand the holocaust.  This finally earned Spielberg his long-awaited Oscars for Best Director and Best Picture. Lifted even further by this unprecedented success, he joined forces in 1994 with record mogul David Geffen and movie mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg to form Dreamworks, a multimedia entertainment studio.  Spielberg is currently in production with the sequel to Jurassic Park, Jurassic Park 2.  Clearly we have not heard the last of Steven Spielberg. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Life Death and Politics.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 



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.









	











 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\limiting deathrow appeals.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
					Michael Wilkinson
                          		                                                                                                             03 February 1997
			                                                                                                                               English 121

Limit Death Row Appeals

	The Constitution of the United States outlines the rights of a person accused of a crime.  The individual has a right to a trial and to be judged by a jury of his peers.  When the result of a trial is a guilty verdict and the individual is sentenced to death, the individual has a right to appeal the verdict and the sentence.  At the present time, there are virtually no limits on the number of appeals the individual is entitled to and the process could take years.  Therefore, the process should be altered to limit the number of appeals to one.
	The Supreme Court of the United States re-instituted the death penalty in 1976.  Between that year and 1995, 314 inmates have been executed in the 37 states, districts, and providences of the United States that allow the death penalty.  There are more than 3100 inmates on death row.  The majority of executions are of white males.  Most executions are by lethal injection or electrocution.  In the years since the Supreme Court re-instituted the death penalty through 1994, there have been approximately 467,000 homicides in the United States.  Based on that number, 2.8 people will die every hour at the hands of another person.
	Death row inmates are often on death row for years, some upwards of twenty years.  This puts great financial strain on taxpayers' money.  While in prison, inmates have many privileges, including cable television, the chance to pursue a college degree, and free health care, all at taxpayers' expense.  There are many law-abiding citizens who don't get these benefits.  It is appalling to think these people have a virtual life of leisure while in prison.  There are some death penalty opponents who believe that convicts don't get enough privileges and lobby for better living conditions and the rights of the convicted felons.  Lost in this passionate pursuit of human rights are the rights of the dead victim and those of that victim's family.    
	The appeal process is lengthy and time-consuming.  The appeal process is almost automatic for 
									               Michael Wilkinson    2
individuals sentenced to death.  Many appeals are filed by the convicts in hopes of overturning their 
conviction or to change their sentence to life imprisonment.  Although a great majority of these cases are handled pro bono by lawyers ethically opposed to the death penalty, no consideration is taken in respect to the cost to taxpayers for the local, state, and federal government to respond to and process these appeals.  A little known fact about the appeals process is that many states have laws providing funds for the legal defense and appeals for convicted felons.  At these convicts' disposal is up to $125 per hour for legal fees.  Money that could be better spent elsewhere is wasted on people that have been given due process and now must answer for their crimes against society.
	This proposal is both simple and efficient.  Death row convictions are entitled to one appeal.  This appeal process would begin the day after the individual is sentenced to death.  The appeal should have some preferential treatment in regard to its priority, but that is only to expedite the process to be concluded within a year's time.  A year from the date of sentencing either the individual is put to death or his death sentence is overturned.  Either way, the matter is dealt within a more timely and efficient manner.  This would lessen the burden on taxpayers a great deal and unclog the legal channels by not having it mired down by the limitless appeals for each inmate.
	Expediting the execution process also gives the family of the victims closure.  To have the process drawn out does not allow the healing process to begin for the loved ones of the victim.  It keeps the pain fresh and life for them is on hold until justice is served.  It is a further insult to them to put the rights of a murderer over the rights of the victim.  The convict demonstrated a lack of regard for human life by taking the life of another.  The basic premise of human intelligence is the ability to reason and make decisions.  This person made a conscious decision to take a life.  Regret and remorse will not change the outcome of those actions.  This person does not deserve the life of idle comfort typically afforded to convicts.  
	On 24 April 1996, President Clinton signed the Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorist Bill.  The purpose of this bill is to deny legal elongations by both the system and the convict.  It limits the 

										Michael Wilkinson    3
appeal time frame after the state affirmed death sentence.  The convict has one year to file an appeal and 
one year to adjudicate that appeal.  This bill is a step in the right direction.  At this point, the bill has been upheld as fair and constitutional, but not without challenges.
	The re-institution of the death penalty has not been the deterrent against violent crimes that advocates had hoped for.  Part of the reason is the ability of an accused to plea bargain and avoid the death penalty all together and another is the anticipated length of time to be served on death row.  If the government would take a hard line stand on this issue and enforce the death penalty efficiently, perhaps it would send out a different message to the would-be murderers on the streets.
	The money that would be saved could be spent on bettering the nation and domestic problems in our country.  This money earmarked to help felons could help get the homeless of the streets, feed the hungry, and help educate the youth.  These convicts are not productive members of society and it is time that productive citizens demand swift justice and stop supporting these murderers with our hard earned money.  The rights of the general public who obeys the laws should have more significance than weight that murderers. This is why death row inmates should be limited to one appeal and executed in a timely fashion.  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Lipsets American Creed.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Lipset's American Creed

	Liberty.  Egalitarianism.  Individualism.  Populism.  Laissez-faire.  These five concepts embody the "American creed" as described by author Seymour Martin Lipset.  Lipset feels that this "American creed" is representative of an ideology that all Americans share.  Lipset's argument is on shaky ground, however, when scrutinized under the microscope of race.  Racial relations in this country do much to undermine the validity of Lipset's argument, especially the concepts of egalitarianism and populism.
	Take, for example, The Deforming Mirror of Truth, the introduction to a book by Nathan Huggins entitled Black Odyssey: The African-American Ordeal in Slavery.  This introduction focuses on how slavery fit into the national consciousness.  Without a doubt, there is a powerful abnormality in the founding of America.  The documents establishing a country where all men are created equal neglect to address, or even mention by name, those people whose lives were "merely the extension of the master's will" (Huggins xiv).  Indeed, this suggests that the Founding Fathers had an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality towards the issue of slavery.  
	While Huggins understands why the Founding Fathers may have elected to ignore the issue, he hardly thinks that it was a good idea.  "It encouraged the belief that American history-its institutions, its values, its people- was one thing and racial slavery and oppression were a different story" (Huggins xii).  He reinforces this idea by looking at the historical perspective that was prevalent in America until only recently.  "American historians, guarding the ideological integrity of the center, have wanted to treat race and slavery as matters apart from the real, central story of American history" (Huggins xvi).  	Race and slavery.  Two concepts that most people would agree are forever linked in America.  To assume that blacks and white became equals after the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War is ludicrous.  The South immediately began establishing what came to be known as Jim Crow laws.  Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote in a court document that "black" Americans (which is to say any American of African decent) had "no rights a white man need respect".  This statement included those blacks who were not slaves.  Furthermore, it was only in the latter half of this century that the nation became integrated, and there are still Affirmative Action laws in place to ensure fair consideration of all individuals on the job market.  Is this a country of equality?  Is egalitarianism a value embraced by all Americans?  It is obvious what Nathan Huggins thinks of the matter.
	The concept of populism also falls under fire when considered from a racial standpoint.  The idea is rooted in the our lack of an aristocracy and our belief in social equality and common rights.  Social equality and common rights for the white majority, that is.  Minority groups have been fighting for these for quite some time, and it is arguable whether or not they have been attained.  Consider The Truly Disadvantaged by William Julius Wilson.  Through his use of statistics, Wilson paints a grim portrait of black ghetto life, a life we only get a glimpse at through the media.  From the violent life of the Boyz in the Hood to the comedic plights of the Evans family on the TV show Good Times, most people have only a dim understanding of what life in the ghettos and housing projects of major cities is really like.
	Social equality does NOT exist in these places, and Wilson provides a multitude of examples to prove it.  1/9th of the American population is black, although they made up nearly half the total number of people arrested for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in 1984.  In the Robert Taylor Homes project in Chicago, where only .5 percent of the city's population lived in 1980, "11 percent of the city's murders, 9 percent of its rapes, and 10 percent of its aggravated assaults were committed in the project" (Wilson 25).  In 1983 all of the households in the project registered with the housing authority were black.  People are dying in places like this, and most often it is young men.  Women are increasingly becoming the head of the household.  IN 1965 25 percent of black families were headed by women, and this was an alarming figure.  By 1984 the percentage had increased to 43.  Only 13 percent of white families were headed by women in 1984, an imbalance that can hardly be attributed to chance.
	Violence and family breakdown are not the only issues which show gross inequality between whites and blacks.  Consider family incomes.  According to the US Bureau of Census, in 1978:
15.9  percent of all black families had an income of under $4,000
	85.1 percent of black metropolitan families with female heads earned the same.
4.3  percent of all white families had an income of under $4,000
	51 percent of white metropolitan families with female heads earned the same.
13.4  percent of all black families had incomes of over $25,000
29.5  percent of all white families were in that income bracket.
Such figures cannot be ignored, nor can they be attributed to anything other than inequality.  "Discrimination is the most frequently invoked explanation of social dislocations in the urban ghetto" (Wilson 30).  Blacks simply do not have social equality with whites, and without it, populism does not exist in any real manner.  
	The writings of Nathan Huggins and William Julius Wilson do much to discredit Lipset's claim about the "American creed".  Huggins' piece shows that the "American creed", from its beginnings in the birth of our nation, overlooks the effects of slavery and racism on American culture, while Wilson's work completely refutes the idea of populism.  Lipset's argument is flawed, to be sure; perhaps if he considered race more of a factor is claim would stand on firmer ground.  I think both Huggins and Wilson would agree on that point.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Longest DayBiblical.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++






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 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Machiavelli.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
=====================================================
MACHIAVELLI'S VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE 



     In The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli presents a view of governing a state that is
     drastically different from that of humanists of his time.  Machiavelli believes the
     ruling Prince should be the sole authority determining every aspect of the state and
     put in effect a policy which would serve his best interests.  These interests were
     gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power.1  His understanding of human
     nature was a complete contradiction of what humanists believed and taught.  Machiavelli
     strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but in fact
     stood in the way of an effectively governed principality.2  Though in come cases
     Machiavelli's suggestions seem harsh and immoral one must remember that these views
     were derived out of concern Italy's unstable political condition.3

     Though humanists of Machiavelli's time believed that an individual had much to offer to
     the well being of the state, Machiavelli was quick to mock human nature.  Humanists
     believed that "An individual only 'grows to maturity- both intellectually and morally-
     through participation' in the life of the state."4  Machiavelli generally distrusted
     citizens, stating that "...in time of adversity, when the state is in need of it's
     citizens there are few to be found."5  Machiavelli further goes on to question the
     loyalty of the citizens and advises the Prince that "...because men a wretched
     creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need keep your word to them."6 
     However, Machiavelli did not feel that a Prince should mistreat the citizens.  This
     suggestion once again to serve the Prince's best interests.

     If a prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better
     for him to be feared bey the citizens within his own principality.  He makes the
     generalization that men are, "...ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun
     danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well they are yours."7  He
     characterizes men as being self centered and not willing to act in the best interest of
     the state,"[and when the prince] is in danger they turn against [him]."8  Machiavelli
     reinforces the prince's need to be feared by stating:


  Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes
  himself feared.  The  bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures they are, break
  when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment
  which is always effective.9


      In order to win honor, Machaivelli suggests that a prince must be readily willing to
      deceive the citizens.  One way is to "...show his esteem for talent actively
      encouraging the able and honouring those who excel in their professions...so that they
      can go peaceably about their business."10  By encouraging citizens to excel at their
      professions he would also be encouraging them to "...increase the prosperity of the
      their state."11  These measures, though carried out in deception, would bring the
      prince honor and trust amongst the citizens, especially those who were in the best
      positions to oppose him.

     Machiavelli postulates that a prince must also deceive those who attempt to flatter
     him.
  [In] choosing wise men for his government and allowing those the freedom to speak the
  truth to him, and then only concerning matters on which he asks their opinion, and nothing
  else.  But he should also question them toughly and listen to what they say; then he
  should make up his own mind.12


     Since each person will only advice the prince in accord to his own interests, the
     prince must act on his own accord.  Machiavelli discourages action to taken otherwise
     "...since men will always do badly by [the prince] unless they are forced to be
     virtuous."13 Machiavelli actively promoted a secular form of politics.  He laid aside
     the Medieval conception "of the state as a necessary creation for humankinds spiritual,
     material, and social well-being."14  In such a state,"[a] ruler was justified in his
     exercise of political power only if it contributed to the common good of the people he
     served, [and] the ethical side of a princes activity...ought to [be] based on Christian
     moral principles...."15  Machiavelli believed a secular form of government to be a more
     realistic type.  His views were to the benefit of the prince, in helping him maintain
     power rather than to serve to the well being of the citizens.  Machiavelli promoted his
     belief by stating:
  The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief
  among those who are not virtuous.  Therefore, if a prince wants to maintain his rule he
  must learn not to be so virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need.16


     Machiavelli's was that, "God does not want to do everything Himself, and take away from
     us our free will and our share of glory which belongs us."17

     Having studied and experienced Italy's political situation, Machiavelli derived these
     views.  He felt that his suggestions would provide a frame work for a future prince of
     Italy to bring about political stability.  Machiavelli writes:

  Italy is waiting to see who can be the one to heal her wounds, put and end to the sacking
  of Lombardy, to extortion  in the Kingdom and in Tuscany, and cleanse those sores which
  have been festering so long.  See how Italy beseeches God to send someone to save her from
  those barbarous cruelties and outrages; see how eager and willing the country is to follow
  a banner, if someone will raise it.18

     Although Italy had become the center of intellectual, artistic and cultural
     development, Machiavelli did not feel these qualities would help in securing Italy's
     political future.  His opinion was that Italy required a leader who could have complete
     control over Italy's citizens and institutions.  One way of maintaining control of was
     to institute a secular form of government.  This would allow the prince to govern
     without being morally bound.  Machiavelli's view of human nature was not in accord to
     that of humanists who felt that an individual could greatly contribute to the well
     being of the society.  Machiavelli, however felt that people generally tended to work
     for their own best interests and gave little obligation to the well being of the state.
      Although Machiavelli doubted that this form of government could ever be established it
     did appear several years after he wrote The Prince.  Machiavelli has become to be
     regarded as "the founder of modern day, secular politics."19

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Margaret Hilda Thatcher's overwhelming sense of self-confidence and ambition ruled her life from the time she was a small child in Grantham, though her Oxford years and during her early years in politics.  It led her to become the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain, and also helped through her difficult political years as "Attila the Hun".
	Britain's first female Prime Minister was born on October 13, 1925 in a small room over a grocer's shop in Grandham, England.  Margaret Hilda was the second daughter of Alfred and Beatrice Roberts.  She often stated that she was brought up very strictly:
I owe everything in my life to two things: a good home, and a good education.  My home was ordinary, but good in the sense that my parents were passionately interested in the future of my sister and myself.  At the same time, they gave us a good education - not only in school, but at home as well (Gardiner, 1975, p.13).
as a child, thrift and practicality were instilled in Margaret's character.  The Methodist church played an active part in the lives of the Roberts.  She attended good schools as a child and spent her years studying with the intent of attending Oxford.  Margaret arrived at Oxford in the autumn of 1943.  During her years here, Margaret worked in a canteen for the war effort, continued her interest in music by joining various choirs and joined the Oxford University Conservative Association where she became very active in it's political activities.
	After Oxford, Margaret became the youngest female candidate of the Dartford Association.  She was unofficially engaged to Denis Thatcher at  this time, and they married in December 1951. Twins were born the following year. During this period, she studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1954.  In the same year she was a candidate for the Oysington Conservative Association.
	Margaret won in a Tory landslide at Finchley, a suburb of London in 1959.  Her parliamentary career had begun.  A stroke of good luck gave her the opportunity of presenting her first bill almost immediately.  This bill was to allow the press to attend the meetings of the local councils.  The bill was eventually passed and it greatly enhanced her reputation.  In 1964 she was part of the opposition and saw the other side of politics.  Between 1970 and 1974 Thatcher was the Secretary of State for Education and Science.  She enjoyed the tough verbal conflict of parliamentary debates.  She had a quick mind and an even quicker tongue, along with an enormous self-confidence.  She liked to fight and liked to win.
	In 1975, the Conservatives were the first party in Britain to chose a woman as leader and potential Prime Minister:
It was the backbenchers, not the Leader, or his Shadow Cabinet, who forced a ballot, and it was a backbenchers-  candidate who emerged triumphant from it.  When the election was announced on January 23, and in the first ballot Margaret had the support of only one member of a Shadow Cabinet of 23 she was regarded with suspicion by most of those managing the party machine  at Central Office, and opposed by many in the National Union.  In short, she was an anti-establishment candidate.  Her campaign manager was a backbencher, backbenchers of varying shades of opinion made up her campaign committee who voted decisively for change(Gardiner, 1975, p.204).
	In May 1979, Thatcher became the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain.  Her party won again in 1983 and 1987.  Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party in November 1990, after loosing the support of the party.  She remained in the House of Commons until 1992. In the same year, Thatcher was made a Baroness by the queen and became a member of the House of Lords.
	Abse, author of "Margaret daughter of Beatrice" paints an entirely different picture of Thatcher's family background.  In his psycho-biography, he describes Margaret's mother as strict, cold and unloving.  He states that this resulted in her being narcissistic, aggressive, and a workaholic, as well as being attracted to money.  Thatcher has claimed to owe everything to her father, and at no point does she acknowledge her mother's contribution.  Abse also claims that Thatcher is chronically and traumatically frustrated, and that she went into politics for recognition and gratification.  Fellow politicians were not enamored of Thatcher, especially after she ended a �8 million a year free milk program for primary school children while Secretary of State for Education. He says:
the public subliminally sensed she was acting out the role of a depriving mother, as indeed she was, and reacted with fury.  'Thatcher, milk snatcher' rang out at almost everyone of her public meetings and, in the Commons, my less decorous colleagues cat-called every time she rose with 'ditch the bitch'.  She was never to recover personal popularity until she became the warrior queen of the Falklands war (Abse, 1989, p.2-----9).
	Dur---------ing the food shortage in the 1970's, Thatcher was found to be hoarding food.  Her excuse was that he husband was soon to retire and that she needed to stock up for the future.  Besides being a millionaire, Mr. Thatcher was still working ten years later. She attempted to bring back capital punishment.  She thrived on confrontation and crisis, and was been involved in political indiscretions.  With regards to her children, Abse claims that  Margaret appeared to be cold, unfeeling and unloving.  She was a permissive mother and was incapable of acknowledging her own domestic failures.
	When she took office, Thatcher promised to put the British economy back on it's feet.  She wanted an economic program that would reduce inflation, break the power of unions to disrupt the economy, to create new industry and trade, and to bring the country to a new level of prosperity.  She promised to bring about a complete and radical change in the British society by dissolving the welfare state.  Thatcher believed in free economy, not a government controlled one.  Unfortunately, none of the things she promised actually happened as she planned..
	Thatcher wanted to return to the Victorian values of hard work, thrift, self reliance and a strong sense of duty.  She did not believe in compromise.  She campaigned to cut government spending, reduce income tax and to do away with government support for small firms that could not prosper on their own.  She raised the value added sales tax on all but the most essential goods to 15%.  She cut government spending on foreign aid, and the services supported by towns, villages, and cities across the country.  These programs were unsuccessful due to the fact that high interest rates and high sales taxes stopped businesses and individuals from spending.  The economy went into a decline.  The unemployment rate rose, and the government had to put out more money on unemployment insurance.  The people started to call her "Attila the Hen."
	The British people forgot their woes and forgave Thatcher after the Falkland War.  She won the next election with the campaign slogan "Maggie is our man".  She was not able to bring peace to Ireland, and at one point she was almost killed.
	Some people thought she was too powerful, particularly in the area of free speech.  In 1988, she stepped up efforts to sensor papers, books and magazines.  In 1989, she attempted to privatize the national health service.
	Thatcher's personal vision of the future was that of a "Britain where everyone has a financial stake and a commitment to Britain's success"(Harris, 1988, p.241).  Part of this commitment was home-ownership, which was one of the contributing factors to the first election in 1979.  In her second term of office, she created 'Popular Capitalism' by the selling of state assets or privatization.
	Thatcher's basic goal was not the extension of the government, but the limitation of it.  She believed that if the government was limited to specific roles, it would get stronger.  She believed in tax reform, small firm encouragement schemes, help for new technologies, responsibilities and the family, law and order and improvement of the environment.  Her "ideology is empirical and instinctive, but not the product of great study or reflection, and it amounts to a rather simple (though not unsophisticated) radical libertarianism"(Mayer, 1979, p.11).  Mayer goes on to say that she is hardly a mother-figure for a nation.  Though she is caring and considerate with close associates, she does not project warmth or humor.  The public sees her as a strict nanny, not a loving mommy.  She is tough minded and has great stamina and a tenacious spirit.  Thatcher has stated that she has never doubted her fundamental convictions.
	Margaret Thatcher grew up in an era when women were not normally successful as politicians or as business women.  Even so, she managed to transform her sex from a liability to a major political asset.  She may have been unpopular at times due to her approach to life and politics, but a "softer" female Prime Minister might not have been as effective.  Recognition was earned through her overwhelming sense of ambition and dedication to the job: "Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" was bestowed the title Baroness and there-by received the recognition that she had craved all her life.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Marijuana.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
			
									
Marijuana

	To toke or not to toke that is the question.  Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings  and arrows of society or succumb to popular opinion and legalize Marijuana.   Marijuana is a cure for anorexia as well as glaucoma.  Marijuana is  even a helping factor for relieving some symptoms of A.I.D.S.  Still the government of our nation has Marijuana classified as a Division I drug.  Which means it serves no medical use and does in no way benefit society.   The studies outdated and scientifically proven to be incorrect still remain beliefs of our government.
Supporters of  the legalization of Marijuana have many scientifically proven facts that point to the fact Marijuana should be legalized.  Marijuana legalization would prove to be beneficial in a number of areas.  The first bonus to legalizing Marijuana  is its medical uses.  Marijuana stimulates  the immune system and serves as a cure for glaucoma. Marijuana helps people with AIDS  retain and eat food. 
Marijuana use also has intellectual benefits.  Marijuana increases alpha wave activity in the brain.  The alpha waves are associated with creativity.    This creativity is potentially the foundation of  literary and musical revelation.  Bob Marley was one of the most influential musical composers of all times.  Marley's music has persevered throughout the years.  He openly admitted, on many occasions, to smoking marijuana before he wrote and composed songs.  Marley's influence is global.  His nickname of  "the Legend" has distinguished him from many other musicians.  His  global fame separates him from all other musicians.  Many people have attributed Marley's creative genius to his use of marijuana.  
 Socially, marijuana is better from the standpoint of  addiction.  Marijuana is less addictive than tobacco.  Essentially marijuana is neither as physically nor mentally addictive as Nicotine.  Another social  benefit of marijuana is its not cancer causing when compared to  legal drugs like caffeine or Cigarettes. These are only a few of the reasons that Marijuana legal.   
To really get into the legalization issue not only do you have to look into the facts of the case but also the employment effects it would have.  Granted there are no hard facts that say marijuana needs to be legal (or illegal).  If  a person tries pictures the number of  jobs a single American field of Marijuana would create, they find it's an innumerable number. The job's cigarettes create through different aspects of preparation such as growth, harvest, manufacturing, distributing and selling, makes it is easy to see the widespread opportunities legalizing  Marijuana  would create.  Marijuana if legalized would create an infinite number of jobs.  These jobs would drastically improve the unemployment rate that is rampaging America now.   
The economy will also benefit from the legalization of Marijuana.  If the government sets taxes high they can insure themselves a large profit from the sales of marijuana.  This would make marijuana a cash crop.  A cash crop used for exportation as well as internal use.  The prices could be as severe as the cigarettes' prices now are.  This would cause a great boost in the economy.  
The legalization of Marijuana would also help save the environment.  People could stop cutting down trees in search of paper and rope because hemp, the stem or  trunk of a marijuana plant is the best maker of paper in the world.  Not to mention the fact that Hemp rope is close to the strongest natural rope in the entire world.  This would enable paper and rope companies to invest money into the growth of marijuana for industrial use.  
The last facet of this debate on legalizing Marijuana comes when one looks at the widespread use of  Marijuana in our society.   Marijuana is one of the most widely used illegal substances in the world.  In a recent survey performed in a suburban high school over 80% of the graduating class admitted to smoking pot.  While over 80% may be a remarkable high statistic the survey also concluded that the under class students were also smoking their fair share of marijuana.  The survey showed an increasing percentage of pot smokers (tokers) as they advanced through school. 
The facts about Marijuana are simple. If examined,  the facts about Marijuana's potential beneficial  possibilities to American society become apparent.   The social, intellectual, economical, commercial, medical, and environmental benefits it would create if legalized are enormous and potentially a great help to our country.      The supporters of the legalization of marijuana can not fathom how or why America as a country is denying our citizens the benefits of  this helpful drug..  Supporters believe that the government is giving a drug that has NEVER killed anyone a bad reputation.  The facts that the supporters of Marijuana use are indisputable and unmistakably correct.  These facts that they portray are driving America into legalizing Marijuana.  The  legalization of  marijuana in Arizona  for medical purposes was only a small step forward yet it pleased marijuana activists.  Marijuana activists feel it was the first step to total legalization of Marijuana.
Regardless of the marijuana activist's case, the American public has to realize that Marijuana is a drug.  Marijuana damages your body and your mind.  The laws in America are simple in accordance to marijuana.  Marijuana is an illegal substance that which you cannot have possession of  regardless of  age.  The scientists and politicians refer to many aspects of Marijuana in determining  their basis for it being illegal.  The scientists stand by six main points when referring to sustaining Marijuana as an illegal substance.
The first point is that Marijuana causes brain damage.  There have been many studies done on the cause of Marijuana on the brain.  The most prolific however was the experiment by Dr. Robert Heath, who in the 1970's  tested Marijuana on laboratory monkeys.  Dr. Heath concluded that  Marijuana caused brain damage to those who smoke pot.  This is a cherished  point by Marijuana protesters.  They cling to this point as scientific reason Marijuana should remain illegal.
   Another reason is that Marijuana has been proven by Dr. Gabriel Nahas to be detrimental to the reproductive system.  Dr. Nahas has isolated different tissues and cells of various animals in determining  marijuana's harm through laboratory testing.  Dr. Nahas injected these cells with near lethal amounts of cannabinoids.  The excess of cannabinoids reasoned to be the cause of  the study's being rejected by the scientific community but yet many people hold them to fact.
A major fight against Marijuana is that is a "gateway" drug.  This means that the scientists and the other head honcho's of our society believe legalizing  Marijuana would cause for more hard drug use.  This is a statistic that is unverifiable but yet still holds its claims.  By looking at the statistics you would see that many of the cocaine users as well as the crack users and heroin addicts started off by smoking marijuana.    This is a true and verifiably scary statistic.  This point is a major setback for the Marijuana activists.  The government spends millions of dollars on agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency to stop the hard and soft drug dealers.  The legalization of Marijuana would cause such a varied effect on  such agencies.    The legalization of  marijuana  would cause an instant stop to marijuana offenses, but yet potentially skyrocket the hard drug crimes.  This is a frightful thought for the government to comprehend.  The government believes that there is no reason to give hard drugs an opening through which they could  take over society.  
The government believes that the legalization of marijuana would cause even more death and destruction on the highways.   Alcohol is a major cause for accidents on the streets and if marijuana becomes legal it would just cause for an increase of destruction on roads.  Marijuana brings people into a hypnotic state where the reaction time slows and likelihood of falling asleep is raised.  The government links  marijuana to almost as many accidents as alcohol.  This again is a scary statistic in which so many human lives are potentially in danger by the legalization of Marijuana.   Those who are against the legalization of marijuana believe that there is no reason that they should allow more dangerous drivers on the road.  
The fifth point that antagonists of Marijuana bring on is that Marijuana impairs short term memory.  This impairment of memory is a sin in this time of  education and computers.  The government strives to educate its young citizens.  Why would the government listen to any reason to why it should make a law that could potentially make the American society forgetful?  The government supports education and will not hinder its success.  The forgetfulness that Marijuana would cause is potentially a social slam.  The tendency for a pot head to forget names, schedules, thoughts, ideas and  numbers are so high that many people believe it socially dangerous to legalize.  
Finally, when inhaled, marijuana  brings in thousands of chemicals that cause cancer and other disease's.    The thought of putting  over one thousand different potentially life threatening chemicals into you body is reason enough  to keep Marijuana illegal.  The American society is beginning to realize that there are more chemicals in marijuana than there are in coffee and cigarettes.  This  statistic regarding the number of  possibly harmful chemicals found in marijuana show with graphic nature the possible  effects that marijuana posse. 
Through the previously stated  facts, statistics, and theories of marijuana's potential effects on society is what keep's marijuana illegal.   These worries about impairment of memory, thousands of different chemicals in marijuana, carnage on the highways, marijuana causing  brain damage, marijuana damages the reproductive system, and marijuana being a gateway drug, is the cornerstones for the argument against of the legalization of marijuana.  The government stands by these  points and does not see it fit to jeopardize the American society with the troubles that a drug  as marijuana potentially can cause.  The government is cracking down on cigarettes along with other drugs and is hardly in the frame of mind to let what they believe to be a potentially more harmful drug than cigarettes become legal. 
Regarding the government's argument, it is still obvious that  the illegality of marijuana stems to old conservative morals and ideas long since proven to be wrong by scientific study.    The cornerstones in the anti-marijuana activist's argument against the legalization of marijuana are full of  loop holes and word tricks.  The activists manage to hide the truth by playing with words.  The truth is that marijuana is less harmless and causes fewer permanent dangers than cigarettes, alcohol and caffeine.  The activists have twisted the scientists words into a positive argument for their benefit.  The major argument's state,  Marijuana causes brain damage and Marijuana damages the reproductive system.  These arguments  are invalid.  When the individual doctors did the study, they did not do it on humans.  When the tests were done on humans, the tests  showed no signs of  brain damage or reproduction system damage. 
The fear that Marijuana's potential  legalization would cause widespread  use of  hard drugs  is questionable as well.  A person can make a comparison between the Netherlands and  the United States although  the two countries  have an entirely different society.  When  the Netherlands passed the legalization of Marijuana act, the hard drug use as well as crimes related with hard drugs decreased.   
	The anti-marijuana activists really twisted the statistics when they reported on the damage high drivers would have on the highway.  They failed to point out that eighty-five percent of the people in a marijuana related accidents were legally drunk.   The counter argument for the marijuana activists does not say that when you are high you are able to drive.  The argument simply states that you are eighty-five percent more likely to get in an accident when drunk and high  than when you are solely high.   Regardless of the percentages the Marijuana activists discourage driving high.   
	The fifth argument portrayed by the government is that Marijuana impairs short term memory.  This is true but misleading.  When the certain individual who suffered the memory loss stops smoking marijuana the memory loss goes away.  The condition of short-term memory loss is not in any way permanent as the anti-marijuana activists want you to believe.  This means that smoking marijuana has no permanent side affects in terms of mind or bodily functions, but yet the government says that it still harms you when you smoke it.  The government refers to the thousands of chemicals in marijuana  you still do inhale when you smoke  it.  The government fails to mention that every cup of coffee has eight hundred  volatile chemicals.  After testing a mere twenty-one of the chemicals in coffee studies found that sixteen of them were cancerous.   However, coffee considered fairly safe is legal. 
Investigating  each fact of the two cases dealing with marijuana it seems that marijuana should be legal  The legalization activists seem to have the answer to  almost every fact presented by the anti-marijuana activists.  The American public needs to look on these facts as they formulate their personal opinion.  This debate is too important to let uneducated people decide the fate of others.  America needs to get rid of the old stereotypes of marijuana and formulate their opinion on facts not fancy.   

















				Bibliography Page

Hager Paul.  Marajuana Myths. Not published, :ICLU Drug Task Force
Wallace J.M..  "Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subpopulations and Mitogen  Responsiveness in Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers" Journal of Psychoactive Drugs.:(1988)
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Marxism.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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.





 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\MEDIA IN TODAYS AMERICAN POLITICS FICTION OR NON .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
In this discussion I call upon two movies as examples and evidence to examine the role of mass media in politics.  The two movies I will use for this basis are The Candidate and All the Presidents Men.


Today, the art of governing a society seems to be much dictated or prescribed by what the assemblage of the citizens of the United States say or express to the mass media.
Thus, the government and politicians listening to and acting upon our very wishes and desires.  Or looking at this in another point of view;  The mass media relays to us as citizens the news or information about the administration as conveyed or set forth by the administration as the "truth".  I believe that the majority of  the populace would tend to agree more with this second point of view.  The government or politicians of this great country try to appear to have the semblance of truth or honesty in all of it's endeavors.
And sometimes it does.  However, on occasion within its own discretion, the media investigates and tries to inform us by the televised news, major newspapers and (large) radio personalities of cover-ups, conspiracies and or wrong doings by our so-called leaders.  Are we always told the truth by the mass media?  By the government?  By the media speaking for or as directed by the government?  Or has the line between truth and lies been so badly blurred in politics that we will never know what truly goes on in our political system?
	The two movies examined, both play in some way on the function of the mass media in American politics.  We can see how much and how heavily we rely on our televisions, radio shows, newspapers and now the Internet to communicate to us the latest breaking news, political campaigns, slandering, commercials for politicians running for office, debates, presidential addresses, cover-ups, conspiracies and information that can take down an entire administration.  This shows that in all the different aspects of politics that the media plays a very wide, varied and important role in letting us know what is going on.
The Candidate tries to unveil how a political campaign for office is run.  It tells the story of how an upstart uses the media and available resources in its televised form to try and convey his message and his beliefs to the mass public on whom he will rely upon to vote and hopefully elect him into office.  As we see though, the people or elite's who run the campaign, take what the candidate says and dilute it, dissect it, take it out of context and rearrange his words into what they think the public wants to hear.  We see how elitist decisions are made as to what we get to see, hear and digest on our own.  How do they know what we want to hear?   (Maybe they would if they would go door to door and take a legitimate poll on the issues and concerns that are the most important to us today.)  What we do get to see in this example though, is a behind the scenes look at the candidate and how he differs from his real self personae when not in the public eye and how he is skeptical at a lot of the ways a political campaign is run.
All the President's Men shares the same theme and ideas as The Candidate in that the main link between the people and the politicians/administration is the media.  This story is based upon how the undying determination of a team of two reporters for a major newspaper, The Washington Post  go at all costs to get the truth out in their 
 investigation and uncovering of a major conspiracy in the administration.  The reporters fact finding was hindered quite a few times along the way to discover and disclose the truth to the public, but their willingness and determination to do so brought out the facts and allegations that crippled the White House.  This example shows how the media does play a crucial role in bringing out the truths and realities of what really goes on behind the closed doors of the politicians who run our country.
There are some things that separate these two movies in regard to the role of the  media in politics.  They differ in the angles at which they approach their respective story.  For instance in The Candidate, television is the main means of communication to the public for the fresh upstart and the incumbent running for the office of senator.  Television can give almost exactly what the two candidates want.  Short spots in which they convey their beliefs, ideas and towards the end, slander for one another.  Television provides to us up to the minute, flashy, visual, auditory messages and it has proven to be a good way in which to get a certain point across in a specified amount of time, for a price.  The political role of the media has expanded immensely by means of the television set, in what media theorist Marshal Mcluhan called our planet "the global village."1 
In All the President's Men the role that media plays takes a different note to reflect the hard hitting sword in the form of the printed word of newspapers.  Newspapers are very powerful in the sense that they are print, and most people still believe that what they read is true, instead of taking everything at face value, gathering together several other sources of information and then making the decision to agree or disagree.  So with substantial evidence, newspapers can print stories and or allegations that bring about many stirring revelations, as many citizens get their daily dose of news by reading the lowdown that is delivered to them right at their front door every morning.  This points out that newspapers are still very much a major player in American and political culture.
Looking further into these films we can see that they make some assumptions about us as the mass public.  The films themselves assume, the characters of the candidates running for office assume, the higher ups assume and the media also makes these predictions of what the public wants to be exposed to.  In a general sense a couple of these at first glance would appear to be that we as a public do not care about some things.  As in All the Presidents Men, when the two reporters first started learning of some of the wrong things that were going on in Watergate and they wanted to report on it, their superiors at the newspaper argued that it wasn't news, "nobody wants to read about that shit".  Why do they predict these things, and what do they base their decisions on?  Well, I believe that at first they just want to make sure they get the facts straight before diving in and printing some potentially damaging evidence, or one could also argue that they do not want to be the ones to diffuse the truth.  In The Candidate at the first banquet the new upstart attends, while giving a speech we can hear the reporter telling the cameraman, "OK, shut it off, we got enough".  The candidate had not even spoken two or three complete sentences before being cut off.  Maybe a lot of people wanted to hear what he had to say, maybe not.  But the media made a curt decision right there on the spot to cut short what they would show in their respective newscast.  This clearly shows that maybe they are not playing favorites for the incumbent, who got just about any bit of airtime he wanted, but that the media sticks by what they know or believe.  Always just a little hesitant to jump right in with something fresh, until the freshness turns into something tried and true.
I offer some more assumptions or predictions that the media tends to appear to have about the citizens who soak up what they give to us every day;  First they seem to be under the impression that we (the public) do not care.  In general I would assume that they  might think that the majority of the populace are dimwitted and muddleheaded about the politics that rule this nation.  That we are curious and want to know, but we take almost all things conveyed through the media as fact and reality, so they can spread just about whatever they would like as the truth.  
A good counterpoint to this though is that in this day and age, it is getting more and more impossible to hide or conceal what is the truth as we are becoming ever more connected in terms of the Internet.  Someone can publish a document in Yugoslavia about anything and seconds later make it available to anyone with access to a computer and the Internet.  Then it could be relayed to the media as a great top news headline, but the media as always will have that final decision.
These assumptions that the media makes in such an ever so lightly way are very much consistent with what we know.  These movies were filmed twenty years ago, and yet we can still see that they shed some light on the media in a way that we can compare them with the media as of today.  Everyone is always looking for the latest news, newspapers and TV newscasts are clearly biased in the news that they report, and still, we do not always get told the truth.
In closing, I offer the thought that the media should not be so critical in what it reports to the population in the world of politics.  If we are to continue to have the greatest country on the planet, we need to be informed of all the facts that are readily available about our State Representatives, Senators and Presidents, so that we may make our own intelligent decisions on who to vote for in our elections when putting these people into office.  It would be a shame to have to impeach or require a politician or administration to step down from their position due to some news about wrong doings by them after they have been elected to office, especially if the information was available but never reported before the election took place.  This country was built on honesty and integrity and hopefully it will continue to prosper with these values, but as in the past deterioration is sometimes inevitable in the big money world of American political system.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Medias Effect on Politics.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	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.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Micarthyisim.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
_WPC`

0(R	1mz		 	


 !p 
/U(	%@"{F	
)\# 

($
#
e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)
(i)1)a) J  J HJ<6X
9`+C
ourier<-

ퟀ���
9p`(
XA?xxxxXx
              __________
_______________________________________________________Panasonic
KX-
P2180KXP2180.PRS
| 

h
 -
0 &4"|v "=DKRVce______________-}-
}__|_

3 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Military Governments.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Charles Aquino
Political Science
1/14/97


Military Governments

	Military governments have been around since the days of feudalism.  It is the oldest and most
common political state.  According to Shively, a military government is one in which a group of officers
use their troops to take over the governmental apparatus and run it themselves.  Military governments
are usually weak in appeasing the masses for they are known to be brutal and power hungry and are
also rather fragile, both internally and externally.  
	In its primitive state, existing as feudalism, the high ranking officials/nobility and the military
itself was composed solely of the elite ruling class.  But as society became more complex, the role of the
elite was slightly altered as technology progressed and the nobility and kings no longer controlled
weapons nor could prevent the disintegration of the feudal society.  
	Modern military governments usually occur after the military stages a coup.  A coup is the
forceful deposition of a government by all or a portion of the armed forces and installation of a new
military government.  Coups ordinarily take place when the present government poses a threat to the
state or the status quo.  Because the military controls more armed power than anyone in a state, they
have the ability to take over the government at any given time.  In Power and Choice, Shively questions
the notion of the infrequency of military governments.  Yes, they are common, but why aren't they more
common?  The reason being that as societies advance and become more complex, it is necessary for the
ruling elite to be more knowledgeable of the processes by which a government is operated.  This explains
the recurrence of civilian-run governments.  The military may have a few leaders who are skilled
politically, but the armed forces are not customarily trained to run governments.  Recall that the role of
the military is to protect and serve the state, therefore there is usually a cycle, known as the Barracks
cycle, in which the military brings about a coup, but later reestablishes civilian control, and is the new
state threatens governmental stability, the military stages yet another coup, etc.  The longer the military
stays in power, the more the political state exists unstably.  
	In Nigeria, for instance, numerous military coups were staged between 1966 to 1978.  In 1978,
democracy was peacefully reestablished by public consensus, but five years later democracy fell once
more to a military coup.  Military rulers since then have negotiated the possibility of the restoration of
democracy in Nigeria, but efforts have been static and democracy still has not been established.  Greece
was operated by the military from 1967 through 1973.  The military government was maintained for the
six years by austere autocratic measures.  In 1974, the military government was dismissed and
democracy was reinstated.  The use of coercion as means of gaining power by the right-wing officers
was a way for them to attempt the establishment of autonomy.
	The concept of legitimacy in military governments is also questionable.  Other types of
governments such as democratic, monarchical, and communist governments are all legitimized either by
the electoral process as the democratic government is, by the rule of succession as the monarchical
government is, or by Lenin's theory that the Communist party must lead the revolution.  In all other
senses, the military government has no process of choice and therefore is not a true political state. 
Shively states that politics, consists of the making of common decisions for a group through the use of
power and of public choice.  Since legitimacy can be defined as the belief on the part of large numbers of
people in a state that the existing governmental structure and/or the particular persons in office should
appropriately wield authority, the question can be asked--are military governments legitimate?  In a
timocracy, according to Plato, the state is based on ambition and love honor and war.  When considering
the idea of honor, the military is then concerned with the rationalization of its occupancy of the state
and are hence subject to institute a civilian-run government.
	It is also necessary to understand the weakness of internal coalitions in military governments. 
Analyzing the structure of the military, one finds that it consists of different branches (navy, army,
marines, and air force) and different officers.  Each branch, though a part of one military force, is
constantly in competition with each other.  This creates difficulty in accomplishing tasks assigned to the
force as a whole.  The lack of communication and the presence of the ego creates a failure to succeed
and an unfinished task.  Also the presence of officers of dissimilar philosophies and ideologies induces
chaos when instructed to complete certain tasks with each other.  In 1983, a terrorist attack occurred in
Grenada and the United States planned to send military aid.  Each branch was aware of incentives
which created competition between the navy, marines, and army.  The officers of each branch could not
agree on a strategy to work with and finally a group of marines was sent in to control the guerrilla
soldiers.  They eventually were fired upon by the terrorists and a large number of marines were killed. 
The fact that the navy, marines, and army all had different devices of communication contributed to the
failure of the three groups to successfully defeat the terrorists and spare the lives of the soldiers killed. 
How could the military possibly run a government when they can't function mutually?  Due to their weak
external consensus, they can't.  Either one of those branches will be strong enough and take over as the
dominant group and set up an autocracy or the coalition will break down and return to the previous
form of government or evolve to a new sophisticated government.
	In any case, military governments are weak internally and externally.  They pose as forms of
transitional governments, not necessarily in times of revolution, but in times when the state itself
becomes weak or poses a threat to the status quo.  Though some military governments do perservere for
years and years without being overthrown, their inability to run the state efficiently forces the military
to restore democracy or to stage another overthrow of the government.  Also, because the military
government itself takes power through no regular process as other, more stable forms of government,
but simply seizes it, they encounter the problem of legitimacy.  Lastly, coalitions internally are in itself a
whole other government.  The weakness and competition present between these coalitions usually
causes the downfall of the military government and installment of a new civilian-run government
decided so by the general consensus.  Generally, all military governments will fail in time and return to
it previous government or evolve to a whole new governmental system with a revolution. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Morality and Legality of Abortion.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	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?" 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Nelson Mandella.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
    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 

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Netanyahu.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The Influence, and views
of Netanyahu on the
Middle East Peace Plan



	The middle east has many problems trying to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The peace process started about four years ago with the Middle East countries. Through the process many people have had major influence on it. One person who might have one of the greatest influences of the peace agreement is Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu.
The peace agreement is the biggest topic in the Middle East and he is at the head of one end. At the other end is another strong figure. The leader of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) is Yasir Arafat. In this report I will explain Benjamin Netanyahu's position in Israel and how he has affected the peace plan. I will tell about his views on what is going on.
	
	Benjamin Netanyahu lived in the United States for a few years. Netanyahu was a graduate of M.I.T. in 1975. Then he claimed duel citizenship with the United States and Israel. Netanyahu did so because his mother was born in the United States. He was a well-paid analyst with the Boston Consulting group. He left working there and went back to Israel in 1978. When he went back to Israel, he was there for about six years when he became the embassador to the united states for Israel. Later when he was an Israeli diplomat he renounced his American citizenship. In 1996 he became the Prime Minister of Israel. He now has the most influence from the Israeli side of things. Benjamin Netanyahu has done many interviews and addresses with the American people. One such interview he did to express his views was with Time Magazine. Time asked him if he were a Palestinian, how he would regard toward Netanyahu? He replies, "If I read the controlled Palestinian media, I would think that, as they call me, I am worse than Hitler."(Beyer, 1996, p.38) They then asked him if a Palestinian could see you for what you really are what they would see. He replied to that by saying, "I think they would regard me as a person who believes deeply in the necessity of peace and that we don't have an anther partner other than the Palestinian Authority. I think that any Palestinian mother reading this should understand that I am as deeply conscious of her pain of losing her child as I am of a Jewish mothers."(Beyer, 1996, p.38) Netanyahu goes on telling Time that he does not hate the man Arafat, but the two represent different perspectives and interests. Time asked him if he would say Arafat is a nice guy and Netanyahu simply replied, "If he would say it about me I would say it to him."(Beyer, 1996, p.38) In the interview he shows he does not dislike the Palestinians and does not wish harm to them, but does not think the way they do. Benjamin Netanyahu did many interviews and speeches during the past few years.

	One vital speech made by Benjamin Netanyahu was made on May sixth, 1996 to the twenty-sixth Washington Conference, "Council of the Americas," Washington, D.C. In his speech he says, " I am fortunate to be the first of among Israelis prime minister to be born after the establishment of the new state. This is a turning point in our history. During more than two thousand years of exile, generations of Jews fought and struggled to get back the homeland we  lost. Now after the founding of the state, our main task is too secure, reestablish, and develop the homeland we got back." (U.S. Department of State Dispatch, Netanyahu, 1996, speech), Netanyahu wants to get peace between the feuding countries. His only interest is to make sure Israel stays the same at any way possible without war. He went on and said, "We want a stable and lasting peace, not a temporary, fleeting agreement. We want peace that will last for our children and our grandchildren, not just for tomorrow's newspapers."(U.S. Department of State Dispatch, Netanyahu, 1996, speech), Netanyahu does not want the quick fix agreement. He does not want a cheap peace plan that might last until the next terrorist attack and then be back where the countries were before. He wants something that will please both sides and will last for a long time with peace. Netanyahu said, "Security is essential if we are to make progress toward real peace arrangements with our neighbors." (U.S. Department of Dispatch, Netanyahu, 1996)  Netanyahu believes if they're is any terrorist type acts that peace will be impossible to happen. Netanyahu says that in the speech showing his wanting of an eventual peace arrangement. Prime minister Netanyahu said, "I want to call today to our neighbors in the Palestinian Authority and say to them: on this basis of ensuring security, we are ready to start a real partnership with you for peace, cooperation and good, neighborly relations. The government of Israel will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority on the condition that it will fulfill all its obligations. The negotiations will deal with the implementation of the interim agreement and the issues of the permanent arrangement, in which will allow both sides to live with peace and security." (U.S. Department of Dispatch, 1996), He says that showing he is ready to negotiate for peace between the countries. He makes it seem that peace is up to the Palestinians and not to the Israelis anymore. Netanyahu said that they are ready for peace. In all his words he says he mentions how he wants peace but in one statement he says he puts all his speeches into one. Netanyahu said, "Broadening the circle of peace with all our neighbors, while safeguarding the vital interests of our country; is a foremost goal of the government."(Netanyahu, 1996) Netanyahu said that meaning peace will be a good thing no matter who the peace is with, but the peace will not be made by compromising anything of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu then said, "Form this podium I address the leaders of all Arab countries with a call for peace. I call especially on our immediate neighbors, Syrian President Hafez Assad, Lebanese President Elias Hrawi, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, and all other Arab leaders. Come, let us conduct direct negotiations for peace, negotiations without pre-conditions that will advance the Middle East to an era of stability and prosperity. This is key: Each side can present their ideas without requiring that the other side agree to these positions in advance. We will not dictate our view to your and you will not dictate your views to us. We will sit and negotiate seriously, prudently and responsibly to reach an agreement."(Netanyahu 1996) Netanyahu said he wanted them to come over and together they will work out their agreement without shoving their views in each other face. The Israelis have their view and the Palestinians have different ones but they do not care they want to leave their views behind and come to an agreement with the neighboring countries. After Netanyahu said that he went on to state, "I declare here, that we oppose the description of Islam as the enemy of Israel and the West, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Along with political discussions between Israel and the countries in the countries in the region, we must add a parley between Judaism and Islam. We extend our hand in peace not only to our Arab neighbors, but to all Muslim countries with Islam people. We have no conflict with Islam. We have a struggle with militant forces, who use their distorted interpretations of Islam as a tool for violence, hatred and bloodshed." Netanyahu explains he has no hatred toward the beliefs of the Islam people, but he hates the Militant forces used. Netanyahu says in his speech how he has been to Arab countries and has seen the poor way of living they have, how most the people have no food or money. He believes they can help them with their problems, but before they can do that they must take care of their own spending problems. The Prime mister has only good intentions with the other countries. He does not want any more war between the countries.
	Prime mister Netanyahu does not believe that they're should still be war and hostility between them. Netanyahu is very careful not to compromise the safety of the people in Israel. The Arabs have not  declared for peace, but with Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu doing speech after speech probability is high. He has told the Arabs that he wants them to come over and work on an agreement that will last. Netanyahu says a lot to the Palestinians, but many people believe that he is only after the popularity of the people of Israel. Netanyahu swore that he in their government would not set religious standards, but he has attempted of changing it. Benjamin Netanyahu might see people being disgusted with him for little stuff like that and try to make up with it by Tring to push something as big as a peace plan with the Islamic countries that would last for a long time. He knows if that were to be achieved that the people would love him and keep him at his position for has long has he wants. I think everyone including America that they would not rush an agreement and what the prime minster Netanyahu is true. That he is only after a peace plan that would last for the years. America would like to see all of the countries in peace before we have to go over there and fix it up ourselves in case the war gets out of hand between the countries. I believe a peace plan will be made before the year of 2000.  The Influence, and views
of Netanyahu on the
Middle East Peace Plan



	The middle east has many problems trying to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The peace process started about four years ago with the Middle East countries. Through the process many people have had major influence on it. One person who might have one of the greatest influences of the peace agreement is Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu.
The peace agreement is the biggest topic in the Middle East and he is at the head of one end. At the other end is another strong figure. The leader of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) is Yasir Arafat. In this report I will explain Benjamin Netanyahu's position in Israel and how he has affected the peace plan. I will tell about his views on what is going on.
	
	Benjamin Netanyahu lived in the United States for a few years. Netanyahu was a graduate of M.I.T. in 1975. Then he claimed duel citizenship with the United States and Israel. Netanyahu did so because his mother was born in the United States. He was a well-paid analyst with the Boston Consulting group. He left working there and went back to Israel in 1978. When he went back to Israel, he was there for about six years when he became the embassador to the united states for Israel. Later when he was an Israeli diplomat he renounced his American citizenship. In 1996 he became the Prime Minister of Israel. He now has the most influence from the Israeli side of things. Benjamin Netanyahu has done many interviews and addresses with the American people. One such interview he did to express his views was with Time Magazine. Time asked him if he were a Palestinian, how he would regard toward Netanyahu? He replies, "If I read the controlled Palestinian media, I would think that, as they call me, I am worse than Hitler."(Beyer, 1996, p.38) They then asked him if a Palestinian could see you for what you really are what they would see. He replied to that by saying, "I think they would regard me as a person who believes deeply in the necessity of peace and that we don't have an anther partner other than the Palestinian Authority. I think that any Palestinian mother reading this should understand that I am as deeply conscious of her pain of losing her child as I am of a Jewish mothers."(Beyer, 1996, p.38) Netanyahu goes on telling Time that he does not hate the man Arafat, but the two represent different perspectives and interests. Time asked him if he would say Arafat is a nice guy and Netanyahu simply replied, "If he would say it about me I would say it to him."(Beyer, 1996, p.38) In the interview he shows he does not dislike the Palestinians and does not wish harm to them, but does not think the way they do. Benjamin Netanyahu did many interviews and speeches during the past few years.

	One vital speech made by Benjamin Netanyahu was made on May sixth, 1996 to the twenty-sixth Washington Conference, "Council of the Americas," Washington, D.C. In his speech he says, " I am fortunate to be the first of among Israelis prime minister to be born after the establishment of the new state. This is a turning point in our history. During more than two thousand years of exile, generations of Jews fought and struggled to get back the homeland we  lost. Now after the founding of the state, our main task is too secure, reestablish, and develop the homeland we got back." (U.S. Department of State Dispatch, Netanyahu, 1996, speech), Netanyahu wants to get peace between the feuding countries. His only interest is to make sure Israel stays the same at any way possible without war. He went on and said, "We want a stable and lasting peace, not a temporary, fleeting agreement. We want peace that will last for our children and our grandchildren, not just for tomorrow's newspapers."(U.S. Department of State Dispatch, Netanyahu, 1996, speech), Netanyahu does not want the quick fix agreement. He does not want a cheap peace plan that might last until the next terrorist attack and then be back where the countries were before. He wants something that will please both sides and will last for a long time with peace. Netanyahu said, "Security is essential if we are to make progress toward real peace arrangements with our neighbors." (U.S. Department of Dispatch, Netanyahu, 1996)  Netanyahu believes if they're is any terrorist type acts that peace will be impossible to happen. Netanyahu says that in the speech showing his wanting of an eventual peace arrangement. Prime minister Netanyahu said, "I want to call today to our neighbors in the Palestinian Authority and say to them: on this basis of ensuring security, we are ready to start a real partnership with you for peace, cooperation and good, neighborly relations. The government of Israel will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority on the condition that it will fulfill all its obligations. The negotiations will deal with the implementation of the interim agreement and the issues of the permanent arrangement, in which will allow both sides to live with peace and security." (U.S. Department of Dispatch, 1996), He says that showing he is ready to negotiate for peace between the countries. He makes it seem that peace is up to the Palestinians and not to the Israelis anymore. Netanyahu said that they are ready for peace. In all his words he says he mentions how he wants peace but in one statement he says he puts all his speeches into one. Netanyahu said, "Broadening the circle of peace with all our neighbors, while safeguarding the vital interests of our country; is a foremost goal of the government."(Netanyahu, 1996) Netanyahu said that meaning peace will be a good thing no matter who the peace is with, but the peace will not be made by compromising anything of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu then said, "Form this podium I address the leaders of all Arab countries with a call for peace. I call especially on our immediate neighbors, Syrian President Hafez Assad, Lebanese President Elias Hrawi, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, and all other Arab leaders. Come, let us conduct direct negotiations for peace, negotiations without pre-conditions that will advance the Middle East to an era of stability and prosperity. This is key: Each side can present their ideas without requiring that the other side agree to these positions in advance. We will not dictate our view to your and you will not dictate your views to us. We will sit and negotiate seriously, prudently and responsibly to reach an agreement."(Netanyahu 1996) Netanyahu said he wanted them to come over and together they will work out their agreement without shoving their views in each other face. The Israelis have their view and the Palestinians have different ones but they do not care they want to leave their views behind and come to an agreement with the neighboring countries. After Netanyahu said that he went on to state, "I declare here, that we oppose the description of Islam as the enemy of Israel and the West, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Along with political discussions between Israel and the countries in the countries in the region, we must add a parley between Judaism and Islam. We extend our hand in peace not only to our Arab neighbors, but to all Muslim countries with Islam people. We have no conflict with Islam. We have a struggle with militant forces, who use their distorted interpretations of Islam as a tool for violence, hatred and bloodshed." Netanyahu explains he has no hatred toward the beliefs of the Islam people, but he hates the Militant forces used. Netanyahu says in his speech how he has been to Arab countries and has seen the poor way of living they have, how most the people have no food or money. He believes they can help them with their problems, but before they can do that they must take care of their own spending problems. The Prime mister has only good intentions with the other countries. He does not want any more war between the countries.
	Prime mister Netanyahu does not believe that they're should still be war and hostility between them. Netanyahu is very careful not to compromise the safety of the people in Israel. The Arabs have not  declared for peace, but with Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu doing speech after speech probability is high. He has told the Arabs that he wants them to come over and work on an agreement that will last. Netanyahu says a lot to the Palestinians, but many people believe that he is only after the popularity of the people of Israel. Netanyahu swore that he in their government would not set religious standards, but he has attempted of changing it. Benjamin Netanyahu might see people being disgusted with him for little stuff like that and try to make up with it by Tring to push something as big as a peace plan with the Islamic countries that would last for a long time. He knows if that were to be achieved that the people would love him and keep him at his position for has long has he wants. I think everyone including America that they would not rush an agreement and what the prime minster Netanyahu is true. That he is only after a peace plan that would last for the years. America would like to see all of the countries in peace before we have to go over there and fix it up ourselves in case the war gets out of hand between the countries. I believe a peace plan will be made before the year of 2000.  

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\News as an entity of politics .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
News is simply delineated as "a report of a recent event; something one has not heard of before"(Websters, 282).  Conceding that it is inelaborate in its definition, news is much more intricate as it succumbs to corporate moneymaking ideologies.  The corporate essence of news is prevalent in the form of the newspaper "a paper published periodically for circulating news" that is sold therefore making news a business.  In business the saying goes that the customer is always right making news subject to the demands of these consumers.  The underlying purpose of news is to "provide facts upon which decisions are based" (Mencher, 56). Yet this purpose is tainted to accommodate the newspapers need to sell papers.    Journalism is the work of gathering news, therefore making the journalist succumb to the corporate needs of the newspaper.  The three major newspapers of Toronto (Toronto Sun,  Toronto Star and The Globe & Mail)  discord in their journalistic techniques for the purpose of selling their product.

"News is more often made rather than gathered.  And it is made on the basis of what the journalist thinks is important or what the journalist thinks the audience thinks is important" (Postman, 14).
	
	The Toronto Sun  focuses on the audience that yearns for entertainment and adjuts its word selection and choice of articles to accommodate this need for entertainment.  The glitz and glamour of today's celebrities provide a fantasy world in which the reader can escape.  The Toronto Sun leaves no stone uncovered as it stays on top of celebrity issues to accommodate their audience 'the average Joe' with entertainment.  "Michael Jackson's wife gave birth to a baby boy yesterday at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center" (T.Sun Feb. 18/97) in the article titled Oh Baby, Jacko to be a dad soon.  What makes this article more ominous than any other birth other than that it is entertaining to the star crazed general public?  Hundreds Get To Eye Claudia the so called 'superbabe' as she "breezes her way into The Bay's downtown Yonge St. Store"(T. Sun Feb. 25/97).  "Up to five hundred people waited for up to two hours for a glimpse of the famed beauty and to hear her speak"(T. Sun Feb. 25/97).  Imagine how many looked in the Sun for the article.  The article choices of the Sun have a direct affiliation to the need for it as a business to provide entertainment for its culled audience. 

The Toronto Star is a family oriented newspaper and focuses on community issues that relate to a vast number of people.  The Star's audience are the family type people who desire local news and emotional stories.  The April 3/97 article Woman Searching For Trucker Who Was Her Highway Savior elucidates a human triumph tale meant for the whole family as "nine month pregnant Tanya Aubert was guided to her safety by a trucker after her windshield was smashed on the 400 highway"(T.Star April 3/97).  The Star incorporates many emotion filled phrases to augment the neighborly sense of the article.
"I was not hurt, just very scared and my heart was racing" the journalist quoted with hopes of bringing a tear to the reader's eye. The exclusive coverage of this article shows the Star appealing to the family it's audience.

	The Globe and Mail is a business person's newspaper that directs its articles mainly to fact and figures as well as cold serious issues.  The Globe and Mail creates a very solemn sense to its article through 50 dollar words and abrupt, to the point headlines.  The April 3/97 article Adult Drug Deaths Decline suggests no imagery or entertainment value in its title.  The article proceeds with factual information "131 deaths from drug related causes in 1995 was the lowest of the century" (G & M. April 3/97) with proof from various sources such as the Toronto Public Health Department and Dr. Joyce Bernstein. The article is accommodated by both its factual nature and the use of grave sounding words and phrases, "cautious optimism" and "key findings." The corporate world is a very serious place and the Globe and Mail provide for that need.

 "No matter how accurate, properly attributed, balanced, fair, objective or compassionate a story is the reader will not read it unless there is writing skill" (Mencher 51).     
 	
	Pertaining to writing skills it is the consignment of the reporter to use and manipulate words in order to try to reenact the events in an compelling fasion.  The Toronto Star on Feb. 13/97 described the medical condition of Guy Paul Morin's head as a "goose egg." The Toronto Sun Feb. 13/97 described the same mark as "crescent shaped."  The Globe & Mail described the same mark as a "lump in the middle of his forehead."  As displayed above subordinate to the purpose of the article different journalistic techniques are used to adorn an event.  The Toronto Star's "goose egg" description relayed a purpose of satire mocking the bump. Mocking the bump allowed the event to be taken more blithesomely by the family audience.   The Sun's "crescent shaped mark" description illustrated a purpose of diluting the severity of the event by calling it a mark making it more entertaining than serious.  The Globe and Mail's description "lump in the middle of the forehead" conveyed the purpose of being veritable and analytical by not making any implications.  
	
	Purpose, as it applies to journalism is relevant to what is included in the article and largely influences who purchases the newspaper.  On April 2/97 all three of the major Toronto newspapers reported on a fatal shooting incident.  The Globe and Mail's entitled article Officer Involved in Fatal Shooting Had Wife Along emphasized the wife being along " most police forces including Metro, permit ride alongs, although the ride alongs must be authorized and are usually restricted to low risk operations" (G & M April 2/97) .  This point of view implicated the legal elements or figures of the story and gave a factual analization.  The Sun's article entitled Cop-Shooting Victim Foiled Deportation took the side of the officer by outlining his personal life, "Scarbrough father of and 18 month old son" (T. Sun April 2/97) and then passed blame by resurrecting his past "In April, 1993, Shank-then a rookie-shot and killed Ian Clifford Coley, 21, after a foot chase into a Scarborough backyard" (T. Sun April 2/97). The sun creates a controversy by presenting these two standpoints, in turn making an entertaining mystery of the whole ordeal.  The Toronto Star's article Police At Fatal Shooting Scene Hold 2 Meetings, Sources Say  describes the so called 'victim's' families reaction "why would he struggle with all these officers around?  You can't fight the police and my brother knows that" (T. Star April 2/97).  The implication of family in this article attempts to make an association with the family orientated reader.  These three articles all illustrate that depending on the purpose of the journalist different techniques of journalism are used to accommodate the respective journalistic purpose.
 
 	The quality of news is reliant on its clarity.  "Clarity of News is reliant on how journalists relate it to human interest through journalistic technique" (Mencher 50).  The catastrophic diminishing of blood supply on April 2/97 is reported by Toronto's three major newspapers, with vivid use of human interest in accordance to the characteristics of their readers.  The Toronto Sun's article Blood supply At a Critical Low creates human interest through drama allowing for entertainment as well. The injured parties entrance to the hospital  "He had massive injuries and required massive blood transfusions, Boulanger said of the man who arrived with severe chest and abdomen bleeding and a crushed foot that had to be amputated"(Sun April 2/97)  was dramatized through descriptive vocabulary such as massive, severe and crushed also allowing the event to be visualized and made entertaining.  The Toronto Star's article  Hospital's Blood Stock Almost Exhausted contains human interest through its ability to show the community working together "Although other hospital blood banks were also short of blood, the  Toronto Hospital and St. Michael's Hospital agreed to send blood to Sunnybrook by taxi if needed" (T. Star April 2/97).  The aspect of community togetherness provokes human interest and complies with the Star's general theme of family.  The Globe and Mail article Toronto Desperate For Blood roused human interest thorough community togetherness "in case the patient required more blood than was on hand the hospital contacted the Red Cross society and two other hospitals to ensure a continued supply."  This articles illustration of human interest is moderated through the exclusion of the agreement of the two hospital's to provide more blood even though they were low.  Instead the article stuck strictly to the facts that the Globe's readers pay for.

Realistically, the sale of newspapers is the primary objective of the journalist illustrated through their use of techniques. Journalistic content and techniques vary according to the audience towards which the newspaper directs its attention.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Nixon and the Notion of Presidential Power.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Richard Nixon and the Notion of Presidential Power


	"Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."  The idea that certain actions are not illegal if used to preserve the best interests of a nation has drawn sharp criticism from the time of Lincoln through today.  Presidents of the United States do take a solemn oath in which they promise to " . . . preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States", but the means which they have employed to accomplish these ends have greatly differed and have occasionally sparked great controversy. The unjustified means which Richard Nixon used to defend this nation and its Constitution have drawn a great deal of attack not only on his methods but also on the greater notion of Presidential power.
	Many Presidents have faced many different tumultuous challenges and obstacles which have posed potential threats to American societal stability and security.  Yet very few have used such controversial means to overcome these threats.  For example, after the birth of the nation, Executives faced the threats of political division and the ideas of the many dangerous paths prescribed for the Union. As the debate over slavery escalated, the future of the states and of the Union seemed uncertain.  Furthermore, as the nation moved rapidly through the Industrial Revolution, the future of the nation's labor force and of its general welfare seemed uncertain.  As time passed, the nation would encounter the greatest economic depression of all time, and the challenges would continue.  Our nation would still battle the divisive issues of racism and discrimination.  Yet none of the Presidents who governed during these daring times exploited the authority of their position in unwarranted manners.  The Nixon Administration would however, exploit its authority and attempt to justify its actions based on the 'similar' actions of Abraham Lincoln.
	During the Civil War, this nation's greatest test of will and spirit, President Lincoln felt it incumbent upon the President to assume certain authority and responsibility not specifically granted to the Executive by the Constitution.  His rationale stemmed from his desire and oath to preserve the Constitution and the Union as a whole.  On the eve of the Civil War, Lincoln, fearing a strong Confederate threat, initiated a blockade of all Southern ports; ordering no vessels in or out of the South.  Clearly an act of war, Lincoln faced immediate challenge from Congress and Confederate leaders.  His reasoning, though, for carrying out such a dangerous and controversial act was his belief that it would tame the South and prevent massive bloodshed in the future.  His concerns would later prove to be warranted.
	Although public resentment and dissatisfaction can be used to provoke government action at any leader's discretion, Lincoln truly believed that the future of the nation was in jeopardy.  He saw the issue of slavery as one which threatened both the economic and social balances between the North and South and one that could ultimately destroy the young nation.  Lincoln sought to blockade the Southern states and to suspend the writ of habeas corpus (a power originally granted to Congress) in order to foster stability and security in the confused nation.  He would continually be challenged by Congress, but the Supreme Court would ultimately uphold his actions as necessary to the security and interests of the nation, its people, and its future.
	While Lincoln was extremely concerned with public opinion, he was not convinced that the Presidential elections would be the ultimate check.  Rather, Lincoln asserted that the success of the actions taken by a government to preserve its interest and peace cannot be measured by the electorate but rather by the final outcome of the actions.  Nixon's opinion, however, differed.  Richard Nixon saw the ultimate check not in the result or consequences of his actions, but rather in the response of the electorate / popular opinion.  This, in my opinion, is the dangerous flaw which lead to Richard Nixon's decline.
	Great danger lies in placing too much value on popular opinion.  The opinion of the electorate, while important for electing a President, should not have a great deal to do with the process of day to day government decision making.  Because people can be too easily convinced and persuaded into believing dangerous popular opinion, too much value should not be place on the opinion of the masses.  This nation has seen a great deal of popular support for issues like discrimination, segregation and a refusal to grant women the right to vote, yet now these issues are seen as wrong; morally wrong.  The public has been wrong on such issues all too often and public opinion has been swayed all too easily over the years.  A dependence on public opinion can prove dangerous for a policy maker and divisive for a nation.  Nixon would sadly discover this.
	For Nixon to rely upon an election as the ultimate check for the electorate is in my opinion irrational.  A great deal of decision making takes place between every election and a great deal of information regarding the actions of an Administration remains confidential.  Nixon would then have us believe that the electorate should make a decision based on only some of the facts.  An idea strongly frowned upon by the founding fathers.
	Yet, the matter which I have the greatest disagreement with is Nixon's attempt to present the political activity of a select few Americans as being on a considerable par with the events leading up to the Civil War.  Furthermore, Nixon's attempt at portraying himself as being remotely comparable to Lincoln is not well taken.  The challenges that the two men faced were entirely different.  The problems plaguing the nation under the two leaders were extremely different.  And the tactics used by one leader were bold and courageous while the other's were deceitful and deliberate.  Nixon's actions were clearly not essential to national security.
	Nixon attempts to validate his argument by stating that the nation was torn apart during his term of office by the tumultuous times of the Vietnam War era.  He attempts to compare the Civil War, the most difficult time in the history of this country, to the social protests and challenges of the Vietnam era.  The differences are immense.  Lincoln witnessed the very nation that he governed dissolve before him.  He witnessed the issue of slavery eat away at the moral fabric of this nation as it shouldered the economy of the South and he questioned the future of this nation.  Richard Nixon, however, faced no such threats.  He encountered opposition to the Vietnam War and to the American government shortly after becoming President and he attempts to convince us that the nation was ideologically "torn apart".  
	Also, Nixon's attempt to portray the President as somehow being above the law is in complete contradiction to the principles of the Constitution.  Article II, Section 4 to the Constitution clearly states that " The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."; illustrating that the President is required to abide by a standard of law and jurisprudence.  However, in his interview with David Frost, Nixon states, "well, when the President does it, that means it is not illegal."  This idea that any man or any elected official is somehow above the reach of the law not only disgraces the electorate and our Constitution, it also disgraces the office of the Presidency.
	Also, later in the same interview, Nixon stated, "I wanted to discredit that kind of activity which was despicable and damaging to the national interest."  While his intention to discredit actions which may pose a threat to nation security is appreciated, one has to closely examine the actions themselves and the means by which Nixon chose to combat them.  Nixon no doubt faced a great deal of opposition and potential political threats during the controversial Vietnam War era, but his use of intelligence agencies to investigate and infiltrate these protest political operations lowers his actions to a level equally clandestine and erroneous as that of the protesters and opposition movements.  His doings are no doubt comparable to that of a totalitarian government, not a democracy.
	Additionally, Nixon also mentions in the same interview that although he has not read the entire Constitution, a disgrace for any United States President, he knows of no law that places the President above the law of the land; somewhat of a contradiction to his original statement that if the "President does it, that means its not illegal."  Also, Nixon does say that in times of emergency / war, the President has assumed greater responsibilities and authority, a practice upheld by the Supreme Court during the Civil War and the Great Depression.  However, unlike the Civil War, the Great Depression or any other major challenge this nation has faced, Nixon's challenges were not comparable.  They did not warrant illegal investigation and they did not constitute a threat to this nation's security.
	Finally, the notion of Presidential power has been one of responsibility, of morality, and of Constitutional supremacy.  The Constitution grants a great deal of responsibility to the Executive but it also sets clear requirements and legal guidelines.  It clearly states that no man is above the law, and although a President must face an electorate every four years, it states that the law is the ultimate check, not the people.  Over the years, the meaning of the Constitution and the interpretation of the Constitution have changed, yet the responsibility and respect associated with this office have remained similar.  Richard Nixon's practice of investigating individuals, who have never been suspected of violating the law, whom he believes to be a threat to national security is a violation of our nation's trust in democracy.  Their 'questionable' practices cannot be compared to the deadly threat of the Civil War and his means of response cannot be compared to that of Lincoln.  His actions are, in essence, a violation of his solemn oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Nixon v The United States.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
									

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.         




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Nixon vs The United States of America.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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.     
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\No Title.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\No Tuch Thing AfricanAmerican.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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.
I�ve 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? I�ve 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 can�t 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.
I�m not knocking what people want to call themselves, it�s the mixed messages I�m 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 I�m 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 don�t know about you folks but, I was born here in the U.S., so logically, I�m 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 aren�t. 
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, wouldn�t 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 � 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 � 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.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\None.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	 The emergence of the United States as a dominant party in balance of power equations is a relatively new phenomenon in world history. New military technology coupled with increased global integration has allowed the United States to reinvent the fundamental assumptions of international diplomacy while propelling itself to the top of the hegemonic stepladder. This positioning was achieved piecemeal during the course of the first two world wars, but it wasn't until the deployment of the atomic bomb that the U.S.. assumed its position as a true superpower. The years that followed this unparalleled ascension are the most fascinating times in the history of U.S. international relations. Hopefully, an investigation into this atomic diplomacy, along with a balanced analysis of the problems of conceptualizing and implementing containment, will provide insight for our current efforts to devise a workable post-war national security policy. 
	There is no way to tell the story of post-war national security without also telling the story of George Kennen. Kennen, the foremost expert of Soviet Affairs in early post-war America, is almost wholly responsible for the policy of containment. What we must remember under Kennen's containment is that nuclear diplomacy is not separate from other national security measures as it is often today. Nuclear weapons were part of an integrated system of containment and deterrence. Truman told Kennen in early 1947 that "our weapons of mass destruction are not fail-safe devices, but instead the fundamental bedrock of American security" (Gaddis 56). They were never intended as first strike weapons and had no real tactical value. The bomb is purely strategic, and its value comes not from its destructive capabilities, but from its  political and psychological ramifications. Kennen was never naive enough to view the bomb as an offensive weapon. In his long memorandum "The International Control of Atomic Energy," Kennen noted that "there could be no way in which weapons of mass destruction could be made to serve rational ends beyond simply deterring the outbreak of hostilities"
(Kennen 39). Even at this early point, Kennen began to also recognize the potential of the bomb to completely wreck balance of power arrangements. Simply achieving higher potentials of destruction would not necessarily lead to a better negotiating position with the Soviets. Truman had never considered not creating the hydrogen bomb, despite Kennen's objections.
	Truman's justified his adamant support of the super bomb for bargaining purposes with the Russians. Kennen's point, of  course, had been that the very decision to build the hydrogen bomb would inhibit bargaining with the Russians on international control, since the Kremlin was unlikely to negotiate from a position of weakness. Most of the American national security structure viewed this as fallacious. Truman's perception was that the United States, as a technology rich but man power short nation, was operating from a position of weakness, since of necessity is relied more heavily than did the Soviet Union on weapons of mass destruction to maintain the balance of power. The Soviet atomic test in 1949 had upset that balance. Only by building the super bomb, it was thought, could equilibrium be regained. It would not be until the Kennedy administration that Kennen would be vindicated and an awareness would develop "of the basic unsoundness of a defense posture based primarily on weapons indiscriminately destructive and suicidal in their implications" (Kennen 365). 
	The late mistakes of the Truman administration would be carried over into the Eisenhower years. Nuclear deployment became the primary American security measure, naturally leading the Soviets to do the same. The problems of the Eisenhower years stemmed directly from the overconfidence in the U.S. nuclear program to achieve tangible military objectives in the face of increased hostilities. John Foster Dulles, the symbol of bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy, began to advocate the nuclear response. The impotence of our standing army compared to the Soviet's military behemoth was clear to all U.S. policy advisors. There was no way in which we could match Russia gun for gun, tank for tank, at anytime, in any place. John's brother Allen Dulles, CIA director under Eisenhower, said "to do so would mean real strength nowhere and bankruptcy everywhere" (Gaddis 121). Instead, the U.S. response to Soviet aggressions would be made on our terms. J.F. Dulles' solution was typical strategic asymmetry, but of  a particular kind. His recommendations prompted a world in which "we could and would strike back where it hurts, by means of out own choosing. This could be done most effectively by relying on atomic weapons, and on the strategic air and naval power necessary to deliver them" (Dulles 147). This unbalanced strategic equation between the two superpowers was not even the most dangerous flaw of the 1950s. 
	In retrospect, the most startling deficiency of the Eisenhower administration's strategy was its bland self-confidence that it could use nuclear weapons without starting an all out nuclear war. Limited nuclear conflict was possible, as Kissenger argued in Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, "but only if those participating in it had agreed beforehand on the boundaries beyond which it would not extend" (Kissenger 124). This was clearly impossible with the Soviets, making Eisenhower's policy foolhardy and naive. Given the high amount of activity by the U.S. intelligence apparatus during the time, especially in Russia and South Asia, it is sunrising that an international incident of cataclysmic proportions did not take place. Strategic asymmetry, supplemented by nuclear superiority, would not last long after Eisenhower. Instead, it was replaced with Kennedy's "flexible response." The critics of "The New Look" and past nuclear diplomacy pointed out that only newfound symmetry allows us enough political flexibility to respond to Russian aggression in whatever way suits U.S. interests at the time. Kennedy, possessing an economic rationale for disregarding costs, placed his emphasis on minimizing risks by giving the U.S. sufficient flexibility to respond to Russia with neither escalation or humiliation. This required a capacity to act on all levels, ranging from diplomacy through covert action, guerilla operations, conventional and nuclear war. Equally important, though, it would require careful control. Walt W. Rostow, Kennen's replacement as Chairman of The Policy Planning Council, was chosen as usual on behalf of the Kennedy administration to spell out the problems the new flexible response policy would solve: It should be noted that we have generally been at a disadvantage in crisis, since the Communists command a more flexible set of tools for imposing strain on the free world than we normally command. We are often caught in circumstances where our only available riposte is so disproportionate to the immediate provocation that its use risks unwanted escalation or serious political costs to the free community. This asymmetry makes it attractive for Communists to apply limited debilitating pressures upon us in situations where we find it difficult to impose on them an equivalent price for their intrusions (Rostow 173). 
	The administration's desire to reduce it's dependence on nuclear weapons did not, however, imply any corresponding determination to cut back on either their number or variety. "Nuclear and non-nuclear power complement each other," Robert McNamara insisted in 1962, "just as together they complement the non-military instruments of policy" (Gaddis 218). McNamara is only partially correct. Widespread nuclear deployment as a means to complement peacetime diplomatic goals often backfires. For example, the presence of Jupiter misses in Turkey became a public issue in 1962 when Khrushchev made their withdrawal a condition for removing Soviet IRBMs from Cuba. Although somewhat over-dramatized in most historical accounts, the Cuban Missile Crisis proves the award relation between nuclear security and political reality. But whatever the frustrations of dealing with Cuba after the missile crisis, the administration regarded the handling of that affair as a textbook demonstration of "the flexible response" in action, and therefore a model to be followed elsewhere. A draft of National Security Action Memorandum of February 1963 emphasized the need in the future to employ this "controlled and graduated application of integrated political, military, and diplomatic power" (Gaddis 231). The peaceful end to the crisis had shown that none of these concerns lay beyond the capacity of a "flexible response" strategy now validated by the test of practical experience. 
	Once Kennedy was killed, there was an era of make-believe in the Pentagon. Vietnam was starting for real, and the constant deployment of U.S. troops against Communist forces added a new element to our national security equation. Vietnam stands testament that the atomic bomb is a tactically useless weapon that aids an attacking nation in no way tangible way. Perhaps simply possessing the bomb is a psychological outvoting over the enemy, but the effects of this in Vietnam will nil. Later, Henry Kissenger would point out that in no crisis since 1962 had the strategic balance determined the outcome. There is no easy answer that best explains the Johnson administration's inability to come up with alternatives in Vietnam. Whatever the answer, we can say with relative confidence that it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Kissenger has pinpointed the reason early in the war: "Nuclear weapons, given the constraints on their use in an approaching era of parity, were of decreasing practical utility" (Kissenger 29). Around this time, we can conclude that the world has entered an age in which there is a strong and binding nuclear taboo. A nation that employs nuclear weapons to attack its enemies is considered evil. Therefore, all the hegemonic power gained from atomic weapons was absolutely worthless in Vietnam. While limited success was achieved in some international arenas during the Kennedy and Johnson years, Vietnam seals the coffin on the flexible response. Gaddis agrees, saying Vietnam "was the unexpected legacy of the flexible response: not fine tuning, but clumsy overreaction, not coordination but disproportion, not strategic precision, but in the end, a strategic vacuum" (Gaddis 273). The 1968 campaign was unusual in that, unlike 1952 and 1960, it provided little indication of the direction in which the new administration would move into office. In addition, the world facing the new administration of 1968 was one ripe with possibilities of new approaches. To usher in these new strategies, Nixon choose Dr. Henry Kissenger as his national security advisor. Kissenger's conceptual approach to the making of national security policy eliminated the crisis based flexible response system. "Crises," he said, "were symptoms of deeper problems that if allowed to fester would prove increasingly unmanageable" (Kissenger 275). Kissenger was one of the first to recognize the shift from a bipolar to multipolar world. This was a natural result modernization, and therefore, traditional bipolar nuclear strategy began to lose importance, like Kissenger had predicted five years earlier. Before this point, United States interests were effectively met by its Pax Americana enforced on the world by U.S. weapons of war. By 1968, however, Nixon knew he had to deal with the world in a much less dynamic fashion. 
	What Nixon and Kissenger did with their concept of a multipolar world order was to arrive at a conception of interests independent of threats. Gaddis points out that "since those interests required equilibrium but not ideological consistency, it followed that the United States could feasibly work with states of differing and even antithetic social systems as long as they shared the American interest in countering challenges to global stability" (Gaddis 285). This has become the primary guiding doctrine in American foreign policy since that time. Once this official policy shift was made, nuclear weapons became exactly what they originally were: symbols for deterrence. The only continuing reason any nations of  the nuclear club still deploy nuclear weapons is to deter hostility from other nations. The depth and complexity of American security policy reaches far beyond the scope of this investigation, but hopefully the role of the atomic bomb in U.S. foreign affairs is somewhat more clear. Today, nuclear diplomacy is dead. The world has somehow adapted to weapons of mass destruction, and the diplomatic and military strategy of nuclear weapons is far from the minds of U.S. officials in the State Department. The world has moved on to a new age in international relations. Kissenger said in 1968 that "there was now no single decisive index by which the influence of states can be measured" (Kissenger 277). As much as we might like to indict the policies of nuclear diplomacy for all its self-indulgent insanity, we must bear in mind that it was somehow successful. Not one atomic bomb fell onto a nation from Kennen to Kissenger, and that should show the altruistic commitment by men of power to keep the unthinkable thinkable. 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\noone is gonna talk like that under my roof.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	
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.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Nuclear Strikes.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
                  			Nuclear Strikes

	Scientifically, there is no obstacle for a nuclear or atomic bomb. There 

are no secrets in Nuclear Science anymore. Anyone with a reasonable physics 

degree and access to a good technical library could design a workable atomic 

bomb in less than 6 months, so why hasn't anyone. Maybe there has been,

no one is exactly sure. In the last 52 years there has been enough nuclear 

warheads made to destroy every city in the world and still have thousands left

over.(Church 40) This all happened during the Cold War, a period of 45 years (1947-

1991), between mainly the two superpowers (United States and the Soviet 

Union). Other nations were involved, and 2 wars were fought over it (Korea

and Vietnam) and a nuclear war was almost waged (Cuban Missile Crisis).

Now with the breakup of the Soviet Union into a loose Commonwealth

no one is exactly sure who has all the weapons. Certain nations inherited 

them, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Russia, while others tried stealing

them, Iran, Libya, and North Korea. And since the breakup certain people

have been caught stealing the materials needed to make a bomb. These 

terrorists have never been caught in the United States but numerous times in

Europe.(www.pbs.org) As a matter of fact, the Russians say someone stole a bomb 

simulator, which will explode and make mushroom cloud but has no nuclear

component.(Wilkie) People know that despite efforts to keep control on the old

Soviet stockpile and waste, terrorists are getting the plutonium and 

uranium needed to make nuclear weapons to kill masses of people.

This is kind of the history of the nuclear & atomic bomb: (all from Williams)                     

The first atomic bomb was thought up by Albert Einstein in the late 

30's. In 1942 Enrico Fermi brought about first nuclear reaction with isotope

Uranium 235. From this the Manhattan Project was brought about and took

place in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Then July 16, 1945 near Alamogordo,

New Mexico world's first atomic bomb was set off. Three weeks later on August

6, 1945 "Little Boy" hit Hiroshima and had the force of 26 million pounds of

TNT. Next on August 9, 1945 "Fat Man" missed it's mark but still 

devastated Nagasaki causing an unconditional surrender by the Japanese.

Then in 1946 the United Nations tried to outlaw the weapons but the Soviets

used their veto power against it. Finally in 1949 they developed their own 

weapons. In 1952 the first hydrogen bomb was made with a force of 800

Hiroshima's. In 1953 the Russians did it too (thanks to the Rosenberg's).

In 1958 the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union stopped

testing but in 1961 France started. Then the Cuban Missile Crisis happened.

This event was the closest we have ever come to a nuclear war. This event 

it really kind of woke the United States and Soviet Union up about what 
 
could happen. Because of this a direct phoneline was set up between the Kremlin 

and the white house.

	The main question today is who has control of the weapons. The 

former superpower Russia is in political turmoil. Now instead of two people

with their hands on the button there could be dozens! Even the Central 

Intelligence Agency director John Deutch said he is afraid of loose nukes 

being smuggled out of Russia.(McGirk 35) The United States is in pretty good condition

because not much nuclear waste is stolen (they believe) and no missiles ever

have been stolen. But in some countries nuclear technicians haven't been

paid in six months (Russia). Security is breaking down, and waste is leaking

out. What is everyone going to do the next morning after a nuclear terrorist

attack. 

	The four new formed nations of Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and 

Russia all have nuclear missiles. Although Ukraine and Belarus say they

want no part of them it is not known their real stance.(www.pbs.org) If they don't want

them then where will they go. They will probably send them to third world

nations or terrorist with a lot of money, because they are so poor. One 

Russian political columnist Vladlen Sirotikin said, "give me a million bucks,

and I'll have a nuclear tipped missile bought or stolen and delivered anyplace

you want." The Pakistani Interior Minister General N. Babar admits his 

government has been approached by smugglers with nuclear shopping lists.

In fact one Russian proverb which I think applies is, "The less you know,

the better you sleep."(www.pbs.org)

	There is 15 nations in the world with nuclear weapons. Besides the

United States other Declared Nuclear weapon states are China, Russia, Great

Britain, France and Kazakhstan. The Undeclared but known nuclear weapon 
 
states are India, Pakistan, Israel, and Bangladesh. The Soviet successor states

that say they are getting rid of the weapons and waste are the Ukraine and

Belarus. There is three countries with active programs and wide spread 

government condoned terrorism, Libya, Iran, and North Korea. The scary 

thing about China is that they are a declared nuclear weapon state and it is

well known that Beijing is willing to sell nuclear weaponry (along with 

anything else) to any state with the cash to pay for it. (www.pbs.org) Another scary thing

is about Iran because they have 10,000 students in our country, and Oliver
   
Revell, the second highest in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said that

300 of the 10,000 who came as students are under a careful watch. Some of 

the 300 are members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and their intentions are

far from academic. (McGirk 35)If they have nuclear capabilities, who knows? Plus 

another suspected nuclear state, Libya, won't accept American passports.

That shows how much they like us.


	What would it be like if one of these countries or terrorists did drop

the bomb? I mean if they don't make one they could just steal one. There

is 18,000 warheads compared to 2300 cities throughout the world.(Williams) Maybe 

even a crazy American president with followers could start it. In 1973 the

United States signed the War Powers Act in which the president could

conduct and start a nuclear war for 60 days without congressional approval.(Mayers, 

Teena) And what if he does, in 1862 Henry Adams said, "Someday science may

have the existence of mankind in it's power and the human race will commit

suicide by blowing up the world."(Mollins) Since the 60's the superpowers were able

to destroy each other over and over. This is called MAD, Mutually Assured

Destruction.

	What would it be like at ground zero after the fallout. The three main 

effects of the blast is pressure, heat, and radiation. The pressure of the 

explosion causes physical damage to anything that happens t be in the way.

The heat of the blast burns everything, even things that aren't supposed to

burn. With the combination of the two can even vaporize people near the

epicenter. Then there is radiation which is just a side effect and can reek

havoc for generations with mutations and cancers etc. It's no wonder that

a terrorist wants this against a certain ethnic group or nationality. Especially

Islamic fundamentalist countries, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Libya as well as

Israel and it's Jewish population.(Andrews)

	On November 23, 1994 the United States military completed 

Operation Sapphire. This took place in Kazakhstan and the U.S. had to

take 600 kilograms of very highly enriched uranium from the Ulba 

Metallurgical Plant. That is enough to build 25 Hiroshima-type bombs.

(Sapphire)Iran had been at the base and was actually on it's way to pick it up when

President Clinton approved the operation and sent Americans on the way

with 20 million in cash to buy it and airlift it back to the United States and

brought it to Tennessee. 
	
Terrorists acquire the materials to build the nukes from either the third

world countries, China, or poor, underpaid, overworked, Russian nuclear

power workers who have not been paid in months. There has 14 different

occasions in Germany alone of nuclear smuggling being caught at airports!
	
There has many incidents involving a base in Obninsk and a man

named Leonid Baranov. One such incident occurred when Baranov recruited

Aleksandr Sherbinin to smuggle material out of Obninsk, roughly 30 miles

outside of Moscow, to Prague. Sherbinin was in Prague for six months trying

to sell his material. Finally on December 14, 1994 he was arrested. They 

found 6 pounds (2.72 kilograms) or weapons grade uranium in the back

seat of his car. That is only enough to build one tenth of a bomb, but what

if he spread it into part of a city. Then it could seep into the water supply

and air conditioning system, contaminate buildings and streets, and drift 

invisibly without even an explosion! Baranov is a suspect in two other

smuggling cases in Germany. One such case involves three Spaniards,

Justiano Torres Benitez, Julio Oroz, Javier Bengoechea. They were caught

in a German sting with 560 grams of MOX fuel (363 grams of uranium &

plutonium). This is a very controversial case in Germany because they 

allowed this substance to be let into Germany. It is also controversial in

Russia because the Russians were notified of the sting and believe that 

it was a ploy against them because they international atomic controls 

implemented against the Russians. Although it is well known it was

stolen by Leonid Baranov and from the Obninsk facility the Americans

and Russians refuse to admit it. There is a way to tell where it is from by

it's radioactive fingerprint but the Russians will not release theirs.(PBS) 

	The first known theft of nuclear materials was by the Russians against

Leonid Smirnov at a train station in Podolsk. It was 98% enirched uranium

238 with uranium 235. He said quote, " I didn't know what I was doing,

I needed money". He had over 1.5 kilograms of the highly enriched uranium

and was going to just go around knocking on peoples doors trying to sell it.

He got it by taking little by little over five months and no one noticed. His

co-workers didn't suspect anything because he would take it when they were

on their smoking breaks. He was found guilty on March 11, 1993 of stealing

and storing radioactive materials. His sentence was only 3 years of probation

but it could have been up to 10 years in jail. He still lives in the same 

apartment as he has for 25 years. (PBS)

On June 14, 1995, a training exercise was carried out at the Kursk

Atomic Power Plant in the summer of 1995, is an event that Russia's
                             
security forces point out to show that they are taking seriously the threat of 

terrorism involving nuclear and radioactive materials. In the scenario, 

terrorists take the nuclear plant hostage, declaring that they will
                            
blow up the reactor if their demands are not met. Local police, fire, and 

medical facilities are involved in the exercise, along with agents of the 

Federal Security Service and other federal forces. When negotiations

fail, the command team decides to take the plant by force. A masked SWAT 

team is assembled, storms the reactor building, and is able to stop the role 

playing terrorists. The event was videotaped and made into a public relations 

video that the FSB has used to successfully lobby for the creation of a new 

Anti Terrorist Task Force. And on an ironic note, this anti terrorist exercise 

would have been declared a complete success if only it didn't happen the 

very same day Chechen separatists had taken hostage a hospital full of people 

in the city of Budyonnovsk, Russia. Let's hope these attempts work so 

nuclear terrorists won't get the materials or be able to use them.(PBS)

	So in conclusion terrorists are able to get the materials required to

make a nuclear weapon or contaminate an area with nuclear waste. A

government official from Pakistan raises a good question when said, "This

material is supposed to be strictly controlled, and if the Russian Mafia or

whoever else is smuggling it out then it is very serious. Many of the things 

hawked out are radioactive... There is potential for a terrorist group buying

up bits and pieces". There is growing fear that sooner or later the Irish

Republican Army, or another extremist group could explode a bomb. So

if they are getting it from Russia why isn't there any extra international 

prevention in the former Soviet Union? Weapons are being dismantled at an

alarming rate. It's good thing to, because finding a needle in haystack is 

easier than finding a bomb in an international city.(Waller 17) There is three 

main ways they would destroy a terrorists bomb: 1. Use conventional weapons 

to blow up the bomb without the nuclear aspect going off. 2. A 30 millimeter cannon

blow a nuke to pieces without an explosion. And 3. Pour liquid nitrogen over 

the bomb to freeze it's electronics.(Waller) 

	There is obviously a higher risk for a strike now because so many 

people have their hands on the buttons with 15 nations and who knows

who else might have the button to kill millions. So despite attempts to keep

control on nuclear material terrorists and third world countries are getting

their hands on the material to kill large masses of people. Key players in 

trying to stop this is usually the United Nations or leaders (i.e. Reagan &

Gorbachev). Looking into the future, it will be a time of either great 

destruction in the world or great reduction of nuclear based uses.  

				 	 Works Cited

Allen, Arthur. "Operation Hades" New Republic August 21, 1995: 12.

Andrews, Elaine. Civil Defense in the Nuclear Age Franklin Watts, New 

York: 1985.

Church, George J. "Soviet Nukes on the Loose" Time December 16,1991:

CD-ROM.

Frontline: Loose Nukes PBS. WMHT Albany, New York. November 19,

1996: 50 minutes.

Luttwak, Edward N. "International Arms Control" Microsoft Encarta 1995

Mayers, Teena. Understanding Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control. 

Education in world: 1983.

McGirk, Tim. "Pakistan's Radioactive Bazaar" World Press Review July 

1996: 35.

Mollins, Carl. "Paying for the Bomb" Macleans August 7, 1995: 38.

Talbot, Strobe. "The History of the Bomb" Time January 30, 1989: CD-ROM.
     
Waller, Douglas. "Nuclear Ninjas" Time January 8, 1996: 38-40

Weiss, Ann E. The Nuclear Arms Race, Can we survive it? Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983.


Wilkie Tom. "Terrorist and the Bomb" World Press Review July 1996: 37

Williams, Gene B. Nuclear War, Nuclear Winter New York : Franklin

Watts, 1989.

WWW.PBS.ORG/WGBH/PAGES/FRONTLINE/SHOWS/NUKES


No author named. "Operation Sapphire" Macleans December 5, 1994: 35.

No author named. "Bombs across the Ocean" Time April 20, 1989: CD-ROM.

No author mentioned. "A Nasty Spat Against Friends" Time May 8,1989:

CD-ROM.







 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Nuclear Weapons.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Nuclear Weapons
In its attempts to harness the power of the atom, mankind
has itself in the possession of weapons with unbelievable,
destructive power.  Nations now have the ability to destroy
entire cities from hundreds of miles away, in only minutes. 
These weapons are nuclear weapons.  Nuclear weapons cost the
citizens of the United States billions of dollars in taxes each
year, the testing and maintenance of these weapons pose serious
health risks, and the actual need for these weapons is not and
has not been around for years.  For the above reasons, I feel
the United States should reduce its nuclear arsenal. 
	Nuclear weapons derive their power from the energy
released when a heavy nucleus is divided, called fission or when
light nuclei are forced together, called fusion.  In fission, a
nucleus from a heavy element is bombarded with neutrons.  The
nucleus breaks into two pieces, releasing energy and two or more
neutrons.  Each of these neutrons has enough energy to split
another heavy nucleus, allowing the process to repeat itself. 
This is the chain reaction that makes nuclear weapons possible. 
In a fusion nuclear device such as a hydrogen bomb, lightweight
nuclei are forced to fuse at very high temperatures into heavier
nuclei, releasing energy and a neutron.  In order to squeeze the
two nuclei together, an atomic fission bomb is usually used.  A
fusion reaction releases about four times more energy per unit
mass than a fission reaction.  The United States supervised the
development of the atomic bomb under the code name Manhattan
Project, during World War II.  The first nuclear chain reaction
occurred in December 1942, at the University of Chicago.  Soon
after the first bomb test, atomic bombs were dropped on the
Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.  The first
hydrogen bomb was developed by a team of United States
scientists and was first tested on November 1, 1952.  After
World War II, a new age of military strategy occurred.  The
United States built up massive nuclear weapons arsenals and
developed highly sophisticated systems of delivery and defense. 
Today's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) carry one or
more multiple, independently targeted reentry vehicles (MIBVs),
each with its own nuclear war head.
  	Billions of dollars are wasted in taxes, each year, to pay
for nuclear weapons.  The United States has spent about four
trillion dollars for its nuclear arsenal since government
supported work began on the atomic bomb in 1940 (Schwartz 1). 
This number is three times larger than the entire United States
budget for World War II (Schwartz 1).  This number covers most,
but not all, of the costs required to develop, produce, display,
operate, support and control nuclear forces over the past fifty
years.  Anywhere from five-hundred billion to one trillion
dollars could be added to this, to cover the remaining costs
(Schwartz 1).  Nuclear weapons are estimated to have used
between one quarter and one third of all military spending since
World War II (Schwartz 2).  Today, Congress and the
Administration are watching government spending, shrinking and
eliminating programs and taking other measures to reduce the
deficit.  Despite this, the central feature of national security
spending for the past fifty years, nuclear weapons, has been
barely touched.  The United States spends at least thirty-three
billion dollars a year on nuclear weapons and their related
activities (Schwartz 3).  Although, about eight billion dollars
is being spent on waste management, environmental remediation,
dismantlement and disposition activities, most of it goes to
maintaining, improving and controlling the existing arsenal and
toward the capability to produce new weapons (Schwartz 3).
	The United States nuclear weapons program poses serious
health risks to its citizens.  A combination of secrecy, lax
enforcement, reckless neglect and an emphasis on production at
the cost of health, safety and the environment created toxic and
radioactive pollution at thousands of sites around the country. 
United States nuclear weapons production facilities have left a
mess that, if it can be cleaned up at all, will take decades and
billions of dollars.  Also, a great amount of United States
citizens were needlessly exposed to high levels of radiation. 
Those most affected were the workers at the Atomic Energy
Commission (Department of Energy) weapons facilities (Schwartz
5).  Another quarter of a million military personnel took part
in exercises in the Pacific and Nevada test sites, to see their
ability to engage the enemy on an atomic battlefield (Schwartz
5). 
	Nuclear weapons are not needed, and have not been, for
years.  While nuclear weapons have influenced politics, public
opinion and defense budget, they have not had a significant
impact on world affairs since World War II.  Nor have they been
crucial assets in the cold war developments, alliance patterns,
or the way the major world powers have acted in times of crisis
(Cameron 64).  The main question is, would there actually have
been another world war if these weapons did not exist?  In my
opinion, probably not.  A nuclear war would be costly and
destructive (Cameron 65).  Anyone with the experiences of World
War II behind them would not want to repeat the horror of that. 
Even before the nuclear bomb had been perfected, world war had
become spectacularly costly and destructive, killing over fifty
million people world wide (Cameron 66). 
	Nuclear weapons are weapons of great destruction.  Our
government wastes over thirty-three billion dollars a year of
our tax money.  Also, nuclear weapons pose serious health risks
to those around them, including the citizens of the United
States.  There has not been a significant impact on world
affairs by nuclear weapons since World War II.  For these
reasons, I feel that the United States should reduce its nuclear
arsenal.



Bibliography

1)  Cameron, Kevin.  "Taking Apart the Bomb."  Popular Science. 
April 1993: 64-70.  
2)  "Nuclear Weapons."  Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia. 
1995 ed.
3)  Schwartz, Stephen, Project Director.  "The U.S. Nuclear Cost
Study Project."  Prodigy Web Browser.  started in 1994 
										           




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\oil in america.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

English 110
Professor Whitehill

		
Oil in America
		America has many problems with it's environment.  The facts are clear that most corporations won't take the blame for them.  These companies try to find ways out by stating that they are not the ones responsible for these problems.  They try to protect themselves from the mistakes they made in the oil industry and the country. The facts are clear that there have been disasters in the oil field industry in the past ten years and they stand out in history.
		The article "Myths We Wouldn't Miss", by  the Mobil Corporation,  states that there hasn't been a major off shore oil disaster in past years.  That may be true and it tries to get Mobil out of a jam but the underlying fact is that there have been oil spills and pollutants put into the environment and that cannot be excused.  There have been facts which prove that there have been decreases in the fish population and in the aquatic life in the regions where the oil companies have been.  The negligence of these companies can be shown in different fields.
		There have been many incidents in the oil field industry dating back to January 28 1969, in Santa Barbara.  This may have been a long time ago but this was a disaster this country has never seen.  On the 28 a well burst on the Santa Barbara Channel.  It "raged for ten days and killed 3 crewmen".(Easton,10)  There were major problems stopping this rig and no matter what happened there was already enough damage done.  On February 23, the well erupted again.  The environmental consequences were evident.  As the oil spilled down towards the south the numbers were staggering of how much oil actually was pouring out into the ocean.  By the month of march 3,000,000 gallons of oil escaped into the ocean.(Easton,251)  Here is where the story is corrupted by the oil companies.  Union Oil, the company responsible for this stated that their facts "only showed 250,000 gallons".(Easton,256)   There were presidential tests and discovered the oil company was wrong.  The most damaging evidence to theses oil companies was the discovery that was made when the government sent a diver under the spill to investigate the well.  The source showed that more oil leaked than the oil company reported.
		The environmental damage was horrible and it was a massacre of much of the marine life in the area.  The sea lion and seal population decreased by 881 new sea lion pups.(Easton,256)  The bird species in the area suffered the most.  3,686 birds were found dead.  The diving birds had the hardest time.  Going to the water was a hazard and they starved or was covered in the oiled water.  This problem will always be in the minds of the oil companies and those who worked for them.
		Another development which hurts the Mobil Companies statement is the Argo Merchant spill in March of 1977.  This accident took place on Nantucket Island, Mass.  The tanker went aground on a fishing rip and submerged part of the rig.(Grose.iii)  According to Grose "the tanker tried to correct itself but it cracked in half and spilled 7,700,000 gallons into the water.  This spill is the largest spill in the history of the United States."(Grose,vii)  This set off scientific activity which went on for a full year.  There were some redeeming factors about this spill.  The wind prevented the oil from surfacing on the beaches.  The oil that was being transported was low density and did not contaminate the bottom of the ocean.(Grose,356)  As well as the spill happened in the winter and the ecological damage was not as big as Santa Barbara or many others.  This spill did however, cover more area than most.  The oil spread out over large areas and did not cut off anywhere, it just spread and covered the icy and watery surfaces.  There was again deaths found in the birds of the area but the mammals survived here.  There was also a lower level of blood serum in the shellfish and plankton, this makes for a bad crop and development in the bottom feeders.(Grose,v)  There is way out here for the oil companies because there was not as much damage done to the environment.  The oil companies can breathe a little easier but the truth here is that there are too many disasters.
		There was an Alaskan disaster which the Exxon company chooses now to forget.  On a morning in May,1989 the ship The Exxon Valdez was in Prince William Sound and during the transport of the fuel there was a leak along the pipeline.  This gigantic strip of water and home to thousands of marine animals was contaminated.(Wheelwright,11)  This showed much of the world that the oil industry was just accident prone.  The damage caused here was irreversible.  There was an incredible cleanup effort it took months and up until now there still has not been a total cleanup.  This spill called for extreme cleanup measures using vacuums to try to suck up the spill.  But there happened to be too much oil.
		The marine life in this case like in every case suffered greatly in this situation.  The Sound houses thousand of lower marine life forms which were destroyed because the environment could not give the proper nutrition  to these animals.(Wheelwright,23)  The biggest loss is the crustacean population.  There was a decrease in the larvae that these creatures produce and it lowers their reproduction.  This stops our own food chain.  These problems are experienced by all of us.
		The underlying fact is that there is plenty of evidence that not only do these problems exist but they do cause major ecological disasters. The fuel that was in the Argo which was No.2 fuel is low density.  According to sources it causes great amounts of toxicity.(Vaughan,2.1)  The gases mix in the water and make it hard for fish to breathe and reproduce.  This also is a rapid effect on the environment, it happens right away and doesn't give us a chance to clear it out of the water.  It is said to even start a dilution period you need 96 hours after the spill before you can start to clean up the mess.(Vaughan2)But besides the technical terms this problem affects our lives in a practical way.  The beaches are unsatisfactory to go on and our kids can't appreciate the beauty of this fine planet.  
		The Mobil Corporation stated that there wasn't a major off shore drilling incident.  That is true.  Most people don't look more into the real problem.  The problem is not just in the offshore drilling.  It is in the entire oil and fuel industry.  These companies realize the impact they have on the public and realize they all need the business of the American public.  The companies act irresponsibly and do not use the appropriate machinery which is not up to standard.  In my own opinion these companies know the consequences of using what they have.  There is no excuse for the problems that they have.  Human error is not calculated right and there is a disaster.  We know the kind of damage that is done in the marine life.  Why do we insist on doing this then?  Is there any other way to get the oil here and back? Why do the oil companies also try to cover up for the damage that they have done?
		The Mobil Corporation states it's facts well.  Every company shows that their facts make sense and gets them out of any trouble that they might be in. They have cited sources in research books and in the article mentioned in the beginning.  These sources are all well and good and they dug up these facts to protect themselves from the truth.  It is not something we can pull out of by excuses, but by facing it head on and making it easier on our planet and those who will be there for years to come.


		
	 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\One Man � Vote .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Paramilitary and survivalist groups.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Paramilitary and Survivalist Groups


	There are many different forms of militias and paramilitary 
groups, whose membership and ideology often vary from, place to 
place.  However, what most have in common, is their hatred for the 
federal government.  In recent years, there have been far too many 
violent acts done by these militias, seeking to prove their points to 
the government, and the public at large.  They have threatened to 
blow up power plants, government buildings, even the Hoover 
Dam.  They hold many military exercises and are frequently in the 
news.  There are many different things that support growth of these 
groups.  Some of them have proved themselves to be extremely 
dangerous, such as when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma 
City Federal Building, causing a mass catastrophe which killed 169 
people, and severely injured many others.  Some of these groups 
claim to be able to justify racism, hate, and even murder.  
Consequently, many questions are raised for the safety of the public.

	Militias and paramilitary groups vary in philosophy based on 
their geographic locations.  In the East and North East, these groups 
are usually not racist.  Militia and paramilitary groups in this area 
tend to believe in non-entity United Nations "conspiracies" and 
"take-overs", and they are strong defenders of the Second 
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  They usually tend to be non-
violent, except in some cases, when they are protesting laws that 
"lessen the strength" of the Second Amendment.  Thus these groups 
are not as racist, but more intolerant of gun-laws.  In the mid-
western area, there are great numbers of militias and paramilitary 
groups who feel very strongly about "anti-Christian" laws, or capital 
issues like abortion.  Groups in this area are anti-abortionists, and 
have right-winged beliefs surrounding similar major issues.  
They do not feel as strongly about gun-control, in contrast to the 
beliefs of the Eastern-area militias.  In the western area, the militia 
and paramilitary groups concentrate their efforts on "protecting" 
their so-called "Christian" beliefs which, are "derived" from the 
Bible, and seem to almost justify racism.  militias in this particular 
area, especially in the Montana/Idaho region, tend to be very well 
armed, because of less strict gun-laws and because of lower 
populations.  As a result of lower populations, their are less street 
crime, which is the primary reason for gun-laws.  The paramilitary 
and militia groups in this area also concentrate their efforts on 
expressing their outrage and resentment for the Waco and Ruby 
Ridge incidents.  Consequently, they are probably the most 
dangerous groups, as they not only have a great number of weapons 
at their disposal, but also have a tangible reason to be angry at the 
federal government (Junas 1-7).  Militias in the South are usually 
very racist, and unlike the groups in the North, they are not very 
tolerant of minorities or blacks in particular.  Groups in this area, 
like the Ku Klux Klan, burn crosses in front of blacks homes, and 
go out of their way to make life miserable for them.  In conclusion, 
most members of paramilitary groups and militias in the South are 
white, and extremely racist (Doe, Interview).  Since the ideals of 
militias and paramilitary groups are so diverse based on the groups 
locations, the only thing they really have in common, is that they 
hate the federal government.

	In addition to geography, there are other factors which affect 
the way militias and paramilitary groups live, especially the way 
these groups grow.  Technological advances are a key reason for 
growth of these groups.  With fax machines, electronic bulletin 
boards, and the Internet, these groups can now enroll many new 
members.  When these advances were not around they expressed 
their opinions the most by handing-out flyers in busy public areas 
(Dees and Corcoran 87).  By preaching their beliefs of a coming 
"New World Order", or "NWO" for short, these groups try to scare 
people into becoming members of these organizations.  They also 
claim that NAFTA, and other similar trade agreements are evidence 
of the "NWO" (Morganthau 36-39).  Some organizations preach 
that the coming of this "NWO" is evidence of the approaching 
"End-Times", mentioned in the Bible (Dees and Corcoran 11).  
Possibly the largest reason for growth of militias and paramilitary 
groups is gun control legislation which "interferes" with the Second 
Amendment (Dees and Corcoran 73).  A great number of individual 
gun-owners were angered into joining militias when the Brady-Bill 
was passed, therefor "limiting" their Second Amendment rights 
(Junas 1-7).  Finallymore   inconvenient public buildings, especially 
airports and large federal buildings.  Most people would rather do 
away with metal detectors, and other inconveniences, if it would 
make their lives easier (Hubert and Delsohn A-1).  Some militias 
and paramilitary groups, particularly those responsible for large 
bombings, have been found to be "well-stocked" with all sorts of 
weapons, detonators, and bombs.  When these particular groups 
catch the federal government off-guard, there is a great possibility 
for catastrophe (Evans 1-2).  Although most militias and 
paramilitary groups are small, when compared to the federal 
government, even when they are united, they may pose a threat to 
the American public.  By using bombs and calling in bomb threats, 
these groups have proven themselves to be dangerous to the public.  
They also, threaten the people of the United States, not  physically, 
but with their conspiracy theories they make the democratic process 
nearly unworkable, and impossible to execute.  Truly we would all 
suffer if we did not live in a democracy.  Some of these groups can 
be a serious threat to the U.S., but most of them are a threat to 
democracy, which is by far, much worse (Evans 1-2).  

	In addition to the physical threat of some militias and 
paramilitary groups, there is another important issue surrounding 
these groups.  Most of these groups have members which are made 
up of entirely racist people, which claim to be able to justify racism 
and hate of minorities.  There are two large types of these racist-
oriented militia groups.  There are those which claim to be listening 
to "the word of God", and those which ramble of their fears of the 
white race "dying off" some day.  The groups which feel that the 
Bible, and "word of God" commands them to be racist, have a 
primary belief.   The Bible mentions "the true Israelites", and "the 
beasts of the field", and these racist paramilitary groups and militias 
claim that the white race is the supreme race of "Israelites", and that 
the minorities, and people of color, are "respectively", "the beasts of 
the field" (Dees and Corcoran 10).  The groups which claim that the 
white race is dying off, claim that a few Jewish bankers are secretly 
controlling the UN  They have such far-fetched theories that most 
people do not care to listen to them, which is the reciprocating 
factor when they use violence to try to get the attention of the public.  
These groups, given the reason, could definitely be a threat to the 
public (Dees and Corcoran 18).

	There are differences in the beliefs of these groups, based on 
where they are located.  There are multiple causes for the growth of 
these groups.  These groups have proven themselves to be 
dangerously threatening t democracy, although maybe not entirely 
to the American public.  These groups feel that they can justify 
racism through the Bible, or with their fears of the white race dying.  
They have caused mass catastrophes, and probably will continue to 
in the future, unless something new is done to stop them.  Because 
of this, many questions are raised for the safety of the public.





























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\PartialBirth Abortion & Its Affect on the American People.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

"Partial-Birth Abortion 
and its Affect on the American People"



	We sat and watched our televisions and rejoiced as Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced
to life in prison for the brutal killing of hundreds of men, women, and children.  Yet, right
now, as you are reading this paper, another life has been taken...a child's life.  A child
who, one day, could have been seen take his or her first steps, opened the first Christmas
present.  One who later could have went off to school and come home with news of his or
her first new girlfriend or boyfriend.  A scholar, who could have fulfilled his or her
dreams by going to college to study in a chosen field, and one day, been deemed one of
the greatest in that particular field.  The child who was just "murdered" could have seen
all of these events come to pass, but instead, the child's mother had a partial-birth abortion
and ended the infant's life forever.  Partial-birth abortion is a topic that has caused a
massive controversy in the past few years.  In September, 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a
registered nurse with thirteen years of experience, was assigned by her nursing agency to
an abortion clinic.  Since Nurse Shafer considered herself to be "very pro-choice," she
didn't think this assignment would be a problem.  She was wrong.  This is what Nurse
Shafer saw: 
"I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a
partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months
pregnant.  The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the
ultrasound screen.  The doctor delivered the baby's body and
arms, everything but his little head.  The baby's body was
moving.  His little fingers were clasping together.  He was
kicking his feet.  The doctor took a pair of scissors and
inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's
arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does
when he thinks that he might fall.  Then the doctor opened the
scissors up.  Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into
the hole and sucked the baby's brains out.  Now the baby was
completely limp.  I never went back to the clinic.  But I am
still haunted by the face of that little boy.  It was the most
perfect, angelic face I have ever seen." (Patriot, Partial Birth-
Abortion)
	A partial-birth abortion is a procedure used after twenty weeks (4 1/2 months) of
pregnancy--often to six months, seven months, and even later; and involves inducing
labor and turning the child into "breech" position.    The only difference between partial-
birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches.  The abortionist delivers the baby's
entire body, except for the head.  He then inserts the sharp end of scissors into the baby's
head and opens them to enlarge the hole.  The baby's brains are then vacuumed out with a
suction device.  The dead baby is then removed (Patriot, Partial-Birth Abortion).
	One would think the American people would want this "murderer" brought to
justice just as we angrily waited for the sentencing of Dahmer, yet nothing is being done.   
In fact, in March of this year, a bill was passed in Congress to make this type of abortion
illegal; but in April, the bill was vetoed by President Clinton.  Scientific theories, social
and political views, and religious standards clearly exhibit partial-birth abortion is wrong
and a law should be passed to make this terrible death illegal.
	It has been said that patients abort their child believing it is not alive until it is
born, but they are wrong.  "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that
conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being that is alive and is a
member of the human species" (D.C. Metro Pro-Life/Events Line, FactBot Database).  So,
if life begins at conception, then how can abortionists say that abortion is not murder?  An
abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent child.  I say that is murder.  But, it is
often disputed that the fetus is not a living being until it is born.  Let's clear this up a little,
shall we?
By the end of the second week of pregnancy, there is a distinct embryo present.  The
fetus has a developing brain and heart.
At the end of the fourth week, the fetus has the beginnings of vertebrae, a bony jaw,
eyes and ears, a closed circulatory system, a working heart, lungs, limbs, a developing
nose, and a pancreas.
In the sixth week of pregnancy, the fetus is also starting to develop hands, feet, a
bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a nervous system, and a primitive cranium.
After nine weeks, unborn babies can feel pain, yet 48 % of all abortions are performed
after this point.
	Now, if the fetus has all of these developing parts:  a heart that beats, lungs,
circulatory system, nervous system, then how can it NOT be called a living being? (D.C.
Metro Pro-Life News/Events Line, FactBot Database).
	The "popularity" of partial-birth abortions has raised substantial controversy
stemming throughout the American society to the U.S. House of Representatives, and has
provoked many church groups and pro-life activists all across the nation.   Many church
groups have protested and signed petitions regarding the bill President Clinton vetoed that
would have put an end to partial-birth abortions.  The Pope has also displayed how he
feels about the issue and is "very disappointed with Clinton's decision" about the veto. 
U.S. citizens have signed petitions to make President Clinton reconsider his veto.  Did
every voting citizen know that over 2,000 partial-birth abortions are performed annually,
and that at least 75 percent of them are elective? (Schnurpfeil, M.D., Partial-Birth
Abortion). With his re-election, pro-life activists are going to fight to get him to pass the
bill in order to make partial-birth abortion illegal (Patriot, Partial-Birth Abortion).
	The controversy doesn't just stop at Capitol Hill, but spreads throughout society,
especially into the various religious denominations.  Their main defense, The Holy Bible,
has proved very effective in their conflict with pro-choice activists.  Exodus 20:13, a very
familiar verse which most every American has seen: "Thou shalt not kill"; and Jeremiah
1:5, "Before I made you in your mother's womb, I chose you.  Before you were born, I set
you apart for a special work..." are two Bible verses that pro-life activists are using to
clearly state that abortion is wrong, and are two verses I firmly support (The Inspirational
Study Bible).  I know everyone does not know about God and what He has done for us,
but He created every person and knows all about us before we are even born.  And, like
stated in Jeremiah 1:5, He has set us apart for a special work.  If God knows the child in
the womb and has a special work set aside for that child, why do abortionists feel they can
"play" God?  How can we let the 27.5 % of the pregnant women who have abortions each
year know that they are, in fact, committing murder in the eyes of man and God?
	Think about it.  In the past year, over 1,500,000 abortions have occurred--2,000 of
which were partial-birth abortions (1995 Information Please (TM) Almanac, 844).  And,
in the five or ten minutes it has taken you to read this essay forty more children were born
and thirty were aborted, three of which by a partial-birth abortion (Morgan, Christianity
Today, 66).  With all of the medical theories, political views, and religious convictions,
surely you can see that partial-birth abortion should be illegal.  Abortion IS murder, no
matter if it's in the third week, the tenth week, or in the eighth month.  The fetus is still a
living human and deserves a chance at life.  Please join with me in my fight to end partial-
birth abortion.  Call 1-800-LIFE-YES and tell your state senator and President Clinton
that partial-birth abortion is murder and should be made illegal, or write to: House of
Representatives, Washington D.C.  20515.  Please, help stop partial-birth abortion NOW!
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Party government.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\People accused of Violent Crimes should not be to post bail.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	


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.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Pete Wilson menace to Mexicans.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
American family. That is $2 to $3 billion federal dollars
 annually for an indefinite number of years. He claims it is
      for the state's expenses incurred by undocumented
                        Mexican immigrants.

    Wilson's demands create even more problems. Should
  families in other states pay for the 4 to 5 billion hours of
labor performed annually by undocumented immigrants to
  the immeasurable benefit of California's urban business,
 its agri-business, and its wealthier families who have used,
  and are using, the undocumented for low-paid maid and
                         gardening services?

  Strangely, in this scenario, the governor never speaks of
   the federal government's payment to California of well
      over 2.2 billion dollars under the U.S. Immigration
Reform and Control Act and the State Legalization Impact
  Assistance Grants, one-half billion dollars in 1994 alone!
   Furthermore, this program has reduced the number of
    undocumented immigrants in California by 1,600,000!

   Surely Wilson knows that, in addition the immigration
   reform monies, Washington already spends more than
  $500 million per year to support California agriculture,
       where many of the undocumented may be found.
 Washington's agriculture tax dollars are the equivalent of
  $6897.00 for every one of the 85,000 farms in the state. In
  point of fact, California's farming interests receive more
   money annually from the federal government than they
 pay the state in property taxes. This is totally unjust to the
 state's homeowners, many of whom, certainly, would enjoy
    homes whose property taxes were federally subsidized
                               each year.

       While promoting himself nationally, Wilson is foisting
    upon the American public one of the most incredible
    distortions in the annals of American politics. To fully
  understand the governor's politics, let's glance at recent
      American history. For example, recent American
    presidents have had their "devil" against which they
   claimed to be fighting to save the U.S. Kennedy had the
    Communists at our borders; Johnson, the Vietnamese
  Communists and the domino effect; Reagan, the Russian
  Communists and the evils of Grenada in our hemisphere;
   Bush, the Iraqis and potential control of U.S. sources of
  oil, as well as Panama's drugs. The only recent president
  who does not seem be fighting a monumentally evil force
     on the edge of destroying "America," is the current
 president, William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton. In this sense,
    like Jimmy Carter before him, President Clinton has
                          created a vacuum.

 Newt Gingrich, for one, is moving to fill this void by saving
  America from the nation-destroying evils of "liberalism"
 and the "politically correct." He believes that he is really,
      really correct politically, and that the "politically
             correct" have been incorrect all along.

   Where does all this leave Pete Wilson? Why, without a
  devil to fight! After all, the Cold War is over. The U.S. is
    doing "free enterprise" with North Vietnam. The U.S.
          trades with China. Oil flows freely from the
 women-stomping dictatorship of Kuwait. And Gingrich is
 fighting internal evils. Has the world isolated Pete Wilson
                               politically?

              Enter stage south, the evil Mexicans!

 They will destroy California (read U.S.) if we don't watch
  out! Pete Wilson is into big-time politics. He has created
                               his "devil."

 The main vehicles promoting the ambitions of Pete Wilson
   are The Budget of the State of California, 1994-95, and
    Summary of the Budget, 1994-95. Here, the governor
proclaims to the nation that some 2,000,000 Mexicans have
   invaded the state and, having done so, do nothing. They
    are leeching parasites attached to welfare, the health
    system, the schools, and the state's prisons, he claims.

  "Seven-hundred-thousand new jobs need to be created to
     support illegal immigration costs," of over 2 billion
 dollars, trumpets the governor in his 1994-95 Summary of
  the Budget. In this way, he says that not only do they do
 nothing, they pay nothing, and "the hard working citizens
              of the state," must absorb these costs!

 It is incredibe that Pete Wilson has not told the nation that
    his fabricated "devil" also works hard and pays taxes.
      Nowhere, in his documents, commercials, or press
   releases, does he mention the taxes that undocumented
     California workers pay each year to California. Yet,
according to official California records, the undocumented
 immigrants pay state income taxes, state sales taxes, state
      and local property taxes, state vehicle license and
   registration fees, state excise taxes, state gasoline taxes,
   state lottery revenues, and local sales taxes. In a report
      issued by the governor's own office to the General
 Accounting Office of the Federal Government, California
    estimated the taxes paid to the state by undocumented
  immigrants, primarily Mexican, as ranging from a low of
     $528 million to a high of $1.4 billion per year, with a
 median of around $900 million. Obviously, the governor is
   saying one thing to the federal government, and exactly
             the opposite to the people of California.

     In addition, California's undocumented workers are
   paying taxes to the federal government. These taxes are
  for income, excise, Federal Insurance Contributions Act
       (FICA), unemployment insurance, and gasoline.
   According to the GAO, this produced federal revenues
             estimated at $1.3 billion for 1992 alone!

  It is clear that undocumented workers in California have
  paid at least $2.2 billion yearly in state and federal taxes.
       This amount roughly equals the costs incurred as
                    announced by the governor.

 Extrapolating from taxes paid, undocumented workers in
     California contribute between $13 and $15 billion to
 California's economy while they perform over four billion
                      hours of labor each year.

 But, irrespective of how much in taxes the undocumented
    pay, the structure of wages paid in California cannot
 support the process of continually increasing government
   spending (34 to 55 billion since 1985, a 62% increase!),
 while simultaneously keeping the lower echelons of the tax
                               base static.

    Specifically, if the lowest wages in California were to
    increase from $4 per hour to $6, the taxes paid by the
  undocumented would total between $3.5 and $5.5 billion,
  thus paying for all expenses and easily leaving a healthy
   surplus for the state. It is clear, therefore, that most of
    Wilson's problems concern not the immigrant's social
    status or country of origin, but the wage structure in
         which they labor. Obviously, to eliminate the
   undocumented workers (deport to Mexico) and replace
  them with domestic workers at $4 an hour, will not solve
     California's problems as long as the wage structure
 remains the same. The faces will change, but the economic
        problems will continue, or become even worse.

 In this scenario, Governor Pete Wilson is promising a tax
                                   cut!

   All in all, the day may yet come when Californians will
  give retroactive thanks to the undocumented immigrants
      for having saved their state from even more severe
  economic problems and a more onerous deficit, much as
 the immigrants in the east coast did historically. After all,
   over 4 billion hours of labor at the lowest of wages, $14
  billion into the state's economy, over $2.2 billion paid in
 taxes, all in one year, are not the work of "evil devils" who
           are out to economically destroy California.

       This being the case, Pete Wilson's xenophobia is
   irrational. It appeals only to those who have irrational
  fears. Or, it appeals to those who want to use xenophobic
                politics for domestic political ends.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Ploitical and Social Effents that Shaped the 60s Generation.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Massive black rebellions, constant strikes, gigantic anti-war demonstrations, draft resistance, Cuba, Vietnam, Algeria, a cultural revolution of seven hundred million Chinese, occupations, red power, the rising of women, disobedience and sabotage, communes & marijuana: amongst this chaos, there was a generation of youths looking to set their own standard - to fight against the establishment, which was oppressing them, and leave their mark on history. These kids were known as the hippies. There were many stereotypes concerning hippies; they were thought of as being pot smoking, freeloading vagabonds,  who were trying to save the world. As this small pocket of teenage rebellion rose out of the suburbs, inner cities, and countryside's, there was a general feeling that the hippies were a product of drugs, and rock music; this generalization could have never been more wrong. The hippie counterculture was more than just a product of drugs and music, but a result of the change that was sweeping the entire western world. These changes were brought about by various events in both the fifties and the sixties, such as: the end of the "Golden Years" of the fifties, the changing economical state from the fifties to the sixties, the Black Panther Party, women moving into the work force, the assassinations of  Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy Jr., the war in Vietnam, the Kent State protest, and finally the Woodstock festival.  

The electric subcurrent of the fifties was, above all, rock'n'roll, the live wire that linked bedazzled teenagers around the nation, and quickly around the world, into the common enterprise of being young. Rock was rough, raw, insistent, especially by comparison with the music it replaced; it whooped and groaned, shook, rattled, and rolled. Rock was clamor, the noise of youth submerged by order and prosperity, now frantically clawing their way out.  

The winds of change began to sweep across America in the late fifties. The political unrest came with fear of thermo-nuclear war and the shadow that had been cast by Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. The civil rights leaders were unhappy with President Eisenhower's reluctance to use his powers for their cause, in spite of the fact that the nation was becoming more receptive to civil rights reforms. With black organizations becoming more militant, Eisenhower needed to acknowledge the growing movement, and govern accordingly. 

World politics were still dominated by the conflict between the capitalist nations, led by the USA, and the Communist countries, led by the USSR. The bonds that were keeping people loyal to their leaders were breaking down. In 1960 there was a major split between Russia and China. The Chinese decided that the Russians were betraying Communism and set off on what they hoped would be the world revolution against capitalism.   

During the fifties, the economic situation was in a constant state of growth. The United States were prospering and the government was clinging to the  "golden years." The rise of the giant corporations had a profound effect on American life. A few hundred corporations controlled much of the nation's industrial and commercial assets and enjoyed a near monopoly in some areas. The mega corporations dominated the seats of economic and political power. They employed millions of workers, a large percentage of whom populated the suburbs that were growing across the country.  


The changing American economy also experienced dramatic shifts in the composition of the work force. Fewer workers went into traditional fields such as manufacturing, agriculture, and mining, and more went into clerical, managerial, professional, and service fields. In 1956, for the first time in the nation's history, white collar workers outnumbered blue collar ones,  "and by the end of the decade blue collar workers constituted only 45 percent of the work force." The sexual composition of the work force also changed as more and more women entered the labor market. The influx of women into the work world that had been accelerated by the Second World War continued in the postwar period. 

The political groups, and the negative feelings that they harbored towards the present administration, only kindled the flames of revolution. The previous generation was clinging to the "good times" of the fifties, and the youth were looking for a niche to call their own. With the drastic change in child population after the Second World War, divorce became less taboo. As a result, single mothers were forced into the labor market, and with these jobs came independence.  The 50's and all its political, and social change, was only the breeding ground for the free thinking generation that was to follow.  

In America, a group of militant blacks called the "Black Panther Party" had been dubbed "American's Vietcong." They were tired with the roadblocks and discrimination that were plaguing the civil rights leaders, like Dr. Martin Luther King. They decided to get equality by whatever means necessary. Their members had been involved in shoot-outs with the police, which were, by the radical community, dress rehearsals for the coming Armageddon. 

The hippie movement was new in the early 60's, the men only beginning to grow their hair long and some of them still wearing suits, the women as yet uncertain about fitting in.  The introduction of the television in the 50's brought a new information medium to the general public. With television, people became more informed, and developed individual opinions, instead of the bias opinions that were "spoon fed" to them by newspapers, radio etc..  The youth began to break free of the shackles that were the fifties.  They considered their parents conformists , and they wanted a way to break free of the molds cast for them.

As a reaction to the growing violence of the 1960's, many people turned to the ideals of peace and love. Ironically, many of those who were seen to be in favor of peace - including President John Kennedy, his brother Bobby, the black civil rights leader Martin Luther King, and many unarmed civil rights workers - were themselves murdered. The horrors of the war in Vietnam dramatized what many saw as drift towards destruction, and their reaction was to seek a genuinely peaceful way of life. Across the world, youth took up the slogan  "Make Love not War", and the Love Generation emerged. Many of these were hippies - people who dropped out of conventional society to take up a lifestyle based on peace, loving relationships and often mystical religions. Many more who were not fully hippies were influenced by their ideas and fashions, especially using the soft drug cannabis and the hallucinogenic drug LSD. 

"The New Era" referred to Kennedy promising vigorous attempt to manage a world whose old stabilities had broken down. Kennedy received credit for recognizing that international and domestic crises required an active response, even if that response was "mediating, rationalizing, and managerial," a policy of "aggressive tokenism." Abroad, the new frontier had the virtue of working towards "political stabilization" with the Russians; it was deeply committed to avoiding nuclear war - although Kennedy showed no interested in general disarmament. 

Meanwhile Black Americans took President Kennedy at his word and pressed for civil rights against racial discrimination. On 20 May, 1963 , "400 federal marshals (government policemen) had to be sent to Montgomery, Alabama, after a peaceful demonstration by black people had been attacked by a mob of 1500 whites." Local police had refused to act, even though this was the third attack on blacks in a week.  "On 21 May, 1963, 100 whites attacked the church where the black leader, Martin Luther King, was preaching. The demonstrators continued despite this when black Freedom Riders, calling for civil rights for blacks, marched through Alabama and Mississippi to New Orleans. 27 Black freedom Riders were arrested when they arrived in Jackson Mississippi."  

On 12 June 1964, the President Kennedy sent a Civil Rights Bill to Congress, which, if passed, would make equality a legal right.  "On 28 August, 1964, between 100,000 and 200,000 black people, led by Martin Luther King," marched in Washington in support of the Civil Rights Bill. But the violence still did not stop. In September, 1964, a black man was shot dead in Alabama, four blacks were killed when a church in Birmingham, Alabama, was bombed, Medger Evers of the Advancement of Colored People was murdered, and six black children were killed when a house was burnt down. 

Kennedy had been a controversial President. Many Americans opposed his support for black people, while others were angry at his failure to kick the Communists out of Cuba. The extreme right wing had threatened to kill him, but no one took these threats seriously. Kennedy had been warned it was a dangerous to drive through the streets of Dallas in an open car. The President felt that he should be able to drive openly anywhere in the country, and few people expected trouble. 

On 22 November, 1963 as Kennedy drove slowly through crowd-lined streets of Dallas in an open car, together with his wife, Jackie, and Governor Connally of Texas, three or more shots were fired at the car. Kennedy was shot through the throat and head, and Governor Connally was also hit. The President's driver immediately raced for the Parkland Hospital, with Jackie Kennedy covered in her husbands blood cradling her husband's head. With those fatal shots, came the end of  "Camelot" as his administration was referred to as. 

On April 4 1968, Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis. That night, eighty riots broke out. Federal troops were dispatched into Baltimore, Chicago, Washington, and Wilmington.  "Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley, ordered police to shoot to kill arsonists and the main looters." The actions by Richard J. Daley, were a sign of respect of King. Ironically, a year before, Daley was against having King speak in the city of Chicago.  

King's following had fallen off in the years leading up to his death. His moment had passed. Since the triumph of his Slema campaign, which climaxed in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, he had turned to the urban poor, but his strategy of nonviolence, national publicity, and coalition-building seemed unavailing. Just a week before his death, his hopes for a non violence march in Memphis, in support of striking garbage workers, had been dashed by the window-smashing of a few dozen black teenagers. King had become a hero without a strategy, but a hero he undeniably was at a moment when the larger movement craved heroes and disowned them with equal passion. For liberals, even for many black militants and radicals, he was the last black hope. When he was murdered, it seemed that nonviolence went to the grave with him, and the movement was "free at last" from restraint.      

There are times when an entire culture takes the shape of a single event, like rows of iron fillings lined up by the force of a magnet. What is assassination, after all, if not the ultimate reminder of the citizen's helplessness - or even repressed murderousness? Instantly the killing creates an abrupt contest between Good and Evil, albeit with a wrong ending. With the enlightened establishment's great men gunned down, a self-proclaimed black revolutionary gunned down, there was an eerie feeling among the common people, a democracy of sudden death. The southern civil rights movement had been deeply bloodied, of course. Dozens of blacks were killed in the urban riots of the North from 1964 on, and, as we have already seen, the riots of the North inspired the white radicals to start a movement of their own. These radicals would take the form of the "Hippy."

In 1954 Vietnam had been divided into the Communist North, under Ho Chi Minh, and capitalist South, under Ngo Dinh Diem, after the Communists had forced the French to abandon Vietnam. Since 1954 a guerrilla force, the National Liberation Front (know as the Vietcong), backed by the North, had been gradually gaining strength. The United States had been sending arms to Diem since 1954, and in 1960 President Kennedy decided to send American military advisors to South Vietnam to train Diem's army. 

Just as the black movement was fighting for equality and civil rights, the hippie movement took on the fight against the drafting of young men to Vietnam. Many protests were staged throughout the 60's to end the war, especially the "March to End the War in Vietnam" held at the Independence memorial in Washington, 1965.     

During 1965, the Vietnam War intensified. The USA put more and more effort into it, and the South Vietnamese government's lack of control became apparent. In August it was estimated that the Vietcong controlled a quarter of the country, the government about half and the rest was not controlled by anyone. In the Vietcong area, the Communists had taken land from the few rich landowners and given it to the many poor peasants. This obviously made them more popular with the peasants. The south Vietnamese army was now too weak to fight the Communists, and the US decided it would take over the fighting leaving the Vietnamese to defend the land they controlled.  

The war in Vietnam increased trouble in America. Blacks pointed out that black soldiers in Vietnam suffered unfairly:  "10% of the population of the United States was Black, 12.5% of the American army was black, 14.6% of the battle dead was black. On 23 April 1967, Muhammad Ali called the war "a race war. Black men are being cut up by white men." On 28 April 1967, Muhammad refused the call-up to the US army. The World  Boxing Association stripped him of his world title, and on 21 June 1967, he was found guilty of avoiding the draft. Muhammad Ali was given a five year jail sentence, and appealed. By the first of August 1967, so many black uprisings had taken place during the 'Long Hot Summer' that a map had to be produced to show where they had taken place.  

1967 had been the year of the hippies, peace and love. 1968 was a year dominated by violence and ideas of revolution and change. It was the year of New Left - socialists who rejected both capitalism and communism - whose ideas inspired students revolt throughout the world. The New Left argued that violence was caused by capitalism, and the continuing, escalating war in Vietnam, where the most powerful capitalist force was waging war on a small Asian country. As the Students moved to the Left, and the youth movement grew, so did the idea of fighting back against the State. The idea of a single world revolution, grew. On April 30, 1970, President Nixon ordered the "incursion" of Cambodia, with this announcement the students went into action. By May 4, 1970, a hundred student strikes were in progress across the country. At Kent State University in Ohio, students burned down the ROTC building. On the same day, National Guardsman at Kent State responded to taunts and a few rocks by firing their M-1 rifles into a crowd of students, killing four, wounding nine others. Kent State was a heartland school, far from elite, the very type of campus where Nixons "silent majority" was supposed to be training. 

After these and many other violent incidents at protests, the intensity of the movement began to dwindle.  The great changes that they were fighting for were not coming about.  The protests were not getting any sympathy or support, and greater numbers of hippies left the protests and adopted a "peace and love" side of things.  The climax of the hippie movement was in Woodstock, 1969.  It was where all of the violence and aggression of protesting  was laid aside and the true ambiance of the 60's was expressed.

Woodstock, in June, had been the long-deferred Festival of Life. So said not only Time and Newsweek but world-weary friends who had navigated the traffic-blocked thruway and felt the new society emerging, half a million strong, stoned and happy on that muddy farm north of New York City.  

Both critics and fans concede that Woodstock has become part of the mythology of the 1960s, even if the actual event did not necessarily represent the musical or political taste of most young Americans at the time. Some say it symbolized the freedom and idealism of the 1960s. Critics argue that Woodstock represented much of what was wrong with the 60's: a glorification of drugs, a loosening of sexual morality and a socially corrosive disrespect for authority. 

Whether one is a supporter or a critic, it is undeniable that Woodstock was one of the major climaxes of the hippie movement: a culmination of all of the peace and love ideals in one place. After Woodstock, the movement was on the downswing. One could argue that Woodstock was the grand finale, with the seventies arriving soon after it and there was a general "been there, done that"(interview) mentality which created the seventies, a decade of disco, and doom, never quite living up to the intensity of the sixties.

The 1960's, then, did more than just "swing". Many of the values and conventions of the immediate post- war world were called into question, and although many of the questions had not been satisfactorily answered by the end of the decade, society would never be the same again.
	
In conclusion, the hippy culture arose as a result of vast political changes occurring in North America and beyond and not as a result of drugs and music. The drugs and music were a by-product of the hippy culture, but by no means a reason for it's occurrence. The previous pages cite the more relevant political and social milestones, which, I believe were directly responsible for the evolution of the hippy culture.  These milestones affected everyone, one way or another, either directly or indirectly. They changed the way people thought.  You would be hard pressed to find someone over the age of about forty-five who, to this day, cannot remember what they were doing the day Kennedy was shot, and how they were affected by it. The sixties simply evolved; a microcosm of numerous political and social change that swept the then current generation. The hippies were simply reacting to changes in society and, in reacting to these changes, left an indelible mark on the history books of our time. 























Bibliography

Archer, Jales. The Incredible Sixties. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987.

Benson, Kathleen, and Haskins, James. The Sixties Reader. New York: Viking Kestrel, 1988. 

Collier, Peter, Horowitz, David. Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the'60s. New York: Summit, 1989.
Dickstein, Morris. Gates of Eden: American Culture in the Sixties. New York: Basic Books, 1977. 

Gitlin, Todd. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam, 1987.

Ingham, John. Sex'N'Drugs'N'Rock'N'Roll. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 1988.

Kostash, Myrna. Long Way From Home:The Story of the Sixties Generation in Canada. Toronto: James 	Lorimer & Company, 1980.

Martin, Elizabeth. 57 Edgemore Dr., Etobicoke, Ontario. Interview, 12 February 1997.

Oakley, Ronald. God's Country: America in the Fifties. New York: Red Dembner, 1986.

Rosen, Obst. The Sixties: The Decade Remembered Now, by the People Who Lived Them. Toronto:     Random House Publisher, 1977.

Roy, Andy. Great Assassinations. New York: Independent Publishing, 1994.

Stern, Jane, and Micheal. Sixties People. New York: Knopf, 1990.

Tucker, Ken, and Stokes, Geoffrey, and Ward, Ed. Rock of Ages: The Rolling Stone History of Rock and 	Roll. New York: Rolling Stone Press, 1986.

Weiss, Bill. King And His Struggles. New York: Penny Publishing, 1987.
Yinger, Milton. Countercultures: The Promise and Peril of a world Turned Upside Down. New York:
Macmillan Publishing, 1982.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Police Brulity.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 








Police Brutality













James Regas
December 15, 1996


Outline

Thesis: But, because some officers use these extreme measures when it is not needed, police brutality should be addressed.

I. Police Brutality
	A. Racism as a cause

II. Police Brutality is not a problem
	A. Quotes from authorities
	B. Statistics of Declining Brutality

III. Stopping Police Brutality
	A. Police Stopping themselves
	B. Public Stopping Police

IV. Conclusion
	A. Reword Thesis


 








	Police work is dangerous.  Sometimes police put in situations that excessive force is needed.  But, because some officers use these extreme measures in situations when it is not, police brutality should be addressed.  The use of excessive force may or may not be large problem, but it should be looked into by both the police and the public.

	For those people who feel racism is not a factor in causing the use of excessive force, here is a startling fact.  In Tampa Bay, Florida, five men died while in the custody of the Tampa Bay police Department (C.C. 27).  The thing is, the Tampa Bay Police Department is made up of mostly white officers, but of the five men who died, none where white.  Four of the five men that died where African Americans, and the other man was a Mexican National.  

	If the incident in Tampa Bay does not show a person racism, this event might.  In New York City, an average of seven Latin Americans were killed a year between 1986 to 1989, but in 1990, that number increased 

Tracy...2

greatly.  In that year, twenty-three Latin Americans were killed by police gunfire. 
	
	When asked how he felt about racism being involved in police brutality, Yussuf Naimkly of the University of Regina commented:

"Excessive police force against blacks has always been tolerated, because as a formally enslaved minority African Americans are trapped in a cultural context specifically designed to inhibit their development and thus minimize their threat to white hegemony" (C.C. 72)

Executive Director of Police Misconduct Lawyers Referral Service Karol Heppe commented, "Brutality against minorities is a daily occurrence in Los Angeles," she says.  "The difference this time is someone videotaped it (C.C. 36). 

	Another shocking incident of police brutality occurred in Reynoldsberg, Ohio.  A group of offices named themselves "S.N.A.T." squad.  This acronym stood for "Special  Nigger Arrest Team" and they made it a point to harass African Americans whenever.  

	"The number of people killed by police has gone down from the middle 1970's to the middle 1980's in major cities," says Patrick V. Murphy, former head of police commissions in Detroit, New York, and Washington, D.C. (C.C. 17).

	Tracy...3


	Also, in Kansas City, Missouri, a police department there has 1,110 officers.  Amazingly, the only received approximately 108 complaints from the public about those 1,100 officers.

	Adding to the belief that police brutality isn't a very big problem, most legal authorities and officials agree that the use of excessive force by police officers is going down.  In fact, they say that they see brutality declining from twenty years ago (C.C. 57).

	Police brutality is defined as involving the unnecessary and unjustified use of force be that either physical or verbal.  Gerald Williams, president of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) commented, "Let me assure you we are committed to a professional level of policing with an emphasis on fairness, humanity, and integrity" (C.C. 168).

	Other than the police stopping brutality internally, the use of civilian review boards can be used.  These boards must be able to receive all the evidence in a case, including the police audio tapes, in order to make fair judgment if excessive force was used or not.  If excessive force is present in cases, these review boards must be able to punish the police or they are almost useless.  

	Whether or not a person believes police brutality is a serious problem, it must be stopped.  In some cases, where more force is needed than in 
Tracy...4

others, it is still there.  Even in areas where police and the use of excessive force is not a huge problem, it must be decreased properly by both the police and the public.  Finally, there needs to be rules making sure it never happens again. 



 Bibliography

Berands, Neal. Police Brutality: Recognizing Stereotypes

Dudley, William.  Police Brutality.  San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1991

Skalnick, Jerome H. and James J. Frye. Above the Law: Police and the use 	of Excessive Force

"Suspects in Question" Time.  5 April 1993:31




 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Policy statement of the Norweigan point of view of the securi.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Despite widespread diplomatic discussion, and sentiment that the UN Security Council must be
expanded in order to maintain its long-term legitimacy, no generally acceptable formula for
expansion has emerged. Concerns for obtaining or retaining voting power, and for preserving a
body structured so as to be able to take prompt and effective decisions, have prevented agreement.
This article reviews various criteria for evaluating restructuring proposals, and suggests a formula
that, while not fundamentally affecting the distribution of power on the Council, might satisfy many
states' minimal requirements for an acceptable package of changes.

Norwegian Security Policy after the Cold
War

The end of the Cold War between East and West has strengthened Norwegian security,
which makes Norway no different from most other European countries. There are now
more dimensions to security policy than there were when the overriding aim was
deterrence by means of one's own and allied military forces. Cold War perceptions of
military threat no longer exist. In Norway's particular case, however, it is possible to talk
about a remaining strategic threat, when referring to Russian deployments in the far north.
Such a threat is only a potential one and is not imminent today. Yet it has to be
acknowledged that wars between nations and ethnic groups have hardly been abolished.
As a result, it has become more difficult to identify the risk of armed aggression directed
against Norway
The risk would seem to reside in the escalation of a whole series of completely different political
developments. For example, these eventualities could take the form of the emergence of a
nationalistic dictatorship, or the development of ungovernable political chaos in formerly communist
countries. Because of the existence of some very large arsenals and supplies of military equipment, it
is important to judge the political aims of potential opponents. These can change over time, not least
if they represent irrational and aggressive attitudes. The nuclear weapons of the great powers do not
seem to have any deterrent effect on "violent ethnic cleansing", and the emergence of armed conflicts
in different areas can be difficult to predict. 

But a country's security can also be subject to something that has become more topical after the
Cold War: low level threats. These are related to some very different types of irregular national
border transgressions, for example international crime and various forms of pollution. 

The Cold War's dominating concept, security by means of deterrence, is complemented by the
concept of collective security. This harmonises well with the traditional Norwegian approach to
security policy of combining deterrence with reassurance. The potential enemy is also a partner. A
small country has no less a need for allies, but for different purposes. 

Following the result of the Norwegian referendum in the autumn of 1994, which rejected EU
membership, the current status of Norwegian security policy can be summarised as follows: 

* We are a member of NATO 

* an associated member of the WEU, and 

* our Nordic neighbours are members of the EU. 

Foundations 

For most of the period following the Second World War, Norway sought national security through
membership of NATO. Up until 1940 the key word was neutrality, a neutrality that was well
disposed towards the British. During the Second World War Norway was occupied, whilst the legal
government sought exile in London. Norway took part in an "overseas front" on the side of the
Allies. An important Norwegian contribution to the war effort was the achievement of its large
merchant fleet. 

Strategic value 

A basic premise of Norwegian security policy is the perception of the assumed military and strategic
value of Norwegian territory for the combatants in a great power conflict. The absence of any
political conflict with Norway is the precondition for such an offensive. War between the Nordic
countries is now looked upon as totally unimaginable and is therefore excluded from all practical
planning. The Nordic countries together make up a "security community". 

Norway was not involved in the First World War because it was mainly limited to the European
continent. It was a land war during which Norway was protected by the British fleet at the same
time as the German fleet was mainly held to its own naval bases. 

Norway was drawn into the Second World War as the result of a strategic German invasion
undertaken as part of its war against England. This war was fought on a much wider geographic
scale and also developed into a war at sea. Norway, with its long coastline, became a theatre of
war. Furthermore, Norwegian territory was used as one of several launching points for Germany's
war against the Soviet Union. It was the Soviet Union which later liberated parts of Eastern
Finnmark from the retreating German forces. 

During the Cold War the military value of Norwegian territory increased. The reason for this was the
build-up of large sea, air, and to a lesser extent, land-based military capacity in the Soviet
North-West. Norway was regarded as the place where NATO could lose a Third World War
should the Soviet Union freely be able to use Norwegian ports and airfields as part of the struggle to
gain military control over the Atlantic. 

Not alone 

Another fundamental premise of Norwegian security policy is the perception that Norway, by
herself, will never be able to effectively repel a great power attack or prevent a serious great power
attempt to occupy the country. 

In need of assistance 

Consequently, the third fundamental premise of Norwegian security policy is that the country is in
need of military assistance from countries interested in preventing an occupation of Norway. Since
1949 Norway secured such assistance by means of her membership in NATO. The Second World
War demonstrated that Allied help has to be agreed upon and preparations for it made in
peacetime, if it is to be effective. The NATO alliance has fulfilled this need. 

But even during the Cold War, Norwegian security was not assumed to be so vulnerable as to
necessitate the deployment of foreign, allied troops on Norwegian territory. The political and military
cooperation in NATO was assumed to form an adequate basis for deterring any peacetime attack.
It also provided the basis for Norwegian base policy which was formulated in response to a Soviet
approach before Norway became a NATO member. The government decided that Norway should
not open bases for the armed forces of foreign countries unless the country was under attack or
under threat of attack. For Norway, it became an important diplomatic instrument to be able to
warn that, should there occur Soviet diplomatic or military coercion which might be interpreted as a
threat or an attack, the Government could retaliate by enlisting the allied armed forces. 

Norwegian security policy became a tightrope-walk between deterrence and reassurance.
Deterrence was to make it clear that it would be too dangerous to attack Norway, because the
military power of the alliance could be deployed against Soviet territory. Reassurance might serve to
show the Soviet Union that Norwegian policy stood firm as long as the country was not provoked. 

In this way Norway has been able to conduct a stable and effective low-tension policy based on
predictability. 

The threat is removed 

The end of the Cold War has also removed the threat of a Third World War. It has altered the
perception of threat for all countries. On this point Norway is no exception. Furthermore, it is official
Norwegian policy to state that the country is not exposed to any threat of military attack. 

Norwegian authorities do talk, however, of a transition from strategic to political risk. It is said that
one is faced with a dilemma where the most dangerous risks are regarded as the most unlikely - but
where those which affect Norway more indirectly, carry a much greater degree of probability. 

Behavioural norms 

Norwegian security is dependent on international peace, stability and security. Because of modern
communications, geographic distance no longer affords protection. A first line of defence consists of
all actors in the international arena - whether states or organisations - respecting those norms of
political behaviour which promote peace and toleration. But as the security policy challenge is also
inherent in domestic political developments, it is important that political chaos and conflict do not
emerge. An important perception, which Norwegian authorities share, is that democratic progress in
states which earlier were non-democratic is conducive to peace and stability. The preconditions for
democracy are the sharing of power and a certain degree of economic privatisation. The conflicts in
the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia, which demonstrate an inclination towards
violent ethnic cleansing, have been the focus of considerable attention. 

Norway, in common with other countries, recognises two important principles. The first is that
national borders cannot be violated and can therefore only be changed by peaceful means. The
second is that human rights must be respected. Norway is also an adherent of the principle that
European security is incompatible with claims for ethnically clean states. 

Russia 

Developments in Russia represent nonetheless the most vital challenge for Norwegian Foreign and
Security Policy. Norway cannot exclude the possibility of a serious setback in Russian politics. In
consequence of this, efforts to draw Russia more closely towards the democratic cooperation in
Western European have been declared to be of vital interest for Norway. Regional predecessors of
this are the Barents Cooperation, established in 1993 and the Baltic Sea Council which was set up
in 1992. 

Big brother 

In the opinion of the Norwegian government, it would have been easier to integrate Russia had
Norway chosen to become a member of the EU along with Sweden, Finland and Denmark. It is
more of a problem to be left alone with the Russians in the far North. A small state does not feel
safe as the isolated neighbour of a superpower. In order to prevent the development of a "Big
Brother complex", Norway is interested in not being regarded as an isolated country but as part of a
larger community. For this reason non-Nordic countries are also welcome in regional cooperation. 

The establishment of the cooperative bodies in the Barents Region can be looked upon as Norway's
most important single contribution to European East-West politics since the end of the Cold War.
Norway is also interested in further promoting Arctic cooperation by setting up a separate
cooperating council which will be open for all countries with Arctic frontiers. 

Military power 

It is also of importance that Russia, with its Soviet inheritance, is Europe's largest military power in
both nuclear as well as conventional terms, and that the political changes in the wake of the Cold
War have resulted in a proportionally larger share of Russian arms being deployed in areas
bordering on Norwegian territory. North-western Russia has become the most important base for
Russian naval forces, including the naval component of the balance of terror. The withdrawal of
Russian forces from Central Europe and the former Soviet republics has led to an increase of forces
in areas close to Norway. 

Even if Norway accepts that European peace and security have been strengthened after the Cold
War, the country is keen to ensure that it does not become marginalised in Allied security policy as a
result of the Alliance partners neglecting the military situation in the Far North. On a purely military
level, the Russian forces there do not represent the same kind of threat as Soviet forces did earlier,
when they were linked to an offensive military capacity in Central Europe. This is because the Soviet
forces have now been brought back home. There now exists a more advantageous security policy
situation, benefitting Norway as well. However, even though these far northern forces are not
perceived as representing a direct threat against Western Europe, certain worries are nevertheless
expressed by Norwegian politicians regarding the emergence of different ideas concerning shared
security. This is one of the reasons why Norway takes part in the formation of special NATO
emergency forces. The intention is to make a contribution to solidarity abroad in order to maintain
security at home. 

Disarmament 

Norway is deeply interested in already existing disarmament agreements being respected, that
disarmament continues to take place and it is extended to new areas. 

Norway does not want the CFE-agreement to be renegotiated at too early a stage. 

The country is following with great interest the implementation of the START-II agreement which
reduces the number of nuclear weapons in Russia and the USA respectively to 3000 and 3500 by
the year 2003. 

Furthermore, Novalja Semlja is Russia's only nuclear testing ground. Norway is working for a
complete test ban. The country is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is engaged in
international efforts to prevent the emergence of new nuclear powers. 

Norway holds a prominent posi 

tion in the campaign to abolish chemical weapons. 

Pollution 

Military based pollution in north-western Russia represents a particular problem. It is caused by
obsolescence, dumping at sea and by overflowing stockpiles on land. Norway has worked towards
involving the USA in the disarmament related pollution problems of North-western Russia, and has
been allocated some of the funds in a programme started by Senators Sam Nunn and Richard
Lugar. 

A considerable pollution threat, albeit a non-military one, is represented by the nuclear power plants
and other industrial instal-lations in the area, such as the nickel smelters there. Pollution in Norway
emanating from Russia is more extensive than total pollution from Norwegian sources. 

Cooperation 

Put simply, Norway would like to see as much international cooperation as possible in order to
solve her security problems in as wide a context as possible. 

USA 

It is the Norwegian view that transatlantic relations with the USA are in a class of their own. During
the Cold War, no other country was able to play such an important role for Norwegian security as
the USA. There is still a widely-held belief that nobody can replace the American commitment,
within the NATO framework, to ensure Norwegian security. 

No other country can rival the USA's position as the leading proponent of disarmament, where both
nuclear and conventional arms are concerned. 

Within NATO, Norway has entered into a number of special agreements with the USA, such as
pre-positioning of weapons and materiel for the marines and air force (COB), as well as other forms
of explicit military cooperation. Norway has helped limit the scope of cutbacks affecting such
measures, thanks to Defence Minister Kosmo's effective diplomacy. But Norway has also other
agreements with other NATO countries which ensure allied support, for example the agreement with
the German-American unit NCF (NATO Composite Force). 

Strategy 

Norway supports NATO's new strategy and forces concept enabling it to meet unforeseen
challenges threatening member countries of the alliance. 

Norway has put an IRF battalion, an air squadron and a frigate at the disposal of NATO for
immediate emergency deployment. 

In the meantime, two aspects have changed. 

During the Cold War, the greater strategic significance of Norwegian territory was so considerable it
was reckoned that alliance partners would quickly come to the assistance of the country in an
emergency. 

The threat against Norway was then so great that Norwegian forces had but one task - the defence
of Norwegian territory. 

Now, by virtue of her participation in the IRF, Norway has proclaimed her willingness to deploy
military forces, in an allied context, outside of Norwegian territory. Moreover, this can be seen as
the expression of Norway's new resolve to demonstrate solidarity with her allied partners abroad, in
order to strengthen security cooperation with the same partners on home territory. 

Transatlantic 

From a Norwegian viewpoint, every transatlantic debate in NATO has been fraught with a certain
anxiety lest the European and the American members of the alliance should develop such
disagreements that Norway would have to choose sides. Important strategic considerations link
Norway to the USA in a special way. However, Norway is part of Europe geographically,
historically, commercially and in other vital areas. 

American policy represents two challenges. The first is demilitarisation and withdrawal from Europe.
The second is the call to Western European countries to assume greater responsibility for their own
security. 

Both challenges have a bearing on how Western European NATO members organise themselves. It
is of central importance in this connection that the Western European Union (WEU) has been
chosen as NATO's European pillar. Norway is an associated member of WEU. 

At the same time WEU has been named the defence arm of the European Union (EU). Full
membership of WEU is only open to states who are EU members. Again, it is only EU member
countries who can take part in EU's joint foreign and security policy (FUSP), which gives security
policy a much broader basis than the purely military. Thus the Norwegian EU question is explicitly
linked to foreign policy considerations. 

Norway had since the Spring of 1994 an accession treaty for EU membership, which was defended
not least from a security policy standpoint. But in the referendum of November 28th 1994 a
majority of the Norwegian people voted against membership. 

Nordic 

Foreign and security policy cooperation between Nordic countries has developed rapidly following
the Cold War era when Swedish and Finnish neutrality gave rise questions of credibility.
Governments looked upon such cooperation as a step towards anticipated EU-membership for all
Nordic countries (Iceland excepted). There are, however, no indications of a Norwegian willingness
to establish any form of isolated Nordic defence cooperation. The idea of a Scandinavian defence
union was tried and rejected in 1948/49. Norway wants to remain in NATO, and as an associated
member of WEU at the very least. 

But following the Norwegian people's rejection of the EU, there is a greater requirement to stimulate
more comprehensive Nordic cooperation. Norway is a part of the European Economic Area
(EEA), and as such is a sort of economic member of the EU, but without regular voting rights.
Rejection of EU-membership does not mean the rejection of other types of cooperation. Also on
grounds of security policy the Norwegian Government considers it important to fully exploit the EEA
agreement's regulations and semi-annual consultations. 

FN 

Norway's support of the UN as the guarantor of international peace and security is dependent on
superpower cooperation not being paralysed by veto. Norway has a long tradition of taking part in
UN peacekeeping operations. More than 1 per cent of Norway's entire population has served on
UN assignments. This is probably a UN record. 

After the Cold War the UN has regained much of its original strength. Norway has extended her
UN involvement by increasing the number of officers and troops on UN alert to 2000. Norway also
supports the thinking behind a greater role for the UN by strengthening the UN's apparatus for crisis
management and operational leadership. Norway supports the new concept: keeping the peace,
which in certain cases means a willingness to take up arms in order to restore peace. 

. 

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\politcal science essays test 1.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. Describe the relationship between the state, local, and federal governments in the United States. How have these relationships changed over time. 

The constitution makes the central gov. supreme in certain matter, it also makes clear that the stat govs. Have independent powers. The supremacy clause in article VI says the US shall be the supreme law of the land, but the 10th amendment reserves power to the states. Other legitimate gov. functions made be done by the states except for coining money and carrying out foreign policy. The constitution leaves plenty of room for the meaning of federalism to change over time. 

Nine states were needed to ratify the constitution, not a majority of people. 3/4 of the states are needed to amend the constitution. No states can be combined or divided without the consent of the states concerned. Constitution also provides for special roles by the states in the selection of national gov. officials. States decide who can vote for house members and each state has two members in the senate. States play an essential part in the complicated electoral college system to choose the president. 

Evolution of US federalism-
Economic crisis and pressures generated pressures on the nat. gov. in the 1930's with the great depression- national gov. has to completely manage national economic affairs, something the states can not do for themselves. Same way with wars and various other problems. 

John Marshall in 1803 established the states the court's authority to declare national laws unconstitutional. - national power over the states. Flectcher v. peck (1810) held judicial review over the states. 
Mcculloh v. Maryland 1816- said states could not tax fed bank. 

States increased in power prior to civil war. W/ formation of new states and controversy for them to be slave or free - previously couldn't nullify like in 1833, but now could succeed. 

End of civil war- union victory, south surrender. Union now indissoulable- states could not withdraw or succeed. 

14th amendment- no state shall deprive any person w/o due process of law. 

During new deal brought areas like welfare and relief to national gov. that had always been to the states. States relied on nat gov. 

1990's reemergence in state power. States accounted for increasing percentage of public spending. Showed states more active in providing the wide range of gov services the public demands
the states accounted for increasing amount of public employees. And fed gov. employees shrank.  Devolution- delegation of power b y the central gov. to state or local govs.   

A. Each state is different. Every citizen operates under dual citizenship- both to state and federal gov. Each state has own constitution. 
B. 10th amendment- reserved powers of the states
C. Dillion's Rules
	1. State control of local government
2. Local governments are creatures of the state. Can do no more or no less   than the state allows. 
	D. State Constitutions 
	      1. Only 19 states have had only one constitution
	      2. Each have variation on how approved, changed, and length
		a. Alabama is the longest b/c includes all local laws
	      3. Variations in terms of procedures
		a. 49 out 50 require voters to pass amendments
	E. Local governments
	      1. Pattern drop in number of schools districts, increase in special districts
	      2. Types
		a. Counties- handle records: birth, death, marriage, and real estate
		b. Cities- get charter from the state. Do more for the state than counties
	F. Policy Differences
	      1. Employment
		a. Most work for local government
	      2. Spending
		a. National- payments for individuals, social security, defense, medicare
		b. State- Education, public welfare, public highways
		c. Local- education, utilities, police
	G. Revenue
	      1. National
		a. individual income tax
		b. social insurance/retirement
	      2. States
		a. 22% intergovernmental revenue come from feds
		b. this is tied to specific programs and can easily be taken away
		c. 21% sales taxes, drop when economy goes down
		d. 15% individual income taxes
	      3. Local
		a. intergovernmental revenue- 34%
		b. property taxes- taxes value of personal property or real estate
		c. 20% in charges- bills, tolls, and fees






4. How do checks and balances make it difficult for a majority to gain control of the national government. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this design by the framers?

I. Intro
   Framers believed that tyranny might be avoided if the power of the government was to be fragmented into the component branches: judicial, legislative, and executive, and each component would be made the responsibility of a separate branch of government. To protect from tyranny or any kind of centralized rule, a system of checks and balances was created so that action taken by one branch could be blocked by either one or both of the other branches. 

II. American Revolution
A. Leaders worried about misrule of the executives and judges
B. As a result, they had legislative supremacy in the state constitutions and in the Articles of Confederation
C. An elected legislative body would make gov. effective and non tyrannical.

III. Separation of Power
A. worried about legislative tyranny turned to ancient notion of balanced government. Popularized by Montesquie. 
B. Idea is that concentrated power of any kind is dangerous and the way to prevent tyranny is to first fragment gov. power into constituent parts
C. Articles I,II, and III designate separate spheres of responsibility and enumerate specific powers for each branch
IV. Checks and Balances
A. Each branch checked one another in such a way that "ambition be made to counteract ambition." 
B. No branch of the nat. gov. would be able to act entirely on its own without cooperation of the other branches. 
C. Each branch has power, but no branch is able to exercise all of its powers on its own. 
V. Examples
A. Congress is given the chief law making power under the constitution. But a bill can become a law only if the president signs it. 
B. The supreme court has the power to reject a law formulated by congress and signed by the president if it is contrary to the constitution. 
VI. Advantages/Disadvantages
A. prevents tyranny from a centralized ruler. More pure democracy. Every branch takes part- more representation of the people participating. 
B. Dis- takes longer to do things. Things carried out if two or more branches disagree. Creates controversy/arguments among branches if there is a matter where one branch disagrees with the other. 







f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Political Allegory In The Book Animal Farm.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


	                                  Political Allegory In The Book Animal Farm


"Ideas play a part in any revolution, conflicting ideas is main reason why Revolutions happens. " This is the platform that George Orwell  used in his book " Animal Farm". The political allegory in the story is mocking the Revolution  that  changed "Russia" into the "USSR".  This was the workings of  Karl Marx.  Marx was  known for being politically  inspired by one idea.  Marx wanted it to be that one class, the working class, and against another class, the rich or higher class.  The Revolution was started by men who believed with Karl Marx's theory that the history of the world was the history of a struggle between classes between oppressors and oppressed. 

This happened in the book "Animal Farm by George Orwell" Orwell uses this example to base his book on.  He makes the characters personify the major players in the Russian Revolution.  Orwell uses this to form a well written piece of literature.  In "Animal Farm" The Democratic society led by Mr. Jones the original leader  of Manor Farm was overthrown by a policy called Animalism.  Animalism was a theory concocted by the Old Major a Pig.  In "Animal Farm"  the pigs were personified as the smartest and the best among animals.  The Pigs take control of the farm.  The two major idealists Snowball and Napoleon have conflicting ideas.  These ideas break snowball  away from the rest of the group and make him leave Animal Farm.  This lets Napoleon have total control.  They set up a set of rules  called the seven commandments.  In the beginning everyone followed these rules such as no animal may kill another animal, no animal is better than another animal.  This makes the leader Napoleon want to break the rules so he makes him and his fellow pigs more special, eating all the good food, wearing clothes, living in the farmhouse, and not working.  As for the other animals big or small get the same rations of food, are not allowed to wear clothes, had to live in the barn, and were overworked.

		Marx, like other socialist thinkers of the 19th century, denounced the cruel injustices of 	industrial      capitalist society as he saw it. He had a vision of ending "the exploitation of man by 	man" and      establishing a classless society, in which all people would be equal. The only means 	to this end, he      thought, was a revolution of the exploited (the proletariat) against the 	exploiters (the bourgeoisie),     so that workers would own the means of production, such as the 	factories and machinery. This      revolution would set up a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to do 	away with the old bourgeois order      (the capitalist system) and eventually replace it with a 	classless society. Lenin took this idea and      further focused on the role of the Communist Party 	as the leader of the working class.  
	     When Lenin reached Russia in 1917 a first revolution against the crumbling regime of the 	Czar had already taken place. The new government was democratic, but "bourgeois." Lenin 	victoriously
	     headed the radical socialist (Bolshevik) revolution in October of that year. This was 	immediately
     	followed by four years of bloody civil war: the Revolution's Red Army, organized and led by Leon
     	Trotsky, had to defeat the "Whites" (Russians loyal to the Czar or just hostile to the Communists)
     	and foreign troops, too. 

	     At Lenin's death in 1924, there was a struggle between Joseph Stalin and Trotsky for 	leadership of
     	the Communist Party and thus of the nation. In 1925, Stalin clearly gained the upper hand; in 	1927,
     	he was able to expel Trotsky from the Party. Later Trotsky was exiled, then deported, and finally
	assassinated in Mexico, probably by a Stalinist agent, in 1940. All this time, Stalin never stopped
     	denouncing Trotsky as a traitor. 

     		Power in the Soviet Union became increasingly concentrated in Stalin's hands. In the 	1930s,
     	massive arrests and a series of public trials not only eliminated all possible opposition, but loyal
     	Bolsheviks and hundreds of thousands of other absolutely innocent Russians. 

     		Still, people all over the world who felt the pull of Marx's ideal- an end to exploitation 	and oppression, as they saw it- thought of the Soviet Union as the country of the Revolution. It 	was
     	hard for many people on the Left (who think of themselves as on the side of the exploited, and
     	want major changes in society to attain social justice) to give up this loyalty. That's one reason 	why
     	Orwell wrote Animal Farm.



	Essay Master

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Political Career of Richard Nixon.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 












	The Political Career of Richard Nixon


The Political Career of Richard Nixon

1. Nixon's Beginning in Politics

2. Emergence in National Politics
	A. The Hiss Case 
	B. Nixon's Political Obituary
	C. Resurgence as a presidential candidate

3. The 37th President
	A. Nixon's Appointment's
	B. Foreign Policy
		1. Nixon's plans for Europe
		2. Vietnam
	C. Domestic Policy

4. Nixon's Second Administration
	A. Reelection
	B.  Watergate    

A few weeks after the United States entered World War II a young man named Richard Nixon went to Washington, D.C. In January 1942 he took a job with the Office of Price Administration. Two months later he applied for a Navy commission, and in September 1942 he was commissioned a lieutenant, junior grade. During much of the war he served as an operations officer with the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command, rising to the rank of lieutenant commander. 
	After the war Nixon returned to the United States, where he was assigned to work on Navy contracts while awaiting discharge. He was working in Baltimore, Maryland, when he received a telephone call that changed his life. A Republican citizen's committee in Whittier was considering Nixon as a candidate for Congress in the 12th Congressional District. In December 1945 Nixon accepted the candidacy with the promise that he would "wage a fighting, rocking, socking campaign."   Jerry Voorhis, a Democrat who had represented the 12th District since 1936, was running for reelection. Earlier in his career Voorhis had been an active Socialist. He had become more conservative over the years and was now an outspoken anti-Communist. Despite Voorhis' anti-Communist stand the Los Angeles chapter of the left-wing Political Action Committee (PAC) endorsed him, apparently without his knowledge or approval.   The theme of Nixon's campaign was "a vote for Nixon is a vote against the Communist-dominated PAC." The approach was successful. On November, 5 1946, Richard Nixon won his first political election.  The Nixons' daughter Patricia (called Tricia) was born during the campaign, on February 21, 1946. Their second daughter, Julie, was born July 5, 1948. 
 As a freshman congressman, Nixon was assigned to the Un-American Activities Committee. It was in this capacity that in August 1948 he heard the testimony of Whittaker Chambers, a self-confessed former Communist espionage agent. Chambers named Alger Hiss, a foreign policy advisor during the Roosevelt years, as an accomplice while in government service.  Hiss, a former State Department aide, asked for and obtained a hearing before the committee. He made a favorable impression, and the case would then have been dropped had not Nixon urged investigation into Hiss's testimony on his relationship with Chambers.  The committee let Nixon pursue the case behind closed doors. He brought Chambers and Hiss face to face. Chambers produced evidence proving that Hiss had passed State Department secrets to him. Among the exhibits were rolls of microfilm which Chambers had hidden in a pumpkin on his farm near Westminster, Md., as a precaution against theft. On December 15, 1948, a New York federal grand jury indicted Hiss for perjury. After two trials he was convicted, on Jan. 21, 1950, and sentenced to five years in prison. The Hiss case made Nixon nationally famous.   While the case was still in the courts, Nixon decided to run for the Senate. In his senatorial campaign he attacked the Harry S. Truman Administration and his opponent, Helen Gahagan Douglas, for being "soft" toward the Communists. 
   Nixon won the election, held on Nov. 7, 1950, by 680,000 votes, and at 38 he became the youngest member of the Senate. His Senate career was uneventful, and he was able to  concentrate all his efforts on the upcoming 1952 presidential election. The "Secret Fund" Nixon did his work well. He hammered hard at three main issues--the war in Korea, Communism in government, and the high cost of the Democratic party's programs. At their 1952 national convention the Republicans chose him as Eisenhower's running mate, to balance the ticket with a West coast conservative. 
   Only a few days after the young senator's triumph his political career seemed doomed. The New York Post printed a story headed "Secret Rich Men's Trust Fund Keeps Nixon in Style Far Beyond His Salary." The public was shocked. The Republicans were panic-stricken. Prominent members of the party urged Eisenhower to dump Nixon before it was too late. 
  There was really nothing secret about the fund. Nixon was a man of limited means, and when he won his Senate seat a group of businessmen had publicly solicited funds to enable him to keep in touch with the voters in his home state while he served in the Senate. Nixon took his case directly to the people in a nationwide television hookup. He invited investigation of his finances and explained that no donor had asked for or received any favors.   The best-remembered part of his speech was his admission that an admirer had once sent the Nixons a small cocker spaniel named Checkers. "The kids love that dog, and I want to say right now that regardless of what they say, we're going to keep it," he declared. The speech was a political triumph. Eisenhower asked Nixon to come to Wheeling, W. Va., where he was campaigning. The president-to-be met his running mate at the airport with the words "Dick, you're my boy." The Republicans won by a landslide. 
 The only duties listed for the vice-president in the Constitution are to preside over the Senate and to vote if there is a tie. Eisenhower, however, groomed his vice-president for active duty. Nixon regularly attended Cabinet meetings and meetings of the National Security Council. In the absence of the president he presided over these sessions. Thus Nixon was able to assume the president's duties when Eisenhower was incapacitated by illness--after a major heart attack in 1955, abdominal surgery in 1956, and a mild stroke in 1957.  During his eight years as vice-president Nixon made a series of goodwill tours that took him to every continent. In 1958 he faced rioting, rock-throwing mobs in Peru and Venezuela. In 1959 he engaged the Soviet Union's premier, Nikita Khrushchev, in an impromptu debate in Moscow.
	In 1960 the Republican party chose its seasoned vice-president to run for the nation's highest office. His running mate was Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., a veteran of eight years as ambassador to the United Nations. Voters turned out in record numbers. When the 68 million votes were counted John F. Kennedy had become the nation's first Roman Catholic president, and Richard Nixon had lost the presidential race by the narrow margin of about 100,000 votes. Nixon got 49.55 percent of the vote; Kennedy, 49.71 percent. Nixon carried 26 states for a total of 219 electoral votes. Kennedy carried 22 states and received 303 electoral votes.  

	Although defeated in 1960, Nixon reemerged as the Republican presidential candidate in 1968.  For his running mate Nixon chose Spiro T. Agnew, the governor of Maryland, a man little known outside his own state. The choice was a surprise to political forecasters and a disappointment to some Republicans. Nixon realized, however, that a conservative Southern candidate would have lost him badly needed big-city and liberal votes in the North and that a liberal Northern Republican would have alienated the South, which backed him solidly at the convention. Agnew was a compromise choice acceptable to both the North and the South.   Throughout the election campaign Nixon directed his attacks against the failures of the Democratic Administration. He deplored the growing rate of crime in the streets, called attention to the high cost and the limitations of the Democrats' welfare programs, and denounced their inaction against inflation. Early in the campaign the Republican candidates announced that they would refrain from comments on the settlement of the Vietnamese conflict. The policy was adopted to prevent interference with peace negotiations begun in May between government representatives from the United States and from North Vietnam in Paris, France.  Nixon emphasized his determination to curb violence in the cities. At the same time he proposed a program of increased "black capitalism" and of tax incentives for private investors locating in the cities. On November 5, 1968, Nixon's long and loyal support of his party was repaid, and he was elected the 37th president of the United States. About a month before his inauguration on Jan. 20, 1969, his younger daughter, Julie, was married to David Eisenhower, the grandson of former President Eisenhower. 
 In his inaugural address President Nixon emphasized his determination to seek peace abroad, especially in Vietnam, and to bring about a reconciliation of the differences that divided the United States.   All the men nominated by the president for Cabinet posts were approved by the Senate. William P. Rogers was Nixon's choice as secretary of state. David M. Kennedy became secretary of the treasury; Melvin R. Laird, the secretary of defense. Clifford M. Hardin was named the new secretary of agriculture; Walter J. Hickel, secretary of the interior; Maurice H. Stans, secretary of commerce; George P. Shultz, secretary of labor; John A. Volpe, secretary of transportation. Robert H. Finch was designated to head the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; George Romney, Housing and Urban Development. John N. Mitchell was appointed attorney general; Winton M. Blount, postmaster general.  The first changes in the original Cabinet were made in mid-1970. Elliot L. Richardson replaced Finch. James D. Hodgson succeeded Shultz, who became head of the Office of Management and Budget, a new agency created to replace the Bureau of the Budget. Later in 1970 Nixon dismissed Hickel, with whom he had differences, and appointed former Republican national chairman Rogers C.B. Morton in his stead. Early in 1971 John B. Connally, Jr., a former governor of Texas, replaced Kennedy as secretary of the treasury. When the Post Office Department was reorganized in 1971, Blount lost his Cabinet status. Also in 1971, Earl L. Butz succeeded Hardin. Early in 1972 Mitchell resigned to head Nixon's reelection campaign; Deputy Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst replaced him. Mitchell left the campaign in early July. Peter G. Peterson replaced Stans, who also resigned to work for the campaign. Shultz succeeded Connally.  Nixon's most important selection, perhaps, was that of a successor to retiring Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren. The Senate approved his nominee, Warren E. Burger, a district judge in the federal court system. He had difficulty, however, in getting Senate approval of an associate justice to fill a later vacancy on the Supreme Court. After rejecting Nixon's first two nominees--both Southerners--the Senate accepted Harry A. Blackmun of Minnesota, a United States court of appeals judge. Two more Nixon nominees, William H. Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, were accepted as associate justices to replace Hugo L. Black and John M. Harlan, who retired in 1971.    
	Upon becoming president, Nixon turned his attention primarily to foreign affairs. In February 1969 he visited Belgium, England, West Germany, Italy, and France in an effort to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  To assure non-Communist Asian nations of continued United States support, Nixon embarked in late July on a tour of the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, India, Pakistan, and South Vietnam. Nixon then visited Romania. He was the first American president to enter a Soviet-bloc nation since World War II. 
	In the fall of 1970, to underscore United States determination to maintain peace in the Mediterranean area, Nixon traveled to Italy, Spain, and Yugoslavia, and visited the United States Sixth Fleet, stationed in the area. The tour included meetings with NATO commanders, an audience with Pope Paul VI, and visits to England and Ireland.  The change in administrations had little initial effect on the Vietnam peace talks being conducted in Paris. However, in June 1969 President Nixon announced that he would begin a phased withdrawal of American forces. The first contingent of some 25,000 men returned to the United States in July. In April 1970 Nixon announced that United States troops had been sent into Cambodia to seek out and destroy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong supply bases. This extension of the war effort in Indochina aroused strong opposition. On June 29 the last United States ground troops were withdrawn from Cambodia. In 1971 and 1972 Nixon continued his efforts to "Vietnamize" the war. By autumn 1972, United States troop strength in Vietnam--which in April 1969 had reached a peak of 543,000 men--was 32,200 men. 
   Early in 1972 the North Vietnamese mounted an offensive against the South, which had uneven success in defending itself. In a move to cut off military supplies to Hanoi, Nixon ordered the mining of North Vietnamese ports and the bombing of overland supply routes from China. In October 1972 an accord for ending the war was reached with North Vietnam, but South Vietnam's government opposed it. 
	Despite the continuing conflict in Vietnam, Nixon remained determined to inaugurate an era of negotiation with the Communist countries that were supporting North Vietnam. He attended summit meetings in the People's Republic of China in February 1972 and in the Soviet Union in May. Tensions were lessened between mainland China and the United States. 
	With United States flags waving over the Kremlin, Nixon and his Soviet hosts signed accords that had long been in preparation. The most important agreement limited the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Plans were made also for pooling resources in space exploration and in medical and environmental research. A joint commission was established to effect trade agreements. From the Kremlin, Nixon made a televised speech to the Soviet people. He visited Iran and Poland before returning home.  
	In the summer of 1969 Nixon requested legislation to improve urban transportation, raise social security benefits, combat crime, and reorganize the postal service. He also urged the establishment of national minimum standards for welfare payments and the sharing of federal revenue with the states. 
	Nixon's request fora multibillion-dollar antiballistic-missile defense system met with strong Congressional opposition. The 91st Congress, controlled by the Democrats, enacted a modified version of his recommendations by a narrow margin. In the fall 1970 elections the Democrats retained control of both houses of Congress. 
	In June 1970 Nixon signed into law a bill lowering the voting age in federal elections from 21 to 18. In mid-1971 the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, extending the franchise to citizens 18 years of age in all elections, was ratified.  In his January 1971 State of the Union message to Congress, Nixon outlined six sweeping proposals. He again called for the sharing of federal revenues with state and local governments. Nixon also sought a deficit federal budget designed to spur the lagging economy; the reform of welfare programs; a federal guarantee of adequate health care for all citizens; new measures to preserve natural resources; and revision of the structure of the federal government. 
	In August 1971 Nixon imposed mandatory wage and price controls and a 10 percent import surcharge to strengthen the economy. The Nixon Administration applied pressure to encourage foreign governments to help resolve the international monetary crisis by realigning their currencies. Foreign governments, in turn, urged Nixon to devalue the dollar. This he did in December 1971, by ending the long-standing convertibility of the dollar into gold. Shortly afterward he rescinded the import surcharge. 
  Under a Supreme Court decision of 1969, communities had been required to start busing students from one school district to another to achieve racial balance as soon as so ordered by a federal district court. Congressional approval was given in June 1972 to legislation that would delay for up to 18 months the implementation of those court orders. The bill also contained Nixon's program to contribute 2 billion dollars over a two-year period to communities in the process of desegregating their schools.
	Nixon conducted his campaign for a second term by surrogate. While he seldom left his White House office, the vice-president and other associates campaigned for him. Supporters interpreted his landslide vote as a mandate for his programs. Soon after reelection, Nixon requested the resignations of some 2,000 presidential appointees in a reorganization designed to streamline the federal bureaucracy. Nevertheless, Nixon had broken all records for presidential Cabinet appointments by mid-1974. 
	Kleindienst resigned his Cabinet post in April 1973. He was replaced by Richardson, who was succeeded as secretary of defense by James R. Schlesinger, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency and of the Atomic Energy Commission. In August Rogers resigned as secretary of state and was replaced by Henry A. Kissinger, Nixon's top national security adviser. By mid-1974 Nixon had made 30 Cabinet appointments, breaking Jall records for an American president. 
	On October 10, 1973, Vice-President Agnew resigned from office and was convicted in federal court on a felony charge of income tax evasion. Nixon chose Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan as Agnew's successor, and Congress confirmed him. 
   On January 27, 1973, a Vietnam cease-fire agreement was signed by negotiators in Paris. In March Nixon welcomed home the last American ground troops and prisoners of war from Vietnam. American military involvement continued with bombing raids over Cambodia until mid-August. 
	In June 1973 Nixon hosted a visit from Leonid I. Brezhnev, general secretary of the Soviet Communist party. The two leaders signed a friendship agreement. They also instituted accords for the expansion of scientific, technical, educational, and cultural exchanges, and for accelerated negotiations to limit nuclear arsenals.
	In February 1973 it was revealed that the United States and the People's Republic of China would set up government liaison offices in Washington, D.C., and in Beijing. In May Nixon met French President Georges Pompidou in Iceland to discuss military, political, and economic relations between the United States and its Western European allies. 
	War erupted in the Middle East in October 1973 when Syria and Egypt attacked Israel simultaneously. United States mediation led to the disengagement of Egyptian and Israeli troops in January 1974 and of Syrian and Israeli troops in May. On a goodwill trip to the Middle East in June, Nixon visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel, and Jordan. To Egypt and Israel, Nixon offered aid in developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Later in June Nixon flew to the Soviet Union for summit talks. 
	In his budget message and in a series of State of the Union messages to Congress early in 1973, Nixon announced the reduction of federal spending for social welfare. He asked that cities and states be granted funds in a revenue-sharing plan to take over federal programs in urban development, education, manpower, and law enforcement. 
	In February 1973 Nixon announced his second devaluation of  the dollar. Faced with rising inflation Nixon in June ordered a 60-day freeze on all retail and wholesale prices except for raw agricultural commodities. Price controls in some form were in effect until Congress let them expire on April 30, 1974. Inflation persisted.  
    In December 1973 Nixon had asked for Congressional review of some of his financial transactions. (Reports had been circulating about his low tax payments in proportion to his income.) In 1974 the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation and the Internal Revenue Service found that Nixon owed more than 400,000 dollars in back taxes. 
	A major issue at the beginning of Nixon's second term became known as the Watergate scandal. In June 1972, agents hired by the Committee for the Reelection of the President had been arrested while breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate apartment-office complex in Washington, D.C. Early in 1973 they were convicted of burglary and political espionage. The Senate held hearings to probe allegations of attempts by high White House officials to cover up administration involvement in the case. Several of Nixon's top aides resigned as they became implicated.  Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee began an inquiry into whether he had committed impeachable offenses. On April 30, 1974, Nixon released edited transcripts of White House conversations that he felt would reassure the public of his innocence regarding the Watergate break-in and cover-up. Instead, he lost many of his supporters. The Supreme Court ordered Nixon to surrender additional White House tapes sought by the special Watergate prosecutor as evidence in criminal proceedings. Three of these recordings documented Nixon's personal order to cover up the Watergate break-in. The House Judiciary Committee had already voted in late July to recommend Nixon's impeachment. With Congressional support destroyed, Nixon chose to resign. Vice-President Ford succeeded him on Aug. 9, 1974. Within a month President Ford granted Nixon a full pardon for all crimes he may have committed during his administration. Nixon spent the next 20 years trying to rehabilitate his domestic reputation, though he never lost the admiration of foreign leaders. He became a respected elder statesman in foreign affairs. He revisited China in 1976 and 1989 and made several visits to Russia, the last early in 1994.  The dedication of the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda 1991 was attended by all five living presidents. The 21-million-dollar library and museum was built with private funds. Nixon's wife, Pat, died in June 1993. Nixon died on April 22, 1994, in a New York City hospital, four days after suffering a severe stroke. He had just finished writing his 11th book, `Beyond Peace'.


























 
Footnotes

(1) Ryan, James Richard Nixon (Chicago: Childrens, 1985) p. 115

(2) Aithea, Jonathan Nixon: A Life (New York: Regency, 1994) p. 267

(3) Kane, J. N. Facts About the Presidents (Norfolk: Wilson, 1984) p. 1006

(4) Kane, J. N. Facts About the Presidents (Norfolk: Wilson, 1984) p. 1043

(5) Hargrove, Jim Richard M. Nixon: The 37th President (Chicago: Childrens, 1985) p. 553

(6) Aithea, Jonathan Nixon: A Life (New York: Regency, 1994) p. 318 

(7) Ryan, James Richard Nixon (Chicago: Childrens, 1985) p. 213

(8) Ibid., p. 214































	Bibliography


Kane, J. N. Facts About The Presidents, Norfolk: Wilson, 1984

Aithea, Jonathan Nixon: A Life, New York: Regency, 1994

Hargrove, Jim Richard M. Nixon: The 37th President, Chicago: Childrens, 1985

Anthony, C. All The President's Men, Boston: Easton, 1989

Nixon, R.M. The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990

Ryan, James Richard Nixon, Chicago: Childrens, 1985

Bernstein, Carl Compilation of Biographical and Historical Information, Norfolk: Wilson, 1983
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Political Corruption in Canada.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Canada had nine registered political parties in the 1993 federal election. Each one of these parties was trying to place their candidates into Parliament as members. In this particular election there were the usual dominating parties that ran, the Liberals and Conservatives. Also vying for seats were seven minority parties which included the Green Party, the Christian Heritage Party, the National Party of Canada, the Abolitionist Party, the Commonwealth, The Canada Party, the Liberaltarian Party, the Marxist-Leninist Party, and the Natural Law Party.  Each of these minority parties had then and still do have their own values, goals, and political expectations.  Most minority parties try to guide themselves along on the basis of these  beliefs, especially around election time when they work hardest to raise issues of policy alternatives trying to make a mark on the political scene in Canada despite their limited support and resources.  
	The Green Party of Canada is one particular minority party that presented themselves to the political scene in Canada about 15 years ago, in the early 1980's (Darfler). The small group of individuals belonging to the Green Party is an interesting bunch. They're all ages and come from a wide variety of views and opinions. Even together as a party they vary in their individual values and beliefs compared to other political parties in Canada.  The party faithful is unlike most other parties in many ways, the most noticeable difference is having tried to invert a system which is bottom-up, meaning that all the real power and responsibility are held at the level of the local chapters. This is unique to the Green Party because most political organizations operate on a top-down basis, with a middle group within the party hierarchy that is in charge of their own membership, income, policies and incentives (Darfler).  They together as a united party hold their own political sights for the future.  The Green Party members for the most part believe that it is time to take a more sensible approach to running the affairs of the people and to do that we must base our political and economic beliefs on fact.  In Canada, the Green Party values such things as ecological wisdom, social justice, grass roots democracy, non- violence, decentralization, feminism,  and future focus/sustainability (htp.//www.green.ca).  If you agree that the government should focus its attention toward these values, then you yourself are probably Green.  All of these values are joined by a common value system which is determined by a set of underlying theories about the nature of reality and the people placed in it. The Green Parties political thought will probably never become entirely known as "Greenism," unless it is to be a real force for change with majority support (http.//www.green.ca).  Could the Green Parties position on the Ideological map play a part in why they do not and probably never will have majority support?    
		The planet Earth is a huge planet, a matter of fact its mass is 5.98 x 10 metric tons (Cayne 95).  Many people think that such a planet with this vast size would be able to support just about anything, but how about 15 billion people.  The Green Party values the fact that the earth sustains all life forms and to maintain that belief, the people must become educated about ecological wisdom.  They believe sound ecological principles must be the basis of economic activities. Also, in order to ensure a high quality of life and preserve nature in all its diversity, they feel that we must live within the physical limits of our planet and at sometime practice conservation. Unfortunately, we are not living within the physical limits of the planet as the Green Party suggests we should. They advise us that we should be eliminating waste and learning to rely on those resources that are renewable or can be recycled or a day will come when we will not be able to sustain ourselves (Darfler).  The trouble is that to educate people to do this would take a substantial amount of money and the present day government isn't willing to comply.  In this day and age the human population is exploding, with this population boom we are using up large amounts of our finite resources.  It has been evident  for a long time  that there is a problem and it is only going to grow worse over time. It was best summed up by Sir Edmund Hillary, "Environmental problems are really social problems anyway. They begin with people as the cause, and end with people as victims." (Weston 1)
	The Green Party of Canada wants to put all the worrying of the environment to an end. They feel that we are consuming our capital when we should be living off of the interest.  The Green Party supporters want to eliminate waste and learn to rely on those resources that are renewable or can be recycled. Take the war in Iraq for example, this war was over a natural resource which led to great environmental destruction, and this may only prove to be the first in a long series of resource wars that are destructive.  
	Social Justice/ Responsibility is highly valued by the Green Party of Canada.  They believe that nobody should be held back from reaching their full potential, as well every person has the right to lead a self-determined life of purpose and dignity.  Each individual must accept responsibility for not only the earth, but also the rights of everything living on it.  The relationship between the people must reflect compassion, equality, mutual respect, justice, cooperation, and non- coercion.  These attitudes must not only reflect but also guide our relations with others.  The Greens believe this will lead people to a much happier and productive life for everyone.
	A Grass Roots Democracy is a system that the Green Party of Canada would truly like to witness.   This democracy would provide the citizens with a chance to directly participate in the environmental, economic and political decisions of their lives.  The ideal way of doing this would be to hold Referendums and Plebiscites to decide on what is best for the citizens of a particular district, town, province or even the country as a whole.   This was exemplified when connecting PEI to the rest of Canada was a hotly debated topic, to decide whether or not to build the fixed link bridge, the government of the province held a provincial plebiscite to decide whether or not to build a bridge.  The majority voted yes, meaning that the bridge was to be built.  This is a great idea because a few politicians were not left to make a decision that will affect everyone.   
	The Green Party of Canada views the act of violence as a very unprofessional way of settling disputes.  Solving disputes with the use of violence is also very morally unacceptable and ultimately self defeating to the Green Party.  The main qualities that will ensure The Green Parties ideal non-violence world are flexibility, cooperation, respect, and fairness.  We must fully support all non-violent efforts to resolve conflicts around the world and work to put an everlasting end to war. The vision of the Green Parties non-violent world would include stiffer gun control than was imposed in 1995, a drastic reduction in the military budget, a withdraw from the global arms race and finally specific targeting of a Canada aid program to the poorest countries.
	Unlike other political parties the Green Party of Canada believes in a system of limited government that is decentralized.  They feel that the government should be turned back over to the provinces.  In this governing technique an overall context of ecologically sound and socially just values and lifestyles would be evident. If a decentralized government was in place, the decisions that effect common people in communities would no longer be made by people in authority far away, rather by the community legislature council.  
	According to the beliefs of the Green Party, the community must provide within the natural limits of the earth rather than people providing for the economy.  The Green Party also thinks that local self-reliance to the greatest practical extent is the best way to achieve this goal. In our communities we need to create values that are directed toward caring, personal enrichment, cultural development and the appreciation of the natural world.  The Greens recognize that the whole community applies not only to people that live in one community, but can also mean those people who share common interests.  
	A topic that has come a long way in the last few years is that of feminism.  The word feminism defined means: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes (Websters 418) . The Greens would like to see a society where the moral code of cooperation and understanding would replace the immoral acts of domination and control.  Everyone would be equal, meaning people would share and help one another instead of being told what to do and how to do it.  There would exist no difference between that of male and female.  Females and males would be equally represented in every aspect of society (political, business, ect...).
	The Green Party of Canada would also like to see a society where it is concerned about the next generations and not just the present.  The future focus and sustainability issue would address the issues that unless the earth's population doesn't do anything now the next generations will not have anything to look forward to. Everyone has to take a stand and decide that they have to preserve today for tomorrow.  This is contrary to the other political parties which think more short term thinking and planning. 
	The preceding eight values are at the forefront of the Green Party.  They work and plan their beliefs around them hoping the general population will listen to what they value.  Their main goal is not necessarily to win a majority voice in the legislature but instead to have voice so that they can educate the population.  They want to establish a system based on a more basic assumption, the need for survival.  A social order based on the satisfaction of human needs rather than on wants, would be much different from the world we live in today.  They see us as creatures, and can see no basic conflict between the needs of the planet and our real needs.
	You may now be asking where do the Greens, although not a political power, stand on the Ideological Map.  Their exact position on this map may be best illustrated by a Green Party slogan, "We are neither left or right- WE ARE THE FUTURE."  
	The Green Parties values and goals are the best way to illustrate where and why they are on the ideological map.  On the left of the Conventional Left- Right Spectrum is:
		1.  The full government ownership of the means of production
		2.  Extensive government regulation
		3.  Extensive redistribution of income
While on the right of the spectrum it contains:
		1.  No government ownership of the means of production
		2.  No government regulation
		3.  No redistribution of income	(Gibbons, Youngman 12)
Also, over the years the terms "Left" and "Right" have picked up additional ideological baggage to expand considerably their application in political discourse and debate.  The Left is now also associated with support for minority rights, womens' rights, gay and lesbian rights, environmental protection and foreign aid, whereas the Right is now also associated with military spending, neoconservatism and liberaltarism.
	I feel that the Green Party of Canada is indeed towards the Left of the ideological Map.  To prove where the Greens stand on the spectrum we must take into account if and to what extent the party believes the above determing factors. The Green Party, as indicated earlier, are very much in favour of extensive government regulation.  They feel that the Government should put regulation on such things as nuclear power, the forestry and fishing quotas and waste and most other environmental concerns.  Favouring such regulation tends to place the Green Party to the Left of the Spectrum.    
	Another feature that places them to the left is their belief in the redistribution of wealth.  The Green Party tends to view it as six children having ten cookies.  One child has five of the cookies, leaving one cookie for each of the five other children, that's assuming that the children can share fairly amongst themselves.  This type of distribution is very typical, even within grossly wealthy counties where the minority of the people holds the majority of the wealth, leaving only little money for the large general population.  The Green Party believes that it is in the capitalist society that forces the poorest people to place their own short- term interests above the long term interests of the Earths ecology.  The Green Party feels that if the government doesn't start to put regulations on the wealthy now then we are headed for disaster.
	I do not feel that the Greens are so radical to say that the government should control all means of production, although I do feel that the Greens think that the government should be in control of some production.  This would include the production of such things as production facilities that are major polluters. 
	The last two things that support my theory that the Green Party is on the left of the ideological map are the Green Parties stances on environmental protection and foreign aid.  Although most everyone is concerned about the environment, why are they only concerned about the environment during their life and not that of  future generations.  The Greens biggest emphasis is on the environment of not only today but also the future.  They believe that we have to live in a "Conserver society rather than Consumer society." Almost all the Greens beliefs are tied in with the environment some how or another.
	Finally, the Green Party faithful also feel  that large industrialized countries such as Canada, should not spend foolishly on weapons, but rather give money to the worst off countries in the world.  The arms build up diverts money and resources from the solution of so many of humanity's problems and the increase of these sophisticated weapons system has made security an ever receding mirage.  I feel that this is evident enough to prove my point that the Green Party of Canada is to the left of the ideological map.
	There exists two reasons why the Green Party has yet to achieve major status in Canada.  The first reason for not achieving major status is because the Green Party of Canada is still relatively new.  The Green Party of Canada is still a teenager, being only about fifteen years old.  It is hard to educated the people in a whole country in this short time.  The more people that you educate, the more people that will support your party, which inturn helps you to fund the party to help educate even more people. It is somewhat of a step program that relies heavily on the previous step.
	The second reason why the party has yet to achieve major status in Canada is because the Greens vision is too 'perfect' and the general population cannot bring themselves to vote for them.  The population feels that although the 'Green Vision' may be great it would take to long to ever reach their goals. A lot of their goals cannot be solved with money rather they need to be solved the attitudes of the people.  I feel that my two reasons why the Green Party are not able to reach major status in Canada are very realistic, although it must be emphasised that the Green Party will probably never become a ruling government.  To be the majority government is not the Green Parties main goal, above all they only want to educate the people of their view.  That is what we should be doing for not only us, but also the environment.
	The future of the Green Party cannot go down, only up.  As the twenty- first century nears, I feel that the environment is becoming a bigger issue each and everyday.   The Green Party will benefit greatly by remaining sensitive to the social conditions in which it is operating (Gibbons, Youngman 169).  No other party attacks the issues of the environment like the Green Party does.  Although, the Party maybe in some jeopardy if the other political parties decide to take a radical change of direction and narrow their scope so they focus much more on the environment.  This is to say that the Liberal Party may take all their support and start to focus on the problems of the environment.  This would attract many people away from the Green Party since the Liberal Party has much more power and influence over people.  With a greater influence over people it would inturn mean that they could change peoples attitudes and progress on the environmental issues a lot more rapidly.  I feel this radical change in a majority party wouldn't happen, fearing that they would lose support for not attacking such problems as economics. 
	The Green Party of Canada value many things, as do other parties.  The difference being that the Greens values almost always has an aspect of the environment intertwined.  These goals and values that have the environment intertwined into them lead me to believe that the Green Party is on the farther left than the centre of the ideological map.  There exists two reasons why the Green Party of Canada is not a major party in Canada.  Besides the fact that their goal is only to educate people, the reasons why they are not a major party is because the party is still relatively young, being only fifteen years old and the second being that they have a picture for a perfect world that is narrow in scope.  Finally, I feel that the Green Parties future is not going to see less support, but rather improve as the environment around us declines.  This is unless one of the major parties in Canada decides to make a radical change and focus much more on the environment, drawing support away from the Green Party.









Works Cited

Cayne, Bernard.  The New Book of Popular Science: Volume 1. Toronto: Grolier Incorporated, 1989

**Darfler, Bill.  Green Primer.  London, Ontario:  

Gibbons, Roger, & Youngman, Loleen.   Mindscapes: Political Ideologies Towards The 21st 	Century. Toronto: McGraw Hill Ryerson, 1996.

Webster's.  Webster's New Collegiate Ditionary.  Toronto: Thomas Allen & Son Limited,  1988.

Weston, J.  Red And Green: The New Politics of the Environment.  New Hampshire: Pluto  	Press, 	1986.

NOTE***   This was a republished article contained on the web site (www.green.ca)










The Green Party of Canada










Jarret MacDonald
Political Studies 102
G. Germain
March 31, 1997

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\political party.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Political PartiesHundreds of years ago the term politics was unheard of,the word layed scrambled among the alphabet, and the power behind the undeveloped word lied still.  Today, politics is a wellknown word to us all and the power behind it has governed us for many centuries.  Differences of opinions in politics havecreated what we know as political parties.  The political parties of the United States are the oldest in the world; amongDemocratic nations, they may also be the weakest.  American voters attitudes and traditions are big factors in what makesour parties weak.A Political Party is a group that seeks to elect candidates to public office by giving them a party identification.  Although there are more than two political parties, the Democratic and Republican Parties, they have dominated thepolitical system for hundreds of years.  Other parties that exist but, are not very familiar are the Whig Party, LibertarianParty, Socialist Worker Party, Communist Party of the United States of America, National Hamiltonian Party, NationalProhibition Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and the Know-Nothing Party.In the United States, the labels of the two major political  parties have always had a relatively strong appeal for thevoters.  Because of that, third parties and independent candidates have rarely had much competitive success at thenational or even the state  level.  There has hardly, maybe never, been a strong national party organization in this country.Though there have, however, been long periods in which certain state, city, and county components of the Democratic andRepublican Parties have been organizationally powerful.Political Parties were developed because of differences in opinions on subjects; each party was comprised of individuals with similar views.  The question that seems to come into mind often is, "How do the parties really differ?"  The answer isvery complex, much depending on what aspect of the party we are looking at:  their history, their policies and platforms,their leadership, their rank, and their level of government--national, state, or local.  A lot of it also dependson our own view of how we see it from where we sit.During the New Deal, the difference between the Democrats and Republicans was clear to everyone.  At one time there wasa great difference between all the Political Parties, but things have changed and the lines between the parties have blurred.Political Parties went through many name changes beforeany were final.  Thomas Jefferson's party was known as the Democratic-Republican Party.  By 1791, Jeffersonian Republicanswere emerging as an opposition political party.  Although its leaders hesitated to use a name associated with the French Revolution, the party remained in power until the election ofJohn Quincy Adams in 1824.  It returned to power with the election of Andrew Jackson, and soon after became known as theDemocratic Party (Bender 698).The Republican Party is the younger of the two major parties in the United States.  In 1854, the Republican Party wasorganized to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories.  Republicans first captured the presidency in 1860under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln.  His election was followed by the Civil War, during which the Republican Partybecame the majority party (Reichley 433).  The Republican Party was born in an outburst of protest against the Kansas-NebraskaBill in 1852 (455).  After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, opponents of the measure held a series of conventions thatled to the formation of the Republican Party.   By 1860, Republicans were in a strong position.  The Whig Party had disappeared, the Know-Nothing Party had faded, andthe Democratic Party was divided over the issue of slavery.  (Linden 69-73).  In 1860, a four-way presidential race broughtvictory to the Republican candidate.  It was Abraham Lincoln who won a majority of the electoral votes.  However, theRepublican victory was a narrow sectional one.  The Republican Party was the first, and thus far the only, third party inAmerican history to succeed in becoming one of the two major parties (Binkley 173).Our major parties have been expected to take on many heavytasks.  At times in our history, they have performed admirably and at times they have been found lacking.  Since early political parties lacked the tight organization of present-day parties,candidates were chosen by a few congressional leaders.  They  were chosen at a party caucus.  The caucus system was successfuluntil the 1820's when many Americans became resentful of "King Caucus."  The Americans then called for a change.In the election of 1824, 3 of the 4 presidential candidates were chosen by state conventions or state legislatures instead of by caucuses (Nichols 217).  Rather quickly, political partiesbegan to hold national conventions to choose presidential candidates.  The delegates to these conventions did give moreparty members a voice in choosing candidates.Parties serve as unifying factors at times:  drawing together the president, senators, representatives, and sometimeseven judges behind common programs.  But political parties,  have weakened by having to work through a system of fragmentedgovernmental power.  This was so we would never develop a strong party.  Since 1954, the electorate have chosen to put Democratsin charge  of congress and a Republican in charge of the White House (Burns 32).Many Americans have mixed feelings about parties.  Theythink parties:  evade the issues, fail to deliver on their promises, have no new ideas, and they are sources of corruptionand misgovernment.  Parties follow public opinion rather than lead it.  Other Americans favor political parties and take partin it.  Most Americans believe in voting for individual candidates, regardless of party label. There are many political parties that enter candidatesin national elections.  The Democrats and Republicans seem tobe the most common.  Democrats and Republicans also hold sharply contrasting images of one another.  As we entered the 1990'sDemocrats consider the Republican party to be a John Wayne/Rambo/tough-guy party that talks a hard line againstcommunists and terrorists in foreign affairs.  They are also against criminals and welfare cheats.  Republicans considerthe Democratic Party to be the party of "the losers, the lame and the lazy."  The party that will not meet the nation'sresponsibilities in the world arena.  The party that is too soft toward the communists abroad.  They are too tolerant offringe groups at home: the feminists, the gays, and "troublemakers" in general.  Reagan's shift, late in hispresidency, toward a friendlier stance toward Moscow, and Bush's mixed approach hardly altered these contrasting images (Burns236).Our nation began without political parties; today political parties, though far from extinct, are about as weak as at anytime in our history.  Some party experts fear the parties are so weak they are mortally ill--or at least in a long decline. They point first to the long-run impact of the progressive reforms early in this century.  It was the reforms that robbedparty organizations of their control. Their control of nomination process by allowing masses of independents and "uniformed" votersto enter the primaries and vote for candidates who might not be accepted the to party leaders.  They also point to a long series of "reforms."  The nonpartisan elections in cities andtowns, the staggering of national, state, and local elections. This made it harder for parties to influence the electionprocess.  Some parties suffer from further ills today.  The rise of television and video cassette campaigns, media, anddirect-mail consultants, have denied parties their historic role.  The role of educating, mobilizing, and channeling theelectorate.  In addition, partly as a result of media influence, the most powerful electoral forces today are officeseeker oroffice holder organizations.  Not the party organizations. Officeseekers are supported by money and media.  They organize their personal followings to win nominations while the partyleaders are supposed to stand by nuetrally.  If they win office, they are far more responsive to their personal followings thanto the party leadership.    The truth of the matter is, the two-party system in the United States does not offer voters a meaningful choice.  Somepoliticians and scholars, both Republican and Democrat, are more intrested in party renewal than party reform.  In theirview or at least in the view, of the "party pessimistes", the party system needs to be strengthened, not reformed.  Thosethat fortify the party as an organization would nurse both the elephant and the donkey back to health and vitality before theywould teach either animal how to improve its ways.   Everyone has their own opinions about political parties and how they should be run. There have been many changes over the years since political parties started to develope.  Although some may agree with them and some may not, but this is howpolitical  parties operateWorks CitedBender, David.  ?Amecican Elections.  San Diego, CA:  GreenhavenPress, Inc., 1988.  (pg. 698) Binkley, Wilfred.  ?American Political Parties.  New York:  AlfredA. Knopf, 1945.  (pg. 173)Burns, James.  ?Government by the People.  New Jersey:  PrenticeHall, Inc., 1952.  (pg. 32)Linden, Glenn.  Legacy of Freedom.  Sacramento, California:  Laidlaw Brothers, 1986.  (pg. 69-73)Nichols, Roy.  The Invention of the American Political Parties. New York:  The Macmillan Company, 1967.  (pg. 217)Reichley, James.  ?The Life of the Parties.  New York:  The FreePress, 1992. (pg. 433-445) Parties   I.  Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1  II.  Different Types of Political Parties. . . . . . . 1 III.  Two-Party Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  A.  Democrats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   B.  Republics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  IV.  Choosing Leaders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   A.  Caucuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  B.  Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   V.  Opinions of Political Parties. . . . . . . . . . .  VI.  Political Parties Today. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  A.  Entering Elections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  B.  Nation without Political Parties. . . . . . .  C.  Campaigns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII.  Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\political science essays test 3.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) How is the legal system organized in the United States? How does the supreme court make decisions and interact with other branches of government?

I. Legal system- organization, 51: 1 federal, 50 state
a. trial courts- at lower levels
1. decide question of fact- "did an action take place?" "did someone commit a felony?
b. appellate courts- middle level
1. decide questions of law, no witnesses, no testimony, and no evidence- "was the law administered properly?"
2. only on appeal from the trial court level
c. supreme court- upper level
1. almost complete discretion over which cases they hear
2. needs to be a federal question regarding either the constitution or a federal law
II. Juries
a. grand juries
1. indictment on probable cause
2.  meet in secret and only hear from the prosecution
b. petit trial jury
1. reach the decision in a criminal or civil case
2. having a jury present at all is the decision of the defendant otherwise they can have a bench trial
c. standard
1. criminal: proof beyond a reasonable doubt
2. civil: preponderance of evidence (more likely than not, or weighing the evidence
d. size
1. federal must be 12 members, state can vary
e. vote
1. federal: unanimous
2. states: usually the overwhelming majority such as 9 to 12
f. lawyers
1. are regulated by the American bar association at the national level
2. regulated by the state bar association locally
III. The US Supreme Court- "The Supremes"
a. Jurisdiction
1. very narrow range of cases with original jurisdiction
2. almost all of the cases are appellate cases
3. Supreme court chooses which cases it wishes to hear by issuing a writ of certiorari- to order the record brought from the lower level court
4. cases need to address a federal question to be concerned
5. to grant "cert" the judges will apply the rule of 4 (when 4 justices think the case is important enough to consider
b. organization
1. the number of justices in the court is not set by the constitution, thus it can be changed. Has been at the current # of 9 since mid 1800's
2. chief justice serves as manager of the court
3. court meets from 1st week of October through june
c. decision making
1. the decision making process is very secretive
2. a written brief is required to request a hearing
3. private discussions are conducted in order of seniority
4. votes taken in reverse senior order, w/ most junior member voting first
5. written opinion will discuss the rationale for the decisions made and can serve as guides for the lower courts by setting precedents
6. amicus curiae briefs are filed by friends of the court to weigh in on the issues and to attempt to sway the decision of the court






























2. Describe the flow of a criminal case, being careful to discuss the rights and key court cases at each stage. 

1. Investigation- 4th amendment applies during the investigation state must need probable cause

2. Arrest- 5th amendment applies during the arrest stage, such as the right against self incrimination. The court dealt with this during the case of Miranda vs Arizona (1965) thus the Miranda rights warn you not to self incriminate

3. Booking- 6th amendment grants the right to counsel during the proceedings. This warning also appears in the Miranda rights, but was decided in the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963) which argues that all people have the right to an attorney

4. Charging- at this stage in the criminal process, a person must again be advised of rights, thus the right to be informed of the formal charge

5. Initial appearance- this where an attorney would be appointed, bail would be set, along with a date for a preliminary hearing

6. preliminary hearing/grand jury- where evidence will come into play, this is the very first adversary hearing and the purpose is to establish probable cause. Various exclusionary rules regarding evidence may occur. Approximently half of states us a grand jury to issues an indictment- grand juries can vary from 5-25 people depending on the state

7. indictment or information

5-8: pretrial motions and discovery: procuring evidence and witnesses. Attorneys may try to a) get some items of evidence thrown out 
   b) file a motion for a change of venue- related to 6th amendment right to an    impartial jury 
   c) try to get the charges dismissed as there being not enough probable cause

8. Arraignments- where a plea is entered and the judge can choose whether or not to accept any plea bargains that may have been arranged. Also where a trial date would be set

9. Trial- after judge has issued charge to jury, they will return with a  verdict of either a guilty conviction, an acquittal, or there can be a mistrial declared. In the case of an acquittal, the defendant cannot be tried again for the same crime on the basis of no threat of double jeopardy, for a mistrial, the prosecution will decide whether or not to try the defendant again

10. Sentencing- is usually handed down at the same time that the verdict is delivered. However, in cases, where the death penalty is an option, there will be a separate hearing for the sentencing. Also, juries are necessary to sentence someone to death, instead of just a judge. The supreme court has also ruled that the death penalty cannot be used against children, or adults that are retarded

11. Appeal- losing party can appeal the outcome of the case if it is believed that an error was made in the application of the law

12. corrections- if found guilty, the defendant could be made to pay a fine, serve time in prison, or get probation, also any combination of these
clemency- having a sentence reduced
pardon- having a crime forgiven 








Trial side notes: 

voir dire: first step in trial is jury selection
preemotory strikes- lawyers may choose members to remove from the jury from a list of or questioning 
	jury- their job is to evaluate the facts and determine guilt or innocence
	judge- job is to determine questions of law and to ensure the trial runs within legal guide lines
	opening statements- prosecution goes first (state) then the defense
	rebuttal- fight back chance to call new witnesses and introduce new evidence, also recall new witnesses to ask new questions
	closing arguments- prosecution will usually go last
	charge to jury from judge- will tell them what the law specifies and what options they have a s far as conviction or acquittal 













Court Cases

Miranda vs. Arizona (1965)- rights given to person under arrest, warn you not self incriminate, right to lawyer. Goes with 5th amendment during arrest stage

Gideon vs. Wainright (1963)- argues all people have right to an attorney

Mapp vs. Ohio (1961)- evidence that has been legally obtained cannot be used against a person in trial. Also known as the exclusionary rule



f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\political science final essays.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Briefly describe and explain US foreign policy during the Cold War. What types of problems and approaches for dealing with them have emerged since the Cold War ended?

Pre WWII- US were isolationist- refusal to join league of nations

Post WWII- US and USSR only remaining superpowers in the world
	Started cold war between the two from 1945 to 1990
	US foreign policy mainly this for the next 45 years:
1. close relationship with allies
2. efforts to win support of newly independent poor countries
3. what weapons systems to develop
All these were measured against what the other side was going to do

Main aspect of US foreign policy during cold war
1. Containment- basis of US policy- first used when US gave military aid to Greece to prevent a communist take over
2. Domino theory- if once country falls to communism, the next will fall and so on
3. Bipartisanship- belief that both US parties must agrees on foreign policy issues- so as to give a unified front to our enemies

Foreign Policy under Truman:
Truman doctrine (1947): the US will assist any country facing subjugation
Marshall Plan 1947- $12 billion pledge to help rebuild central European countries after the war, ensuring that they are on our side and capitalist
The formation of NATO- an anti soviet military alliance b/t western Europe, the US, and Canada, pledged to defend and go to war with each other
Korean war 1950- north korea invades south korea, US came to aid with the UN
	Truman fires general McArthur over conflict- post Korean war puts US/USSR into stalemate

Foreign Policy under Eisenhower
Brinkmanship- escalated any armed conflict to the brink of nuclear war so the other side would back down
Mutually assured destruction- any nuclear action would be definite to completely destroy both countries
US expanded alliances outside of western Europe
Redscare- possibility of communist invasion with US government, Hollywood, US society- this led to the McCarthy hearings
Sputnik 1957- Soviets beat US in space race, by sending manned flight to space first

Foreign Policy under Kennedy 
Bay of pigs invasion fiasco. 
Missile crisis in 1962- brought very real possibility of nuclear holocaust targeted at US
US/USSR agreed to SALT 1 treaty after missile crisis- this limited each sides number of strategic arms
Goes to berlin wall to give speech and gain support
Peace corps- US expertise being brought to developing/needy countries

Policy under Johnson
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution- 1964

Policy under Nixon
Foreign policy concentrated under secretary of defense
Nixon doctrine- military will provide assistance to friendly governments who are resisting revolutionary movements
Vietnam- fought in an effort to prevent communist take over of S. Vietnam- major set back in US foreign policy- tried to get troops out
D�tente- lessened tension between US and Russia- plays china and USSR against each other

Policy under Carter
Emphasis on returning to civilian rule in latin America 
Camp David Accords 1978-  
	Brought president of Egypt and Israel pm together to establish diplomacy b/t their feuding countries
Panama canal treaties- return control of the canal to panama- made US look weak
Iran hostage crisis in 1979- took over US embassy in Tehran

Policy under Reagan
Cold war rhetoric- calls Soviets evil empire- argues for increased force
Troops- more willingly to commit them overseas such as in Grenada and Lebanon, but brought them home when bases were bombed
Openings to Gorbachev- Gorbachev's agendas of restructuring (perestroika) and openness (glasnost)- helped soviet market, and refused to intervene militarily 

Post Cold War
Berlin wall fell in 1989- symbolic end of cold war

Problems/approaches under George H W Bush
End of bipolar view as the soviets no longer a threat- US now only superpower
Gulf War 1991- when Iraq attacked Kuwait
Soviet empire is gone- but their arsenals still remain
Growing national/religious conflict around the globe
Conflicts over democracy and markets
	US trying to promote these to countries that may not have had this kind of experience
Arms Control- growing number of nuclear powers
	More countries have access to biological weapons/ weapons of mass destruction

Terrorism- caused new security issues
	Groups having access to weapons apart from governments
	 Environmental problems/health issues- 
	Spread of AIDS in Africa, pollutions, effects of world economy
Drug trade- complicated US relations with central American nations 

Problems/approaches under Clinton
Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia- internal conflicts- question of when/ should we intervene
Trade deficit of mid 80's where US imported more goods then exported
	This led to formation of NAFTA and WTO
Efforts to expand NATO and bring greater security in Europe	
Sanctions- increasingly used as punishment to countries whose internal policies we did not approve; ex) Suddam Hussein in Iraq
Kosovo- committed to using air power to limit power the Serbs maintained

Problem/approaches under George W. Bush
Terrorism- 9/11 attacks on WTC/pentagon brought fear front/center 
2002 national security strategy
	US will use preemptive action to thwart any perceived threats
US has world largest/strongest economy
	US corporations are increasingly global, affecting our foreign policy

























2) Describe and explain how the national government influences economic policy.

Macroeconomic policy- the Governments efforts to affect the performance of the economy as a whole
Stages of Policy Making-
1. agenda setting- an effort to get officials to consider an issue
2. Policy formulation- proposals developed to deal with a problems and a plan is decided
3. policy adoption- the inaction of the plan
4. implementation- the plan is carried out
5. evaluation- how does it affect the people and the issue- if it is ineffective, it will start over again

Goal of Economic Policy
1. Economic growth- an annual increase in the GDP
-more jobs, more products, higher incomes
	2. Low unemployment
	3. Stable prices- avoiding inflation; seen in the consumer price index
	4. Positive international balance of payments and trade
	    -imports vs. exports
	5. Minimization of negative externalities

The US economy is moving towards a service based economy and away from the production of goods

Monetary Policy- 
1. Gov.'s actions affecting the supply of money and level of interest rates in the economy
2. Made by the president and congress when they determine the annual federal gov. budget
3. Fed is responsible for monetary policy
- decisions that affect how much money is available 
4. Federal reserve bank- clears checks and does some regulating
5. Board of governors serves 14 year terms, chairman serves 4
6. Discount rate is lowered if Fed wants to increase total spending in economy
- discount rate is the interest rate at which private banks borrow from the Fed
7. Reserve Requirement- banks must keep certain % of their assets on deposit with the fed
8. buying and selling of government bonds

Fiscal Policy
1. Gov.'s actions affecting spending and taxing levels; affects overall output and income in the economy
2. Decisions on taxing, spending, debt
3. Decided by office of management and budget, president, congress, committee
4. Can increase government spending or decrease taxes when economic stimulation is required

Trade Policy-
1. Gov. deals with industry, companies and other governments
2. Tools used- 
a. tariffs: a tax on imported goods
b. quotas: limiting imports, restricting supply and price raises
c. Trade agreements between countries
d. Exchange rates: manipulating value of one country's dollar against another

Federal Budget
1. Uncontrollable over 2/3 b/c that is already taken up by programs such as social security
2. Budget manipulation only concerns remain 1/3
3. Major changes
a. increase in spending for entitlement programs
b. deficit- annual difference b/t gov. spending and revenues
c. debt- cumulative total of defecits

Government regulation
	1. is the issueing of rules by government agencies with the aim of reducing the scale of negative externalities produced by private firms




f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Politics of Mexico NAFTA.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


Mexico was the site of some of the earliest and most advanced civilizations in the western
hemisphere.  The Mayan culture, according to archaeological research, attained its greatest
development about the 6th century AD. Another group, the Toltec, established an empire in
the Valley of Mexico and developed a great civilization still evidenced by the ruins of
magnificent buildings and monuments.  The leading tribe, the Aztec, built great cities and
developed an intricate social, political, and religious organization.  Their civilization
was highly developed, both intellectually and artistically. The first European explorer to
visit Mexican territory was Francisco Fern�ndez de C�rdoba, who in 1517 discovered traces of
the Maya in Yucat�n.  In 1535, some years after the fall of the Aztec capital, the basic
form of colonial government in Mexico was instituted with the appointment of the first
Spanish viceroy, Antonio de Mendoza.  A distinguishing characteristic of colonial Mexico was
the exploitation of the Native Americans. Although thousands of them were killed during the
Spanish conquest, they continued to be the great majority of inhabitants of what was
referred to as New Spain, speaking their own languages and retaining much of their native
culture. Inevitably they became the laboring class. Their plight was the result of the
'encomienda' system, by which Spanish nobles, priests, and soldiers were granted not only
large tracts of land but also jurisdiction over all Native American residents. A second
characteristic of colonial Mexico was the position and power of the Roman Catholic church. 
Franciscan, Augustinian, Dominican, and Jesuit missionaries entered the country with the
conquistadores. The Mexican church became enormously wealthy through gifts and bequests that
could be held in perpetuity.  Before 1859, when church holdings were nationalized, the
church owned one-third of all property and land. A third characteristic was the existence of
rigid social classes: the Native Americans, the mestizos, mixed Spanish and Native American
(an increasingly large group during the colonial era), black slaves which were brought from
Africa and the Caribbean, freed blacks and white Mexicans.  The white Mexicans were
themselves divided.  Highest of all classes was that of the peninsulares, those born in
Spain, as opposed to the criollos, or Creoles-people of pure European descent who had been
born and raised in New Spain.  The peninsulares were sent from Spain to hold the highest
colonial offices in both the civil and church administrations.  The peninsulars held
themselves higher than the criollos, who were almost never given high office.  The
resentment of the criollos became an influential force in the later movement for
independence. In 1808 the viceroy, under pressure from influential criollos, permitted them
to participate in the administration.  Other peninsular officials objected and expelled the
viceroy.  In the midst of these factional struggles a political rebellion was begun by the
Mexican people.  Mexico has been rocked by political rebellion during most of its entire
history in one way or another. Under the various dictatorships that Mexico found itself
under at times in history, it made tremendous advances in economic and commercial
development.  Many of the new undertakings were financed and managed by foreigners (mostly
American and European).  This was and continues to be a major factor in the discontent of
most Mexicans.  Moreover, the government favored the rich owners of large estates,
increasing their properties by assigning them communal lands that belonged to the Native
Americans.  When the Native Americans revolted, they were sold into peonage.  Discontent,
anger and a spirit of revolt continued to grow throughout Mexico. Madero was elected
president in 1911, but was not forceful enough to end the political strife.  Other rebel
leaders, particularly Emiliano Zapata and Francisco (Pancho) Villa, completely refused to
submit to presidential authority.  Victoriano Huerta, head of the Madero army, conspired
with the rebel leaders and in 1913 seized control of Mexico City.  New armed revolts under
Zapata, Villa, and Venustiano Carranza began, and Huerta resigned in 1914.  Carranza took
power in the same year, and Villa at once declared war on him.  In addition to the ambitions
of rival military leaders, intervention by foreign governments seeking to protect the
interests of their nationals added to the confusion.  In August 1915, a commission
representing eight Latin American countries and the United States recognized Carranza as the
lawful authority in Mexico.  The rebel leaders, except for Villa, laid down their arms.  The
bandit leader incited his forces to commit crimes against Americans to show his resentment
against the United States and in 1916 led a raid on Columbus, New Mexico.  As a result, an
American force under General John J. Pershing was sent to Mexico. A new constitution,
enacted in 1917, provided for a labor code, prohibited a president from serving consecutive
terms, expropriated all property of religious orders, and restored communal lands to the
Native Americans. Many provisions dealing with labor and social welfare were advanced.  Some
of the most drastic were intended to curb foreign ownership of mineral properties and land.
In 1936 an expropriation law was passed enabling the government to seize private property
whenever necessary for public or social welfare.  The national railways of Mexico were
nationalized in 1937, as were the soil rights of the oil companies.  A government agency
called Petr�leos Mexicanos, or Pemex, was created to administer the nationalized industry. 
The expropriations seriously affected the Mexican oil industry, for it became difficult for
Mexico to sell oil in U.S., Dutch, and British territories.  Mexico was forced to arrange
barter deals with Italy, Germany, and Japan.  The oil trade with these nations was
interrupted by World War II. In 1940, the so-called Good Neighbor Policy of the United
States became dominant in Mexican politics.  This policy involved close cooperation with the
United States in commercial and military matters.  Mexico agreed to allow the United States
Air Force to use Mexican airfields and also agreed to export critical and strategic
materials (mostly minerals) only to countries in the western hemisphere. Consistent with its
policy of cooperation with the United States, Mexico severed diplomatic relations with
Japan, Italy and Germany in December 1941.  In May 1942, after the sinking of two Mexican
ships by submarines, the Mexican Congress declared war on Germany, Italy, and Japan.  Later
that same year a trade agreement, establishing mutual tariff concessions, was negotiated by
Mexico and the United States.  In 1944, Mexico agreed to pay U.S. oil companies $24 million
plus interest, for oil properties expropriated in 1938. In June 1945, Mexico became an
original member of the United Nations.  The government stabilized the peso in with the aid
of loans from the Treasury of the United States and the International Monetary Fund.  In
1950, the problem of Mexican laborers who entered the United States to seek seasonal farm
employment became a matter of grave concern to the two governments.  Official agreements
between Mexico and the United States provided for the legal entry of a specified number of
such workers annually.  Approximately 1 million, however, crossed the border illegally every
year.  The problem was further complicated by the demand of the Mexican government for
guarantees against the exploitation of its citizens by U.S. employers and by the hostility
of U.S. farm labor organizations toward the competition of Mexican migratory laborers
willing to work for substandard wages.  In March 1952, the Congress of the United States
passed a bill providing for the punishment by fines and imprisonment of those recruiting and
employing aliens who entered the country illegally. The Mexican economy grew at a healthy
annual pace during the period from 1970 to 1974, but beginning in 1975 growth decreased
markedly and inflation rose substantially.  In an attempt to reduce the nation's
foreign-trade deficit, the government in 1976 devalued the peso by more than 50 percent by
changing from a fixed to a freely floating exchange rate.  A potentially beneficial economic
development was the discovery in 1974 and 1975 of huge crude-petroleum deposits in Campeche,
Chiapas, Tabasco, and Veracruz states.  Oil production more than doubled during the latter
half of the 1970s. By the mid-1980s a rapid increase in foreign debt, coupled with falling
oil prices, had plunged the country into severe financial straits.  In 1989, the Salinas
government sped up the privatization of state-controlled corporations and modified
restrictive trade and investment regulations to encourage foreign investment by permitting
full control of corporations by foreign investors. The current president, Ernesto Zedillo,
is a strong advocate of reform.  He has taken the lead in performing budget cuts, price and
tax adjustments, tight monetary policy and further deregulation and privatization.

Population 

The Mexican population is composed of three main groups: the people of Spanish descent, the
Native Americans, and the people of mixed Spanish and Native American ancestry, or mestizos.
 Of these groups, the mestizos are by far the largest, constituting about 55 percent of the
population.  The Native Americans total about 30 percent.  The population of Mexico is
90,419,606.  The population density in 1990 was 119 people per square mile with about 73
percent of Mexicans living in urban areas. (Encarta, "Mexico")

Political Divisions 

Mexico consists of 32 administrative divisions-31 states and the Distrito Federal (federal
district), which is the seat of the federal administration.  The national executive power is
vested in a president, who must be Mexican-born and the child of a native Mexican.  The
president is popularly elected for a six-year term and may never be reelected. The president
appoints the cabinet, which is confirmed by the congress.  The legislative power in Mexico
consists of the senate and the chamber of deputies.  The upper house is a senate, with 64
members popularly elected for six years.  Two senators are elected from each state and from
the federal district.  The lower house is a chamber of deputies, made up of 500 members
elected to 3-year terms.  Three hundred are elected from single-member districts based on
population, and the remainder are elected according to a system of proportional
representation. Senators and deputies may not serve two consecutive terms. The highest
tribunal in Mexico is the supreme court of justice, made up of 21 full-time members
appointed by the country's president with the consent of the senate.  Other important
judicial bodies in Mexico include circuit courts and district courts. The chief executive of
each state is a governor, popularly elected to a six-year term.  The governor of the federal
district is appointed by the president of Mexico.  Legislative power in the states is vested
in chambers of deputies, whose members are elected to three-year terms. The Partido
Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party; PRI) is the largest and
most important political party in Mexico.  It was formed in 1928 as the Partido Nacional
Revolucionario (National Revolutionary Party) and has been continuously in power since that
time, although under several different names.  Opposition parties exist, but not until the
1980's did they represent a serious challenge to the PRI.  Chief among them is the Partido
de Acci�n Nacional (National Action Party; PAN), a conservative, pro-Catholic group drawn
primarily from the middle class and the Frente Democr�tico Nacional (National Democratic
Front, FDN), a coalition of leftist opposition groups. (Encarta, "Mexico")

Culture 

Mexican culture is a rich, complex blend of Native American, Spanish, and American
traditions. Rural areas are populated by Native Americans, descendants of the highly
developed societies of the Maya, Aztec, and Toltecs, and by Spanish and mestizo farmers and
laborers.  Each of these heritages has enriched the regional culture.  In the cities, both
European and North American influences are evident.  Most contemporary Mexican artists are
striving to produce identifiably Mexican work that blends Spanish, Native American, and
modern European styles.  (Encarta, "Mexico")

Economy 

Mexico reflects a shift from a primary-production economy, based on mining and agriculture,
to a semi-industrialized nation.  Economic achievements are the result of a vigorous private
enterprise sector and government policies that have made economic growth a predominant
objective.  Traditionally, the government also emphasized Mexicanization of industry, and
local control of companies engaged in mining, fishing, transportation, and exploitation of
forests was required by law. More recently, however, foreign investment in new enterprises
has been actively encouraged, and government controls on some sectors of the economy have
been loosened. Mexico's gross domestic product (GDP) increased by 6.5 percent annually
during the period from 1965 to 1980 but only 0.5 percent yearly during 1980 to 1988.  Weak
oil prices, rising inflation, a foreign debt of more than $100 billion, and worsening budget
deficits exacerbated the nation's economic problems in the mid-1980s, although the economic
picture brightened toward the end of the decade.  In 1992 the GDP was $324.29 billion.  The
annual budget included $107 billion in revenue and $122 billion in expenditure. (Encarta,
"Mexico")

II. NAFTA
In December of 1992, Presidents Salinas and Bush and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada
signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  The Mexican legislature ratified
NAFTA in 1993 and the treaty went into effect on January 1, 1994, creating the largest
free-trade zone in the world.  Creating a North American free-trade zone and privatizing
state-owned industry was part of a plan by the Salinas government to revive the Mexican
economy.  By 1993, the Mexican government had sold 80 percent of its industries to private
investors for about $21 billion and had reduced inflation from 150 percent to 10 percent. In
November 1993, President Clinton predicted that if the trade agreement passes, American
companies will add another 200,000 jobs by 1995.  NAFTA's promoters predicted that by the
end of 1995 the U.S. would enjoy a $9 billion trade surplus with Mexico.  The reality is
that the post-NAFTA surge in imports from Mexico has resulted in an $8.6 billion trade
deficit with Mexico for just the first six months of 1995.  By adding the Mexican trade
deficit numbers to the current deficit with Canada, the overall U.S. NAFTA trade deficit for
the first six months of 1995 alone is $16.7 billion.  Using the Department of Commerce trade
data in the formula used by NAFTA proponents used to predict job gains, the real accumulated
NAFTA trade deficit would translate into over three hundred thousand U.S. jobs lost. A
number of companies that specifically promised to create new jobs actually laid workers off
because of the agreement.  Allied Signal, General Electric, Mattel, Proctor and Gamble,
Scott Paper and Zenith all made specific promises to create jobs, and all have laid off
workers because of NAFTA as certified by the U.S. Department of Labor's special NAFTA
unemployment assistance program (NAFTA TAA).  As of mid-August 1995, the U.S. Department of
Labor has certified 38,148 workers as having lost their jobs to NAFTA.  A total of 68,482
U.S. workers have filed to receive NAFTA-related unemployment assistance through the
NAFTA-TAA program. Despite the job losses, trade officials said NAFTA remains a net gainer
for U.S. workers.  Increased exports to Mexico and Canada will support some 3 million U.S.
jobs this year, up some 500,000 from two years ago, according to the U.S. Trade
Representative's office.  (Briones)

III.  Recent Events 
A. The Chiapas Uprising and the Zapatistas
On January 1, 1994, a group of Native Americans called the Zapatista National Liberation
Army (EZLN) captured four towns in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas and demanded
reforms from the Salinas government for better treatment for poor Indians there.   They
chose to begin their rebellion to coincide with the implementation of NAFTA because they
consider it a "death sentence."  They demand bilingual and intercultural education in their
indigenous language as well as in Spanish.  They want titles and protection of the lands
where they live.  Finally, they say that the governments should ratify the International
Labor Office's (ILO) resolution 169 on the promotion and protection of the rights of
indigenous people.  The group is named for Emiliano Zapata, a 19th-century Mexican
revolutionary leader and agrarian reformer. The EZLN has organized itself among some of the
most dispossessed people of the world.  Its' soldiers are drawn from the forests, mountains
and small towns of the region, both from the indigenous Mayan population, and from
immigrants from Central and Northern Mexico.  The EZLN soldiers have been subsistence
cultivators and landless wage-laborers.  They have grown and marketed their own export crops
and have worked on the plantations and ranches of others.  A very few are intellectuals
drawn to the area over a decade ago by their ideals and hopes. The EZLN understands how
NAFTA opens Mexico to U.S. exports and imports, and how the most threatening of these is
corn, the basic food crop of the indigenous population and an important source of cash
income.  Already they are suffering from low prices for coffee, another cash crop, due to
government's elimination of financial support for that production.  They also know that
export development means ecological destruction, especially deforestation. (Marcos) Although
Mexican troops quickly retook most of the territory held by the rebels and a cease-fire was
called soon afterward, the rebel group generated momentum for political reform in Mexico. A
government negotiating team, headed by former Mexico City mayor Manuel Camacho Solis, met
with rebel leaders and offered them a 34-point proposed agreement that included promises of
political changes, new social programs, land reform, and better standards of living.
However, the group rejected the plan in June.





Subcommandante Marcos is the enigmatic spokesperson and highest army commander of the
Zapatista National Liberation Army.  He is known for his well-written press releases filled
with wit and sarcasm.  He is always masked in public, and often smokes a pipe.  The
government claims to have "identified" Marcos as Rafael Sebastian Guillen Vicente, but
Marcos and the EZLN have denied this.

Major Ana Mari'a was the commander of the operation for taking the municipal palace of San
Cristo'bal for the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN).  She was 25 years old when she
joined the Zapatista Army and saw almost the whole process of how it moved forward. She was
one of the first women who was part of the ranks of the Army and has risen to hold the
highest rank of any woman in the EZLN. (Gabriel) This revolt affects the current exchange
rate due to the uncertainty surrounding this uprising.  Many valuable resources can be found
in the Chiapas region, such as timber, coffee and oil.  Many foreign industries have reduced
or canceled work in the region for fear of being caught between the EZLN and government
troops.  There is much more fighting taking place than most American newspapers report. 
With businesses reducing their spending in Mexico, the inflow of U.S. dollars is reduced
which increases the demand for the dollar in Mexico.  This causes the dollar to strengthen
against the peso.

B.  The Colosio Assassination
On March 23, 1994, during the Mexican presidential campaign, the PRI's candidate Donaldo
Luis Colosio Murrieta, was assassinated while campaigning in Tijuana, Baja California. 
Unnamed U.S. intelligence officials have stated that former Mexican police commander
Fernando de la Sota Rodalleguez, charged in connection with the assassination, was a paid
informant for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in Mexico City from 1990 to 1992.  De la
Sota began his police career in 1973 working for Mexico's Federal Security Directorate, and
by 1992 he had become investigations department commander for the federal attorney general's
office.  He was fired that year on suspicion of taking bribes from alleged drug lord Rafael
Aguilar Guajardo and the CIA dropped him soon after. De la Sota was working as the head of
the private security team for Colosio on the day of the assassination.  Federal
investigators arrested De la Sota in February of this year on charges of giving false and
conflicting testimony about the assassination. Despite his 20 years' experience in police
work, De la Sota claimed that the gunshots set off a diabetic attack which kept him from
seeing what was happening.  He was released on Feb. 28 on a $7,000 bond.  At the time of his
arrest, Mexican officials indicated off the record that De la Sota was closely connected to
the assassination. Currently two men are under arrest for the murder:  Mario Aburto
Martinez, a factory worker who allegedly shot Colosio in the head from the right side, and
Othon Cortes Vazquez, who is charged with shooting the candidate in the abdomen from the
left side.  Cortes Vazquez and De la Sota knew each other.  Cortes Vazquez worked for
various PRI officials as a driver and messenger, and on the day of the murder he was driving
for Gen. Domiro Roberto Garcia Reyes, who was in charge of the official security for
Colosio. One of the videotapes held by the attorney general's office reportedly shows De la
Sota and another member of the private security team, Hector Javier Hernandez Thomassiny,
guarding Colosio's left side. Cortes Vazquez suddenly "replaced" the two experienced
bodyguards just before he and Aburto shot the candidate, according to people who saw the
tape. As soon as Colosio fell, De la Sota and Hernandez Thomassiny allegedly seized Aburto
and let Cortes Vazquez escape. The uprising in Chiapas and the murder of presidential
candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio are two examples of how Mexico's social and civic
institutions are crumbling under the pressure of drug-related lawlessness and corruption,
factors that are making Mexico a very dangerous place even for members of the ruling elite. 
Indeed, the same environment of lawlessness and impunity that has allowed Mexico's ruling
party, known as the PRI, to govern for over 65 years is now aiding the expansion of the
influence of the narcotics trade. Federico Reyes Heroles, editor of the monthly magazine
Este Pais, says bluntly that the killing was a deliberate hit by Mexico's powerful drug
lords.  News reports in the days following the killing included numerous off-the-record
comments by government officials confirming the suspicion that the killing was a hit
organized and paid for by drug traffickers.  Another prominent Mexico City editor, speaking
off-the record, says that the Mexican politicians are being killed off because of a power
struggle related to money and drugs, not over questions such as democracy and human rights.
Beyond the death of Colosio, however, another explanation exists: the need to maintain the
appearance of "fighting drugs" to satisfy Washington. Eduardo Valle, former aide to Interior
Minister Jorge Carpizo, has given the Mexican government documents and testimony allegedly
linking government officials and drug traffickers to the assassination of presidential
candidate Colosio.  The former official, who is known as "the owl", worked as a senior
official directing Mexico's anti-drug efforts.  He says that Colosio was murdered by members
of the Grupo del Gulfo cocaine cartel, with the involvement of Colosio campaign officials
close to Communications and Transportation Minister Emilio Gamboa.  Included with the
documents provided by Valle during testimony given at the Mexican consulate in Washington
was a DEA report about telephone calls last December by cartel members to the offices of the
presidency. (Whalen, p.2-4) Assassinations affect exchange rates due to the uncertainty that
is caused. Many investors flee from the market if there is a risk of losing their
investments.  Without these investments, the economy begins to tumble downward due to
increased unemployment and a lower demand for goods.  This may cause the dollar to
strengthen as the people move away from the uncertain peso.

IV. Exchange rate
See graph attachment.

V. Devaluation of the Peso
 Due to the weaken peso, caused by constant printing of money and high inflation, Mexican
 investors took close to $11 billion dollars out of Mexico in a few days in December 1994. 
 The political turmoil from regional insurrection to a string of assassinations and
 disrupted elections help cause the collapse of the peso, requiring a $20 billion bailout
 from the U.S. Treasury.  The International Monetary Fund has pledged another $17.8 billion,
 while the central banks of other industrialized nations, acting through the Bank of
 International Settlements, are obligated for an additional $10 billion.  (Banda)


VI. Advantages/Disadvantages of Importing/Exporting Goods
 A Houston company exporting to Mexico will find some difficulty selling its goods in a
 country were the peso is weak against the U.S. dollar.  The Mexican businesses will be
 forced to buy only the necessities due to the unfavorable exchange rate.  However, on the
 positive side, if the Mexican businesses expect that the peso will devalue further, it may
 decide to purchase big ticket items now in hopes of beating any further devaluation.
A Mexican company whose primary business is exporting Mexican made products to the U.S. will
enjoy the weak peso, strong dollar economy.  Imports from Mexico into the U.S. has resulted
in an $8.6 billion trade deficit with Mexico for the first six months of 1995.  While the
Mexican company is paying for its labor and overhead with weakened pesos, it is receiving a
stronger U.S. dollar for its goods.  The company can request payment in the stronger U.S.
dollar and invest them into various financial instruments until the peso can rebound or is
needed to continue operations.

VII. Opinion
The signs are growing ever stronger that Mexico's determined adherence to its economic
austerity program is setting the stage for a remarkably solid and sustainable recovery from
the recent financial crisis.  The country's Bolsa stock index has rebounded more than 60
percent from its February low, the peso has stabilized, compared to what it has done in the
past, and Mexico's recent $500 million bond offering was oversubscribed by $1.3 billion. 
Mexico is making clear progress in improving its debt structure, and strong export growth is
producing a dramatic correction in Mexico's current account imbalance. Mexico has a balanced
federal budget and a largely privatized economy.  The North American Free Trade Agreement
and Mexico's other trade pacts are continuing to play a significant role in creating new
opportunities for Mexican businesses.  A number of U.S. companies have chosen to create
co-production partnerships with Mexican firms over geographically more remote partners in
Asia because of Mexico's proximity, modern infrastructure and industrious workforce.  NAFTA
is playing a key role in encouraging such partnerships.  By reducing North American trade
barriers, NAFTA is enabling firms which might otherwise manufacture in Asia to work with
Mexican partners instead. The growth of business partnerships, along with Mexico's ongoing
economic, legal, judicial and political reforms helps to explain Mexico's ability to attract
long-term investment.  However, the peso is currently in a tailspin against the dollar due
mostly to currency speculators.  If the Mexican government can stay with its current plans
and programs with minor adjustment, the peso should rebound.  The bottom line from Mexico is
that its continued commitment to open markets and economic integration is paying off and
will be reflected in the overall strengthening of the Mexican peso against the U.S. dollar
in the long run.





REFERENCES

Banda, M., (1995, September 5).  Economic, Political Crisis Shadows Zedillo's First National
Address. Associated Press, Internet (WWW), http://www1.trib.com/NEWS/APwire.html.

Briones, J., (1995, September 4). NAFTA's Broken Promises.  Public Citizen Publication,
p.10.

Dean, D., (1995, September 20).  Mexico Doing Right Things to Turn Itself Around.  Houston
Chronicle, Sec. A, p.29.

Gabriel, S., Mount Holyoke College.  Internet (WWW), Newsgroup: soc.culture.mexican.

Marcos, Subcomandante Insurgente, (1995, August 30).  Sub. Marcos Communique to the National
Conference for Peace.  La Jornada, Internet (WWW), Newsgroup: soc.culture.mexican.

Microsoft (r) Encarta, "Mexico", Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. 

Whalen, Christopher (1995, September 13).  Assassins In Mexico, The Mexico Report. 
A newsletter on Mexico that provides litigation management, cross-border due diligence and
communications strategy with respect to Mexico and other emerging markets.


 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\politics.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
A Student's Reading of The Politics of Rich and Poor

     Often times, a political analyst/scientist will write a book on the politics and economics of the time.  This writer may also create a work which emanates views contrary to the opinion of the governing body.  Rarely, however, does one find an analyst who will clearly undermine his own political party by,  in effect,  saying,  "I told you so."   Kevin Phillips,  editor-publisher of The American Political Report,  columnist for the Los Angeles Times,  and chief political analyst for the 1968 Republican presidential campaign,  describes in his book,  The Politics of Rich and Poor:  Wealth and the American Electorate in the Regan Aftermath,  the consequences of the decisions made by the United States government while under the presidency of Republican Ronald Regan.  Phillips'  theme of the widening gap between  the upper twenty percent of the population,  in respect to annual income in actual dollars,  with the lower twenty percent of the population coincides with the belief of the typical American avarice,   during the eighties,  leading the country on a rollercoaster ride of economic instability and shaky ground.   These ideas remain constant and prevalant throughout the seven chapters.  His views,  though somewhat repetitive in the text,  strike the reader with astonishment,  especially  when considering Phillips' Republican party affiliation.  
     With his thesis in mind, Phillips discusses three major factors that escalate and at the same time submerge the state of the economy in America.   These factors include:   the sudden shift in tax rates,  the diminishing "global wealth" of America,  and the inability of the government under Regan to satisfy a "happy medium" for economic growth.  All of these factors support Phillips' theme and prove his argument of an up and down cycle of economic stability.
	From 1921 to 1925 the top one percent of the population's tax rate was gradually decreased from the marginally high rate of seventy-three percent  all the way to just twenty-five percent.  Over four years this elite group of Americans received a forty-eight percent reduction in taxes.  This decrease opened the door for the super-rich Americans to capitalize and increase their current wealth. 
     As the taxes decreased for this group of the population, others also benefited.  A surge in real estate investments occured,  the stock market values rose dramatically, and new technology such as radios and automobiles were surfacing every day.  This bull economy lasted only a few short years.   By 1929, the situation was reversed entirely.  The economy crashed with unequaled consequences.  The rich citizens who were living "the good life" four years ago were now stuck with paying seventy-three percent of the entire population's taxes.   The stock market was on the down side, to say the least,  the real estate and technological markets were also paralell to the stocks.   The solution from the new democrats was to bring the economy back by forcing the affluent to carry the burden.  The highest tax rate eventually reached ninety-one percent.  After about twenty-five years, the economy was finally stable enough to lower this absurd rate.  In the mid seventies, the rates were gradually lowered to a mediocre seventy percent.  Starting in 1980 the republican machine decided to again lower the rates, thereby  lessening the gap between rich and poor.   What actually happened was the high income brackets had more of a decrease than anyone.  The rates at one point reached a low fifty percent.   This cut,  once again opened the door for the elite to become super-elite.   The cycle had surfaced again.   Just like in the early 1920s,  the rich were gradually getting richer at the expense of everyone.  The technology markets boomed once again,  real estate sales increased dramatically, and the stock market rose by leaps and bounds.   It seemed like just what the economy needed.   Regan's reelection thrived on the fact that the entire country was caught up in a whirlwind of the seemingly perfect economy.   The cycle continued just like economists predicted;  the perfect economy suddenly had a recession to deal with.
	Another one of Phillips' reasons for the downfall of the United States' economy after Ronald Regan is the diminishing "global wealth" of the country.   The stock market crash of 1987 opened Regan's eyes to the fact that his efforts to heal the economic woes of America were failing.   The huge amounts of money borrowed to fund the tax cuts of the early eighties were borrowed at high interst rates.   The republican party decided to raise the  United States interest rates to a high level in order to fight inflation on the borrowed money.   This surge in interest rates increased the value of the dollar significantly.  This increase almost crashed American manufacturing because the products made in the states were not selling overseas due to a high dollar value.   The interest rates were slowly forced down, and the dollar lost value like never before.   By 1988, other countries were shopping in the states like it was a flea market.   Their currency could buy so much more than ours in our own country.   Soon,  the trade deficit was increasing, the selling of American companies to overseas investors was a daily occurrence, and foreigners were looking at our millions as "pocket change."   Japan began to buy our businesses and real estate more than any other country.   In 1985 the total net worth of America and Japan was respectively 30.6 trillion US dollars and 19.6 trillion US dollars.  In as little as two years, the Japanese had capitalized on the slouch in the value of the dollar and reversed the ratio.  By 1987, the United States had 36.2 trillion dollars in assests compared to Japan's 43.7 trillion dollars.  Most of Japan's new capital was formerly American owned companies and property.   This trend in foreign ownership was a leading factor in the decline of our economic system during the eighties.   
     Clearly, the Japanese were not the only reason for the slip in American economic history.    Phillips' other reason for the downfall was the lack of Ronald Regan's party to control a "happy medium" for everyone

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Polocy on Cuba.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Political Science 100
World Perspectives


Policies on Cuba
	
	In Juan Rulfo?s novel, Pedro Paramo, the reader follows a dusty road to a town of death, where the following is said �Up and down the hill we went, but always descending . We had left the hot wind behind and were sinking into pure, airless heat.  The stillness seem to be waiting for someone.  �It?s hot here � I said �You might say, but this is nothing?.  My companion relied.  �Try to take it easy.  You?ll feel it even more when we get to Comala.  That town sits on the coals of the Earth, at the very mouth of Hell.  They say that when people from there die and go to Hell, they come back for blankets.?�
	This was the view many Americans had of Cuba in the late fifties and sixties.  Cuba was seen as the entrance to hell ninety miles from our shore.  Our foreign policy towards Cuba was formulated with these beliefs;  as a result the United States assisted in a planned invasion of Cuba, planned the assassination of its leader and set up a political and economic embargo in an attempt to destroy her and her people. 
	Many things have changed since those time, we no longer see Cuba as the doors to hell, those doors have been rotating among other military strong men, this time in the Middle East.  Fidel Castro is no longer the target of any American assassination plans, the United States no longer deals in the assignation of political leaders, now we have allies who are more able and discrete in doing that type of work.  The only ancient legacy that remains in our foreign policy towards Cuba is a political and economic embargo implemented at the beginning of the Cold War in an attempt to crush a third world country.
	At the time of the embargo its supporters assured the country that Cuba would not survive a year without political or economic aid from the Western World.  Three decades later Cuba is still led by Castro and our policy has not changed, maybe it is time to rethink this 
Villagran p2

policy
	Once the embargo took effect, Cuba and Fidel Castro had no choice but to turn to the Soviet Union and Communism for salvation, both economically and politically.  Cuba was dependent on exports for hard currency and imports for finished goods with the embargo Cuba was left unable to provide for herself.  As Castro turned to the Soviet Union for economic aid he also embraced Communism and gave up Socialism a factor that would deepen the level of fear in the United States.  Cuba and the Soviet Union started a relationship in which Cuba benefited the most.
	Like many relationships, Cuba?s and the Soviet Union?s ended after thirty years of Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the economic stability of Cuba.  In 1991 as the Soviet Union disappeared and the former Eastern Bloc countries struggled for their own existence the future of Cuba once again was questioned.  Subsidies, favorable trade agreements, economic and military aid from these countries disappeared. 
	In the early 90?s Cuba lost their only major economic connection to the outside world. By 1992 the total value of trade turnover (imports plus exports) with Eastern Bloc countries had been reduced to 7% of what it had been just 3 years previously.  The price of its two major exports, sugar and nickel had dropped 20 and 28 per cent, respectively, on the world market.  At this time the United States instead of offering Castro a dignified way out of Cuba?s massive problems by loosening the 30 year old trade embargo instead insisted on furthering tightening it with the 1992 Cuba Democracy Act.  This act not only made it more difficult for American companies to deal with Cuba but also set out to punish foreign companies that had dealings with the island nation. 
	As Communism fell in Europe and Asian Communist countries started to become a little more open once again the death of Fidel Castro?s Cuba was being predicted as the United States led another attack on it?s economic livelihood.
	Now in 1996 a relic of the Cold War, Castro , is once again under attack by an other relic Jesse Helms.  With the urging and political contributions of Cuban American groups, the 
Villagran p3

fact this being an election year and the the quick trigger finger of a Cuban pilot, Senator Helms has been able to push the Helms-Burton Law through Congress and into the law books.  This law not only attacks Cuba but the rights of foreign companies. 
	Will Castro and Cuba be able to withstand this latest attack? Probably.  The world has already condemned the law and Castro has once again end the year on a high note with the announcement that Pope John Paul will visit Cuba sometime next year.
	So is it now time for the United States to reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba and Castro?  The answer is yes.  The United States should look at The former Soviet Union as an example on how to democracy Cuba.  The Soviet Union was not defeated by the United States, the Soviet Union defeated itself.  What the United States must do in Cuba is to stop the embargo on the Cuban people and Fidel Castro and start exporting what Castro probably fears the most, American Culture and goods. 
	The only way America will bring a peaceful resolution to the Cuban situation is to leave Castro alone.  The United States does not understand that every time it attacks Castro it only strengthens his position in Cuba.  For over thirty years Castro has been using the U.S. as a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in Cuba;  if there were shortage the U.S. embargo was to blame, if there were riots the U.S. caused them, if there is a drug problem in Cuba it is because the U.S. caused it.  Every time Cuba goes through an economic crisis the U.S. is ignorant enough to some how attack Cuba so that Castro is able to blame it on us.
	The U. S. has underestimated Fidel Castro for over thirty years now.  He is one of the most intelligent leaders in the world.  He has been able to deal with several U.S. presidents and hundreds of world leaders.  He is the Great Communicator of the Americas but most important he knows the Cuban People better than anyone in the world.
	Castro is able to pursued the Cuban people into following him anywhere at anytime not by force but by persuasion.  Something Castro has learned and the U.S. hasn?t is that the Cuban people, like most Latin American people, are reluctant to change completely but are very willing to be persuaded into changing as long as they are familiar with what they are 
Villagran p4

turning to.  When given a choice between an unknown future without Castro and Communism and a familiar future with him Cubans have so far chosen to keep Castro and Communism.
	The United States must now choose to ignore Cuba and Castro; if we are truly interested in turning Cuba into a democracy we must stop interfering with her future.  If we wish to overthrow the Castro government we have no greater weapon than the American Culture and capitalist greed.  The sooner we stop giving Castro propaganda and weapons to use the sooner the Cuban people will realize these threats to personal freedom are not from outside forces but within.  The embargo and the fight against Castro has cost the U.S. millions of dollars, opening relations with Castro and lifting the embargo will cost nothing.
	For its own good the U.S. must lift the embargo and reestablish political relations with Cuba, in the nineties the United States has proclaimed itself peace keeper of the world, we have become involved in conflict resolution all over the world many times with the cost of millions of dollars and many American lives.  If the embargo remains and the Castro government comes to a violent end the world will not let us remain on the sidelines and watch.  The world already blames the U.S. for the situation Cuba is in, if Castro falls, the world would rightly expect the U.S. to go in and clean up the mess, if we have done it in Africa and Eastern Europe why shouldn?t we do it in our own back yard.  
	The situation in Cuba is just as bad as any other around the world.  In Cuba; poverty and shortages are wide spread, there are many war tested military generals who have fought on ideology ready to take control at the first sight of weakness, every Cuban has had military training and many have the weapons given to them by the government.  All these factors could add up to a very messy and long involvement in a post-Castro Cuba.
	The United States and Cuba have shared a very long and torrid history this century. Half way through it, Fidel Castro and Communism got involved in the situation.  Out of fear and haste the U.S. aggravated the situation with a political and economic embargo that for a long time seemed to strengthened Castro more than it weakened Cuba.  We are now at a 
Villagran p5

critical point in the history of this relationship, we must ask ourselves whether we are going to take a short term view or a long term view on the effects and consequences of continuing the political and economic embargo on Cuba.
	 If the U.S. chooses to continue their present course and take a short view of the Cuban situation then they should continue cutting off every economic and political avenue Cuba and Castro have to the World but they must be ready to deal with the situation that will erupt if Fidel Castro?s government comes to a sudden and violent end.  The world has so far ignored the obsession the U.S. has had with Castro and Cuba but it will not ignore the U.S. walking away from a mess they have created.  The better solution would be to take a long term view of the situation.  By opening relations with Cuba several things will slowly but surly bring to an end the Castro government.  Among them would be allowing the American culture to infest the island, letting the people familiarize themselves with the outside world, letting capitalist greed take its course and finally letting the American and Cuban people communicate share ideas and show each other that they are part of the same world, these simple thing are stronger than any embargo.
	After the revolution many Americans saw Cuba as the entrance to Hell just ninety miles away from the United States, time has proven this idea to be wrong.  It is now time for the U.S. to grow up and end the political and economic embargo on Cuba.  The Cuban people are some of the best educated in the world thanks to their socialized education system and if given a choice they will choose to join the rest of the world community.  But at the same time poverty and hunger breed fear and anger if the embargo continues and Castro is violently forced out, it will be hard to predict what will happen.  If violence erupts in Cuba the U.S. will be forced to intervene an then may it be that entrance to Hell will be a post-Castro Cuba. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Postal Service As a Monopoly .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Postal Service As a Monopoly 

In the United States economy most markets can be classified into four
different markets structures.  But, each and every market in the United
States is completely unique from the others.  Generally the best type of
market structure for the general public is per-fect competition because
it creates the lowest possible price for the public.  There are some
exceptions were perfect competition isn't the best choice for the public
on account of various reasons.  The United States Postal Service is one
of them and since the Postal Service is a monopoly, it is its own
market.  This paper will discuss the budget dilemmas that the postal
service has faced for the past twenty years and if it is in the best
interest of the economy for the United States Postal Service to continue
as a monopoly. 
        The first time there was talk of privatizing the Postal Service was
in1979 when the Postal Service was losing vast amounts of money in the
long run.  But since the Postal Service is a necessity for America, the
government had to subsidize the service in order for it to continue in
operation.  In 1979 the United States Postal Service had a cash flow of
$22.5 Billion and was additionally receiving $176 million from
investing(#1, Intro).  Even with this added revenue the Postal Service
was still greatly under funded on its own (#1, Intro).  During this time
it was discussed to privatize the postal service and introduce
competition because of the extreme losses that the service was
experiencing.  A positive argument for privatizing the Postal Service
was with numerous competitors in the market there would be more
efficiency and the public would receive lower prices.  But this would
also increase the usage of resources, for example airplanes and cars. 
One of the problems the Post Office had was its receipts from consumer
purchases that were submitted the next day after the transaction (#1,
i).  If the receipts were submitted earlier the postal service would
receive more money because they could invest that money sooner (#1, i). 
Another way the Postal Service could increased profits was by
competitively selecting banks that would give them higher interest rates
and such (#1, ii).  Probably the most relevant and final way to improve
the budget of the Postal Service is to improve the bookkeeping poli-cies
and banking techniques (#1, ii).
        Not only did the Post Service propose to increase profits but they also
proposed to cut costs in a number of ways.  There were three methods
that were proposed in 1946 for the protection of salaries that no longer
exists (#2, Intro).  These have to do with the rural mail carriers. 
Under this antiquated method of delivering mail the Postal Service was
los-ing money to any mail that went to "rural" areas (#2, i)  There are
48,000 mail carriers that deliver mail to millions of families that are
considered to be living in rural settings; this costs the postal Service
858 million dollars a year (#2, i).  This is a fairly easy problem to
fix considering how much money is being lost.  It was proposed that
money loss could be significantly cut down if the Postal Service
corrected the following problems.  The rural mail carriers were assigned
a certain amount of time to deliver to a specific rural area, this
method was out of date and because of this the carriers have free time
for which they got paid for (#2, ii).  The next problem was that other
mail routes based pay on how many miles the route covered, so the
carriers were getting paid by the mile (#2, iii).  With this  problem
fixed the Postal Service could saved 26.8 million a year (#2, iii). 
There was also an hourly rate that was in effect which indirectly
promoted inefficient service (#2, iii).  A stop to this could have saved
the Postal Service $255,000 a year (#2, iii).  From the num-bers
mentioned above, it can be seen why the United States Postal Service was
losing so much money.
        These problems did indeed eventually did get solved over the past
fifteen years and now the Postal Service is making record breaking
profits.  Now in the first quarter of the fiscal year 1996 the Postal
Service already has a net income of $1.2 billion (#3, 1).  Now not only
is the Postal Service just breaking even, but they are also making a
profit.  On top of that, the 1.2 billion dollar figure is 115 billion
dollars better then the quarterly forecast predicted (#3,1).  It is
incredible that they are not only making a reasonable profit but it is
increasing over the years.   The Postal Service is also now reducing
debts.   An example of this is when the Postal Service redeemed a 1.5
billion dollar loan two years in advance which will save them 22 million
dollars of interest in the next two years (#3,1).
        The Postal Service isn't stopping with the revenue that it is receiving
now.  The Postal Service is planning to increase its international
revenues of $1.2 billion by twice the amount in the next five years and
ten-fold by the year 2005 (#5, 1).  The Postal Service is continually
working to "streamline" their operations for the future that they are
now run-ning.  The Postal Service is continualy looking to cut back on
borrowing money.  All of the recent financial borrowing has been through
the Federal Financing Bank, but the Postal Service now is looking into
outside sources, such as bonds in the public markets (#5, 2).
        Business are starting to get jealous of the Postal Service because of
the great prof-its it is experiencing.  The Postal Service is now making
a major impact on the United States Economy (#6, 1).  Business are
pointing out that  in 1995 the Postal Service had records of $1.8
billion in net income and a 1.7 billion dollar debt reduction (#6, 1). 
The $54 billion revenue that the Postal Service is bringing in would put
them in 12th place on the Fortune 500 list and 33rd on the Fortune
Global 500, with the worlds largest corpora-tions (#6,1).  A recent
study showed that domestic direct mail sales were at $333 billion in the
year 1994 (#6,1).  This figure is expected to reach over $500 billion by
the year 2000 (#6,1) 
        It can be seen throughout this paper how the United States Postal
Service in-creased profits and does not have to borrow as much money as
before.  It seems that the Postal Service is doing just fine while it is
a monopoly.  But there are still two arguments for and against the
Postal Service continuing to remain a monopoly.  On one side
compe-tition is thought to make industries in the market more efficient
and practice more innova-tive (#4, 1).  But on the other hand the
competition is also thought to lead to "a wide-spread cream skimming,
with the postal service left only the high-cost, unprofitable mar-kets
(#4, 1)."  So who is to know which market would be better for the
American econ-omy as far as the Postal Service goes.  But it is
speculated if the United States Postal Service does keep increasing its
profits over the years, maybe it will be privatized.
 
Bibliography

1) United States. "General Accounting Office, Changes in the U.S. Postal
Service's cash management practices could increase income and reduce
cost": report / by the U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington:
General Accounting Office,","1979
2)  United States. General Accounting Office, "Changes needed in the
United States Postal Service's rural carrier pay systems": report / by
the U.S. General Account-ing Office, Washington: General Accounting
Office, 1978
3)   http://www.usps.gov/news/press/96/96002new.htm
4)  http://nutcweb.tpc.nwu.edu/research/abstracts/i.2.html
5)  http://www.usps.gov/news/press/95/95090new.htm
6)   http://www.usps.gov/news/press/95/95095new.htm 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Power and Powerless.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 
	"Power serves to create power.  Powerlessness serves to re-enforce powerlessness"(Gaventa,1980:256).  Such is the essence of the on going relationship between the Powerful and the Powerless of the Appalachian Valley where acquiescence of the repressed has become not only common practice but a way of life and a means of survival.  In his novel Power and Powerlessness, John Gaventa examines the oppressive and desperate situation of the Appalachian coal miners under the autocratic power of absentee land-owners, local elites, and corrupt union leaders.  His analyses is based on Lukes three-dimensional understanding of power from his book Power: A Radical View.  Gaventa applies the three notions of power to the politics of inequalities in the Appalachian Valley and, while demonstrating the inadequacies of the first or 'pluralist' approach and the merits of the second and particularly the third dimensions, asserts that the interrelationship and reinforcing affect of all three dimensions is necessary for an in depth understanding of the "total impact of power upon the actions [or inactions] and conceptions of the powerless"(Gaventa:256) 
	This essay will examine Luke's three power dimensions and their applicability to Gaventa's account of the inequities found in the valleys of the Cumberland Mountains.  Reasons for the mountain people's submission and non-participation will be recognized and their nexus with the power relationship established.  In this way, Gaventa's dissatisfaction with the pluralist approach will be justified and the emphatic ability of the other two dimensions to withhold issues and shape behaviour will be verified as principal agents of Power and Powerlessness. 

	The one dimensional view of power is often called the 'pluralist' approach and emphasizes the exercise of power through decision making and observable behaviour.  Robert Dahl, a major proponent of this view, defines power as occurring in a situation where "A has power over B to the extent he can get B to do  something that B would not otherwise do"(Dahl as cited in Lukes, 1974:11).  A's power therefore is defined in terms of B and the extent to which A prevails is determined by its higher ratio of 'successes' and 'defeats' over B. 
	Observable behaviour then becomes a key factor in the pluralist approach to power.  Dahl's Who Govern's? expresses the pluralist belief that the political arena is an open system where everyone may participate and express grievances which in turn lead to decision making.  Those who propose alternatives and initiate issues which contribute to the decision making process are demonstrating observable influence and control over those who failed all together to express any interest in the political process.  
	The Pluralist approach assumes that in an open system, all people, not just the elite, would participate in decision making if they felt strongly enough about an issue and wanted their values to be expressed and represented.  Non-participation therefore is thought to express a lack of grievances and a consensus with the way the leaders are already handling the system.  Political inaction is not a problem within the one-dimensional system, it merely reflects apathy of ordinary citizens with little interest or knowledge for political matters, and their acceptance of the existing system which they see as rewarding mutual benefits to society.
	While politics is primarily an elite concern to the pluralist, ordinary people can have a say if they become organized, and everyone has indirect influence through the right to the franchise in the electoral process.  Pluralism recognizes a heterogeneous society composed of people belonging to various groups with differing and competing interests.  Conflict is therefore also recognized as not only an expected result but as a necessary instrument which enables the determination of a ruling class in terms of who the winner is.  Dahl,(as cited in Lukes,1974:18) states: 
		Who prevails in decision-making  seems the best
	     way to determine which individual and groups have 
		more power in social life because direct conflict 
		between actors presents a situation most approximating 
		an experimental test of their capacities to affect 		outcome.
	Both Lukes and Gaventa put forward the notion that restricting your analyses of a power situation to the one dimensional model can skew your conclusions.  If you limit yourself to this approach your study will be impaired by a pluralistic biased view of power.  Where the first dimension sees power in its manifest functions of decision making over key issues raising observable conflict due to policies raised through political participation, it ignores the  unobservable mechanisms of power that are sometimes just as or even more important.  
	Many times power is exercised to prevent an issue from being raised and to discourage participation in the political arena.  Potential issues and grievances are therefore not voiced and to assume this means that they do not exist would be an outright deviation from fact.  By restricting analyses to what is expressed and to observable behaviour and overt conflict only, you miss any preference not expressed because of fear of sanctions, manipulation, coercion and force.
	This critique of the behaviourial focus and the recognition of unobservable factors of power is discussed in the two-dimensional view of power developed by Bachrach and Baratz by which "power is exercised not just upon participants within the decision making process but also towards the exclusion of certain participants and issues altogether"(Schattsneider, as cited in Lukes,1974:16).  This theory proposes that political organizations develop a "mobilization of bias... in favour of the exploitation of certain kinds of conflict and the suppression of others... some issues are organized in while others are organized out"(Ibid.,16).  
	The first dimension claims there is an open system and although admitting that political resources are not distributed equally, they are also not centralized in one groups hands. Everyone has the opportunity to use other resources and be heard.
The second approach however, sees a monopolistic system of inequalities created and maintained by the dominant power.  The elite have the means and the political resources to prevent political action that would not benefit themselves and to push forward those that would.  The Elite therefore determine the agenda of both decision making and non-decision making and in so doing establish their dominance and the subordinance and compliance of those on the bottom of the power hierarchy.
	Although the two dimensional approach to power delves deeper than the first into the nature of power and powerlessness by involving analyses of potential issues, grievances, nondecision-making and non-participation, Both Lukes and Gaventa find that it is on the same level as the first dimension in that it also  emphasizes observable conflict only.   Of course it is true that the first does stress only overt while the second stresses both overt and/or covert conflict.  Nonetheless, an affinity between the two results in their belief that where there is conflict, there is an element of power in decision making and, for the second dimension, in nondecision-making.  Barach and Baratz (as cited in Lukes,1974:19) states that if "there is no conflict, overt or covert, the presumption must be that there is consensus on the prevailing allocation of values, in which case nondecision-making is impossible."  Here, there is obviously no consideration of latent conflict or attention as to how interests not consciously articulated may fit into the power relationship.
	Lukes identifies manipulation and authority as two forms of power which do not necessarily involve evident conflict.  People abide by the power of authority because they either respect or accept its legitimacy.  Compliance to the power of manipulation often goes unrecognized by the conformer because focus is placed on irrelevant matters and the key aim is downplayed.  In neither is there observable (overt or covert) conflict, but latent conflict occurs because the individual may be agreeing to something contrary to their interests without even knowing.  
	The three dimensional view of power then, criticizes the behaviourial focus of the first two dimensions and adopts the consideration of hidden social forces and conflict which exercise influence by shaping the consciousness of the individual or organization.  This view strays from the others in that it focuses not only on decisions and nondecisions but on other ways to control the political agenda which are not made deliberately by the choice of individuals or groups.  
	The third mechanism of power seeks to identify "the means through which power influences, shapes or determines conceptions of necessities, possibilities, and strategies of challenge in situation of conflict"(Gaventa,1980:15).  In other words, it involves specifying how A gets B to believe and choose to act in a way that reinforces the bias of the system, advancing the cause of A and impairing that of B, usually in the form of compliance.
	Such processes can take place in a direct and intended way through media and communication. 'A' takes control of the information channels and 'B' is socialized into accepting, believing and even supporting the political notions instilled by 'A'.  The shaping of individual's conceptions can also take place indirectly or even unintentionally through ones membership in a social structure.  Patterns of behaviour, norms and accepted standards apparent in the action and inaction of the group are automatically adopted.  "Social legitimations are developed around the dominant, and instilled as beliefs or roles in the dominated" (Gaventa,1980:15). 
	Passive acceptance of situations or circumstances that are in conflict with one's interests occur even when the subordinated realise they are being repressed.  They submit quietly because of fear of sanctions but also because they have gone through a "psychological adaptation to the state of being without power" (Gaventa:16).  They recognize their powerlessness and see no possibility to reverse it and therefore submit to their hopeless situation with lethargic acceptance. 
	After continual defeat, the conceptions of the powerlessness may be altered as a learned response. "Over time, the calculated withdrawal by 'B' may lead to an unconscious pattern of withdrawal, maintained not by fear of power of 'A' but by a sense of powerlessness within 'B', regardless of 'A's condition" (Gaventa, 1980:16).  Although 'B' was originally aware of their state of oppression, time has quelled the initial fear and has desensitized their drive to remain  unconstrained and autonomous.  Without even realizing, B continues to submit, more as a form of habit then as a response to a particular situation.
	As a further adaptive response "the sense of powerlessness may also lead to a greater susceptibility to the internalisation of the values, beliefs or rules of the game of the powerful"(Gaventa, 1980:17).  What may have once been strong convictions to a people are systematically lost and the beliefs of the ruling class are accepted in silence, not only because of a sense of powerlessness but because they have been indoctrinated to condone whatever the powerful put forward.
	Gaventa applies Luke's three dimensional theory of power to the case of the Central Appalachian valley in the United States.  He argues that the dimensions of power can be used to better understand the pattern of quiescence that has been occurring in this region of indisputable inequities for over a generation.  The pluralist approach is established as inadequate in its attempt to interpret power relationships alone and the implementation of the other two dimensions is found to be essential to explain the situation in the Appalachian mountains. 
	The History of Central Appalachia has developed much like that of a primitive country under the influence of colonization by a dominant world power.  It is one in which an isolated, agrarian society has sparked the interest of the industrialized world as having economic potential, and has consequently been established as a dependant and thrust into a rapid series of transformation to bring it up to modern standards.  Productivity and economic pursuits are the principle concern while the people and their culture are more of a hindrance than a priority.  They are expected to shift right along with the rest of the changes.  Their traditional way of life is subsequently threatened, altered, and eventually irretrievably lost.
	By the late nineteenth century, the economic potential emanating from the vast wealth of natural coal resources of the Appalachian Mountains were well recognized and Middlesborough, a once quiet rural community, had experienced an economic boom and grown into the industrial mining centre labelled the 'Magic City of the South'.  The entire enterprise had been established under the singular leadership of the American Association Ltd., of London.  Millions of dollars were pumped into the area but because of the ownership monopoly and primarily foreign investors, the mountain people themselves reaped little or none of the benefits.
	Their agrarian based mainstay was threatened and destroyed as the 'Anglo-American enterprise' expropriated acres and acres of mineral-rich land.  "The acquisition of land is the first step in the process of economic development and the establishment of power." (Gaventa,1980:53).  It was also the first step in the subordination of the mountaineers.  Losing their land meant a change in lifestyle from a largely independent group of farmers to a group of coal miners dependent upon the Company for a salary.
	Mountaineers were most often 'voluntarily' bought out.  Few cases of actual conflict occurred and the people's land was taken virtually without challenge or opposition to a new order.  Often the land was sold to the Company for a price far below its worth.  The inherent value of the mountaineer's land went unknowing to them while the Association who knew full well of the highly valued mineral-rich soil, took advantage of the situation and bought it for very little.
	If this 'acquisition' of land were studied using only the first dimension of power, the Company would be comparable to A who's power is defined by its higher ratio of 'successes' over B's 'defeats'".  One would recognize that the Company demonstrated observable control and influence over the Appalachian people but would be justified in their actions.  
	The lack of challenge on the mountaineer's (or B's) part would be seen as an expression of consensus to the take-over of their land.  Since few grievances were expressed it would be assumed that the issue was not of enough importance to the people who therefore did not organize to put forward any alternatives.  The Association had the initiative to propose issues and contribute to decision making while the Middlesborough citizens were apathetic to what was going on.  The Company's 'successes' in decision making enhanced their power, legitimizing them as more fit to rule.
	Limiting yourself to this analyses would dismiss many factors that led to the quiescence of the mountain people, and would prevent a deeper understanding of this case.  Using Luke's second dimension of power, the non-challenge to the land-takeover would not be viewed as apathy on the part of the ordinary people but as the result of unobservable forces and covert conflict working to prevent their expression of scepticism and dispute.  
	This would support the view that within the political organizations of Middlesborough there was a "mobilization of bias".  When distribution of the land was decided by the court, it most often went to the highest bidder.  The Company held obvious power in its economic advantage leaving no doubt to anyone, including the courts, who would win out.  By basing ownership rights on economic capabilities, challenge on behalf of the mountaineers was made scarce and considered a futile effort.  In this way the issue of Company ownership was 'organized in' and the people's land claims were 'organized out'. 
	The second dimension therefore recognizes elite accommodation occurring in a system which pluralists claim to be 'open'.  It is viewed as a system where inequalities are created and maintained by allowing the dominant class to determine the decision-making agenda, therefore establishing the quiescence of the subordinated.
	The first dimension assumes that lack of overt conflict means the consensus of the mountaineers to their land loss, and the second would have assumed consensus if there were no observable overt or covert conflict, but still another dimension is essential to get to the actual root of consensus.  The third dimension considers the possibility of latent conflict where the people's wants and beliefs are unkowingly shaped to establish a consensus to that which is contrary to their interests, but not recognized as such.
	The Middlesborough workers developed no consciousness that saw themselves as being exploited.  The authority presented to them by the multi-million dollar enterprise of the American Association Ltd., of London was accepted as an overwhelming but legitimate power structure not to be questioned.  In the case of authority, "B complies because he recognizes that A's command is reasonable in terms of his own values and because it has been arrived at through a legitimate and reasonable procedure"(Lukes,1974:18).  The people complied because the Association was put forward as an enterprise which valued harmony, as they did, and would compensate them financially for the land.  
	Manipulation, however, was the key in convincing the mountaineers of the Association's legitimacy.  The people were payed far too little for what the land was worth.  They were deprived of reaping future benefits because the Company neglected to inform them of its true value and their aim to gain millions in profits.  Instead they focused only on the irrelevant matter of what insignificant sum of money would satisfy the people into giving up their land which was, at the time, of no real apparent value.
	With manipulation, "compliance is forthcoming in the absence of recognition on the complier's part either of the source or the exact nature of the demand upon him"(Lukes,1974:18).  I highly doubt that the people would have so quietly handed over their land if they had realised that, at the same time, they were handing over their traditional way of life, and in so doing, hastening its extinction.  How were they to know that this was only the first step to becoming dependants of the Company and that to make a living they would be forced to work under the oppressive conditions of a higher power on land that had once been their own.
	After the acquisition of land and the initial economic boom, conditions worsened for the mountain people and a set of stable controls was necessary in order to maintain the system the Association had created and in turn, their position of dominance.  	As Middlesborough developed into a Company Town, the absentee and unitary control exercised by the British owners grew to ensure the dependence of all upon it.  They owned not only most of the land but controlled the town's key factors of production, requiring even independent companies to function under their terms.  As was mentioned earlier, the people who had once been independent in earning a living for themselves were now required to work as miners and labourers under the autocracy of a huge enterprise.  Even small entrepreneurs now found themselves answering to the higher power of the Association. 
	Although the Company had created many jobs for the people, inequalities developed as the absentee owners ,or upper class, extracted wealth from the region leaving few of the profits to be distributed among the workers themselves.  Within the Appalachian area itself there developed a local elite who ranked next in the class hierarchy.  "They were the men of wealth, and fine backgrounds, and politics was not new for them"(Gaventa,1980:59).  They were usually those in positions of political leadership where they could benefit the company and promote its best interests.  Next were a class of small entrepreneurs and professionals who were attracted to the booming city by its promising commercial future.  The bottom of the hierarchy consisted of labourers, miners and other manual labour workers.  This class was composed mainly of those who were originally from the region and had come from a rural background, while the 'upper classes' had been derived primarily of those attracted to the area because of its economic potential.  "[Mobility] was of a horizontal nature, the coming together in one area of various representatives of pre-existing strata from other areas"(Gaventa,1980:57).
	The workers were therefore destined to poverty and inequality, but also had to endure such things as poor and even dangerous working conditions with few health benefits and little compensation.  And one cannot forget the ongoing demise of their valley as entire mountain sides were stripped away and the air and water were blackened with millions of tiny coal particles.  
	Why then, in this state of economic, social and even environmental depravation did the people not cry out with enough strength to be heard?  While nearby mining communities experiencing similar conditions responded with militant, collective organizations, Middlesborough expressed grievances but never took the form of organized action or went as far as creating a consciousness of the situation.  The first, second and third dimensions of power would give different reasons for this in answering how the Association was able to maintain the new order they had created and the quiescence of a people amongst their condition of poverty and inequality.   		    
	The pluralist approach would recommend using the democratic political process of the electoral system in determining the legitimacy of those in power and of their policies and practices.  If the leaders who have been elected by the people and for the people do not voice concerns about the existing system or the desire for change, it must be assumed that there were no concerns but instead an overall approval of the status quo.  The people of Middlesborough had a choice between local and 'Company' candidates and with few exceptions continued to place their support in the latter.  Even within their own unions where leadership had become increasingly dictatorial and Company biased, the workers remained loyal to the existing leaders and opposed the reform movement.   	By considering only the face value of voting practices, one would have to agree that the Appalachian miners appear to be in accordance with the management of the existing system and their place within it.  The second dimension of power would disagree, however, and would explain the maintenance of the system and the compliance of the people as a result of the Company's control over the political apparatus.
	The longstanding political science maxim that low socio-economic status, poor education and lack of information, translate into low political participation would be admissible in the second dimensional view.  The elite made up a closely-knit group of political leaders in Appalachia who made decisions to advance their causes more than those of the Mountaineers. "There was little regard for what law there was and money ruled the day"(Gaventa,1980:59).  This could help explain why Acts were passed to protect the rights of the Company while demands for miners rights rarely even made it to the courthouse.  This supports the view that non-participation was not the result of apathy but of a caste system, and that non-issues did not mean lack of grievances but lack of opportunity to voice them. 
	This does not, however, support the documented cases where workers themselves did participate, although minimally, and wilfully voted for candidates who were backers of the Company.  This discrepancy can, nevertheless, be explained with Bachrach and Baratz's use of the term 'power' in its sense as "the securing of compliance through the threat of sanctions"(Lukes,1974:17).   Fear is thus presented as reason enough for the mountaineers to express support in the form of a vote, even though it is not an accurate  portrayal of their position.       	  
	Traditional political dominance in the Clearfork Valley belonged to a group of local landowners called 'The Family' who maintained their power position by serving as "mediators between the Company and community gaining further power as brokers of favours concerning jobs or home tenure"(Gaventa,1980:143).  The Family was associated with Company housing, welfare and employment, and in order to receive any benefits, one had to be in their good graces.  "Even now, people say those who live in company housing or work in mines on company land are expected to vote in the Family's favour"(Gaventa,1982:143).  
	As brokers of benefits, they were also capable of taking them away and imposing sanctions.  Many, for example, would not spend their food stamps anywhere but the Company store where prices were higher, with the fear that they would lose their welfare or even be evicted as a consequence.  The people were therefore quite aware that by accommodating the Company leaders with their support, they stood a chance at being granted certain benefits.  Conversely, if one were to advance the cause of the reform movement and upset the system, life could be made very difficult for them.  "While the benefits of the status quo are high for the powerful, the costs of challenge are potentially higher for the powerless" (Gaventa, 1980: 145).   
	Lukes second dimension of power explains how the Association was able to maintain its dominance and the quiescence of the people in terms of creating a political apparatus to organize certain issues and participants in, and others out, as well as impose recognizable sanctions.  Further analyses, however, would require a look at the less obvious controls which stemmed from the shaping and instilling of an ideological apparatus in support of the Company among the ordinary citizens.
	This would describe Luke's third dimension where power is executed in a more subtle way.  "It is one which shapes the outcome of 'choice' while allowing the chooser to believe that, in fact, a choice has been made"(Gaventa,1980:63).  The Mountaineers non-challenge then, although appearing to be a freely chosen state of quiescence was actually more of an imposed choice.  By both deliberate and unintentional means, the consciousness of the people was slanted to adopt the newly created Industrial ideology.  Gaventa identifies four observable ways that the Association was able to maintain their hegemony.
	Conditioning the people's wants involved first a perversion of information which exaggerated benefits of the industrial order and downplayed its oppressive effects upon them.  The mountain valley had drawn in millions of dollars, attracted all kinds of investors, and created hundreds of jobs.  In addition to this it also became "a vacation ground for the wealthy"(Gaventa,1980:63) where luxurious hotels were built and a new leisure class developed.  
	This lifestyle contrasted drastically with that of the labourers living in dilapidated shacks, yet a working class consciousness failed to develop.  This is because an equal opportunity ethic was emphasized, stressing the belief that by hard work these benefits were attainable by all.  Social stratification was therefore accepted by most workers and instead of participating equally, they chose to splurge what little money they had on alcohol which was the only way they knew to "replicate the pattern (of enjoyment of luxuries) in a lesser style"(Gaventa,1980:65). 		The appeal of the new industrial order and its economic benefits was enhanced by the debasement of the mountaineer's traditional way of life and culture.  The two were in direct contrast so the glorification of the first meant the degradation of the other.  The old culture was criticized as a dirty, primitive and meagre way of life while the new order was proclaimed for its virtues of civilization and progress.  Miners were therefore socialized to strive for membership under the new order and to be ashamed of the old.
	Imposing values took on a third form in the process of changing names of towns, schools and other cultural establishments.  Names that had been familiar to the old system were changed to those derived from the new.  Only Company workplaces and mines kept their local names.  In this way, ties to the past were severed and a clear path for a new society was created.  Symbols play an important part in the way people interpret their society.  By manipulating linguistic symbols the Association was shaping the societal consciousness.  "By the imposition of one identity over another in the cultural arena, and by allowing names to lend the appearance of local possession in the workplace arena (where there was none at all) the development of a counter-hegemony was made less likely"(Gaventa,1980:67).
	The creation of a set of controls in the form of political and ideological constructs resulted "in a shaping and influencing away from (the mountaineer's) 'stock' to participation in the ways and values of the new order"(Gaventa,1980:68).  Conformity to the extent where contradictions of conscience go unnoticed because workers are no longer certain of their orientation occurred repeatedly and was the main reason challenge was rare.
	It must be noted, however, that the workers of Middlesborough were not  completely inact 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Power Shifts in Intergovernmental Relations a Result of Fis.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
						
Power Shifts in Intergovernmental Relations:  a Result of Fiscal Federalism

	Fiscal federalism is the result of the states' dependence on the national government for funds.  Until 1913, the national government had minimal monetary resources, thus possessing little control over the affairs of the states.  Once effected, the Sixteenth Amendment resulted in the amassing of government funds on the national level. This reserve of money enabled the national government to initiate a multitude of national programs--such as the interstate highway--as well as provide grants to the states.  It is primarily through these grants that the national government can exert influence over state affairs; for, by designating restrictions in the distribution of these grants, the national government can compel states and localities to make or alter policies and legislation in accordance with its agenda.  The manner in which the national government has wielded the influence of money throughout the history of the nation has continually altered intergovernmental relations.  Since the Depression, fiscal federalism has caused the national government to dominate the states; recently, however, reforms have begun to return power to the states.  
	Policies and precedents of the New Deal centralized power in the national government.  To remedy the devastation of the Great Depression, it assumed a more direct and prevalent role in the lives of the people.  Congress passed the 1935 Social Security Act, providing retired persons pensions and benefits for the unemployed and disabled. In addition to Social Security, the government also established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in 1933 which provided states with money for the needy.  The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program was state-administered and federally funded, another example of state dependence on the national government.  The Works Progress Administration is one of the multitude of programs implemented to provide employment to aid in recovery.  Formerly a state responsibility, the national government became 
the primary source for relief.  The national government broadened its powers in response to this crisis and began to supersede the state governments in decision-making.  As a result, the states began to relinquish their power and defer to as well as depend on the national government.  This increase in federal power did not exist solely under Roosevelt's Depression-era administration but extended over to later administrations as well.  
	The remainder of the century until the present was marked by legislation limiting the states even further.  During the Great Society of the 1960s, Congress passed Johnson's proposals for increased federal aid to education--augmenting federal control and involvement over education, a power reserved for the states.  Moreover, Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid, health insurance plans for the elderly and the poor or disabled, respectively, expanding the federal role in social welfare programs.  During Nixon's tenure, existing programs of assistance for the aged, blind and disabled administered by the states were federalized, requiring more money from the national government.  Additionally, general revenue sharing was signed into law, once again increasing state dependence on federal funds.  Nixon's New Federalism implemented major expansions of federal regulatory power over state and local governments.  Concerned about the dominance of the national government, the reaction to this continual increase in federal power and influence is a decrease in cooperative federalism.
	The government has recently shifted its former practices, creating legislation empowering the states.  Through a series of tax-cutting, budget-cutting and deregulatory initiatives, Reagan lessened the role of the federal government in intergovernmental relations.  Under his administration, general revenue sharing was ended, further advancing the liberation of states and localities from federal dominance.  Clinton's administration began a steady campaign in the devolution of power from Washington to the states.  States were recently given greater flexibility in administrating AFDC; they now have wide discretion in determining eligibility.  The welfare overhaul bill gives states greater control over awarding benefits; policy will be determined largely by states and localities themselves.  There is increasing support towards turning welfare, Medicaid and federal job programs over to the states, which would independently establish criteria for eligibility and administer the benefits.  This would return the present system of cooperative federalism to a more separate, dual system.
	Throughout the twentieth century, it is evident that the extent of the control exerted by the national government on the states and localities is a direct result of the practice of fiscal federalism.  An unprecedentedly severe economic downturn caused the advent of cooperative federalism in intergovernmental relations, as a national crisis requires the involvement of the national government to obtain recovery.  This involvement continued for most of the century, continually increasing federal power as the national government began to implement national regulation.  Currently, intergovernmental relations are more inclined to favor the states, as a power shift to states is being promoted to reduce the size of the federal government.  The roles of the national and state governments continually change in accordance with the state of the nation and the state of politics, and money is also an integral factor in the evolution of intergovernmental relations.  Thus, fiscal federalism has a prevailing role in the shaping of the nation.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\President Reagans Strategic Defense InitiativeIn Relation w.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
President Reagan�s Strategic Defense Initiative:
In Relation with the Soviet Union
�For the first time humankind has the power to destroy itself.� 1 The nuclear age has changed the world, for the good and the bad. Though the bad, is far greater than the good. We sometimes ponder to our selves, �what would happen if we were forced in to a nuclear war ware their are now winners.� The way life would be after such an incident would change life as we know  it drastically. In the event of a nuclear war with the Soviets we would have lost approximately one hundred and fifty million American lives. 2  The planet would be destroyed to the extent that even thoughts who survived would have no place to live. No Government, or persons, can win a nuclear war and as long as their are nuclear missiles of mass destruction there will always be the risk of someone using them. Once the first missile is unleashed their is no telling were it would stop. 
	Our dealings with the former Soviet Union was based on the French word, detente, that the Russians had defined as a freedom to purchase subversion, aggression and expansionism any were in the world. 3 The soviets have been, up until 1990, the U.S�s defacto enemies. There goal was too destroy democracy and imposing communism. 4 This is way it was though to be inevitable for a nuclear war with the soviets. �The dream of a non nuclear world is a great and notable one, how ever for the foreseeable future it is unattainable in actuality and unwise in theory.� 5 Because of this harsh the United States is left with a problem; How can we beet this so called inevitability? The answer is: space based defense weapons. The program, brought forth by the Reagan administration, was called the strategic defense Initiative, and some called �Star Wars.� 6 Reagan�s strategic defense initiative, created in the 80�s, was an acceptable for the U.S; it worked to convince the Soviets not only to reduce there nuclear arsenal but to halt any chance for a nuclear attack by the Soviets. 
	� What is the worth of our society as we know it? Right now we hold an entire population hostage.� 7 Ever since the 1960�s our main defense against the soviets has been the MAD policy, Mutual Assured Destruction. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had enough nuclear weapons at their disposal so that if one fired at the other the one that was being fired at would fire it�s missiles at the other too. In other words, they would share the same fate.8
	Wherever the President goes he carries a small plastic- coated card, and a military aid is always present. This aid cares a small bag called �the football,� it contains directions for the launching of all our nuclear weapons. The card carried by the President listed codes confirming that is was indeed him, the choice to launch was entirely his.9 This should not even be necessary. �Underneath it all, people don�t think there is any hope to avoid a nuclear war, it has taken away peoples hope.�10 That hope was restored in 1983 when President Reagan announced his commitment to the American people to do what ever it took to make the SDI fly. For a lot of Americans his commitment to this program was an alternative to a nuclear holocaust.11 The SDI is a sidelight system that was to be put in space with large lazier guns attached to it. These lazier would intercept and destroy nuclear missiles when they emerged from their silos. Reagan was willing to share this technology with others willing to reduce their nuclear arsenals. �One day a madman could come along and make the missiles and black mail all the world. but not if we have a defense a against them.� 12 �We all got together in  1925 and banned the use of poisons gas. But we all kept our gas masks.� 13 Reagan was instrumentally right with this statement. The SDI gave the United States an opportunity to almost force the world to pay close attention. If the entire world had the SDI it would make nuclear weapons obsolete. So what was once �unattainable� yesterday might be, in time to come, very attainable.
	The SDI would end The arms race. Gorbachev �had to know that Americans military technology was overwhelmingly superior to his.� 14 �He also had to Know that we�(the U.S) �could outspend the Soviets on weapons.� 15 In 1983 the U.S spent 34 thousand million on defense technology alone.16 We spent 24 billion dollars, over a seven year period, on the SDI.17 We have 165 U.S satellites in orbit right now, each one coasting in excess of one billion each.18 
	Our economic system, capitalism, is far more superior to the Soviets system, communism. The proof is that our system our countries system is going strong, theirs collapsed in 1989 with the fall of communism in eastern Europe. This is also prop that we did out spend them. 
	With the deployment of the SDI the Soviets weapons would be no longer a thereat to the U.S. What leverage they had in the past would die with the SDI. Their only hope to keep some of the  power they had would be to agree to massive arms reduction, on both sides. Above all it would bring a lasting peace between our two nations.
	The Soviets at first thought our research on the SDI was as an offensive, first strike capability. This was not the case at all. It was a defense weapon only. The SDI was not a bargaining chip, opposed to popular belief. Reagan wrote in his diary in July of 1985, �Made a decision we would not trade away our program of research SDI for a promise of Soviet reduction in nuclear arms.� 19 While the Soviets were �whining� about the research we�d done on the SDI, they had been conducting similar research for more than twenty years.20 Gorbachev was adamant that the U.S must cave in on the SDI. 21 Reagan stated that �this will be a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.� 22) Gorbachev was not willing to agree to any weapons reductions until we renounced �the development, Testing and deployment of space-strike weapons,� a reference to SDI.23 Though in late 1988, the U.S and the Soviet Union agreed of a fifty percent reduction in both their arms, while keeping our research on the SDI.
	Before Gorbachev, every Soviet leader had vowed to the pursuit of  a Marxist commitment and world ruled by the communist system; he was the first not to push Soviet expansionism, the first to agree to destroy nuclear weapons, the first to suggest a free market and to support open election and freedom of expression. 24 
	�The two of us were in a unique situation. Here we were, I said, two men who had been born in obscure rural hamlets in our respective countries, each of us poor and from humble beginnings. Now we were the leaders of our countries and probably the only two men in the world who could bring about World War III. 
	At the same time, I said, we were possibly the only two men who might be able to bring peace to the world. I said I thought we owed it to the world to use the opportunity that had been presented us to work at building the kind of human trust and confidence in each other that could lead to genuine peace. Listening to the translation, Gorbachev seemed to nod in agreement.�25
	Nuclear weapons serve no purpose in tomorrows world. Once nuclear weapons they power. Today we almost have the technology to destroy them if their was an attempt to use them. Not only that but the world has come together and reduced their nuclear capability's. We know that in nuclear war their are no winners just losers. Reagan�s Strategic Defense Initiative, created in the 80�s, was an acceptable risk for the U.S; it worked to convince the Soviets not only to reduce their nuclear arsenal but to halt any chance for a nuclear attack. 
	Gorbachev wrote President Reagan in late 1988: �For the first time in history, nuclear missiles have been destroyed. Nuclear disarmament is becoming an established and routine practice.
	�In several regions of the world, a process of political settlement of conflicts and national reconciliation has got under way.
	�Our relationship is a dynamic stream, and you and I are working together to widen it. A stream cannot be slowed down; it can only be blocked or diverted. But that would not be in our interests. Politics, of course, is the art of the possible. But it is only by working and maintaining a dynamic dialogue that we will put into effect what we have made possible, and will make possible tomorrow what is yet impossible today.�26  EndNotes
1.Kazas, Tom, The World Will Never Be the Same (SIRS 1985)  G1+
2. Men of the Year, Time- 1983 Highlights  (Time : CD-ROM)  
3.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
4.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
5.Hodding, Carter, The Reagan Years (New York: George Braziller 1988)
   	pp.173-174
6.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
7.Kazas, Tom, The World Will Never Be the Same (SIRS 1985)  G1+
8.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
9.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
10.Kazas, Tom, The World Will Never Be the Same (SIRS 1985)  G1+
11.Kazas, Tom, The World Will Never Be the Same (SIRS 1985)  G1+
12.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
13.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
14.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
15.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
16.Scott,William B., Major Cultural Change on Tap in Military Space (CD-
	ROM: SIRS 1885) 
17.Center for Defense Information,  A New Cold War Battleground  (CD-ROM: SIRS 		1990)
18.Denny, Jeffrey, Star Struck  (CD-ROM: SIRS 1991)
19.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
20.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
21.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
22.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
23.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
24.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
25.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time
26.Men of the Year, (CD-ROM) Time



Bibliography

�Center for Defense Information.�  A New Cold War Battleground: SIRS.
	CD-ROM.  Jan./Feb. 1990.

�Denny,Jeffrey.�  Star Struck:  SIRS.  
	CD-ROM.  March/April 1991.

�Kazas,Tom.�  The World Will Never Be the Same:  SIRS.
	CD-ROM.  July 7, 1985.  

Hodding,Carter.  The  Reagan Years.  New York: George Braziller.
	1988

�Defense Budget in 1994.�  World Almanac and Book of Facts.  1996 ed.

�Scott,William B.�  Major Cultural Change on Tap in Military Space.
	CD-ROM. Sep. 18, 1995.

�Men of the Year.�  Time- The Weekly Newsmagazine- 1994 Highlights.
	CD-ROM. January 2, 1984.

�Men of the Year.�  Time- The Weekly Newsmagazine- 1994 Highlights.
	CD-ROM.  Oct. 1994 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Presidential Debates 96.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\presidential elections.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
				        		            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 doesn�t 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, �We�ll never get everybody�s income up until we educate everybody.�  Clinton is full of brilliant revelations like, �Racial 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.� 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 hasn�t decided to run yet.
	Arlen Spector believes the government should be �limited, but not uncaring or a do nothing government.� 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 : �the few, the proud, the obscure.� 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, I�m 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, don�t 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 candidates� 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 country�s problems and how to solve them. The rest of the candidates will have four more years to bake cookies or fight the IRS. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Private.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


   The word "privateer" conjures a romantic image in the minds of most Americans.  Tales of battle and bounty pervade the folklore of privateering, which has become a cherished, if often overlooked part of our shared heritage.  Legends were forged during the battle for American independence, and these men were understandably glorified as part of the formation of our national identity.  The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these men were common opportunists, if noteworthy naval warriors.  The profit motive was the driving force behind almost all of their expeditions, and a successful privateer could easily become quite wealthy.  In times of peace, these men would be common pirates, pariahs of the maritime community.  Commissioned in times of war, they were respected entrepreneurs, serving their purses and their country, if only incidentally the latter.  However vulgar their motivation, the system of privateering arose because it provided a valuable service to the country, and indeed the American Revolution might not have been won without their involvement.  Many scholars agree that all war begins for economic reasons, and the privateers of the war for independence contributed by attacking the commercial livelihood of Great Britain's merchants.
     It is ironic that the entire notion of privateering began in Great Britain.  In 1649 a frigate named Constant-Warwick was constructed in England for a privateer in the employ of the Earl of Warwick.   Seeing how profitable this investment was, a great many of the English peerage commissioned their own privateers.  The Seven-Years War saw the proliferation of privateering on both the English and French coasts as each attempted to disrupt their opponent's colonial trade.  American investors quickly entered this battle, commissioning ships to prey upon cargo vessels coming to and from French colonial holdings in the Americas.  Here began the American privateer heritage, and when the American Revolution began many of these same men viewed the opportunity to profit, and resumed their ventures.  The American privateer vessel was a ship "armed and fitted out at private expense for the purpose of preying on the enemy's commerce to the profit of her owners".   Not just anyone could be a privateer, however.  What distinguished a privateer from a common pirate was a commission, or a letter of marque.   These were granted by the government, and were quite easily obtained.  The government's benefit was twofold.  First, the revolutionary government took a share of the profits from the sale of any cargo captured by a commissioned privateer.  The percentage ranged from ten to as much as forty percent, depending on the nature of the cargo.   This provided the then cash-starved government with considerable revenue, with little to no overhead.  It cost the government virtually nothing to issue a commission, and the financial rewards were great.  Second, these privateers disrupted the enemy's trade and sometimes even captured British military transports and supply ships.  This system helped the government financially and strategically, while affording the privateer great economic benefits.  These fabulous profits created an environment laden with potential for upward mobility for motivated and talented seamen.
     To fully appreciate the available opportunities, one must first be aware of how the individual privateer operated, and a cursory knowledge of ship design is helpful.  Virtually every ship in that era, commercial or military, carried at least some cannon.  However, these ships could not be outfitted with as many cannons as their owners desired.  The term "pierced" refers to the rectangles that were cut in a ship's sides through which cannons were fired.   Cannons were usually located on either the top deck, or the level just below it.  This lower level was preferable because cannon operation required a good deal of space due to recoil, and lurching cannons were dangerous obstacles to crews working the sails on the main deck.  However, these lower piercings were difficult to make after the ship was constructed and affected the structural integrity of the ship itself.  It was much easier to piercing the sides of the ship on the main deck, because all it required was a simple U-cut.  In fact, many captains who needed to rearrange the placement of their cannons during battle ordered hasty V-cuts on the main deck.   As mentioned before however, these were less than preferable because of the danger they posed to seamen trimming the sails.  Thus the number and placement of piercings affected the ship's desirability as a privateer.  In the early stages of the American Revolution, investors purchased ships of all types, paid for their modification, crew, and provisions, and hired experienced seamen to command them.  The entire crew was paid a salary, plus a small percentage of he spoils.   These ships would sail out of port laden with ammunition, sidearms, and men, and short on provisions.  Space was limited, and it was wiser to carry more men and weapons than food and water.  The logic behind this outfitting was that the privateer would hopefully capture ships.  Upon capture, the privateer crew would board the enemy ship, disarm the crew and assume command.  The privateer captain would then place a small contingent of his men on board the captured vessel to command it back to the nearest American port.  The captain and officers of the captured vessel would be placed under cabin arrest on their own vessel, while the privateer commanders quickly sailed for the closest friendly port.  On these trips, the English crew continued to sail the ship, under the command of the privateer contingent.  These privateers would load all available sidearms, and keep them in a locked room on the poop deck.   In the case of an attempted mutiny, the privateers could take the high ground of the poop deck and fire repeatedly on the mutinous crew.  The privateer vessel would commandeer the majority of the English ship's provisions, with the logic that the captured vessel was headed for the nearest port and would not need them.  By this method the privateers found sustenance.  Many a privateer voyage was cut short because provisions were running low and either no capture had been made, or a capture had insufficient food and water.  It was not uncommon for a privateer to capture multiple British ships on one voyage, (the record being twenty-eight!), and so the surplus of men was necessary to man captured vessels. 
     The mutiny of prisoners was a very real and common danger.  Many privateers who took too many prisoners or under-staffed a capture were the victims of viscous mutinies. The case of the sloop Eagle sailing out of Connecticut illustrates this.  A six gun ship, the Eagle had captured seven British vessels on one trip.  Her complement was reduced to fifteen, and she had taken many prisoners aboard.  When an opportunity presented itself the British seamen turned on their captors, overpowered them, and killed all but two boys.    A rule of thumb in the privateering profession was to never capture more ships than the number of cannons you had on your own ship.   If a privateer had six guns, then he should capture no more than six ships on a single voyage.  In fact, that accomplishment was considered the pinnacle of success for a privateer voyage.
     These captured vessels were the primary reason upward mobility was so possible.  A captain might return to port with a total of three captured ships on one voyage.  He began his adventures as an employee of the investors who furnished him with his original ship and crew.  When divvying the spoils, it was not uncommon for a privateer captain to request one of the captured ships for the bulk of his compensation.  He could take this ship, hire the best men from his previous crew, and go into business for himself.   This resulted in a vacancy on his original ship, and experienced mates often moved up to the position of captain.  Additionally, talented officers on a privateer owned ship faced great prospects for their own advancement.  It was quite common for a successful first mate to receive a ship of his own to command from a privateer owner/captain.  In this way the privateer could increase his holdings and profits by owning multiple ships, and ambitious officers could further their own careers.  At the end of the revolution, there were privateers who had as many as ten ships in their service.   These men would retire from commanding ships, and oversee the business of "corporate" privateering.  This system quickly blossomed after the beginning of the war and was an economic boom for the maritime sector.
     This boom was due to the fact that American privateers were "damn good"  at what they did.  Their capture rate is astounding.  In 1781 four hundred and forty-nine vessels had been commissioned as privateers, the highest number of any year of the revolution.  These ships captured a little over thirteen hundred vessels, and sank almost two hundred more.   The British were shocked by the prowess exhibited by American seamen.  For years Great Britain had reigned supreme on the seas, and a band of profiteering rebels was not only destroying their trade, but humiliating their Royal Navy.  In the early stages of the war privateers would often come across HMS vessels, and attempt to engage them.  Although they were not laden with commercial goods suitable for sale they were often troop transports, or even better, supply ships bringing necessities to British troops in America.  The Continental Congress had put bounties not on HMS vessels but rather twenty-five dollars a head on English servicemen delivered as prisoners.  The ship and any goods were for the privateer to keep.  This made troop transports a suitable prize for privateers who could often outmaneuver the larger military ships.  A common tactic was to load their cannons with grape shot and aim high for the British sails.  If a privateer could disable the man-o-war's maneuvering capability, he would gain a great advantage.  Positioning himself perpendicular to the British stern, the British would be forced to surrender, being unable to return fire or quickly reposition to do so. 
     Britain's loss of maritime and naval supremacy had a tremendous impact on the war.  In the beginning of the revolution, most Britons believed that the war would have little or no effect on them personally.   Granted, it would be expensive to ship redcoats and Hessians across the Atlantic Ocean, but this cost would be more than covered by the profits British merchants were making from colonial trade.  The provisions of the Navigation Acts ensured profits for British merchants as long as the system was in place, and putting down a rebellion made good economic sense.   Furthermore, British merchants believed that the war would be fought entirely across the ocean, perhaps destroying some infrastructure in the colonies, but having no effect on British trade.  The American privateers were quick to prove them wrong.
     The assaults of the privateers on British merchant ships cost English business eighteen million dollars throughout the course of the war.   The estimated value of the ships that were captured totaled almost twenty four million dollars.   Combined, this makes approximately forty two million dollars lost to the privateers, a fortune in the late eighteenth century.  Added to this were the sixteen thousand prisoners taken by the privateers, the vast majority of whom where seamen.   The sheer audacity of the American privateers is evident in the bold raids against British ships carried on just off the coast of England.  Bold captains would sail for the English coast, capture ships, and escort them to French ports for the sale of their goods.   These daring exploits had a tremendous effect on British trade and morale.  Britain's power rested on her naval strength, and her colonial empire was fed by her well-developed merchant marine fleet.  The privateers deprived Britain of her source of strength.  Aside from the monetary loss from captures, privateering had ramifications throughout the British economy.  Privateers operating off the American coast effectively disrupted trade with the Americas.  However, America was only a portion of Great Britain's colonial possessions.  Taking the war to her coasts impacted all of her trade routes with all of her colonies.  Insurance rates on cargoes being transported on ships of British flag skyrocketed.  Ships sailing for the Americas were even more expensive to insure.  To insure cargo bound anywhere from Great Britain cost up to eight percent of the cargoes estimated value by 1789.   It was impossible to get insurance for a ship sailing for America unless she moved in a guarded convoy, and even then insurance could reach thirty percent.   The loss inflicted by American privateers led to the formation of these armed convoys, often consisting of up to fifty ships.  Even the linen trade with nearby Ireland was ravaged.  Accounts of a convoy of linen ships sailing from Ireland to England with sixty ships, five of them being warships, indicated that less than twenty five arrived safely in England.   Two warships were sunk, and the rest carried off by American privateers.  Eventually, British commerce was crippled.  The loss of ships and capture of experienced seamen drove up the price of transport.  Insurance rates were at prohibitory levels.  No ship flying an English flag was safe.  British merchants began to ship their goods on French transports, which was also quite expensive, but still cheaper and safer than a British ship.   The British merchants were taking losses everywhere.  The main reason for their prosperity, and that of England's was the colonial trade, and the American privateer had effectively denied them of this.  The merchants began to put pressure on Parliament to end the war. 
     In fact, almost every motion put before Parliament to end the war with the colonies was supported by economic motives.  Powerful merchants used their influence to cause dissent in the ranks of Parliament, and soon a strong movement advocated peace negotiations.  The logic was that first, an end of hostilities would enable Britain to resume normal commercial relations with the rest of her colonial possessions.  Second, American manufacturing capabilities would take years to develop, and England could profit to some extent from trade with the former colonies.  The system of privateering had wreaked havoc upon the British economic system and helped the American rebels win the war for their independence.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\problems in airt raffic control and proposed solutions.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Problems in Air Traffic Control and Proposed Solutions

	In northern California this summer, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) unintentionally performed it's first operational test of "free flight"; aviation without direct air traffic control. This was an unintentional experiment because it was a result of a total shut-down of the Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). 
	 Although Oakland is only the 16th busiest ARTCC, it's responsible for the largest block of airspace of any ATC facility; 18 million square miles.  Oakland directs all upper-level flight from San Luis Obispo, California to the California/Oregon boarder, including most Pacific oceanic routes. The failure happened at 7:13 a.m. local time during the morning "departure push". Controllers estimated there were 60-80 aircraft under their control when the power died. All radar screens went dark and all radios went silent. It took 45 minutes to restore radios and bring up a backup radar system. It was more than an hour before the main radar presentations came on line.
	One controller described the sudden quiet in the control suite as "the loudest silence I've ever heard" (UPI , 1995). He went on to say there was "panic on everybody's face" as they realized they had been rendered deaf, dumb, and blind by this catastrophic equipment failure. It took a few minutes for controllers to realize the shut-down had affected the entire facility. There was no book procedure to cover this emergency scenario, so most controllers improvised. 
	Controllers in adjourning Los Angeles, Salt Lake, and Seattle ARTCCs and various Terminal Radar Approach Controls (TRACON; the level of radar coverage below upper-level ARTCC radar) were asked to take control over all airspace within their radar coverage, and divert aircraft under their control inbound to Northern California. Control towers in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, and other airports in the area were instructed to hold all IFR departures on the ground. The most difficult problem was getting notification to the airborne flight crews. In one case, controller Mike Seko said, "We had Napa tower telling high altitude aircraft Oakland Center had lost everything, and to switch to emergency frequencies" (Seko, UPI, 1995). But most airborne aircraft on Oakland Center frequencies were in a state of "lost-comm" unless they figured out what happened on the ground and switched to another ARTCC or TRACON. 
	Flight crews did their own improvising. Some pilots squawked VFR and continued the flight on their own. Others continued on their previously issued clearance, while others climbed into or descended out of Class A airspace without a clearance. 
	Later analysis tells us one of the biggest problems was nobody believed a prolonged outage like this could occur. Both controllers and supervisors worked on the assumption their radar and radios would come back "any moment now". The same thought process prevailed at Bay (Oakland) TRACON where operations were paralyzed by the Center's blackout. 
	It's impossible to say how many separation losses occurred during the hour-long episode. Some near mid-air reports were filed, but the vast majority of separation-loss situations will probably go unreported. After power was restored, and the primary radar system was returned to operation, extensive air traffic delays, diversions, and flight cancellations persisted for many hours at Bay area airports, especially departures from San Francisco International.
	We may never know the full aftermath of this incident. Changes will be made as to how power is fed to ATC facilities, and how maintenance is performed. Contingency plans will be rewritten and controllers will be trained how to implement them. Meanwhile, controllers nation wide are brushing up on their non-radar and lost-comm procedures. 
		After an extensive investigation, it's now clear why the failure occurred. One of three power sources was down for maintenance testing. The second power source failed unexpectedly. When technicians tried to bring the third power source on-line, a faulty circuit board failed in a critical power panel, preventing power from being restored. Oakland Center was completely dead.
	This was the story of one air traffic control facility's system failure. Don't think this was an isolated incident though. A partial list of this years ATC radar failures:
� Chicago Center lost their primary radar system when the 1970's technology IBM 9020E host computer went down for 29 hours. 
� ASR-9 radar failure at Miami TRACON possibly due to a lighting strike. Miami switched to a back-up ASR-9 system at Fort Lauderdale. The Fort Lauderdale system then failed just as technicians at Miami brought their radar on-line. Miami failed again forcing controllers to revert to non-radar procedures.
� Fort Worth Center's host computer lost power while technicians were replacing some related processing equipment. Back-up radar was on-line for almost three hours. All departures experienced a 60-90 minute delays. 
� Pittsburgh TRACON briefly lost communication and radar with 38 flights in the air. Radar contact was lost for 5-8 minutes.  
	Everyone from vacationing families to the director of the Federal Aviation Administration recognizes the national air traffic control system is in desperate need of reform. Host computer systems are 20 years old, power supplies are at times unreliable, and facilities are under-manned with over-worked controllers. Moral is low at facilities because of these problems. The main problem that currently plagues the system though is who's going to take charge of the situation and with what reform plan. The controllers union has their reform plan as does the FAA and the law makers in Washington. These groups fight amongst themselves to promote their reconstruction plan, but meanwhile nothing's accomplished and the skies stay unsafe.
	The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) is the union that replaced the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO). NATCA, representing  the controller work force, supports a plan to structure the air traffic control branch of the FAA. NATCA endorses the government corporation concept for air traffic control because, "it goes furthest towards correcting the FAA's personnel, procurement, and budgetary problems" (NATCA policy statement, 1995). The union goes on to say they'll back any legislative measure that addresses at a minimum, the following personnel, procurement, and budgetary  concerns:
� Provides for protection of retirement, benefits, and job security consistent with applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
� Need for long-term leadership at the FAA.
� Provide the FAA with the ability to hire personnel when needed and allow individuals to transfer to where they're needed most, regardless of artificial hiring/managing caps.
� Provide the FAA with the ability to attract and retain high caliber individuals.
� Allow the FAA and its recognized unions, the ability to seek a more streamlined and factual classification system.
� Provides a flexible procurement system that mitigates the effects the appropriations process has on large contracts, allows for more off-the-shelf purchasing, and reforms the contracting appeals process.
� Provides some relief from the Budget Enforcement Act.
� Allows for increased (but reasonable) user and internal union input.
    	NATCA actively lobbies their concerns how ATC reform should occur. James Poole is the Vice President of NATCA's Great Lakes Region. In September of this year, he testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Aviation Subcommittee. He presented an air traffic control system that was "in a state of distress" . He went on to say the numerous equipment outages nationwide is an indicator the system is moving towards failure. Although he gave credit to FAA Administrator David Hinson for some reform actions (such as canceling the failed Advanced Automation System), he debated the administrators claim the ATC system was "99.4% reliable." Poole said, "they (the FAA) are striving to maintain user confidence in the system but their strategy tends to trivialize very serious system deficiencies." (UPI, 1995) Again, Poole offered NATCA's recommendation to Congress and the FAA on how to assist the crumbling air traffic control system:
� Reform the procurement policies so new technology enters the system while it's new technology.
� Provide better funding mechanisms for the FAA
� Authorize and fund hiring an additional 1,500 controllers.
� Implement a vehicle to attract high caliber controllers at the busiest facilities.
	Many NATCA controllers believe they are able to survive each day's shift in spite of their equipment, not because of it. It's a known fact the technology contained in a laptop computer outperforms the capacity of the IBM 9020E that supports all FAA radar facilities. NATCA goes on to the claim the digital clarity of a cellular phone is light-years ahead of the antiquated radios now used  to communicate. John Carr is an air traffic controller at Chicago O'Hare TRACON and is that facility's representative for NATCA. His analogy follows; "Our nation has entered the on-ramp of the information superhighway. The FAA can't even get their Pinto out of the driveway". (AP, 1995)
	In 1989, the Chicago System Safety and Efficiency Review recommended that a new TRACON be built. A new TRACON and tower at O'Hare were built and are set for commissioning in late 1996. The price for the TRACON building alone was $100 million dollars. The equipment will cost $200 million dollars. NATCA proposes though, "it's just radios and radar". The union reiterates the FAA has once again chosen to ignore their most valuable resource; the working air traffic controller. Carr said the transition plan to the new TRACON calls for 77 controllers working six-day workweeks in order to man both facilities. This is required so there's orderly training, testing, and transition. According to Carr, there are only 67 controllers, and seven of those are leaving. The staffing for the new TRACON will be 21 controllers per shift. Using the FAA's own Staffing Standard Plan, O'Hare TRACON should have 30 controllers per shift. Carr says, "this is woefully inadequate and we believe it does a disservice to the user". Speaking before Congress, Carr testified to the following: 
I am here to tell you that without additional staffing, there will be no improvement in service, and no decrease in delays. I can tell you that without 77 controllers on board and certified by September of 1996, we can't even begin to transition to the new facility. (UPI, 1995)
	NATCA is just one force in the march towards ATC reform. The concerns shown at O'Hare's facilities are shared nation-wide. As preoccupation with daily operations rise, inversely goes worker moral. An internal report from the FAA on New York Center reveals staff moral is low, training is poor, and there's a shortage of controllers. The internal review of New York Center was conducted following the Center's insistence it would be forced to limit air traffic through its airspace because of training and staffing shortcomings. The NATCA representative for New York Center said staffing still needed to be increased by at least 30%. The union representative went on to say, "the facility is screaming for people and upper management seems oblivious to that fact. They're trying to run the facility on a shoestring. They're overworking the controllers by leaps and bounds" (AP, 1995).   
	There's almost always more than one solution to every problem, and the question of how to reform the ATC system is no exception. The FAA believes restructuring should come from within. They believe there are still recoverable parts from the current system. The FAA also downplays many of NATCA's concerns over airspace safety. And more time-consuming debate continues.
	The FAA boasts they spend the majority of their resources operating an air traffic control
system that handles an average of two flights per second, every minute, every hour, 365 days a year.  In one day , the U. S. commercial aviation industry will move approximately 1.5 million passengers safely to their destination. Strangely enough, they're proud of the fact they have 5,000 fewer employees than in 1991,  yet air traffic has grown more than 6 percent over the last two years. They claim a 99.4 percent reliability rate in all their operations. Further disclosure reveals the FAA budget experienced a real decline for the first time in more than a decade. A six percent drop. That equates to six hundred million dollars. The FAA thinks the Clinton Administration has a solution. It's a not-for-profit, government-owned-and-operated U. S. Air Traffic Services (USATS) corporation. According to the FAA, a corporation makes good sense. They say unlike other FAA functions, air traffic has many of the characteristics of a business.  And it should be run like a business -- financing itself through the collection of users' fees. The corporation would be free from government procurement and personnel rules. As an independent corporation, it  would be able to respond rapidly to changes in the aviation industry. It would have the financial resources to keep pace with -- and take advantage of -- advances in technology. Most importantly, it would not be subject to budget cuts or constraints, nor would it be hostage to the annual appropriations process.
	Transportation Secretary Pe�a transmitted proposed legislation to create the United
States Air Traffic Service corporation (USATS) on April 6th. On May 3rd, President Clinton wrote to Senate Republican Leader Dole and House Speaker Gingrich, urging them to enact the USATS legislation now. The FAA says the "now" is critical. They believe the proposed budgets they're seeing would have a drastic impact on the services offered  to the American public. In remarks delivered by FAA Deputy Administrator Linda Hall Daschle to the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, "without USATS or some other creative financing proposal, we will face reductions in our work force -- including our safety work force...cuts in programs to protect against runway incursions at smaller airports...critical delays in weather safety programs". (FAA World Wide Web Home Page, 1995)
	"This proposal was not a hasty one", said FAA Administrator David R. Hinson, while speaking to the National Airspace System (NAS) Architecture Meeting. "It was the result of a thorough analysis of the need for greater flexibility in personnel and procurement policies". (FAA World Wide Web Home Page, 1995) In the director's eyes, the corporation is designed to prevent any long-term erosion in the quality of the nation's air traffic services.
 	If and when the legislation is finalized (alternatives to the original bill are being debated in Congress, and will be discussed later), there will be a one-year transition period. USATS would take over operation of the air traffic control system on October 1, of the following fiscal year. The transfer of operating responsibility will not occur until the FAA Administrator determined two things. First, all essential transition items must have been accomplished. Second, the transfer must be accomplished with no detrimental impact on system safety. Deputy Administrator Daschle went on to say:
I think there is a broad consensus that it's time to change personnel and procurement rules so that the FAA can better manage for results. None of the bills introduced in Congress addresses our acute financial situation.  They all expect us to do the same job without giving us the necessary funding. It's a little like trying to fly a 747 using just two of its four engines. You can do it -- but it certainly isn't the best way to fly. And it certainly can't do the job for which it's intended. (FAA World Wide Web Home Page, 1995)
	These are Administrator Hinsosn's plans for an overhaul of the administrative structure of the FAA. But what's being done right now to fix the radar outages occurring on an almost daily basis? How will they respond to the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) call for the FAA to come up with some "quick fixes" for what appears to be a pattern of avoidable failures? The NTSB said in a news release this summer:
The FAA should give controllers more training on the Center's main back-up mode (Direct Access Radar Channel, or DARC), hire more technicians to fix the broken equipment, and to closely monitor the short-term replacement radar system, the Display Channel Complex Rehost System (DCCR).  (AP, 1995)    
	The FAA's response has been to put in "hurry-up" orders for the DCCR system. They'll put in computer replacement orders for five ARTCCs. The ancient IBM 9020Es that run Center radar and tracking systems are based on '70s technology. They've been slated for replacement since the mid '80s. But because of FAA mismanagement and difficulties in procurement, the equipment buys have been stalled. FAA chief Hinson said the FAA will proceed with DCCR purchases to replace host processors at Chicago, New York, Washington, and Fort Worth centers. The DCCR system was put into motion faster than originally planned because of another failed FAA reform plan, the Advanced Automation Project. The idea was to almost totally automate the nations air traffic system with a series of ground based computers transmitting navigational instructions ensuring proper separation to airborne aircraft equipped with receivers that would interpret the signals and adjust the aircraft's flight path. There would have been very little human involvement in routine separation. As is the recent track record of the FAA, the automated ATC system has been completely bogged down in contracting, procurement, and budget dilemmas.
	The cost of buying and installing the five systems is estimated at $65 million dollars. The first system won't go on-line until early 1997, at Chicago Center. The other four systems, according to the FAA schedule, will follow at the rate of one a month.  
	The equipment, procurement, and budget problems the FAA experiences isn't confined to the air traffic control system. The entire agency is bogged down in a maze of government over-control. The FAA's procurement of the Automated Surface Observing System (SOS) parallels equipment problems in recent history. 
	SOS is deigned to replace on-airport weather observers. Equipment is supposed to detect weather phenomena critical to aviation, then transmit it to air traffic controllers, pilots, and other concerned agencies. The FAA in conjunction with the National Weather Service and the Department of Defense manages the program. During the last year, over 480 SOS systems have been installed, but only 42 systems are commissioned for aviation and weather system use. At 30 of those 42 sites, SOS is used by air traffic controllers to ensure compliance with aviation standards and Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Air Traffic controllers, pilots, and weather observers have raised serious concerns about SOS. They say the equipment doesn't observe and report some of the most basic weather conditions (e.g. thunderstorms, cloud layers above, 12,000 feet, drizzle). Since human observers report every weather element, the loss of these conditions in weather reports is directly attributed to SOS. The system doesn't even correctly report the most basic weather condition;  wind speed and direction. It's reported the wind sensors freeze in cold weather. 
	A loss of timely and accurate weather reporting would be devastating to the aviation industry. There have been too numerous aviation accidents caused by unreported or undetected weather conditions. Controllers and pilots alike agree that SOS represents a serious degradation of service to the aviation community. They call for an immediate return to manned observation stations until improvements are made to the automated style of weather reporting.
	    How could the FAA and other national agencies miss these system deficiencies? Even with all the criticism coming from every corners of the aviation environment, contractors continue to install and commission SOS. Unbelievable.
	The reform of the nation's air traffic control system is not just one plan laid out by one person or group. On Capitol Hill,  where the final formula will be decided on, there are several bills before various House and Senate committees. Some call for an air traffic control structure that's totally separate from the federal government, another calls for the government to run a quasi-independent ATC system, plan. Whatever the outcome is, the desire is basically the same; eliminate the government procurement nightmare and allow money to flow into the equipment buyers hands.
	A bill to separate the Federal Aviation Administration from the Department of Transportation  has already won support from the House Transportation subcommittee. In a rare showing of bipartisan politics, the subcommittee unanimously passed the measure and sent it up to the full committee. The legislation would make the FAA an independent agency, free to set up it's own rules for personnel moves and procurement. The organization would be exempt from federal budget restraints, and have total authority to spend it's portion of the Aviation Trust Fund as it saw fit. Representative James Oberstar, author of the bill said, "Today is the day when we begin to unscramble the egg that was scrambled in 1966 when nearly a dozen federal agencies were combined into the DOT. It worked for some agencies, but not for the FAA". (AP, 1995) The bill has almost total backing from the aviation community, but is opposed by the Clinton administration. As discussed earlier, the Clinton Administration is fully behind the formation of the United States Air Traffic Service corporation which would total privatize ATC services. . 
	Another bill circulating is sponsored by Senator John McCain. His bill would make the FAA a quasi-independent agency financed largely through user fees. Obviously, this legislation has almost no support from those who would be forced to finance the majority of the system; aircraft owners, pilots and the general aviation community. They are afraid they would be obliged to provide the revenue to fund the reformed FAA. Fee structure would be based on aircraft performance. Commercial and business jets would be charged for ATC services based on the above. Opponents to this measure ask, "If we want a higher altitude, will the controller ask for a major credit card?" (AP, 1995)
	 FAA Administrator David Hinson has praised this bill saying it would "give the FAA greater flexibility in purchasing and managing personnel". The McCain bill is seen as a compromise to the administration's efforts, but still relies heavily on user fees.
	Representative Jim Lightfoot has proposed to reform the FAA from within. Along with Representative John Duncan (head of the House Aviation Subcommittee), their bill would give the FAA independent-agency status, removing it from the Department of Transportation. Lightfoot said, "our legislation will streamline the FAA, reform the costly and often delayed rule-making process, and increase aviation safety." The legislation is seen by some as an attempt to counter the USATS proposal by President Clinton. It also appears many aircraft owners and pilots support this reform action.  
	There is quite an array of legislation proposed to reform our nation's aging, outdated air traffic control system. One has to suppose each effort has the good of the consumer in mind as time ticks by without any changes. 
 	The following is an editorial that appeared in the September 4, 1995 edition of the Federal Times. It was written by a controller at Denver Center:
 Last year, air travelers flew 520 billion miles within the U.S. air traffic control system. This year that system seems to be falling apart. Each time an air traffic control center's radar shuts down, every traveler blinks and gulps. When air traffic controllers hand out scary literature in airports and air traffic control outages are separated by days instead of years, it's time for some serious attention to the system. That being the case, you'd think we'd have invested time, talent cash in the best darn air traffic control system the world had ever seen. Instead we're limping along with computers whose vacuum tubes are the butt of jokes on late-night television shows. Too often, our controllers are silenced and blinded by technical failures -- 11 since last September. Glitches force controllers to pass planes between centers via telephone. Now even backup systems have started to fail. As it has tried to update its now 30-year-old machinery, the Federal Aviation Administration has become a budgetary black hole. A May General Accounting Office review found modernization contract completion dates slipping and sliding as costs mount. Congress has wrung a pledge from FAA for an interim fix in 1997 at five of 20 big centers, with the other 15 to be upgraded by 1998. That's a small start, but little solace to fliers. It's time for legislators and aviation administrators to call a halt to this Russian roulette in the skies. Quit waiting for accidents and outcry to prod action. Get the equipment tested, functioning and in place. Staff towers and centers to match the growing number of planes. Breathe hard down the necks of the officials responsible until it gets done and done right. Get us the system we deserve and have paid for. Do it now.  (World Wide Web,  FAA Homepage, 1995)
	The Oakland Center nightmare could have caused the largest loss of life from an aviation-related accident. There literally could have been bodies and airplane wreckage falling from the skies throughout Northern California. But thankfully, it didn't happen. The day was saved by every controller working western America's airspace that day. The day was saved by pilots that followed previously assigned clearances, and those that were worthy enough aviators to weave their way through uncontrolled, but not uncrowded airspace.    
	Everyone's got an opinion. In this case, everyone knows the best way to fix the crumbling airways. NATCA wants the FAA structures as a corporation would be. But the union goes on to say they'll support any legislation that meets their laundry list of concerns. The FAA wants to restructure the system from within. The also support the notion of freeing their agency from the procurement, budgeting, and hiring stranglehold they're under from the federal government. And then our nation's lawmakers got involved. There are approximately five variations the basic reform bill making their way around Capitol Hill. There's a plan to totally privatize the FAA, another to partly privatize it, another to rework it from within, and a few other variations of those. Legislators have their own reasons to support certain bills; is our safety one of them?
	The Federal Times editorial sums up an everyday controllers concern. He's the one working with that aged computer equipment, he's the one working the unnecessarily long shifts, he's the one scared every day his screen will go dark during the morning rush hour. I would be inclined to listen very closely to his concerns and follow his recommendations towards a solution. 
	The FAA's Quality statement declares the agency as an organization  dedicated to "eliminating barriers, improving communication, providing additional opportunities for training, and constantly encouraging all personnel to seek ways to improve". The FAA is proud of its Quality activities because they "foster such initiatives as continuous improvement of work processes, empowerment of employees, partnering of labor and management, and re-engineering". (World Wide Web FAA Home-page, 1995) These are very lofty goals that always require improvement. But will disaster strike before their processes gets us a new ATC system? 

  
	  




























    
	        

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Propaganda And Its Use in the Gulf War.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
In order to gain the support of the public, countries use propaganda.  During the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein and George Bush used propaganda to gain the support of their respective public.  Propaganda was everywhere.  It was on the radio and television and it brought the war into millions of homes.  Propaganda was a vital part of the Gulf War because it provided the US and Iraq with the support of their public.  Propaganda is always geared towards the populace claiming that the other country is the oppressor.  The truth is often stretched or even fabricated to garner a public outcry for justice.  The real truth, however, is very difficult to distinguish from fiction.
	The blame is often pushed to towards the other country.  Iraq claimed that they were the victims and that the United States was the aggressor.  Hussein declared that they had been victimized by Kuwait.  According to Iraq, they had to pay back money that they did not have and Kuwait was responsible for the cutback on healthcare and other vital services.  Since Kuwait voted against raising the price of oil, Iraq was unable to receive any revenue.  It was because of this that Iraq invaded Kuwait.  The United States claimed that Iraq was the aggressor.  In the American media, Iraqi tanks were shown to enter a defenseless Kuwait amidst destroyed buildings.  The American public was convinced that their troops were only there to protect and that Iraq was harassing Kuwait.  Iraq quickly retaliated with their own propaganda.
	Hussein showed footage of the damage that the US had supposedly inflicted on innocent people.  Images of a bombed milk factory and a starving child provided the Iraqi public with enough "evidence" to accuse the US of being a ruthless military power.  The main targets of propaganda were those that were presumed most innocent:  women and children.  When women and children are killed, it is not only hailed as a crime, but an atrocity against the country.  The United States also used women and children in their propaganda.  A weeping woman told the horrific tale of Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and throwing them onto the cold floor.  This graphic description surely left a tremendous impact on the American citizens.  The Iraqi's were portrayed as monsters and the US public felt obligated to do fight against this cruel force.  The US military was now the protector and the hero of an entire nation.  The United States had the support of millions of people.
	The atrocities of war were not the only form of propaganda used by both Hussein and Bush.  Hussein showed allied pilots that had been shot down and proclaimed that the allies were not infallible.  In fact, the military was weak and could be defeated with the will of the Iraqi soldiers.  One soldier was even broadcasted throughout Iraq saying that he was sorry and that what his country did was wrong.  An admission of guilt was one of Hussein's greatest weapons.  The United States declared that the Iraqi soldiers were so poorly equipped they did not even have shoes.  The soldiers were seen as peasants so that the American military seemed almost god-like in comparison;  so powerful that they would change the face of war forever.
	Bush and Hussein also claimed that what their decisions to fight a war would change the world for the better.  Hussein claimed that he would form a Pan Arab nation in which all of the Arab countries would unite to stop the imperialistic US.  This was a great plan because Arab countries had fought each other before;  peace and unification between brother and sister would surely be an attractive image for the Iraqi public.  Since the Arab countries are predominantly Muslim, the image of Allah being on their side was another strong image.  The United States used patriotism as their driving force.  Bush claimed that what they were doing was the moral and right thing to do.  Both leaders used propaganda that would relate best to their public.  Bush also claimed change through the New World Order.  If the United States were successful in their efforts, the world would never have to worry about being "bullied" around by another country because the US would be their paladin.
	Propaganda is a vital part of war.  With the support of the public, war can continue.  Both Bush and Hussein claimed that what they were doing was the right decision.  Iraq maintained that they were being harassed by both Kuwait and the US and that their retaliation was purely because it was necessary.  The United States claimed otherwise.  Visual representations of the death of innocent civilians were powerful means of garnering sympathy for both sides.  Each of the armies claimed that they were the stronger one and that the other one could be easily defeated.  Both Hussein and Bush claimed that they were fighting for the benefit of the people and to bring about a better world.  Propaganda was a vital part of the Gulf War because it provided the US and Iraq with the support of their public.  The public is given a very bias view of the war by the media.  Whether the facts presented were true or a lie, the reality about war is simple: it is horrible, and excuses cannot mend what a bullet created.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Propaganda!!.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

	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 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Propostion 187 Dont mess with Texas.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Proposition 187: Don't Mess With Texas

	In November of 1994, Californians passed the most controversial piece of state legislation this decade. Proposition 187 was designed to stem the flow of illegal aliens into California by withholding all non-emergency medical benefits from non-naturalized citizens. Latinos turned out in record numbers to voice their disapproval, and for  good reason too. The health care resolutions of Proposition 187 were products of poor reason and unsound economic judgment. The resolutions did not get the state any closer to a balanced budget, and only served to worsen the health care outlook for the future of California. It is clear that Proposition 187 was a mistake, and should not be encouraged to be repeated in Texas.
	The most popular reason for passage, that supporters of Proposition 187 used, was the theory that a cut in illegal health services would save state taxpayers several million dollars a year. This argument only applies to states that have a personal income tax, often used to help fund health care for the state, and when the illegal immigrants avoid paying this tax. Texas does not have such a tax, so health care is funded by the taxes that everyone in the state pays. That means that illegal aliens are paying just as much as "real Americans" are in sales taxes, gas taxes, liquor taxes, and cigarette taxes. For example,  illegal aliens in San Diego, California accounted for 26.6 million dollars in health care costs in 1994 (Serb 63). Not a single person would deny that this is a lot of  money, and therefore would seem to be an excellent reason to cut funding right this minute. However,  the logical person has to realize how important those same aliens are to filling the state's excise tax coffers each year. Excise taxes paid by 'illegals' were accounting for up 60.5 million in state tax alone (63). In retrospect, it hardly seems right to say that illegal immigrants are not paying their fair tax share for their health needs. It also isn't fair that "U.S. businesses need Mexican workers for low-paying jobs, but don't want them to have access to heath care while they are here" (Hudson 37).
	Another economically based reason, that proponents of 187-like legislation have made, is that Texans will save money by denying non-emergency care to illegal aliens. Without close scrutiny, this seems to be a claim to make the pocket book happy.  After all, we would still allow the 'aliens' the right to life saving treatments, but we would also save a bundle by cutting the little visits to the doctor for fevers, colds, and sprained ankles. What Texans have to ask, though, is how do we save money when we deny a forty-five dollar visit to the doctor for strep throat, but allow a twenty thousand dollar visit to intensive care when that 'alien' develops scarlet fever from the strep infection (Cowley 53). It would have been much more cost-effective to have provided direct care services up front, and California quickly found this to be true. Premature babies cost San Diego more than $500, 000 dollars. Complications from pregnancies added an additional $112,000 to the bill (Serb 63). According to the claims made, these types of costs should have disappeared after #187 was passed. The illegal immigrants were supposed to return to Mexico for their pre-natal care, but the evidence proves they didn't. Instead, the illegal mothers received no pre-natal care, and had emergencies that cost the state even more money.
	There are more problems with Proposition 187-like proposals than just economic problems. Texans must be aware of the moral and ethical problems we would create if we supported a  similar plan for Texas. For instance, Catholic Bishop John Ricard points out that if Texans explicitly set out to identify all illegal aliens, and stop them from receiving care, we are likely to have a discriminatory situation. Every American with tan skin and a name ending in "z" is likely to be perceived as potential illegal immigrants ("Health" 248).  The National Christian Coalition also points out that "to measure national health care decisions more by economic than moral or compassionate standards is appalling" (248).  But even more appalling is what we are asking our nation's doctors to do. By requiring that physicians report every immigrant without documentation, and to refuse them treatment when ill, we are boldly demanding that they violate their sacred Hippocratic oath. Care providers have based their professions on helping any person in need since the time of the ancient Greeks. In true spirit doctors should know no boundaries between two lands. In fact, why should they refuse to give treatment because a person happens to be on this side of the Rio Grande when they fall ill? After all, "bacteria and viruses distribute themselves without regard for national borders" (Gaffney 228), and "diseases like tuberculosis do not check for immigration status" (Health 248). Some citizens might believe that diseases like tuberculosis were a thing of the past, but a Californian study found that seventy percent of all immigrants arrive carrying the germs that cause tuberculosis (Cowley 53). Remember that these are immigrants that were able to save up enough money at home to make the voyage to America, and not be 'broke' when they got here. The percentage of illegal aliens carrying diseases is probably a lot higher than 70%. They don't get sick because they have built-in immunities for the diseases found in their homelands, but we do not have many of the same immunities that 'illegals' have.  The result is that the diseases go undetected until an emergency arises and the 'alien' can be seen by a doctor.  By not allowing illegal aliens to receive non-emergency care, we are putting our little Texans at risk. 
		As we prepare for the possibility that similar proposals might be advocated in Texas, let us all remember the ideals of humanity that we like to say that we all share. Every American likes to think that they have a kind and caring attitude toward the less fortunate, but a short case study published in Newsweek shows exactly how kind and caring legislation like Prop. 187 would be.  In the case study, the family of Julio Cano, a twelve-year-old, anguish over whether or not to take their son to a doctor in California. Julio had developed a deep cough accompanied by severe shooting pains down his back. The family decided not to risk a doctor visit because Proposition 187 had just ordered that any 'illegal' seeking care be reported. Instead the family waited until the condition worsened enough to be able to call the paramedics, but by then it was too late. Little Julio died from leukemia on the way to the hospital.
	We must keep our pocket books out of the decision to reform health care, and instead keep the true story of Julio Cano in our hearts. Why should we turn our backs on aliens residing in this country just because a few citizens, most with little real knowledge of the true situation, think that this is the way to end illegal immigration. Illegal aliens are hired by many, many people to mow the lawn, watch the kids, clean the house, or to cook for the family. A lot of times, you neighbors do not claim these workers as employees in order to skip out on taxes themselves, and thus avoid paying their fair share. With the benefit of hindsight, Californians are now able to see just how poor their reasoning was when they passed Proposition 187. There is no doubt that Texans will meet that call to find other ways besides cutting health care to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. Maybe health care costs of aliens can become a part of the federal budget. Also, the federal government could try and improve relations with Mexico and persistently show the economic burden that their lack of border control is having on states such as Texas. Whatever is done though, Texans will not jump hastily into action. Any resolution will be the product of careful reasoning and informed economic judgements. 















 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Pros and Cons of Judicail review.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Adam Kimball
Pol. 1110
Instr. Madigan
12/10/96

Pros and Cons of Judicial Review
	
	Judicial Review is the power given to Supreme court justices in which a judge has the power to reason whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Chief Justice John Marshall initiated the Supreme Court's right to translate the Constitution in 1803 following the case of Marbury Vs. Madison, in which he declared the Supreme Court as the sole interpreters of Constitutional law. This is one of the sole purposes of the Supreme Court of the United States. Many Historical thinkers would find some difficulty in imagining a government set up to limit the power of itself,but others would argue that this form of government best works for the people, and not against  them. The treatment of the Constitution by the Supreme Court as a "living" document that is able to be translated differently over time for the good of the people has as many skeptics as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate the Constitution who then, should the people chose to do such an important job.
	If we were to look back at the ideas and thoughts of some of the greatest political thinkers of our time, we would find that individuals such as Plato, Niccolo Machiavelli, and John Locke, would share extremely different views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole, would be successful in their ideal government situations.
	One of the earliest  political philosophers Plato, would find our present day governmental setup of the Supreme Court to be the ideal group to deal with the United States' situation. Plato felt that government should be run by enlightened philosopher kings, that would rule for the good of the people, and not themselves. We today see the Supreme Court as a collection of the most "enlightened" thinkers of our day. They are chosen to make moral decisions about laws made by others in our society, and decide whether or not the laws we make are in the best interest of our nation as a whole. Plato knew that within any political State their would be corruption, to stop the corruption Plato felt that the philosopher kings would best rule because they would not indulge themselves in a corrupt society. They only believed in the truth, and justice that government is supposed to protect its people with. 
	Although Plato would not totally agree with the Democratic structure of our government, I believe that he would chose for our society, a state that is ruled by a similar group to that of our Supreme Court because, the members of the Supreme Court are chosen because of their ability to make sensible, moral decisions about issues that may contradict our Constitution.
	Niccolo Machiavelli on the other hand, would find a great many problems with giving the Power to translate Constitutional law to anyone other than the President of the United States. Machiavelli would also totally disagree with the idea of having anyone make decisions about laws because they are morally incorrect. Machiavelli felt that virtue and idealism was one of the biggest enemies of the State. He felt that a government should be run with the sole intention of forcing the people to be obedient, and for the individual virtues of the people to be a non-factor in any political decisions made by the ruler of the state. He would find that a group of individuals elected to protect the virtue of citizens, and make sure that laws were morally correct, would be a totally absurd action that would only cause chaos, and mayhem because it is impossible to make a government that is completely virtuous. Machiavelli found the most successful government to be one that ruled on the basis of "realism" not "idealism". Realistically, no government could ever successfully develop under an ideal that would allow a group of otherwise powerless individuals to decide whether or not the laws that exist in government are morally correct under the guidance of a Constitution that may be considered to be "Idealistic" rather than "realistic".
	A more modern philosopher such as John Locke, would find the Supreme Court and its power of Judicial Review to be one of the most important characteristics of the United States' setup of Democracy. Locke would truly enjoy how successful the beauties of the limiting powers of each branch of our government. Locke would find that our policy of "Checks and Balances" to be one of the greatest ways of keeping the government working for the people. Locke believed in each individual's right to "self Preservation". Meaning that we all equally have the right to uphold the laws of nature. Locke believed that all people should be treated as equals, and to not treat each other equally would interfere on an individual's right to "self Preservation". Much like Locke, The Supreme Court exists to interpret whether or not a law is going to interfere with our right to "self preservation". Locke felt that for a government to be successful in preserving the rights of the individual citizen, it must concentrate on protecting the "Life and Liberty" of each citizen. The Constitution of the United States is the ideal document in Locke's mind. And, the Supreme Court's protection of the people of the United States, and its Constitution is also a necessity in running a truly virtuous, and successful government that concentrates on the rights of the individual, rather than the people as a whole. 
   Many philosophers shared different beliefs on how a government could be most successful. Some believed that a government would be best run by the people. Others thought that one sole dictator or King could best run a successful government. Either way, I don't believe that anyone can contest the success of the United States' democratic setup, and its beliefs in protecting the rights of the individual. It was the beliefs of our forefathers to preserve the rights of man, and that "All men are created equal". These beliefs have molded one of the most successful political states in modern History.
	     
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Quebec Seperation.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	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. 
		
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\reaction to an article on Dole and Clintons campaign.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
		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.  
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Reforming the Canadian Senate.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Canada is a country who's future is in question. Serious political issues have recently overshadowed economic concerns. Constitutional debate over unity and Quebec's future in the country is in the heart of every Canadian today. Continuing conflicts concerning Aboriginal self-determination and treatment are reaching the boiling point. How can Canada expect to pull herself out of this seemingly bottomless pit? Are Canadians looking at the right people to lay their blame? In the 1992 Referendum, "The Charlottetown Accord" addressed all of these issues, giving Canadians the opportunity to finally let the dead horse be - but oh, if it were that simple. A red faced Brian Mulroney pontificated that a vote against the accord would be one against Canada. Canadians would essentially be expressing the desire for Quebec to remain excluded from the constitution. How could the Right-Honorable Mulroney expect anyone to vote on a document that contained so much more than simply the issue of Quebec sovereignty? Ironically, hidden deep within "The Charlottetown Accord," was the opportunity for Canadians to make a difference; to change the way the government ran, giving less power to the politicians and more to the people. This was the issue of Senate Reform. 
	Why is Senate Reform such an important issue? An argument could be made that a political body, which has survived over one hundred years in Canada, must obviously work, or it would have already been reformed. This is simply not true, and this becomes apparent when analyzing the current Canadian Senate. 
	In its inception, the Senate was designed to play an important role in the Government of Canada, representing various regions of the federation. Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes and the west were allotted twenty-four Senators each. Considered to be the heart of the federal system, the Senate was to be a crucial balancing mechanism between Upper and Lower Canada (Mallory pg. 247). It was important for there to be equal representation, and not representation by population. Senators were to be appointed, in order to ensure that the House was independent and had the freedom to act on its own.  As well, Senators had to be seen as a conservative restraint on the young, the impressionable, and the impulsive in the House of Commons (Van Loon and Whittington pg. 625). They therefore had to be over thirty years old and own property exceeding four thousand dollars in the province they represented. This idea was called 'second sober thought.' As this independent, intellectual body, the Senate's main function was to ensure that all power did not come from one source. In theory, this prevented a dictatorial government, since any action (such as the passing of a Bill into law) had to receive the 'O.K.' from the Senate. This was protecting Canada's democracy. In 1949, six addition seats were given to Newfoundland, and in 1975, two more seats were added to give the Northwest Territories and the Yukon representation; a total of 104 Senators. 
Over 100 years later, it is clear that the Canadian Senate does serve the function for which it had originally been designed. In fact, it is flawed in many ways. Firstly, the Senate does not have a voice to set the priorities for the Cabinet, and it lacks the expertise to handle policy making. Secondly, since the party in power appoints Senators when vacancies occur, the tendency has been to appoint people with connections to that party.  This means that the Senate is neither representative of all ideologies nor reflective of the people's interest. No member of the Senate, for example, reflects the New Democratic Party's view, since that party has never been in power. Therefore that portion of Canada who supports the NDP is certainly not represented. How legitimate is the Senate when its members are appointed and not elected? Thirdly, the Senate is not necessarily comprised of members with political experience, and this brings about the question of efficiency; how effective can the Senate be if its members are not all comprised of 'experienced' politicians? 
Another flaw in the Senate is that, due to appointment, the Upper House has been viewed as an old-folks home for retired politicians, having demonstrated faithful service for the party in power for many years. Many appointments to the Senate are rewards for 'a job well done'. This, as well as the fact that Senators are appointed until they reach seventy-five years of age, has caused the Senate to appear more like a 'Party-Members-Only' club, and not the independent force for which it was designed. Sadly, it is the citizens of Canada who are paying the membership fees.  
The Senate does perform a few functions that may warrant some of the expense to Canadians. Since the Senate mainly handles private bills, this allows the House of Commons to focus on government legislation (Van Loon and Whittington pg. 627). As well, the Senate committees are becoming involved in investigations into political affairs, which would otherwise be left to expensive royal commissions. By alleviating some of the pressures on the House of Commons, the Senate does act as a go-between on many political issues. Even still, the Senate costs Canadians millions of dollars a year in salaries, pensions, and other miscellaneous expenses, which are unnecessary.
 There are therefore three choices: Canada can maintain the Senate as it stands, an outdated, expensive, and ineffective body in the government; the Senate can be abolished, meaning the Prime Minister becomes the dictator of a one-party government; the Senate can be reformed so that it is effective and representative of the population. Clearly, the best choice is for Senate reform, since a reformed Senate plays an important role in a democratic government. Looking at the U.S. Senate, as well as the Polish Kancelaria Senatu, provides some insight into the way Canada may wish to reform her Senate. 
The U.S. Senate provides an excellent model for a reformed Canadian Senate. While still with weaknesses, the U.S. Senate is an effective and efficiently run body of the U.S. government. It reinforces the notion of checks and balances, and allows a separation of powers between the two branches of government.  The citizens elect two Senators from each state, regardless of size, for a term of six years. To be eligible to run in a Senatorial election, each person must be at least thirty years old, have been a citizen of the United States for nine years, and be a resident in the state in which he or she is running. In terms of representation, each state has equal representation, ensuring that every state has two voices. As well, it allows for the possibility that the majority party in the Senate is not necessarily the majority party in the congress, eliminating the party bias. The Vice President is the president of the Senate, and has the right to vote in the case of a tied-vote. This is a largely ceremonial function, one that is not usually carried out (Wasserman pg. 99). The majority leader of the Senate, the Senator from the majority party who has served the longest, schedules debates, assigns bills to committees, coordinates party policy, and appoints members of special committees (Wasserman pg. 99). The Senate is both a deliberative and a decision-making body (U.S. Senate Homepage: Introduction). The main function of the U.S. Senate is to debate bills either introduced in the Senate, or passed to it, approving then, amending them, or killing them. Since it is a separate body from the Congress, in order for a bill to be passed, it must be approved by both bodies. 
One of the criticisms of the U.S. Senate is that it is a large body consisting of many committees and sub-committees. Since the process to passing a bill must first go through these committees before it is debated upon, the procedure tends to be quite slow and expensive. Another criticism is that, while the Senate does represent each state equally, women and minorities are not equally represented. However, as compared to the Canadian Senate, the U.S. Senate is more efficient and effective in its procedures.
The Polish Senate, the Kancelaria Senatu, is similar to that of the U.S. Senate. What is significant is that Poland's modern Senatu has only been six years in existence, with amendments as recent as 1994. Senators are elected in free, public, direct and open voting. A simple majority is required for a candidate to be elected based on plurality. The general population, political parties, or social organizations can nominate candidates for the Senatu. These candidates must be supported by at least three thousand voters who reside in each constituency. Poland is divided up into territories called voivodship territories, and two Senators are elected from each territory, excluding Warsaw and Katowice, who are represented by three Senators.  Each Senator is elected for a term of four years, but may run for any number of terms. Unlike the U.S. Senate, the Polish Senatu works in conjunction with the legislative branch called the Sejm, and they deliberate jointly. The Senatu examines bills passed by the Sejm, and can accept, amend, or reject them. If the Senatu's amendments have financial implications for the state budget, it must indicate how these are to be met. The Sejm must have an absolute majority to reject the Senatu's proposals for the bill, or else the Senatu's decision is final. The Senatu also approves the decision of the President for national referendums on matters of interest to the State. 
No member of the Polish Senatu belongs to an official registered party. This is significant because it removes the risk of party bias. As well, any citizen may run for the Senatu, allowing for a more direct form of representation. While the Senatu is not as powerful as the U.S. Senate, it still plays an important role in the notion of checks and balances.
Both the U.S. Senate and the Polish Senatu demonstrate how an effective Senate is an asset to any government, and to the people it represents. Reforming Canada's Senate is therefore very important. However, the difficulty in achieving any reformation depends solely on the 'powers-that-be.' The goals of a reformed Senate are to give more representation to all areas of Canada, to make Senators accountable to all Canadians, and to ensure that the Senate is a separate power from the legislature; in essence a more democratic Senate. Since it is so apparent that the Senate requires reform, the question isn't so much as to why and if it should be reformed, but rather to how? How can this be achieved? 
The general population must elect Senators, in order for there to be true democracy. The tradition of stacking the Senate, due to appointment, must not be allowed to continue. Much like the U.S. and Polish Senates, any Canadian, thirty years or older, and having been a resident in Canada for eight years, may run for the Senate. Candidates can be nominated by any political or social organization, or by the general population, but must have five thousand supporters from the constituency represented, and must live in that constituency. The candidates will not run on a party platform, and instead will run as independents. By eliminating party platforms, three things are accomplished. Firstly, candidates will be elected based on what they believe and not what a party believes. The electorate would decide on the candidate best suited for the position based on his or her own opinions, plans, and accomplishments. Secondly, this allows the Senate to be more objective, and therefore more effective. Thirdly, there would be no need for party discipline, and no risk of fixed voting. 
Since the Senate remains independent from the executive branch of the government, timing of elections must be separate from parliamentary elections. The Prime Minister is not the head of the Senate, and therefore should not decide the actions of the Senate. Therefore, having a fixed date will ensure that there is no conflict of interest. Senators would be elected to a six-year term, with a fixed election every three years for half of the Senate. This allows the population the opportunity to choose who should represent then more often. A term of more than six years would mean that the Senate would lose its effectiveness, and risk succumbing to the influences of the Members of Parliament. Even in a six-year term, the possibility for Senators to become influenced and lose their objectivity by other sources is a risk. There would certainly be an objection to this aspect of Senate reform by the current members of the Upper House. However, in order to ensure that Senate reform takes place, both the provinces and the current Senators must make sacrifices for the benefit of the country as a whole. Therefore, the first election will be to fill half of the Senate. By some form of lottery, one half will be forced to resign their position, and will have the opportunity to run in the election. After three years, the other half will follow suit and resign their position. This will allow a slow filtering out of the old school appointed Senators, to be replaced with elected ones. 
There would be eight Senators elected by each province, regardless of the size of the province and its population. As well, eight Senators would be given to the territories. Each province would be divided into four constituencies, with two Senators coming from each constituency. The Yukon and North West Territories would be combined, and divided into four constituencies as well. Each Senator has an equal voice in the Senate, allowing for equal representation for each constituency and each province. In total, eighty-eight Senators would be elected. Eighty-eight voices in the Senate are more than enough to represent the constituencies, saving Canadians the unnecessary costs of addition salaries. Although Canada is a large country, it still has a low population. Even the United States, with ten times the population, maintains only one hundred Senators. With too many Senators there becomes the risk of having two Lower Houses. Despite being elected, however, the Senators would be given the mandate to act on behalf of the people in their constituencies, and would not be directly responsible to the people. In order to remain independent from the executive, it would be the responsibility of the Members of Parliament to present their constituents' viewpoints in the House of Commons. It is only through elections that the population can decide whether or not the Senators have fairly represented their constituencies.
The most difficult aspect to Senate reform deals with the functions of the new Upper House. Much like the United States, the Canadian Senate must have the power to introduce policy into the House of Commons as well as accepting bills. As a safeguard against a power hungry House of Commons, the Senate is also responsible for bringing up the interests of the country. By allowing the Senate this power, the issues are given more attention by both sides of the legislature. The Senate should still function in the same way as it has in the past, with the power to accept, amend or reject bills passed by the House of Commons. As before, a majority from both the Senate and the House of Commons is required to pass a bill into law, but in the case of a deadlock, the House of Commons should be able to override the Senate. When dealing with constitutional affairs, or, due to current issues involving Quebec, cultural affairs, there must be a sixty-five percent majority in the Senate. As well, veto power should be granted to the Senate in regards to constitutional issues. The Senate should maintain its system of committees, and continue to perform investigations into political affairs instead of royal commissions. 
In order for Senate reform to be enacted, a majority of the provinces must vote for it. Each premier from each province, and a leader from each territory, gets one vote. Getting support for Senate reform from Ontario and Quebec will prove to be the most difficult challenge, for they have had the balance of power since Confederation. However, having mandatory Quebecois Senators is not possible in this reformed system. Since most of the debate recently has been over Quebec's recognition as a distinct society and protection of its culture, Quebec will certainly be opposed to having less power in the Senate, when in reality it desires more power. There is no clear way to appease the province of Quebec, and perhaps there never will be under any system. Senate reform is for the benefit of the entire country, and after all, the rest of Canada should have a say as to what transpires within her borders. As stated earlier, in order for there to be reform, many people, provinces and Senators alike, will have to make sacrifices. If Quebec is unhappy with the notion of Senate reform, but there is a majority vote for Senate reform, then Quebec is a member of the minority.
This proposal for Senate reform is a suggestion to improve the current state of the Senate. While many of these suggestions may not occur, the need for some form of Senate reform is crucial. Countries such as Poland and the United States have a more effective Senate, and therefore a more efficient government. With many questions about Canada's future left to be decided, what is more important than the state of the country's democratic system? After all, the government's purpose is to listen to the people and make decisions for the benefit of the people. Without Senate reform, the Canadian political structure may eventually crumble, much like an old house crumbles when its foundation has degraded. In order for Canada to survive in the twenty-first century, the old-school British system must be revamped, for it is outdated. Canada must cast aside old traditions and replace them with modern ideology and thought.
1


1


 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Rehabilatation of criminals Awaste of time or worth the effo.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 











                                               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. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Religion in Public School.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++






RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS



 



In the past Religion was confined to the state now with religious



freedom everything has changed or at least started to change. In order for



religion to be in a private school now it is again trying to be in Public



schools. People ask "why can't freedom to acknowledge god be enjoyed again



by children in every schoolroom across this land?" In the past, a



long time ago children always prayed before class started and before lunch.



But things h ave changed, "in 1791 the separation of church and



state" started. Although it was made clear about the separation of



the two "as late as 1951 some twenty states permitted schools to begin the



day by reading aloud a passage of the bible." Bu t that had to stop.



People didn't have the same beliefs when it comes to religion, if a family



absent even believe in god why should their child be forced to pray? On



many different occasions questions similar to this one were brought up and



complained about. That is what started it all real big.



 



When complaining, arguing and fighting all started over the silent



moment. In 1978 a few lawyers got together and considered a constitutional



law. The original law said that public school teachers in gr ades 1-6



"shall announce that a period of silence, not to exceed one minute, shall



be observed for meditation." This law did not work for long, because it



still allowed oral prayer in public high schools. Later in 1981, the



Alabama State Senator D onald G. Holmes successfully passed a bill that



included all grades calling it "the moment of silence" this law said that



"the teacher (was) to announce that the silent moment may be used for



voluntary prayer." Although it would have to be si lent prayer. Even after



this new law started the lawyers that were opposed to this were trying to



say that students "do not have a right to pray in school" silently or



otherwise because of growing impressions that affect their life. The



silent mom ent supposedly "(forced) religion on children." I don't agree



with that at all, if there has to be a moment of silence then any child can



use that moment however he or she wants, it does not necessarily have to be



used fro prayer. Usually "the chi ldren who have been brought up with



prayer or some type of religion are usually proven to be better" kids. I



have friends who go to private schools where praying in class out loud is



perfectly O.K. and normal. This praying in the classroom usually would



have a pretty good size affect on the rest of a person's life. Although



when praying aloud it could force one type of religion on a student rather



than having them have more of a choice of what type of religion they want



or if they even want to ha ve a religion. When there would be the religion



in the classrooms. "School children not participating in the prayers or



the bible readings (would be) asked or required to leave the room."0 This



has been another big dispute because the bill of rig hts states that there



shall be "freedom of religion"1 therefore this means that if a person does



not believe in god or what ever the instance might be then they don't have



to. This means if you want to have any type of religion you may. The



childr en who are forced to leave the classroom to stand in the hall are



forced to make a statement that says "we do not believe in te god of te



state (or) we do not believe that prayer should be publicly displayed in a



public schoolhouse."This was all thought to be by mainly every one all



wrong, therefore if a child wished not to participate in the pledge o



allegiance or what ever it might be they did not have to leave the



classroom, stand silently in the halls, or write a statement in stead they



were allowed to just sit quietly in their seats.



 



Religion in public schools would be good for certain students but the



silent moment is good enough for now. Since religion has been tried in



public schools and hasn't exactly worked, the groups of children who wish



to have prayer meetings with other school members are allowed to have



meetings, groups, clubs, ect. before, at lunch or after school.



 



"Religion (in the public schools) can change a persons life"3 if a



parent wants their child to have religion they can send their child to a



private school and if a parent does not want their child to pressured in to



having a religion they should be able to send their child to a public



school and if he or she wishes to atend meetings then they can do so on



their own.



 



Religion can change a person life sometimes for the better, but then



again sometimes for the worse, although the silent moment cannot affect



anything "freedom to acknowledge god in every school room across this



land,"4 wouldn't al ways be a bad idea.



 



 



BIBLIOGRAPHY



 



 



"School Board Bans Open Forums to Prohibit a Student Group Prayer."\Christ



Today\(February 1, 1985) 48-49.



 



Bosmajian, Haig. "To Pray or Not to Pray"\The Humanist



Magazine,\(January/February, 198 5) 13-17.



 



Gest, Ted. "What High Court Heard About School Prayer."\U.S.



News,\(December 17, 1984) 71.



 



Lewis, C. Anne. "Creeping Religiosity and Federal Education Policy."\PHI



Delta Kappan,\(November, 1984) 163-164.



 



Roberts, Fransis. "The Uproar Over Sch ool Prayer."\Parents,\(January



18,1985) 55-57.



 



 



 



 



FOOTNOTES



 



 



Fransis Roberts, "The Uproar Over School Prayer,"\Parents,\(November,



1984), p.38.



 



Roberts, p.39.



 



Roberts, p.38



 



Beth Spring, "Can St ates Allow Prayer in Public Schools?"\News



World,\(January 18, 1985), p.56.



 



Spring, p.57



 



Roberts, p.38



 



Spring, p.57



 



Ted Gest, "What High Court Heard About School Prayer,"\U.S.



News,\(December 17, 1984), p.71 .



 



Haig Bosmajian, "To Pray or Not To Pray,"\The



Humanist\(January/February, 1985), p.14.



 



0Bosmajian, p.15.



 



1Gest, p.71.



 



2Bosmajian, p.15.



 



3Anne Lewis, "Creeping Religiosity and Federal Education



Policy,"\PHI Delta Kappan,\(November, 1984), p.163.



 



4Roberts, p.38



 



 



 



THESIS



 



Freedom to acknowledge God by children in every school room across this



land can sometimes but not always be acknowledged. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Rep Louis Gutierrez.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
		The Fourth District of Chicago is rather new to the Chicago land made up largely of Hispanics and Latinos. This District like many others face major problems of crime, health care and education. Democratic representative Luis V. Gutierrez represents the answer to these and other problems. Who is Luis Gutierrez? Is this man making a difference? What are his issues? Is Luis doing his job? What is his impact on the system? These are question that need answering. These problems need solving is Luis Gutierrez really the answer?
		Gutierrez was born December 10 1954, in Chicago Illinois. He received a Bachelors degree from Northeastern Illinois University, in 1975. His professional experience is as follows: teacher in Puerto Rico from, 1977 to 1978; social worker for Chicago's Department of children and family Services, from 1979 to 1983; An advisor to Chicago mayor Harold Washington, from 1984 to 1987; Chicago city Alderman from 1986 to 1992; President of the Pro. Tem, from 1989 to 1992.
	Luis V. Gutierrez was elected to represent Illinois district four in 1992. The congressional committees he serves on include Banking and Financial Services; General Overnight and Investigations; Housing and Community opportunity; Veteran Affairs and Hospital and Health Care. Mr. Gutierrez's addresses in Washington and in Chicago are: 408 Longworth House office Building, Washington Dc 20515; 3181 North Elston Avenue, Chicago 60618; 1715 west 47th street, Chicago 60609; 3659 Halsted Chicago 60609; and 2132 West 21st street Chicago 60608.
	Luis Gutierrez start the road to politics by being a strong supporter on our former late mayor Harold Washington. With the backing of Washington, Gutierrez won the race for Alderman in 1986. After the death of Washington, Gutierrez soon supported Richard Daley for mayor and was appointed to chairman of the housing committee. Gutierrez was now able to instate his "New Homes for Chicago plan". This plan called for the city to sell empty spaces of land to housing contractors to construct homes for as little as one dollar.
	In 1992, Gutierrez ran for representative of the fourth district election, Gutierrez opponent was Juan Soliz. During the campaign Gutierrez focused more on crime, while Soliz focused on many issues such as: trade and health care. Gutierrez soon showed to be the candidate for his people of all ethnic groups. He became known in the area for the following passage, "If you work hard, sweat and toil and play by the rules, you will be rewarded...with clean street, safer and better schools, the opportunity to send your kids to college." He won sixty percent to forty percent and sixty-four percent to thirty-four percent in the primary. In the district, Gutierrez is well respected, he has been running various programs to better the fourth district such as  
recycling drives (the blue bag), an anti-graffiti plan and citizen enrollment meetings.
	A little history of how district four came about; District four is made up primarily of Hispanic Americans. There was once a problem with congressional district. It was meant to have its majority Hispanic but, since the south side Mexican-Americans and the north side Puerto Rican-Americans, were separated by the west side African-American communities, Hispanics were not the majority. In order to fix this problem, the Latin communities became the seventh district. Hispanics in this district are two thirds of the population. Mexicans out number Puerto Ricans two to one. Although Hispanics are the majority only thirty-nine percent are registered to vote while, fifty-eight percent of white are registered.
	As of 1990 District four had a population of 571,162 people. Eight percent were African-American; three percent were Asian; sixty-four percent Hispanic; fifty-nine percent were white and forty percent were of other ethnic groups. There were 383,285 people eligible to vote. Fifty-eight Hispanic; six percent African-American; twenty-four percent had college education's; forty-nine percent married and thirty- one percent married with children. The average rent was 393 dollars a month. The cost of housing is relatively low in this area. The average value of a home was 64,300 dollars
	Since the people in Gutierrez district lacked college education according the Ross text book, they are less likely to vote. Gutierrez chose a clear cut campaign "Anti-crime". The use of one major topic enabled him to gain the votes of people who do to lack of education, would not have voted. Another reason for the success of Gutierrez's anti-crime campaign was because of the fact that in the center of the district is low income housing (projects) that are highly associated with crime and violence. One of the major concerns of the residents in the fourth district is violence. Therefore, his campaign lead voters to believe that if he were to be elected, crime would lesson in there surrounding.
	Gutierrez's 1996 campaign cost approximately 406,609
dollars. Approximately one hundred and ninety thousand dollars  were givens by political action committee. The three major pac contributors to his campaign were labor unions who gave 109,650 dollars; finance, insurance and real estate. Since he was on the banking committee, bankers backed him on his re-election.
	Public funding for health services, gun control and abortion are the three most controversial issues in politics, Gutierrez is primarily pro-choice. A bill was brought to congress on July 17, 1996 to allow federal employees health insurance program to cover abortion, Gutierrez voted, yes to this bill but this amendment was rejected. He supports the Brady bill as well as other topic bills preventing semi-automatic weapons. Gutierrez major campaign topic for 1992's election. He is primarily for better health care service throughout America.
	According to the performance evaluation by special interest groups, Gutierrez in the area of education was 100 percent for the American Federation of teachers and the U.S. student Association in 1993. In 1994 he was 91 percent for national Education Association. On Gun control Gutierrez shows to be one hundred percent for the handgun control. Zero percent in favor of the National Riffle Association. On the issues of labor he was one hundred percent for; United Food and Commercial workers; AFL-CIO; American Federation of Government Employees: American Federation of state.
	Gutierrez, in the house, is excepted with mixed feelings Gutierrez has been known to speak unprofessional about the house as well as it's members. In a sixty minute profile he claimed that the house was "belly of the best" and later called the new democrats "sell outs", because of these comments, Gutierrez has not been successful as a legislature. Both Gutierrez's abortion in veteran's Hospitals and anti-crime bill have been rejected. As a leader Gutierrez has had to pick himself up and rejoin the game many times.
	Is Luis Gutierrez the man for the job? I personally feel that he is? By sticking in what he believes and not being persuaded by the common mistake that new reps take, his honesty will one day win out. Crime is a world issue that needs to be addressed Luis Gutierrez is putting forth and effort in the right direction.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Reproductive TechnologiesDoes Choice mean Freedom .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Reproductive Technologies - Does choice mean freedom?


	"...One does not, it might be said, increase a person's freedom simply by increasing the sheer quantity of possibilities which he or she can choose from."
n Richard Norman



	The issue of reproductive technologies in our society today raises an interesting question.  Do they increase a women's freedom of choice or do they expand the power of men and science over women. Is freedom to choose what they can do with their bodies truly freedom.  Freedom, as a core, is the absence of external impediment.  In this sort of area  can women truly be free of external impediment, also is this truly freedom of choice?  "The range of physical possibilities from which a person can choose at a given moment has no direct relevance to freedom...Whether a person is free or not does not depend on the range of choice." (Haylek 1960, p.12f).  This subject is so socially charged that a women could not possibly have true freedom of choice but a choice which is basically decided for her, whether it be by the limited choices made available to her by medical science or by the men which are directly involved with them in the decision.

	In order to truly understand this issue we must look at it's core, reproductive technology.  This is a vast area to discuss because it ranges from artificial insemination to abortion to contraception to genetic engineering with many area in between.  
	Artificial insemination is the introduction of sperm to an ovum artificially either inside or outside the female genital tract.  Abortion is the "extermination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of independent life."    Birth control is a huge area of reproductive or contraceptive technology, in effect though all sub areas of this main area deal with the prevention of fertilization of the ovum or egg, also in some cases such as the condom it can stop the spread of disease.  Genetic engineering is a new and extremely scary technology which hopes to enable the precise engineering of  an unborn child.
	The previous examples are just some of the areas of reproductive technologies but they are sufficient to cover the basic scope of the issue.

	What is freedom.  In the Webster's dictionary the definition is "The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint".  This is the core of freedom but to truly understand freedom one must define it with much more detail. two people who have concentrated their efforts on the subject of freedom are Norman and Haylek. Norman feels that freedom is equated to the absence of social pressure yet the possession of social and political power and wealth.  Haylek's version is much simpler, he believes that freedom is "The absence of external impediment" (Haylek 1960, p17).  Unfortunately Haylek is to general in his claims for this subject so Norman's definition will be our focus.
	Is it truly freedom of choice when a the decision is morally effected.  No it is not, as Norman said, freedom is the absence of  social pressure.  One can read a newspaper everyday and see an article discussing a mob of pro-life activists barricading an abortion clinic or reading an editorial surrounding the moral dilemma of genetic engineering, in fact this subject is one of the most socially charged.  With so many groups hammering their ideals at you, a truly "free" choice cannot be made.
	
Almost the only area of reproductive technologies which could be seen as a freedom to women is the area of artificial insemination.  In this choice there is no real moral issue, it is the creation of life therefore society condones it, and her decision will not be influenced by social pressure.  In fact this area can help a women give birth to a child who previously could not, and out of all the decisions in the area of reproductive technologies it is the one least influenced by men.  A man can wish his "wife" would have a child but if she is unable to naturally conceive, it is her decision to be impregnated using this technology.  In other words this area of reproductive technologies is the most socially neutral, the influence of a man in her life (if any) can be a strong one and therefore can effect the freedom the women can exercise in this choice.

	Abortion is not a freedom to women when applying Norman's version of freedom.  It is the most socially fueled area of this technology and it is the most shunned.  If a women becomes pregnant and wishes to have it aborted, it usually means that the pregnancy was not planned, and society usually blames the women because in the mind of most people it is her responsibility alone. This is the most ignorant of social beliefs but unfortunately it is one of the most prevalent ones, thankfully this is changing but unfortunately the process is a slow one. (A case where the pregnancy must be aborted due to medical reasons is not truly a decision, more of a necessity and therefore does not apply in this context.) It could have been the result of many things such as the improper use of contraception, or as a worst case, due to rape.  In this case the decision does not fall on the female alone, she is bombarded with opinions from many different sources, the most influential in most cases is the male involved.  There have been so many cases where a woman has had an abortion because of constant coercion being applied by the man whose child it is, or she has been pressured by an external source, and in no definition freedom does this apply.  The decision, if it can be called that, is also politically influenced because should she decide to have the child she might not be able to support it financially and therefore might have to ask for government assistance and in the minds of some politicians she would either become a burden or a "poster child" which they can use to attain more social and political power.  The decision to go through with this form of reproductive technology or termination is the hardest on a women and quite often her freedom of choice is taken away by others.

	Contraception is in some ways a means for men to control women.  The decision to use contraception is not one which is made by the women alone.  "The pill" for example is used by some women to regulate their menstrual cycle and in this case it is often a necessity and not a choice, but quite often a women uses this drug because of pressure from males who do not wish to use other forms a birth control which might inhibit them in some way.  Contraception is also used because more often than not sex is not used for procreation and most men would not live up to their responsibility should the women get pregnant in an unplanned situation and then the option of abortion would become an issue and as discussed, it is an altogether unpleasant one.  Also the area of science would now have power over the women because it first of all offers these options and continually finds new ones.  Through social and political means they make money off of women.  Contraception is not a true freedom for women because it's use is influenced by so many different sources that a truly "free" decision to use it cannot be made.

	Genetic engineering is a broad term, in this case we are looking at the area involving human reproduction.  It is the newest of all reproductive technologies and one which has stirred a plentiful amount of controversy.  It's basic goal is to enable the "building" of a human to exact specifications.  If and when this technology becomes readily available it will cause extreme moral dilemmas.  To use this, on one hand, would enable the elimination of birth defects and certain diseases, but on the other it would eliminate nature from the process of evolution.  The choice to use this will also not be a free one for women.  After all is a choice a free one when all of society is participating in the technology you are deciding to use?  No it is not.  Would a mother have any choice not to use this technology?  No, if she chose not to when the majority of people were chose to, she could quite possibly give her child a disadvantage in life.  This decision could also have political influence because a government could very easily push people towards the use of certain types of genetic engineering by launching a campaign to prove it would be the best for everyone should people use this.  
	Although the previous choice a women might have to make regarding reproductive technology, at this point in time, has it's basis in theory more than fact it should not be dismissed.  In fact if one reads almost any literature on this topic we see the same theories and fears emerge.  Also this could very possibly be a technology reserved for the rich, and those who cannot afford this would be at a major disadvantage.

	The examples of reproductive technologies in this essay were sighted as a tool to display the power which men and science have over women when in the area of reproductive technologies.  In the definition of freedom used in this paper we see that a person is only truly free when they are free from social pressure yet have political and social power and wealth.  All of the above "choices" have a heavy influence from society and involve politics and money.    Also stated was the fact that limited amounts of choice can also hinder one's freedom and the scientific community has offered only a few choices.  Reproductive technologies as a core science could possibly expand women's freedom of choice but under today's conditions it does not.  These technologies are still relatively dangerous and allow for the manipulation of women by others such as men and the scientific community.  
 	  
	

-By David Kinlough













Bibliography


Hayek, F. "Planning & Democracy"

Funk & Wagnalls. "Artificial Insemination, Birth Control, Genetic Engineering, Abortion."  Microsoft Encarta  Ed. Microsoft Corporation.  1997 ed. 

Norman, Richard.  "Does Equality Destroy Liberty?"   

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Revealing Marx.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Revealing Marx
In Karl Marx's early writing on "estranged labour" there is a clear and prevailing focus on the plight of the
labourer. Marx's writing on estranged labour is and attempt to draw a stark distinction between property
owners and workers. In the writing Marx argues that the worker becomes estranged from his labour
because he is not the recipient of the product he creates. As a result labour is objectified, that is labour
becomes the object of mans existence. As labour is objectified man becomes disillusioned and enslaved.
Marx argues that man becomes to be viewed as a commodity worth only the labour he creates and man is
further reduced to a subsisting animal void of any capacity of freedom except the will to labour. For Marx
this all leads to the emergence of private property, the enemy of the proletariat. In fact Marx's writing on
estranged labour is a repudiation of private property- a warning of how private property enslaves the
worker. This writing on estranged labour is an obvious point of basis for Marx's Communist Manifesto. 

The purpose of this paper is to view Marx's concept of alienation (estranged labour) and how it limits
freedom. For Marx man's freedom is relinquished or in fact wrested from his true nature once he
becomes a labourer. This process is thoroughly explained throughout Estranged Labour. This study will
reveal this process and argue it's validity. Appendant to this study on alienation there will be a micro-study
which will attempt to ascertain Marx's view of freedom (i.e. positive or negative). The study on alienation
in conjunction with the micro-study on Marx's view of freedom will help not only reveal why Marx feels
labour limits mans freedom, but it will also identify exactly what kind of freedom is being limited.
Estranged Labour

Karl Marx identifies estranged labour as labour alien to man. Marx explains the condition of estranged
labour as the result of man participating in an institution alien to his nature. It is my interpretation that man
is alienated from his labour because he is not the reaper of what he sows. Because he is never the
recipient of his efforts the labourer lacks identity with what he creates. For Marx then labour is "alien to
the worker...[and]...does not belong to his essential being." Marx identifies two explanations of why mans
lack of identity with labour leads him to be estranged from labour. (1) "[The labourer] does not develop
freely his physical and mental energy, but instead mortifies his mind." In other words labour fails to
nurture mans physical and mental capacities and instead drains them. Because the worker is denied any
nurturing in his work no intimacy between the worker and his work develops. Lacking an intimate relation
with what he creates man is summarily estranged from his labour. (2) Labour estranges man from
himself. Marx argues that the labour the worker produces does not belong to him, but to someone else.
Given this condition the labourer belongs to someone else and is therefore enslaved. As a result of being
enslaved the worker is reduced to a "subsisting animal", a condition alien to him. As an end result man is
estranged from himself and is entirely mortified. Marx points to these to situations as the reason man is
essentially estranged from his labour. The incongruency between the world of things the worker creates
and the world the worker lives in is the estrangement.

Marx argues that the worker first realizes he is estranged from his labour when it is apparent he cannot
attain what he appropriates. As a result of this realization the objectification of labour occurs. For the
worker the labour becomes an object, something shapeless and unidentifiable. Because labour is
objectified, the labourer begins to identify the product of labour as labour. In other words all the worker
can identify as a product of his labour, given the condition of what he produces as a shapeless,
unidentifiable object, is labour. The worker is then left with only labour as the end product of his efforts.
The emerging condition is that he works to create more work. For Marx the monotonous redundancy of
this condition is highly detrimental because the worker loses himself in his efforts. He argues that this
situation is analogous to a man and his religion. Marx writes, "The more man puts into God the less he
retains in himself....The worker puts his life into the object, but now his life no longer belongs to him but
to the object." The result of the worker belonging to the object is that he is enslaved. The worker belongs
to something else and his actions are dictated by that thing. For Marx, labour turns man into a means.
Workers become nothing more than the capital necessary to produce a product. Labour for Marx reduces
man to a means of production. As a means of production man is diminished to a subsisting enslaved
creature void of his true nature. In this condition he is reduced to the most detrimental state of man: one in
which he is estranged from himself. To help expand on this theme it is useful to look at Marx's allegory of
man's life-activity.

Life-activity and the Nature of Man
Of the variety of reasons Marx argues man is estranged from his labour, probably the most significant is
his belief that labour estranges man from himself. Marx argues that the labour the worker produces does
not belong to the worker so in essence the worker does not belong to the worker. By virtue of this
condition Marx argues the worker is enslaved. Enslavement for Marx is a condition alien to man and he
becomes estranged from himself. For Marx, man estranged from himself is stripped of his very nature.
Not only because he is enslaved but because his life-activity has been displaced. For Marx mans character
is free, conscious activity, and mans pursuit of his character is his life-activity. Mans life-activity is then
the object of his life. So by nature, mans own life is the object of his existence. This is mans condition
before labour. After labour mans life-activity, that is, his free conscious, activity, or his very nature, is
displaced. In a pre-labour condition mans life was the object of his condition; in a labour condition man
exists to labour and his life-activity is reduced to a means of his existence so he can labour. In effect
labour necessitates itself in man by supplanting mans true nature with an artificial one that re-prioritizes
mans goals. Man's goal then is not to pursue his life but to labour. He becomes linked to his labour and is
viewed in no other way. Man is reduced to chattel, a commodity, the private property of another
individual.

Conclusion
For Marx labour limits the freedom of man. Labour becomes the object of man's existence and he
therefore becomes enslaved by it. In considering the validity of Marx's argument I feel Marx is correct
that man's freedom is limited by the fact that he is a labourer. But in opposition to Marx I believe that
man's freedom is no more limited as a labourer than as a farmer. Agrarian worker or labourer man's
freedom is limited. Whether he is identified by the product he creates in a factory or in a wheat field in
either case he is tied to his work and is not viewed beyond it. In either instance the product is objectified
because in either instance the worker works only to create more work. Just as the labourer must continue
to work without end to subsist, so must the agrarian worker. The implication then is that alienation is not
the culprit that limits mans freedom, it is work itself. Do not mistake this as an advocation for laziness.
Instead consider the implications of not working. If one did not work at all he or she would live a life of
poverty and would be far less free than if he did work. Working, either as a labourer or a farmer, offers
greater financial means and with greater financial means comes greater freedom. This point of the
argument stands up of course only if you believe money can by freedom. I argue it can. Surely my
freedom to buy something is limited if I do not have the financial means. On the other hand if I have
greater financial means I have more freedom to buy things. So although labour limits freedom to the
extent that the worker becomes tied to his work, labour also offers a far greater freedom than that of
indigence. Labouring is no less acceptable than agrarian work because the implications of partaking in
either are uniform to both and alienation holds no relevancy.

Appendage 1.
Marx on Freedom
Marx's view of freedom would seem a rather broad topic, and I'm sure it is. For our purposes it is
convenient to have just an idea of what type of freedom Marx favors. For the sake of ease the scope of
this study will be limited to two (2) classifications of freedom: prescribed (positive) freedom and negative
liberties. Prescribed freedom would be guided freedoms, or freedoms to do certain things. Negative
liberties would be freedom to do all but what is forbidden. In Marx's writing On The Jewish Question he
identifies (but does not necessarily advocates) liberty as "...the right to do everything which does not harm
others." In further argument Marx's states that "liberty as a right of man is not founded upon the
relationship between man and man; but rather upon the separation of man from man." By this definition
liberty is negative liberty, and for Marx it is monistic and solitary. Marx then argues that private property
is the practical application of this negative liberty. He states "...[private] property is...the right to enjoy
ones fortune and dispose of it as one will; without regard for other men and independently of society."
Private property for Marx is the mechanism by which man can be separate from other men and pursue his
(negative) liberty. Marx's writings on estranged labour and in The Communist Manifesto are a clear
repudiation of private property. What can be deduced then is that Marx does not favor negative liberties.
Negative liberties require private property to exist and private property is for Marx the enslaver of the
proletariat.

Negative freedom eliminated from the discussion we are left with Positive or prescribed freedoms.
Positive freedom, as was identified above, is the freedom to pursue specified options. That is, freedom to
do certain things. Man is not necessarily given a choice of what these options are, he is simply free to
pursue them whatever they may be. Posistive freedoms then are the freedoms Marx likley wishes to
uphold by denouncing estarnged labour.
Bibliography

1Marx, Karl, The Early Marx, (reserve packet)

2Marx, Karl and Engles, Freidrich, The Communist Manifesto, London, England, 1888 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Revenue Sharing between the States and the Federal government.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Richard Nixon.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
RICHARD M. NIXON
(THE 37TH PRESIDENT)

	Richard Milhous Nixon came from a family with a strong heritage. His father's side of the family were Methodists originally from Scotland. Then, in the early 1600s, they migrated to Ireland, and to America in the 1730s. His grandfather, George Nixon, died in the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil war. Richard's father, Frank Nixon, was born in Ohio. His mother died when he was only 7, and he left home when he was only 14. He went from town to town doing odd jobs and eventually made his way to California where he met his future wife, Hannah.
	Nixon's mother's side of the family was originally from Germany. They then migrated to England around 1688, where they became Quakers. From England they migrated to Ireland, and from Ireland to America. During the civil war they were part of the underground railroad. Richard's mother, Hannah Milhous, was born in Indiana, but her family moved and she grew up in Whittier, California, where she met Frank Nixon. They fell in love at first sight, and were married four months later in June 1908. Frank converted to Quakerism.
	Frank and Hannah's first son, Harold, was born in 1909, only a year after they were wed. In 1908, Frank bought a lemon ranch in Yorba Linda, CA, and built a small house there. Then, on January 9, 1913, Richard Milhous Nixon was born in that very house. Hannah and Frank would have three more children: Donald (born in 1914), Arthur (born in 1918), and Edward (born in 1930). 
	The Nixon family lived on the edge of poverty. The lemon ranch didn't make enough money to provide for the family of seven, so Frank started doing odd jobs (namely building houses) AND ran the lemon ranch to provide for his family. In 1922, the Nixon's moved back to Whittier, and things took a turn for the better. Frank bought a plot of land and built a gas station and a general store on it. Business was good, but it took much work to keep the store running. The whole family worked hard at the store and the children worked hard at school. But tragedy struck in 1925. Arthur died.
	Richard was always a serious child. By the age of six, he was already reading the newspaper and talking politics with his father. He was a good public speaker, and by junior high school, he was a master debater. He tried his hardest to get the best grades in school. In 1926, he entered high school. He was very busy. He did his schoolwork, he studied, he helped with the store, he went to church, he played football, he played basketball, he ran track, he was on the Latin Club, he was on the debate team, he was on the school newspaper staff, he played violin for the school orchestra, and he got very little sleep. His junior year he decided to study law and become a politician. In 1929, his senior year, he won a part scholarship to Harvard University, but couldn't accept. Due to the economic depression that was over the country, Nixon didn't have enough money to pay for the rest of the immense cost to go to Harvard. But in 1930, he entered Whittier College.
	In 1933, tragedy struck again and Harold died of tuberculosis. But that was also a year of personal triumph for Richard when he was elected president of the student body. In 1934, Richard graduated from Whittier College, second in his class. He then applied for a full scholarship to Duke University Law School, and was granted it. 
	In 1936, Nixon was elected president of the Duke Student Bar Association. In 1937, Nixon graduated with honors, third in his class. He returned to Whittier and was hired by the respectable Wingert and Bewly Law Firm. When he returned to Whittier, he met Thelma "Pat" Ryan at tryouts for a play (Nixon also liked to act). He, like his father, fell in love at first sight. Even before he and Pat went on a single date, he said, "I'm going to marry you someday." And, true to his word, Nixon married Ryan on June 21, 1940.
	In 1941, Nixon was offered a government job with the OPA. He took it, and he and Pat moved to Washington. In 1942, during WWII Nixon applied for sea duty with the U.S. Navy, but wasn't accepted. He tried again and was assigned to a base in the South Pacific. Pat found a job and moved to San Francisco. Richard went to sea.
	Two years later, in 1944, Nixon came back to the U.S. and was sent to Northern CA, where he and Pat lived together again. He was then sent to Pennsylvania, and he and Pat moved again. Nixon was released from the Navy, and he and Pat lived a normal life. But 1946 was a year of many changes.
	On February 17, 1946, the Nixon's first child, Tricia, was brought into the world. Then, to add to his joy, Nixon was asked to be a candidate for congress on the Republican ticket. Naturally, he said yes. He was then nominated to be the Republican candidate for congress. His opponent was named Jerry Voorhis, a Democrat. Nixon won the Republican primaries, won the general election, and won a seat on congress. That fall, the Republicans became the majority party. This meant that Nixon could play a major role in congress. 
	Nixon was sworn into Congress on January 3, 1947. He requested to be assigned to the labor committee. It was through this committee that Nixon met John F. Kennedy. Kennedy and Nixon both had different ideas, but they respected each others opinions. Nixon was also assigned to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). In June 1948, he was reelected without opposition. On July 5, 1948, the Nixon's second daughter, Julie, was born.
	That fall, Democrat Harry Truman was elected president. Unfortuna-tely for the Republicans, the Democrats now had the congressional majority. In 1950, Nixon decided to run for Senate. He got the Republican nomination in June, and would face Democratic candidate Helen Gahagan Douglas. Nixon won by a landslide and was elected for a six-year term. But he only served two of those years. 
	In 1952, as Dwight Eisenhower's running mate, he was elected Vice President of the United States. Nixon would serve eight years as Vice President. On September 24, 1955, Eisenhower suffered a severe heart attack, and for nearly two months (while Eisenhower was in the hospital) Nixon was acting President. In 1956, the same year Eisenhower and Nixon ran for reelection, Frank Nixon, Richard Nixon's father, died. In 1957, Nixon and Martin Luther King, Jr. met in Washington and discussed Nixon's efforts to promote a civil rights bill. On Nov. 25, 1957, President Eisenhower suffered a stroke, and again Nixon acted President. In 1960, Nixon was nominated to be the Republican candidate for President. His opponent was John F. Kennedy, to whom he lost in a close race.
	After his defeat, Richard and his family moved back to CA, where Nixon practiced law again for a short time. In 1962, he ran for governor of CA, but lost to Edmund G. Brown. In 1963, the Nixons moved to New York, where Richard joined a law practice with international clients. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson was elected President. He beat the Republicans by a landslide. 
	In 1968, Nixon was nominated to be the Republican candidate for the Presidency. He would face Hubert Humphry. It was a close race, but Nixon wound up being the winner. During Nixon's first term as President, he accomplished many things. He passed strong new anti-crime laws, he had the military draft reduced then eliminated, he cut taxes, and he made progress with civil rights and equal opportunities for women. He also made great strides in foreign relations. In 1972, Nixon talked to Russian leaders and came up with the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (known as the SALT agreement) which limited the production of nuclear arms in both the U.S. and Russia. Nixon also had microphones installed in many White House offices. He believed this would help prevent information from being leaked to the media, but it also brought about his downfall.
	In 1972, Nixon was nominated to run for a second term as President for the Republicans. His opponent was George McGovern for the Democrats. That summer five men were arrested on charges of breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington. On Sept. 15, 1972, formal charges were brought against seven people involved with the Watergate break-in. However, Nixon still won the election by a landslide. Nixon then tried to cover-up the Watergate affair to protect himself and his aids. On Oct. 10, 1973, Nixon's Vice President, Spiro Agnew, resigned. Nixon chose Gerald Ford to be his new V.P. But Watergate was causing problems with Nixon's Presidency, and on August 9, 1974, Nixon resigned from office, the first president to ever do so. 
	The Nixons moved to their house in San Clemente, and in Sept., 1974, President Ford pardoned Richard from any wrong he had done while in office.  While living in San Clemente, Nixon spent most of his time playing golf and writing. In 1978, Nixon published a book entitled RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. In 1980, The Nixons moved to New York and Richard wrote The Real War. In Oct., 1981, the Nixons moved to Saddle River, New Jersey. There, Nixon wrote four more books: Leaders in 1982, Real Peace: A Strategy for the West in 1983, No More Vietnams in 1985, 1999: Victory Without War in 1988, In the Arena in 1990, and  Seize the Moment in 1992. Unfortunately, in 1993, Pat Nixon died, and less than a year later, on April 22, 1994, Richard Milhous Nixon, the thirty-seventh President of the United States of America, died. He was buried in Yorba Linda, CA, in the same town as his birth.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Rights of Adopted Children.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

	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 it�s 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. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Ronald Reagans Tax Cuts and foreign policies.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Reagan Tax Cuts and Foreign Policy

	During the 1980's President Ronald Reagan's (our 40th president from 1981 to 1989) domestic policy of a substantial tax cut led to greatly increased economic prosperity for our country.  During Reagan's administration marked changes were made to the tax code and economic statistics showed a major change for the better. However, at the same time, the Democrats controlled the Congress and continued increased spending against Reagan's wishes. 
The Joint Economic Committee stated that an across-the-board tax cut was not new. In the 20's the Mellon tax cuts were implemented by Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon during the Administrations of Hoover, Harding, and Coolidge.  In the 60's Kennedy introduced tax cuts. In both instances the decrease of high marginal tax rates somehow increased tax payments by the rich. Perhaps a foreshadow of things to come.
Debates were raging over the Reagan tax cuts, known as the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (or, ERTA).  This act was designed to spur savings, investment, work, and economic efficiency.  This policy would impose a 25% across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. In the act of decreasing marginal tax rates, and stimulating economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, thus lifting economic growth.  This policy received much criticism because its opponents argued that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich, because their tax payments would collapse.  
Reagan worked hard and skillfully with the congress to obtain legislation to stimulate economic growth and curb inflation, he embarked upon a course to cut taxes and curb inflation. President Reagan was able to sign into law a tax cut in late 1981 even though congressional Democrats tried to block his cuts. All tax payers received these cuts which helped to spur the economy.  The cuts were taken over three years with a 5% cut in 1981, a 10% cut for 1982, and in 1983 another 10% cut. 
Reagan's call for extensive changes in the federal income tax laws helped bring about passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In 1986 Reagan introduced the Tax Reform act of 1986. The tax reform act of 1986 chopped taxes, and indexed taxes for inflation as well.  During Reagan's first term the inflation rate was at -5.7%, unemployment was at1.4%, interest rates were at -.7, and the gross national product was 7%.    
	Reagan signed the tax reform bill entitled the Tax Reform act of 1986. This act simplified and reduced taxes, but the democrats wanted to claim equal credit for the bill as well. A stock market crash in 1987 raised questions about the nation's economic health. A new bill to balance the federal budget became law in 1987, but the huge deficit continued to be a concern to the government.
Congress passed Reagan's requests for cuts in taxes and in some government programs. Reagan also won increased funds for defense. By 1982, however, the country was in an recession, which meant that there was an extended decline in general business activity, typically three consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product. 
 The economy improved in 1983. But the increased defense spending and tax cut had led to a record budget deficit. Democrats attacked Reagan for cutting social welfare programs and called for reduced defense spending and a tax increase in order to lower the deficit. 
Foreign Policy
President Reagan through foreign policy sought to achieve peace through strength. He had learned how to deal skillfully with Congress and obtain legislation to strengthen our national defense. 
In 1983, Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Lebanon as part of a peacekeeping force. The Marines were recalled in 1984, after some 240 had been killed in a terrorist attack. Reagan also sent U.S. troops to Grenada in 1983, to prevent what the he saw as a Cuban attempt to take over the Caribbean island nation. The President denounced the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua as a threat to peace in Central America, and he repeatedly requested military aid for the anti-Sandinista guerrillas, known as contras.  
In November of 1986 President Reagan confirmed reports that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran. He stated that the goal was to improve relations with Iran, not to obtain release of U.S. hostages held in the Middle East by terrorists. Later in November, Attorney General Edwin Meese discovered that some of the arms profits had been diverted to aid the Nicaraguan "contra" rebels--at a time when Congress had prohibited such aid. An independent special prosecutor, former federal judge Lawrence E. Walsh, was appointed to investigate the activities of persons involved in the arms sale or contra aid or both, including marine Lt. Col. Oliver North of the National Security Council (NSC) staff. In May 1989 North was tried and convicted of obstructing Congress and unlawfully destroying government documents, but his conviction was subsequently overturned. 
Reagan ordered the bombing of military targets in Libya in 1986 in retaliation for its role in international terrorism. His policy of reflagging (flying the U.S. flag on) Kuwaiti oil tankers and providing them with a U.S. naval escort in the Persian Gulf led to clashes with Iran in 1987. 
President Reagan during his administration sought to improve relation with the Former Soviet Union, and foreign relations did improve greatly. Reagan and Gorbachev paved the way to the end of the cold war. They accomplished this by means of Summit Conferences.  Several of these conferences were held from 1985 to 1987.  The President and Mr. Gorbachev conducted this summit in Geneva in 1985.
As the result of a U.S. initiative, President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev agreed at the November 1985 Geneva Summit to have experts explore the possibility of establishing centers to reduce the risk of nuclear war. The impetus for this initiative grew out of consultations between the Executive Branch and Congress, particularly Senators Sam Nunn and John Warner. U.S. and Soviet experts held informal meetings in Geneva on May 5-6 and August 25, 1986. In October 1986, at their meeting in Reykjavik, President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev indicated satisfaction with the progress made at the experts meetings and agreed to begin formal negotiations to establish Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers. Those negotiations were held in Geneva on January 13 and May 3-4, 1987.
The negotiations resulted in the Agreement that was signed in Washington September 15, 1987, by Secretary of State Shultz and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze.
Under the Agreement, which is of unlimited duration, each party agreed to establish a Nuclear Risk Reduction Center in its capital and to establish a special facsimile communications link between these Centers. These Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers became operational on April 1, 1988. The American National Center (known as the NRRC) is located in Washington, DC in the Department of State. The Soviet National Center became the Russian National Center with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and is located in Moscow in the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense.
Reagan's greatest diplomatic achievement was the 1987 treaty with the Soviet Union banning intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF), it was approved by the Senate in 1988. The Iran-contra affair proved embarrassing to the congress. Congressional hearings in 1987 revealed that presidential aides had secretly sold arms to Iran in an effort to free U.S. citizens being held hostage in the Middle East. The aides had then illegally given some of the arms money to contra guerrillas.


Conclusion
The Reagan Tax cuts showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the share of tax payments given by the rich.	With respect to foreign policy Reagan's performances especially with Mikhail Gorbachev showed a high approval of performance with the people. Reagan had the highest poll ratings for performance of any president since World War 2. It appears that his leadership helped to make the feeling of the country to have a more confident outlook on the future.   












References

"Iran-Contra Affair," Microsoft(r) Encarta(r) 96 Encyclopedia 1993-1995.
1996 Grolier Interactive Inc. 
Edition copyright (c) 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. 
http://www.house.gov/joe/welcome.html
http://www.reaganhome.com/taxcuts.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/election/connections/foreign/reagrus.htm  
Hyland, W.G., ed., The Reagan Foreign Policy (1987).
The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Third 
The Atlantic Monthly, February 1994; Reagan and the Russians; Volume 273.
The Joint Economic Committee reports on the Reagan Tax Cuts
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Rush Limbaugh.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Rush Limbaugh has done much more than just change the style of talk radio, he has become somewhat of a political leader for many Americans.  He has been the type of spokesman many people have been looking for.  "Why am I being called the most dangerous man in America?" Limbaugh asks his listeners.  "Because I am right, and I enjoy being right."  (June 3, 1995, The Philadelphia Inquirer)  Rush has caused people to change their views of the country and it's political leaders.  He's had many things that have built him up to the "political preacher" you see today.  Rush's early life, his major accomplishments, and his personal life are just a few of the characteristics that make Rush the leader he is today.
	Rush's early life affected who he is today in many ways.  Limbaugh comes from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, were he was born on Jan. 12, 1951.  Rush, or Rusty as he was called as a kid, was a chubby, insecure youth who craved but rarely received the approval of his father, writes Paul Colford, author of " The Rush Limbaugh Story".  "Rush got his first job as a shoeshine boy at the age of 13."  (People 7-24-95 pgs. 166-168)  At the age of 16, serving as a disc jockey, Rush got his first taste of radio.  From there, Rusty began to work at several different stations, none of which were getting him anywhere.  During one of his first radio jobs Rush went by the name Jeff Christie while working for KQV in Pittsburgh.  He was fired by a man named Jim Carnegie, who now says that he was instructed to fire him, but as soon as Jim got his next job, he hired Rush again.  At the age of 28 Rush took a job organizing community events for the Kansas City Royals.  This paid him $18,000 a year.  Rush spent five unfulfilling years with the Royals.  "No fault of people at the Royals," Limbaugh told Talkers, a radio-industry magazine several years ago.  "I was just doing the wrong thing."  (June 3, 1995, The Philadelphia Inquirer)  In 1983 Limbaugh decided to try radio again.  By 1984 he was working as a talk-show host for a station in Sacramento California.  This is were he was encouraged to speak his mind, and form the style he has today.
	Rush Limbaugh has had many great accomplishments through his life as well.  "Rush is viewed as having single-handedly saved AM radio, and I don't think that is an unfair characterization," says Dave Rimmer, former WWDB-FM program director, who added Limbaugh to the station's lineup three years ago.  Dave also said, "If Rush decided tomorrow that he was tired of talk radio, it would be a crisis for many stations."  (June 3, 1995, The Philadelphia Inquirer)  When Rush's ratings went up literally hundreds of AM stations made the switch to talk radio.  By now Rush had become a millionaire many times over.  "Limbaugh delivered a one-two punch to the nation's bestseller lists.  Following his best-selling The Way Things Ought to Be (1992), which sold over 3 million copies in hardcover - making it possibly the best-selling hardcover nonfiction book ever - with a new book See, I Told You So, which had the largest initial printing in American publishing history, at 2 million copies, and immediately jumped to the top of the bestseller lists."  (Brownstone and Franck, pgs. 228+229)  These books also brought millions to Rush's pocket.  In 1992 Rush developed a television show that was a version of his radio program, "The Rush Limbaugh Show."  Rush became and still is a leader and positive role-model for many Americans.  I think Walter Sabo said it best when he said, "People listen to Rush to hear him bluster, make jokes, and say things the way they can't at work.  They listen to him say things about women that we married guys can't say."
	Rush isn't just the voice on the radio or the face on TV, he also has a personal life.  When he is off the air, his friends say that he would more likely stay in his New York apartment with Chinese take-out and a stack of rented movies than be out hobnobbing with celebrities.  Carnegie, his former program director, says that in the old days they'd get together to drink a beer, play a round of golf, or take in a ballgame - and talk.  (June 3, 1995, The Philadelphia Inquirer)  Carnegie also said, "I love the guy to death.  He hasn't changed that much.  Jeff Christie, now Rush Limbaugh, is the same way he was over 20 years ago:  highly learned, self-educated, politically motivated in discussion, and always an entertainer."
	As you can see Rush Limbaugh has impacted the world as we know it like few others have ever done, and he does this simply by speaking his mind.  This is what makes him such a great leader and spokesman for many Americans that don't feel as free to speak their mind.  Rush's early life, his major accomplishments, and personal life have help form the leader that so many "ditto" today.  As one radio executive says, "At this point, the only person who can hurt Rush is Rush."  (June 3, 1995, The Philadelphia Inquirer)
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\same sex marrage.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
There are so many factors that may affect one's view of this topic it becomes easy to see why it is controversial.  To list all of the arguments would be impossible.   However, by focusing on the main topics that both that both defend and disagree with the issue, we are able to get a brief glance at the enormity that the outcome of a problem like this carries in our society.
	Right from the beginning the bible states that it was not good for man to be alone; "therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." (God)  We can also read about God's discussion of unlawful marriages:  "Thou shalt not lay with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."  (God)  And to the people who disregarded this, the punishment was written simply; "they shall be cut off from their among their people."  Is it possible to say that these words that have provided strict guidelines for all these years no longer have any meaning or promise because we are no longer a people?  Or is it right to think that we are adopted into the family of God and are now apart of His people?  Who decides?  What if your family isn't Christian, does the law of God apply to you? (God)
	For years and years these were the words that nearly everyone followed.  Only people who were clearly wrong dared to disobey the word of God.  It was clearly black and white, and often times church leaders were looked to for advice on what to do when we are faced with a choice.  After all, they "represent" Him, so they must know right from wrong. So what do we say to Bishop John Shelby Strong who is quoted as saying, "I regard the blessing of gay and lesbian couples by the church to be inevitable, right, and of a positive good.  We must be willing to relinquish prejudice and turn our attention to loving our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, supporting them, and relating them as part of Gods creation."  And how about the Roman Cardinal Basi Hume?  He says that love between people, whether of the same sex or a different sex, is to be treasured and respected.  "To love another person is to have entered the area of richest human experience."  I think that we are getting mixed messages. (Cahoon)
	Now entering the picture is mans interpretation of the law.  This view no longer takes into consideration anything based on Christianity, by simply what has been written by another person.  I believe that the reason for this turn from one written law (the bible) to another is due to the fact that it is easier to find loop-holes in something that God had little to do with (but this is only my belief).  It is easier to see all the reasons why one can marry a person of the same sex when you are dealing with a race that wants to be considered open minded and fair - despite what they may know in their hearts to be right.  In the court case of Loving vs. Virginia, the appellants are fighting for their civil right to have a (same-sex) marriage.  This particular case points out that the right to marriage occupies an extremely venerated position in our society. marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of the societal values associated with the continuation of the human race.  (Dirty)  Also, it should be apparent that no same-sex couple offers the possibility of the birth of children by their union.  Many times similar cases involving female/female marriage or male/male marriages are refused by the courts for this very reason.  The state has the authority to refuse to authorize a same-sex marriage from the impossibility of reproduction rather than from any discrimination on the account of sex.  It is now apparent how the law defined a marriage.  Legally it is considered the union of one man and one woman.  This is only because of the unique physical characteristics of each sex in being able to reproduce.   Never the less, "discrimination!" is screamed inside the walls of the court and the issue of homosexual marriage moves from a moral to an ethical issue.  (Brown)
 Bibliography 
Rotello, Gabriel
http://abacus.oxy.edu/QRD/media/print/gabriel.rotello/gay.marriage.the.next.big.battle

Brown, Jennifer G.
http://www.outnow.com/67/hawaii.html

Sanders, D. B. Skeeter
http://members.aol.com/otlm/julyaug/antimarr.html

Loveline.com
http://cemulimedia.com/loveline/loveome/.htm

Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund
http://www.gaysource.com/gs/ht/oct95/questions.html

Cahoon, Robert E.
http://www.bestweb.com/cahoon

Teriaine, J.
http://www.buddybuddy.com

Haig, Sir Douglas
http://www.demon.co.uk./kdm/haig.html

Dirty Hippies Liberal Christian Home Journal
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/mbaldwin/homo.html

Zingale, Daniel
http://www.hrusa.org/feature2/mar16.html

God
exerpts from the Bible
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Same Sex Marriages .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Same Sex Marriages? By definition, it cannot exist.


	What is marriage?  This word has different meanings for different people.  To some marriage means a commitment between two people in holy matrimony,  or religious marriage.  To others it is just a legal contract between two people, or civil marriage.  In actuality there is only one definition for a marriage.  According to Webster's Dictionary, a marriage is a state of living together as husband and wife joined in wedlock.  Webster also identifies a husband as a man and a wife as a woman.  Same sex marriages are morally and ethically wrong, and they are also impossible to occur (according to our modern language).  Same sex marriages, even though inappropriate, can be solved without upsetting both sides of the scale.
	Many same sex marriage supporters argue, "Why does every legal and political issue always have to be complicated by making it a moral and ethical question?"  If there were no morals or ethics in government, society as we know it could not exist.  It is unthinkable how someone can make this point.   If these people had some logic and thoughtfulness in their minds as well as in their hearts, they would not be making these ridiculous comments.  Arguments of this type are the cause of crime and poverty in our country.  People don't know the difference between right and wrong.  
Children need a mother and a father to teach family values and the difference between right and wrong.  The world would be a much better place if everyone had a parent or a teacher to show the them the proper path.  Unfortunately, this is not the case.  If more of society would put a priority on their children and their future, there could be fewer problems faced by the community as a whole.   If no one takes into account morals and ethics into their decision making, these deplorable situations could lead to a catastrophe.  If no one has any morals or ethics, this great nation would come to its decline.  If no one has any morals or ethics, not even the world's most powerful military will be able stop the catastrophe.  The argument against this point, raised by the supporters, is the question of divorced parents and single parents.  According to religious philosophy, single parenting is also an improper system for rising children.  If someone else is jumping of a bridge, then why shouldn't everyone else.  One improper task does not give permission for another.  This is just another of many illogical points made by the supporters.
The purpose of marriage is not only for companionship and personal and financial support.   The purpose of marriage, ultimately, is for procreation, and gay couples cannot procreate.  Same sex marriage supporters argue infertile couples and couples who use birth control methods to prevent conception are allowed to marry.  As far as infertile couples are concerned, that is something beyond their control.  They can not procreate because they have no choice.  Whereas homosexuals are able to procreate, with the opposite sex, but choose not to.  In regard to birth control, it is also religiously inappropriate.  The same thing applies here, as it did with the single parent issue. One improper task does not give permission for another.  The supporters have an irrational belief that two wrongs do make a right, whereas they do not.
What is the solution to all this nonsense?  There are valid points made on the other side of this coin and there is a simple solution.  Domestic Partnerships, which are already in use in Denmark and Norway,  is the answer, but it is not marriage.  The supporters main itch comes from the benefits of being married.  The government and certain businesses in society give an advantage to those who do not carry the single status.  The marital status shows commitment and responsibility in a person.  These advantages include insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, wrongful death benefits, child support and alimony, and some others.1  A domestic partnership can be the legal contract, which they confuse with marriage, that can give immoral and unethical persons the benefits they deserve as citizens of this nation. Domestic Partnerships is not another word for marriage, and it should not be confused with marriage.  Domestic Partnership is a civil or legal contract with no purpose but to gain certain benefits.  Marriage is holy matrimony with the purpose of companionship, personal support, and procreation.  One may not agree with the thinking and ideas of others, but everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.  Domestic Partnerships have already been proven successful in other nations, and it can be successful in this one.
In conclusion, besides same sex marriages being immoral and unethical, they are not logically possible.  If immorality continues through thin skulls, the supporters, it could lead to disaster for the entire nation.  Domestic Partnerships are what same sex marriage supporters really want.  They just don't know the real meaning of marriage.  Marriage is a state of living together as husband, man, and wife, woman, joined in wedlock.  They can make all the emotional excuses and interpretations they want, but when logic comes into the picture, there really is no argument.  This is a moral issue, not a legal one!
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\social security crisis 2.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 







	It was early spring in the year 2048 and my bithday was coming up this August 26. I would be turning 70 years and retirring.  I am not looking forward to it as much as I thought. My whole life I dreamed of moving to Florida and living on the beach when I retired.  I planned on traveling a lot seeing the great sites the country has to offer.  All of these plans have changed instead my yougest son is putting an addition on his house so that I could move in.  I am very thankful for what he is doing, but I really don't want to go.  I want my privacy and I'm sure he wants his too.  There is no other choice I worked as long as I could but I'm just getting to old.  We all agree that I am not going into a nursing especially me. If the government would have told us that they couldn't solve the Social Security crisis almost 30 years ago I would have prepared better.  But instead they promised they could save it and the program would still be aruond when I retired.  They obviously lied and now I have nothing.  Moments later I hear music its my alarm clock. It was only a dream its April 1996 and I'm 18.  The article about the Social Security in the paper had me thinking and I must have a bad dream.
The Presidential election will be coming up this November '96 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) feel 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 of Generation X 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.
	The Social Security crisis is the threat of the Social Security system going 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 we retire.  When we retire the money is returned to us in monthly checks plus the interest.  This is where we 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 younger workforce to pay for them 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.
	In actuality the bankruptcy will probably happen about ten years sooner.  See there is a catch to their surplus that not to many people know about.  The surplus is put in to government bonds so that government can use that money to support other programs and to pay of other debts.  Also when the government figures out the national debt they subtract that surplus to make the national debt look smaller.  The problem will  come when Social Security needs that surplus to support its program and the government has to pay of these bonds.  The United States will go further into debt having to severely raise taxes and drastically cut government programs.  Or they won't pay the their debt and the American retirees will be out trillions of dollars.
	There are also two other contradicting factors that boggle the minds of almost all Americans.  First as we all know the life expectancy of people is getting larger.  In 1940 a man at the age of 65 could expect to live another 13 years; today they could expect to live another 17 years. The government figures by the year 2000 many people will have collected half as long as they have worked.  The twisted part of the whole thing is that citizens are beginning retire and collect benefits earlier then ever.  More than half of all retirees begin collecting benefits before they are 65.  The average at which people began collecting went from 68.7 in 1950 to 63.7 in 1991.
	The Government has tried to institute new polices and reform old ones, but they are falling short over the long run.  In 1993 the President pushed a tax that stated 85% of Social Security became taxable income to people with substantial amount of other retirement savings such as pensions and personal savings.  What they are telling is if you are one the smart people in America that pre-planned your retirement with other savings and not just Social Security they can put heavy tax on your Social Security checks. Now you would have to pay twice once whiled you worked and again when you retire.  Its has if you are being punished for doing the right thing. 
	Another tactic many government official are trying to push is raising the payroll tax 2%.  The current tax is 12.4%, 6.2% from the employee and 6.2% from the employer.  This would aid us temporarily,  but would do nothing to stop the long term problem.  "To maintain the systems solvency, taxes would have to be increased, or benefits cut, between one-half and 1 percent every 10 years" (Bosworth 36).  If you do the math you will realize by the time Generation X retires the payroll tax needed to keep Social Security going will have almost doubled.  The higher tax rates will start some sort of recession with people getting far less out of their pay checks to live on.  Anyway who wants pay more taxes.  They would also like to cut many of the benefits that Social Security offers,  but why should we pay more and receive less.
	The U.S. government has dug itself into a whole waiting to the last minute to save Social Security. When by simple demographics years ago would have showed the same problem.  They have to get it out of their heads that Social Security is such a great system that can be saved.  Well it was great a the time, but as we know times change.  The only way to save Social Security is to completely overhaul it.  With the best way to overhaul is by the introduction of partially privatizing  Social Security.
	It help bring Chile social security system out of bankruptcy.  In 1981 Chile privatized it social security by requiring their workers to put 10% of their pretax wages in private pension funds.  The funds are carefully regulated, and workers can switch among trust fund managers for better returns or lower costs.  They also receive periodic statements.  Upon their retirement they receive their money to buy annuity.  What ever is left can be passed onto their heirs.  If there isn't enough to provide a descent living the government steps in guaranteeing a minimum. Now Chile enjoys a high savings rate well over 20% of their gross domestic product compared to the US's 3.2%. 
The plan has been pushed here heavily in the states by Senator Robert Kerry of Nebraska (D).  The plan would not allow people to drop out of Social Security completely like some other more radical plans,  but to divert a percentage of their payroll tax into accounts that work like Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's).  The Senators plan proposes that 2% of the 12.4% tax would be taken out and placed in private accounts set up by the government.  The money would be one's own personal account with compound interest (Congressional Digest 246).  The Institute for Research on Economics of Taxation (IRET) adds, "that they would not be able to touch that money until they retiree or become disabled.  The money is theirs the government would not be allowed to touch it.  If that person should die the money would be added to their estate" (Congressional Digest 248).
	The Cato Institute  (a nonprofit public policy research foundation founded in 1977 whose publication, conferences, and seminars are designed to illuminate private sector, voluntary solutions to social and economic problems) also adds, "that those presently in the workforce would have the option of remaining in the current Social Security system or switching to the new private system.  Those entering the workforce after the implementation of the new private system would be required to participate in the new system.  Thus the current system would be eventually phased out" (Congressional Digest 244). The plan also has guidelines to problems and questions that people have or arrive.
	First off people begin to question the safety of the government handling their own personal money.  It a viable question considering our national debt and the way they spend tax money, but the there is a viable answer.  If you let people drop totally out of Social Security and have their own pension plan there would be know way for the government to keep track and ensure that people are saving.  Then when these people begin to retire and we find out that many of them never saved any money and will have no monthly retirement checks we  will have a poverty struck elder class that the government would have to bail out.  In conclusion to ensure that everyone has money set aside for retirement the government has to control the money.
	Another common critique is how much is 2% going to save? It wills save a lot more than the average person thinks.  Currently Social Security takes a dollar from the worker and gives it directly to the retiree with no growth or interest. The IRET states, "With compounding interest at a 7% real return, a dollar saved at age 20 would be worth $16 at age 60 and $32 at the age of 70" Congressional Digest).  That's more then the current system could ever own up to. 
	Many critics also wanted to know what would the new system do about people who earned low wages and wouldn't have a substantial amount of money set aside to pay for retirement.  The Cato institute proposes a minimum savings amount, acting as safety net. It would be a number to a similar to the minimum wage where if the individual doesn't meet the amount specified to earn a livable monthly payment the government would supplement the difference to bring the monthly income up to the correct level.  The money would come out of the other 10.4% that people still pay into.  They also report considering the rate of return even someone making  minimum wage their entire life would still have enough to meet the monthly requirement (Congressional Digest 244).  Concluding that the safety net would only support a scarce few. This would also keep our nations poverty level up.
	A questions many Americans have is where do we begin? You begin with all age groups including people in their forties and fifties.  For these people who are getting close to retirement and wouldn't have a substantial amount saved up the government would take the benefits earned from year to date and put them into a bond.  The bound would be put along with the 2% they begin saving.  The money would earn interest together so when these people retire they will be shore to receive the money they deserve and then some (Investment Company Institute Congressional Digest 252).
	The only problem the plan doesn't solve is the problem that can't be solved.  This is how do you support the people already collecting their Social Security.  Social Security will have to use their surplus, but as stated the government has already used this money.  In order for people to get the money they deserve the government will have to cut their loses and pay back their bonds.  It will severely hurt the budget, but what choose is there.  No plan would have been able to solve this dilemma it would have happened anyway. 
	What more can you say?  The time to change the Social Security system has come.  The program considered by many to the prominent leg of the three legged retirement stool, along with pensions and personal savings, is growing week.  "...the result for retirees almost certainly will mean that the one leg of three legged retirement stool is going to get wobblier" (Wechsler 25).  The government is going to have to act now to prepare for the future because if they wait any longer the leg mine as well just fall off.  The government is there for the people and I'm sure they don't want the suffering of Generation X retirees on their conscious.  I don't want this to happen. I would like to work hard in my life looking forward to luxury of retirement at the end,  and as a citizen of this country I should be given that right.  If the system goes bankrupt that luxury just maybe taken away.
	The only way to ensure that Social Security will be around for the young people of this country is to instate the partially privatization plan.  Years ago it was considered to radical of an idea, but now it seems that there really no other choice.  It's the only plan that shows some hard facts to support it goals unlike many of the other plans by Congress or  President.  You have read the argument and you now the facts I don't know how anyone could think otherwise. It took Chile out of bankruptcy it will do the same for us to.  What do have to lose.
      






	It was early spring in the year 2048 and my bithday was coming up this August 26. I would be turning 70 years and retirring.  I am not looking forward to it as much as I thought. My whole life I dreamed of moving to Florida and living on the beach when I retired.  I planned on traveling a lot seeing the great sites the country has to offer.  All of these plans have changed instead my yougest son is putting an addition on his house so that I could move in.  I am very thankful for what he is doing, but I really don't want to go.  I want my privacy and I'm sure he wants his too.  There is no other choice I worked as long as I could but I'm just getting to old.  We all agree that I am not going into a nursing especially me. If the government would have told us that they couldn't solve the Social Security crisis almost 30 years ago I would have prepared better.  But instead they promised they could save it and the program would still be aruond when I retired.  They obviously lied and now I have nothing.  Moments later I hear music its my alarm clock. It was only a dream its April 1996 and I'm 18.  The article about the Social Security in the paper had me thinking and I must have a bad dream.
The Presidential election will be coming up this November '96 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) feel 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 of Generation X 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.
	The Social Security crisis is the threat of the Social Security system going 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 we retire.  When we retire the money is returned to us in monthly checks plus the interest.  This is where we 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 younger workforce to pay for them 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.
	In actuality the bankruptcy will probably happen about ten years sooner.  See there is a catch to their surplus that not to many people know about.  The surplus is put in to government bonds so that government can use that money to support other programs and to pay of other debts.  Also when the government figures out the national debt they subtract that surplus to make the national debt look smaller.  The problem will  come when Social Security needs that surplus to support its program and the government has to pay of these bonds.  The United States will go further into debt having to severely raise taxes and drastically cut government programs.  Or they won't pay the their debt and the American retirees will be out trillions of dollars.
	There are also two other contradicting factors that boggle the minds of almost all Americans.  First as we all know the life expectancy of people is getting larger.  In 1940 a man at the age of 65 could expect to live another 13 years; today they could expect to live another 17 years. The government figures by the year 2000 many people will have collected half as long as they have worked.  The twisted part of the whole thing is that citizens are beginning retire and collect benefits earlier then ever.  More than half of all retirees begin collecting benefits before they are 65.  The average at which people began collecting went from 68.7 in 1950 to 63.7 in 1991.
	The Government has tried to institute new polices and reform old ones, but they are falling short over the long run.  In 1993 the President pushed a tax that stated 85% of Social Security became taxable income to people with substantial amount of other retirement savings such as pensions and personal savings.  What they are telling is if you are one the smart people in America that pre-planned your retirement with other savings and not just Social Security they can put heavy tax on your Social Security checks. Now you would have to pay twice once whiled you worked and again when you retire.  Its has if you are being punished for doing the right thing. 
	Another tactic many government official are trying to push is raising the payroll tax 2%.  The current tax is 12.4%, 6.2% from the employee and 6.2% from the employer.  This would aid us temporarily,  but would do nothing to stop the long term problem.  "To maintain the systems solvency, taxes would have to be increased, or benefits cut, between one-half and 1 percent every 10 years" (Bosworth 36).  If you do the math you will realize by the time Generation X retires the payroll tax needed to keep Social Security going will have almost doubled.  The higher tax rates will start some sort of recession with people getting far less out of their pay checks to live on.  Anyway who wants pay more taxes.  They would also like to cut many of the benefits that Social Security offers,  but why should we pay more and receive less.
	The U.S. government has dug itself into a whole waiting to the last minute to save Social Security. When by simple demographics years ago would have showed the same problem.  They have to get it out of their heads that Social Security is such a great system that can be saved.  Well it was great a the time, but as we know times change.  The only way to save Social Security is to completely overhaul it.  With the best way to overhaul is by the introduction of partially privatizing  Social Security.
	It help bring Chile social security system out of bankruptcy.  In 1981 Chile privatized it social security by requiring their workers to put 10% of their pretax wages in private pension funds.  The funds are carefully regulated, and workers can switch among trust fund managers for better returns or lower costs.  They also receive periodic statements.  Upon their retirement they receive their money to buy annuity.  What ever is left can be passed onto their heirs.  If there isn't enough to provide a descent living the government steps in guaranteeing a minimum. Now Chile enjoys a high savings rate well over 20% of their gross domestic product compared to the US's 3.2%. 
The plan has been pushed here heavily in the states by Senator Robert Kerry of Nebraska (D).  The plan would not allow people to drop out of Social Security completely like some other more radical plans,  but to divert a percentage of their payroll tax into accounts that work like Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's).  The Senators plan proposes that 2% of the 12.4% tax would be taken out and placed in private accounts set up by the government.  The money would be one's own personal account with compound interest (Congressional Digest 246).  The Institute for Research on Economics of Taxation (IRET) adds, "that they would not be able to touch that money until they retiree or become disabled.  The money is theirs the government would not be allowed to touch it.  If that person should die the money would be added to their estate" (Congressional Digest 248).
	The Cato Institute  (a nonprofit public policy research foundation founded in 1977 whose publication, conferences, and seminars are designed to illuminate private sector, voluntary solutions to social and economic problems) also adds, "that those presently in the workforce would have the option of remaining in the current Social Security system or switching to the new private system.  Those entering the workforce after the implementation of the new private system would be required to participate in the new system.  Thus the current system would be eventually phased out" (Congressional Digest 244). The plan also has guidelines to problems and questions that people have or arrive.
	First off people begin to question the safety of the government handling their own personal money.  It a viable question considering our national debt and the way they spend tax money, but the there is a viable answer.  If you let people drop totally out of Social Security and have their own pension plan there would be know way for the government to keep track and ensure that people are saving.  Then when these people begin to retire and we find out that many of them never saved any money and will have no monthly retirement checks we  will have a poverty struck elder class that the government would have to bail out.  In conclusion to ensure that everyone has money set aside for retirement the government has to control the money.
	Another common critique is how much is 2% going to save? It wills save a lot more than the average person thinks.  Currently Social Security takes a dollar from the worker and gives it directly to the retiree with no growth or interest. The IRET states, "With compounding interest at a 7% real return, a dollar saved at age 20 would be worth $16 at age 60 and $32 at the age of 70" Congressional Digest).  That's more then the current system could ever own up to. 
	Many critics also wanted to know what would the new system do about people who earned low wages and wouldn't have a substantial amount of money set aside to pay for retirement.  The Cato institute proposes a minimum savings amount, acting as safety net. It would be a number to a similar to the minimum wage where if the individual doesn't meet the amount specified to earn a livable monthly payment the government would supplement the difference to bring the monthly income up to the correct level.  The money would come out of the other 10.4% that people still pay into.  They also report considering the rate of return even someone making  minimum wage their entire life would still have enough to meet the monthly requirement (Congressional Digest 244).  Concluding that the safety net would only support a scarce few. This would also keep our nations poverty level up.
	A questions many Americans have is where do we begin? You begin with all age groups including people in their forties and fifties.  For these people who are getting close to retirement and wouldn't have a substantial amount saved up the government would take the benefits earned from year to date and put them into a bond.  The bound would be put along with the 2% they begin saving.  The money would earn interest together so when these people retire they will be shore to receive the money they deserve and then some (Investment Company Institute Congressional Digest 252).
	The only problem the plan doesn't solve is the problem that can't be solved.  This is how do you support the people already collecting their Social Security.  Social Security will have to use their surplus, but as stated the government has already used this money.  In order for people to get the money they deserve the government will have to cut their loses and pay back their bonds.  It will severely hurt the budget, but what choose is there.  No plan would have been able to solve this dilemma it would have happened anyway. 
	What more can you say?  The time to change the Social Security system has come.  The program considered by many to the prominent leg of the three legged retirement stool, along with pensions and personal savings, is growing week.  "...the result for retirees almost certainly will mean that the one leg of three legged retirement stool is going to get wobblier" (Wechsler 25).  The government is going to have to act now to prepare for the future because if they wait any longer the leg mine as well just fall off.  The government is there for the people and I'm sure they don't want the suffering of Generation X retirees on their conscious.  I don't want this to happen. I would like to work hard in my life looking forward to luxury of retirement at the end,  and as a citizen of this country I should be given that right.  If the system goes bankrupt that luxury just maybe taken away.
	The only way to ensure that Social Security will be around for the young people of this country is to instate the partially privatization plan.  Years ago it was considered to radical of an idea, but now it seems that there really no other choice.  It's the only plan that shows some hard facts to support it goals unlike many of the other plans by Congress or  President.  You have read the argument and you now the facts I don't know how anyone could think otherwise. It took Chile out of bankruptcy it will do the same for us to.  What do have to lose.
      





	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 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\social security crisis.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 






	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 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISMthe differences and alikeness.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The term socialism is commonly used to refer both to an ideology--a comprehensive set of beliefs or ideas about the nature of human society and its future desirable state--and to a state of society based on that ideology. Socialists have always claimed to stand above all for the values of equality, social justice, cooperation, progress, and individual freedom and happiness, and they have generally sought to realize these values by the abolition of the private-enterprise economy (see CAPITALISM) and its replacement by "public ownership," a system of social or state control over production and distribution. Methods of transformation advocated by socialists range from constitutional change to violent revolution.

ORIGINS OF SOCIALISM

Some scholars believe that the basic principles of socialism were derived from the philosophy of Plato, the teachings of the Hebrew prophets, and some parts of the New Testament (the Sermon on the Mount, for example). Modern socialist ideology, however, is essentially a joint product of the 1789 French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in England--the word socialist first occurred in an English journal in 1827. These two great historical events, establishing democratic government in France and the conditions for vast future economic expansion in England, also engendered a state of incipient conflict between the property owners (the bourgeoisie) and the growing class of industrial workers; socialists have since been striving to eliminate or at least mitigate this conflict. The first socialist movement emerged in France after the Revolution and was led by Francois BABEUF, Filippo Buonarrotti (1761-1837), and Louis Auguste BLANQUI; Babeuf's revolt of 1796 was a failure. Other early socialist thinkers, such as the comte de SAINT-SIMON, Charles FOURIER, and Etienne CABET in France and Robert OWEN and William Thompson (c.1785-1833) in England, believed in the possibility of peaceful and gradual transformation to a socialist society by the founding of small experimental communities; hence, later socialist writers dubbed them with the label utopian.

THE EMERGENCE OF MARXISM

In the mid-19th century, more-elaborate socialist theories were developed, and eventually relatively small but potent socialist movements spread. The German thinkers Karl MARX and Friedrich ENGELS produced at that time what has since been generally regarded as the most sophisticated and influential doctrine of socialism. Marx, who was influenced in his youth by German idealist philosophy and the humanism of Ludwig Andreas FEUERBACH, believed that human beings, and particularly workers, were "alienated" in modern capitalist society; he argued in his early writings that the institution of private property would have to be completely abolished before the individual could be reconciled with both society and nature. His mature doctrine, however, worked out in collaboration with Engels and based on the teachings of classical English political economy, struck a harder note, and Marx claimed for it "scientific" status.

The first important document of mature MARXISM, the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (1848), written with Engels, asserted that all known human history is essentially the history of social classes locked in conflict. There has in the past always been a ruling and an oppressed class. The modern, or bourgeois, epoch, characterized by the capitalist mode of production with manufacturing industry and a free market, would lead according to Marx and Engels to the growing intensity of the struggle between capitalists and workers (the proletariat), the latter being progressively impoverished and as a result assuming an increasingly revolutionary attitude.

Marx further asserted, in his most famous work, Das KAPITAL, that the capitalist employer of labor had, in order to make a profit, to extract "surplus value" from his employees, thereby exploiting them and reducing them to "wage-slavery." The modern state, with its government and law-enforcing agencies, was solely the executive organ of the capitalist class. Religion, philosophy, and most other forms of culture likewise simply fulfilled the "ideological" function of making the working class contented with their subordinate position. Capitalism, however, as Marx claimed, would soon and necessarily grind to a halt: economic factors, such as the diminishing rate of profit, as well as the political factor of increasing proletarian "class consciousness" would result in the forcible overthrow of the existing system and its immediate replacement by the "dictatorship of the proletariat." This dictatorship would soon be superseded by the system of socialism, in which private ownership is abolished and all people are remunerated according to their work, and socialism would lead eventually to COMMUNISM, a society of abundance characterized by the complete disappearance of the state, social classes, law, politics, and all forms of compulsion. Under this ideal condition goods would be distributed according to need, and the unity of all humankind would be assured because of elimination of greed.

VARIETIES OF EUROPEAN SOCIALISM

Marxist ideas made a great impact on European socialist movements. By the second half of the 19th century socialists in Europe were organizing into viable political parties with considerable and growing electoral support; they also forged close links in most countries with trade unions and other working-class associations. Their short-term programs were mainly concerned with increasing the franchise, introducing state welfare benefits for the needy, gaining the right to strike, and improving working conditions, especially shortening the work day.

   Moderate Socialism

Ideas other than those of Marx were at this time also becoming influential. Such ideas included moderate socialist doctrines, for example, those of the FABIAN SOCIETY in England, founded by Sidney WEBB and including among its adherents the writers H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw; those of Ferdinand LASSALLE in Germany; and of Louis BLANC in France. These moderates sought to achieve socialism by parliamentary means and by appealing deliberately to the middle class. Fabianism had as one of its intellectual forebears the utilitarian individualism of Jeremy BENTHAM and John Stuart MILL, and it became a doctrine that sought to reconcile the values of liberty, democracy, economic progress, and social justice. The Fabians believed that the cause of socialism would also be aided by the advancement of the social sciences, especially economics and sociology. These doctrines, collectively known as social democracy, did not, like Marxism, look toward the complete abolition of private property and the disappearance of the state but instead envisaged socialism more as a form of society in which full democratic control would be exercised over wealth, and production would be controlled by a group of responsible experts working in the interests of the whole community. The achievement of socialism was seen by social democrats as a long-term goal, the result of an evolutionary process involving the growth of economic efficiency (advanced technology, large-scale organization, planning), education in moral responsibility, and the voluntary acceptance of equal shares in benefits and burdens; socialism would be the triumph of common sense, the inevitable outcome of LIBERALISM, the extension of democracy from politics to industry.

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM spread from its beginnings in England to France and Germany. Charles KINGSLEY, John Malcolm Forbes Ludlow (1821-1911), and Frederick Denison MAURICE were among its founders. They in the main supported moderate social democracy, emphasizing what they understood as the central message of the church in social ethics, notably the values of cooperation, brotherhood, simplicity of tastes, and the spirit of self-sacrifice. Their ideas proved fertile in both the short and the long runs, although in actual political terms Christian socialism never succeeded in altering the predominantly secular orientation of most socialist movements.

   Radical Socialism

On the other hand, many doctrines and movements were decidedly more militant than Marxism. Anarchists (see ANARCHISM), influenced mainly by the ideas of the Frenchman Pierre Joseph PROUDHON and later of the Russian emigres Mikhail Aleksandrovich BAKUNIN and Pyotr Alekseyevich KROPOTKIN, were intent on immediately overthrowing the capitalist state and replacing it with small independent communities. Unlike the Marxists, whom they bitterly criticized, anarchists were against the formation of socialist parties, and they repudiated parliamentary politics as well as the idea of revolutionary dictatorship. Their followers, never very numerous, were and are found mainly in the Latin countries of Europe and America. SYNDICALISM, an offshoot of anarchism, was a movement of militant working-class trade unionists who endeavored to achieve socialism through industrial action only, notably by using the weapon of the general strike. Their doctrine was similar to Marxism in that they also believed that socialism was to be achieved only by and for the working class, but unlike the Marxists they rejected the notion of a future centralized socialist state. Their most eminent theorist was Georges SOREL. Syndicalist ideas also had intermittent success in the British and American trade union movements, for example, the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD, an American-based syndicalist union active around the turn of the century. Guild socialism in England, dominated by George Douglas Howard Cole (1889-1959), the academic economist and historian, represented a modified and milder form of syndicalism.

In Russia, where it was impossible to organize openly a popular socialist movement under the tsarist regime, socialism became mainly the ideology of young militant intellectuals whose favored means of furthering the cause were secret conspiracies and acts of individual terrorism. Debate raged between those who believed in the native socialist ethos of the Russian village community and those who wanted to adopt Western ideas of modernization. The latter party, which eventually emerged victorious, soon came under Marxist influence. Among its adherents was V. I. LENIN, who emerged as the leader of a small but dedicated group of "professional revolutionaries," the Bolshevik (see BOLSHEVIKS AND MENSHEVIKS) wing of the illegal Russian Social Democratic Workers' party. Lenin was also the theorist who irrevocably gave a markedly elitist and authoritarian twist to Marxism: he worked out the theory of the proletarian vanguard--that is, the Communist party--which was destined to lead the masses toward socialism, irrespective of the masses' inclinations.

SCHISM AND CONTROVERSY

Throughout the 19th century the socialist movement was beset by a number of ever-deepening conflicts and doctrinal controversies.

   The Internationals

The International Workingmen's Association (First International; see INTERNATIONAL, SOCIALIST), founded in 1864, was expected to achieve unity among various socialist and militant trade union organizations, but its efforts were greatly hindered by, among other things, the conflict between the followers of Bakunin and those of Marx. It came to an end soon after the suppression of the COMMUNE OF PARIS (1871).

The Second International (1889-1914) assumed for a time at least an outward appearance of unity, in that it represented the high watermark of classical Marxist influence in West European socialism. It was dominated by the largest socialist parties then in existence, the French--led by Jean JAURES, Jules Guesde (1845-1922), and Paul Lafargue (1842-1911)--and the German--led by August BEBEL, Karl Johann KAUTSKY, and Wilhelm Liebknecht (see LIEBKNECHT family)--who agreed at least in their broad understanding of the aims and methods of socialism. Their spokesmen emphasized the need to foster international solidarity among the mass of the working class and thus to avert the threat of a major war in Europe. This effort proved singularly unsuccessful: NATIONALISM in 1914 and later proved a much stronger mass emotion than socialism. Apart from a few exceptions, such as Lenin and his Bolshevik group, socialist movements supported the war effort of their respective governments. As a result of the general conflagration in 1914 the Second International disintegrated and therewith also the hopes of socialist unity.

   Revisionism

Another important controversy broke out in the 1890s within Marxism, involving the German Social Democratic party. This party was divided then between a militant revolutionary left wing, an orthodox center that held to the classical Marxist doctrine of economic determinism, and a right wing moving rapidly toward a position of open reformism. The right wing had as its most renowned spokesman Eduard BERNSTEIN, a personal friend of Marx and Engels, who was, however, also influenced by English Fabian ideas.

Bernstein repudiated the notion of violent revolution and argued that conditions in civilized countries such as Germany made possible a peaceful, gradual transformation to socialism. He sought to reinterpret Marxist doctrine in the light of fresh advances made in economic science, such as those also embraced in Fabian doctrine, and argued that socialism was compatible with individual economic responsibility. He rejected, furthermore, the idea of "class morality," which judged all actions according to their revolutionary import. Instead he advocated a code of individual morality, derived from Kant's moral philosophy. Consequently, Bernstein asserted the need for socialists to concentrate on immediate tasks instead of ultimate and remote objectives; the movement, he wrote, was everything; the goal, nothing.

This doctrine, henceforward called revisionism, immediately became the subject of bitter attacks by the revolutionary left wing, represented above all by Rosa LUXEMBURG, which on this issue was supported by the orthodox center and its principal theorist, Karl Kautsky. The terms of the debate on revisionism centered on the facts, noted by Bernstein, of considerable improvement in the living standards of the working class, its resultant political integration in the constitutional (republican or monarchical) state, the purely reformist stance of trade unions, and the virtual absence of any desire for a radical change on the part of the great majority of workers.

The opponents of revisionism, while acknowledging these tendencies, argued that material improvements were insufficient and ephemeral. They felt that if the working class and its organizations accepted the constitutional state they were merely postponing indefinitely the change to socialism. According to them, the principal tasks of the socialist leader are to arouse dissatisfaction with existing conditions and to reemphasize constantly the worth of the ultimate goal. The arguments on both sides continue with only slight changes in the debate between reformist and revolutionary socialists everywhere. In Marxist jargon the term revisionism became synonymous with treason. Ironically--but in a way that pointed toward the subsequent fate of Marxist doctrine--the orthodox center in the German party was soon to be denounced by left-wingers as revisionist. Lenin, too, came to condemn sharply the German social democrats and the "renegade" Kautsky. The latter, in turn, vehemently denounced Lenin and the Bolsheviks for their adoption of terrorist methods in the consolidation of their revolutionary gains in Russia. Marxist unity, like the Second International, thus also fell victim to World War I and its aftermath: from then on Marxists have tended to be either Marxist-Leninists--that is, communists embracing the elitist doctrine of the vanguard party--or moderate revisionists moving ever closer to reformist social democracy.

MODERN MARXIST SOCIALISM

Modern socialism owes its shape and fortune at least as much to secular events as to the continuing attraction of its various doctrines. The major upheavals caused by two world wars greatly contributed to the success of the Russian (1917) and Chinese (1949) revolutions, and the governments of these two powerful countries thereafter endeavored by diverse means to spread the Marxist revolutionary doctrine further afield, resorting to military methods (as in Eastern Europe), economic pressures, and military and economic aid, as well as subversion and propaganda. Indigenous Marxist movements also succeeded in gaining and maintaining power in Cuba (1959) and Nicaragua (1979). During most of the 20th century, Marxist socialism meant the dictatorial rule of the Communist party, intensive industrialization, central state direction of the economy, and the collectivization of agriculture. These were accompanied, particularly during the dictatorship of Joseph STALIN in the USSR, by a reign of terror and the general absence of individual freedom. The Stalinist system, though shorn of some of its worst brutalities, essentially remained in place until the rise to power of Mikhail GORBACHEV in 1985. In a few short years, Gorbachev's policies of GLASNOST (openness) and PERESTROIKA (restructuring) created irresistible demands for liberalization in both the USSR and Eastern Europe. As the Soviet regime loosened its grip, the countries of Eastern Europe threw off the Communist governments that had been imposed on them after World War II. In the USSR itself long-cherished doctrines of Leninism were jettisoned with bewildering speed, and, following an abortive coup by party hard-liners in 1991, the Soviet regime collapsed.

EUROPEAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

In Western Europe, despite the presence of large Marxist parties (as in Italy and France) and the Marxist influence among intellectuals, socialism was, and still is, principally represented by widely based social democratic and labor movements, which generally enjoy the active support of trade unions. This predominance of reformist trends over revolutionary aspirations undoubtedly was occasioned by economic stability and the deterrent example of Marxist rule in the East. The social democratic parties of Sweden, Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany (the former West Germany and present reunified state), in particular, governed their respective countries for lengthy periods during the postwar era through constitutional means, fully accepting the principles of parliamentary liberal democracy. The spirit of these Western European parties has tended to be pragmatic and tolerant, seeking accommodation rather than confrontation. Their programs repudiate the doctrines of the class war, revolution, and communism. Instead, they have relied on the expedients of progressive taxation, deficit financing, selective nationalization, the mixed economy, and vast welfare programs in order to bring about socialism; their political success has depended on considerable middle-class support. Although most of these parties have recently accommodated themselves to free-market reforms, they remain committed to the social democratic vision of a "middle way" between the extremes of communism and unfettered capitalism.

Social democratic foreign policy has generally been pacific and until recently was mainly concerned with defusing the cold war and accelerating the processes of decolonization and the banning of nuclear weapons. In domestic politics, European social democrats generally refused to cooperate with communist parties and other extremist socialist groups. The Social Democratic party (SPD) in Germany, although at one time the citadel of orthodox Marxism, has since 1959 been a purely reformist party, abandoning its original goals. The British LABOUR PARTY, socialist in its aims (its constitution since 1919 has had reference to "public ownership"), has never had any serious doctrinal or organizational links with Marxism, although its powerful left wing consistently advocates radical policies. A dispute with the leftists prompted a group of Labour moderates to secede (1981) and found the Social Democratic party, which later merged (1988) with the Liberal party to form the Social and Liberal Democrats (later, Liberal Democrats). The French Socialist party, which had long since abandoned its orthodox Marxism, allied itself with the Communists during the 1960s, but under the leadership of Francois MITTERRAND, it won the presidency on its own and gained a majority in the National Assembly in 1981. In the same year, the Greek Socialists came to power under Andreas PAPANDREOU, and in 1982, Felipe GONZALEZ MARQUEZ formed Spain's first Socialist government since the Spanish Civil War. Bettino CRAXI became Italy's first Socialist premier, heading a coalition government from 1983 to 1987. Although Scandinavia's social democrats suffered electoral defeats in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the political parties of Europe's moderate left retained broad popular support.

The French Communist party was long known for its subservience to the USSR and its rigid Stalinism. The Italian Communist party, on the other hand, relied on an indigenous Marxist tradition associated mainly with the teaching of Antonio GRAMSCI, one of the party's founders, who is widely regarded as one of the most significant of European Marxist thinkers. The Italian party, at one time the largest in Western Europe, frequently obtained the highest percentage of the popular vote in Italy's parliamentary elections and continuously governed a number of Italian municipalities (Bologna is a prime example).

During the 1970s the Italian Communists under Enrico BERLINGUER, the French Communists under Georges Marchais, and the Spanish Communists under Santiago Carillo embraced a doctrine known as Eurocommunism. The Eurocommunists, breaking not only with Stalinism but with some aspects of the Leninist tradition, began moving toward full acceptance of parliamentary democracy and the multiparty system, in many ways prefiguring the glasnost-perestroika reforms that dramatically changed the Communist world in the Gorbachev era. To the left of the Communists were a number of new groups of militant revolutionaries, such as West Germany's Red Army (Baader-Meinhof) Faction and Italy's Red Brigades, which carried out campaigns of abduction, subversion, and terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s.

SOCIALISM IN THE UNITED STATES

In North America, Marxist influence never spread very far. In the United States no socialist movement ever held a very large following, and although the country has produced renowned socialist authors and popular leaders, they have not been distinguished for their originality or for their impact on the worldwide development of socialism. Socialism has not taken a firmer root in the United States for several reasons, of which the country's cultural traditions and its wealth in natural resources are the most important. Whereas in Europe the distribution of wealth was a pressing problem, facilitating the rise of socialist movements, in the United States the moving "frontier" meant the constant creation of new land and wealth and its accessibility for those endowed with initiative and a spirit of individual enterprise. Thus in the United States even radical thinkers tended to be "individualists" and "anarchists," rather than socialists. In this development the country's tradition of republican self-government and its ethos of egalitarianism and democracy also played a decisive role: unlike Europe, the United States had no entrenched aristocratic privileges or monarchical absolutism and consequently no need for democratic aspirations to be combined with the socialist demand for economic equality and security. LABOR UNIONS also, for the most part, concentrated on the achievement of higher earnings and were not greatly interested in economic and social organization.

Numerous, although small, utopian socialist communities did flourish, however, in the United States, mostly during the early 19th century. Also, a celebrated economist, Henry GEORGE, and writers of repute, such as Edward BELLAMY, advocated socialism, and socialist political leaders, such as Victor L. BERGER, Eugene V. DEBS, Daniel DE LEON, and Norman THOMAS, had at one time considerable popular appeal. The U.S. SOCIALIST PARTY, founded in 1901, reached its greatest strength in the 1912 and 1920 presidential elections, when its candidate, Debs, received more than 900,000 votes. In 1932, Norman Thomas, running on the Socialist ticket, polled more than 800,000 votes. Thereafter the party's strength ebbed. The New Deal in the 1930s, although not socialist in inspiration, also tended to draw votes away from the party. The New Deal's policies of economic redistribution seemed to meet demands of those who previously supported the Socialists.

In the economic boom following World War II and especially in the cold-war era of the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. socialism was at a low ebb. Later, however, socialist ideas made considerable, although indirect, impacts on various radical (see RADICALISM) and liberal movements. In the United States many people no longer discuss socialism in its conventional political and economic sense, but rather as a remote ethical and social ideal.

SOCIALISM IN THE THIRD WORLD

Socialism has assumed a number of distinct forms in the Third World. But only in Israel has moderate social democracy proved successful for long periods, mainly as a result of the European socialist tradition brought in by immigrants. There the Labor party in various forms has had a large following and has governed the country longer than any other party. Israel has other socialist parties as well, including a militant Marxist party. At least of equal significance, however, are the cooperative agricultural communes (kibbutzim), which have flourished since 1948. Commentators have argued that kibbutzim more than anything else show the viability of socialist principles in practice; however, the peculiarities of Israeli conditions (for example, religious tradition and constant war readiness necessitated by the hostility of Israel's Arab neighbors) could not easily be duplicated.

Elsewhere in the Third World, Marxism and various indigenous traditions have been predominant in socialist movements. In developing countries socialism as an ideology generally has been fused with various doctrines of nationalism, also a European cultural import but enriched by diverse motifs drawn from local traditions and cast in the idiom of indigenous cultures. In India, for example, the largest socialist movement has partially adapted the pacifist teaching of Mahatma Gandhi, and distinct native brands of socialism exist in Japan, Burma (Myanmar), and Indonesia. Similarly, in black Africa native traditions were used in the adaptation of socialist, mainly Marxist, doctrines and political systems based on them. Noteworthy instances were the socialist system of Tanzania (decentralized under an internationally supported economic reform program of the early 1990s) and the socialist theories of intellectual leaders such as Kwame NKRUMAH of Ghana, Julius K. NYERERE of Tanzania, Leopold Sedar SENGHOR of Senegal, and Sekou TOURE of Guinea. Socialism in these theories is usually understood as a combination of Marxism, anticolonialism, and the updated tradition of communal landownership and tribal customs of decision making. Most of sub-Saharan Africa's socialist countries adopted free-market reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Arab socialism likewise represents an effort to combine modern European socialist ideology with some Islamic principles. The BAATH PARTY in Iraq and Syria and the Destour party in Tunisia have held power for considerable periods; Algeria also has had a socialist system since its independence. In the Third World, however, socialism has often been simply an ideology of anticolonialism and modernization. Overtly Marxist movements, aided by the USSR, China, or Cuba, nevertheless seized power in such African countries as Angola, Ethiopia, and Mozambique. South Africa's AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (ANC) was also strongly influenced by Marxist ideas.

THE NEW LEFT

In the West in the 1960s a radical socialist movement, known as the New Left, arose principally out of the disaffection of young people with the way of life of advanced industrial society, and not least with its prosperity and conformism. The movement, which was apolitical in nature, sought to expose the growing "alienation" of the individual in advanced industrial conditions, castigating the values of the "consumer society" and attacking many prevailing social institutions. The beliefs of this movement, particularly strong in France, West Germany, and the United States, sprang from many diverse sources. Most important among these were the ideas found in Marx's early writings; the idea of "alienation," as interpreted by such contemporary socialist philosophers as Gyorgy LUKACS and Herbert MARCUSE; EXISTENTIALISM; romantic and utopian ideas adapted from earlier socialist writers (for example, Fourier); sexual radicalism derived from the teaching of Sigmund Freud; and some aspects of Eastern religious traditions, such as ZEN BUDDHISM. Despite its initial appeal and successes, however, the New Left did not prove to be a significant or lasting influence on socialism in its worldwide context or even within advanced industrial societies where conventional varieties still dominated.

It could well be argued that socialism as an alternative system of society and government failed to live up to its promises; by and large it is today no more than a dream or at best a set of ideal criteria whereby to judge the shortcomings of existing institutions. Socialist ideology, however, remains a popular and 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Stike Out Three Strikes.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

	Last year in California voters approved a controversial ballot initiative.  
Proposition 184, also known as the three strikes and you're out law, was passed on 
November 9, 1994.  Under this new legislation repeat offenders, upon committing their 
third felony offense, will be sentenced to a mandatory twenty-five years to life in 
prison(California 667).  The initiative passed by a landslide, with 76% of the voters in 
favor of it.  The State Senate soon after voted the bill into law, with only seven members 
voting against it.  The three strikes initiative stemmed from the killing of Polly Klass by 
Richard Allen Davis, a convicted felon.  The killing outraged the entire state but what 
enraged people even more was that Davis had been in and out of prison his whole life and 
was still free to kill again.  Soon people began calling for laws that would put repeat 
violent offenders behind bars for life.  The premise of the new laws became an easy issue 
for politicians to back.  To oppose such legislation seemed to be political suicide, so most 
politicians backed the initiative. Although many civil liberties groups opposed such 
mandatory sentencing measures there was little they could in the face of tremendous voter 
approval.  Many voters did not realize that this bill could put potentially incarcerate people 
for ludicrous amounts after the commission of a minor offense.  Even more voters did not 
realize the cost of implementing such a bill.  Now that this new legislation has been in 
effect for a year and  the tremendous negative effects it have become obvious we must 
repeal it.
	One of the issues that must be considered when imposing mandatory sentencing is 
the increased cost of incarceration.  In the state of California it costs $20,000 per year to 
incarcerate an inmate under normal circumstances(Cost 1).  This amount of money could 
put one person through a state college for two or three years.  According to Beth Carter 
the three strikes law has placed 1,300 people in prison for a third strike offense and 14,000 
people in prison on a second strike offense(1).  The current recidivism rate in California is 
70%(2), which means that out of those 14,000 people that almost 10,000 will be back in 
prison for a third strike.  To imprison those 1,300 third strike offenders for the mandatory 
minimum of twenty-five years will cost the state of California  $812,500,000.  To support 
these inmates for longer periods of time we will have to increase the amount of money 
going to our prison system.  This means that either spending in other areas will be cut or 
an increase of taxes.  Neither of which is highly favored by voters. On a national level the 
Justice Departments budget has increased an alarming 162% since 1987(Cost 2).  The 
money that is being spent incarcerating these people can be more well spent in other areas.  
The money can be spent on crime prevention and rehabilitation, rather than retribution.  
Before the three strikes law was enacted it had been estimated that to keep up with the 
growing prison population on a national level that it was necessary to spend $100,000,000 
per week on our prison system(Ogutu).  Now that we will be having more and more 
criminals behind bars we shall have to spend even more money building and keeping up 
our overcrowded prisons.   Of these people that taxpayers are paying to imprison Mauer 
suggests that as many as 80% will be non-violent offenders.  So far 80% of the second and 
third strike offenses have been for non-violent crimes, most of these being drug 
offenses(23).  There have only been only 53 people with second and third strike 
convictions for rape, murder, and kidnapping(Carter 1).  This law's lack of effectiveness 
clearly does not warrant its huge price.
	The other aspect to consider in the implementation of the three strikes legislation is 
its effect on non-violent offenders.  These are the people hardest hit by this law.  It is 
difficult see how society can justify sending a drug addict to prison for 25 years at a cost 
of $20,000 per year when the money could be used to fund drug rehabilitation centers and 
alternative programs for our youth.  Most drug users are not in need prison, they are in 
need of help for their addictions.  If a fraction of the money it would cost to imprison them 
is put toward drug rehabilitation programs it would save the state money, while at the 
same time helping the individual.  The three strikes legislation is directly aimed at violent 
crime, but its track record has shown that it has missed the mark by a long shot.  Some 
offenders have been convicted for a third strike on relatively small offenses.  For example, 
a man named Steven Gordon was convicted for his third strike after stealing a wallet that 
had $100 dollars in it.  His previous offenses had all been non-violent, yet he was 
convicted under our three strikes law(Franklin 26).  This is not an isolated incident either.  
Franklin cites numerous examples of cases where people were convicted under this 
legislation for non-violent offenses(26).  These types of cases just illustrate how the three 
strikes legislation is targeting non-violent offenders, as opposed to its goal of targeting 
violent criminals.
	After one year in effect it is easy to see what our three-strikes legislation has done.  
It has become easy to picture the long term effects of such broad legislation on our 
society.  Although this law was enacted by the will of the people, it has not carried out the 
will of the people.  People wanted a law that would put dangerous repeat offenders behind 
bars for life.  Instead we are now putting an increasingly large number of non-violent 
offenders behind bars for extended periods of time.  It would be easy to justify the cost of 
removing a violent menace from our society, but justifying the cost of imprisoning people 
who are of no threat to anyone but themselves is difficult.  We must look closely at what 
this legislation has done so far.  It has placed many more non-violent offenders in prison 
than violent offenders.  The legislation stands to cost the state millions of dollars per year 
to incarcerate people of longer prison terms.  Clearly the three-strikes law has not served 
its intended purpose it must be repealed.


Works Cited
California.  California Penal Code.
Carter, Beth.  "The Impact of `Three Strikes and You're Out' Laws: What Have We 
	Learned?"  Internet Article.  Http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/j11H1.html.
The Cost of Mandatory Minimums.   Pamphlet.  Families Against Mandatory Minimums, 
	1996.
Franklin, Daniel.  "The Right Three Strikes."  Washington Monthly September 1994: 25-
	30.
Mauer, Marc.  "Three Strikes Policy is Just a Quick-fix Solution."  Corrections Today
	July 1996: 23. 
Ogutu, Fenno.  Class lecture.  Sociology 120.  Diablo Valley College, Pleasant Hill, CA.
	13 Nov. 1996.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Synopsis of Politicking Goes HighTech by Steven Roberts.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Teen working.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


Fifteen years old and working seems to be becoming a norm and in fact there are many teenagers younger than fifteen who are already working at paying jobs.  Some of these students are as young as 12 years old.
More than half of the secondary school students  have paying jobs.  This number grows each grade level the student goes up.  The number of hours also rises along with the grade level.  The kind of job varies depending on the sex of the child.  Boys tend to deliver newspapers and girls tend to babysit.  As the teens grow older the job interest change with teenage girls turning to restaurants and retail outlets, while the boys will  work in the family business , restaurants and other food related businesses.   The hours that the kids have to chose from are usually form 6a.m. to 8a.m delivering newspapers and 8p.m to 6a.m. for  babysitting. Most other jobs are scheduled 3pm till 10pm during the week while weekend jobs tend to have schedules of 7 to 8 hours per day.
The Higher Education Board says that working more than 15 hours a week is bad for the academic career .  As the work hours increase the study time decreases.  Current research finds that a work schedule of 10 hours or less seems to be the best and for most  teenagers a schedule of 10 hours does not effect their academic performance, in negative ways but in fact seems to help them do better in school shown by improved grades.    Those teens working 10 to 15 hours per week are in a toss up situation with some doing well while others struggle.  It is at the 15 hour level that things change and the work starts to effect the teens performance.  Although there seems to be no direct relationship between the hour spent working and the hours spent studying and how this effects the grades, there does seem to be a relationship between the number of hours worked and the absentee rate.  Those students working weekend jobs and spending most of the weekend time at say a fast food restaurant tend to miss more school.
    It has also been found that working more than 15 hours has not been proven to be a cause of dropping out of high school.  Failure at school is the biggest reason for dropping out and the effect of failure at school can be but is not always caused by a student working.  Most often the student who drops out does so for a variety of reasons the desire to earn money maybe part of the picture but there are many parts to that picture. 
A survey done by Nicole Champagne says that 85% of  secondary and high school students work for the purpose of buying consumer goods.  The primary  reason for working among 16 year olds is to by a car.  Among this 85% 40% of them work more than 15 hours a week. 
For 20% working has a completely different purpose and that is to help their families in a time of need.  This group is usually made up of juniors and seniors.
   Ms. champagne also found that 76.8% of the students that were working were doing so because they wanted the job market experience.  Of these students 69.7% said they would continue to work even if their parents gave them the money they were earning at their jobs.


As the  number of teens working continues to grow there are some concerns that this work environment is causing the teens to miss out on other more important activities including the full educational experience.
It is ironic that as more and more teens work that the school systems seem to make fewer and less demands of the students.  The school systems also seem to cut into the student activities and by doing so help the student to lose interest in what is going on at school.  This also gives 
the teen reason to look for other amusements, including work.


A typical day of the working teenager would start with a 5 :30 am wake up call, after having had five hours sleep.  In the next hour and a half this teen must prepare him or her self for school which  may include doing some homework that's due this very day.  After all the preparations are done and our typical working teen arrives at school  the struggles of staying awake begin.  As first period ends  the awaking of the working teenager begins.  As lunch begins the turning point of the working teenager day begins, because he or she both starts to realize the days work ahead.
While the realization of the work ahead sets in, the teenager starts to plan when to try and do home work and how much time is needed per assignment.  After the school day's end the typical working teenager has prepared to work for another 7 to 8 hour and possibly another hour or two doing home work, before jumping into bed for tonigths 5 hour ration of sleep.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The ACLU.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	
	 Where do you go if someone is threatening your personal rights? Do you
go to the police, or maybe to the government? What if the police and
government are the parties threatening  your rights? All you have to do is just
call the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). Sounds like a commercial
doesn't it.  The ACLU blankets the United States with its legal protection. It is
involved in so many aspects of  the fight  for civil liberties that it is difficult to
cover it all. To fully understand what the ACLU has done for the United States
would take much longer than I have. Therefore, I have picked a couple of
incidents that, to me, exemplify what the ACLU is, and how they have affected
our society.

	The ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, is an organization that began
the struggle to protect the civil liberties of the American people. The ACLU is
defined as being a US non-partisan organization offering legal aid and other
assistance in cases of violation of civil liberties.(Websters)  Civil liberties contain
a substantial body of law including: freedom of speech and press, separation of
church and state, free exercise of religion, due process of law, equal protection,
and privacy.(Walker 3) The Encyclopedia of the Constitution defines civil
liberties as "those rights that an individual citizens may assert against the
government." In a formal sense, the ACLU is a private voluntary organization
dedicated to defending the Bill of Rights. Officially established in 1920, the

ACLU now claims over 270,000 members. With offices in most of the states and
the District of Columbia the ACLU justifiably calls itself " the nation's largest law
firm."(Walker 4)

	The ACLU, despite its noble goal, has a terrible public image. The reason
for such hatred or support is the fact that civil liberty cases generally involve
moral and personal issues. These issues are those that incite feelings from all
corners of society. The rights the ACLU is generally protecting are those
segments of society that least agree with mainstream society. The ACLU has
promised to protect the rights of everyone. Those rights include the free speech
rights of such detested groups as the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, and Communist.  The
Skokie Case is an example of the classic freedom of speech case the ACLU
would undertake.  This case which hit the media April 28, 1977, concerned the
right of American Nazi Frank Collin to demonstrate in Skokie, IL. (Walker 323)
This case like many before and after defended the rights of a  person  espousing
one of the most  universally despised  ideology in the country.  While the ACLU
was just doing its job it almost had to shut down when many withdrew their
memberships and support.

	The ACLU became the taunt of the 1988 Presidential campaign. The race
between George Bush  and Michael Dukakis brought the ACLU to the forefront
of media attention.  The ACLU became the stumbling block of the Dukakis'
presidential bid. The Bush campaign asked for ammunition to help chip away at
Dukakis early lead. The staff came back with a quote, for a speech, calling
Dukakis a "card carrying member of the ACLU who opposed the death
penalty."(Dionne 311) He was pro-gun control, pro-abortion, and had as the
Bush campaign put it, "...vetoed the pledge of allegiance."  Dukakis, in short,
was a classic, unrepentant "sixties liberal."(Dionne 311)  This accusation gave
Dukakis a liberal reputation in a campaign that was middle of the road leaning
toward conservatism. In this case the truth hurt. "In the Bush formulation,
belonging to the ACLU meant never balancing an individual claim against a
social claim."(Dionne 314) Unfortunatly the opposites  sounds suspiciously like
anarchy. The flip side to this is the negative publicity unintentionally helped to
increase the membership and strength of the ACLU.  " In the end it added nearly
70,000 new members perhaps half as a direct result of the campaign...exceeding
even the peak [membership] of the Watergate years."(Walker 369)

	The ACLU is the watchdog of civil liberties. They protect us by defending
those we might hate. They have shaped politics, the legal system, and media. I
may not like the liberal policies of the ACLU and its members, but I have to
respect the principles and ideals it was founded on and still expound today.





Bibliography

"American Civil Liberties Union." Webster's New Lexicon Dictionary. 1989

Walker, Samuel. In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU. New 	
	York: Oxford UP, 1990.

Norman Dorsem, "Civil Liberties." in Leonard Levy, ed., Encylopedia of the 	
	Constitution (New York:Macmillan, 1986), pp. 263-270

Dionne, E.J. Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Adults Are Always Right .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
THE ADULTS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT?

	"Clean your room! Don't do that! Stop watching that stupid television, don't you have a book to read? Didn't I tell you to clean your room, do you want to be a slob when you grow up? Go to school, don't you have school today? When I was a kid . . ."

	Welcome to the lives of almost every teenager in North America. To most parents, when the above words are spoken, they expect to see their teen  rush at the opportunity to serve them. The above words mean something to them and they think it means something to us teens. They don't understand that the words go in through one ear and out through the other. Does a German understand the words of an Italian? No!  Does a Chinese man understand the words of a Greek man? No! The reason, they are two completely different languages. Now although parents and their kids speak the same language, parents don't understand that we tune out of English when we want. If we know something is going to be asked of us and we don't want to do it, we turn our brains into "Nag Mode." To define Nag Mode, is simple. Every syllable that comes out of the mouth of an adult is heard as 'nag.' For example:
Adults say: "clean your room! ."
Kids hear: "nag nag nag!"
Adults say: "Stop watching television."
Kids hear: "nag nag nag nag nag nag nag."
	They think of us as being lazy, and irresponsible, selfish and useless. Some adults quiver when they hear how we will one day run this world. What makes us lazy, the fact that we watch an hour of television after a hard day at school, before eating dinner and doing our homework? Why are we irresponsible, because we don't have time to walk the dog due to us studying for our upcoming exam? We're selfish because we want peace and quite for when we study? And useless because we can't run any errands for them when we're taking that one hour out of our day to relax. They do, do a lot and I respect them and all, but give us some credit for a change. Is it our fault that almost every house has at least one television bigger than 22" and that basic cable comes with at least thirty channels? They keep telling us their stories about when they were kids, and it always has to do with something we can't help. 
"When I was a kid we had a 13" black and white television, and if you had BETA . . ."
"When I was a kid, our schools were 14 miles away and we had no shoes. We walked bare foot through mountains, and had to wrestle crocodiles . . ."
"When I was a kid, we never had music!"
	Like we really want to hear about their pet dinosaurs, and what they had and never had. It's fun to hear how adults can over-exaggerate and all but what can we do about technology? Is it our fault it exists? They don't understand how times have changed, and how kids are growing up in this, the modern world. They grow up with music, and sports, and fast cars. Adults criticize these kids. Just the other day I was at the mall and two Greek women were talking about how I looked and what kind of person I must be (in Greek of course,) not knowing I myself was Greek. I turned to them and translated 'never judge a book by its cover' in their language. The expressions on their faces would have made a great Kodak(c) moment, however I don't think my camera catches the particular shade of red that was expressed on their faces. They think it's easy to look the way we do, but we take pride in our 'grooming' ourselves. This goes to show how times have changed. Kids no longer wear uniforms to public school anymore. We have the freedom to wear what we want. However, is it our looks that make adults think we're irresponsible and lack values? There are the few that look odd, act odd, and . . . well . . . are odd, but do those few speak for the rest of us?
	All kids ask for, is to be treated like they deserve to be treated. How will putting them down and insulting them, make them feel better about themselves and their surroundings? There are many intelligent minds out there that have yet to be discovered. Teachers look at a lot of these kids and think of them as being punks and like to pick on them because they don't pay as much attention in class, as the rest of the students. They don't spend as much time with these kids because they think that they're going to grow up and be nobodies in life. What they look at as fooling around and not paying attention, is really lack of interest. Lack of interest because the class is too boring. To open up these minds classes have to have more life in them. I mean, who wants to be in a classroom for an hour and listen to a sustained, monotonous voice speak rather slowly as they take notes?  I mean no offense to those teachers, but put yourself in that position and contemplate how it may feel. This seems like laziness to learn. Laziness, leads to selfishness, which leads to dishonesty, which leads to lack of values. For example:
	Mark's mother tells him to clean his room. Mark is watching "Honeymooners" reruns at the time and is too lazy to clean it. Besides it's the one where Ralph takes the gang to his boss's house for dinner, one of his favourite episodes, so he says he cleaned it. Mark's mother finds out the truth because his little sister Sarah ratted him out. Mark's mother doesn't think her son is a really bad person, but she can find room for lots of improvement. 
	Mark's laziness to clean his room makes him selfish, in which he doesn't want to help his mother. He would rather watch television. In order to continue to watch television, Mark must lie to his mother which makes him dishonest. Mark's mother finds out that her son was lazy, selfish, and dishonest and begins to believe that he lacks values. 
	It is true that many kids are lazy for no apparent reason, and that they do have better things to do with their time. And instead of putting them down and saying, "Hey Paul, why don't ya get up and do something instead of watching that damn T.V. all the time." They can try to include kids in their activities, or reward them for what they have done. The better the job done, the larger the reward. This way kids are encouraged to do something around the house.
	The last point I would like to make is that kids want to be heard. A good example here is when it was time to go school shopping. Two weeks before school started my father told me to write a list of everything I needed and that upcoming weekend we would go and get everything. The weekend passed and I had not yet gone. I asked again the next day when he had returned from work and he told me, "you never said anything about going school shopping. You have to wait till next weekend now." Having my older brother and mother witnesses to both of these encounters, they told him how I already said I wanted to go school shopping. He changed the subject and continued another conversation. Now I'm sure I could have reminded him that weekend, rather than just writing a list and giving it to him, he's a busy man, but the fact that he couldn't even remember me telling him about it really got to me. And that is why I say kids want to be heard. I'm sure many things that kids say are senseless and better off unheard however there are those intelligent minds out there that can actually say something, worth saying. And it is those kids that should be listened to.
	To conclude I would like to say that kids shouldn't blame adults for looking at people and criticizing. I mean even kids criticize other kids and adults, however the feeling is different when you are called dumb by a classmate, and called dumb from your teacher. But to tell you the truth I don't think kids should really care about what others say when they criticize. I'm pretty sure people didn't tell  Bill Gates that he was the coolest guy on earth! Thank you!

Written by:                                           




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Balance of Power Theory.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 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.  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Brady bill and its passage.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Introduction
	The legislative process in the United States Congress shows us an interesting drama in
which a bill becomes a law through compromises made by diverse and sometimes conflicting
interests in this country.  There have been many controversial bills passed by Congress, but
among all, I have taken a particular interest in the passage of the Brady bill.  When the Brady
debate was in full swing in Congress about three years ago, I was still back in my country,
Japan, where the possession of guns is strictly restricted by laws.  While watching television
news reports on the Brady debate, I wondered what was making it so hard for this gun control 
bill to pass in this gun violence ridden country.  In this paper, I will trace the bill's seven year
history in Congress, which I hope will reveal how partisan politics played a crucial role in the
Brady bill's passage in this policy making branch.	
	The Brady bill took its name from Jim Brady, the former press secretary of President
Reagan, who was shot in the head and partially paralyzed in the assassination attempt on the
president in 1981.  This bill was about a waiting period on handgun purchases allowing police to
check the backgrounds of the prospective buyers to make sure that guns are not sold to
convicted felons or to those who are mentally unstable.  Even the proponents of the bill agreed
that the effect of the bill on curbing the gun violence might be minimal considering the fact that the
majority of guns used for criminal purposes were purchased through illegal dealers.  However,
the Brady Bill represented the first major gun control legislation passed by Congress for more
than 20 years, and it meant a significant victory for gun control advocates in their way toward
even stricter gun control legislation in the future.

Gun Rights vs. Gun Control
	The Brady bill, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, was first introduced by
Edward F. Feighan (D-OH) in the House of the100th Congress as HR975 on February 4,
1987.  The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and the debate began.  Throughout the
debate on the Brady bill, there was always a clear partisan split; most of the Democrats, except
for those from the Southern states, supported the bill while most of the Republicans were in the
opposition.  For example, when the first introduced Brady bill lost to an amendment by Bill
McCollum (R-FL) for a study of an instant check system (228-182), most Republicans voted
for the McCollum amendment (127 for and 45 against) while the majority of the Democrats
voted against it (127 for and 137 against).  The exception was the Southern Democrats most of
whom joined the Republicans to vote for the amendment.  This party division was not so
surprising, however, considering the huge campaign contributions made by the chief gun lobby,
the National Rifle Association (NRA), directed mostly to the Republicans, and the exception of
the Southern Democrats could be explained by the gun right supportive nature of their
constituents.  In the 1992 election for example, this organization made $1.7 million contribution
to its sympathetic congressional candidates and spent another $870,000 in independent
expenditures for congressional races.1  The influence the NRA exercised on the legislation was
enormous since the final bill passed in 1993 was a compromise version reflecting some of the
NRA-sought provisions.  I could say that it was because of this persistent lobby that the Brady
bill took as long as 7 years to become a law. 
	On the other side, the advocates of the bill enjoyed a wide support from the public as
well as from the Handgun Control Inc., the chief gun control lobby led by Sarah Brady, the wife
of James Brady.  The consistent public support for the bill from the introduction through the
passage of the bill was manifested by many polls.  One of the polls conducted by NBC News
and Wall Street Journal on the enactment of the bill said that 74 percent of the 1,002
respondents agreed that "the law is good but more is needed."2  It is without question that this
public support played a significant role in the eventual passage of the bill. 
	
The Brady bill passed the House in the 102nd Congress
	After almost four years from its first introduction to the Congress, the Brady bill was
reintroduced to the House in the 102nd Congress as HR 7 on January 3, 1991, sponsored by
76 representatives including Feighan, William J Hughes (D-NJ), and Charles Schumer (D-NY). 
The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and the hearings began in the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime on March 21, 1991.  As written, this bill required a seven-day waiting
period on the handgun purchases.  Schumer, the chairman as well as the chief sponsor of the bill,
explained before the Subcommittee that the Brady bill "has a very simple purpose: to keep lethal
handguns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.3" Aside from the firm support
from the public, the bill also gained the backing from the former president Reagan who, in a
tribute to James Brady, said that it is "just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to
allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a
handgun."4  This Reagan's remark was significant since he had long been a  member of the
NRA.  
	On April 10, the Subcommittee approved to send the bill to the Judiciary Committee by
the vote of 9-4.  The votes were clearly divided along the party line with the sole exception of 
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI), one of the few GOP supporters of the bill, who joined the
Democrats to vote for it.  In the meantime, the lobbying by both sides had intensified.  The NRA
claimed that the bill went against the principle of the Constitution, pointing out the Second
Amendment which says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  They argued that it was
not the guns but the people who committed crimes, saying that tougher sentences for the
criminals would work better than the waiting period in reducing crimes.  On the other hand,
James Brady was lobbying intensely in his wheelchair supported by his-wife-led Handgun
Control Inc., which had an emotional appeal to other members of Congress. 
	In the Judiciary Committee, Harley O. Staggers Jr. (D-WV), pushed by the NRA,
proposed a substitute bill (HR 1412) which would require states to set up an instant check
system so that gun dealers could find out immediately on a telephone call whether the purchaser
had a criminal record without any wait.  The Staggers' alternative, however, reminded many of
the McCollum amendment that wrecked the Brady bill in 1988.  With the acknowledgment of
the Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh, that the practical use of such instant check system
would be years away,5 the Staggers' substitute was rejected by the Committee by the vote of
11-23.  The committee then proceeded to vote on the Brady bill (HR 7), approving it by the 23-
11 vote.  On May 8, the Staggers' amendment was rejected again (193-234) on the floor.  The
House went on to approve the seven-day waiting period Brady bill by the vote of 239-186,
placing it on the Senate calendar on June 3.

Debate in the Senate
	In the Senate, the proponents of the Brady bill, including the Majority Leader George J.
Mitchell (D-ME), were working hard to keep the Brady language part of the omnibus crime
legislation (S-1241) which had already been passed by the House-Senate conference
committee.  Ted Stevens (R-AK) proposed an amendment to replace the waiting period with an
instant-check system.  This amendment was very much similar to the Staggers' proposal made in
the House, ensuring that the potential buyers who were eligible for the purchase would not have
to wait to buy a gun.  Stevens and other GOP opponents argued that the waiting period would
not reduce the crime rate since it would not affect the majority of criminals who could purchase
guns illegally while affecting the law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment right to purchase a gun
for sports and hunting purposes.  In response to this argument, Mitchell and his other pro-Brady
Democrats maintained that developing a software for a national instant background check
system would take years, and even if it was available, instant checks would not work as a
deterrent to hot-blooded crimes by those without criminal records.  Mitchell called the Stevens'
plan "a transparent effort to eliminate the waiting period,"6 saying that it was just a pretense to
the public to endorse gun control while actually blocking it.  
	On June 28, the Senate rejected the Stevens' amendment by the vote of 44-54 with all
but nine Democrats, all from Southern or rural states, voting against it.  The 54 votes, however,
were not enough for the Brady advocates since they would need 6 more votes to stop a possible
GOP filibuster.  On the other hand, filibustering was not the best solution for the GOP
opponents neither, since in doing so, they would have to sacrifice the crime bill they wanted.  
	Resulting from this situation was a compromise by Mitchell, Metzenbaum, and the GOP
leader Bob Dole (R-KS).  In this compromise, the length of the waiting period was changed
from seven days to five business days, and a new provision was added which would end the
waiting period in two and a half years upon the Attorney General's confirmation that the instant
check system met certain standards.  Nevertheless, it was the six votes that determined the fate
of the Brady bill in the 102nd Congress.  The Senate failed to take final action before the end of
the 1991 congressional session, and even with the passage in the House, the Brady bill still had
to wait two more years for its final passage.


In the 103rd Congress (House)
	In 1993, the year in which the Brady bill got enacted, there was a growing national tide
favoring stricter gun control.  The Brady proponents were upbeat with an expectation that the
long-debated bill would finally pass that year.  The surge in the public support was promising; a
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted during March 12 through 14 showed that 88 percent
of their 1,007 respondents favored the bill.7  The gun control advocates also had two significant
victories in two States; in Virginia, a legislation was passed restricting handgun purchases to one
gun purchase per month, and in New Jersey, the NRA and other gun rights advocates lost in
their effort to repeal the state's ban on selling assault rifles.  Furthermore, the 103rd Congress
had a pro-Brady president.  In contrast to Bush, a longtime NRA member, President Clinton
openly expressed his support for the bill; in his speech to Congress on February 17, he said: "If
you pass the Brady bill, I'll sure sign it."  Facing this nationwide pro-Brady tide, Even the NRA
showed a slight change in its language; James Jay Baker, the top NRA lobbyist, said that his
organization might be able to approve certain version of the bill.8  
	In this favorable atmosphere, the Brady bill was introduced in the103rd Congress in the
House as HR 1025 on February 22, 1993 by Schumer and 98 other cosponsors, referred to the
Judiciary Committee.  The chairman of the Committee, Jack Brooks (D-TX) agreed to keep the
bill separate from his other overall crime legislation (HR 3131), encouraging the Brady
supporters with a hope to pass the bill before the scheduled Thanksgiving adjournment.  By the
direction of the Rules Committee, the House voted on the House Resolution 302, a rule
providing for the floor consideration of the Brady bill, approving it by the vote of 238-182. As
written, the bill provided for a five-day waiting period upon handgun purchases as well as the
establishment of a national instant criminal background check system.  The bill also had a
provision requiring that the waiting period phase out upon the Attorney General's approval of the
viability of the nationwide instant check.  The bill by then already represented a compromise
between the Brady waiting period and the NRA instant check. 
	On the floor, the GOP opponents proposed a series of amendments.  George W. Gekas
(R-PA) offered an amendment ending the waiting period after five years from its enforcement
regardless of the viability of the replacing instant check system.  Schumer argued that the Gekas'
so-called sunset provision was an unrealistic deadline, pointing out the varying criminal record
keeping of each States.  However, Gekas and other proponents of the amendment insisted that
the sunset provision was necessary in order to pressure the Justice Department to establish the
computer check system promptly.  The Gekas' amendment prevailed on a 236-98 vote.
	McCollum proposed an amendment which would revoke the existing State waiting
periods on the installment of the national instant check system.  Some States had already
adopted waiting periods, and the Brady bill would not affect those states having a waiting period
of more than five days.  McCollum claimed that his proposal would make the bill much fairer
and more balanced, and assured that it would not affect other State gun laws such as Virginia's
one gun purchase per month legislation.  However, meeting with strong opposition from
Schumer and others, this amendment preempting State laws was rejected 175-257.  There was
another amendment proposed by Jim Ramstad (R-MN) requiring the police to provide within 20
days a reason for any denial of a handgun purchase.  This amendment was accepted by
Schumer, and was adopted easily by the vote of 431-2.
	The House proceeded to voted on the Brady bill on Nov. 10.  Just before the vote, the
chief sponsor Schumer encouraged other Representatives on the floor to vote for the bill, saying:
"today's votes gives the House of Representatives a real chance to stem the violence on our
streets and calm the fear of our citizens."  The bill was passed by the House.  It was the second
time for the House to pass the Brady bill, and this time, the vote was 238-189.	

Passage in the Senate
	In the Senate, the Brady bill was introduced as S 414 by Metzenbaum on February 24,
1993, referred to the Judiciary Committee and placed on the calendar on March 3.  The bill was
almost identical to the Dole-Metzenbaum-Mitchell compromise approved by the Senate in June
1991, requiring a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases which was to be removed once
an instant check system became operational.  After a long negotiation, the Senate agreed to take
up the bill separately from the overall crime bill,9 which paved the way for the floor consideration
of the bill on November 19.  
	However, the threat of the unsatisfied GOP opponents to block the bill led to an
agreement between the Majority Leader Mitchell and the Minority Leader Dole.  Under this
agreement, the two leaders was to offer a substitute, and the Senate would then vote on the
House-passed version of the Brady bill (HR 1025) with the text of the substitute inserted in lieu
thereof.  The Mitchell-Dole substitute included two new provisions: the sunset provision and the
preemption provision, both of which had been sought by the NRA.  The sunset provision was
identical to the Gekas amendment passed by the House which would end the waiting period five
years, and the preemption provision was the same as the McCollum amendment rejected by the
House.    	
	At the beginning of the debate on November 19, Mitchell made it clear that he had
agreed to cosponsor this bipartisan compromise as a procedural means to move the long-
debated Brady bill through the Senate.  The Majority Leader then declared that he would now
move on to eliminate those two provisions with which he totally disagreed.  The Mitchell-Dole
agreement provided, however, that if either or both of those provisions were to be stricken, the
Republican opponents would then block the bill, which meant that the Brady proponents would
need at least 60 votes to stop the GOP filibuster to pass the bill and send it to the House. 
Mitchell and his other Democratic proponents succeeded to pass an amendment striking the
preemption language of the Mitchell-Dole substitute on a vote of 54-45.  The other amendment
proposed by Metzenbaum to strike the sunset provision, however, was defeated 43 -56.  The
Senate then moved on to the consideration of the Mitchell-Dole substitute with one provision
thus amended.  
	Throughout the debate, the proponents spoke fervently in support of the bill.  Edward
M. Kennedy (D-MA) argued that it was time to take action against the epidemic of gun violence
in the country, showing shocking statistics which demonstrated the increasing number of gun-
related crimes and deaths.  He claimed that the waiting period would not only curb the spread of
guns by keeping the lethal weapons out of the hands of convicted felons, but it would also
reduce the crimes committed in the heat of the moment by providing a cooling off period.
Senators whose States had already adopted waiting periods demonstrated with data that the
waiting period had already been proven to work in stopping a significant number of handgun
purchases by convicted felons.  Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) showed that her State's 15-day
waiting period stopped 8,060 convicted felons, 1859 drug users, 827 people with mental
illnesses as well as 720 minors from purchasing a gun during January 1991 and September
1993.  The freshman Senator from California maintained that even though her State's crime rate
was "unacceptably" high, it could have been much worse without the legislation.
	Dole and other GOP opponents, however, insisted that they would continue their efforts
to thwart the passage of the bill unless the preemption language was included.  Mitchell promptly
rejected the GOP demand, criticizing the double principles of those who, having once insisted
that they could not support the Brady bill because it was the Federal Government telling the
States what to do, turned around and said that they now liked the preemption.  Metzenbaum
joined in the argument against the GOP opponents, saying they were blocking the bill "because
they were scared to death of the National Rifle Association," and calling their demand  for the
preemption provision "an effort to kill the bill."  Both sides did not yield, and with two cloture
motions having failed to quash the Republican-led filibuster, one in the afternoon (57-42) and the
other at 11 o'clock at night (57-41), the Brady bill was thought by many dead again in the
Senate.
	It was the dissatisfaction of a handful of Republicans with the outcome and their dread of
being blamed for killing this popular legislation that saved the life of the Brady bill.  The following
day, the discontent of those Republicans who decided to cast a straight vote sent Dole to the
negotiating table again, where he was forced to settle down with a new compromise which
carried no preemption language.  It was actually identical to the one that he and other GOP
opponents had filibustered the day before except for the change in the sunsetting period; the
compromise bill would end the waiting period four years after its enforcement, instead of five
years, with a possible extension for another year upon the Attorney General's request.  	
	Consequently, by unanimous consent, the Senate agreed to vote on the House-passed
version of the Brady bill (HR 1025) with the text of the compromise inserted in lieu thereof, and
also to request a conference with the House to reconcile the differing versions of the Brady bill. 
The Brady bill (HR 1025) as amended was passed easily on a vote of 64 to 36, and sent back
to the House with a request for a conference.
Toward the passage 
	On November 22, the House agreed to the request of the Senate for a conference upon
the adoption of House Resolution 322 by the vote of 238-187.  The conferees were appointed
by the Chairs of each chambers: Brooks, Hughes, Schumer, Sensenbrenner, and Gekas from
the House and Joseph R. Biden. Jr. (D-DE), Kennedy, Metzenbaum, Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT),
and Larry E. Craig (R-ID) from the Senate.  Later, Senate Republicans replaced Hatch and
Craig with Stevens and Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID).  The outcome was a conference report which
preserved the House 5-year sunset of the waiting period with no provisions for the Attorney
General to replace it with the instant check system before then.  Several Senate-passed
provisions had also been dropped: the provision expanding the definition of antique firearms
exempt from gun restrictions to include thousands of functioning World War era rifles, and the
one allowing gun sales between dealers from different states. A new provision was added in the
report which would require that the police be notified of multiple purchases. 
	Soon after the conference, the chief Senate negotiator Biden explained how they got to
the conference report.  According to his statement, at the beginning of the conference, Stevens,
a member of the NRA board of directors, announced that the only acceptable outcome for the
Senate Republican conferees, Kempthone and himself, would be the Senate-passed version of
the Brady bill unchanged.  The Senate bill had a provision ending the waiting period as early as
two years after the enforcement if the instant background check met certain standards.  All of
the House conferees including the House Republican conferees rejected that demand, which led
to the adoption of the conference report accepted by all the House conferees, Republicans and
Democrats alike, and the Senate Democratic conferees. Thus, the conference report was made
with Stevens and Kempthorne casting dissenting votes. 
	The House approved the conference report (H. Rept. 103-412) easily on a vote of
238-187.  In the Senate, however, after the explanation on the conference report, Dole and
other Republican opponents fired at Biden with accusations that he and other Democratic
Senate conferees completely ignored the wishes of the Senate in the conference.  Dole said, "I
don't think that under these conditions, cloture will be invoked this year or next year."10  
	Throughout the day November 23, the hostile atmosphere occupied the Senate floor as
the debate continued.  Majority Leader Mitchell declared that he was determined to force the
issue to another vote during the year even though it would mean the post-Thanksgiving session
which nobody wanted.  Later in the day, he presented two cloture motions for November 30
and December 1. 
	The breakdown of the impasse came the following day, November 24, when Dole
agreed to accept the terms of the conference report under a compromise that he would submit a
separate bill with the Senate-passed provisions, which was to be considered and voted
immediately in January as soon as the Senate returned to business.  Obviously, this solution was
prompted by the loathing of most senators to come back from their respective States to
Washington after Thanksgiving break as well as by the pro-Brady public pressure. 
Consequently, the Senate approved the conference report by unanimous consent.  
	After seven years of debate, the Brady bill was finally passed by the 103rd Congress. 
President Clinton, as he had promised, signed the bill into law on November 30, and the Brady
bill became Public Law 103-159.
  
Beyond the passage	
	Three years have passed since the passage of the Brady bill, but the fight of Jim and
Sarah Brady and other gun control advocates still continues for stricter gun control legislation.  In
early 1994, they succeeded in passing the assault weapons ban with the Brady momentum, but
since then the NRA has intensified its lobbying, declaring to repeal the gun control legislation.  In
1994 elections, for example, the NRA spent $3.2 million to get its supporters elected.11 The last
1996 election was also a victory for the NRA in that many of its supporters got re-elected even
though their member Dole was defeated by Clinton in the Presidential race.  Their most powerful
supporter in the Congress is probably the House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who once
wrote in his letter to the NRA chief lobbyist Tanya Metaksa: "As long as I am Speaker of this
House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House."12 
Even with the GOP majority in Congress, however, it is sure that NRA supporters will face a
major obstacle in the newly-reelected President Clinton, who has declared: "For all the things
that will be debated, you can mark my words, the Brady law and the assault weapons bill are
here to stay.  They will not be repealed.13"  
	Currently, the Supreme Court is hearing a lawsuit filed by NRA-backed gun control
opponents. They claim that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violates the 10th
Amendment of the Constitution which protects state and local government from certain federal
interference.  The NRA says it wants to repeal the waiting period as well as the background
checks,14 which reveals the organization's true intention when it supported the background
checks in its fight against the passage of the Brady bill.  The battle between the NRA and the
Handgun Control Inc. will continue with the NRA supporters leading the Congress and
President Clinton challenging them with the veto power.  Nevertheless, the Brady bill, with its
unwavering public support, will be the hardest bill to repeal.
	The passage of the Brady bill of 1993 is one of the best case studies of the legislative
process in the U.S. Congress.  The seven year history of the bill demonstrated how partisan
politics played a crucial role in the outcome of the bill, and how difficult it was to make bipartisan
compromises to move the bill through Congress.  
	In concluding this research report, I would like to express my deepest respect for those
who worked hard for the passage of the Brady bill, including Jim and Sarah Brady.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Caine Mutiny Evaluating the Performance of a Government.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The Caine Mutiny
Evaluating the Performance of a Government


	Governments are an essential and important part to our everyday life, and without, there would be no control or leadership.  Governments are sanctioned to constitute and systemize the interrelationships of the people with their divisional bounds, the relations of the people of the community as a whole, and the arrangements of the community with other political entities.  In the movie, "The Caine Mutiny", a form of government plays an important role to everybody aboard the ship.  There were certain hardships with the configuration of the government, and in this case, the government was the captain.  Although the captain didn't go directly against the Naval Regulations, the crew thought that he was incapable of holding this position as captain.  With all of this happening, it was hard for the sailors aboard the ship to appreciate the form of government and their leader.
	The constitution for many countries, hold the rules (may be written, or not written) to which a government must obey.  In this scenario, the Naval Regulations were intended to be followed upon and consented to.  If a government is fulfilling its basic functions, then it is properly following the constitution, but if it isn't ensuing the constitution, then the fundamental purposes aren't being achieved.  Within the constitution, there is power granted to impeach the leader if he/she is not implementing their primary services.  In the movie, we see captain Queeg as one who is incompetent of achieving his job as the leader.  Captain Queeg can be easily compared with Charles III-king of England during the Revolutionary War.  He was old, and powerful, and with authority, but also wrong.  Captain's new position angered many sailors aboard the old battle ship with his strict and reserved mannerisms,  and the way he handled many situations gave the sailors fair reason to be easily infuriated.  Overall Queeg portrayed a very futile leader as head of the government on the ship.
	There are many possible risks that one can come upon if they decide to change governments.  There is always the risk of a failed government which could be at the worst disadvantage to anyone and everyone.  Once a government fails, it can easily be trampled over and picked upon by another country.  The power can be lost by everyone in their country and can be difficult to gain back.  The change in governments can also effect the people of the country, because it will most likely be at a disadvantage to some people because not everyone is easily satisfied.  The support of people in a country can readily be lost and gone forever.  
	One of the sailors, Stillwell, was faced with a difficult situation when he was given contradicting orders by captain Queeg and officer Maryk.  Stillwell opted to choose Maryk's orders, because he obviously thought that he was more of an effective leader.  Officer Maryk thought that Queeg was not following the Naval Regulations and felt that he had the power as stated in the constitution to overtake captain Queeg's position.  Even when taken to court, officer Maryk was found not guilty of what he had done.  
	In today's world, we see countries establishing new governments.  They can be either at an advantage or disadvantage to their country, depending upon the change.  An example of one that has had positive results would be that of East Germany.  Before their change, they were holding a communist government, but presently with West Germany they now hold a federal republic government.  This has helped begin the diminishing of the communist governments and a definite advantage.  Also in Russia, although they aren't completely non-communist, they are becoming more of a democratic society.  The Cuban Prime Minister, Fidel Castro, has shown how a change in government can give negative results.  Castro seized power when the government of Fulgencio Batista collapsed, and he openly embraced communism.  His dictatorship has shown no evidence of a successful government and in turn has shown poor consequences.
	Governments of all withhold many and various types.  What may work for one country, may never work for another.  There is really no one to say what type of government is right and what type is wrong, it's what works best for each country.  However, it's unfortunate that there are countries that have to deal with immoral leaders who make the wrong choices and decisions.  As learned in "The Caine Mutiny", there is power given to make a change.  Although it may not always be the right thing to do, it will definitely give a learning experience and may help mold the government to a more successful type.  
	
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Death Penalty.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
		------- The Death Penalty -------
       	By: Brendan Moriarty 04/28/96

-Preface: Let it be noted now that this speech is very opinionated.  
	
	I strongly believe that the Death Penalty is a form of punishment to be used when needed. Which opens up the question, when should it be used? That may be the breaking point in a lot of arguments, deciding when to use the death penalty is a very touchy subject. I believe that only murderers deserve the death penalty, but I do not believe that all murderers should receive it as punishment. In cases where someone was killed in self defense, the 'murderer' should not receive the death penalty. But when someone is killed in cold blood then there should be a consideration. Again, not all cold blooded murderers should receive it. Premeditated and sometimes on the spot murders are also candidates, but that depends on how the victim was treated before the murder. Was he/she abused or tormented in a severe way? Or was the victim raped? I would also take into account, the number of people killed by the murderer. Those are not the only things to take into account, but I will stop here.

	It was August 3, the year was 1986. A man named Esquel Banda had just raped, stabbed and strangled a 74 year old widow by the name of Merle Laird in her own house. Banda then sucked the blood from the woman's mouth.
	Does that describe a kind, gentle man, who is not a threat to society? A man who values life or a man that deserves life when he seems so eager to destroy it? I certainly wouldn't think so. 
	Some people believe that the death penalty is wrong, what do you think? Is it OK for a man to commit heinous murders but not OK for our valued legal system, who's outcomes depend on ordinary people like you and me, to decide to terminate that mans life for his crimes to others? 
	The death penalty is just that; a penalty. Its intention is not to present an example to others, to show them 'not to commit murders, or this may happen to you...', although it may very well work like that. If it is, fine, so much the better. But it is a punishment. You can't say that the felon doesn't really receive the punishment because he's dead because they have quite a few years to think about it while on death row. Just sitting around a few years with nothing to look forward to except death, is punishment enough. Infact, it may be better than having a life jail term, without parole. Felons in that predicament have said so themselves, they would rather die than have to wait the rest of there life in jail, which can exceed 60 years. Which brings me around to my next point...

	What happens if we do get rid of the death penalty? We would have hundreds of murderers sitting in jails and mixing with many other people. "Don't' put me in a cell with anybody. I'll kill them, it won't bother me to kill somebody." That's a quote from a former death row inmate. He brings up a very important point. Our society always says how our prisons are safe and secure. That may be true in some prisons now, but what happens when they have to hold murderers like that inmate. If the death penalty isn't used anymore, then what would stop inmates from killing other inmates and jail guards or repeatedly trying to escape? Nothing; because if they do kill someone, their term won't change, nothing worse can happen to them, except mabey a few days of solitude. Nothing is stopping them from attempting more crimes in jail!

	Another point I must bring up, is racism in the decision about who should die. I will agree that there is some, but it is a simple problem with a simple solution. Diversify our jurys. In most cases, a group of people chosen randomly will be appointed to decide that fate of an accused murderer. If there is racism and sexism, then even out the number of minorities and sexes in the jury. But anyway, if we need to bag the death penalty because of racism and such, then we sure can't have prisons! Don't tell me there isn't either of those when the jail term is decided, because the truth is, there is a lot of racism is the decision.

	OK, my last point is the argument that the death penalty is just too cruel to use. I'll agree that mabey hanging and a firing squad should be abolished. But not the gas chamber, lethal injection or the chair. With the gas chamber, the person just smells a strange smell, then there out of it. The only pain in lethal injection is sticking the needle in the skin. The last one, the electric chair is the most controversial. There are stories of people surviving the first shock, in one case the man was sent back to his cell, but later he was finally killed. That may be very shocking, but mabey you haven't heard what some of these people did. Here's an example...
	A man and a woman were sitting in there car on the bank of a river on a date. Two men approached the car and pointed a gun in. The man and women were taken, and later, deep in a forest, the male victim was beaten, tied to a tree and shot through the head, all in front of the woman's eyes. For the next few days, the woman was tortured and raped repeatedly and was almost killed in the end.
	So, put yourself in those victim's shoes, imaging the physical and mental pain of the ordeal. Now what do you think? Should the murderers receive a little bit of pain on their way out? I think it's justifiable. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Destruction of 1st Amendment Rights In Our Schools.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 



	In 1787 our forefathers ratified the constitution of  the United 
States of America, which contains the most important document to 
any American citizen, the Bill of Rights.  The first amendment of the 
Bill of Rights states:
	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
	religion, or prohibiting the establishment thereof; or 
	abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the right of 
	the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 
	government for a redress of grievances.
 these freedoms (commonly called the freedom of expression) are of 
the most important rights in a  truly democratic society.  Without 
them there would be no new ideas; we would all conform under 
totalitarian rule for fear of punishment.   However, when I, a common 
student at West Rowan High School  try to express my feelings on "the 
state of the Bill of Rights in schools today" by making  a computer 
presentation in multimedia class, my work is declared "bad" and my 
teacher and assistant principal do one of the most un-American things 
imaginable: they censored it.  I had to re-make the presentation and 
lighten the harsh tone, and also erase the anarchy symbol from it.   The 
teacher said that she was worried about me for reasons such as my 
feelings on the freedom of religion were almost satanic, because I said 
teachers should not be able to publicly practice religion in schools 
because it will encourage students to become a part of that religion. 
The presentation was neither slanderous nor obscene, but it did 
criticize teachers and administrators calling them "fascist dictators". 
At first I was angry at the school because I could wear clothing that 
was obscene or contained liquor advertisements,  now they have 
completely taken away my freedom of speech.   This of  course proved 
my argument that teachers and administrators are totalitarians.   As 
one journalist put it, "If Freedom of expression becomes merely an 
empty slogan in the minds of enough children, it will be dead by the 
time we are adults." I soon began reading more and more about the 
freedom of speech in schools and every time a subject as such came up 
the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student declaring the action 
unconstitutional under the first amendment.  As I was reading Nat 
Hentoff's book The First Freedom I came across a story in which a 
student wrote a newspaper article criticizing the school administration, 
soon after he ran for student government and was taken off the ballot 
for his critique.   Unfortunately he did not fight it in court.  The principal sharply taught the student, "The constitution of this school takes precedence over the United States Constitution.  The freedom of expression in school is  marred by
society but not completely dissolved by the administration.
	The 1969 supreme court ruling Tinker v. Des Moins Community 
Schools defined a student's freedom of speech best.   John and Mary 
Beth Tinker wore black armbands to school as a protest of the 
Vietnam war.   It was a silent protest; the Tinker's never caused one 
problem, although some students did make threats at them.   The 
school's administrators made them take them off.  Their case made it 
all the way to the US  Supreme Court, where it won a 7-2 ruling.  
(Pascoe, 96)   Justice Abe Fortas gave an excellent interpretation of a 
students freedom of speech when he said: 
	"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed 
	their rights at the schoolhouse gate... In our system, state-
	operated schools may not be the enclaves of totalitarianism. 
	School officials do not possess absolute authority over their 
	students.  Students in school as well as out  of school are 
	'persons' under our constitution.  ...Students may not be regarded 
	as closed circuit recipients of only that which the State wishes to 
	communicate.  They may not be confined to the expression of 	
	those	sentiments that are officially approved".
In essence Fortas stated that a student could say whatever they wanted, no matter what it was.   However, The Court acknowledged that there would be times when expression should be limited; such as if a student disrupted classwork,
"created substantial disorder," or infringed on the rights of others.  The fact that the administration thought it might cause a disturbance was not enough.  The court said:

	" Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble.  Any 	variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear.  Any word 	spoken, in class in the lunchroom,  or on the campus may
start an 	argument or cause a disturbance.  But our Constitution says we must 	take this risk."
	(Pascoe, 98)
	Tinker 's opinion stood as a rule until 1983 when Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier  changed academic history again.  Students in Hazelwood  wrote articles on teen pregnancy and divorce in their student newspaper
The Spectrum, and their principal deleted them  because they were "inappropriate".   The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school because they said the school shouldn't be required to endorse ideas it considered unsuitable.   This decision
gave administrators the right to censor newspapers, plays and many other activities.  Everything the students printed was fact and  they should be able to say whatever they want as long as it isn't libelous.  
				
	Later in 1986, Bethel School District v. Matthew Fraser further defined the extent of a student's rights.  Fraser made a speech nominating a friend for student-government and used a few lightly disguised sexual innuendoes. 
He was subsequently suspended for it.  The Court upheld his speech was obscene because of the strong sexual metaphor that follows:
	"I know a man who is firm.  He is firm in his pants he is firm in his 
	shirt, his character is firm-- but most...of all his belief in you, the                         	students of Bethel, is firm.   
	Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in.  If 	necessary he will take an issue and nail it to the wall.  He doesn't 	attack things in spurts- he drives hard, pushing and pushing
until 	finally- he succeeds.
	Jeff is a man who will go to the very end- even the climax for each 
          and every one of you.  
	So vote for Jeff for A.S.B. vice-president- he'll never come between 	you and the best our high school can be." 
This decision further defined  a student's freedom of speech by stating that a student may not say anything obscene.
	The first amendment is the most important one because, without it there would be no new ideas.   It is a shame our country's students must live under the dictatorship commonly called the "School Board."  It is thought that
freedom of speech would cause anarchy, but in most instances it is perfectly acceptable.  Our government needs to revise and outline a students rights to avoid confusion, and give pupils the rights they deserve.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\the doomed empire.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


The Doomed Empire


	Introduction:	The 1940's and the next four decades after, were a time of bitter
struggle between the US and the Soviet Union.  National identity as well as ideological
differences brought both countries to the brink of nuclear war, a revolutionary style of
warfare causing the most disastrous demographic disaster known to man.  There are
numerous speculations on who actually started the war.  It can be argued both ways that
both the US and the USSR acted offensively towards each other.  But the only real fact is
that "one represented an open democracy and the other a closed totalitarian system" and
both were the only real superpowers left standing after World War II.1  This split
generated a bipolar effect bringing the entire world into a game of tug of war between the
two superpowers. Throughout the four decades actual combative war never broke out but
in turn a similar game of chess was played.  One country would move and the other would
countermove.  It was finally America that came out on top and the Soviet Union a
collapsed failure, but not necessarily because the US was stronger and out muscled the
Soviets militarily.  The end of the Cold War was primarily due to economic factors.
	What America proved was that the economy works best when the government
stays out and individuals within the society do the work.2  It is only the individuals within
the society that truly understand what products are in demand.  Under Communist regime
a few select rulers decide what are the needs of the society, what resources are their
country's scarcities, and how to obtain these scarcities.  Finding this information is a big
job and requires endless amounts of domestic attention.  With this in mind the quote
"Nature's laws are immutable... Communism is only an ideal dream"3  becomes much
clearer.  One leader simply does not have enough time nor money to invest in the
acquisition of thorough and accurate knowledge pertaining to the country's economic
system (especially a country as large as Russia).  But I am not writing to debate whether
communism can or can not work but that America/Democracy did not really beat
Russia/Communism in the Cold War.  Russia/Communism destroyed itself.  Russia
blotched the job.  How?  By instead of striving to build the country's economic muscle
and develop mutually beneficial relationships with neighboring countries therefore
acquiring the otherwise unavailable scarcities, Russia chose to attempt building an empire
throughout Europe and Asia based on the ideological concept of Communism and by
competing with the United States in an arms race it could not support.
	Directly after WWII, Stalin set Russia up under a Communistic regime.  Having
suffered the greatest casualties during WWII, it would seem common judgment that
Russia's focus be more on domestic rehabilitation than international affairs.  On the same
side the fact that Stalin set up a Communistic government would also lean in favor that
Russia must strengthen itself before turning to international affairs.  As stated earlier The
Communist form of Government is similar to that of a car with a standard transmission.  In
order to drive the car one must be able to shift the gears accordingly.  Stalin does not
focus on the domestic issues fronting his Country and in no way shifts the gears of
Russia's economy.  In 1948 Stalin begins to struggle with Yugoslavia's leader Tito with
the argument Tito's version of Communism did not match the Soviets.1  Also in 1948,
Stalin used military force to destroy the democratic nation of Czechoslovakia and reinstate
Soviet Communism.2  Much of Europe was already in such shambles from the effects of
WWII that the only hope was seen in the United States, furthermore whether it be
Communism or Democracy did not matter as much as simply getting moving.  It was not
until 1949 when Stalin ordered the block around West Germany in order to obtain the
entire city, that the US stepped in.3  The United States rolled Russia back and the Cold
War began.
	Stalin still avoided dealing with his Country's domestic problems such as the
economy, and issues of human rights,  decided if he could not expand his weak deceitful
empire throughout Europe then maybe Asia would be a good place to try.  Throughout
the 1950's Russia aided in developing Soviet communism throughout China, Korea,
Vietnam, and smaller third World Countries such as Indonesia, India, Egypt, And Syria.1 
Whether by force of influence Russia tried to set Soviet Communism up and in each place
the US was also there to stop them.  
	Tensions between the US and Soviets grew and between the years of 1957 and
1962 an arms race broke out.2  The Soviets launched the first nuclear satellite called
Sputnik.3  Both Countries raced to develop ICBM and SLBM missiles.4  
	Russia was limited economically though.  They had spent all the post-war time
meddling in international business trying to set up a weak empire of Soviet Communism
throughout the continent of Europe and Asia.  Meanwhile unrest existed at home as the
Government shifted all spending into the arms race with the US.  This economic decision
exhausted the Soviet economy and off balanced the entire industrial system.5  Russia's
final offensive against the United States was known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. 6 This
offensive resulted in little more than a small trade of the US removing its missiles from
Turkey.  
	By the end of the arms race with America, Russia was economically destroyed and
before long collapsed.  Although little is written about how the Russians dealt with their
domestic problems during the Cold War, We do know from looking at the results,
economic starvation and political depravation, that it was not enough.  The powerful
country of Russia emerged from WWII with major domestic needs that were not met by
the leaders of the country nor were the leaders of the country ready to attempt the
beautiful theory of a Communistic society hence  Russia/Communism destroyed itself in
the Cold War by ignoring its domestic and economic needs and not forming dependable
and mutually beneficial relationships with neighboring countries.            




End Notes

Page 1 :
	1.  Spiegel, Steven. World Politics in a New Era, Harcourt Brace; 1995.  

	2. Allen William, The midnight Economist. Thomas Horton; 1997.

	3. Feline Peter, Americans and the Soviet Experiment. Harvard University Press;
	1967.

Page 2 :
	1. Spiegel, Steven. World Politics in a New Era, Harcourt Brace; 1995.
	2. Same as above
	3. Same as above

Page 3 :
	1. Spiegel, Steven. World Politics in a New Era, Harcourt Brace; 1995
	2. Same as above
	3. Same as above


	




Bibliography

	Allen, William, The Midnight Economists. Thomas Horton, Sun lake, Arizona;
1997.
	
	Feline Peter, Americans and the Soviet Experiment. Harvard University,
Cambridge, Ma; 1967
	
	Spiegel Steven, World Politics in a New Era. Harcourt Brace; 1995 
 





















The Doomed Empire

BY: Eric Paul
Professor Spiegel
TA: Mr. Kalhor

Section: 1L














                                   						1/28/97 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Effectivness of Eisenhowers First Term.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 







The Effectiveness of Eisenhower's First Term:        1953-1956 






Matthew Breitenstine

Political Science 3322

Professor Dennis Simon

12/3/96
	


On my honor, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this work.
	
	Presidents are judged by a number of factors for their overall effectiveness. In 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower took public office for the first time. During his first term as President he was confronted with many different situations that taxed his leadership abilities.  
	During the nineteen fifties, America was in a period of enormous change. The United States had just ended World War II, and the conflict in Korea had reached a stalemate. With the splitting of the atom came the Atomic Age, a new era of responsibility that the United States hadn't fully come to understand and realize. Also, in this time the Cold War, that was started by the Truman administration, was beginning to escalate. When Dwight D. Eisenhower became the thirty-fourth president of the United States he was immediately confronted with several major events left to him by the previous administration. First,  the Cold War with the Soviet Union was escalating, and second, the war in Korea was quickly becoming an unpopular war of attrition in which thousands of lives had already been lost. During the Eisenhower administration, the president would be confronted with a plethora of events both domestic and international. Shortly after Eisenhower's inauguration, Joseph Stalin (the Soviet Premi�re) died of a stroke on March 5, 1953, leaving the United States questioning who would rise to power in Russia and continue the Cold War against the US. Meanwhile, in the United States, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was created on March 12, 1953. On December 8, 1953, Eisenhower gave his "Atoms for Peace" speech calling for the cooperation of both the United States and the Soviet Union to help develop a program for the peaceful development of atomic power. 
	Another event that took place during the administration was the fall and surrender of the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu to the Viet Minh on May 7, 1954. In domestic issues the administration was further confronted by Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools are inherently unequal. In 1955, Dr. Jonas Salk developed a polio vaccine. During the month of July of the same year, President Eisenhower attended the Geneva Four Power Conference and proposed his "Open Skies" program that would allow mutual air reconnaissance over military installations. On December 5, 1955, Martin Luther King began a boycott of Montgomery Alabama city busses. In June of 1956, the federal highway bill authorizing funds for the interstate highway system was signed. Israel invaded the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula while the British and French attacked Egyptian forces around the Suez Canal during the months of October and November 1956. Also the administration had to face both the rising expectations of the colonial world and the issue of civil rights in the United States. These two challenges along with Korea, Senator McCarthy, and the Bricker Amendment, proved to be some of the greatest problems of the Eisenhower administration.  
	 On September 18, the first scandal of the administration took place even before the Eisenhower/Nixon ticket was elected. The New York Post revealed that Nixon had received $18,000 as the governor of California from several millionaires. This finding opened him up to enormous criticism especially because his campaign was supposed to be against government immorality. Eisenhower immediately began to consider dropping Nixon from the ticket. The only chance that Nixon had was to show that he was "as clean as a hound's tooth"1 as it was put by Eisenhower. To do this the Senator made an address on national television that was viewed by approximately 55 million American viewers. The soap opera, as the Republican critics called it, amounted to the story of Richard's life. The address began with him telling how as a poor boy he worked in a grocery store and then moved to his involvement in the South Pacific during the second World War. He also told about how his wife Pat didn't own a mink coat but owned "a respectable Republican cloth coat."2 Nixon even went so far as to tell the American public about his daughters' little dog Checkers that they had received from a supporter. "And you know the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we're going to keep it."3 The result of this performance not only kept Nixon on the "Ike" ticket but it also gave a huge lift to the nation's approval of Nixon. When Nixon and Eisenhower met in "Wheeling, West Virginia, Eisenhower, with tears in his eyes, extended his hand and said: 'Dick, you're my boy.'"4
	In January of 1952, Dwight Eisenhower, an Army general was serving as Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe. A bid for the Republican presidential nomination came from Senator Taft and his platform of the Korean War being an "unnecessary war" or a "Truman war" but few thought that he could win the presidency. Even though Taft was supported by the majority of the G.O.P. delegation in Congress, he was hindered in his campaign by his record of isolationism. In the past both political parties had actively sought Eisenhower to run in the previous Presidential elections with little success. Seeking a potential candidate Republican party members asked Eisenhower again to join their party and run in the 1952 Presidency race. Eisenhower was desirable as a candidate because he was considered a national hero by many and he had never sought political office. The Republican party was not the only party interested in Eisenhower; the Democratic party also tried to persuade him to run on their ticket. "On January 6, 1952, after flying to Paris to confer with the General, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge told a crowded press conference in Washington that Eisenhower was in the race 'to the finish.'"5 At the outcome of the New Hampshire primary, Eisenhower, who was still in Europe and had not been able to campaign in the United States because of his duties, defeated Senator Taft by 10,000 votes.
	The first campaign speech made by Eisenhower was in his home town of Abilene, Kansas. This first speech proved disappointing because he lacked an issue to reinforce his image as a candidate of the people running against the organized political system. By the time of the Republican convention the popularity of "Ike" was overwhelming to his opponent, Senator Taft. Eisenhower easily won the nomination in the first ballot. "For its vice presidential nominee the convention chose 39-year-old Senator Richard M. Nixon of California, a decision which recognized both the importance of the Pacific Coast and the vote-getting potential of the communist issue."6 On the Democratic ticket was Adlai E. Stevenson who at the time was the governor of Illinois. Along with his governship, Stevenson also had a long and varied career in the government and his grandfather had been the Vice President in Cleveland's second term. Stevenson campaigned with "truth" being his main issue. In his acceptance speech Stevenson said "The ordeal of the Twentieth Century- the bloodiest, most turbulent era of the Christian age-is far from over."7 "Let's face it. Let's talk sense to the American people. Let's tell them the truth, that their are no gains without pains, that we are now on the eve of great decisions..."8 Stevenson continued to tell the American voters the "truth." At one campaign stop he told members of "the American Legion that a veteran was someone who owed America more than the nation owed him."9 Unfortunately his policy of hard truths only gained the support of the intellectuals and not the majority of the population.
	In contrast, the Eisenhower campaign was making great strides. With the endorsement of Taft, Eisenhower was able to heal the wounds of a split party that the convention had caused. In conjunction with Taft, Eisenhower developed a manifesto that stated his conservative view of domestic affairs. In this manifesto, Eisenhower stated that the greatest threat that faced the nation was the unchecked growth of the government. From this evolved one of the main issues of the campaign, the "creeping socialization" of the United States government. This issue sought to curb the spending on social programs that had increased during the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. Another issue of the campaign was the idea that Democrats were soft on communism. The vice presidential nominee, Richard Nixon, went so far as to say that "Adlai the appeaser... who got a Ph.D. from Dean Acheson's College of Cowardly Communist Containment."10 
	 From this point on, the main issues of the campaign could best be summed up by Senator Karl Mundt's words, "K1C2--Korea, corruption and Communism."11 The biggest of the issues was Korea. Since 1951, the United States and Korea had been dragging their feet on the signing of an armistice. The United States also continued its attempts to regain insignificant amounts of territory lost to the North Koreans, such as Heartbreak Hill, at the expense of thousands of American lives. Even though the war had created a boom in the United States economy, the boom was seen as guilt for the Democrats. This was because the boom was paid for by American bloodshed. It was on this issue that General Eisenhower delivered his "I shall go to Korea" speech. In this speech, "Ike" promised that he could end the war and still retain a peace that was both honorable and prestigious for the United States. 
	Once all of the election results were in and the dust settled, Eisenhower had won the election of 1952 by a land slide. The total 33,936,000 votes for Eisenhower amounted to 55.14% of the votes. These votes turned into 442 electoral votes that constituted the landslide victory when compared to Stevenson's total of 89. In Congress the G.O.P. gained control. In the House, the Republicans achieved a majority over the Democrats by eight seats. In the Senate the Democrat and Republican seats were split 50/50, but since the Republicans won the presidency, a tie vote could be defeated by the addition of one vote cast by the Vice President, Richard Nixon. 
	Before his election, President Eisenhower had relatively strong political support. Members of both parties favored him because of his "middle of the road policy," since politically he was considered a liberal Republican with conservative domestic views and was liberal in foreign policy. In the midterm elections of 1954, the Republican party lost control of both the House and Senate to the Democrats. Still, after his party had lost the Congress, he continued to maintain his political support from both Republicans and Democrats alike.  
	After Dwight Eisenhower was elected, his next priority was to establish an agenda or policy goals that he wanted his administration to achieve. Since President Eisenhower wanted to reflect the American people, the policy initiatives he designed did not seek "sharp departures from existing policies."12 Eisenhower also desired to limit the changes in domestic policy and was very active in doing so. One of the main reasons for him being elected was because during his campaign he portrayed the image of doing the best for the American people. In the State of the Union address of 1954, President Eisenhower stated a number of the initiatives that he intended to propose to Congress. In foreign policy he hoped to continue military and technological assistance to foreign countries while reducing the amount of economic assistance granted. The President went further by saying that these economic cuts would not effect "our economic programs in Korea and in a few other places in the world that are especially important,"13 and would ask Congress that they continue. The Atomic Energy Proposal was also introduced in the address. This proposal was designed to create a program that would offer alternatives to nuclear war and to find peaceful applications of the technology within the United Nations. The new President continued to try to initiate joint construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway that had been promoted by previous administrations with the Canadians.  Another of the initiatives that Eisenhower took was the "New Look" defense program. In this program the budget of the United States Army would be cut back. The funds that were cut would be given to the Air Force and to the Navy to be spent on developing a larger nuclear arsenal and air power to deliver the weapons. This plan was justified because in the eyes of the President the bulk of the United States' military power lied in its ability to use these high yield weapons of destruction not in the ground forces. Also, "New Look weighed defense costs against the goal of avoiding burdening the economy with taxes or deficits."14 This initiative became known as the "more bang for the buck" policy that helped America defend itself in the Cold War. Another initiative of the administration was the National Highways program. In this piece of legislation, Eisenhower hoped to improve the countries' highways. This proposal called for the continuation of the current gasoline tax. One of the largest initiatives that the President called for was a plan for stabilizing agriculture. The idea of this plan was that the nations' farmers needed to be protected and that as our standard of living increases, "we must be sure that the farmer fairly shares in that increase."15 Also during the Eisenhower administration, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was created on March 12, 1953, giving it Cabinet status.  
	During the Eisenhower administration many of the events or crises that occurred tested the abilities of the Eisenhower presidency. On July 27, 1953, one of the issues that the Eisenhower administration inherited was finished. The key challenge at the beginning of the administration had been how to end the Korean War without the loss of honor or prestige. One of the major points that the US./Korean negotiations hinged on was how to develop a system to return the prisoners of war to their respective countries. Once this was achieved, the administration concluded that since all the goals the United Nations had set were met the United States was able to end the war and still retain honor and prestige. Once the armistice was signed, over 3,700 American prisoners of war returned home. The ending of the Korean War contributed greatly to the feeling of tranquillity that enveloped the United States and the Eisenhower administration. Even though the Eisenhower presidency looked calm on the outside there was a great amount of activism on the inside. Within the White House the Cold War continued. 
	Throughout the 1953-54 years, Senator Joseph McCarthy, chairman of the Senate Permanent Investigation Committee, conducted hearings that looked into the Communist infiltration of America and the Armed Forces. Even before Eisenhower was still considering whether or not to seek the presidency in the 1952 election, he and Senator McCarthy began to have problems. In Eisenhower's diary, "a March 13, 1951, entry that commented on the daily news summary he received from the United States, he indicated his annoyance that the media continued to view him as a political contender and referred to reports by Drew Pearson that `Senator McCarthy is digging up alleged dirt with which to smear me if I run for President.'"16 A few months later, Senator McCarthy blasted "Eisenhower for not taking Berlin at the close of World War II."17 After Eisenhower resigned from his post in NATO to run for the presidency, he realized that in order for him to win he must be able to separate himself from McCarthy "while at the same time trying to unify a party riven by a bitter nominating convention."18 After Eisenhower was elected the relationship between McCarthy and the President continued to be a source of conflict that grew to become a scandal within the administration. As McCarthy's reputation as the nation's number one Communist-hater grew, Eisenhower refused to lower himself to McCarthy's level. The quotation "'I'm not going to get down in the gutter with that guy,' summed it up."19 One of the reasons why Eisenhower did little to remove the power from McCarthy was because he "knew that when a member of the Senate came under direct attack from the Executive, however repulsive to his colleagues that Senator might be, the senatorial club invariably closed ranks about its threatened member  to ward off the common enemy-the President."20 Instead, Eisenhower decided to let the Senate take care of McCarthy, and over time it did. Until the time McCarthy left, President Eisenhower restrained his actions and retaliations against him.
	During this time the issue of civil rights was gaining more attention. With all the other events arising, "somehow no one gave much thought to the special problems of the Negro, and practically nothing was done about this politically sensitive matter."21 The leadership style of Eisenhower contributed to the fact that civil rights received very little attention. Eisenhower wanted to deal with problems as they arose into the political scene. The subject of civil rights was seen by the President "as a special category of political affairs."22 When the subject was brought to the attention of President Eisenhower at a press conference by Associated Negro Press reporter Alice Dunnigan, the President began to realize the importance of civil rights. Later a telegram was sent to the President by Adam Powell, Jr., a black Representative in Congress. "The telegram began: 'The hour has arrived for you to decisively assert your integrity. You cannot continue to stand between two opposite moral poles.'"23 At this time the Democrats began to exploit the fact that the  administration overlooked this subject. To counter this, a policy of desegregation was initiated in the military and in particular the Navy ship yards. These actions only quelled the call for desegregation for the time being and would arise again in his second term because of the "quick fix" approach that was given to civil rights. 
	The greatest test of the Eisenhower White House was the Bricker Amendment. This amendment was first seen by the President in January of 1953. The amendment's purpose was to protect the American people from "the possibility that a President, aided by an unwary Senate, would impose on the country through a treaty legal obligations which would deprive the people of Constitutional rights or would invade the domain of power reserved for the states."24 The reasons for the amendment were varied. Executive agreements such as in Yalta, threatened the Constitution and American sovereignty. Another reason was that of the United Nations. Many people felt that the United States involvement in the organization would eventually lead to international agreements that would infringe or deny the American people their fundamental rights. At first look the President sympathized with the general idea of the proposal but disliked the specifics of the plan that limited the President's ability to make treaties and executive agreements. Upon further study of the document,  Cabinet member John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, said "the Bricker amendment would seriously curtail executive authority and make it impossible to conduct foreign affairs effectively."25 Dulles went further and indicated that the conflict caused by this amendment would be detrimental to both the Republican party and to the White House itself. Dulles suggested that head-on fighting should be avoided at all costs. Eisenhower knew that many Senate chairmanships were at stake in the midterm elections of 1954, less than a year and a half away. He also knew that a "good Republican record would be essential to keep them from being lost."26 
	Soon the President and Dulles met with Bricker to bargain or work out a settlement that would be agreeable both to the administration and to Bricker himself. During the talks it came to surface that the original intent of the Senator from Ohio was to "enact some amendment to this general purpose, and which bore his name."27 Dulles was still concerned over what impact even an apparently harmless, watered down  amendment might still produce. Dulles also knew that there is not a history of treaties having ill effects in the domestic realm. Eisenhower summed it up by saying that "giving Congress control over treaties would jeopardize the permanence of the treaties because one Congress could nullify the action of a preceding Congress."28 As the administration became more entrenched in the battle over the amendment, Eisenhower became more strongly opposed to it. Because of his background in NATO, he began to see the amendment as being against NATO. At present time, the Senate could not ratify the NATO agreement because of separation of powers. The Bricker amendment would grant this power to the Senate, a granting of power he greatly disliked. As the opposition in the White House grew, the Senate began to provide strong support to the amendment. It was quickly beginning to look as if a compromise would not be possible. Several times over the next few months, Bricker revised or redrafted his proposed amendment, each time the Eisenhower administration rejected it for the same reasons. During this time the Eisenhower administration wrestled with their options. 
	From the President's perspective, a "good deal of 'salesmanship' would be needed to bring the Senate around to the administration's viewpoint."29 One of the first attempts at a compromise, suggested by the Attorney General, was to create a commission headed by Bricker to find a suitable alternative to the amendment. This attempt at a compromise fell through because it was feared that this option would widen the division that was already forming in the party. The administration decided that it would be best for both the White House and the party to continue to work together towards a solution. The solution was announced on July 22 by Senator Knowland. The principle of this new amendment was that any executive agreement or treaty that infringed on the Constitution would be void. It went further by stating that a treaty could only be ratified by a recorded vote. Finally a compromise had been reached that was greatly supported by both the Senate and the President. Unfortunately the issue was not dead. 
	When Congress reconvened the next year, Bricker had enormous support, and allied himself with various lobbying groups such as the AMA, and the Daughters of the American Revolution. One of the new found allies of Bricker was a "volunteer organization of housewives and mothers of boys overseas,"30 who presented the Senate with a petition that contained 500,000 signatures in favor of the Bricker amendment. A heated debate in the Senate followed. In this debate the Presidency was on one side and the Senate was on the other side. The president was forced to sit through endless debates, but when the subject of ending the debates came up, Eisenhower felt that the defense of the power of the President to conduct foreign affairs was more important. The debates raged on. On February 26, it came down to the final vote. There were sixty votes for the amendment (sixty-one is the two thirds needed to amend the Constitution) and thirty against. The final vote that killed the Bricker amendment was cast by the Vice President. The total, sixty for and thirty-one against.
	Eisenhower made frequent use of prime time speeches to bring issues to the public. By the end of 1953, the White House was moving away from the use of the press corps because of the inability to control the corps. The administration shifted to the use of news conferences where the President could issue a prepared statement and thus exert more control over the information given. In the first applications of the news conference, press Secretary Jim Hagerty imposed a rule that there were to be no quotations. Soon after the initiation of the news conference this rule was lifted because all conferences were being recorded. After Eisenhower learned the art of answering the questions of reporters with "sound bites," the control over the press by the President was complete. "Eisenhower's single most significant media advancement was putting the Presidential news conference on television. Remembered as a breakthrough in TV news, it was actually created as a means of circumventing press interpretations. 'To Hell with the slanted reporters,' Press Secretary Jim Hagerty said. 'We'll go directly to the people...'"31 On June 26, 1953, the President made public the signing of the armistice with Korea and the end of the Korean War. Also that summer the President went on national television to "introduce his new Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and its first Secretary, Oveta Culp Hobby, the second woman ever named to a cabinet post."32  	The President that the public saw was geared for the image that he wanted to portray. The "positive, issue-free image of an apolitical president,"33 was carefully cultured by the administration. One such example of the apolitical President would be the putting green on the South lawn of the White House that he had installed. Often he was shown trying to rid the green of the squirrels that live there. The American public was shown an image of the President chasing squirrels or devising ways to rid his course of them. This public image covered the "hidden-hand Presidency" that was operating in the background. Eisenhower constantly tried to have the American public relate to him. During the campaign, he frequently used radio and television to reach the greatest audience possible. Even before the Presidency, he had carefully cultivated his public image when he was the President of Colombia University. "Many of Eisenhower's presidential utterances directly play on the public image of the military hero who is a soldier of peace."34 This image of the "soldier of peace" was reinforced by his use of metaphors. With the example of nuclear war, the President would compare the weapons of the first World War with the second World War "in order to dramatize the overriding urgency of avoiding nuclear war."35 He also used this style to reassure the American people by stating that the government was "doing our best"36 with the connection that this is "what the ordinary American family does."37 By using this plain style of speaking the President came across as being warm and confident. This style allowed him to effortlessly win the public's admiration, confidence and support. Eisenhower knew the importance of popularity. He said, "one man can do a lot... he can especially do a lot at any particular given moment, if at that moment he happens to be ranking high in public estimation. By this I mean he is dwelling in the ivory tower and not in the dog house."38 
	The public support that President Eisenhower was able to maintain was very high. The majority of Americans believed that he was doing a good job and that he was doing what the United States needed. Throughout the administration, Eisenhower was able to average a 69% approval rating in "Dr. Gallup's monthly sounding of how Americans rate the President's performance, exceeding all of the post-World War II presidents except Kennedy, who did not live to face the cost of such policies as his administration's increasing military involvement in Vietnam."39 In his first term, "Ike" averaged an approval rating of 68%. In the next year Eisenhower's support dropped marginally to 65% public approval. This drop in the President's approval could be attributed to the problems that McCarthy caused for the White House. In 1955, the President raised his Gallup approval rating to 71%. In the final year of his first term, Eisenhower achieved an approval rating of 72%. The public response to the major policy initiatives of the President was relatively consistent over his first term in office. Over his entire first term Eisenhower never fell below a 57% approval rating. 40
	In Congress, one of the problems that faced the newly elected President was that many of the members of Congress had supported Senator Taft in his bid for the Presidency. These members were resentful of Eisenhower because he not only did not follow political protocol and work his way up to the presidency, they were also resentful of his defeat of Taft. The President used several tactics to circumnavigate these problems and to establish a friendly working relationship. During the beginning of the administration he held lunches to create a friendly atmosphere among him and the Congressional leaders. These lunches were purely for social reasons. With the Republican party leaders, President Eisenhower established weekly meetings in which the leadership discussed the legislation that was being considered. These meetings allowed the President to establish an early warning system that would help the administration see in advance any potential problems that might occur. Even with these measures in place conflict did arise. In 1953, Republican Congressional members were slowing the passing of pending legislation that the President wanted to pass quickly. To overcome this the President threatened that he would take the issue to the public if the Republican party members did not help in the passing of the bill. The party members quickly complied with the President's wishes in order to avoid a public fight with the popular President. In the President's record of dealing with Congress he used his power to veto a bill 14 times. Of these 14 times, there were only two attempts to o 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Effects of Postindustrialism.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



The Effects of Post-industrialism on the Political Economy of Western Europe 
  



The Decline of Corporatist Bargaining 
  



The sustained, high economic growth in Western Europe during the post-war period until 1973 led to dramatic changes in the region's political economy. As advances in transportation and communication extended the reach of international trade into new areas of the world, as technological advances allowed establishment of manufacturing facilities overseas, and as European real wages climbed to unprecedented heights, the industrial base that had served as the foundation for rapid Western European growth in the 1950's and 1960's increasingly moved to Western Europe's poorer neighbors. As the industrial base moved, so did the jobs of a large quantity of unskilled manufacturing workers who populated the assembly lines. 



In recent years, the liberalization of international trade has clearly demonstrated that European industry can no longer compete in traditional, large-scale industrial sectors. European successes have increasingly come from specialized, high value-added industry and from intelligent, flexible companies able to shift production quickly to capitalize on movements in world demand. 



The net result of these changes has been a transition to a post-industrial society, where the stable economic order of mass employment in large-scale industry has given way to mass unemployment and a breakdown of the political and social consensus that held sway throughout the post-war period. These changes have fundamentally altered the Western European labor market. This paper will show how post-industrialism has dramatically reduced the ability of many Western European countries to deliver full employment, not simply because of changes in employment structure, but more importantly because those structural changes have undermined the institutional framework that allowed Western European countries to control prices while pursuing full employment policies, and have left Western Europeans widely dissatisfied with their political system. 



Western European countries demonstrated varying abilities to control inflation and unemployment in the 1970's and 1980's. Cameron argues that two variables explain much of the differences in economic performance: 1) the presence or absence of corporatist institutions and practices,1 and 2) the role of leftist, Social Democratic political parties in government (Cameron: 144). Centralization of labor representation facilitates corporatist bargaining. Conversely, fragemented labor representation makes agreement difficult. The greater the number of parties, the less likely that they will find a solution palatable to all negotiators. According to measurements of labor organizational unity by the European Yearbook, countries with the most unified labor during the 1970's and 1980's, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark and Finland, were all among the best in Europe at controlling unemployment and inflation, while the countries with the most disunited labor, Italy, France and Spain, were less successful. 



The shift to a post-industrial economy has increased the dissolution, fragmentation and differentiation of the Western European labor market. Most countries have suffered high and remarkably stable unemployment. Unemployment rises during economic downturns, but no longer seems to recover in a boom economy. Many blame post-industrialism for this phenomenon, complaining that technological improvements have led to a 'workerless' economy. While post-industrialism is a cause of higher unemployment, the explanation is not that it has eliminated jobs, but that jobs have changed. New industrial jobs have increasingly required specialized technical skill, while the service sector has created jobs for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. 



One crucial difference between the old jobs and the new are that traditional unions played a much larger role in the labor market for industrial jobs than in the labor market for post-industrial white collar and service jobs. Some countries, Sweden for example, have strong public sector unions that include large numbers of non-industrial employees, but private employees in post-industrial sectors (professionals, managers, skilled and semi-skilled service employees) are less likely to belong to unions than their industrial counterparts. 



Unions face large obstacles to organizing these workers. Many of the new jobs are in smaller enterprises, hindering communication between the unions and prospective members. But the most serious problem is the individualization of the labor market. The post-industrial labor market is more fragmented than the industrial labor market. Workers increasingly organize in functionally specialized unions and collective bargaining has shifted to the local level(Crook, Pakulski & Waters: 98). Accordingly, interests among those responsible for negotiating on behalf of post-industrial workers increasingly conflict. Price stability, exchange rate policy and competitiveness have become important to large portions of workers in the post-industrial economy, often leading them to oppose fiscally expansionary full employment policies. 



Governments that value price stability face less pressure to deliver full employment in return and fiscal restraints have decreased the political will to spend their way to full employment. It is interesting to note that Norway, whose North Sea oil revenues have kept it fiscally sound, has made extensive use of public sector job creation to keep unemployment in check. A more typical Western European examples is Italy, who, in the face of large budget deficits, gave up costly public sector industries to privatization even during periods of high unemployment. 



Economic conditions in the 1980's and 1990's also led to declining union membership. Economic downturns and high unemployment raise the probability of worker disorganization (Western: 194-195). Also, the increasing volatility of world markets calls for more flexible labor arrangements, such as those common in Northern Italy. The informality of these labor relationships does not mix well with traditional, industry-wide union representation. Western blames the decline of unions on the effects of the economic changes on the political identification of potential union members, citing the erosion of class as an organizing principle as a reason for lower union membership (Western: 179). Some unions remain very powerful. Small unions populated by skilled workers who are critical to production, such as the German metal workers, are often able to win large concessions from employers. But the decline in overall union membership and the decreasing ability of different unions to agree on broad, macroeconomic policies have hurt labor's ability to participate in formulating corporatist solutions to economic problems. 



The shift to a post-industrial economy that has fragmented unions has created parallel fragmentation within the mass-integration political parties that have governed Western European countries in the post-war period. Parties find their traditional membership increasingly divided on the use of fiscal policy, maintenance of exchange rates and other crucial areas of government policy.2 The internationalization of markets has also diminished the State's capacity for intervention in the economic sphere. Thus not only labor, but also government finds itself handicapped in its efforts to continue the strategy of corporatist bargaining. 



Unable to control both unemployment and inflation without labor cooperation, governments have limited their efforts to one or the other. Due to external constraints such as large fiscal deficits and the Maastricht criteria for participation in the European Monetary Union, most Western European countries have chosen to control prices at the cost of high unemployment. The resulting joblessness has exacted large political costs. Particularly for social democratic parties in government, abandonment of full-employment as a primary policy goal has alienated a large portion of their constituencies, undermining their support. Social democratic parties are currently on the run even in countries where they delivered the best economic results, such as Sweden and Austria. 



Without the means to increase employment, many countries have tried instead to discourage participation in the labor market. Germany has called for a shorter work week, France has made extensive use of early retirement, and almost all European countries have cut back on legal immigration in an effort to lower unemployment figures and reduce the perceived social cost of their price control policies. 



The ascension of right-wing or right-center parties in many Western European countries, such as Austria, Italy, France and Sweden, creates two additional, significant barriers to a return to the corporatist solutions of the past. First, most of these parties display a clear policy preference for price control over full employment. Even Jacques Chirac, who campaigned on a platform of job creation, quickly reaffirmed his commitment to the franc fort immediately after he won the election. Second, recall that Cameron argued that both corporatism and leftist government contributed to economic success in Western Europe. Trust between strong unions and their allies in leftist governments formed an important basis for making and enforcing wage restraint agreements under corporatist bargaining. Unions have less faith that neo-liberal governments will take the necessary steps to protect employment and are accordingly less likely to compromise in wage negotiations. 



To conclude, post-industrialism has led to dramatic changes in Western European labor markets and Western European politics. These changes have severely undermined the usefulness of the most successful Western European macroeconomic strategy of the 1970's and 1980's--corporatist bargaining. The current levels of high unemployment will continue so long as European society is able to support, both economically and philosophically, a large, marginalized class of unemployed people. Eventually, Western Europe will have to develop a new mechanism of reaching societal consensus on wage restraint. This might happen in response to even larger levels of unemployment or a to breakdown in the government's fiscal ability to support the current levels of unemployed. 
  
  
  
  



                                      References 
  



Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Right Wing Populism in Western Europe (1994). 

David Cameron, "Social Democracy, Labour Quiescence, and the Representation of Economic Interest in Advanced Capitalist Society," in Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism (J. Goldthorpe, ed. 1984).  

Stephen Crook, Jan Pakulski & Malcolm Waters, Postmodernization: Change in advanced society (1992)

Bob Rowthorn and Andrew Glyn, "The Diversity of Unemployment Experience since 1973," in The Golden Age of Capitalism (S. Marglin & J. Schor eds. 1990). 

Bruce Western, "A Comparative Study of Working-Class Disorganization: Union Decline in Eighteen Advanced Capitalist Countries," American Sociological Review 60(2), 1995. 
  
  
  



Endnotes 
  



1.When I refer to corporatism, I refer to a distinctive pattern of state-controlled interest mediation. 
2.Additionally, governments controlled by weakened traditional parties are less capable of playing the strong interventionist role in the economy prescribed by some as the key to successful economic performance (see Rowthorn & Glyn: 254). 



         . 



  



 1995 Craig JacobyLast updated - February 22, 1996. 
  
  
  
 





























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Effects of Television Violence on Children.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Effects of Television Violence on Children
Children and Televison Violence

        What has the world come to these days?  It often seems like 
everywhere one looks, violence rears its ugly head.  We see it in the 
streets, back alleys, school, and even at home.  The last of these is a 
major source of violence.  In many peoples? living rooms there sits an 
outlet for violence that often goes unnoticed.  It is the television, 
and the children who view it are often pulled into its realistic world 
of violence scenes with sometimes devastating results.
        Much research has gone into showing why children are so 
mesmerized by this big glowing box and the action that takes place 
within it.  Research shows that it is definitely a major source of 
violent behavior in children.  The research proves time and time again 
that aggression and television viewing do go hand in hand.
        The truth about television violence and children has been shown.  
Some are trying to fight this problem.  Others are ignoring it and 
hoping it will go away.  Still others don?t even seem to care.  However, 
the facts are undeniable.  The studies have been carried out and all the 
results point to one conclusion: Television violence causes children to 
be violent and the effects can be life-long.
        The information can?t be ignored.  Violent television viewing 
does affect children.  The effects have been seen in a number of cases.  
In New York, a 16-year-old boy broke into a cellar.  When the police 
caught him and asked him why he was wearing gloves he replied that he 
had learned to do so to not leave fingerprints and that he discovered 
this on television.  In Alabama, a nine-year-old boy received a bad 
report card from his teacher.  He suggested sending the teacher poisoned 
candy as revenge as he had seen on television the night before.  In 
California, a seven-year-old boy sprinkled ground-up glass into the the 
lamb stew the family was to eat for dinner.  When asked why he did it he 
replied that he wanted to see if the results would be the same in real 
life as they were on television (Howe 72).  These are certainly 
startling examples of how television can affect the child.  It must be 
pointed out that all of these situations were directly caused by 
children watching violent television.
        Not only does television violence affect the child?s youth, but 
it can also affect his or her adulthood.  Some psychologists and 
psychiatrists feel that continued exposure to such violence might 
unnaturally speed up the impact of the adult world on the child.  This 
can force the child into a kind of premature maturity.  As the child 
matures into an adult, he can become bewildered, have a greater distrust 
towards others, a superficial approach to adult problems, and even an 
unwillingness to become an adult (Carter 14).
        Television violence can destroy a young child?s mind.  The 
effects of this violence can be long-lasting, if not never-ending.
                For some, television at its worst, is an assault on a 
                child?s mind, an insidious influence tat upsets moral 
                balance and makes a child prone to aggressive behavior 
                as it warps his or her perception of the real world.  
                Other see television as an unhealthy intrusion into a 
                child?s learning process, substituting easy pictures for 
                the discipline of reading and concentrating and 
                transforming the young viewer into a hypnotized 
                nonthinker (Langone 48).
As you can see, television violence can disrupt a child?s learning and 
thinking ability which will cause life long problems.  If a child cannot 
do well in school, his or her whole future is at stake.
        Why do children like the violence that they see on television? 
?Since media violence is much more vicious than that which children 
normally experience, real-life aggression appears bland by comparison� 
(Dorr 127).  The violence on television is able to be more exciting and 
enthralling than the violence that is normally viewed on the streets.  
Instead of just seeing a police officer handing a ticket to a speeding 
violator, he can beat the offender bloody on television.  However, 
children don?t always realize this is not the way thing are handled in 
real life.  They come to expect it, and when they don?t see it the world 
becomes bland and in need of violence.  The children then can create the 
violence that their mind craves.
        The television violence can cause actual violence in a number of 
ways.  As explained above, after viewing television violence the world 
becomes bland in comparison.  The child needs to create violence to keep 
himself satisfied (Dorr 127).  Also the children find the violent 
characters on television fun to imitate.  ?Children do imitate the 
behavior of models such as those portrayed in television, movies, etc.  
They do so because the ideas that are shown to them on television are 
more attractive to the viewer than those the viewer can think up 
himself� (Brown 98).  This has been widely seen lately with the advent 
of the Mighty Morphin? Power Rangers.  Young children cannot seem to get 
enough of these fictional characters and will portray them often.
        Another reason why television violence causes violence in 
children is apparent in the big cities.  ?Aggressive behavior was more 
acceptable in the city, where a child?s popularity rating with 
classmates was not hampered by his or her aggression� (Huesmann 166).  
In the bigger cities, crime and violence is inevitable, expected and, 
therefore, is left unchecked and out of line.
        Much research into the topic of children and television violence 
has been conducted.  All of the results seem to point in the same 
direction.  There are undeniable correlations between violent television 
and aggression.  This result was obtained in a survey of London 
schoolchildren in 1975.  Greensberg found a significant relationship 
between violence viewing and aggression (Dorr 160),
        In Israel 74 children from farms were tested as well as 112 
schoolchildren from the city of Tel Aviv.  The researchers found that 
the city children watched far more television than their farmland 
counterparts.  However, both groups of children were just as likely to 
choose a violent program to watch when watching television.  The city 
children had a greater tendency to regard violent television programs as 
accurate reflections of real life than the farm children.  Likewise, the 
city boys identified most with characters from violent programs than did 
those living on the farms (Huesmann 166).
        The government also did research in this area.  They conducted 
an experiment where children were left alone in a room with a monitor 
playing a videotape of other children at play.  Soon, things got ?out of 
hand� and progressive mayhem began to take place.  Children who had just 
seen commercial violence accepted much higher levels of aggression than 
other children.  The results were published in a report.  ?A Sergon 
General?s report found some �preliminary indications of a casual 
relationship between television viewing and aggressive behavior in 
children?� (Langone 50).  
        In other research among U.S. children it was discovered that 
aggression, academic problems, unpopularity with peers and violence feed 
off each other.  This promotes violent behavior in the children 
(Huesmann 166).  The child watches violence which causes aggression.  
The combination of aggression and continued television viewing lead to 
poor academic standings as well as unpopularity.  These can cause more 
aggression and a vicious cycle begins to spin.
        In yet another piece if research children who watch a lot of 
violent television were compared to children who don?t.  The results 
were that the children who watched more violent television were more 
likely to agree that ?it?s okay to hit someone if you?re mad at them for 
a good reason.�  The other group learned that problems can be solved 
passively, through discussion and authority (Cheyney 46).
        The most important aspect of violence in television is 
preventing it.  There are many ways in which it can be prevented, but 
not often are many carried out.  These solutions are easy to implement, 
but are often overlooked because of commercial purposes.
        One such solution is to ?create conflict without killing.�  
Michael Landon, who starred in and directed ?Little House on the 
Prairie� managed to do so in his programs.  His goal was to put moral 
lessons in his show in an attempt to teach while entertaining.  On the 
program ?Hill Street Blues� the conflicts are usually personal and 
political matters among the characters.  Although some violence does 
occur, the theme is not the action, but rather its consequences (Cheyney 
49).
        Perhaps the most important way to prevent children from watching 
television violence is to stop it where it starts.  The parents should 
step in and turn the set off when a violent program comes on.  The 
parents are the child?s role models from which he learns.  If he can 
learn at an early age that violence on television is bad, then he can 
turn the set off for himself when he is older.  Education should start 
at home.
        Fixing the problems of children and television violence isn?t 
easy.  There are many factors that have to be considered and people to 
be convinced.  This problem will, no doubt, never go away and continue 
to get worse as the years go by.  However, there are measures that can 
be taken to prevent the children from ever being exposed to such things.  
After all, what?s the world going to be like when the people who are now 
children are running the world?








Works Cited
Langone, John. Violence. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1984.
Cheyney, Glenn Alan. Television in American Society. New York:
        Franklin Watts Co., 1983.
Howe, Michael J. A. Television and Children. London: New 
        University Education, 1977.
Husemann, L. Rowell. ?Social Channels Tune T.V.?s effects.�
        Science News 14 Sept. 1985: 166.
Door, Palmer. Children and the Faces of Television. New York:
        Academic Press, 1980.
Carter, Douglass. T.V. Violence and the Child. New York: Russel
        Sage Foundation, 1977. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Effects of Third Party Politics on Presidential Elections.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
     Although citizens of the United States have the opportunity to vote for many
different offices at the national, state, and local levels, the election of the president of
the United States every four years is the focal point of the American political process. 
The American political system has maintained a two-party system since its inception. 
Political scientists argue that a two-party system is the most stable and efficient
means of running a democratic nation as a mono-party system leads toward tyranny,
and a multi-party system creates over-diversification and gridlock (Mazmanian 6). The
Constitution of the United States does not in any way limit the structure of the political
system to two parties. In fact,  there has been no presidential election where there
were only two candidates; however, third-party candidates are rarely represented in a
majority of the states, and those that were on the ballot in a majority of states have
never been successful.  However, on a few occasions, third party candidates have
been able to make a significant impact on the presidential election process such as
George Wallace in 1968 and H. Ross Perot in 1992.
     Through nineteenth century there was little deviation from the traditional two-
party system.  Until then, political candidates were utterly dependant upon the political
infrastructure of an established party for their campaigns.  Until the development of
mass media technologies, including radio and television, political candidates had no
direct means of communicating with the public and were thus dependant on the
communications systems of the major parties.  Thus, third party movements lacked
the capabilities to run an effective campaign against the major parties. 
     However, mass media has changed the scope of the election process and
brought about the demise of the major political parties (Robinson 147).   Candidates
who run a television dominated campaign have hurt their parties in a number of ways. 
The media specialists who manage such campaigns tend to be loyal to a candidate
rather than to the candidate's party;  as a result, the campaign supports a single
candidate and not the entire ticket of the party.  In addition, the heavy reliance on
television allows a candidate to reach voters directly, thereby weakening the traditional
function of the party as an information and communication body acting as an
intermediary between the candidate and the voters. 
      Other developments have served to weaken the role of the party in the
presidential campaign.  The growth of computerized "direct-mail fundraising
techniques" and  "computerized e-mail" have encroached on activities traditionally
performed by the political party (Robinson 150).  Also, recent reforms in the areas of
campaign financing and delegate selection to the nominating conventions have made
the party less significant with respect to fund-raising and candidate selection
(Robinson 151).  The decreasing role of the political party in the presidential campaign
and the increasing ability of the candidates themselves to provide their own publicity
has brought about the beginning of a new political era in which the dominance of the
major parties is questionable, and the potential for a non-affiliated candidate to mount
a competitive campaign is very realistic.
     In theory, it is possible for a completely independent candidate to be elected to
the presidency, provided the candidate is highly competent, charismatic, eloquent, and
photogenic, and the candidate is running against relatively weak candidates of the
major parties (Mazmanian 21).  However, at this time, political analysts stipulate that
the chances of this happening are slim because a majority of Americans are
xenophobic enough to be wary of the unknown candidate.  
     An independent candidate can, however, have a dramatic impact on the
outcome of the election without actually winning.  Simply by running, a strong
independent candidate can create problems for the major candidate whose views are
most similar his own.  First, the independent can either split the vote causing the
opposing major candidate to win, or second, the independent can withdraw and give
their support and potentially a significant voting block, to one of the major candidates
in exchange for a change in the candidate's platform to include the independent's
views.  These influences by an independent, third party candidate were demonstrated
in both the 1968 and 1992 elections.
     George Wallace, independent candidate of the newly formed American
Independent Party, took 13.5% of the popular vote in the 1968 election, and won
seventy electoral votes in the states of Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and
Georgia, and making him the most successful independent to run for the presidency. 
The American Independent Party was a "white supremacist . . . , ultra-conservative"
(Mazmanian 130) organization founded in reaction to the 1960's civil rights movement
and the Supreme Court's overturning of "separate, but equal" (Plessy v. Ferguson)
statute that forced integration.  George Wallace, then governor of Alabama, was a
pronounced racist who became nationally known by refusing to allow the integration of
Alabama schools in spite of a federal order to do so.  Wallace ran his campaign on a
platform of state's rights and increased defense spending and gained a large following
of voters in southern states. The political purpose of Wallace's campaign was to force
one or both of the major party candidates, Nixon and Humphery, to a more
conservative position on the issue of state's rights.   Wallace wanted the federal
government to give the states the power to decide whether of not to desegregate
(Mazmanian 89).   However, neither Nixon or Humphery were willing to make
concessions to Wallace, and this resulted in the closest presidential election in the
history of the United States.  Nixon came out on top, but he won over Humphery by
only 0.7% the popular vote (about 500,000 out of 70 million votes)  (Mazmanian 201). 
The votes that Wallace controlled could easily have reversed the outcome of the 1968
election if Humphery had been willing to assimilate Wallace's platform into his own.
Thus third-party politics had a major effect on the 1968 election.    
     H. Ross Perot became, in 1992, the second most successful independent
candidate to run for the presidency.  Although Perot received nineteen percent (19%)
of the popular vote, (six percent more than Wallace) Perot failed to win any individual
states and therefore received no electoral votes (Jackson).  Ross Perot ran a platform
based solely on economic change.  Although this platform captured the interest of a
large number of Americans in a short time, his failure to define his position on other
issues or to particularize his plans for cleaning up the economy lead to his downfall in
the latter part of the campaign  (Murr 71).  The political effect of Ross Perot's
involvement in the 1992 campaign was to force the major candidates to address the
voters more directly and to make them state their positions on controversial issues. 
This, and Perot's repeated attacks on the failed "trickle-down economics", placed the
less eloquent incumbent, George Bush, at a marked disadvantage  (Murr 73).   Also,
Perot was identified as a conservative and thus he forced a split in the conservative
vote away from Bush.  Perot then voiced  limited support for Clinton towards the end
of the campaign which switched some "traditional Republican votes" to the Democratic
party (Goldman 55 ).  Thus, Ross Perot contributed considerably to Clinton's
campaign.
     George Wallace and Ross Perot are two diametrically opposed characters. 
Wallace ran for president for a less than noble cause - to protect the interests of racist
southern whites like himself.  Conversely, Perot ran for president  because he wanted
to bring the American public back into the political system and to "clean-up the mess
in Washington" (Robinson 78).   However, these two men share a commonality.  Both
fielded a relatively successful presidential campaign that greatly affected the outcome
of the election.  Also, they both caused a shift in power away from the incumbent
party.  
     The Perot campaign also had long term affects.  Perot managed to convince
the American people that it was "time to get rid of the old politicians and old way of
doing things" (Robinson 36).  Perot's support of Clinton led many voters to believe that
they were doing just that, but when after two years Clinton had failed to pass any of
the major legislation of his campaign platform, the American voters backlashed with a
landslide Republican victory in the 1994 Congressional elections. 
     The presidential election is the focal point of the American political process.  It
is, in essence, a decision made by the citizens of the United States to determine the
course of action for the nation for a four year span and is arguably the most important
recurring event in the life of the nation.  The ability of a third-party faction to affect the
outcome of the election can be a very powerful and dangerous force.  Indeed, Ross
Perot and George Wallace had a profound effect on the outcome of the elections they
participated in, but Perot had a more lasting effect. Ross Perot proved to the world
that it is quite plausible for a completely independent candidate to "walk into center
stage and steal the show" (Robinson 141).  With the decline of the political parties and
their role in the campaign process, the possibilities for more successful independent
candidates can only increase.   Eventually an independent will go farther than swaying
the outcome.  One day an independent will win.


                                Works Cited

Brown, Gene. H. Ross Perot: Texas Billionaire. Vero Beach: Rourke
     Enterprises, Inc, 1993.

Goldman, Peter and Tom Mathews. "The Manhattan Project". Newsweek (Special 
     Election Issue) November/December, 1992. pp.40-57

Jackson, David. "3rd party chances gauged" Dallas Morning News. November 5, 1992.

Mazmanian, Daniel A. Third Parties in Presidential Elections. New York: Franklin
      Watts, 1974.

Murr, Andrew. "Superhero". Newsweek (Special Election Issue) November/December, 
     1992. pp.70-77.

Robinson, James W., ed.  Ross Perot Speaks Out.  Rocklin: Prima Publishing, 1992.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The election of 1972.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	The Presidential election of 1972 had two strong candidates,
President Richard Nixon and George McGovern.  There were many issues
which had a great deal of importance to the election.  The Vietnam war and
the stability of the economy at the time were two main factors.  The election
ended in one the largest political scandals in U.S. history, being the Watergate
break-in, and cover-up, by President Richard Nixon.
	The Democratic party had a large selection of candidates from which
to choose for the primary elections of 1972.  There were many well known
candidates who entered the race for the nomination.  The leading contenders
were Edmund S. Muskie of Maine, Senator George McGovern of South
Dakota and Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota.  Other candidates who didn't
receive quite as much recognition were Alabama governor George C.
Wallace, Mayor Sam Yorty of Los Angeles, Rep. Wilbur D. Mills of
Arkansas, Sen. Vance Hartke of Indiana, former Senator Eugene J.
McCarthy of Minnesota, Mayor John Lindsay of New York City and Rep.
Shirley Chisholm of New York.  Chisholm was the first black to run in a
series of presidential primaries." (Congressional Quarterly, "Guide to U.S.
Elections", Third ed., 1994,  pg.603-605.) 5  
	Governor Wallace had a devastating moment in his campaign while in
Maryland.  "In early May a sick young man named Arthur Bremer altered the
politics of 1972.  As Governor Wallace campaigned toward certain victory in
the Maryland primary, Bremer stepped forward out of a shopping-center
crowd and shot him four times.  Wallace survived, but at the cost of being
paralyzed from the waist down.  Maryland's voters surged out on election day
to give Wallace a huge victory, his last of 1972.  While Wallace recuperated,
the millions who would have voted for him as a Democratic or independent
candidate began to move in overwhelming proportions behind the candidacy
began to move in overwhelming proportions behind the candidacy of Richard
Nixon." (Benton, William.  "U.S. Election of 1972." Encyclopedia Britannica
Book of the Year. pg.12-13, 1973 ed.)1
	When the California primary was approaching, Humphrey tried to
save the nomination for himself.  "Humphrey excoriated his old senate friend
(McGovern) for his expensive ideas on welfare and his desire to cut the
defense budget.  It almost worked.  But McGovern won all of California's
giant delegation, and beat Humphrey 44.3% to 39.1% in the popular vote."5 
That loss spelled out the end for Humphrey's Democratic nomination.
	Many felt Edmund Muskie was sure to win the Democratic
nomination for the election of 1972.  "All political observers agreed on the
certainty that Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine would be the Democratic
party's nominee."1  "As the front-runner, he wanted to snare the nomination
early and so was committed to running in all of the first eight presidential
primaries.  Prominent Democratic politicians lined up eagerly to endorse him. 
Among them:  Gov. John Gilligan of Ohio; Leonard Woodcock, President of
the United Auto Workers; Iowa Senator Harold Hughes; and Pennsylvania
Governor Milton Shapp."1  Muskie had many supporters, and a good chance
of receiving the nomination,  perhaps even becoming the next President of the
United States.  President Nixon knew that Muskie had a good chance of
winning and felt he had to do something to get Muskie out of the race.  Nixon
had seven men who were loyal to him make up false press releases about
Muskie, and his wife.  These press releases claimed that Muskie had had
affairs with both men and women, that he beat his wife, and then the topper
which claimed that Muskies' wife was an alcoholic.  These false statements
destroyed Muskies' campaign and reputation of being a calm trustworthy
candidate.  Then one day "mounting the bed of a truck parked outside the
offices of the archconservative Manchester Union Leader, Muskie launched
an attack on the paper's publisher, William Loeb.  As he spoke of Loeb's
unflattering remarks about Mrs. Muskie, the senator's voice cracked, and the
crowd saw tears form in his eyes."1  This incident badly dented Muskie's
image.  After that event, people saw Muskie as a weak person.  They didn't
want a weak person running the country.  "Muskie had finished fourth in
Pennsylvania, behind winner Humphrey, Wallace, and McGovern, and a
distant second to McGovern in Massachusetts.  He then withdrew with
dignity." 1  Muskie later said of this incident: "It changed  people's minds
about me, of what kind of a guy I was.  They were looking for a strong,
steady man, and here I was weak." " (Congressional Quarterly, "Chronology
of Presidential Elections", Fourth ed. 1994, pg.329-330)6
	After a long primary campaign, and all the primary elections, Senator
George McGovern won the nomination for the Democratic party in the 1972
presidential election.  "McGovern did not get to deliver his acceptance
speech--perhaps the best speech of his career--until 2:48 a.m., when most
television viewers were already in bed."6  Senator McGovern had a difficult
campaign ahead of him.  His opposition, President Richard Nixon, already
had the upper hand on him because he had been elected President four years
before.  President Nixon was the Republican candidate.  "President Richard
Nixon told a reporter that "the election was over the day he (Sen. George
McGovern) was nominated." "1  McGovern campaigned very hard. 
"Between September 3 and September 15, the South Dakotan barnstormed
through 29 cities and towns in 18 states covering some 14,000 miles and
being seen by more than 175,000 people." (U.S. News and World Report,
"Can Democrats Close the Gap, Sept. 25, 1972, Vol. LXXXIII, No.13,
pg.17-22)3  McGovern knew, if he wanted to win, he had to focus on the
important issues of 1972.  
	There were four very important issues.  These were the war in
Vietnam, the economy, foreign policy, and defense.  The two major ones
were the war in Vietnam, and the economy.  McGovern was sure that if he
was elected president, he would be able to end the war.  "We will be able to
end the war by a simple plan that need not be kept secret:  The immediate
total withdrawal of all Americans from Southeast Asia." (Congressional
Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, "1972 Conventions", Third ed., 1994
pg..127-132.)4  McGovern goes on to say in another interview that "I will
stake my whole political career on being able to withdraw our forces and get
our prisoners out within 90 days after inauguration.  I really think I can do it
faster than that." (U.S. News and World, "How McGovern Sees The Issues,"
August 7, 1972, Vol. LXXIII No.6, pg.18-22)8  McGovern, like everyone
else wanted to end the war in Vietnam as soon as possible.  McGovern felt
the Nixon could have ended the war years earlier, and could have spared all
those lives.  "There's nothing that we can negotiate now in ending this war that
we couldn't have done four years ago.  We haven't gained anything in these
four years of continued slaughter that's gone on in this present
Administration."8  "I'll be one of those rejoicing even if Nixon does end this
war and it does accrue to his advantage.  I just wish he had done it four years
ago.  If he had, I might not now be running for the President."8  McGovern
makes it seem as though his sole purpose, and reason for wanting to become
President is to simply end the Vietnam war.
	Nixon along with the Republican party, and their platform stated that
"We will continue to seek a settlement of the Vietnam War which will permit
the people of Southeast Asia to live in peace under political arrangements of
their own choosing.  We take specific note of the remaining major obstacle to
settlement-Hanoi's demand that the United States overthrow the Saigon
government and impose a Communist-dominated government on the South
Vietnamese.  We stand unequivocally at the side of the President in his effort
to negotiate honorable terms, and in his refusal to accept terms which would
dishonor this country."4  "We insist that, before all American forces are
withdrawn from Vietnam, American prisoners must be returned and a full
accounting made of the missing in action and of those who have died in enemy
hands." (U.S. News and World Report, "Promises Republican Make," Sept.
4, 1972, Vol. LXXIII No.10, pg.28-29)2  Although the Republicans held the
basic idea that the Democrats did, which was to end the war in Vietnam as
soon as possible, they didn't specify an allotted amount of time in which they
would accomplish this goal as did the Democrats.
	The second major issue of 1972 was the economy.  "The Nixon
record increased unemployment by 3 million people."8  There were price
freezes, and wage-price controls. McGovern and the Democrats stated that
their goal was for full employment, and for those who are unable to work, that
they would receive a guaranteed income.  "The heart of a program of
economic security based on earned income must be creating jobs and training
people to fill them.  Millions of jobs -- real jobs, not make-work -- need to
be provided.  Public service employment must be greatly expanded in order
to make the government the employer of last resort and guarantee a job for
all."  "What I offer is a balanced, full-employment economy--where we can
provide enough, both to protect our interest abroad and to bring progress at
home."4  
	Part of McGovern's economic plan included defense  spending cut
backs.  "What I offer is not simply a set of promises, but a specific plan to
pay for those promises.  First,  I would reduce by approximately 10 billion
dollars in each of the next three years the rapidly escalating, lavish Nixon
military budget.  Current spending wastes billions of dollars on planes that do
not fly, and missiles that will not work.  I will never permit America to become
a second-rate power in the world.  Neither can we permit America to
become a second-rate society.  And if we choose a reasonable military
budget, we will not have to choose between the decline of our security and
the deterioration of our standard of life."(U.S. News and World Report,
"From McGovern: A New Blueprint For Taxes, Welfare," Vol. LXXIII
No.11, pg.14-16)7  Our country does not only need to be strong militarily
but also economically.  Our military is an important part of our economy, but
it shouldn't be one of the major influencing factors that determines the health
of the economy.  The Democrats felt that "Spending for military purposes is
greater by far than federal spending for education, housing, environmental
protection, unemployment insurance or welfare.  Unneeded dollars for the
military at once add to the tax burden and pre-empt funds from programs of
direct and immediate benefit to our people.  Moreover, too much that is now
spent on defense not only adds nothing to our strength but makes us less
secure by stimulating other countries to respond."4
	Just as the Democrats want a healthy economy the Republicans want
the same thing.  Our country needs a healthy economy to survive, and the
Republicans feel they can give us that strong economy.  "We stand for full
employment--a job for everyone willing and able to work in an economy
freed of inflation, its vigor not dependent upon war or massive military
spending.  We will fight for responsible federal budgets to help assure steady
expansion of the economy without inflation.  The right of American citizens to
buy, hold or sell goods should be re-established as soon as this is feasible."2 
The Republicans agree that the economy shouldn't be based on war or huge
amounts of defense expenses to keep our economy, but they also feel that the
military is an important part of our country.
Traditionally the Republican party has always supported a strong military, and
feels it is necessary to keep America as one of the world's strongest nations. 
President Nixon, and the Republican party stated that "By adhering to a
defense policy based on strength at home, partnership abroad and a
willingness to negotiate everywhere, we hold that lasting peace is now
achievable.  We will not let America become a second-class power,
dependent for survival on the good will of adversaries.  We draw a sharp
distinction between prudent reductions in defense spending and the meat-ax
slashes with which some Americans are now beguiled by the political
opposition.  We wholeheartedly support an all-volunteer armed force and
expect to end the draft by July, 1973.  We will continue to pursue arms-
control agreements--but we recognize that this can be successful only if we
maintain sufficient strength."2  Basically Nixon and the Republican Party were
stating that we need a strong military and a healthy economy, but cutting
defense spending is not the solution to the economic problem.
	Another major issue focused on during the election of 1972 was
foreign policy.  Senator McGovern, and the Democratic party stated the next
Democratic Administration should "End American participation in the war in
Southeast Asia.  Re-establish control over military activities and reduce
military spending, where consistent with national security.  Defend America's
real interests and maintain our alliances, neither playing world policeman nor
abandoning old and good friends.  Not neglect America's relations with small
third-world nations in placing reliance on great power relationships.  Return to
Congress, and the people, a meaningful role in decisions on peace and war,
and make information public, except where real national defense interests are
involved."4  The Democratic party didn't want other countries to look upon
the U.S. as the policeman of the world.  They also wanted to make sure the
U.S. remained friendly with small third world countries, because we may need
to trade with them, or we might need raw materials we don't have.
	The Republicans had a different idea on foreign policy.  They said that
"Never before has our country negotiated with so many nations on so wide a
range of subjects -- and never with greater success."  They go on to say "We
will press for expansion of contacts with the peoples of Eastern Europe and
the People's Republic of China, as long isolated from most of the world."2 
The Republican Party wanted to improve the relationships with countries that
have been cut off from much of the world.  The Republicans felt they were
doing a good job with foreign policy, and didn't think they should change
much of anything they were doing.
	After all the months of campaigning, and voting were through, Richard
Nixon was reelected the new President of the United States.  "Nixon swept
back into the White House on Nov. 7 with a devastating landslide victory
over McGovern.  He carried a record of 49 states for a total of 520 electoral
votes."5  Nixon did have a couple of advantages that McGovern didn't.  For
one, the people had confidence in him since he had been elected once before. 
They knew what kind of a President he was, and what they as the constituents
could expect from him.  Second, McGovern made a bad decision when he
chose his vice president running mate.  McGovern had chosen Sen. Thomas
F. Eagleton of Missouri.  "Barely 10 days after selection of the Democratic
ticket, on July 25, Eagleton disclosed that he voluntarily had hospitalized
himself three times between 1960 and 1966 for "nervous exhaustion and
fatigue.  "McGovern strongly supported his running mate at the time, but in the
following days, his support for the Missouri senator began to wane.  After a
meeting with McGovern on July 31, Eagleton withdrew from the ticket."4 
Eagleton badly damaged the image of McGovern.  The constituents lost their
confidence in McGovern and in his decision making power.  They felt that
McGovern may not make wise decisions if he was elected the next President
of the U.S.  McGovern was also somewhat radical views.  "CRP focused
early and often on the more radical-sounding views of McGovern, highlighting
his support of amnesty for young people who fled to Canada to avoid the
draft, his sometime musings that marijuana might better be legalized, and his
purported support of legalized abortion."1  Many felt that McGovern's views
may have been more radical and outlandish than some had supported.
	After Nixon was elected to office, "It appeared in 1972 that
American politics was entering an age of calm consensus.  The economy was
temporarily strong: opposition to the Vietnam War had faded as the two sides
negotiated in Paris for an end to the war."6  Then in Nixon's political career
"A warlike atmosphere between the media (as well as other perceived
enemies of the administration that appeared on Nixon's "enemies list") and the
mushrooming Watergate scandal combined to create a dark side to U.S.
politics in the 1970's.  At its simplest level, the Watergate affair was "a third-
rate burglary" and a subsequent cover-up by President Nixon and his aides. 
In the summer of 1972, several employees of the Committee to Re-elect the
President were arrested after they were discovered breaking into and bugging
the Democratic National Committee's offices at the posh Watergate complex
in Washington.  The break-in was not a major issue in the 1972 election, but
the next year congressional committees began an investigation."6  Along with
the congressional committees investigation, two reporters from the
Washington Post, named Bob Woodward, and Carl Berstein did some
investigating of their own.  They had a politician who knew about all that was
going on with the Watergate scandal, nicknamed "Deep Throat."  Deep
Throat supplied the two reporters with the information they needed to tear
open the Watergate scandal.  These two reporters open up the Watergate
scandal, and all the participants involved.  "During the investigation, a
presidential aide revealed that Nixon had secretly taped Oval Office
conversations with aides.  When the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald
Cox ordered Nixon to surrender the tapes, Nixon ordered Cox fired.  Then
the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon had to surrender even more tapes, which
indicated that he had played an active role in covering up the Watergate
scandal.  Nixon resigned the presidency when his impeachment and
conviction appeared certain.  	The impeachment articles charged him with
obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential powers and contempt of
Congress.  President Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974.  The Watergate
affair was perhaps the greatest political scandal in U.S. history.  For the first
time, a president was forced to leave office before his term expired."6   
	Vice President Gerald Ford became the President of the United
States.  President Ford then granted Richard Nixon a full pardon of the
crimes committed against the presidency, and the people of the United States.   




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The End Of The Cold War.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
period 8




THE END OF THE COLD WAR






by
Rutvij Bhatt





United States History II
Mrs. Jacqualyn J. Newman
Stroudsburg High School
March 17, 1997
	



period 8







TOPIC:The End of the Cold War
Thesis Statement: What role did the United States play in the ending of the Cold War















	





	The cold war was a post-World War II struggle between the United States and its
allies and the group of nations led by the Soviet Union. Direct military conflict did not
occur between the two superpowers, but intense economic and diplomatic struggles
erupted. Different interests led to mutual suspicion and hostility in a rising philosophy. The
United States played a major role in the ending of the cold war. It has been said that
President Ronald Reagan ended the cold war with his strategic defense policies.
	In the year1949, Germany was divided by the victors of World War II and they
occupied different zones. The western regions united to form a Federal republic and the
Soviet eastern region became communist East Germany. The cold war had begun. Berlin,
the former capital of Germany was divided into East Berlin and West Berlin but was
located deep inside the soviet controlled zone.1 
	Then, in 1961, the Soviet government built a wall which separated the two halves
of the city. It was not until the 1980s that cold war tensions eased through the glasnost
(openness to public debate) polices of soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Finally, in
November 1989, the wall crumbled under the hands of the Germans and the cold war
ended.2
	The downfall of the cold war started when Ronald Reagan came into office in
1981. Reagan had two main priorities. He wanted to cut taxes and increase defense
spending. He felt that the United States of America should take a confrontational
approach towards Russia.3
	Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of Russia in 1985. He wanted to improve the
Russian economy. He also wanted to improve relations with the United States.  He used 
his glasnost (openness to public debate) policy and perestroika (restructuring) to help the
Russian economy.4 
	Both leaders wanted a "margin of safety". Reagan took a tough stand against
Russia and it's allies. The soviets could clearly see that when Reagan said he wanted a
"margin of safety", he meant that the United States should be superior to Russia. Moscow
would not let this happen. They wanted equality.5
	Reagan also believed that military power and respect for America abroad were
inseparable from economic strength. However, Reagan's defense policy resulted in the
doubling of the debt of the United States. He used the money for new strategic programs
and for expensive conventional programs such as expanding the navy from four hundred
to six hundred ships. Reagan also received increases for  the CIA and other intelligence
agencies so they could aid anti-Russian forces in Afghanistan and other Third-World
countries.6
	Reagan's administration did not have strong or consistent policies towards Russia.
It was divided between people who favored careful negotiations and people who strongly
opposed efforts to deal with "the enemy." The negotiators were centered in the State
department. It included George Schultz, Richard Burt, and Secretary of State Alexander
Haig. The other side included Caspar Weinberger, Richard Perle and Senator Henry
Jackson.7
	Soviets became frightened by the United States' policies. They were going to
negotiate with Reagan at first but because of military buildup, lack of interest in arms
control, Soviets were afraid Reagan would attack the nation. Soviets kept the KGB
(Russia's version of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) on alerted from 1981 to 1983 just
in case.8
	A Russian military plane had shot down a South Korean civilian airliner that was
flying over Soviet territory. The plane was traveling from Anchorage, Alaska to Seoul 
2
Korea. Sixty-one Americans were killed on the flight. When the United States heard 
about this; Reagan was furious. He denounced that the "Korean airline massacre" was a
"crime against humanity" for which "there was absolutely no justification legal or moral..."
9
	Soviets said that they thought it was a spy plane and when they inquired who it
was, they received no answer. That is why they shot it down. This crisis gave more tension
to the cold war situation. 10
	On September 23, 1985, Andropov, the Soviet leader at the time, issued "one of
the most strong anti-American statements since the Stalin Era".12 He accused the United
States of pursuing a militarist course that is designed to achieve "dominant positions in the
world without reckoning with the interests of the other states and peoples".11
	Soviet leaders thought that the  United States' response to the airliner incident
combined with the continuing lack of progress on arms control, was proof that they should
not improve relations with the United States. That December, they withdrew from the
arms control negotiations in Geneva. For this reason negotiations that would end the cold
war were halted.12
	Reagan proposed a program called "Strategic Defense Initiative (Also known as
"Star Wars")." The program was where an experimental rocket was launched off a remote
island and intercepted an incoming ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) warhead that
was about one hundred miles above earth. This was a demonstration of the Pentagon's
ability to solve the problems of ballistic-missile defense.13
		What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
		their security did not rest upon the threat of instant United
		States retaliation to deter Soviet attack; that we could
		intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they
		reached our own soil and that of our allies? 14
3
		(President Reagan commenting on "Star Wars") 		
	It was Reagan's support for "Star Wars" that enabled Gorbachev to take the
initiative soon after coming to power in spring of 1985. Most Western Europeans derided
"Star Wars" as "a pointless escalation in the arms race" and Gorbachev thought this way
also. Gorbachev denounced "Star Wars" and tried to show that Russia was a peaceful
nation. He reduced the number of 22-20 missiles aimed at Western Europe and also
announced a moratorium on underground nuclear testing.  Russia also offered to make
deep cuts in it's missiles if the United States would stop researching "Star Wars."
Gorbachev arranged a summit meeting in Geneva with Ronald Reagan which is where
they had talks about "Star Wars." Little progress was made on arms control and Reagan
was held responsible.15 
	Gorbachev and Reagan also met in Reykjavik. Gorbachev challenged Reagan to try
to negotiate a comprehensive arms control agreement that weekend. Gorbachev offered a
few significant ideas. He agreed in principle to the 1981 United States proposal to
eliminate medium range missiles from Europe and suggested that there be a fifty-percent
cut in strategic weapons for the next five years.16
	Then, Reagan proposed that they destroy all ballistic missiles for the next ten years
and Gorbachev responded by suggesting they abolish all nuclear missiles. Reagan agreed
but then Gorbachev made it clear the any further research of SDI (Strategic Defense
Initiative) should only be done in the laboratory. Reagan then said that this restriction
would "kill" SDI. When Gorbachev refused to move his position, Reagan left. Reagan was
forced to choose between "Star Wars" and a deal that would end Soviet nuclear threat
through disarmament, Reagan's basic partialism and distrust of Russia won.17
	In February, Gorbachev offered to separate the European intermediate range
missile issue from strategic and space weapons issues and said that he supported the long 
4
standing United States proposal to remove all Soviet and United States intermediate range 
missiles from Europe. Reagan responded positively to Gorbachev's speech and he resumed
talks with Gorbachev .18
		
		The modern world has become much too small and fragile for
		wars and policy of force. It cannot be saved and preserved if
		the thinking and actions built up over the centuries on the 
		acceptability and permissibility of wars and armed conflicts
		are not shed after all...[If the arms race continues] The
		situation in the world may assume such a character that
		it will no longer depend on the intelligence or will of
		political leaders. It may become captive to technology,
		to technocratic logic. 19
						Mikhail Gorbachev
	Reagan agreed with Gorbachev and the United States signed a nuclear arms treaty
eliminating all the intermediate-range missiles stationed in Europe. This was the first ever
agreement that eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons. American officials were sent
to Russia to make sure that any violations were detected.20
	In his speech to the United Nations on December 8, 1988, Gorbachev announced
the withdrawal of fifty-thousand Soviet troops in Eastern Europe. The withdrawn forces
were tanks and units with bridging equipment. The West conceded that the Eastern
section had stronger non-nuclear forces and that to move toward equilibrium in Europe
required deeper reductions on the Eastern side than the Western side.21
	The Soviet Communist Party agreed to let Poland have a democratic election on
June 5 1989. In the elections, Solidarity (a labor union) won a landslide victory. Despite 
5
Solidarity's win Communists still regained control of the Parliament. The reason was that
election rules guaranteed it a majority of seats. However Solidarity won almost all the
seats it was allowed to compete for. This Polish election that allowed the opposition to
share power with the Communist Party  was a major part of the historic movement for
political reform in the Soviet Union.22 
	On November 11, 1989, the Berlin Wall came down. This marked the end of the
cold war. East Germany has announced that all border restrictions were lifted. President
Bush wanted to "seize every chance" to promote democracy in Eastern Europe Secretary
of State James Baker called the lifting of the German travel restrictions "the most dramatic
event in East-West relations" since World War II.23
	George Bush had comments on the Berlin Wall also. He went to Mainz, Germany
where he said a few words.
	
	For 40 years, the seeds of democracy in Eastern Europe lay dormant, 
	buried under the frozen tundra of the Cold War. And for 40 years the 
	world has waited for the Cold War to end. And decade after decade, 
	time after time, the flowering human spirit withered from the chill of conflict 
	and oppression. And again the world waited. But the passion for freedom 
	cannot be denied forever. The world has waited long enough. The time is 
	right. Let Europe be whole and free. 24
							George Bush
	The United States of America played a huge role in the ending of the cold war.
Though we made relations worse, we also helped end it. Reagan's "Star Wars" policies
made Russians very nervous.


6


	1 Walter Lippman, The Cold War: A Study in U.S. Foreign Policy (New York:
Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1947) 48-52.
	2 Charles S. Maier, ed., The Cold War in Europe: Era of a divided Continent (New
York: Markus Wiener Publishing, Inc., 1991) 27.
	 3 Ralph B. Levering, The Cold War (Illinois: Harlan Davidson, INC.,1988) 169.
	4 Levering, 169
	5 Levering, 169
	6  John Young, Cold War Europe 1945-1989 (New York: Edward Allen, 1991)
26.
	7 Levering, 171-2
	8 Levering 173
	9 "The End of the Cold War" http://usa.coldwar.server.gov/index/coldwar/ 2 Feb.
1997
	10 http://usa.coldwar.server.gov/index/coldwar/ 	
	11 Young, 28
	12 Young, 28
	13 Tom Morganthou, "Reagan's cold war 'sting'?", Newsweek  32 August 1993: 32
	14 Levering, 180
	15"Ending the Cold War", Foreign Affairs Spring 1988: 24-25
	16 Young, 28
	17 Young, 29
	18 Young, 29
	19 Levering, 187-188
	20"Ending the Cold War", 27	
	21 "Ending the Cold War", 28
	22Brinkley, Alan An Uneasy Peace 1988-,  Vol. 10 of 20th Century
America, 10 vols. (New York: Grolier 1995):22
	23Brinkley, 30
	24"George Bush addresses Europe" http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/burke/ 13
March 1997.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Eucharist.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


	SUMMARY


Eucharist

History
-reenacts the closing events of jesus' life
-links past-present-future one ceremony
-powerful, meaningful ritual
-last of the 3 sacraments of initiation
-prescribed by christ
-have to see the eucharist as body, not bread

Eucharist celebrates
-"a way of remembering"
-daily reminder of Gods love
-jesus shared bread at last supper/do this in memory of me
-a thanksgiving feast
-"eucharist" means giving thanx

Ritual Meal
-earliest form of rituals are eating and gathering
-sacrifice meal
-ritual not a routine
-builds on the symbolism of a ritual mean

Sign and Symbols
-symbol of gods love for us
-jesus' body
-last supper/banquet
-welcome others to participate in the eucharist
-unfilled celebration
-if we went to mass on sunday, it would make the rest of the week more meaningful
-unified body
-it is the most commonly received sacrament, most pivotal of 7
-as a community, we celebrate the presence of christ in the eucharist
-bread: basic food for most people/closely assoc with nature
 human work

Vestements
-white/purple/black robe

Words
-"Do this in Memory of Me."
-"This is my body, which has been given up for you."



	ST. ROBERT'S CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL






	"THE EUCHARIST"






	BY: MARK HARNUM







	Presented to: Mr. DiMaio




	NRE 2A0-09









	Monday November 29 , 1993















	THE EUCHARIST


Thesis: The Eucharist is a sign of Jesus' death, and how He gave himself up for us, and how we experience Him through His body.

History of the Eucharist

	The Eucharist is a Jewish Ritual of worship.  It dates back to the Last Supper, where Jesus celebrated a typical Jewish community meal with His friends.  Sharing a meal with family, (very important to the Jews) also dates back to the Passover Meal.  This is called the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and the early Christians added Jewish synagogue service and then became the Liturgy of the Word.  
	The Eucharist is a sacrament, and is also a ritual.  It is a repeated sacrament, and is the most frequently used among all sacraments.  It is "a way of remembering" and a daily reminder if God's love.    Jesus at the Last Supper shared bread with us, and said "Do this in Memory of Me."  This is why we have bread, because it represents Jesus' body, and how He gave Himself up for us.  The first little while of the Church, the "Mass was celebrated as a friendship meal called agape."   Christians shared brought food to the house where they were assembled, but as the numbers increased, the meal was cut down to bread and wine.  Today, the offertory collection echoes the early years of the spirit giving at the Eucharist.   It is living bread that came down from heaven.  Whoever believes has eternal life.  

Rituals of the Eucharist

	The Eucharist, breaking of the bread, sharing the wine, eating and gathering are the earliest form of rituals.  These rituals are a sacrifice meal.  They are sacrifice meals because they take time, and are enjoyed, so therefore it is a meal, not a routine.  The sharing of the meal is important, and it is a time of experiencing each other. 
The word Eucharist means giving thanks, and the ritual of the Eucharist is like a "Thanksgiving every day of the year". 

Symbols of the Eucharist

	The Eucharist is a symbol of God's love for us.  It illustrates Jesus's body, and welcomes others to participate in the Eucharist.  The Eucharist is an unfilled Celebration and receiving the Eucharist on Sunday, makes the rest of the week more meaningful.  It symbolizes the unified body of Christ, and the church symbolizes a community as we celebrate the presence in Christ in the Eucharist.  The bread symbolizes giving thanks, and is the basic food for most people and is closely associated with nature and work of human hands.  Sharing the Cup represents that drink is essential to life and both bread and wine are symbols of Christ.  It also symbolizes how we can go forty days without water as opposed to five days without water.   
Proclaiming the Word of God means that Jesus is present in the Gospels and He comes alive for us in hearing the words and stories of his life.  We stand to welcome Christ into our living word of God.

Vestments

	The garments worn during the Eucharist at Church are either Black, White, or Purple.  These are for different times of the year.  Black symbolizes death, purple illustrates Advent, and white portrays ordinary time.
  
Words, Statements, Responses

	There are many different expressions used in the Mass, all with important meanings.  First, the priest prepares the gifts, to make them Holy.  We respond "Blessed it be God forever."  Another one is "Do this in Memory of Me." This means that Jesus gave Himself up for us, and wants us to remember what He did for us.  It reenacts the closing events of Jesus' life on earth.   This is followed by the Eucharist Prayer "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord..." then ensued by  "Lord, I am not worth to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed."  This means to clean yourself of sins, and get ready for the body of Christ.
To ask God if He welcomes you to receive the Eucharist.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

COOKE, Bernard, THE EUCHARIST, "Mystery of Friendship"
			 Centre of Studies in Religious Education
			 Ohio, 1969.

GUZIE, Tad, W.  JESUS AND THE EUCHARIST, Paulist Press
			 New York, 1974

RELIGION MANUAL p: 117-131


JOHN 6: 47-58,  BIBLE


LUKE 22: 14-20  BIBLE


                GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Handout


			 LITURGY OF THE WORD, Handout


			 WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT, Handout 



























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The European Union is it a Failure .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Introduction
	Europe made up more than 30 countries and even more distinct cultures; it is now trying to adjust to new economic systems throughout the world. Today with the trend toward big trading blocks like: N.A.F.T.A. or G.N.A.T.T. Europe is trying to advance it's old Trading block called the European Economic Community (EEC)  to become the European Union.  The current membership of 15 country's is ruled by one European Parliament.  Under the E.U. each country will be under one currency called the Euro dollar (which is to come into effect on January 1st of 1999), one central banking system, and will be regulated with the same set of laws.  In effect the country's of the E.U. will eventually become one.  The way to a unified Europe is not a easy one; problems caused by countries unwilling to give up  their sovereignties, and by countries afraid of the new Union continually slow it's progress.

Problems Facing the European Union
Sovereignty or Unity?
This raises many conflicts with Europeans.  For thousands of years Europe has been torn time and again by wars which were largely fueled by ethnic or religious differences.  Today however Europeans are asked to put aside their differences and become one.  With nationalism still strong throughout Europe many people are strongly against the E.U.  Analysts strongly suggest, however, that the E.U. is the only way Europe can improve it's economy. Unemployment in most of Europe is running above 10 percent and countries like Germany and France are suffering from net investment outflows, European economies are groaning under the weight of rigid regulation, high labor costs, high taxes and generous social services that have become too expensive to sustain. Meanwhile, labor protests are on the rise, companies cut costs and governments try to slash budget deficits. 



Expansion
		The E.U. causes another major problem for Europe and the rest of the world that is the expansion of the Union. Countries from the former Warsaw Pact are eager to join the European Union but Russia is opposing that move because of their xenophobic fears.  This poses an new question for the world; Are the satellite countries of the former Soviet Union truly sovereign states or are they still puppet states controlled by Russia?  The view today has to different sides: the European, who are willing to accept Warsaw Pact states into NATO and the E.U. given they meet the requirements; And the U.S. policy which is against any expansion of NATO  or the E.U. into the countries in question.

The European Union?

The European Union is the name of the organization for the countries that have decided to co-operate on a great number of areas, ranging from a single market economy, foreign policy's,  same sets of environmental laws, mutual recognition of school diplomas, to exchange of criminal records are among the few  (The E.U. is roughly similar in working to the United States of America.  The states being Countries and the U.S. the E.U.)  The E.U. currently includes 15 countries and has 11 official languages, and many more internal ones. E.U. has noted , however, that the current eleven official working languages will be unworkable; an expansion to sixteen or more (with some former Eastern Bloc countries joining) will be impossible. It is therefore expected, in my view, that the number of working languages will be limited to three (English, French and German) or five (with Italian and Spanish).




A little known fact about the European Union's flag is that it has only 12 stars. The stars are not meant to represent countries. Rather, the number of twelve stars was chosen to be a symbol of completeness and of unity, as it corresponded to the number of stars in the zodiac, the number of months in the year and (for the purpose of winning over the mainly Christian European people) to the number of Jesus's apostles. 











 E.U. members listed in order of membership: 
 
1. Belgium 
2. Germany
3. France
4. Italy
5. Luxembourg
6. Netherlands
7. Denmark
8. Republic of Ireland
9. United Kingdom
10. Greece
11. Portugal 
12. Spain 
13. Austria 
14. Finland  
15. Sweden


Official languages of the E.U.


� German (88.8 million Germany, Austria, Belgium, Italy and Luxembourg) 
� French (63.3 million, in France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy) 
� English (60.0 million, in UK and Republic of Ireland)
� Italian (56.4 million, in Italy) 
� Spanish (39.2 million, in Spain) 
� Dutch (21.1 million, in the Netherlands and Belgium) 
� Greek (10.3 million, in Greece) 
� Portuguese (9.8 million, in Portugal) 
� Swedish (9.0 million, in Sweden and Finland) 
� Danish (5.2 million, in Denmark) 
� Finnish (4.7 million, in Finland). 
 



The E.U. Government Structure


The European Unions main institutions are the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the Council of Ministers and the Court of Auditors. The Council and the European Parliament are the main decision-taking bodies of the E.U.  The 626 members of the European Parliament are elected by EU citizens every five years. The president and the other 19 Members of the European Commission, which has the sole right to initiate draft legislation, are nominated their individual  governments.
.




History, How and Why?

The creation of the European Union began after World War II (it was first called the European Community). The founding members of the Community first combined their big industries. They then set about creating a single market in which goods, services, people and capital could move about as freely as within a single country. The process was gradual spanning 40 years and covering political and social as well as economic and trade aspects of nations. As they completed the single market, which formally came into being in January, 1993. The Maastricht Treaty  on the European Union took effect on 1 November 1993. It strengthened the Community further, by preparing the way for economic and monetary union (EMU) and a single currency called the Euro. The Maastricht also added common foreign and security polices and cooperation on justice and police affairs. The term 'European Union' is actually used to describe the wider Maastricht framework in which all these activities - old and new - take place.

The Current Status of the European Union and it's Plans for the Future


The implementation of the E.U. has and will create many benefits for it's citizens. Individual citizens can live and work in the country of their choice, travel freely within the Union since border controls have virtually disappeared.  More goods are available to people, for example French goods are as accessible as Belgium goods in Spain; as before the union more French goods might be available due to tariffs. The E.U.  has also created a common European citizenship in addition to a national citizenship. 
	Currently seven country's have lifted border controls they are France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and the Benelux.  The main impact of the decision is the removal of passport checks on Union citizens passing through the airports of these countries.  Italy, Greece, Denmark and Austria look likely to be the next to bring in the new freedoms, 
	Since currency fluctuations can block markets just as effectively as taxes and tariffs the E.U. has moved to create a single monetary unit.  For example if the German Mark is suddenly devalued in comparison to the Frank goods made in France will cost substantially more than those made in Germany.  To prevent this the Euro dollar was created it is to come into full circulation by January 1, 1999. "In America, your economic development wouldn't have been quite so good if you had had different currencies," said Ulrich Raam, chief economist at Commerzbank in Frankfurt. 
European Union is also looking to bring the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into membership.  This is strongly supported by public opinion in the existing states; more than 60 % for bringing Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic into the Union, and 55-58 %  support for the memberships of Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania and Slovenia. So far, however, only Poland and Hungary have formally applied for membership in the Union.



The Views Against the E.U.


The balance of power between the European Union and the Member States is the main object of opposition against the Union. It is the center of intense debate in most countries.  This is especially true in Britain where many publications have risen up against the E.U. about 20 %  of  are against the E.U. Many people feel as the control of major issues should come closer to the people not further away.  They feel as choices on economic development, social, programs, and crime laws should be left to the individual states.  The only laws that I did not see much opposition to are for environmental protection.
	The second point of conflict against the E.U. is the Euro  dollar.  Many people feel that by giving up their currency they are in fact giving up their sovereignty. This point of conflict is just becoming apparent since the plans for the Euro dollar have been postponed and seemed unreal by many people until recently.  For example Germany, determined to preserve the stability of its Mark, demanded strong penalties for governments that negatively affect the value of the currency.
	Lastly Russia is afraid of the expansion of the E.U. into Eastern Block countries.  Russia currently feels like it is unwanted by the European community.  It is afraid that through the acceptance of the former Warsaw Pact countries it will loose even more economic ground and one day might be greatly influenced by the countries it once controlled.  

In Conclusion

	I feel that the E.U. is the way to go for Europe, but it needs to be done carefully.  Europe is a very diverse continent with many likes and dislikes between it's inhabitants.  This can be very easily illustrated by what happened in Yugoslavia.  The creation of  the European Union would create a single monetary unit one bank and in fact one government. In effect creation of a huge nation, with economic power greater to the U.S. Other European should in my view be allowed to join the Union, they are in fact independent states, and if they apply and meet the requirements they must be accepted.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Failures of Affirmative Action.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Thomas D Goslin III
Eng 114-55
Joranko & Robbins
Tuesday, October 31, 1996
			The Failures of Affirmative Action
	Once upon a time, there were two people who went to an interview for only one
job position at the same company.  The first person attended a prestigious and highly
academic university, had years of work experience in the field and, in the mind of the
employer,  had the potential to make a positive impact on the company's performance. 
The second person was just starting out in the field and seemed to lack the ambition that
was visible in his opponent.  "Who was chosen for the job?" you ask.  Well, if the story
took place before 1964, the answer would be obvious.  However, with the somewhat
recent adoption of the social policy known as affirmative action, the answer becomes
unclear.  
	After the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, it became
apparent that certain business traditions, such as seniority status and aptitude tests,
prevented total equality in employment.  Then President, Lyndon B. Johnson, decided
something needed to be done to remedy these flaws.  On September 24, 1965, he issued
Executive Order #11246 at Howard University that required federal contractors "to take
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed . . . without regard to their race,
creed, color, or national origin (Civil Rights)."  When Lyndon Banes Johnson signed that
order, he enacted one of the most discriminating  pieces of legislature since the Jim Crow
Laws were passed.
	Affirmative action was created in an effort to help minorities leap the
discriminative barriers that were ever so present when the bill was first enacted, in 1965.
At this time, the country was in the wake of nationwide civil-rights demonstrations, and
racial tension was at its peak.  Most of the corporate executive and managerial positions
were occupied by white males, who controlled the hiring and firing of employees.  The 
U.S. government, in 1965,  believed that these employers were discriminating against
minorities and believed that there was no better time than the present to bring about
change.  
	When the Civil Rights Law passed, minorities, especially African-Americans,
believed that they should receive retribution for the years of discrimination they endured. 
The government responded by passing laws to aide them in attaining better employment
as reprieve for the previous two hundred years of suffering their race endured at the
hands of the white man.  To many, this made sense.  Supporters of affirmative action
asked, "why not let the government help them get better jobs?"  After all, the white man
was responsible for their suffering. While this may all be true, there is another question to
be asked.  Are we truly responsible for the years of persecution that the African
Americans were submitted to?
	The answer to the question is yes and no.  It is true that the white man is partly
responsible for the suppression of the African-American race.  However, the individual
white male is not.  It is just as unfair and suppressive to hold many white males
responsible for past persecution now as it was to discriminate against many
African-Americans in the generations before.  Why should an honest, hard-working, open
minded, white male be suppressed, today, for past injustice?  Affirmative action accepts
and condones the idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.  Do two wrongs make
a right?  I think mother taught us better than that.  
	Affirmative action supporters make one large assumption when defending the
policy.  They assume that minority groups want help.  This, however, may not always be
the case.  My experience with minorities has led me to believe that they fought to attain
equality, not special treatment.  To them, the acceptance of special treatment is an
admittance of inferiority.  They ask, "Why can't I become successful on my own? Why
do I need laws to help me get a job?"  These African Americans want to be treated as
equals, not as incompetents.  
	 In a statement released in 1981 by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, 
Jack P. Hartog, who directed the project, said:
	Only if discrimination were nothing more than the misguided acts of a few
	prejudiced individuals would affirmative action plans be "reverse
	discrimination."  Only if today's society were operating fairly toward minorities
	and women would measures that take race, sex, and national origin into account
	be "preferential treatment."  Only if discrimination were securely placed in a
	well-distant past would affirmative action be an unneeded and drastic remedy.
What the commission failed to realize was that there are thousands of white males who
are not discriminating yet are being punished because of those who do.  The Northern
Natural Gas Company of Omaha, Nebraska, was forced by the government to release
sixty-five white male workers to make room for minority employees in 1977 (Nebraska
Advisory Committee 40).  Five major Omaha corporations reported that the number of
white managers fell 25% in 1969 due to restrictions put on them when affirmative action
was adopted (Nebraska Advisory Committee 27).  You ask, "What did these white males
do to bring about their termination?"  The only crime that they were guilty of was being
white.  This hardly seems fair to punish so many innocent men for the crimes of a
relative few.  
	But the injustice toward the white male doesn't end there.  After the white male
has been fired, he has to go out and find a new job to support his family that depended on
the company to provide health care and a retirement plan in return for years of hard work. 
Now, because of affirmative action, this white male, and the thousands like him, require
more skills to get the same job that a lesser qualified black man needs.  This is, for all
intents and purposes, discrimination, and it is a law that our government strictly enforces.
	Affirmative action is not only unfair for the working man, it is extremely
discriminatory toward the executive, as well.  The average business executive has one
goal in mind, and that is to maximize profits.  To reach his goal, this executive would
naturally hire the most competent man or woman for the job, whether they be black or
white or any other race.  Why would a business man intentionally cause his business to
lose money by hiring a poorly qualified worker?  Most wouldn't.  With this in mind, it
seems unnecessary to employ any policy that would cause him to do otherwise.  But, that
is exactly what affirmative action does.  It forces an employer, who needs to meet a quota
established by the government, to hire the minority, no matter who is more qualified.  
	Another way that affirmative action deducts from a company's profits is by
forcing them to create jobs for minorities.  This occurs when a company does not meet its
quota with existing employees and has to find places to put minorities.  These jobs are
often unnecessary, and force a company to pay for workers that they do not need.
	Now, don't get the impression that affirmative action is only present in the work
place.  It is also very powerful in education.  Just as a white male employee needs more
credentials to get a job than his minority opponent, a white male student needs more or
better skills to get accepted at a prestigious university than a minority student.  There are
complete sections on college applications dedicated to race and ethnic background. 
Colleges must now have a completely diverse student body, even if that means some,
more qualified students, must be turned away. 
	A perfect example of this can be found at the University of California at
Berkeley.  A 1995 report released by the university said that 9.7% of all accepted
applicants were African American.  Only 0.8% of  these African American students were
accepted by  academic criteria alone.  36.8% of the accepted applicants were white.  Of
these accepted white students, 47.9% were accepted on academic criteria alone.  That
means that approximately sixty times more African Americans students were accepted
due to non-academic influences than white students.  It seems hard to believe that
affirmative action wasn't one these outside influences.
	Another interesting fact included in the 1995 report said that the average grade
point average for a rejected white student was 3.66 with an average SAT score of 1142. 
The average grade point average for an accepted African American student was 3.66 with
a 1030 average SAT score.  These stunning facts shows just how many competent, if not
gifted students fall between the cracks as a direct result of affirmative action (Affirmative
action).
	Well, I believe that the problem has been identified; affirmative action is
becoming a form of reverse discrimination.  It is now time for the doctor to prescribe a
potential remedy.  Society should work towards broad based economic policies like
public investment, national health reform, an enlarged income tax credit, child support
assurance, and other policies benefiting families with young children.  Widely supported
programs that promote the interests of both lower and middle class Americans that
deliver benefits to minorities and whites on the basis of their economic status, and not
their race or ethnicity, will do more to reduce minority poverty than the current, narrowly
based, poorly supported policies that single out minority groups.  However, if this, or
another remedy is not taken sometime in the near future, and affirmative action continues
to separate minority groups from whites, we can be sure to see racial tension reach points
that our history has never seen.











				Works Cited

"Affirmative Action at the University of California at Berkeley"  Online.
  	
	October 28, 1996.  http://pwa.acusd.edu/~e_cook/ucb-95.html

"Civil Rights"  Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia. (1996). [Computer Program] 

	SoftKey Multimedia International Corporation. 

United States.  Commission on Civil Rights.  Affirmative Action in the 1980's:  	

	Dismantling the Process of Discrimination.  Washington:  1981.
	
United States.  Nebraska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

	Private Sector Affirmative Action:  Omaha.  Washington:  1979.


 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Federal Bureau of Investigation.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


	To uphold the law through the investigation of violations of 
        federal criminal law; to protect the U.S. from foreign intelligence 
        and terrorist activities; to provide leadership and law enforcement 
        assistance to federal, state, local, and international agencies; and
        to perform these responsibilities in a manner that is responsive to 
        the needs of the public and is faithful to the constitution of the 
        U.S.:  this is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

	The agency now known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation was
 founded in 1908 when the Attorney General appointed an unnamed force of 
Special Agents to be the investigative force of the Department of Justice 
(DOJ).  Before that time, the DOJ had to borrow Agents from the U.S. 
Secret Service to investigate violations of federal criminal laws within 
it's jurisdiction.  In 1909, the Special Agent Force was renamed the 
Bureau of Investigation, and after a series of name changes, it received 
it's present official name in 1935. During the early period of the FBI's 
history, it's agents investigated violations of mainly bankruptcy frauds, 
antitrust crime, and neutrality violation.  During World War One, the 
Bureau was given the responsibility of investigating espionage, sabotage, 
sedition (resistance against lawful authority), and draft violations. 
The passage of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act in 1919 further 
broadened the Bureau's jurisdiction.
	
After the passage of Prohibition in 1920, the gangster era began, bringing about a whole new type of crime.  Criminals engaged in kidnapping and bank robbery, which were not federal crimes at that time.  This changed in 1932 with the passage of a federal kidnapping statute.  In 1934, many other federal criminal statutes were passed, and Congress gave Special Agents the authority to make arrests and to carry firearms.
	The FBI's size and jurisdiction during the second World War increased greatly and included intelligence matters in South America.  With the end of that war, and the arrival of the Atomic Age, the FBI began conducting background security investigations for the White House and other government agencies, as well as probes into internal security matters for the executive branch of the government.
	In the 1960's, civil rights and organized crime became major concerns of the FBI, and counterterrorism, drugs, financial crime, and violent crimes in the 1970's.  These are still the major concerns of the FBI, only now it is to a greater extent..
	With all of this responsibility, it is logical to say that the FBI is a field-oriented organization.  They have nine divisions and four offices at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.  These divisions and offices provide direction and support services to 56 field offices and approximately 10,100 Special Agents and 13,700 other employees.  Each FBI field office is overseen by a Special Agent in Charge, except for those located in New York City and Washington, D.C.  Due to their large size, those offices are each managed by an Assistant Director in Charge.
	FBI field offices conduct their official business both directly from their headquarters and through approximately 400 satellite offices, known as resident agencies.  The FBI also operates specialized field installations:  two Regional Computer Support Centers; one in Pocatello, Idaho, and one in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey -- and two Information technology Centers (ITC's); one at Butte, Montana, and one at Savannah, Georgia.  The ITC's  provide information services to support field investigative and administrative operations.  
	Because they do have so much responsibility, their investigative authority is the broadest of all federal law enforcement agencies.  The FBI also stresses long term, complex investigation, emphasize close relations and information  sharing with other federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies.  A significant number of FBI investigations are conducted with other law enforcement agencies or as part of joint task forces.
	As part of this process, the FBI has divided it's investigations into the following programs:
	� Applicant Program
		� Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Applicants
		� Department of justice Candidates
		� FBI Special Agents and Support Applicants
		� and others

	� Civil Rights Program

		� Civil Rights Act of 1964
		� Discrimination in Housing
		� Equal Credit Opportunity Act
		
	� Counterterrorism Program

		� Hostage taking
		� Sabotage
		� Attempted of Actual Bombings
		� and others

	� Financial Crime Program
		
		� Bank Fraud and Embezzlement
		� Environmental Crimes
		� Fraud Against the Government
		� and others

	� Foreign Counterintelligence Programs

		� Espionage
		� Foreign Counterintelligence Matters

	� Organized Crime/Drug Program

		� Drug Matters
		� Money Laundering
		� Organized Crime/Drug Enforcement Task Force Matters
		� and others

	� Violent Crimes and Major Offenders Program

		� Theft of Government Property
		� Crime Aboard Aircraft
		� Kidnapping - Extortion
		� and others

	These programs cover most everything that the FBI investigates, and some individual cases in a program often receives extensive investigative attention because of their size, potential impact, or sensitivity.
	Because FBI Special Agents are responsible for  handling so many different things, they have to go through rigorous training in the following areas: Academics, Firearms, Physical Training/Defense Tactics, and Practical Exercises.  Within these four major areas are components like interviewing techniques, communications, computer skills, and drug investigations.  Altogether there are 15 components in the four areas I listed previously.  They receive all of this training at the FBI academy in Quantico, Virginia and must complete 645 hours (15 weeks) of instruction before they graduate.
	The training in the academy is difficult, but those who have made it there have already passed the first test.  To qualify for training as an FBI Agent, you must be:
	1. a U.S. citizen
	2.  between the ages of 23 and 37 when entering on duty;
	3.  hold a bachelor's degree obtained in an accredited four-year resident program 	                        	     at a college or university; and
	4.  have three years full-time work experience, or fluency in a language for which        	     the Bureau has a need for.

	After graduation from the FBI Academy, a new Special Agent is assigned to an FBI field office.  This assignment is determined by the individual's special skills and the needs of the bureau.  As part of their duties, Special Agents are required to relocate during their careers.  Special Agents enter service in Grade GS 10 on the federal government's General Schedule pay scale and can advance to Grade 13 in field assignment.
	In our society today, one of the most important things to us is our safety.  Organizations like the FBI help protect us and investigate crimes to help prevent future ones.  Their motto is Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity, and I think that each one of those words is justified when it comes to describing the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  When the duties of the FBI are stated in the mission it says to perform these duties in a manner  that is responsive to the needs of the public and is faithful to the Constitution of the United States.  I believe that they do this to the utmost.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Federalist Papers and Federalism.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Federalist Papers and Federalism
The Federalist Papers were mostly the product of two young men: Alexander Hamilton of New York, age 32, and James Madison of Virginia, age 36.  Both men sometimes wrote four papers in a single week.  An older scholar, John Jay, later named as first chief justice of the Supreme Court, wrote five of the papers.  Hamilton, who had been an aide to Washington during the Revolution, asked Madison and Jay to help him in this project.  Their purpose was to persuade the New York convention to ratify the just-drafted Constitution.  They would separately write a series of letters to New York newspapers, under the pseudonym, "Publius."  In the letters they would explain and defend the Constitution. 
Hamilton started the idea and outlined the sequence of topics to be discussed, and addressed most of them in fifty-one of the letters. Madison's Twenty-nine letters have proved to be the most memorable in their balance and ideas of governmental power. It is not clear whether The Federalist Papers, written between October 1787 and May 1788 had any effect on New York's and Virginia's ratification of the Constitution.  
Encyclopedia Britannica defines Federalism as, "A mode of political organization that unites independent states within a larger political framework while still allowing each state to maintain it's own political integrity" (712).  Having just won a revolution against an oppressive monarchy, the American colonists were in willing to replace it with another monarchy style of government.  On the other hand, their experience with the disorganization under the Articles of Confederation, due to unfair competition between the individual states, made them a little more receptive to an increase in national powers. A number of Federalist Papers argued that a new kind of balance, never achieved elsewhere was possible.  The Papers were themselves a balance or compromise between the nationalist ideas of Hamilton, who wrote more for the  commercial interests of New York, and the uneasiness of Madison, who shared the skepticism of distant authority widely held by Virginia farmers. 
In  American Government and Politics Today, Madison proposed that, instead of the absolute sovereignty of each state under the Articles of Confederation.  The states would retain a residual sovereignty in all areas which did not require national concern.  The very process of ratification of the Constitution, he argued, symbolized the concept of federalism (77).  He said: 
This assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and individual States to which they respectively belong... The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national but a federal act (qtd in American 85).
The Federalist Papers also provide the first specific mention we have of the idea of checks and balances as a way of restricting governmental power and preventing its abuse. Both Hamilton and Madison regarded this as the most powerful form of government.  As  conceived, popularly elected House of Representatives would be checked and balanced by a more conservative Senate picked by state legislatures.  (in 1913 the 17th Amendment changed this to the popular election of senators).  Hamilton observed in letter number 78 that, "A democratic assembly is to be checked by a democratic senate and both these by a democratic chief magistrate" (318).
In what many historians agree is his most brilliant essay, number 78.  Hamilton defended the Supreme Court's right to rule upon the constitutionality of laws passed by national or state legislatures.  This historically crucial power of  judicial review,  he argued, was an appropriate check on the legislature, "The pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice" (317).  Hamilton rejected the British system of allowing the Parliament to override by majority vote any court decision it finds to its dislike. "The courts of justice are to be considered the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments" (318).  Only the difficult process of amending the Constitution or the gradual transformation of its members to another viewpoint, could reverse the Supreme Court's interpretation of that document. 
	In the most original of The Federalist Papers, Number 10.   Madison addressed this double challenge. His main concern was the need, "To break and control the violence of faction" (36).  Meaning political parties.  He regarded political party's as the greatest danger to popular government.  Madison wrote: 
I understand a number of citizens... are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. These passions or interests that endanger the rights of others may be religious or political or, most often, economic. Factions may divide along lines of haves and have-nots, creditors and debtors, or according to the kinds of property possessed. (37)
The idea of separating powers among the various branches of government to avoid the corruption of concentrated power, falls under larger category of checks and balances. But The Federalist Papers see another virtue in the separation of powers, namely, an increase in governmental efficiency and effectiveness.  By being limited to certain functions, the different branches of government become good at doing a few things rather than doing all of the things.  
The observations in The Federalist Papers about government, society and politics are not easy to locate.  Many of these papers sound old in there ideas.  However, The Federalist Papers remain essential to anyone interested in the constant questions of political theory and the ideas raised by Hamilton, Madison and Jay.  Joseph Sobran, a syndicated columnist,  summed up federalism with one profound sentence.  "The federal government was supposed to be kept on a short leash, lest it claim powers never given to it" (1).



Works Cited

"Federalism."  Encyclopedia Britannica.  1994: 712.
Schmidt, Steffen, Mack C. Shelly II, Barbara A. Bardes.  American Government and
Politics Today.  New York: west publishing, 1995-1996 ed.
Hamilton, Alexander. "Federalist Paper 78."  Feder16.txt.
Http://instructors.datatech.com/buisness/xx733.html.  317-319.
Madison, James.  "Federalist Paper 10."  Feder16.zip.
Http://instructors.datatech.com/buisness/xx733.html.  36-39.
Sobran, Joseph.  "Founding fathers thought the federal government should be kept on a
short leash."  Http://emanon.net/~vroberts/sobran.html. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Government and Environmental Policy.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Government and Environmental Policy
	Political Science 215



	The purpose of the United States' public policy law is to implement restrictions in an effort to solve problems,
 	which can be seen with the Clean Water Act.  Public policy has also been employed to reform the Endangered Species 
	Act of 1973.  Although the United States government is noble in it's efforts to preserve the environment through 	
	these acts, the internal structure of public policy often retards these acts' effectiveness.  This paper will explore
	the many ways in which factors such as horizontal implementation, divided government, and other forms of public 
	policy affect the environmental legislation involved with the aforementioned acts.
	The main factors involved with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 involve horizontal implementation structure and 
	divided government.  Before one can discuss how these policies affect environmental legislation, a brief description 
	of each must first be lucidly explained.  When our government was founded, a system of checks and balances was 
	implemented between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to ensure that no one part of government gets 
	too much power.  Although this limits the power of any one person in government, it often slows down the ability of 
	government because a consensus can be difficult with so many people working together.
	Another problem is that there are many subgovernments affecting the legislation as well, such as interest groups like 
	the Sierra Club, Administrative Agents like the Environmental Protection Agency, and Congressional Committees.  
	Because these groups add to the total number of people working on the legislation, the original noble ideology of 
	making policy for the good of the nation is voided.  Also because there are so many differences of opinion, few 
	drastic changes are made, instead small incremental changes are made which take up lots of time and retard the 
	effectiveness and enforcement of the legislation.  In addition to this chaotic turmoil, four steps must be 
	implemented in order to pass a bill.  These are initiation & definition, formulation & enactment (legitimation), 
	implementation, and evaluation.
	The most relevant one of these steps is horizontal implementation when one considers the Endangered Species Act and 
	Clean Water Act.  This policy is the process that puts a law into effect after it has been legitimized.  Congress and
	the President set up the initial regulation of the law, but the direct responsibility of regulation is turned over to 
	the states involved.  And, of course, workset-like incentives such as taxes, fees, allowances, refunds, and liability 
	are used to enforce the laws effectively.
	Horizontal implementation refers specifically to implementation with the federal government, as opposed to vertical 
	implementation which is at the state and local levels.  There are several specific concerns with horizontal 
	implementation which include the breakdown of coordination due to the large structure of the federal government, 
	language difficulties, lack of control due to the threat of success by one particular agency, different perspectives, 
	and direct change of intention due to factors such as voter pressure.  It's amazing that in the midst of all this that 
	anything can be accomplished at all, but thanks to the drive to be re-elected, things have to get done on the federal 
	level or else the person in question will be renounced from power.
	So now that a foundation of the processes controlling these acts has been established, the question arises, what exactly 
	is the Endangered Species Act?  As one author puts it, "The Endangered Species Act of 1973, perhaps more than any other 
	environmental law, dares to draw an unwavering line in the path of American progress.  It boldly says in essence, 'Thou 
	shalt not cause any species of plant or animal to go extinct.'  As the rampart transformation of natural America for 
	exurban development, water-division projects, and timber cutting- pushes more and more species to the wall, the act is 
	embroiled in controversy unparalleled since its passage 19 years ago."  (Horton, pg. 68)
	A few other factors of definition come into play when one considers the intricacies of the Act.  An animal is 
	endangered if it is in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or most of it's natural range in the wild.  An animal 
	is threatened if it is very likely to fall into the endangered category in "the foreseeable future".  Endangered species 
	have the possibility of generating boundless resources for the human race including medical uses, research purposes, and 
	atmospheric contributions- namely oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis.  The act also sets aside land to protect 
	endangered species.  For example, many acres of old growth forest have been set aside in an effort to preserve the 
	Northern spotted owl.	So far, the act has been successful in helping to re-establish populations of the American 
	alligator, the California condor, the Black-footed ferret, and many species of endangered sea turtles.  But hundreds 
	of other species are waiting to be helped by the act, at a prospective cost of $4.6 billion.  The reasons for the 
	inefficiency of the act are as numerous as the numbers of threatened & endangered species involved in the controversy.
	Much of the criticism has been directed toward the Fish and Wildlife Service for not setting up an effective program.  
	"The agency 'has underestimated the size of the job and been backward about asking for enough resources,' says Bill Reffalt, 
	of the Wilderness Society, who worked for the Fish and Wildlife Service for 23 years.  He says that only in the last year 
	has his old agency recovered fully from the aggressive dismantling of endangered- species protection by the Reagan 
	administration during the 1980's.
	Nonetheless, the law is 'fundamentally sound' contends Michael J. Bean of the Environmental Defense Fund.  
	'The failure of the law is funding.  Congress never appropriated enough to let the Fish and Wildlife Service make 
	more than a small dent in what was supposed to be done',  Bean says."  (Horton, pg. 71)
	As the above quote clearly shows, the dissension between the different branches of government and different 
	administrations associated with these branches can cripple the legislation necessary to pass an act such as the 
	Endangered Species Act.  But through years of slow compromising, a consensus has been reached, and the regulations 
	were set down with appropriate laws for enforcement.
	In summary, the act states that it is unlawful to do the following activities:  Import or export any endangered or 
	threatened species; harming, taking, trapping, or harassing any protected species; possessing, selling, or 
	distributing any protected species; and no federal agency may in any way jeopardize the existence of a protected 
	species.  Violations of these laws can result in $100,000 in fines and/or up to a year in prison, and organizations 
	can be fined up to $200,000 and lose any equipment involved in the violation.
	A source from the internet states, "The Interior Secretary or the Secretary of Commerce may impose civil penalties 
	ranging from $500 to $25,000 for violations of the ESA.  The Justice Department may seek criminal penalties of 
	$25,000 to $50,000 and 6 to 12 months in jail against violations of the ESA."
	What this shows is that even though the road to legislation is rocky and littered with many retarding factors 
	including horizontal implementation structure and divided government problems, once the bill is established as law 
	it is absolute and extremely effective if enforced by the courts.  It does create other problems such as the kind of 
	situation where a zoo wants to import or export an endangered or threatened species for the purpose of captive 
	propagation, but as long as ratifications are possible through government, snags and loopholes can be rectified.
	The Clean Water Act of 1972 (one year prior to the Endangered Species Act) is another law which demonstrates the 
	problems associated with passing a bill.  Like the ESA, the act helps preserve endangered and threatened species, 
	but it's primary purpose is to sustain the quality of the environment by keeping our waters free from pollutants as 
	much as possible.  Unfortunately, the processes of public policy get in the way of the noble intentions of the act.
	One of the methods of evaluating public policy is to use a decision tree to make a cost/benefit analysis when the 
	outcome of the act is unclear.  Similar to cost analysis, the probability of the benefits are compared with the 
	probability of costs, but this process is ongoing and is very difficult to calculate.  Of course for a public policy 
	to be approved, an overall benefit to society must be ascertained, and in the case of the Clean Water Act, it was 
	determined that the benefit of environmental protection outweighed the economic costs associated with the program.
	The three types of public policy programs are distributive, redistributive, and regulatory.  Distributive involves 
	grants, and the subsidies are given for protection of specific interests.  Redistributive involves heavy concern with
	 governmental economics.  And Regulatory involves the changing of individual detrimental behaviors by imposing certain 
	standards.  All three policies were in agreement with each other when the Clean Water Act was passed.  And like the ESA, 
	the four steps of initiation & definition, legitimation, implementation, and evaluation were necessary.
	Economic concerns prevented the act from first becoming a reality in 1968 by President Nixon.  At that time he stated,
	 "I am also concerned, however, that we attack pollution in a way that does not ignore other very real threats to the
	 quality of life, such as spiraling prices and increasing onerous taxes.  Legislation which would continue our efforts 
	to raise water quality, but which would do so through extreme and needless overspending, does not serve the public interest.  
	There is a much better way to get this job done."  (Adler, pg. 1)
	The Act's goals as set forth by Congress was to eliminate toxic discharge into significant bodies of water by 1985, 
	improve water quality for marine and freshwater life by 1983, and for all "toxic pollutants in toxic amounts" into 
	water.  Of course that act has had mediocre success, and only through continued cooperation of the government's 
	branches will further progress be made.  In conclusion, it has been shown how different branches of government, 
	different administrations, and different policies all worked together to retard the implementation of the Endangered 
	Species Act and the Clean Water Act of the early 1970's.  Although these processes do act in a system of governmental 
	checks and balances as the founders of this country wished, the effectiveness of the acts take many years of careful 
	compromising to become significant.
















REFERENCES

1.   Adler, Robert W., et. al.   The Clean Water Act 20 Years Later   		Island Press   Washington, D.C.   1993


2.   Horton, Tom   "The Endangered Species Act:  Too tough, too weak, 	too late."   	(1992)   Audubon   Vol. 94   pgs. 68-74 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The HOPE Bill.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The HOPE Bill

In the year 2024, the world has grown to increase its size to 24 billion people worldwide.  The increase in the population has caused the destruction of most farmland in the world, causing it to look underwater for a supply of food.  Private enterprises are currently farming and selling food that comes from underwater regions of the world.   However, a vast majority of the world is still not being fed.  On a percentage basis, though, we have fewer people unemployed than in 1996.  However, that still means that over a hundred million people are unemployed and double that are on welfare or homeless.  As a result, I am sponsoring a bill to the senate that will address this problem.
The HOPE program, Helping Others acquire Pride and Emancipation, will help the unfortunate people gain pride in what they do.  The HOPE will give back the pride that people need and deserve.  It will put people into a more productive and rewarding job by emancipating them out of the life each person is leading.
Twenty years ago, in the year 2004, the world implemented a youth program that was the exact opposite of Hitler's Youth.  For example, the program gives kids a feeling of self-confidence, and they become more tolerant of others and their views.  The program places all kids in situations to learn of other cultures and to gain a caring and understanding in all situations, people caring for the plight of others.  In the fourth through the sixth grade, all kids are required to complete at least 5 hours of community service each week; in high school, they are required to complete ten hours a week. This 
 program has caused the world to gain a more caring, empathetic attitude towards the well-being of others.  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."   This was the groundbreaking program that people had been waiting for so that a program  like mine could enter the senate.  To solve the problem of the unemployed, the homeless, and the welfare recipients, I will propose a new bill, talk about the arguments against my bill, and present solutions to the arguments.
The first part of the plan is to have a world-wide benefit to raise money to help pay for the program.  Jerry Lewis raised millions of dollars for muscular dystrophy.  In the year 2000, a  cure for this debilitating disease was found as a result of these "telethons".  People will donate money to a worthy cause such as the one that I am proposing.  Movie stars, professional athletes, cyberspace and virtual reality actors, politicians, and the "keepers of life" will participate along with others.  We will be able to raise most of the money but will need the government to contribute its share to fund such an aggressive and comprehensive program.
A government sponsored program is needed if we are to attack poverty.  Every country will need to contribute a certain amount of money.  How many people it has, what its financial status is, and what resources it has will be the determining factors for their share.  We will also need to consider the resources that each country can offer the rest of the world.  The vast population of the world will also need more food if we are to provide for the needy; therefore, we will need to join with other countries and build more underwater farmlands.  This will open up many more jobs.  Each country will offer training and education for each person.  The training can be anything in which the economy has a need for that person and what he wants to do.  The training and education will begin after a group is finished with its shift.  The rest of the individuals that can not contribute to the underwater farms for other reasons will go into construction to build more houses for the homeless.
United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the New Deal program in the 1930s to counteract unemployment and other problems caused by the Great Depression. As part of his New Deal policy, Roosevelt created the Works Projects Administration (WPA) in 1930's. The WPA employed 8.5 million people in various public works projects between 1935 and 1943, or approximately 9% of the United State's population.
Some arguments against my proposal would include one declaring that the budget would again become a deficit.  After more than fifty years, we balanced the budget and it has stayed balanced for five years.  The United States is still 12 trillion dollars in debt, and the senate wants to reduce this.  Another argument:  how do we convince the rest of the world to join forces and agree with the program to better improve their economic status?  Private enterprises will try to submarine the program because now the government will be producing food and reducing its profit on the monopoly privately controlled.
A solution is that this proposal would get people off welfare and unemployment; therefore, they will start paying taxes.  The taxes would increase the revenue stream.  As each person is trained and educated, he will get a job and become more productive.  The money the country would save by eliminating welfare or unemployment would serve to decrease the expenditure the program would cost.  Another solution:  we will have a worldwide committee run the farming program.  The committee will be composed of one representative from each country.  This person will be either appointed or elected by either the leader or the people.  This program would actually save money in time by getting the poor into productive jobs and adding to the budget of the world.  As incomes of individuals increase, they will spend more money.  Corporations will increase their revenues because of these expenditures.  When companies make more money, they have the ability to expand their capacity.  Thus, new jobs will be created, jobs that the newly trained and educated workers can fill.
In conclusion, the world has had numerous depressions.  The most devastating of these were in the 1930's and 2010's.  For more than two centuries, the United States has argued and fought over welfare and unemployment.  Many people today still want to do away with both programs.  We need to remake the Declaration of Independence where all men have certain unalienable rights:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This bill provides the atmosphere and environment for those less fortunate to pursue these rights.  The lagniappe of this bill, the world receives much needed food and gets to encompass additional productive grateful citizens.  Look to your heart before you vote on this bill.  Only one conclusion is possible:  why has it taken us so long to adopt such measures?  I thank you for your understanding and sponsorship of this HOPE program.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Impact on Interest Groups on Twentieth Century American G.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
(Page:  1)
	

	Interest Group is defined as "an organized body of individuals who try
to influence public policy."  This system is designed so that interest groups
would be an instrument of public influence on politics to create changes, but
would not threaten the government much.  Whether this is still the case or not
is an important question that we must find out.  Interest groups play many
different roles in the American political system, such as representation,
participation, education, and program monitoring.  Representation is the
function that we see most often and the function we automatically think of
when we think of interest groups.  Participation is another role that interest
groups play in our government, which is when they facilitate and encourage
the participation of their members in the political process.  Interest groups
also educate, by trying to inform both public officials and the public at large
about matters of importance to them.  Lobby groups also keep track of how
programs are working in the field and try to persuade government to take
action when problems become evident when they monitor programs.  The
traditional interest groups have been organized around some form of
economic cause, be it corporate interests, associates, or unions.  The number
of business oriented lobbies has grown since the 1960s and continues to
grow.  Public-interest groups have also grown enormously since the 1960s.  
Liberal groups started the trend, but conservative groups are now just as
common, although some groups are better represented through interest groups
than others are.  There are many ways that the groups can influence politics
too.  The increase in interest group activity has fragmented the political
debate into little pockets of debates and have served to further erode the 
(Page:  2)


power of political parties, who try to make broad based appeals.  PACs also
give money to incumbents, which means that incumbents can accumulate
large reelection campaign funds, that in result, discourages potential
challengers.  As a result, most incumbents win, not because they outspend
their challengers, but because they keep good potential opponents out of the
race.  Conservatives are one of the big groups that influence politics and for
many reasons.

	Conservative thinking has not only claimed the presidency; it has
spread throughout our political and intellectual life and stands poised to
become the dominant strain in American public policy.  While  the political
ascent of conservatism has taken place in full public view, the intellectual
transformation has for the most part occurred behind the scenes, in a network
of think tanks whose efforts have been influential to an extent that only five
years after President Reagan's election, begins to be clear.

	Conservative think tanks and similar organizations have flourished 
since the mid-1970s.  The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) had twelve
resident thinkers when Jimmy Carter was elected; today it has forty-five, and
a total staff of nearly 150.  The Heritage Foundation has sprung from nothing
to command an annual budget of $11 million. The budget of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has grown from $975,000 ten years
ago to $8.6 million today.  Over a somewhat longer period the endowment of
the Hoover Institution has increased from $2 million to $70 million.  At least 
(Page:  3)


twenty-five other noteworthy public-policy groups have been formed or
dramatically expanded through the decade; nearly all are anti-liberal.

	No other country accords such significance to private institutions
designed to influence public decisions.  Brookings, began in the 1920s with
money from the industrialist Robert S. Brookings, a Renaissance man who
aspired to bring discipline of economics to Washington.  During the New
Deal the Brookings Institution was marked-oriented--for example, it opposed
Roosevelt's central planning agency, the National Resources Planning Board. 
Only much later did the institution acquire a reputation as the head of
liberalism. 
	Through the 1950s and 1960s, as Americans enjoyed steady increases
in their standard of living and U.S. industry reigned over world commerce,
Washington came to consider the economy a dead issue.  Social justice and
Vietnam dominated  the agenda:  Brookings concentrated on those fields,
emerging as a chief source of arguments in favor of the Great Society and
opposed to U.S.  involvement in Vietnam.  In the Washington swirl where
few people have the time to read the reports they debate, respectability is
often proportional to tonnage.  The more studies someone tosses on the table,
the more likely he is to win his point. For years Brookings held a dominance
on tonnage.  Its papers supporting liberal positions went unchallenged by
serious conservative rebuttals.


(Page:  4)


	As the 1970s progressed, a core of politically active conservative
intellectuals, most prominently Irving Kristol, began to argue in publications
like The Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal that if business wanted
market logic to regain the initiative, it would have to create a new class of its
own --scholars whose career prospects depended on private enterprise, not
government or the universities.  "You get what you pay for, Kristol in effect
argued, and if businessmen wanted intellectual horsepower, they would have
to open their pocketbooks."1 

	The rise of Nader's Raiders and similar public-interest groups--which
achieved remarkable results, considering how badly outgunned they were;
brought a change in business thinking about money and public affairs.  So did
the frustration felt by oil companies, which were being fattened by rising
prices but still dreamed of being fatter if federal regulations were abolished. 
They were willing to invest some of their riches in changing Washington's
mood.

	Women also have a voice in their own interest groups.    The Woman
Suffrage movement was headed up by many groups that differed in some of
their views.  The moderate branch was by far the largest and is given most of
the credit for the Nineteenth Amendment.  Under the banner of the National
Women's Party, the militant feminists had used civil disobedience, colorful 
(Page:  5)


demonstrations and incessant lobbying to get the Nineteenth Amendment out
of Congress.

	These are just some of the ways that American politics in the twentieth
century was influenced by special interest groups.  Interest groups have
grown this much in this century and will probably keep progressing in the
coming centuries.






	


	








Bibliography

1.	Groliers Encyclopedia on CD-Rom, 1993 Grolier Inc., Software
Toolworks Inc.
2.	Ideas Move Nations, The Atlantic Monthly, 1986 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The main cause of the French Revolution.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
     The years before the French Revolution (which started in 1789 AD.) were ones of vast,
unexpected change and confusion.  One of the changes was the decline of the power of the nobles,
which had a severe impact on the loyalty of some of the nobles to King Louis XVI.  Another
change was the increasing power of the newly established middle class, which would result in the
monarchy becoming obsolete.  The angry and easily manipulated peasants, who were used by the
bourgeoisie for their own benefit were another significant change,  and finally the decline of the
traditional monarchy, that for so long had ruled, were all factors to the main point that the French
Revolution was caused by a political base, with social disorder and economic instability
contributing to the upheaval.  All of the sub-factors relate with one-another, but are separate in
their own ways.

     For centuries, the French noble was well set in society.  He found prosperity and security
in the old regime, and all he had to do was pay homage to the king, and provide the king with his
services.  This all came to a gradual stop, however beginning with the loss of the noble's power
over their own land at the hands of Louis XIV.1  This was the foundation of the revolte nobiliaire
in the fact that it formed a basis of mistrust, and anger for the monarch.2  In that time the feudal
system was still being practiced, so social status was based on the amount of land you could attain. 
With no land, the nobles saw themselves to be as common as the common folk.  Even in their
arrogance they saw that they were losing power.  The next blow to the pride of the nobles came
from Louis XV, who passed a bill to let wealthy commoners purchase prominent spots in political
and social positions.  This event shows how corrupt and money hungry the government had
become, by letting anyone get high up in the political chain just by feeding the gluttonous king.   
The next king, Louis XVI saw that the majority of France (75%) was peasants and serfs.
Consequently, to try to ensure their happiness (and prevent the Revolution), he  had the Estates-General abolish the feudal system, in which they held no ranking.4  This made the nobility
extremely unhappy.  With no feudal system, they no longer were much higher up politicly than the
commoners.  The next noble atrocity came with Louis XVI making the nobles pay taxes.  Ever
since the foundation of the monarchy, the nobles and the clergy were exempt from paying taxes. 
The burden was left to the commoners.  But, with the deficit being so high and France supporting
the Americans in their war, something had to be done.5  This proved to be unfortunate for the king,
however, this proved to the straw that broke the camels back.  The nobles were sick of being
treated like low-class peasants so they formed their revolt.  Now would be a good time to explain
that the Revolution was not just one Revolution, it was a "series of revolutions, very different in
their aims..."6   and subsequently the revolte nobiliaire began in 1787.  It was a revolt limited to
the aristocrats, however, because they wanted to get all the power of France.  It should also be
said that not all the nobles were against the king.  The young nobles, and some of the old ones, who
had not yet gotten obscene on their own power still supported the king.  These people were called
Royalists, and were beheaded for their faith.  Before their own selfish revolution, the nobles had
lost so much power, that their economic and political situation affected the other people in France,
and led to the French Revolution and remotely, the rise of the middle class.
     
     In the obsolete practice of feudalism there is no middle class.  The simplicity is beautiful;
there are the extravagantly rich and the woefully poor.  In the eighteenth century, the rise of a
middle class (bourgeoisie) in France proved to be too much change at one time.  The middle class
were the wealthy land owners, the lawyers, the scientists, the writers  and other such people in
society.  Politically, the system had to change to accommodate them.  The growth of the middle
class was originally stimulated by the commercial prosperity of the post 1776 era, and it
threatened the traditional established aristocraticy.7  They were getting more power in government,
allowed to buy seats in legal standings and generally getting as powerful as the nobles.  Along
with the peasants, the bourgeoisie felt the burden of poor economic times in pre-revolutionary
France.  Prices were rising but wages were not, taxes were steep  and this left the bourgeoisie
angry toward Louis XVI whom they left responsible.  This led the middle class to gather up the
less educated peasants on a quest for a better government, which they wanted to be a major factor
of.  Unlike the American Revolution where everyone was fighting for a noble cause, everyone in
France had there own reasons for sticking their neck out.  This includes the bourgeoisie who fought
because of economic difficulties and hope for a better political standing, but the only group that
could be partially excluded from this rule are the peasants.

     The peasants had their own simple, non-deceptive reasons for fighting.  That had terrible
economic and somewhat political problems.  Heavy grape harvests meant bad times for wine
making, and since wine was made throughout the country, this was devastating.  The price of wine
fell by 50%, and therefore the peasants got less money and subsequently poorer.8  The next to fall
was grain prices.  Combine the fact that grain was scarce in France at the time and there were
heavy tariffs for imports, and you get a bad grain economy.  The grain harvests in France had
collapsed a few years earlier and that is why the situation was so desperate.  All of this meant that
the French common person had nothing to fall back to when there was no income.  The standard of
living dropped and there was a consequent famine.  Also, to contribute to the massive famine the
population was growing faster that the food supply.  Combine all these factors with the fact that the
peasants (like everybody) were being heavily taxed, and you get people who are going to easily
manipulated by a more ambitious group: namely the bourgeoisie.  The bourgeoisie would use the
peasants as little puppets in their game for more power and control over the aristocrats.  The
peasants were suffering political problems as well.   For hundreds of years, they were being
represented in parliament by one vote.  That doesn't look bad when there are only three votes, but
then you see that the country is made up of a 75% peasant population.  The result is an outcry for
better representation that would make the peasants more eager to revolt if the time should happen
to come.  Mostly, in the eighteenth century, all peasants really had to worry about was the farm
crops, or other such things, but at the time of the French Revolution the peasants were affected by
economic and political factors;  and also a changing, weakening monarchy.

     In the feudal system, a kingdom is only as strong as its king.  Unfortunately for eighteenth
century France, Louis XVI wanted a more equal and democratic nation.  He would see that people
would not be swayed from tradition easily, however.  When they saw that he gave up much of his
power in the name of equality, they pounced on him.  In the beginning, Louis XVI was an absolute
ruler, he was the highest authority.9 But, as the years progressed he saw that the rights and
privileges were to be retained by the provinces, towns, corporate bodies and the nobility.  This
equal spread of power left himself out of the equation.  Additionally, the legal and administrative
system could be brought to question by anyone.  It used to be that the monarch was untouchable. 
Seeing as how Louis was to get his head chopped off, that resolution may not have been a good
idea. To make things even more equal and just, the commoners had one of the three votes his
Estates-General.  This meant fair representation, but it also meant that the nobles were upset with
their decline of power and the commoners wanted more of their new-found power.  All of these
ideas seem to be good ones, but ones that would, and did harm his position.  One evidently bad
move was to heavily tax everyone. The peasants were already heavily taxed, so they were then
brought to famine, the nobles were never taxed before and consequently disgruntled and the middle
class just did not like it.  If Louis XVI were alive today he would probably be a good politician-
too bad the people were not ready for him in 1789.

     Historians have argued for centuries over what started the French Revolution: some say
economics, some say politics some say the change of social structure.  The only logical answer,
then is that it was a little (or a lot) of all three, resulting in the decline of nobility, the rise of the
middle class, the anger of the peasants and the fall of monarchy.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Need for Handgun Restrictions.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Shortly after dusk, a sixteen-year-old boy stands on the street corner talking with a friend about what happened at school today between himself and another student.  He nonchalantly stands there sipping his Pepsi when all of a sudden a black Honda with tinted windows drives up to the corner.  The window rolls down, a voice calls out, and the boy walks up to the car.  He bends down to peer into the car to see who it is when three rounds from a .38 caliber pistol rip through his chest and neck.  The other boy frantically runs off into the distance.  He stumbles backwards and trips on the curb behind him and falls to the sidewalk the car speeds off into the dark alleyway across the street.  The young boy struggles to breathe as he coughs up blood.  He chokes to death with every effort to breathe.  He dies a minute or two later.  These kinds of events are all too familiar to us and perturb us as we see an increasing number of handguns fall into the hands of the young.  I am shocked at the sight of these events where innocent children are being gunned down on the street because of petty little arguments over something so minuscule as a pair of shoes, a particular type of jacket, or simply just a misinterpreted look.  I believe that more strict handgun regulations are a must in today's society.  I'm not saying that we have to ban handguns, but we have to take legislative measures in order to limit the possibility of handguns falling into the hands or youths.  Peter Annin and Tom Morganthau state that according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report, murders committed by persons under the age of eighteen who were arrested jumped from 1,193 in 1985 to 2982 in 1994.  [1]  This report shows a substantial increase in the number of killings by people who are under the age of eighteen.  Most of these people are often participants in gangs and involved with drugs.  Many of these people find that guns are a much easier method to defeat his or her opponent in a quarrel.  This problem is made worse by the increasing availability of guns.  Residents of gang-ridden areas are afraid to leave their homes for fear that their children or themselves might fall victim to a gunshot.  I believe that many people feel we need tighter control over the sale of handguns while many others believe that we shouldn't.  Many people say that it is a right to own firearms and handguns in this country because it is guaranteed by the second amendment of the United States Constitution.  The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  First of all, very few states today in the U. S. have militias because we have the five branches of the U.S. Military, the Army, Navy, Marines, Airforce, and Coast Guard.  The military provides this country with enough support to fend off any war levying or belligerent nations.  That is the military's obligatory purpose today.  There is no necessity for a state run military.  The U.S. Military's purpose is to keep this land free.  Second, the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the people from our government should it transcend to tyranny.  These laws and rights were established in the period of colonial times when monarchies and dictatorships were common place in society.  Today, they're just about non existent except for subtle hints of them in communist governments which exist in areas such as the People's Republic of China.  We have no need to protect ourselves from the possibility of a dictatorial government materializing from our democracy because it is highly unlikely that this would occur.  The United Nations, which the United States is a member of, would not allow this because their main function is to stop the spread of communism.  We are not living in that era anymore and that is why I believe that guns aren't really needed that much by civilians.	As I mentioned before, I'm not suggesting that we, the people, totally ban guns.  Firearms and handguns still have their recreational purpose in society.  For a lot of people, the sport of hunting wild game is an enjoyable pastime and tradition that has been passed down through the ages.  People have always hunted.  From Paleolithic man to the Middle Ages and to the present, hunting has and provides us with food even though that same food can be purchased at the local supermarket.  Other activities such as target shooting and enrollment in gun clubs are also enjoyable.  They are sports, just like any other sports, that give men and women a sense of pride and satisfaction that fulfills the primitive instinct of competition in our minds.	Another important argument among civilians of the country is that if more restrictions on firearms and handguns are passed, this would gradually lead to a total ban on all guns sometime in the future.  In an article written by Robert J. Blendon, John T. Young, and David Hemenway, they include a Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll which show how gun owners, non owners, and the nation as a whole were surveyed.  Sixty-five percent of all people, including owners of guns and non owners, believe that stricter legislation would gradually lead to a total ban of all guns.  In addition, a majority of gun owners, approximately fifty-five percent, believe that these laws would violate the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution while non owners don not believe this.  The survey was asking about how stricter laws would reduce certain aspects related to guns.  The national figure is sixty-nine percent for those who believe that stricter laws would reduce the number of people killed by guns in arguments.  Sixty-eight percent of the nation believe that laws would reduce the number of accidental deaths and suicides attributed to guns. Fifty-eight percent of the nation agrees that more laws would reduce violent crime. However, in both cases of owners and non owners, the difference of agreement is over twenty percentage points in favor of non gun owners. [2]  I certainly agree that stricter legislation would definitely reduce the number of gun related deaths and that if handguns were restricted from the hands of minors and criminals, the rate and recidivism rate, the rate of repeat offenders, of violent crime would be reduced. I believe that we need more strict laws to curb some of the violent crime that is being committed by America's youth.  I also believe that the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) will not let the government ban all fire arms since the NRA is the biggest lobbyist in the gun control debate today because it has so many active members.  Finally, most people feel that  they need handguns for protection of their property and themselves.  I believe that protection of your own property, such as you home, is perfectly fine, but if you carry a gun around for protection, that can become dangerous.  For example, gang members who carry guns are an enormous threat to others.  If someone should irritate or annoy them, they might possibly resort to using his or her gun on that person.  Innocent children and bystanders could fall victim to a stray bullet.  Minor arguments could erupt into bloodshed on the street corner or in a dark alleyway.  Other people are also a possible threat, especially to police officers.  If for some reason, a gun toting civilian was pulled over for a traffic violation, that person could decide to shoot that police officer in an attempt to get away.  This would cause major problems in society.  Another thing is that people under the influence of drugs or alcohol might use their guns on somebody with out reason because of impaired reasoning and judgment associated with inebriation.  Now I'm not saying every person would be and is like that, but there are some people that are.  I believe that this presents a danger to society and why handgun access and sales should be restricted.  I believe that we need tougher legislation on handguns.  Citizens should be registered for each and every gun he or she owns and that they should be obligated to pay a high fee for that registration.  Also, juveniles and convicted felons that have already served time should not be permitted to purchase or possess and handgun.  I believe that if someone who has purchased a handgun, should be required by federal law to take a safety and training course in order to lawfully possess a handgun.  This course would be directed by the federal government and would ensure that a handgun purchaser's record would be checked out. This country should have tougher laws in order to restrict handgun access and sale.  I'm not saying this will work, but it will be a step forward in the direction of effective gun control.  If we and the government can work together on it, we can slowly minimize the problem and keep guns out of the wrong hands. [1] Annin, Peter; Morganthau, Tom.  "The lull before the storm?"
	Newsweek 4 December 1995: < http://sbweb2.med.iacnet.com/infotrac/session/993/36/2172572/62?xrn_14 >  03/24/97 19:29:23
[2] Blendon, Robert J.; Hemenway, David; Young, John T.  "The American public and 	the gun control debate"
	The Journal of the American Medical Association  12 June 1996: 
	< http://sbweb2.med.iacnet.com /infotrac/session/993/36/2172572/16?xrn_1 >  
	03/24/97 18:54:01

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The New Federalist Party.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


The New Federalist Party


Part I


	As the sole member of the New Federalist party, it is with great honors that I now present to you the very first New Federalist platform.  

PREAMBLE

	The growing dissension between the two major political parties today has drawn them away from the public's views.  It has been determined that the citizens of the United States cannot get what they want from the current major parties.  Because of this, a total reconstruction of the current political structure is in dire need.  In response to this need, the New Federalist party has been formed.
	The name "New Federalist" has been chosen to express the party's foremost concern.  This is to restructure the government into the form that the framers of the Constitution meant for it to be in.  The basis of this restructuring comes from the 10th amendment and articles of the Constitution.
	As you know, every major political party needs a symbol.  After careful consideration, the mythological hydra has been selected.  I know what your thinking, but it is effective in serving two main purposes.  The first purpose is that it is an ideal representation of the new structure of government that will be implemented by the New Federalist party.  The two heads represent the two governing bodies, the federal government and the state governments.  Both "heads" do nothing more than serve or govern over the body, which represents the citizens of the United States of America.  The second purpose of the hydra is to shift the focus from the representative party to the individual members of the party.  A political party should, like the hydra, should be nothing more than a myth.  Votes in an election should not be cast for a party but for the individual candidates.  The New Federalist party will be nothing more than a collection of like-minded people seeking to better our great country.
	In the following pages I have set forth the basic principles and various policy stands of the New Federalist party.

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

PRINCIPLES
	Federalism:  "A political system in which ultimate authority is shared between a central government and state or regional governments."1  The first and foremost principality addresses the power of the federal and state governments.  The framers of the Constitution never meant for the federal government to grow to today's tremendous size.
	The 10th amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."2  This means that everything not set forth in the Constitution as being regulated by the federal government will go back to being regulated by the states.  
	The second principality is a criterion for election.  Today's politician is viewed as a person who is out to do nothing more that line his/her own pockets.  A character of honesty, integrity, and willingness to carry out the public will shall be held above all other qualities when seeking nomination for political office.

GENERAL POLICIES
	Although the New Federalists main goal is a true federal government, it is not by any means a single issue party.  We try to take an independent stand on all of today's political issues.
	Crime:  Recent Gallop polls have shown that 80% of the population favors putting more police on the streets, and paying higher taxes to do it.  The same poll shows that 82% want to make it harder to parole violent inmates, and 79% want tougher sentences for all crimes.3  Many things need to be done about this epidemic that is sweeping our nation away.  The plan we intend to implement is divided into three sections, punishment, prison reform, and education.
	Punishment will be changed across the board.  Mandatory sentencing will be fixed to all crimes and the penalties will be increased.  A mandatory "three strikes and your out" law will be implemented in all non-violent crimes and a "two strikes and your out" law will deal with violent crimes.  In violent crimes, two strikes means life in prison with NO chance of parole.  Life in prison means just that, life, not 25 years.  Prison will be your home for the remainder of your stay on this planet.
	Prison reform will mirror that of Alabama's new prison system under Ron Jones.  "Chain gangs, electrified fences, no coffee except on Sunday-all these changes and more..."4  The New Federalists will also reform prisons by taking out tv's, vcr's and other recreational equipment.  We will leave some recreational equipment in, but only to be used during designated times.  
	Educational programs will be set up to let kids know about the effects of crime and drugs.  It will also let children associate with actual police officers and loose that inherent fear of cops that many kids have today.  Existing programs will receive more funds if they are needed.
	Foreign Policy:  The second main issue that will be dealt with is America's foreign policies.  There are many sub issues in foreign policy, but the main ones we will be dealing with are NATO and our many military interventions.  Firstly, the New Federalists stand for a  withdrawal from an outdated NATO.  There are just too many wars in Europe that have nothing to do with the United States for us to get involved with.  To put it simply, NATO is no longer needed.  Not only will we get out of NATO, we will also remove all of our nuclear weapons from Europe.  In addition, we will also pull all American forces out of Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.  
	Next, the United States government will stop playing it's self appointed role of 'Globocop'.  Military interventions such as the situations in Somalia and Bosnia will not be repeated.  Unless a countries problems threaten our national security and present a 'clear and present danger' we will not intervene militarily.  Any intervention will come through foreign aid.
	Welfare:  The last main issue that will be dealt with is welfare reform.  Welfare has helped millions of people become dependant on our government for free handouts.  Now is the time for a substantial change in the failing status quo.  Many tools will be utilized to reform this decrepit system.  Among these will include a full range of incentives to encourage recipients to re-enter the work force.
	Social Security:  American social security could be the greatest joke of our time.  With the increase in fraud and bankruptcy of the current social security system the New Federalist party will abolish current social security expenditures.  Those people that are currently dependant on social security that can not work will continue to receive their benefits with no change.  However, those people who are able to work will see a 50% cut in their social security checks.  However, once a recipient can no longer work to support himself, then he will again receive full benefits.  The cuts will not take place overnight, 3 years will be allowed for all those that need jobs to find them.  Those who are not currently receiving social security by the day of implementation will never be eligible to receive it.
	Freedom of Religion:  Consistent with the constitution, there will be a definitive separation of church and state, whereby "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."5  No more, no less.  This means that subjects such as prayer in schools rests in the hands of the individual state governments.  This section of the first amendment merely prohibits congress from passing laws that sets up a national religion or persecutes members of an existing one.  Furthermore, individuals are free to practice, or abstain from the same, any religion or belief they please, provided that it is legal and does not infringe on others rights.
	Electoral College:  The electoral college may have been a great idea when it was invented, but now it is horribly out of date and can no longer meet the needs of the American people.  When a president is elected by the electoral college yet does not get a majority of the popular vote, something is obviously wrong.  A constitutional amendment will be proposed to dissolve the electoral college and elect the president by the popular vote results only.  This new amendment will basically repeal the 12th amendment.
	American Reconstruction:  Black, Indian, Hispanic.  What's wrong with these names?  They're not politically correct.  African-American, Native-American, Latino-American, now those are "correct".  To the New Federalist party it's all a crock of inverted racism, where the minority sets it's own race apart and anyone who does not call them by their new name is considered a racist.  You and I have both heard the phrase "Why can't we just be Americans again?"  The implications are so true.  The New Federalist party will address the problem by instigating "American Reconstruction".  American Reconstruction is the process to eliminate racism.  The first step is getting rid of all hyphenated American names such as African-American.  The first step in regards to an uncooperative person is to reduce that person's citizenship to one-half American and one-half whatever.  The individual will still have to pay full taxes (fees for living in America without full citizenship) but will only reap one half of the rewards of being an American.  Such benefits include a complete drivers license, equal protection under the law, and the right to vote.  One of the most volatile situations in America today is racism.  This is just the tip of the iceberg in dealing with it, but at least we've got the guts to take the first step and get to one of the roots of the problem.  


Part II


	Crime:  The biggest issue in politics today is crime.  Therefore, the New Federalist party will address that before all other issues at hand.  The first step to reducing crime is a complete overhaul of the prison system.  Today's prisons are no more than underdeveloped country clubs for socially degenerate people.  Doing something effective to reduce crime is not as hard as one might expect, however, you MUST stand up for what will work and not back down because of opposition, because there will be a whole lot of it.  The New Federalist party is ready to make this stand with a three sided attack on crime.
	The first attack will be with punishment.  The first step will be to implement mandatory sentencing for all criminal acts.  Sentences and fines for non-violent crimes will be decided upon by state courts while capitol offenses and violent crime sentences will be decided on by the Supreme court.  The next step is to pass a bill similar to the current "three strikes and your out" law that is in California.  However, the meaning of 'your out' will vary from crime to crime.  Third time offenders will get 10 years minimum no matter what.  Violent criminals will only get one more chance, the second violent act they commit will put them behind bars, forever.
	The new crime bill will not be the only bill sent, another bill will accompany it, the Juvenile Crime Bill.  The juvenile crime bill will be exactly the same, in that it will contain the strikes laws and the mandatory sentencing.  The only thing that will differ is the mode of punishment.  The juvenile crime bill will set up the Alternative Schooling program.  This program will set up alternative schools in each state as needed.  Instead of sending the juvenile offenders to jail, they go to school.  These schools will be run like prisons in that all of the 'students' will be constantly monitored by guards and they will have little freedom.  Weekdays will consist of a rigid school/work schedule and a few hours free time.  Weekends will be open for limited visitation and rehabilitation classes.  In addition to the rehabilitation classes on the weekends, one will be attended every day of the school week, just like a regular class.  If a student turns 18 years old and has not yet finished serving his time he will be transferred immediately to a state prison where he will finish out his sentence.
	The next attack will be with prison reform.  The proposed solution to the high occupancy of America's prisons is hard labor and no luxuries.  Chain gangs will be used to clean up road sides, pave roads, dig ditches, grow food, and anything else the warden can think up for them to do.  The purpose of the chain gang is to break hardened criminals and to teach them that prison is not somewhere they want to be.  Most of the changes that will be proposed are those that Ron Jones has proposed in Alabama.  By watching the results of his new solutions we can decide if it is what we really want.  The proposed solutions are as follow...  (1)Leg irons will be used while inmates are out in the prison yard. (2)Electric fences will replace all other fences in the compound. (3)All inmates will be manacled together whenever they leave the prison. (4)TV's will not be used. (5)Radio's will only be used during designated hours. (6)Minimal sporting equipment will be provided.  Repeat offenders and inmates that are a behavioral problem will be dealt with appropriately.  (1)No smoking while working (2)No soft drinks (3)Increased hard labor hours.
	The final attack on crime come through education.  Programs like DARE have been tremendously successful over the years.  More programs like them need to be developed.  Kids need to see police as being their friend, not people to be feared.  Cops need to be integrated into the classroom so that they can teach children about the dangers of drugs, crime, gangs, guns, etc.  On top of that, more preventative programs such as assault prevention classes will be introduced on the high school levels.
	Welfare:  Welfare has gone beyond reason.  To put it as simply as possible, the current welfare system is wrong.  In 40 states, welfare pays over $8.00 an hour.  In 17 of those it pays more than $10.00 an hour.  The yearly value of welfare receipts ranges anywhere from $36,000 in Hawaii to $11,000 in Mississippi6  The New Federalist party calls for a striking reform of the current welfare state.  The first thing you must see is that the current system offers no incentives for a recipient to try to find work.  Furthermore the current system actually seems to encourage dependance through the added benefits of having more children and not marrying.7  The first thing that must be done is to encourage people to go out and find jobs.  To get them to do this we must give them incentive.  Our proposed solution is to have a welfare dependance time limit so that able bodied workers can not live off of welfare for a long period of time.  A reasonable amount of time would be about one year, assuming that the person is actually looking for a job.  Another incentive is to help with the costs of taking care of a child while a single parent goes to work daily.
	The next method of solution to the welfare state is to reduce the actual number of recipients by having a better enforced application screening process.  There are many people out there that don't actually need welfare but they choose to receive it because they don't have to work.  These types of people will be immediately rejected from the application process.  By adopting a tighter application process the number of recipients will be reduced.
	Welfare fraud costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year.  Florida alone spends millions on ineligible welfare recipients each year.8  The only way to put an end to welfare fraud is to enact tougher punishments and a better screening process by the government of who they will buy back food stamps from.  There are many criminals out there that the government buys food stamps back from simply because they have a license to receive food stamps from "customers."
	Foreign Policy:  There is one thing America should do with it's foreign policy, and that is to dump it.  Our president Clinton has embarrassed us enough with his lame threats to third world countries that will not give in to his wishes.  The New Federalist party favors a withdrawal of all overseas troops.  Bring them back from Asia, Europe, and South America.  Since there is no threat to world stability there is absolutely no need for our GI's to be scattered all over the world, we will bring them home.
	The first thing America should get out of is NATO.  Washington continues to spend $90 billion a year on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.9  NATO can no longer do us any good because the Cold War is over.  The only thing that can happen now is that NATO can entangle America in the numerous parochial quarrels and conflicts of East European nations themselves.10  Staying out of NATO allows the United States to form it's own opinion of European wars and if it wants to get involved it will be by free will, not dragged in by NATO.
	The next issue of foreign policy is our newfound love of being the police nation (aka. Globocop).  The United States, under Bill Clinton has stuck our noses in other nations business and have therefore been dragged into the mess.  Somalia is a prime example.  Even though human rights are very important, it was simply none of our business.  If we attempt the same thing with China we might get hurt.  Now Clinton is meddling with Bosnia, a disaster in the making.  The New Federalists's plan of action for the Bosnian situation would to not get involved since the U.S. has no vital interests at stake in Bosnia.  We can not force the heads of the governments into a peace plan.  The only peace plan that would work would be one that they came into agreement with on their own.  Under no circumstances would we send troops into Bosnia to "keep the peace".  Nor would we advocate sending troops anywhere else on similar missions.
The U.S. foreign military policy in regards to nuclear weapons has gone rather well.  We advocate a lateral agreement between many different countries to destroy some of their nuclear arsenal. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Power of the Judiciary.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
									Albert Lairson
									       PS 1  
								        Professor Mitchell


		THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY


	When the founding fathers of our country, and by that I mean the Federalists, were creating the system of government for America, they knew that a separation of power would be necessary to protect the American people from the evils of a monarchy or dictatorship.  In doing this, they created the three branches of government; Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary.  The plan was to have the Legislative make the laws, Executive enforce the laws, and the Judiciary interpret the laws, and it was Madison's system of "Checks  and Balances" that would keep the three in check.  No one branch would be able to exploit it's power without the scrutiny of one of the other branches, it seemed to be the perfect system.  However, when the Federalists proposed this system of "Checks and Balances," they really didn't consider the Judiciary that much of a threat of power, and because it wasn't considered a policy making branch like the Executive and Legislative, it really wasn't thought of as part of that system.  Basically, the Judiciary would make sure that no law was unfairly enforced on somebody, and anything else would merely be a bonus.  The system of "Checks  and Balances" would then be the Executive watching over the Legislative, and the Legislative watching over the Executive.  To be more specific it would be Congress watching over the President and the President watching over Congress. (The Federalist Papers, #51)
	This system, as I mentioned earlier seemed to be the perfect protection against tyranny of any kind, and in fact it is quite effective, but I feel the problem is in that the Federalists didn't take into account that the Judiciary would in fact become a policy making branch in itself, with the power to check any one of the other two branches just as much as they would check each other.  Robert Dahl wrote, "To consider the Supreme Court of the United States strictly as a legal institution is to underestimate its significance in the America political system.  For it is also a political institution, an institution, that is to say, for arriving at decisions on controversial questions of national policy." (Dahl, Role of the Supreme Court Symposium, pg.279)  The point here is that proportionately, the Judiciary yields as much power and policy making capabilities as any of the other two branches of government, and that the decisions made by the Supreme Court are in fact equal in stature to Congress passing a Bill into law.
	What Dahl is basically trying to say is that the evolution of the Supreme Court has made it very involved in decisions concerning important policy issues of the American political system.  When it renders a decision on these policy issues, it is in fact changing or creating new policy itself.  Now to say that the Supreme Court is only the highest legal institution of the United States would be doing a it a terrible injustice, not to mention selling it extremely short on the credit it deserves for the job that it is doing.  The Supreme Court is without a doubt, a very capable and extremely involved branch of government, equal in power to the Legislative and Executive branch, and well adapted in the duties involved in the system of "Checks and Balances" that the Federalists established so many years ago.
	The founders intentions for the Judiciary Branch was to interpret the laws that the Legislative made, and the document by which their standards would be set would of course be the 
Constitution of the United States.  The Supreme Court would render decisions based on the laws drafted into the Constitutions, and it would be asked to interpret them to the best of their ability.  Because of this expectation to "interpret", the Supreme Court has been allowed to develop the power to change policy in America.  The reason for this can be explained by a great many examples, the biggest perhaps being the case of Roe v. Wade where the issue of abortion took the forefront of the American judiciary system.  In this case, to ask the Supreme Court to interpret the law as best described by the Constitution would be useless because the Constitution states nothing on the matter of abortion.  So what is the Supreme Court supposed to do in these types of situations?  The answer of course is to take the matter into their own hands and interpret the law as THEY see fit.  It is the only way handle a situation that the Constitution does not address.  This is exactly how the Judiciary becomes a policy maker, when it has to deal with a situation as they see fit, to refute a law or to uphold a law is to deal with political policy in America.  When the Supreme Court carried out a decision on the Roe v. Wade case, it succeeded in not only making abortion the right of a woman to decide on, but it also succeeded in setting forth a precedent of policy making in America.  This was a huge national issue, perhaps one of the largest of it's time, and for the Judiciary branch to arbitrate such an important issue was an enormous show of force.
	What we must remember when we are thinking in terms of the Constitution is that the framers of it made it deliberately vague for a number of reasons.  One thing we must take into account is that when the founders were drafting this document, a document who's principles this country would be ran on for many years to come, they were in reality trying to sell the idea to the rest of the American people.  Not everyone was all smiles about the fact America was going to be a centralized government, so not everyone was happy about a Constitution for the entire nation.  For this reason, certain issues that would be very controversial at the time are purposely not included in the Constitution because people at the time simply would not have stood for it.  An excellent example would be the issue of slavery, which isn't even spoke of in the Constitution. This is not because the founders thought it would never be an issue, it was actually quite the contrary.  The founders absolutely knew that one day the issue of slavery would have to be dealt with, but at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, when they are essentially trying to sell people on the idea, it would not be a very prudent thing to bring up.  
	Because of this vagueness, the Judiciary branch has been able to blossom into a political force in our government.  Countless decisions have been made where the use of the Constitution was not an option, and interpretation was the only means of deliberation.  For these reasons, it is clear to see that the Judiciary branch has established itself as a clear cut policy making institution, but how does it fair in decisions involving the Executive or Legislative branches of the government.  An examination of the cases in which the Court has held federal legislation unconstitutional provide an excellent answer to that question.
	From the New deal to present, the Supreme Court has been active in dealing with cases that involved federal legislation.  One specific example that validates this point is the issue of term limits.  When Congress passed legislation allowing for the government to set term limits on members of the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court was asked to step in and rule on the fairness to do this.  This was and still is a prodigious issue among federal officials, particularly the Congressman that it is effecting.  After careful consideration and review of the Constitution, the Court found that Term Limits were unconstitutional. It ruled that the individual states could not govern elections of it's officials, so to say that if a Congressman was elected by the people ten times in a row, let him stay in office that many times.  What the people want the people get, it is the only way to keep the system democratic.  Of course federal representatives like the President do have term limits, but that is do mainly to the range of his constituency and power he has, and term limits only assure the protection from a dictatorship.  
	Nonetheless, the main point here is the Supreme Court made an important decision regarding legislative policy, and proved that it too is an important policy maker, even after Congress may have passed legislation.  The system of "Checks and Balances" is well in tact, with the Judiciary Branch making sure that policy and legislation is fair and constitutional, and is shown through the decisions they have yielded.  Countless other examples exist to back up this claim, but it would be entirely too monotonous to go through them all.
	In conclusion,  I feel we have shown that the Judiciary branch has evolved into an equally powerful branch of government as the Executive and Legislative.  Through the use Constitutional interpretation the Supreme Court has proven itself to be an important policy making institution in the American political system.  I sustain that the founders did not expect the Judiciary to become such a force in the policy making arena, but considering the way they set up the Constitution, I do not think they would be disappointed by the way the Judiciary has dealt with such controversial issues.  It is my understanding that the Judiciary is just as an important branch of government as the Executive and Legislative, and that it has succeeded in the important duty of "checking" them as well.  With so many issues yet to be resolved, look for the Judiciary branch to gain recognition as a policy maker, and to continue to uphold and interpret the laws set up by the founders in the Constitution.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Press and Medias effect on Early American Presidential E.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 (9)
                                                                    Period 6
	Today, the press and media cause rampant swaying of the vote through their own
opinions and  reports.  People are often misled with half-truths and believable rumors
that can aid or ruin an election.  Journalists and the newspapers often print things too
hastily, without first investigating the truth or at least both sides of a story.  Candidates
abuse the media, using money as a pass to publicly slander and deface the character of
their opposition, his ideals, and even the innocent people related to him.  These concepts
did not start recently, or even in our century.  The press and media's views affected the
early presidencies too.  Let's start with the first president elected by vote, John Adams.
	John Adams took the office of president in the year 1797.  He was a close admirer
of Washington and was sometimes said to be Washington's shadow  (Presidency of John
Adams, Ralph Adams Brown 1975).  He and the Federalists believed that nothing the
Anti-federalists and their supporting press could say would be enough to shake their
control.  Yet it was Adams who, in spite of his undoubted intelligence, made a mistake of
such proportions that it brought about his own downfall and the party's (Press and the
Presidency, John Tebbel 1985).  This mistake would be the Sedition Act, which tested
the first amendment and the freedoms of the press.  This obviously did not please the
press and its opinions were generally shifted to that of the Anti-Federalist.  This was a
deadly blow to John Adams' presidency and the Federalist party.  He himself was no
stranger to the press, he worked together with the Sons of Liberty and "cooked up
paragraphs" while "working the political engine" in the Boston Gazette (Brown 1975). 
Adams experience with the press had convinced him that it was a primary source of
political persuasion, and the thought was intriguing to him.  He is quoted as saying in
response to mudslinging between the two parties "There is nothing that the people dislike
that they do not attack" (Tebbel 1985).  When the press was being used in his favor, or
against the crown of England, he seemed to be proud of the individuality and freedoms of
the American press.  However, when it was used against him for negative purposes, he
wanted it stopped.  
	Adams had obstacles from the beginning of his presidency.  The new president
had to establish his own identity among these men of his own party, and at the same time
he was compelled to defend himself as best he could against the virulent Anti-Federalist
press, which had simply resumed its campaign against him where it left off with
Washington (Brown 1975).  After debates on the topic, Adams and the Federalists were
for censorship as the Sedition Act called for.  William B Giles of Virginia asserted that
	opinion whether founded in truth or error is a property, which every individual
	possesses, and which in this country he is at liberty to address to the public
	through the medium of the press... It should not be forgotten that in the United
	States the rights of every man and of every society are popular--the rights of
	opinion, or of 	thinking and speaking and publishing are sacred.  (Tebbel 1985)
	The Federalists continually lost the following of the people through the press and
its opinions of them.  Despite the rejection by the general populous, they continued on
and passed treason bills, forbidding true freedom of the press and public opinion.  Adams
and the Federalists were sweeped out of office after one term, leaving with a bad image
due to the persistent press.
	Thomas Jefferson was then elected into office by popular vote.  He had distinctly
opposing views to that of the now ousted Federalist party, but still he too had some
obstacles due to the press and media.  He truly believed in the rights of the people, and he
held the freedom of the press in high regard.  He believed that in order to make
democracy function as it should, there must be an absolutely free press (Tebbel 1985). 
He did occasionally speak out against the press, but this was usually when the press  did
not match the enthusiasm  or truly match his ideals.  His problems with the press had its
origins for similar reasons that had made Washington and Adams enemies of the press--
that is, the newspapers remained primarily political organs. No matter how rapidly they
were advancing in their news coverage, they were still in the hands of politicians who
used printers as tools for their own adgendas.  He too, tried to use the press to his
advantage, but when they smote him, he turned the other cheek publicly and tried to turn
it around proclaiming to be the champion for a free press.  His views to the press slowly
began to change, however he always was for a free press.  He believed that it must be
free, but that its purpose in a democratic society was to inform, to circulate information
among all classes of people, not simply the political aristocracy to which he himself
belonged.  The press informed the people, and they, in possession of real facts and the
truth, would make democracy work.  (Tebbel 1985)  At the time almost everyone did
agree on that fact, except for the extremist Britain loyalists.  Jefferson's views, after
increasing attack and slander became a bit more loose.  He still thought the presses
should be free, but also free of lies and libel.  Thus Jefferson came to the presidency with
a clear record of absolute support for press freedom, now with the single limitation of the
libel laws.  The Federalist's press and their scurrilous attacks on him were at their savage
height, and the control slipped away.  This caused a paradoxical situation for Jefferson
that could not lead to a positive outcome.  He wanted to restore the credibility of the
press--that is, stop the oppositions lying attacks on him--by a few judicious, selected libel
actions brought in the states where they are most likely to succeed, which if successful
would put the fear of the law into other papers so that they may unfreely restrain
themselves (Tebbel 1985).  He did not bring about the libel suits (a wise move) that
would have made him seem like a hypocrite and a backstabber to the press which he
frequently claimed to be the champion of, so ultimately the press was allowed to
continue the attacks against him which hurt his character.  The Evening Post newspaper
came about and it too was not exactly full of pro-Jefferson sentiment.  But in another
smart move by Jefferson he turned the other cheek and continued to be proud of the
freedom used to slander him.  Jefferson was quoted as saying this about the press though
	I determine never to put a sentence into any newspaper.  I will religiously adhere
	to this resolution through the rest of my life and have great reason to be contented
	with it.  Were I to undertake to answer the calumnies of the newspapers, it would
	be more than all my own time, and that of twenty aids could effect.  For while I
	should be answering one, twenty new ones would be invented.  I have thought it
	better just to trust to the simple justice of my countrymen.  (Tebbel 1985)
	His actions and reactions to the horrendously negative press certainly aided his
election to a second term.  If Adams would have been as much as an optimistic pacifist
perhaps he would have been allowed to serve a second term.  From this point to decades
in the future, the press was constantly a factor in the presidency.  There always were
presses against the views of the president and the freedoms of the press ,too, were
stretched, tested, and analyzed.  They were constantly under scrutiny from the presidency
through the following tumultuous decade.  In the presidency of Andrew Jackson the press
began to change to even more of a manipulatory tool, than just expressive of opposing
ideals.  
	Newspapers in Jackson's time still served the purposes of political candidates and
parties and were sometimes subsidized by them.  Nearly every candidate had his own
newspaper, with its loyal editor, whether he had any organization behind him or not. 
Until Jackson, political party organization had been so weak that newspapers were a
prime element in the ability of a candidate to function.  When he solicited funds, the
money was needed largely to buy the support of major newspaper editors which was for
sale (Cole 1993).  Jackson's ideas of government were consistent with his character.  He
agreed that there should be three equal parts of a government, as the Constitution had
decreed, but he insisted that he was the first among equals, as the popular voice
responsible for policy.  The press, of course, could change the "popular voice" very easily
with lies, half-truths, and calumny. 
	In Jackson's campaign in 1828 began to take shape, the general heard a clarion
call to governmental reform, and he perceived that the press was a valuable tool to bring
this about (Cole 1993).  For the first time, a presidential campaign was organized from
the grassroots upward, not only to elect Jackson but, so it was said, to reaffirm the
principles of republicanism of the Jeffersonian variety--that is, debt reduction, minimal
government, and states' rights.  In the election of 1828 these broad issues were addressed
only in policy, internal improvements were never dealt with directly by either the
candidates or the newspapers.  Instead, the press lost whatever ground it had gained since
older times and engaged in the old style of invective and reckless charges, libel, and
harmful attacks (Tebbel 1985).  It is believed that Jacksonians had raised a fund of
$50,000 to establish newspapers guaranteed to support Jackson (Cole 1993)  This is not
very doubtful in my mind, since corruption of newspapers was commonplace and their
favor was quite easily attainable.  
	Jackson and his backers were all the while busy organizing a powerful coalition,
drawing into it wise politicians, businessmen, as well as some newspapers and their
editors.  So through reaction to a corrupted press the Democratic party was created
(Tebbel 1985)!  Obviously that seriously effected American politics to this date.  At the
time this was called the Nashville Central Committee, which then began giving regular
handouts to the press, letters written to politicians everywhere in the country, and
visitations to local and other state committees, and most importantly the central
committee in Washington.  This also lead to a steady distribution of propaganda and
campaigning materials.
	Jackson also formed a trio known as the "Kitchen Cabinet" (Cole 1993).  It
consisted of Kendall, Blair, and Jackson.  Kendall noted down the president's ideas, often
as the president lay back on a couch and smoked his pipe, and later he and Blair would
write, or rewrite, what was said into stories of both the Jackson and Van Buren
administrations.  Thus Jackson  emerged as the first presidential manipulator of the press,
in a practical, systematic way that far surpassed any earlier attempts at such (Tebbel
1985).  So the "Globe" became the president's personal and frequent conveyer of
propaganda and the beliefs he wanted the people to have.  Ironically, since everyone
knew that the Globe was the president's personal organ, its circulation naturally increased
because in its pages could be seen what the president was thinking (actually, what he
wanted you to think) and assiduous readers might even anticipate what he might propose
next.  However, the Globe still prospered, and within a year had four thousand
subscribers plus congressional and departmental printing contracts worth about $50,000
annually (Cole 1993).  Many of these were taken away from the Telegraph, which was
the oppositions leading paper!  Due to this the Telegraph had to stop due to funding
problems and the Globe was left alone to lead people to Jackson's cause.  
	As the campaign for his second term began, the persuasive and overwhelming
political character of the Globe was evident as even the most important news had to take
a second place to the political maneuvers the Democrats were making.  A cholera
epidemic in Washington was noticed only in the official reports of the Board of Health,
but there was room for columns of quotations from Democratic papers on the veto of the
bank bill (Tebbel 1985).  Unlike Jefferson and Madison had been, Jackson was not
known to be ultimately a supporter of total press freedom.  However, this didn't stop him
from getting elected to a second term, which can be said is largely due to the Globe and
its persuasions.
	Jackson had shown what could be done with a manipulated press to hit people on
the head with the hammer blows of an aggressive presidency.  It would take the "Little
Magician" Martin Van Buren, to demonstrate how the press could be used to persuade
without the hammer blow.  However, violent passions were rising in the country over the
slavery issue, and a new breed of editors was about to come into its own--editors who
could declare themselves independent of any political party or candidate and not only
survive but become rich and successful (Wilson  1984).  He also was known as the "Red
Fox," (Wilson 1984) as the press sometimes called him, because journalists already were
well aware of Van Buren's special talents as a master manipulator.  More than any
president before him, Van Buren possessed an innate ability to grasp the interrelationship
of the press and the public mind. Yet, what he wrote about both was hardly full of
brilliant insight.  He said, "In this matter of personal popularity, the working of the public
mind is often inscrutable.  In one respect only does it appear to be subject to rule, namely
in the application of a closer scrutiny by the people to the motives of public men to their
actions."  In the same volume, speaking of the opposition papers, he gave us the common
political opinion:  "Their press had been for a long time and was at that very moment
teeming with the most outrageous calumnies against me on the same general subject." 
(Tebbel 1985)  The press even developed a term to describe the way they felt about him
"vanburenish" which meant straddling or avoiding certain issues, but still maintaining the
great guy facade.  
	
	The "little magician" had some Jacksonian political attributes too.  He may have
complained from time to time about the Albany Argus, but this paper was an important
factor in his rise to power.  He contributed to it often, and eventually came to own it as
his own, much like Jackson's Globe.  However, when Van Buren began his campaign for
the presidency, he found himself in the unaccustomed position of being on the receiving
end of abuse from the press.  As a candidate, he also came under blows delivered by
Webb's corrosive pen.  "Every paper almost we open speaks contemptuously of Van
Buren's prospects for the presidency."  (Wilson 1984)  The New York American even
declared: "Mr. Van Buren consorts most naturally with the degraded and vile--for among
them he is a superior... The good we desire we may not be able to attain; but the evil we
dread, the great and menacing evil, the blighting disgrace of placing Martin Van Buren,
illiterate, sycophant, and politically corrupt, at the head of this great republic... we can
avert it and such a consummation is surely worth some trouble." (Tebbel 1985)  With the
press he wanted on his side backfiring on him like this, it is no wonder why he was not
elected to a second term as president of the United States.
	As you see, the press was, and is, a very fickle group.  You are either with them,
or against them.  It makes men, breaks men, and aids one at the expense of another.  Yet,
I am glad we have such liberties and such an intriguing press that can be played like a big
game where ultimately someone loses big. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Press and Political Revolution.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 	The newspaper is a powerful medium.  It is powerful because it has the ability to influence the way that people view the world, as well as their opinion of what they see.  In peaceful times (or in times of oppression, for sometimes they can appear to be happening at the same moment) the press is usually one of the instruments used by the state in order to maintain the status quo.  However, during times of political unrest it is often the press who becomes the major antagonist in the fight against the government.  
	Why is this so?  Why does the press get so deeply involved in, not just the reporting of, but the instigating and propagating of political change?  In order to properly answer this question there are several other key ideas and questions which must first be examined.  To understand the nature of the press' involvement in political change, one must initially understand the nature of political change in its own right.  In this vein, the first section of the paper is dedicated to this investigation.  An examination of the motives behind revolution will be given in order to provide a framework for the second part of the paper, which will look at the involvement of the press during revolutionary times in more specific terms.  The French revolution of 1789 will be used as a backdrop for this inquiry.
	There are many different types of political movements, and accordingly there are many different reasons for these movements to occur.  Value-oriented and norm-oriented movements deal with matters of social and political concern, but do so in the setting of the already existing political and social structures.  Revolutionary movements seek to make fundamental changes to society in order to establish a completely new political and social order.1  The distinction being that the first aims to make subtle changes to society from within, while the latter's aim is to make drastic changes to society by getting rid of the principles that society was based on. 
	Usually this will involve a change in political beliefs and values, or political ideology.  In today's world there are numerous forms of political ideologies, but in essence they are all derived from two basic root ideologies; socialism and liberalism.  Socialism is an ideology which places power in the hands of the state, rather than in the people who populate it.  Examples of modern socialist states include: the former Soviet Union, China, and Cuba.  Other more extreme forms of socialism are fascism and authoritarianism.  These ideologies more closely resemble the monarchies that ruled much of Europe and the new world, before the great revolutions.  Monarchism is an ideology that believes in the absolute rule of a "royal" family.  The king and/or queen have the power to make decisions without question from anyone.  The series of revolutions which included the English Reformation, the American and French Revolutions, and to a lesser extent the revolts in Upper and Lower Canada, were all confrontations over who should hold political ascendancy.  Moreover, they were clashes of ideology, between monarchism and liberalism.
	Liberalism was developed during the Enlightenment.  This was a period of time when writers, scientists, and philosophers began to openly question certain aspects of society and the role that they should or should not play.  Attacked were the kings and queens, the clergy and feudalist system as a whole.  The ideas of this time formed the basis of revolutionary thought.  The goal of the revolutionaries was to build a new society based on liberal values of the Enlightenment.  "Liberal politicians in Europe wanted to establish a framework of legal equality, religious toleration and freedom of the press."2  It was the deprivation of these principles, by the monarchical leaders, which led to discontent among the people of France.  Above all, liberalism stresses the primacy of individual rights. One can see that these ideals were at the forefront of French revolutionary thought by examining the Declaration of rights, which in 1789 stated that, "All men are equal by nature," and brought republican concepts such as liberty, equality and fraternity into awareness.3
When one looks at the motives behind the great revolutions of our time, a recurring theme seems to prevail in all of them.  There is a part of human nature which makes freedom almost as much of a necessity as food and water. When people's freedom is somehow oppressed or taken away, discontent emerges.  "As soon as discontent is generalized a party is formed which often becomes strong enough to struggle against the Government."4  The conditional nature of this statement can be attributed to the fact that discontent among a minority of people is not enough to cause a revolution.  There are other factors which are necessary for a complete revolution to transpire.  First, there must be a medium whereby the masses are able to learn about the principles which will be fought for.  Second, there must be a means by which the masses can acquire sufficient  knowledge of the wrongs that have been perpetrated against them, in order to foster and unite support for the cause.  Third, there must be a way for the masses to receive information about the revolution all the time, so that support does not wain, and so the revolutionaries can organize itself.  The best and easiest way for these factors to be satisfied is through the news media.
	The involvement of the news media is important to any revolutionary cause.  In a democratic revolution it is especially important.  When the population revolts, in an effort to obtain democracy or a more liberal society, it is only natural that the press become involved.  The reason for this is not as complicated as it may seem to be.  In a democratic revolution, the radicals are fighting for the rights that they believe they should have, if for no other reason than by the fact that they are born.  These rights are based on liberal values such as the right to life, liberty and property.  They also include the right to freedom of speech and expression, and all the aspects that go with it, like freedom of the press.  In a revolution where freedom of the press is being fought for, it is only natural that the press play a large role in the fight.  Harold Innis, when observing the development of a free press stated, "the advantages of a new medium will become such as to lead to the emergence of a new civilization."5  Without a free press, the success of the great revolutions and the societies that they helped to create, would not have been possible.
	So we have seen why the press becomes involved in revolutions.  Essentially it is because the press, as we know it, is a liberal and democratic institution which gives it strong ties to the revolutionary cause.  However, the question of the role that the press actually plays in a revolution still remains.  It is obvious that during a revolution, the newspapers do more than just report on the facts.  The facts, while still important, are not what the people want to hear or what they need to hear.  There are three essential functions that the press perform during a revolution: education, unification and the safeguarding of the new constitution.                                        
	For a revolution to begin, the people must know what it is they are revolting against.  For a revolution to continue, once started, the people must have knowledge of the events that have been carried out in their name.  The Enlightenment served this first purpose somewhat, but for the most part, the ideas of the Enlightenment were confined to the upper classes for reasons of wealth and education.   The ideas of that period did not reach the masses because they were either unable to afford the books, or unable to read them, and most of the time both.  It was not until the censorship laws were lifted, that the people really began to get a sense of the corrupt behavior of the monarchical government.
	In pre revolutionary France, the press was tightly controlled by the King and his government.  It was officially forbidden to discuss the pros and cons of government policies....The French government, increasingly willing to allow periodicals that stimulated public discussion in every other area of life, balked at officially permitting any honest discussion of its own doings.6 
The only way for French citizens to find out about their government was through the foreign press which was only moderately censored by the government of France.  However, towards the end of the Old Regime, even these foreign papers were no longer sufficient to satisfy the reader's demands for commentary and behind the scenes stories in the news. These were necessary so that the French could try to make sense of what was happening.7  
	The road to a censor free press was paved in May of 1788 when the French government in an attempt to raise new taxes, tried to abolish the parlements, who were opposing the tax increase.  This move created great opposition to the ministries and flooded the market with pro-parlement pamphlets.  The strength of this opposition was enough to make the government try another route.  They called the first meeting of the kingdom's traditional representative assembly in 175 years, the Estates-General, which could undercut the authority of the parlements and get the taxes passed.  To build up support for this move, and to counteract the anti ministerial pamphlets, censorship restrictions were lifted and all authors were encouraged to publish their ideas about how the Estates-General should proceed.8  In this way the press was able to begin educating the masses on the problems caused by the absolutism of the French monarchy.       
	These early pamphlets provided the spark that was necessary for the traditional periodical to take hold as the medium of the revolution.  The political pamphlet was too limited a medium to satisfy the demand for the news and ideas that  the calling of the Estates-General had created.9  The relative advantages of  daily newspapers were recognized early in the revolution.  Two men in particular, Jacques-Pierre Brissot and Honore-Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau, realized the power that newspapers could give to the revolutionary cause, and they issued the first numbers of their unauthorized newspapers shortly after the beginning of the sessions of the Estates-General.  One of the advantages that the newspaper has over the pamphlet is its extensive readership, and the fact that it is a constant source of information.  Whereas, the pamphlet was only able to reach a limited audience and do so in a sporadic nature.  As Brissot said of the newspaper, "one can teach the same truth at the same moment to millions of men; through the press, they can discuss it without tumult, decide calmly and give their opinion."10  The revolutionary press was able to promote the ideas of the revolution in a manner that would have been impossible for the pamphlets to carry out.  The newspapers were able to unite people and ideas from all over the country, something that mere geography would have prevented the pamphlets from doing.
	The third function that the revolutionary press performed, was to act as the safeguard of the new society.  The French Revolution was part of the series of great modern revolutions, based on liberal democratic values.  This series of events made popular consent the only basis with which a government can claim legitimacy.11  However, the French revolutionaries felt that all politics must be carried on in public for it to be completely legitimate.  "Publicity is the people's safeguard,"12 according to Jean-Sylvain Bailly, the revolutionary mayor of Paris.  To promote this theory, the revolutionary assemblies opened their doors to the public.  The only problem with this is that France happens to be a very large country, and even then it had a very large population.  In 1789 the population of France was 28 million and the population of Paris alone was 600 000,13 which made it theoretically impossible for everyone to take part it the new government.  The newspapers were the only way that all of the citizens of the new republic could, in a sense, participate.  
	In providing a link between the government and its citizens, not only did they allow most citizens to be "active" participants, but the revolutionary newspapers also filled the position of political watchdog.  It was the absence of a responsible press, that allowed the monarchs to rule unchallenged for so long a period.  That is why it has been said that the emergence of the press was, "a development that was watched with unfriendly eyes by kings and Parliaments alike."14  The revolutionaries did not want there to be any possibility for the new government to take advantage of their power, in the same manor that the monarchs had used theirs.  That is one of the reasons why they felt so strongly about freedom of the press.  Only a press independent of government interference and regulation, would be able to effectively monitor the actions of the new government.
	The press plays a large role in revolutionary times for various reasons. The basis for this involvement is found in the very nature of the revolution itself.  Liberal revolutions fight for certain values, of which, the press and its freedom are one.  As a participant in the revolution the press also has many specific roles.  It acts as an educator, bringing knowledge of what the revolution is fighting for and why.  The press also acts as a common voice for the revolutionary fight.  It unites the revolutionaries from all over the country and allows them to coordinate and organize.  It also allows the people to keep track of events on a daily basis because the newspaper can reach them all the time.  The third role of the press during revolutionary times is to serve as the watchdog of the new political order.  Without a free press, the new government might be tempted to abuse the powers that have been conferred upon it.  
	Many historians have downplayed the importance of the press during these periods of political upheaval, saying that the press was no more than an observer.  However, one cannot ignore the obvious influence that the press has had in the bringing about of revolution.    


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Le Bon, Gustave.  The Psychology of Revolution. USA: Fraser Publishing Company, 1968.

Censor, Jack Richard, Prelude to Power, The Parisian radical Press: 1789-1791, Maryland: the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976

The Influence of the Enlightenment on the French revolution, edited by William F. Church, Canada: D.C. Heath and Company, 1974

Darton, Robert and Daniel Roche, Revolution in Print: The Press in France 1775-1800, USA: New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox & Tilden Foundations, 1989

Guy, James John, People, Politics & Government, Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada Inc., 1990.

Osler, Andrew.  News, The Evolution of Journalism in Canada.  Missisauga: Copp Clark Pitman Ltd., 1993.

Popkin, Jeremy D.  Revolutionary News, The Press in France 1789-1799.  USA: Duke University Press, 1990.






Footnotes
1James John Guy,  People, Politics and Government,  (Toronto, 1990),  p. 103.
2 Ibid., p. 81
3 Gustave Le Bon, The Psychology of revolution, (USA, 1968), pp. 162-3
4Ibid.,  p. 28.
5Andrew M. Osler,  News, The Evolution of Journalism in Canada,  (Canada, 1993),  p. 54.
6Jeremy D. Popkin,  Revolutionary News  The Press in France, 1789-1799,  (USA, 1990),  pp. 19-20.
7Ibid.,  p. 22-3.
8Ibid.,  p.25.
9Ibid.,  p. 26.
10Ibid.,  p.28.
11Ibid.,  p. 2.
12Ibid.,  p. 3.
13Ibid.,  p. 3.
14Osler,  p. 54.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Republican Party Issues.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
											

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.

 


 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Right To Keep And Bear Arms.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Thursday, 19 August, 1996

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Bill of Rights, Article II).

This seemingly simple phrase is probably the source of more debate and argument than any other single sentence in American history. The argument is not black or white, pro or con. Rather, it encompasses many shades of gray. At the one end of the spectrum you have the National Rifle Association (NRA) which currently views any type of gun control as an infraction against the Second Amendment of the Constitution ("What is the NRA" 1). At the other end of the spectrum you have groups like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) and Handgun Control, Inc. seek to make most firearms accessible only to law enforcement and the military ("CSGV" 1). In the middle there are organizations such as the American Firearms Association, who seek compromise regarding our rights (Lissabet, "Return" 2). Some organizations that one would expect to participate in this debate are noticeably quiet. One such group is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In "The ACLU on Gun Control", the national ACLU policy is neutrality (1).

All factions in this debate have some merit, some more than others. All use a mixture of facts, figures, and emotions to express their views. I will be presenting some of their history, their views, and how they make their cases.

The NRA is perhaps the most well known of the participants. They were formed after the Civil War, in 1871, as an organization dedicated to the rifle marksmanship of the state Militias. This was due to Union Army's lack of marksmanship. Following World War II, many returning veterans joined the ranks of the NRA. They endured their share of military life and over time the NRA's mission was changed to that of a sportsman's organization. This did not last long.

Following the assassination of President Kennedy the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. The act banned the mail-order sale of guns and ammunition. This act was even supported by the NRA's leaders. Within the NRA however, there was a growing faction that opposed gun control in any form. This faction was set up as the subordinate committee, Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). This faction gained support and power and in 1977 gained control of the NRA. They have held that power ever since.

Today's NRA works to foster support for the shooting sports, to promote firearms safety, responsibility, and freedom, and to protect Second Amendment rights from infringement ("What is the NRA" 1). They take a very hard line in their protection of Second Amendment rights. They believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and work to oppose any legislation that will infringe that right.

The AFA was founded in 1993. It seeks to protect the constitutional right to bear arms while supporting fair and reasonable gun controls. They seek to preserve the sportsman's arms, rifles and shotguns, at the cost of the recreational shooters arms, handguns (Lissabet, "Return" 3). This approach is presented as a compromise to safeguard Second Amendment rights. They espouse to support the Second Amendment, they also support the implementation of stricter gun controls (Lissabet, "Anti-Federalism" 4). The AFA counts among its membership many ex-NRA members. Some of these include the board members who were forced out of the NRA in 1977.

The CSGV was founded in 1974. Its mission was to fight what they saw as a growing problem of gun violence in the US. Their main goal is:
 _the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States. CSGV seeks to ban handguns and assault weapons from importation, manufacture, sale, or transfer by the general American public, with reasonable exceptions made for police, military, security personnel, gun clubs where guns are secured on club premises, gun dealers trading in antique and collectable firearms kept and sold in inoperable condition. ("CSGV" 1).
They also seek to make the acquisition of the firearms that are still legal very difficult. They seek to do this through limiting dealer licenses, restrictive gun owner fees and regulations. Many other gun control measures are supported and supported by the CSGV. They feel that the Second Amendment is a collective right, to be held by the government and law enforcement agencies.

These three factions all manipulate the figures to show support for their views, they use fear to gain the support of the people. In their own way they all present valid arguments, yet none are completely right in their stand. The NRA would be better served by supporting some measures of gun control such as the national waiting period on the purchase of firearms. This measure will not infringe on any ones right to keep and bear arms. By supporting this and other reasonable measures, they will disarm the anti-gun lobby's arguments against firearms. The CSGV would get better results if they stopped attacking a citizens rights and started working to combat the real problem, the criminal who uses firearms. Despite all the numbers the CSGV uses to make the spectre of firearms violence seem overwhelming, firearms in and of themselves are not dangerous, it is the person who possesses the firearm that is dangerous (The Facts of Gun Violence_ 1).

Gun controls do not control the criminal, they only keep the law abiding citizen from protecting themselves. In a recent study, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence reported that the states with restrictive gun laws  have some of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. Conversely, the states with "right to carry" laws have a 21% lower violent crime rate (Cloud 1).

Works Cited

Cloud, David. "Anti-Gun Study Highlights Failure of Gun Control." Fundamental Baptist News Service 3 May 1996: 1

Lissabet, Ernest. "Anti-Federalism and the Second Amendment."  American Firearms Association WWW Site: http://www.firearms.org/afa/federal.html.

Lissabet, Ernest. "The Return of the Old Guard."  American Firearms Association WWW Site: http://www.firearms.org/afa/return.html.

"The ACLU on Gun Control." ACLU WWW Site: http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html.

"The Facts of Gun Violence_"  Coalition to Stop Gun Violence WWW Site: http://www.gunfree.inter.net/csgv/basicnfo.html.

"What is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence?" Coalition to Stop Gun Violence WWW Site: http://www.gunfree.inter.net/csgv/csgvsumm.html.

"What is the NRA and how does it work?"  National Rifle Association WWW Site: http://www.nra.org/nra-precis.html. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Rise and Fall of McCarthyism A look at how the press cr.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Rise and Fall of McCarthyism:
An explanation of how the Media created 
and then destroyed Joseph McCarthy.

INTRODUCTION

	The U.S. Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy, was born in Grand 
Chute, Wisconsin, Nov.14, 1908, and died May 2, 1957, (Grolier, 1996) was best known for his attacks on alleged Communist subversion most notably  within the administrations of the Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower.  The activities of McCarthy and his followers gave birth to the term McCarthyism.  This term is used in reference to "sensational and highly publicized personal attacks, usually based on unsubstantiated charges, as a means of discrediting people thought to be subversive."(Grolier, 1996)
	McCarthy, before February of 1950, was by no means a distinguished legislator.  He held the attention of the United States by arguing that the State Department was "riddled with card-carrying members of the Communist Party."(Rovere,1959,p.128) McCarthy was shrewd in his manipulation of the media, and well recognized for his skills in Public Relations.  He used these abilities to take advantage of the growing public frustration with the eastern Communist movement, and moved from one charge to another.  McCarthy barraged his opposition with accusations and evaded demands for tangible proof as he developed a loyal following.  With the support of many Republicans, he accused the administrations of Roosevelt and Truman with "twenty years of treason."(Grolier, 1996)
	After his reelection in 1952, McCarthy directed similar accusations at the Eisenhower administration from a new post as head of the Senate's Government Operations Committee and it's permanent investigations subcommittee.  Eventually he was discredited by the lack of substance in his claims of Communist penetration in the U.S. army, through the nationally televised Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954. On December 2,1954 the Senate voted to condemn him for "conduct contrary to Senatorial traditions." The final vote was 67-22.  From this point forward any influence of Joe McCarthy was known to be small and insignificant.  McCarthy was politically dead. (Ewald, 1984, p.381)
	Joseph McCarthy was an insignificant figure before 1950, and 
after 1954.  That is not to say that the man and his actions are not remembered, but after 1954 his influence and his political career were finished.  It is the goal of this work to prove that it was the press that created McCarthy, and that McCarthy took advantage of the press' adherence to the principal of objectivity to spread his undiluted charges of Communists in government.  
	Furthermore this essay will prove that McCarthy was killed by the hand from which he was created.  That is, that the press was also responsible for the political death of Joseph McCarthy in 1954. The media took a united stand against him, in response to a public bashing of president/leader of the Republican party, Dwight D. Eisenhower.     

On February 9, 1950 at the Lincoln Day dinner of the Ohio County Women's Republican Club at the McClure Hotel in Wheeling, West Virginia, Joseph McCarthy manipulated the press by way of speech, and started the McCarthyism ball rolling.  It "has been the subject of more speculation, argument, and investigation than almost anything he said in the next five years."(Bayley, 1981, p.17) Based on this incident and the incidents following the speech, this argument can be made; the press, through its own negligence, created the era of McCarthyism.
	McCarthy later denied having said what he was quoted to have said in the speech.  Apparently there was only one reporter present for the speech in Wheeling, so it's his word against McCarthy's.  The statement quoted in the speech published  in the Wheeling Intelligence in the story by Frank Desmond, read as follows,
		While I cannot take the time to name all of the men in the State
		Department who have been named as members of the Communist
		party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of
		205 that were known to the Secretary of the State as being members
		of the Communist party and who nevertheless are still working and
		shaping the policy of the State Department.  (Bayley, 1981,p.17)

This story is held responsible for sparking the McCarthyism era.
The incidents following it, represent a journalistic period paralleled to the Christian views of the Spanish Inquisition; a time period of branded embarrassment and horror never to be forgotten.  
	Later McCarthy said the number he gave in his speech was not 205 but 57.  The fact is that Desmond had a written copy of the speech before McCarthy gave it, but he could have changed the number to 57 when he actually presented the speech.  Regardless, the number 57 would have been just as shocking as 205.  The reporter's ethics and/or practices were questionable in handling this story.  Why he did not ask to see the list of 205 Communists?  If he did, history may have been different, for as McCarthy said himself "what he held in his hand was the Byrnes letter, not a list."(Bayley, 1981, p.24) If Desmond had reported that McCarthy was holding a letter, not a list, the newspapers would have handled the story much differently.  A letter from one person to another, which suggests unfit employees, would have made much less news than the illusion of an actual list of names.
	This lack of verification, was one of many press blunders that followed over the next few weeks.  In general the press' poor practice would be carried out for the next five years.  "I have here in my hand,..." was a phrase that "became more popular than a famous toothpaste slogan,"(Belfrage, 1973, p.117) which he used on an infinite number of occasions to refer to documents he would pull from his briefcase to support wild accusations.  The legitimacy of the documents much like that of the accusations seemed never to have been verified by the reporters on sight.  The Byrnes's letter that McCarthy pulled out on February 9, 1950 was one of these unchecked documents.  The content of the letter gives us insight into McCarthy's ability to manipulate the facts, and cover his tracks just enough so that an unambitious, negligent reporter would help him spread his word.
	The letter from which the number 205 is extracted is dated 26 July 1946, from Secretary of State James F. Byrnes to Representative Adolf Sabath of Illinois.  The breakdown of the document is simple and horrifying in that McCarthy was allowed to make such an accusation without the press confirming its source.  The letter basically said that 4 000 employees of the state had been transferred, and of those 3 000 had been subjected to preliminary examination, from which a recommendation against permanent employment had been made in 284 cases; 79 of these people had been refused government service. (Rovere, 1959,p.125)
	Without any further information and ignorantly assuming nothing had changed from 1946, it was assumed by McCarthy that 205 of the 284 whose employment had not been recommended were actually employed, and that the reason that they were not recommended in the first place was because they were communists. (Bayley, 1981, p.20) The letter never mentioned that the 205 people were hired, or that any of them were Communists.
	The lies were spoken by McCarthy, but they were published by the press.  Without any confirmation Desmond printed the story as did many other newspapers around the United States.  What McCarthy had said was not only untrue, but it was preposterous.  Why didn't the journalists who gave him life ask themselves responsible questions?  Rovere writes;
	Why wouldn't he read some of the names on the list, if he had a list?
	 If he had a list where on earth would he have got it? Who would have 
	gave it to him? The FBI? The State Department? Why? Could he have 
	worked it up himself?....William Shannon of the New York Post once 
	asked, would he have chosen to make his shattering announcement 
	"before a group of Republican Ladies in a Triple-I League town?"
	(Rovere, 1959, p.126)      
	
All good journalists could, and should have asked themselves some of these questions before printing the story. By not doing this they can be held responsible for creating a stage on which a genuine madman could preform and mislead the American public.    
	"McCarthy's rise to national prominence coincided with the explosive growth of television in the United States."(Bayley, 1981, p.176) He knew about media, and also that he could use this new medium of television to promote his image, and his cause.  Television was just as easily manipulated by McCarthy as the newspapers were, and McCarthy successfully launched himself into the living rooms of the American public.  What McCarthy didn't realize, and what would eventually lead to his downfall, was that a picture is worth a thousand words, and that live television conferences cannot be edited or fixed.  It was this form of media, and the ingrained truth of its pictures that would eventually lead to McCarthy's downfall.
	Throughout the administration of Harry Truman, McCarthy attacked the president with allegations of being sympathetic to Communism.  It may very well have been the atmosphere left by the claims that led Truman and the Democratic party to defeat in 1952, and the subsequent victory of Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Republicans.  McCarthy was elected head of the Senate's Government Operations Committee in 1952, but this was not enough for the ambitious Senator.  He wanted to replace Eisenhower as the head of the Republican party, and he attempted to use the same tactics against Eisenhower that he used to dethrone Truman.
It was this political decision that set the stage for McCarthy's fall from grace.
	McCarthy openly attacked Eisenhower in early 1954 with hopes of leading the Republican party.  One of his most famous slogans against him was the "who promoted Peress?" campaign. Irving Peress was a former dentist who had been drafted and commissioned in October 1952 and promoted to major a year later under the automatic provisions law. (Bayley, 1981, p.187) A month after his promotion someone in the army found out that Peress had refused to answer questions about his political beliefs, and he was ordered to be discharged within 90 days.  All of this happened during the Eisenhower administration, and nothing had been proven about the actual beliefs of Peress but McCarthy used this incident and others like it to accuse Eisenhower of being sympathetic to the Communist cause. (Ewald, 1984, p.189) 
		It was this Peress incident, however, that prompted Eisenhower to make, what the press anticipated to be, a statement to denounce McCarthy.  Everyone was prepared for Eisenhower to bash McCarthy, including McCarthy himself.  McCarthy was so sure of the content of Eisenhower's speech that he responded to it on television shortly after, without even knowing what Eisenhower actually said.  McCarthy's response speech included claims that the Army had been protecting, covering up, and honorably discharging known Communists; he bashed Peress, and he bashed Eisenhower claiming that they were all protecting Communists. (Bayley, 1981, p.188-189) What McCarthy didn't know is what hurt him, apparently Eisenhower's statement had been altered, and when it was delivered it didn't even mention McCarthy.
	James Reston described the actual statement of Eisenhower as a "note on the principals that should govern the relations between the legislature and the executive under the US Constitution." (Bayley, 1981, p.188) Willard Edwards of the Chicago Tribune said that;
		the American people had seen a kick in the groin, and they 
		would not forget it.  To Willard Edwards, this was the "day
		that McCarthy died." (Ewald, 1984, p. 242)

McCarthy had lost some respect of the American public, and the respect of many journalist, reporters, and television stations.  The television stations would indirectly be responsible for delivering one of the final blows to McCarthy.
	Shortly after this incident, in a public speech the Republican party was described as "divided against itself, half McCarthy and half Eisenhower."(Ewald, 1984, p.246) McCarthy before this incident had always been given free air time from the networks (NBC and CBS) to respond to any type of comment spoken against him. This time however, NBC and CBS rejected his demands. Instead, as they were obligated to allow someone to reply, vice- president Nixon gave a response.  McCarthy threatened to take the decision of the networks to the FCC, but other networks, newspapers and radio stations seemed to think that the law would favour the networks, and fully supported them in their decision.  The movement of the press to stand up to Joseph McCarthy was as sudden and as devastating as a tidal wave.  
	The only free air time he was given came from the Mutual Broadcasting System, but not until four days after the speech against him.  In this time period McCarthy had amounted two more formidable critics to answer.  One was Senator Ralph Flanders, a Vermont Republican who rose in the Senate on March 9 to accuse McCarthy of "deserting the Republican party and to ridicule his hunt for Communists."(Bayley, 1981,p.192) The other critic was the one that beyond any doubt ruined McCarthy, ironically by way of the television media that had helped his five-year career so much.  His name was Edward R. Murrow.
	Television's most respected man Edward R. Murrow presented a McCarthy "documentary on his popular show "See it Now", which provided, through skillful film editing, a devastating critique of McCarthy and his methods."(Bayley, 1981,p.192) The show produced clips of McCarthy speaking his half-truths, and distortions and then followed them with Murrow's explanations of McCarthy's logic, and descriptions of how the facts were manipulated.  At the end of the show Murrow did an editorial in which he said "that McCarthy's primary achievement had been to confuse the public about the internal and external threats of Communism."(Bayley, 1981,p.193)
	McCarthy finally did make a reply on Murrow's program "See it Now" nearly a month later on April 6, 1954.  He never really replied to Murrow.  Rather, he attacked him with more wild accusations and this time the public was not listening.  Through the collective stand that the press took against McCarthy concerning the NBC/CBS decision, Flanders denouncement of McCarthy, and finally Murrow's documentary; the media, which bore much of the responsibility for the creation of McCarthyism, had delivered the final jolt that knocked the air out of Joseph McCarthy's political career.
	The nationally televised Army-McCarty trials were just the playing out of the inevitable.  The nation got to see McCarthy at his worst, trying to justify some of the horrific accusations that he made against the United States Senate.
	Eventually the Senate adopted a resolution to "condemn" McCarthy by a vote of 67-22.  The only support for McCarthy was from parts of the nation where McCarthy's activities had been given the least coverage in newspaper, and from the only part of the country that did not have access to live television coverage of the damaging Army-McCarthy trials. (Bayley, 1981, p.212) The media's power of influence on his career is shown here again, however in this instance it ruined him.
	In conclusion it is seen that the media was in fact responsible for the birth and the death of McCarthyism.  The negligence of the reporters early in McCarthy's career (notably Frank Desmond, who covered McCarthy's speech at the McClure Hotel in Wheeling) gave life to a man who should have been instantly exposed as a fake.  The ensuing five years of mayhem taught the press about fact checking, and the need to ask responsible questions before a story should be printed. 
		McCarthy's propaganda techniques had forced newspapers
		and wire services to reexamine their practices and to make 
		greater use of interpretive reporting. (Bayley, 1981, p.176)

The facts and antics upon which McCarthy was allowed to base his wild accusations are no more embarrassing than the reporters who put them into print.
	Furthermore, the media was also greatly responsible for the political lynching of Joseph McCarthy.  McCarthy's unwarranted, mean public response to a mild statement by Eisenhower shifted sympathy away from his cause and his methods. It also led to a television network stand against him, supported by many forms of media.  This television stand, together with the "See it now" documentary, and the nationally televised Army-McCarthy trials put an end to a disgraceful time period of media history.  It was with these actions that the media and the generations of people that followed learned about the awesome power of the press, especially the newfound television medium.
	The primary function of newspapers, television and any other source of media is to tell people what's happening.  It is not the responsibility of the media to determine what the public should or shouldn't know, or to be concerned about the effects the truth might cause.  Its duty is to report on the facts, and to be sure of the information that they are reporting.	
	McCarthyism is something that should never have left Wheeling West Virginia. Edward Murrow summed it up best in his famous television review of McCarthy's career; "Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'" (Rovere, 1959, p.265)  

 	    	  WORKS CITED

	Bayley, Edwin R.(1981)Joe McCarthy and the Press. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
	
	Belfrage, Cedric.(1973)The American Inquisition 1945-1965: A 	 Profile of the McCarthy Era. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.

	Ewald, William Bragg.(1984)Who Killed Joe McCarthy?. New York: Simon and Schuster.

	Manchester, William.(1976) "A Slight Case of McCarthyism." Controversy and other Essays in Journalism. Boston-Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.

	Rovere, Richard H.(1959) Senator Joe McCarthy. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

	The 1996 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. Danbury: Grolier 1996.	
	  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The rise of communism in Russia.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Rise of Communism in Russia

        ?Unless we accept the claim that Lenin?s coup d??tat gave birth 
to an entirely new state, and indeed to a new era in the history of 
mankind, we must recognize in today?s Soviet Union the old empire of the 
Russians -- the only empire that survived into the mid 1980?s� (Luttwak, 
1). 
        In their Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich 
Engels applied the term communism to a final stage of socialism in which 
all class differences would disappear and humankind would live in 
harmony.  Marx and Engels claimed to have discovered a scientific 
approach to socialism based on the laws of history.  They declared that 
the course of history was determined by the clash of opposing forces 
rooted in the economic system and the ownership of property.  Just as 
the feudal system had given way to capitalism, so in time capitalism 
would give way to socialism.  The class struggle of the future would be 
between the bourgeoisie, who were the capitalist employers, and the 
proletariat, who were the workers.  The struggle would end, according to 
Marx, in the socialist revolution and the attainment of full communism 
(Groiler?s Encyclopedia).
        Socialism, of which ?Marxism-Leninism� is a takeoff, originated 
in the West.  Designed in France and Germany, it was brought into Russia 
in the middle of the nineteenth century and promptly attracted support 
among the country?s educated, public-minded elite, who at that time were 
called intelligentsia (Pipes, 21).  After Revolution broke out over 
Europe in 1848 the modern working class appeared on the scene as a major 
historical force.  However, Russia remained out of the changes that 
Europe was experiencing.  As a socialist movement and inclination, the 
Russian Social-Democratic Party continued the traditions of all the 
Russian Revolutions of the past, with the goal of conquering political 
freedom (Daniels 7).
        As early as 1894, when he was twenty-four, Lenin had become a 
revolutionary agitator and a convinced Marxist.  He exhibited his new 
faith and his polemical talents in a diatribe of that year against the 
peasant-oriented socialism of the Populists led by N.K. Mikhiaiovsky 
(Wren, 3).
        While Marxism had been winning adherents among the Russian 
revolutionary intelligentsia for more than a decade previously, a 
claimed Marxist party was bit organized until 1898.  In that year a 
?congress� of nine men met at Minsk to proclaim the establishment of the 
Russian Social Democratic Worker?s Party.  The Manifesto issued in the 
name of the congress after the police broke it up was drawn up by the 
economist Peter Struve, a member of the moderate ?legal Marxist� group 
who soon afterward left the Marxist movement altogether.  The manifesto 
is indicative of the way Marxism was applied to Russian conditions, and 
of the special role for the proletariat (Pipes, 11).
        The first true congress of the Russian Social Democratic 
Workers? Party was the Second.  It convened in Brussels in the summer of 
1903, but was forced by the interference of the Belgian authorities to 
move to London, where the proceedings were concluded.  The Second 
Congress was the occasion for bitter wrangling among the representatives 
of various Russian Marxist Factions, and ended in a deep split that was 
mainly caused by Lenin -- his personality, his drive for power in the 
movement, and his ?hard� philosophy of the disciplined party 
organization.  At the close of the congress Lenin commanded a temporary 
majority for his faction and seized upon the label ?Bolshevik� (Russian 
for Majority), while his opponents who inclined to the ?soft� or more 
democratic position became known as the ?Mensheviks� or minority  
(Daniels, 19).
        Though born only in 1879, Trotsky had gained a leading place 
among the Russian Social-Democrats by the time of the Second party 
Congress in 1903.  He represented ultra-radical sentiment that could not 
reconcile itself to Lenin?s stress on the party organization.  Trotsky 
stayed with the Menshevik faction until he joined Lenin in 1917.  From 
that point on, he acomidated himself in large measure to Lenin?s 
philosophy of party dictatorship, but his reservations came to the 
surface again in the years after his fall from power (Stoessinger, 13).
        In the months after the Second Congress of the Social Democratic 
Party Lenin lost his majority and began organizing a rebellious group of 
Bolsheviks.  This was to be in opposition of the new majority of the 
congress, the Menshiviks, led by Trotsky.  Twenty-two Bolsheviks, 
including Lenin, met in Geneva in August of 1904 to promote the idea of 
the highly disciplined party and to urge the reorganization of the whole 
Social-Democratic movement on Leninist lines (Stoessinger, 33).
        The differences between Lenin and the Bogdanov group of 
revolutionary romantics came to its peak in 1909.  Lenin denounced the 
otzovists, also known as the recallists, who wanted to recall the 
Bolshevik deputies in the Duma, and the ultimatists who demanded that 
the deputies take a more radical stand -- both for their philosophical 
vagaries which he rejected as idealism, and for the utopian purism of 
their refusal to take tactical advantage of the Duma.  The real issue 
was Lenin?s control of the faction and the enforcement of his brand of 
Marxist orthodoxy.  Lenin demonstrated his grip of the Bolshevik faction 
at a meeting in Paris of the editors of the Bolsheviks? factional paper, 
which had become the headquarters of the faction.  Bogdanov and his 
followers were expelled from the Bolshevik faction, though they remained 
within the Social-Democratic fold (Wren, 95).
        On March 8 of 1917 a severe food shortage cause riots in 
Petrograd.  The crowds demanded food and the step down of Tsar.  When 
the troops were called in to disperse the crowds, they refused to fire 
their weapons and joined in the rioting.  The army generals reported 
that it would be pointless to send in any more troops, because they 
would only join in with the other rioters.  The frustrated tsar 
responded by stepping down from power, ending the 300-year-old Romanov 
dynasty (Farah, 580).
        With the tsar out of power, a new provisional government took 
over made up of middle-class Duma representatives.  Also rising to power 
was a rival government called the Petrograd Soviet of Workers? and 
Soldiers? Deputies consisting of workers and peasants of socialist and 
revolutionary groups.  Other soviets formed in towns and villages all 
across the country.  All of the soviets worked to push a three-point 
program which called for an immediate peas, the transfer of land to 
peasants, and control of factories to workers.  But the provisional 
government stood in conflict with the other smaller governments and the 
hardships of war hit the country.  The provisional government was so 
busy fighting the war that they neglected the social problems it faced, 
losing much needed support (Farah, 580).
        The Bolsheviks in Russia were confused and divided about how to 
regard the Provisional Government, but most of them, including Stalin, 
were inclined to accept it for the time being on condition that it work 
for an end to the war.  When Lenin reached Russia in April after his 
famous ?sealed car� trip across Germany, he quickly denounced his 
Bolshevik colleagues for failing to take a sufficiently revolutionary 
stand (Daniels, 88).
        In August of 1917, while Lenin was in hiding and the party had 
been basically outlawed by the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks 
managed to hold their first party congress since 1907 regardless.  The 
most significant part of the debate turned on the possibility for 
immediate revolutionary action in Russia and the relation of this to the  
international upheaval.  The separation between the utopian 
internationalists and the more practical Russia-oriented people was 
already apparent (Pipes, 127).
        The Bolsheviks? hope of seizing power was hardly secret.  Bold 
refusal of the provisional Government was one of their major ideals.  
Three weeks before the revolt they decided to stage a demonstrative 
walkout from the advisory assembly.  When the walkout was staged, 
Trotsky denounced the Provisional Government for its alleged 
counterrevolutionary objectives and called on the people of Russia to 
support the Bolsheviks (Daniels, 110).
        On October 10 of 1917, Lenin made the decision to take power. He 
came secretly to Petrograd to try and disperse any hesitancies the 
Bolshevik leadership had over his demand for armed revolt.  Against the 
opposition of two of Lenin?s long-time lieutenants, Zinovieiv and 
Kamenev, the Central Committee accepted Lenin?s resolution which 
formally instructed the party organizations to prepare for the seizure 
of power.
        Finally, of October 25 the Bolshevik revolution took place to 
overthrow the provisional government.  They did so through the agency of 
the Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet.  They 
forcibly overthrew the provisional government by taking over all of the 
government buildings, such as the post office, and big corporations, 
such as the power companies, the shipyard, the telephone company.  The 
endorsement of the coup was secured from the Second All-Russian Congress 
of Soviets, which was concurrently in session.  This was known as the 
?October Revolution� (Luttwak, 74)  Through this, control of Russia was 
shifted to Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
        IN a quick series of decrees, the new ?soviet� government 
instituted a number of sweeping reforms, some long overdue and some 
quite revolutionary.  They ranged from ?democratic� reforms, such as the 
disestablishment of the church and equality for the national minorities, 
to the recognition of the peasants? land seizures and to openly 
socialist steps such as the nationalization of banks.  The Provisional 
Government?s commitment to the war effort was denounced.  Four decrees 
were put into action.  The first four from the Bolshevik Revolutionary 
Legislation were a decree on peace, a decree on land, a decree on the 
suppression of hostile newspapers, and a declaration of the rights of 
the peoples of Russia (Stossenger, 130).
        By early 1918 the Bolshevik critics individually made their 
peace with Lenin, and were accepted back into the party and governmental 
leadership.  At the same time, the Left and Soviet administration thus 
acquired the exclusively Communist character which it has had ever 
since.  The Left SR?s like the right SR?s and the Mensheviks, continued 
to function in the soviets as a more or less legal opposition until the 
outbreak of large-scale civil war in the middle of 1918.  At that point 
the opposition parties took positions which were either equally vocal or 
openly anti-Bolshevik, and one after another, they were suppressed.
        The Eastern Front had been relatively quiet during 1917, and 
shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution a temporary armstice was agreed 
upon.  Peace negotiations were then begun at the Polish town of 
Brest-Litovsk, behind the German lines.  In agreement with their earlier 
anti-imperialist line, the Bolshevik negotiators, headed by Trotsky, 
used the talks as a discussion for revolutionary propaganda, while most 
of the party expected the eventual return of war in the name of 
revolution.  Lenin startled his followers in January of 1918 by 
explicitly demanding that the Soviet republic meet the German conditions 
and conclude a formal peace in order to win what he regarded as an 
indispensable ?breathing spell,� instead of shallowly risking the future 
of the revolution (Daniels, 135).
        Trotsky resigned as Foreign Commissar during the Brest-Litovsk 
crisis, but he was immediately appointed Commissar of Military Affairs 
and entrusted with the creation of a new Red Army to replace the old 
Russian army which had dissolved during the revolution.  Many Communists 
wanted to new military force to be built up on strictly revolutionary 
principles, with guerrilla tactics, the election of officers, and the 
abolition of traditional discipline.  Trotsky set himself emphatically 
against this attitude and demanded an army organized in the conventional 
way and employing ?military specialists� -- experienced officers from 
the old army.
        Hostilities between the Communists and the Whites, who were the 
groups opposed to the Bolsheviks, reached a decicive climax in 1919.  
Intervention by the allied powers on the side of the Whites almost 
brought them victory.  Facing the most serious White threat led by 
General Denikin in Southern Russia, Lenin appealed to his followers for 
a supreme effort, and threatened ruthless repression of any opposition 
behind the lines.  By early 1920 the principal White forces were 
defeated (Wren, 151).  For three years the rivalry went on with the 
Whites capturing areas and killing anyone suspected of Communist 
practices.  Even though the Whites had more soldiers in their army, they 
were not nearly as organized nor as efficient as the Reds, and therefore 
were unable to rise up (Farah, 582). 
        Police action by the Bolsheviks to combat political opposition 
commenced with the creation of the ?Cheka.�  Under the direction of 
Felix Dzerzhinsky, the Cheka became the prototype of totalitarian secret 
police systems, enjoying at critical times the right the right of 
unlimited arrest and summary execution of suspects and hostages.  The 
principle of such police surveillance over the political leanings of the 
Soviet population has remained in effect ever since, despite the varying 
intensity of repression and the organizational changes of the police -- 
from Cheka to GPU (The State Political Administration) to NKVD (People?s 
Commissariat of Internal Affairs) to MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs) 
to the now well-known KGB (Committee for State Security) (Pipes, 140).
        Lenin    used his secret police in his plans to use terror to 
achieve his goals and as a political weapon against his enemies.  Anyone 
opposed to the communist state was arrested.  Many socialists who had 
backed Lenin?s revolution at first now had second thoughts.  To escape 
punishment, they fled.  By 1921 Lenin had strengthened his control and 
the White armies and their allies had been defeated (Farah, 582).
        Communism had now been established and Russia had become a 
socialist country. Russia was also given a new name: The Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics.  This in theory meant that the means of production 
was in the hands of the state.  The state, in turn, would build the 
future, classless society.  But still, the power was in the hands of the 
party (Farah, 583).  The next decade was ruled by a collective 
dictatorship of the top party leaders.  At the top level individuals 
still spoke for themselves, and considerable freedom for factional 
controversy remained despite the principles of unity laid down in 1921.



















Works Cited
Daniels, Robert V., A Documentary History of Communism. New York: 
        Random House Publishing, 1960.
Farah, Mounir, The Human Experience. Columbus: Bell & Howess Co.,
        1990.
Luttwak, Edward N., The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union. New 
        York: St. Martin?s Press, 1983.
Pipes, Richard, Survival is Not Enough. New York: S&S Publishing, 
        1975.
Stoessinger, John G., Nations in Darkness. Boston: Howard Books,
        1985.
Wren, Christopher S., The End of the Line. San Francisco: 
        Blackhawk Publishing, 1988.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Role of Decision Making in the PreCrisis Period of India.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Boyko Iaramov
Introduction to International Relations 
Professor Bond	

The Role of Decision Making in the Pre-Crisis Period of India
(15 March, 1959 - 7 September, 1962)


More than thirty years have passed since the dramatic cling of arm in the remote Himalayan region of the Sino-Indian border. This Time gap seems to be appropriate for a correct reexamination of the conflict. The account of India's attempt to find balance with China, ever since the Kongska Pass incident in 1959 until the attack of 1962, is not merely  a fact sheet that we can brows and toss and toss away. In stead we have to link each idea to the event and causes that might have played a role in the conflict.
	Ever since 1959 the border problem between Asia's biggest two nation-states has been picking up speed at a threatening speed. The year 1962 was the unfortunate year for India which knocked out any possibility of understanding between China and India. Of course, such an act of terror could have not started without some kind of the reason, whatever it may  be. The chronological order of pre-crisis decisions taken India's authorities are of great importance.
	The role of the decision-makers before the time of the armed conflict had a big significance for India's position on political and economic matters in the continent of Asia. A major figure in India's decision making was Jawaharlal Nehru, leader of the Congress Party, head of the Planning Commission and chief spokesman of  the government in Parliament. These titles not only made him an important nationalistic figure but also Gandhi's appointed heir and a "major architect of India's political institutions" (Brecher, 1959). Krishna Menon, "the controversial defense minister consulted in almost every issue" along with Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant was also a figure of great importance (Langyel, 1962). This importance was mainly derived from the fact that both shared the same overall world view of Nehru. However, in order to understand the cruicial importance of decision-makers, we shall looked seperately at each of India's top men.
	Menon was highly important and useful to Nehru in the essence that the latter helped Nehru convey his thought and policies to the outside world in a forceful and organized manner (Brecher, 1959). But as Rajani Palme Dutt said in his book "The problem of India," foreign policy was exercised "more behind the scenes than in meetings of the committee." Both Menon and Nehru acted to the desire of Nehru. It was often when the Foreign secretary would take to Pant drafts of diplomatic correspondence and get the reaction which was usually at Nehru's request (Hoffmann,1990).
	Foreign policy makers Nehru, Menon and Pant shared a common world view which clearly showed their psychological predisposition, drawn from the sources of their personality, idiosyncrasy, ideology, tradition, culture and history. As we shall see further down, in the mainstream of common ideas and beliefs, they indeed had some differences. But all these men used the "attitudinal prism" (Hoffmann, 1990), the lens through which they filtered and structured the information thus perceiving the world. One set of Indian beliefs referred to the role India should play world. This role was supposed to reflect the fact that India was a considerably new nation-state.
	India also had to preserve her independence of action. It didn't simply fight for independence simply to become a camp follower of  any of the Cold War Power blocs. The restrictions and limitations that such a position imply would be against India's national interest. And it was exactly this nonalignment policy of Nehru between the two sides of the Cold War which was the projection of Indian nationalism into world affairs (Maxwell, 1970). Nehru also expressed the idea that India was an Asian power that should not be overlooked at. He demonstrated that "in regard to any major problem of a country or a group of countries of Asia, India has to be considered" (Gopal, 1980).
	During the 1950's and 1960's Nehru and his advisors realized that India was playing a far more than neutral role in the Cold War politics. She was a very important player on the world stage, where questions of war and peace were decided. He recognized that in s bipolar world, in which relations between the superpowers were based mainly on "balance-of-power calculations" (Hoffmann, 1990), a nuclear holocaust, for example, had become highly likely. He sought that India should stay out of the superpowers' way in the nuclear arms race and at the same time work to the reduction of superpower confrontation by "fostering communication, engaging in constructive diplomacy and public judging each action of the United States and the former Soviet Union on its merits" (Brecher, 1959). Nehru strongly believed that this trend will only act to the good of India, for it was "economic development that was the countries primary goal" (Hoffmann, 1990). So the act of nonalignment was an act of peace and not hostility.  A nonalignment trend will also allow India to receive development aid from "as many countries as could be persuaded to contribute" (Hoffmann, 1990), whatever their Cold War leanings. India's prime minister was well aware that at the present state the country could not spent considerable amount of resources for a large defense establishment. An India aligned with no Cold War Power bloc would help avoid alienating nations like former Soviet Union and China, which were of great importance to India's security. Nehru himself realized that a hostile frontier with China, for example, would mean an expenditure of all Indian resources just to defend it (Gopal, 1980).
	Another standard belief that Nehru and the rest of his associates developed in India's foreign policy affairs was the so called image making (Hoffmann, 1990). Nehru developed the complex "images" of nations, governments, international trends and situations. Of  course, as later will be shown, they were subject to change, but not that easily. So in the way of image making, Nehru had made it a fundamental view of  Indian foreign policy to treat former Soviet Union and  China as separate powers, passing two different sets of problems. So, right now, there was no reason for him not to forge the friendliest possible relationship with former Soviet Union. 
	The image that Nehru set for the United States was one of more persistent work. The anti-communism phobia that was shaking the United States at the time, made it very hard for Indian authority to set its right relations with the U.S. But still, according to Nehru, relations could be kept constructive and could be improved once the U.S. overcame their suspicion of nonalignment. Another reason for the obstruction of  Indo-American relations was the U.S. policy toward arming Pakistan military, thereby threatening India military.
	As the result of this momentous post independence decision of India's authority, once again primarily Nehru and Krishna Menon, the country had accepted membership in the remains of the British Empire - the Commonwealth (Hoffmann, 1990). This important tie assured India, that despite of nonalignment it would never be completely isolated. It would be granted communication with the West and other Third World countries, members once again in the Commonwealth, and as a result Indian diplomatic influence would be enhanced. It was both the importance of a continued British supply of military equipment and the possibility of trade and economic assistance that made this membership so valuable. 
	 China, however, was the biggest element of concern. Nehru never had the element of doubt that China's position in the communist world will constitute a problem to India (Gopal, 1980). His largeness of mind led him to the hope that the tradition of nearly two thousand years of peace could continue in an era of Indian and Chinese  national reassertion. He was determined to prevent the former  Soviet Union  and China from combining powers against India. But he also knew that the Chinese as well as the Russians were acting on the strength of their own national foreign policy interests and imperatives.
	In the 1950's Nehru realized, as he carried out in a letter to a member of the Chinese authority, that India very well understood the problems China was facing after the prolong suffer and struggle against Japan. He also understood that the successful communist revolution in China added new feeling to the political palette of China. Thus he perceived it as a "mixture of bitterness, elation and vaunting  confidence to which the traditional xenophobia  and present day isolation from outside contacts have added suspicion of the motives of other powers" (Brecher, 1959). For two years he elaborated on these points, when describing China as on object of study by India's Intelligence Bureau. In a briefing he told IB officers that during centuries Indian and Chinese cultures had contested for supremacy in Central Asia and Tibet, as well as in Burma and other places in Southeast Asia. Thus, conflict between India and China had never been direct, but there had been intense indirect competition, which was continuing (Hoffmann, 1990).
Furthermore, China had shown the tendency to be "aggressive" (Maxwell, 1970).
On the coarse of logic, it was expected that once China had achieved a certain political and economic stability, it would seek some form of supremacy, and influence or even supremacy in Asia. And what lay in the path of the realization of this idea was India. Nehru was afraid that to achieve their ends, the Chinese might attempt to prove their superiority over India in the sphere of political and economic might or even occupy some Southeast Asian countries. A tool that the Chinese might have used, according to Nehru, was the strong lobby of the Communist party which could stand up and support the Chinese cause in any dispute with India's government (Maxwell, 1970).
	From Nehru's standpoint, China's emergence from the bonds of Western imperialism could release negative political and character traits. India would have to be alert, especially on the northern frontier. In 1952 China had no immediate intention to recognize the India-Tibet border formally. He expected China to extend its influence over frontier territory once the Chinese position in Tibet had been consolidated. And as a contra action of that he developed India's frontier administration (Maxwell, 1970).
	Throughout most of the 1950's, however, other beliefs received more emphasis both ion the public and the private spheres. Nehru along with Menon and other high officials that a friendly relationship between China and India could be established, if Tibet was removed as an irritant and China was brought out of isolation into a world of emerging or reemerging nation (Hoffmann, 1990). Nehru knew that the outcome of such a relationship will bring much to do peace in Asia and that is the reason he considered it to outweigh his concerns about Tibet. The founding belief of Nehru was that Tibet was a part of China, "although it should be allowed as much autonomy as possible" (Hoffmann, 1990). India had formally recognized China's right on Tibet and after 1954 was bound to do so with a the Sino-Indian trade agreement. 
	After Nehru returned from a visit to China in 1954 he spoke of the great Chinese achievements in both the economic and social spheres. But even before that trip Nehru has sought to follow the Chinese steps of progress; that is, "India should regard China as a standard of comparison not as open rival" (Hoffmann, 1990). India would follow its own unique strategy of economic development. That particular strategy called for "government-directed economic planning, a government-controlled public sector of utilities and industries, and a cooperative but independent private sector" (Hoffmann, 1990).
 	The climax of the conflict, as to Nehru, came in the fall of 1959 when China's behavior which through his "attitudinal prism" led him to alter the previous image of China. The final and most serious border problem completed a intensifying process where Nehru adopted a new set of beliefs concerning the Chinese beliefs concerning Chinese motives for starting the border conflict. Those beliefs were firstly that China was definitely acting "arrogant" and imbued with feelings of superiority. The second belief was that China was a revolutionary and unsatisfied power which at the time was in aggressive mood. Third belief was that China was an expansionist country, which meanwhile was strong internally. Fourth came the belief that Chinas attempt to influence and pressure India was due to Communist ideology. The fifth believe was that all these previously mentioned traits have been strengthened by the recent isolation imposed on China by the West. Paranoidity and one-track mind was the sixth believe.  And following from the latter believe came idea that China would, therefore, not be interested in the kind of border settlement that India could accept (Hoffmann, 1990). Thus Prime Minister Nehru pictured China as a hostile country predisposed to harm India and the strength of deep-seated emotions. 	
The Sino-Indian border problem seen through the "attitudinal prism" of Defense Minister Krishna Menon was different from Nehru's view. Even though Menon and Nehru were on the same side of the battle, they indeed shared some differences. While Nehru was following the concepts of Marxism and Leninism, Menon pursued "Laski's neo-Marxism" of the 1930's (Langyel, 1962). In that way he retained a basic acceptance of the Leninist theory of imperialism which according to Menon outgrew capitalism. The Defense Minister's images of India's neighbors were also strongly influenced by his distrust of imperialism and capitalism.   The "central place of Menon's assault of Imperialism in the 1950's and 1960's was prescribed to the United States, which in the eyes of Menon was the major Western power which was inclined to intervene in the affairs of the non-Western world" (Langyel, 1962). Due to that he considered not China, but Pakistan to be the main threat to India's security. For Pakistan, after independence, had become tied up to the new American imperialist system through a treaty and the acceptance of military aid. As an American client Pakistan weakened the area of peace and served the instrument with which imperialism could threat India's security.
	In contrast to Nehru's vision of China, Krishna Menon had a very positive image it. Although he rejected totalitarian methods anywhere he viewed China as a progressive, modern and socialist state. The Defense Minister also felt a kind of "spiritual kinship" with China (Langyel, 1962). And even when the India-China relations edged in 1959 Menon still regarded China as all but an enemy. In stead he argued that the boarder incidents rose from the fact that China considered that the Tibetan refugees in India might return to Tibet and start a rebellion. Other Chinese motives underlying the border problem, according to Menon, were firstly that a certain Chinese "despondency" over internal economic problems existed and secondly the youthful, aggressive passion of the Chinese revolution (Langyel, 1962). All through the pre-crisis period Krishna Menon believed that frustration caused by the international isolation imposed on communist China was the factor which aided and guided the formation of  the  Japanese attitudes. 
Throughout the whole conflict he remained certain that China had taken India mistakenly as representing  threat from the imperialist  West.
	On the question how to deal with the Sino-Indian conflict, Menon became the leading defender of a new school of thought. To that school the territorial disagreement between China and India was genuine, and not a reflection of deeper Chinese hostility.
According to the school a political settlement with the Chinese could be reached and might also include territorial compromise (Langyel, 1962). 
	In the political battle between India and China a lot of hard decisions had to be made. The authority of decision-making, as we saw, laid mainly in the hands of a few people in the high levels of  the Indian authority building. Their appropriate actions in the Sino-Chinese border problem were of crucial importance. Some of them were hard to be taken, others were voted secretly and even some decisions were left undecided. India's  correct evaluation of its conflict with China enabled her to act accordingly and carry out its plans in such a chronological order that would be best for its national security. The importance of correct decision-making and the ability to choose right from wrong is the single most important feature each political leader should try to control to the rate of perfection. 























Sources of Information:
Brecher, Michael. (1959). Nehru: A Political Bibliography. Oxford University Press: 
London.
Dutt, Rajani Palme. (1943). The Problem of India. International Publishers: New York
Gopal, Sarvepolli. (1980). Jawaharlal Nehru. Oxford University Press: Delhi.
Hoffmann, Steven. (1990). India & China in Crisis. University of California Press: 
London.
Langyel, Emil. (1962). Krishna Menon. Walker & Company: New York
Maxwell, Neville. (1970). India's China War. Pantheon Books: New York.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Role of the Prosecutor.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
The Role of the Prosecutor
	All serious criminal cases require the participation of three individuals: the judge, counsel for the prosecution, and counsel for the accused.  If any one of these are absent from the procedure, Athe criminal justice system is incomplete@ (Congress).  The prosecutor stands at a critical stage in the criminal justice system as well as playing a critical role before, during and after the trial.  They serve many functions throughout the criminal process.  Some of which are investigating, plead bargains, questioning both jurors and witnesses, and being involved through the sentencing as well.
	The first thing that must be understood is that the duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.  It is crucial that his obligation is to protect the innocent as well as to convict the guilty, to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.  The prosecutor should have the most knowledge of the work of the police in the investigation of crimes and in the enforcement of law.  The prosecutor has tremendous amount of desecration as to what charges will be brought against an accused person or whether to even dismiss charges based on lack of evidence.  Since his decisions account for a large share of cases that are taken into the courts, Athe character, quality and efficiency of the whole system is shaped in great measure by the manner in which he exercises his broad discretionary powers@ (Britanica).
 	Like other lawyers, the prosecutor is subject to disciplinary actions for conduct that is prohibited by Acodes and cannons@  (Matrix).  These Acodes and cannons@ are intended to assist and advise the prosecutor.
	The majority of the prosecutor=s work load consists of cases which a complaint was either files by a citizen or by following an arrest made by the police.  But there are instances where a citizen is unwilling to prosecute.  It is important  that, under these circumstances, the prosecutor investigate criminal acts on his own Ainitiative and independent of citizen complaints or police activity@  (Congress).  AMost prosecutors express willingness to accept this responsibility, provided they have adequate investigative resources@ (Congress).
	It is essential that a guilty plea is entered not only voluntarily, but understandingly as well.  A plea entered Aas a result  of a prosecutor=s promising concessions beyond his power to fulfill@ (Matrix) is involuntary and the defendant Ais entitled to withdrawal it@ (Matrix).  It is therefore important that the prosecutor make it clear to the accused that he is not able Ato assure the judicial consequence@ (Matrix) of a guilty plea.  AWhen some but not all charges against a defendant@ are dropped due to the plea of guilt to one or more other charges, the prosecutor should note that this is the basis of the guilty plea.  The prosecutor should also note the participation and approval of both the defendant and his counsel.  
	The process of examining prospective jurors (voir dire) is designed to give the counsel an opportunity to determine if each juror is able to make a decision on the case fairly and without bias.  Regrettably, voir dire is often abused by lawyers.  ARecognizing the existence@ of these abuses, it has been recommended that the questioning of jurors should Abe done by the judge allowing counsel to make reasonable inquiry subject to the control of the court@ (Britanica).
	Another important function of the prosecutor is his responsibility to present evidence in court.  It is unethical behavior for a prosecutor to knowingly offer false evidence, Awhether by documents, tangible evidence, or the testimony of witnesses@ (Matrix).  It is also unprofessional for a prosecutor to present evidence which is know to be tainted for mere sake of presenting it in plain view of  Athe judge or jury which would tend to prejudice fair consideration by the judge or jury@  (Matrix).
	Another important part of the prosecutors function is the questioning of witnesses.  The prosecutor should avoid Adiscrediting or undermining a witness@ if he knows the witness is testifying truthfully (Congress).  Also, when a witness has claimed the fifth amendment (self incrimination), courts inform jurors Afrom drawing evidentiary inferences from the fact that a witness has claimed a privilege@ (Congress).  Most courts condemn questions which attempt to give impressions which are negative Awhen the questioner has no evidence to support the innuendo@  (Matrix).  For example, AHave you ever been convicted of the crime of robber?@  
	Lastly, the prosecutor will at times Aneed to urge the courts to take a stronger stand in sentencing@ (Congress).  But it is important to realize that the prosecutor is there to see that justice is fairly served and not to Ameasure his effectiveness by the severity of the sentences impose in the cases he prosecutes@ (Congress).  This can be achieved if the prosecutor will not imply to the public that his success should be measured by these Aseverity of sentencing.@
	The prosecutor should remember that through out all things, justice should be served.  Even though they serve various functions through the course of the criminal process, such as investigating criminal acts, plea bargaining, questioning jurors (voir dire), questioning witnesses, and participation in the sentencing phase, they should realize that a persons life and reputation are stake.  Even more importantly, the innocent is convicted, the guilty is also set free.
 Reference
	Library of Congress.  gopher://marvel.loc.gov

	Matrix of Birmingham.  telnet://165.113.187.2

	Britanica Online.  http://www.eb.com:180/

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Second Ammendment.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

                  Few issues incite americans more than the issue of rising crime and violence. This problem can easily be linked to the availability of guns."The debate over whether guns are a hallowed tradition and a right guaranteed by the Second Ammendment of the U.S.constitution or whether they are a fearful danger contributing to crime and violence." ("gun control") Due to the outbreak of violence in our society, some people feel that repealing the Second Ammendment would solve the problem. These people feel that repealing the Second Ammendment would solve the problem. These people feel that there are two reasons for the repeal; One is the rising of violence among teenagers, the second reason is their interpertation of the Second Ammendment which could be considered a strict one. The side opposing these views use arguments like how it would be immpossible to repeal the Second Ammendment, and a long western civilizations history with a right to bear arms. Finally one can see the conflict of views dealing with the Second Ammenment, but one would also see that repealing the ammendment wouldn't solve the problem facing our society. The contriversy of this issue that has the potential to pulverise this country is why it is such a good topic to discuss, people should be better informed and make a decision based on fact and not fiction.          
         Many advocates of the limitations of guns can quote numerous examples of increasing violence and homicide crimes. But the area which hits the closest to home is the issue of violence among the teenagers of our society. The years have changed on how students deal with their problems "Twenty-five or thirty years ago, when teenage boys got into a fight... it usually meant a fist fight. In more and more neighborhoods... it now means a shoot out" ("Gun Control"320). Violence like that is a major problem on our streets and even in our schools. Almost everywhere now "youngsters are packing weapons, Some are involved in drugs or gangs; others carry them for self-defense... One study says at least one in every three male juveniles is armed"(Muller 2). Now more than ever before an "increasing number of children under the age of 18 arrested each year for murder has jumped 55% in the past decade,... Juvenile arrests for aggravated assault are rising dramatically" (Henkoff 2). The results of this rising trend in violence has led to the release of a "center for disease center reports that since 1988, American teenage boys have been more likely to die from gunshot wounds than from... All other natural diseases" ("Gun Control" 83).  This trend can be the result of "the widespread of availability of firearms [which] makes it far too easy for kids to kill... Guns figure in more than 15% of adolescent homicides... "There are more than 200 million privately owned guns in America" (Henkoff 7). With the violence of American youngsters rising at a stagering rate, we obviosly cannot sit and do nothing. Something must be done and gun limitations through the repeal of the Second Ammendment is a good weopon in this war.                                                
         The second reason why a repeal of the Second Ammendment could be a good choice in limiting guns is the original purpose of that ammendment. The ammendment "grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "National" or "standing army, [originally they also] limited the National Army to 840 men" (Burger 4). This idea led to the true reason for the ammendment "the need for a state militia was the "right" guarenteed [in the ammendment] In short, it was declared   "neccesary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state" (Burger 6). The ammendment issued the right of militia's and for hunters which in that day depended on their guns for food. Now "Americans have a right to defend their homes, we need not change that, nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to hunt game. "Hunting is a sport for recreation but "machine guns are not recreational... and surely are in need of regulations as are motor vehicles" (Burger 7) Now Americans don't fear fear a national army as they once did anyway. The "huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the military of 200 years ago" Burger 4) and everybody seems to have delt with it. Therefore the security of a free dtate is protected by the national establishment, this eliminates the need for military type weopons for a so called defense.
         Those opposing the limitation of gun rights can easily quote numerous examples why not to repeal the Second Ammendment. The NRA for example uses the slipery slope until every weapon is accounted for even though this is true "one of the major arguements against the theory that gun control would save lives is that...firearm controls could have no,[real] effect on homicide rates because it is human nature, homicide would continue" (Henkoff 18). murders would pick up the next best weapon. This explisifies that it would be impossible for a repeal to be succesful. Also knowing that "an estimated 100,000,000 guns now owned exceeds the annual incident count of 1,000,000 by a factor of 100, this means that existing stock of weapons could supply criminals for the next century even if used just once" (Wright,Ross, and Dailey 320). Now will a repeal limit this? Furthermore even if you got rid of all existing guns "it is after all, not much more dificult to manufacture servicable firearms in ones home than to brew up a batch of homeade gin" (Wright,Ross, and Dailey 321). This ability to manufacture underground weapons was seen before during the Soviet Unions war with Afghanistan. The "Afghanistan tribesmen used wood and metal working equipment much like the equipment you can order in a sears magazine, produced hand crafted rifles that fire the Russian AK-47 assault rifle cartridge" (Wright,Ross, and Dailey 421). Can we expect less from Americans?
         Finally the overwhelming reason that the Second Ammendment shouldn't be repealed is the long western civilazations history dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. Ideologist supporting the right to bear arms can be traced as far as "The Greek philosopher Aristole who thought the bearing of arms was neccesary to true citizenship and participation in a political system" ("Gun Control"120). Throughout the ages this theme was supported by keestores of our civilization like Prince Machiavelli, the Italian political philosopher, advocated and armed populations of citizens soldiers to keep head strong rulers in line. Then in English society the right to bear arms was insured, " when William and Mary were invited to occupy the throne of England in 1687, they were presented with an English bill of right. This bill included a specific right for Englishmen to have Arms for defense" ("Gun Control"8), in fact if this right was not exersized during the Revolutionary War with England our constitution would never have been written. In conclusion " A well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Amendment 2 of The United States Constitution). These are sacred words.                
         It is obvious that crime is a major problem in Today's Society. Many steps have been taken as voters demand that the government do something about the rising crime and violence in America, but is repealing the Second Ammendment the Answer? No it is not. We must think of the result of such a repeal, many people would not stand for it they would take arms to defend the very right being taken away. If the right to keep and bear arms had not been exercised when George Washington led the U.S. to victory over England, our Constitution would not exist, that is why the Second Ammendment is such a sacred one, it is the basis for which the ideas of this country stand upon. Would people really sit idle as the Government takes action to more obser to Tyranny? In addition to the Second Ammendment most people are unaware that the 14th or Civil Rights Ammendment also guarantees the right of freedmen to bear arms. Do advocates against the Second Ammendment suggest that we repeal this ammendment too? Many Americans would not go for that. Furthermore it is obvious that it would be impossible to repeal the Second Ammendment there are otherways to deal with rising crime and violence. Obviously military type weapons should not be available to the public, they are designed with one thing in mind, to kill people. There should also be limits on semi-automatic handguns because they are not even suitable for sport and it only takes one shot to warn off someone attaking you not 14 as many weapons can hold. Even though steps must be taken to curb gun violence people must get more involved with the system to insure that limits do not go too far. It is after all the people who control politics, not politicians.
         In conclusion the Constitution holds the basic rights for which we exercise each day. Our basic rights are guarenteed by the Constitution, and if they abolish the Second Ammendment we would not enjoy the result, no crime but at the cost of a police state.  This is not America.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Suez Crisis.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 




	Carleton University






	Research Paper #1:
	The Suez Crisis of 1956- The War From Differing Viewpoints







	Submitted to Prof. J. Sigler
	In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for 47.323
	Student: Neil Patrick Tubb (#226591)
	Date: November 30, 1995.
 

	
 Introduction	
	Among the most important foundations in the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict was the seeds that were sown in the aftermath of the 1956 Sinai Campaign, or the Suez Crisis.  Whatever the operation is referred to as, its consequences involving both relations internal to the Middle East and with the world are impossible to ignore.  Looked at simply as an objective event in history, one could note several key outcomes of the war.  It marked the beginning of the end of British and French colonial leadership in the region, and the start of an increasingly high American and Soviet involvement.  The war also proved to the Arab nations of the area that the Israeli military machine was not one to be taken lightly, a lesson which would be forgotten and retaught in the 1967 "Six Day War".  The positive impact that the United Nations would have on ending the conflict, through Canada's idea of creating a UN peacekeeping force to help enforce the ceasefire, was another important outcome. 
	This paper, however, will not have the goal of examining these specific events in relation to the war, nor will it try to determine which factors were most significant.  My aim will be to gain a more complete understanding of the effect of the crisis by reviewing key events of the war from two different perspectives: the Israeli and the Arab points of view, plus the experiences of the European powers as well.  Through a brief comparison of both the coverage of the War by the differing authors and the varying interpretations seen throughout my study, I will be best able to make an informed evaluation on how the event was, and is today, seen in the political and historical forum.

Comparison of Coverage	
	The war, which was begun on October 29, 1956 when the Israelis moved their units into the Sinai peninsula, has had its origins traced back to many historical events. Which is the most important of these is a point of contention for the authors I have studied.  There does seem to be for all parties involved a consensus that the ascent to power of Gamal Abdel Nasser to President of Eqypt in 1956 , and his move to nationalize the Suez Canal as the main precipitating factor in setting off the conflict.	 Why Nasser did this, however, is where my various sources diverge.
	Quite predictably, sources used from the Egyptian or Arab viewpoint usually pointed to the fact that Nasser was finally freeing a Third World country from the clinging grip of colonial Europe, where Britain and France continued to control much of the Egyptian economy.   There is most likely no doubt that Nasser did nationalize the Suez Canal for partly political motives, and as the already crowned leader of "Pan-Arabism", it seemed that he was showing the world that he was ready to let his deeds match his words.  Political decisions are rarely one dimensional, and my Arab sources also indicated other reasons for the move- more of which later.  
	It was with this backdrop that all the parties involved began to examine their options.  Of their motivations and aims, I will refer to in the next section, and on the point of basic facts of the conflict my sources are quite complementary.  It is a matter of history that Israel began the conflict by their phased invasion across into the Sinai on October 29, 1956, and agreed to a withdrawal on November 6.   None of my readings from either side of this particularly high political fence try to dispute this.  Even that the war was incredibly lopsided and anti-climatic- like it seems so many of these wars were- is not contended by my Arab authors.  This surprised me somewhat- as I read from some of the top Egyptian political men of the time and their interpretation of events.  One such former diplomat dispelled any historical illusions which may have been created over time by saying in his memoirs, "(The fact was), Egypt had not won a military victory in 1956"   Two days after the Israeli invasion, the Anglo-French troops entered the Suez Canal zone and started operation MUSKATEER in order to re-secure control of the area under their joint command.   These invasions were followed by a barrage of international criticism, the most telling of which came from the two superpowers, the United States and the USSR.  The weight of this pressure soon became too much to bear for the tripatriate alliance, and Israel withdrew on November 6, followed on November 14 by the British and French.
 	
Comparison of Interpretations
	It is much more interesting, in the study of a conflict such as the Suez Crisis situation of 1956, to examine how each side interpreted the events, in hindsight, rather than just seeing how the events were reported- especially for such a world wide event.  First, a look at the different motivations of the leaders- beginning with why Nasser had nationalized the canal in the first place.  The idea that it was to punish the West (meaning mainly the Americans and the British) for their withdrawal of financial support for Nasser's Answan Dam project- that the Canal needed to be put under Egyptian control so as to help raise revenues for the Dam project  was strongly echoed in the Arab works.  Apparently, the move was in part a reprisal to the moves of John Foster Dulles, who was the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, and who had been behind the decision to revoke the funding for the project as a way of punishing Nasser for his "...independent posture". 
	Whatever Nasser had in mind when he nationalized the Canal, both Israeli and Western sources did not see it as a move by an independent country to try and solve its internal economic difficulties or to help bring the Arab peoples together.  The Israelis, for their part, saw it as the culmination of a consistent effort by the Arab world to rid the Middle East of Israel- that this was a natural continuation of events such as the closure of the Tiran Gulf to Jewish shipping, and armed "fedayeen" raids taking place across the border from Egyptian- controlled Gaza.   Israeli leadership was apparently convinced that the Arabs wanted full-scale war with them to make up for losses in the 1948 War of Independence- but all Israel wanted was peace and thus only wanted enough conflict that would be to their strategic advantage.   Israel had been trying to progress, but with such moves by the radical Nasser who was the leader of Pan-Arabism (which had the destruction of the Jewish State as one of its underlying directives) and "Friend of the USSR" in the area (Nasser had received weapons shipments from the USSR via Czechsolvakia in 1955) , it looked as if further war would be inevitable.
 	For Britain, who each shared a fifty percent stake in the Suez Canal Company, that Nasser had nationalized, this move constituted "...the destruction of Great Britain as a first-class power and its reduction similar to that of Holland."   For the other colonial power involved in the region, France, the situation was less important in the way of lost finances than in the political effects it was to have one of its last colonial possessions in the Africa.  Algeria was in the midst of an independence battle with its French oppressors, and it was President Nasser who was apparently giving much encouragement to the movement.   The loss of the canal would likely put a final nail in the coffin of French colonial efforts in this important area of the world.  Both powers also made comparisons between Nasser and Hitler, making the point that such naked aggression cannot ever again be left unchallenged after the lessons of World War Two.  On one occasion, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, Harold MacMillan, made reference to this, stating that, "(N)o one wanted to see another Munich."   Although I can see that these two states  worried about their influence in this very economically significant  region, I find a little difficult to justify military intervention.  Whereas at least Israel could entertain the idea of using force as a self preservation security option, for Britain and France their position was on very shaky international legal ground.  
	Another line division among my sources was what exactly the Israelis' intentions were upon entering the conflict, or indeed on initiating it when no other formal attack had been launched upon them.  My Arab sources take the stance that Israel's attack was one that continued their apparent long history of expansionism in the area.  David Ben-Gurion, the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, was to have even said that he considered the Sinai peninsula to be part of Israel that would inevitably be absorbed into the Jewish State.   This line of thinking would logically follow that Israel, ever the  territorial opportunist, simply used the crisis of the day as a smokescreen in order to achieve its oppressive goals.
	The Israeli position is very different in answering why they invaded- they always see themselves as the waiting victim in a sea of dangerous Arab states that crave their inevitable downfall.  One Israeli source stated that although almost all world opinion disagreed, the real reason for the October 29 strike was not collusion with the Europeans, neither was it expansionist dreams that fuelled the attack.  It was launched in anticipation of a coming Arab strike which events had been pointing to ever since the 1948 War came to a close.   One Major General Chaim Herzog of the Israeli military concurred with this view, saying that Israel in fact had three distinct aims in the attack: One, the remove the Egyptian threat in Sinai; Two, to destroy the framework of the fedayeen rebels; Three, to secure freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran for Israeli vessels.   That the opinions of the Arab and Israeli authors on why Israel invaded are in such contrast is another illustration of one of the central problems in this conflict- neither side is prepared to examine the others perception of the situation.  
	In looking at the outcomes of this conflict, an interesting study is to examine how each side thought they fared in the aftermath.  I believe this exercise to be especially relevant to this war in that the results were seen more on a political level for better or worse, for the three main actors.  For the Anglo-French pact, rather especially Britain, the Suez Crisis looked as if it was one that should have been avoided.  A historical account of the affair notes that even as the United Nations and the United States had effectively ended the conflict and were in the midst of sending UNEF troops to the area, Prime Minister Eden was still filled with vigour for his hopeless cause, and ready to destroy his domestic economy in the name of British prestige.   Other sources agreed that the invasion and attempt to take the Canal zone over by force had been a disaster, one stating that it had been an "abysmal failure" , another stating that it confirmed that British and French could not operate anything without superpower (read US) approval. 
	One area of agreement throughout my sources was in the view that Egypt, who was apparently beaten in a humiliating fashion on the combat front in the war of 1956, had achieved a very significant political victory.  Under the skillful handling of Nasser, the event was not just (another) military defeat, but a brave stand taken against the colonial powers that small but mighty Egypt had emerged virtually unscathed.  One Arab source spoke as if Nasser understood the situation as helpless in the beginning due to massive foreign intervention- that at once on October 29 the Israeli-European collusion was obvious.  Nasser even refused the offered help from Syria and Jordan in order to "spare them" .  This idea that Nasser turned down Arab help was contrary to some Israeli reports that refer to this lack of assistance as a reason for another Egyptian defeat at Jewish hands- again pointing to Nasser's mastermind of the situation.  In general, most of the Israeli sources admitted that Nasser had turned the defeat into a victory, writing that despite the intervention of both the Israelis and the massive British and French power, Nasser remained in power and his prestige as leader of the Arab world grew. 

Evaluation
	In assessing the opinions and biases I found in the readings for this paper, I find that it is most pertinent to again examine  the opposing perspectives of the two factions.  Both of the warring  sides in this dispute, in my view, see themselves as the victim: The Israelis of a region-wide Arab plot to destroy them and their  state and the Arabs of a Jewish/Western conspiracy to deny both them and especially their Palestian Brothers and Sisters what is rightfully theirs- the land of Palestine.  This alone is bad enough, but the problem is compounded by the fact that neither side is at all willing, at least up until now, to try and view the situation from the others point of view- they are too busy trying to undermine what they perceive as the others motives with both diplomatic wrangling and military manouvers.  
	My reading done on the Suez Crisis of 1956 support this perspective.  For example, when discussing why Israel would invade  in the War, Herzog simply stated that the events of the years since  the 1949 armistice along with Nasser's rhetoric led the Israeli government to the logical decision that a defensive strike had to be launched in order to save the nation.   Riad, on the same topic,  calmly wrote that it was part of Israel's plan to reach out and envelop more territory into their grasp- practically an imperial move.   
	One has to take into account, with the authors that I have studied, that they are very biased on one side of the debate or the other- many were involved directly with the governments at the time of the crisis and thus must support the policies which perhaps they helped form.  I would have to admit that the interpretations I found most believable were probably found in Western (British) historical accounts of the crisis- the book by Lucas seemed most willing to spread around blame for the debacle of 1956, especially  on the door of 10 Downing Street itself.  The Jewish and Arab authors did not display this strength of character for the most part, however a few exceptions can be noted.  An Egyptian example is found in the book by Fahmy, who readily admitted that it was not any feat by Nasser or his army that gave a victory of sorts to his country- it was the workers of the Suez Canal who in the years following the crisis showed the world that they could successfully and profitably run the waterway without European help or control.  I believe that the writers from this turbulent region were under considerably more stress to support their country's record in the crisis than a Western author may have been in a comparable account, and this I did take into consideration in completing my assignment.  The Crisis of 1956 does not figure that prominently in either Jewish or Arab texts or writings on the time since 1945- perhaps it was overshadowed by the 1948, 1967 and 1973 Wars- or perhaps it was the European involvement that takes away from it being another true  chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Whatever the interpretation, this was indeed an significant event both in the history of this region, and for the world, and it seems as if more time is needed before we can truly begin to examine it from a neutral perspective.






Annotated Bibliography
	As stated in my paper, I decided upon commencing my task to seek out the most biased of authors from both sides in the Arab-Israeli debate, which provided reference to the 1956 Suez Crisis.  This was for the most part the norm for this essay, with the exception of the one more European text I used to offer me a sense of how the crisis was handled from the Western side.  For this I used W. Scott Lucas' "Divided We Stand: Britain, the US and the Suez Crisis" (1991).  While Lucas wrote mainly from the British perspective, his text was helpful to me in gaining a general understanding of how the crisis was played out through a series of carefully broken down events.  
	Having thus gained a rudimentary understanding of the crisis, I then sought out some biased sources from both sides of the Suez.  After looking in vain for articles on the topic, I found that my best bet lied in the combination of memoirs of noted politicians of the time from the region, and from the writings of a few noted academics, both Egyptian and Israeli.  For Arab sources, I began by going to the source, using the memoirs of both Anwar el-Sadat, the person who followed Nasser as President of Egypt in 1967, in his book "In Search of Identity" (1977).  I also used the works of another couple of famous Egyptian politicians, in "The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East" by Mahmouud Riad, and "Negotiating for Peace in the Middle East", by Ismail Fahmy.  Both Riad, who served as an international diplomat under Nasser, and Fahmy, who was Sadat's Foreign Minister for so many years, had vivid and detailed memories of the crisis.  Add to this list the book by the famous Arab military man Anouar Abdel-Malak's "Egypt: Military Society" (1968), a book that helped give me a better idea of how the Egyptian army forces viewed and dealt with the crisis.
	Finally, the jewish authors I sought out were from an equally varied number of sources, again using politicans, military men and academics.  To help in a general rounding of the Israeli view of the crisis, I used Yitzak Shamir's autobiography (Shamir, Yitzhak; "Summing Up"; London; Weidenfeld and Nicolson Press; 1994.), a man who was to play an integral role in the Arab-Israeli conflict as the Prime Minister of Israel in the 1980s.  My search for an Israeli military perspective was quite arduous, but finally settled on the work of Chaim Herzog in "The Arab-Israeli Wars" (1982).  As Herzog was a major-general in the crisis of 1956, he not only provided me with detailed information of the invasion itself, but of the various meanings and causes behind it.  In trying to find Jewish academic sources, I soon found myself in further difficulties, getting to the point of looking for, if you will excuse me, "jewish-sounding" names- as I was unable at first to find any that I could definitely discern were pro-Israeli.  I eventually settled on the works of Itamar Rabinovich's "Seven Wars and One Peace Treaty" (1991), and M.E. Yapp's "The Near East Since the First World War" (1991).  While Rabinovich was based in Tel Aviv and had stronger pro-Israeli views, Yapp, who was a professor in London, England, who's ideas were a little more moderate and yet, at least in this author's perspective, seemed to lean quite distinctly towards the Jewish State's cause.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Tainted Administration.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
This analysis of the news media coverage will focus on the Watergate affair which originally began on June 17, 1972  with the break-in of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the prestigious Watergate office complex in Washington D.C..  I will primarily concentrate on the negative impact that media coverage had to the publics eye.  This media coverage, although justified and appropriate for the situation, ultimately destroyed the credibility of Nixon's administration and the ability to run an effective government which forced the first resignation of an American president.
	The history of the events at hand is as follows.  The Nixon Administration financed a White House Special Investigative Unit called the plumbers.  This unit was initially established under John Erlichmann a top White House aide, to "plug" leaks from the White House to the press and consisted of former FBI and CIA operatives.  It comes to fact that these plumbers were involved in illegal break-ins and wiretapping before the Watergate scandal.  On June 17, 1972, the night watchman at the Watergate complex discovered adhesive tape on the basement doors of the complex.  Five men were arrested that night and began a series of inquiries and investigations into the possible corruption of White House Officials.  (Encyclopedia of the American Presidency, Volume 13, page 1603)
	Among those arrested on the night of June 17, 1972 were James McCord Jr., security coordinator for the Committee for the Re-election of the President (CRP also known as CREEP). (New York Times, June 21, 1972, page 1, column 3)  Immediately after the arrests, the news media had already began initial accusations and offering possible motives to the public through statements like:
	" There was continuing speculation here and in the Cuban community in Miami that unnamed men, in or out of an anti-Castro organization, had carried out a number of politically sensitive operations to win the Governments sympathy for 30,000 to 40,000 Cuban refugees living in Spain."  (4 Hunted in Inquiry on Democratic Raid, New York Times, June 21, 1972, page 44, column 1)
	On June 20, it came to the attention of President Richard Nixon that there were connections made between the burglars and CRP and various White House personnel.  The president, on June 23, recommended that the CIA should prevent a FBI inquiry into the Watergate incident based on national security interests.  To no avail, the FBI continued its investigation and eventually sifted through the maze of paper trails and cover up.  Evidence began to surface, pointing to the administration itself.  Realizing the internal nature of this situation, stories began to look like this:
	" No one was making any accusations yet, but in the midst of a curious non-cooperation from the White House and the Committee for the Re-election of the President, the suspicion grew that someone not far from the center of Republican power in Washington had engineered the Watergate Caper."  (Watergate, Contd., TIME Magazine, August 14, 1972, page 21)
	As time went on, more and more evidence had begun to surface.  On September 15, 1972, the Justice Department obtained the indictments of seven men said to be implicated: James W. McCord, Bernard L. Barker, Eugenio R. Martinez, Frank A. Sturgis, and Virgilio R. Gonzalez, the five men originally arrested at the Watergate complex.  Also involved, and indicted were G. Gordon Liddy, chief of the security unit called the "plumbers" and former White House consultant, E. Howard Hunt.  These men were all charged with conspiring to break in and plant listening devices into the phone lines at the Democratic National Headquarters.  One man, although implicated, was not charged.  His name was Alfred Baldwin, an FBI agent who was a bodyguard for John Mitchell, the campaign manager, and his wife.  Mr. Baldwin had admitted to being assigned by James McCord to monitor and transcribe the transmissions from the illegal bugs.  These transcriptions were then given to McCord who then turned them into memos that were distributed among the CRP.  (Investigations: Seven Down On Watergate, TIME Magazine, September 25, 1972, page 21)  
	The funds used for this operation were authorized by one man, Jeb Stuart Magruder, who became one of Nixon's committee's deputy directors.  Before joining CRP, Magruder was an assistant to the President's chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, then later became assistant to Herb Klein, Director of Communications.  It has been said that Magruder was sent to Klein to spy on him for Haldeman.  Magruder, was not charged or indicted because he thought the money was being used to get information about radicals and protesters who may try to disrupt the Republican National Convention.  (Denials and Still More Questions, TIME Magazine, October 30, 1972, pages 18-19)  
	The news media continued to portray the event as a conspiracy from the highest pinnacle of power within the United States.  Although President Nixon was never brought up on charges or indicted, the people definitely had a general distrust of the Nixon Administration.  The negative image portrayed by the various news media eventually brought about questions of the legitimacy and ethics of the current presidential administration.  The televised committee hearings led by Ervin on live television cast a light of criminality onto the administration.  White House aides and assistants were questioned and regarded as common criminals.  Typical "playing up" by the media sources portrayed Nixon as besieged, his popularity sagging, his Administration near shambles, his reputation- and his future, dangerously on the line.  (And the Mess Goes On, Newsweek, September 25, 1972, page 16)
	Despite the negative media coverage, in all fairness, there was some coverage of the President in defense.  One article wrote:
	" A few Nixon defenders have vehemently challenged the press's role in Watergate.  Last week, Franklin B. Smith, editorial-page editor of the Vermont Free Press predicted there would be a severe backlash against the sordid press McCarthyism and intellectual punksterism of those who mindlessly sought to tear down a great President, a great office, and a great nation....zealous communicators on the trail of Watergate ignore the principle that innocence must be presumed until guilt is proven."  (Defending Nixon, TIME Magazine, May 28, 1973, page 61)
Much later in the investigation, after refusing to give up subpoenaed tapes and transcripts, claiming executive order, Richard Nixon himself, was ordered to give up the tapes.  The President, although, demanded the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General to fire the special prosecutor requesting the tapes. Both men disagreed to do so and consequently resigned.  This situation put the Administration into an embarrassing light and the President agreed to surrender the tapes.  On arrival of the tapes, they were found to be missing exerpts and information.  On July 27, 1974, a committee recommended the impeachment of the president.  To avoid almost certain conviction in the impeachment trial, President Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974.  Gerald Ford, who was appointed Vice President after Spiro Agnew resigned, gave the former president an unconditional pardon for all federal crimes he may have committed.  (Encyclopedia of the American Presidency, Volume 13, page 1605)
	In conclusion, the Nixon Administration was eventually overturned and destroyed due directly to the large amount of media coverage given to this event.  Compared to the Teapot Dome, in which Warren Harding's Secretary of the Interior was convicted with bribery and sentenced to nine months in prison, the Watergate scandal was covered more due to the increase in technology and the amount of press people involved.  Although never charged or tried for any crimes, Richard Nixon still remains one of the most notorious Presidents of our time not because of the good he did like withdrawal
 from Vet Am and passing of the Equal Rights Amendment, but for the negative connotation still adherent to his profile as a leader.  That connotation is one of dishonesty and trickery.  As long as the memory of Richard Nixon lives, so too, will his legacy of secrecy. 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Transformation of Liberalism.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Liberalism is a force that has produced change from the birth of this nation to the politics of today.  Liberal tenets have been a basis of thought and action in American politics since well before the signing of the Constitution.  Certainly, liberalism has had to transform in order to remain a legitimate force throughout the years.  When considering this transformation, one may ask whether or not the ideas and goals of classical liberalism have been lost in the conversion into modern liberalism.  In order to answer this, the areas of freedom, the role of government, human nature, and the function of law should be addressed.  While this may not be a complete register of change in liberalism,  research into these subjects can provide strong indications toward the nature of this transition.  Objectively, the evidence suggests that many of the ideas of classical liberalism were either abandoned or changed fundamentally when America entered the modern era.   
Freedom
	The idea of freedom has been a paramount concern of liberalism throughout history.  Consider the classical ideas of religious freedom, the right to resist and the inherent right of every individual to be independent.  These were some of the main focuses of classical liberalism in early America. 
	On religious freedom, seventeenth century minister Roger Williams wrote:
"... All Civill States with their Officers of justice in their respectiveconstitutions and administrations are proved essentially Civill, and therefore not judges, governours or defendours of the spirituall or christian state and worship." (Volkomer, 50)
	
This quote is notable because it illustrates the early liberal ideas of religious freedom by stating that government officials have no right to pass judgment on religious practices.  In furtherance of his views, Williams founded a colony at Plymouth and contributed to the development of religious tolerance in the new world.  Religious tolerance meant that a nation with multiple religions need no longer mean a country with internal strife and civil insurrection due to intolerance (Volkomer, 1969).  The notion of religious open-mindedness helped pave the way for individual independence by suggesting that people were able to determine their own fundamental beliefs.
	The right of individuals to be independent is the cornerstone of liberalism.  This combined with the right to resist encroachments on this independence make up the legitimacy behind the revolution.  The Declaration of Independence embodied these thoughts precisely and clearly.  When Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "inalienable rights... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" he was speaking of the inherent rights of man and went further to declare that any government that chooses to dispel these rights is subject to overthrow by the governed.  In short Jefferson was saying that the right of the government to rule is derived from the people's ability to utilize and approve of their level of independence.
	Modern America embraces and reveres the ideals above.  This leaves modern liberalism with the chore of expanding these rights.  The focus has now shifted from the attainment of these rights to the perfection of them.  In the above statement I mean to show that liberal ideas of freedom and liberty have changed considerably.  This can be clarified by the following quote:
"A man who was poor, uneducated, ill-housed, and subject to the fluctuations	economic cycle could not be considered free though he lived in a nation whose government abided by the tenets of laissez-faire. True liberty, liberals began to contend, required the ability of man to use his talents and energies in a constructive 	fashion-it meant the positive freedom to achieve and accomplish." (Volkomer, 4)

This quotation suggests that modern liberals now see it as the government's responsibility to level the playing field for individuals who would otherwise be at a disadvantage.  The freedom to achieve one's own potential is one of the prime objectives of modern liberalism (Merquior, 1991).  This has led to the development of affirmative action and other programs such as welfare.  The opportunity to reach one's capacity has joined the other inalienable rights as the desired outcome of a positive government.  Ideally, people would derive freedom and happiness from the satisfaction of achievement and inventiveness.  True freedom should be unfettered from poverty, oppression and inequality; this liberty was considered the natural state of humanity.  
Franklin Roosevelt made strides in the attainment of this natural state.  The "New Deal" of the thirties was not only a means to economic recovery but also an attempt to move equality and liberty into their proper places in the American system (Dunbar, 1991). Roosevelt's "New Deal" is an example of an action with two reactions, it prevailed over the great depression and changed the government's role in freedom.  This assisted in the establishment of the government as an aid to liberty instead of a hindrance to it.
The Role of Government
	The role of government has always been an important issue to the proponents (and detractors of) liberalism.  Revolutionary America saw government as an encroachment on liberty whereas most of us now see our government as the guarantor of our liberty.  In Thomas Paine's persuasive pamphlet Common Sense, he wrote the following lines:
	"...government, even in it's best state is but a necessary evil; in it's worst state, an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government which we might expect in a country without government.  Our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."(Volkomer, 50) 
	
Paine's writings exhibit the fear and suspicion that the early Americans felt about government.  The early liberals saw the central government's role in international relations.  Domestic legislation, they argued, is best left to the governments closest to the people: the state and local governments (Volkomer, 1969).  The goal of a limited government was to allow the people an opportunity to explore and learn in order to improve their character without government restriction.  This exploration, liberals maintain, would lead to a higher level of human nature.  When liberal methods fell short of attaining these results, defenders of liberalism were compelled to accept the function of government as a mechanism to assist the development of liberal ideals.  Human nature had to be nourished by way of a humane economic and social living environment.  In furtherance, the public needed some instruction on how to express and enjoy their individuality. From this point the state became a way to reassemble society and educate citizens in the responsibility of leading an intelligent, meaningful life (Gerstle, 1994).  At this time the world was facing many changes, among these are the industrial revolution and world war one.  John Dewey elaborates on the feeling of the time in the following quotation:
	"The fact of change has been so continual and so intense that it overwhelms our minds.  We are bewildered by the spectacle of it's rapidity, scope and intensity."(Volkomer,303) 

Feelings su                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                the workers, farmers, and consumers. (Gerstle, 1994).  While these advances may seem to be made in the name of fostering freedom unencumbered by economic domination, it also serves a second purpose: the protection of the government.  The progressives believed that the government had to be protected from powerful "interests" that could hinder it's ability to guard the development of individual liberty.
Human Nature
	The conception of human nature had been the basis of classical liberalism.  The ideas of generally virtuous and rational human nature were essential to the image of an enlightened public.  Liberals adhered to an optimistic view of the nature of man.  While man may not have been fully rational and good, he was certainly more rational and virtuous than irrational and bad.  These virtues were supposed to be very strong in America's large rural base. Let us discuss the following passage from Jefferson's Query 19: 
	"...the chosen people of god[farmers], if ever 
he had a chosen people who's breasts he made his particular deposit 	for substantial and genuine virtue...Corruption of morals in the mass of cultiva-tors is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example."	

Thomas Jefferson believed that the cradle of goodness resided chiefly in an agrarian people.  Jefferson states that there is no example of widespread corruption of morals in the society of cultivators. Jefferson accurately shows the view of a morally superior agrarian society that was held at the time.  According to this view, the satisfaction of hard work and individual production could lead to a stronger moral character for the American citizen.  This in turn could lead to an ongoing escalation of man's moral constitution. Men who agreed with Jefferson held strong to this tenet for years until a series of occurrences shattered this theory.
The industrial revolution, better communications, and World War I all combined in a synergistic effect that changed this philosophy forever.  The industrial revolution made the idea of a predominantly agricultural society in America little more than a dream.  World War I showed the world the atrocities that man was capable of and improved means of communications spread this message to more and more Americans.  These new and complex problems fostered a new cynicism of human nature.  For a time President Woodrow Wilson tried to unite America under the idea that not only was this a world war, but it was a moral war fought in benefit of the democratic way (Volkomer, 1969).  The liberals asserted that the democracy was the best means of government available to reach a heightened state of morality. This "War to End All Wars" resulted in an end to the sanguine view of human nature that the liberals held. While the more cynical view of man's character replaced the "unrealistic" optimistic view, human nature has since become less relevant in liberal thought. In an attempt to explain the new "irrational" tendencies of man, liberal thinkers such as John Dewey sought some of the answers in the study of humans from a scientific standpoint (Gerstle,1994).  Psychiatry and Psychology offered answers in instinct, habit and other new observations of the human manner of thinking.  While liberalism has always been somewhat secular and pragmatic, the advent of psychological study enhanced these properties.
Liberalism and the Law of Man
	Early legal theorists felt that man's laws were extensions of a higher and greater set of standards. While Charles Louis Montesquieu is not an American philosopher, his classical theories on law are some of the most indicative of the liberal movement.  Montesquieu states that liberty lies in adherence to natural and positive laws.  This is supported by Merquior in his paraphrase of Montesquieu's writings on positive law:
"Law in general is human reason in as much as it governs all the inhabitants of the earth and that the political and civil laws of each nation ought to be only particular applications of human reason: Diverse as positive laws may be, they are part of a uniform law that existed prior to positive law." (Merquior, p.66)

	When Montesquieu speaks of the "uniform law", he is addressing the concept of the higher set of rules namely natural law, these rules are the driving force behind morality, society, and ultimately the law of man itself.  
	The link between manmade law and a enigmatic higher set of universal dictums was weakened substantially in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Oliver Wendell Holmes made a distinct separation between morality and the law.  According to Holmes, we fall into "fallacy" when we take terms such as malice, intent, and negligence and apply them in a moral context to legal issues (Holmes, 1896).  This separation of the law and morality signaled the centering of the society as the root of law.  The thought that law should reflect the emotions and needs of the citizens is important when reflecting upon the evolution of liberal law.  Progressing from this point we can consider a quotation from Roscoe Pound regarding the focus of law: 
"Attention was turned from the nature of law to it's purpose, and a functional attitude, a tendency to measure legal rules and doctrines and institutions by the extent to which they further or achieve the ends for which the law exists, began to replace the older method of judging law by the criteria drawn from itself." (Volkomer, 267) 

	With the emphasis having shifted from the beliefs behind the laws to the effectiveness of the outcome, American legal theory had made a departure from the original "spirit" of the law. A system of laws aimed at being more productive instead of in harmony with natural law and morality testifies to the more contemporary and practical nature of liberalism.
Findings
	As I stated at the beginning of my paper I felt that the evidence suggested that man of the ideas of classical liberalism had either been abandoned or changed beyond recognition.  Further research into four key aspects of liberalism has led me to a final conclusion.  Before discussing this conclusion, perhaps a summarization would help clarify and support my deductions.  
	First we explored the liberal concept of freedom.  In this section I found that classical liberalism's conception of freedom was a more fundamental one, freedom from oppression and intolerance.  In support of this argument, I quoted early American liberals Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson.  In order to show the nature of freedom to contemporary liberals, I drew from the work of Franklin Roosevelt.  The outcome of this section's research was that freedom itself had taken on a new form to liberal thinking.  Freedom came to include the freedom of opportunity and the ability to reach one's potential.
	In the portion of my paper dedicated to freedom, I stated that the government had taken on a new role in the attainment of liberty.  From this point, I moved into this new role of the government. I showed the reasoning behind this by borrowing a passage from Common Sense by Thomas Paine.  In finding the modern liberal's views on the role of government I gained a better understanding through expanding on the ideas expressed by Dewey and Gerstle.  The transformation of liberalism and the role of government lay in the initial fear and suspicion of government turning into trust and the need of government to aid in and help guide us in the development of our character.
	The nature of the character of man was the object of inquiry in the subsequent segment.  In this section, I suggested that the classical optimism concerning human nature had given way to a more skeptical viewpoint.  In order to uphold this statement, I pointed to the assessments of Thomas Jefferson's Query XIX and the Volkomer's writings within the book The Liberal Tradition in American Thought.
	Finally I looked to the nature of manmade law.  The works of Montesquieu, Pound, and Holmes led me to the conclusion that the liberal concept of law had shifted focus from the driving force behind law to the twentieth century outcome oriented vision of the law. 
	In considering all of these factors and through development of my own insights, I have come to the conclusion that American liberalism has not abandoned it's classical  ideals.  Rather than abandonment, study has shown me that American liberalism is a general progression of goals, events, outcomes, and reactive changes.  An example of this is the first section (Freedom), on the surface it had originally appeared that liberalism had gone from anti-government to big government, a 180 degree turn.  While this statement is not entirely false, it does leave out various particulars.  I find that when the original goals such as religious freedom and liberation from oppression had been attained, the liberal school of thought moved to further expand these objectives.  I believe the character of this expansion can be explained by the following inference that I reached:  As some goals of liberalism came to fruition, the nature of government changed and it became an institution that remained imperfect, but capable of aiding in the "polishing" of these liberties.  The end result being a government nothing like anything the classical liberals had experienced and in turn the ideas of classical liberalism were modified to better use this organization to the advantage of man.
	In conclusion, let me say that through research and the periodic insertion of personal thought, I reached my findings and found it surprising that I had not confirmed my hypothesis. In addition to this I realized that in a dynamic political ideology such as liberalism is difficult to define because it's goals are especially reactive to change.  It is this reactive nature that provides liberalism with change. The constant endeavor to perfect liberty produces change that liberalism in turn reacts to.  This interrelationship helps ensure liberalism's role in bringing about change in the future.
     


Bibliography
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law: New Haven; Yale University Press, 1922

The Relevence of Liberalism; Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 1978

Beiner, Ronald: What's the Matter With Liberlism? University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1992

De Tocqueville, Alexis: Democracy in America; Penguin Books Ltd., Middlesex, England, 1984

Dewey, John: Liberalism and Social Action; New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1935

Dietze, Gottfried: Liberalism Proper and Proper Liberalism, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1985

Dunbar, Leslie: Reclaiming Liberalism, WW Norton & Co., New York, 1991

Gerstle, Gary: "The Protean Nature of American Liberalism", The American Historical Review, October 10, 1994, American Historical Review, New York, New York

Kotkin, Joel: "What's Wrong With Liberalism"; The American Enterprise, Jan/Feb 1996 Vol. 7 No. 1, The American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.

Lewis, Edward: A History Of Political Thought, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1937

Mansfield, Harvey: The Spirit of Liberalism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1978

Manning, D.J.:  Liberalism, Saint Martin's press, New  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The United States as a World Power How long will we be the p.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

























The United States as a World Power:
How much longer will the US be the
policeman of the World ?


















Juan Valdez
??-??-96
Politics
	The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy, but can the World Super-Power continue to police other countries in light of earlier battles, or should the stationed troops pack up and home for good.
	Americans have always been overseas, protecting or overseeing the peace of another country. During the Monroe administration many US Policies were established, some of which are still in effect today. The Monroe Doctrine, passed into law by Congress under Monroe, has forced the United States to get into so many conflicts with neighboring Latin American countries. Sometimes even European countries declared war on America because of this doctrine.
	The Monroe Doctrine was delivered by James Monroe to the United States Congress in 1823. Since that time, this document has been the cornerstone of the United States foreign policy. This document was established for two major reasons, both involving European countries on United States soil. The first was Russia, who at the time was planning to establish a colony on the pacific northwest coast, the United States felt that it was a strategic military position, and if ever at war with Russia, it would pose as a threat. The second was that several European nations were planing to help Spain recover some of it's 'New World' colonies which had declared independence. The United States saw this as a threat as well. For these reasons, Monroe made an statements to various nations.
"One statement warned Russia that the American continents were 'not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power." A second warned France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria that any attempt to extend their 'system to any portion of this hemisphere' would be considered 'dangerous to our peace and safety' and any attempt to control independent American governments an unfriendly act toward the United States."1

With these and other statements, John Quincy Adams drew up the Monroe Doctrine, and Congress voted and passed it.
	The Monroe Doctrine was stressed during the time of Roosevelt's Presidency. During this era many foreign policies were given up, such as the Platt Amendment. Roosevelt decided that instead of the 
"Old single-handed enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine,"2

that they should rely only on the other American nations for the enforcement of their laws. Along with this Roosevelt showed very little signs of strength towards foreign countries. When Cuba was full of riots under the leadership of Machado, Roosevelt did nothing. In 1934 America gave up the Platt Amendment, and removed the marines from Haiti.
	The Vietnam War was one of the most influential wars in American History. The United States did not actually lose, but ending with a cease fire was considered a loss. When all of the troops returned they were looked upon by the American public scornfully. This caused both the troops and the American citizens to dislike the government. Many riots took place and many public displays happened. 
"...in response to a drive by the North Vietnamese forces into the South, President Richard M. Nixon ordered the mining of harbors off North Vietnam. Both the bombing ant the mining provoked sustained antiwar protests within the United States."3

For many years the United States government was very uneasy about getting into any heavy conflicts with other nations, for fear that it may turn into another Vietnam. Resent towards the governments decision is still around, but it is dissipating fast, mostly because of all of the good things that the United States has done. 
	All of this has changed since that time. United States foreign policy is one of the most complicated problems that has arisen. With the two World Wars, United States foreign policy was used greatly to secure a peace for Europe. With the first World War, America's entrance was a decision of President Wilson's when he asked congress if they could declare war, stating:
"The World must be made safe for democracy."4

The entry of the United States into World War II was an event that will be remembered for some time. America entered the war when Pearl Harbor in Hawaii was bombed from the air by Japanese air planes, thus destroying America's state of neutrality.
	In each of these wars America has played a huge role, being one of the biggest and strongest Super-Power. At that time the United States established everything. The United States also kept troops over on foreign soil, despite reports that they were coming home.
	Proceeding to the end of the 20th century, a look at the Bush administrations during the Gulf War shows how big of a part the United States actually played in the war. The United States contributed over forty thousand troops to the Persian Gulf, and much more was given in finances to fund the war. The six weeks that the war took place during was all handled by General Colin Powell and a team of military experts. Without Secretary of State James Baker foreign relations with Russia and Iraq would have been impossible. Other European countries sent in military personnel, but the bulk of the military force was taken care of by the United States. The attacks were all coordinated through the United States. Most air bombings and sea launches were done by American aircraft. When victory was achieved, the world portrayed it as America's Win.
	Television allowed the Persian Gulf War to be seen in television sets throughout the country. With the introduction of this new technology, American citizens were filled with a burst of patriotism for the country that they had forgotten. With this a lot of attitudes shifted or were enforced into believing that America was a good policeman. It got the bad guy, and at the same time saved the girl. American opinions of peace-keeping in other countries changed when they viewed desert storm. It was a very popular war, people were getting all excited over the troops over there. Yellow ribbons were popping up everywhere, it was the topic everyone knew about. I think that this is a main reason why Americans won't be able to stop helping out other countries. Basically put, helping is in an American's nature. Americans have been through hell all of there life, that they don't want it too happen to another people. So, they help in their little part, and exclaim that it was their country that did it. 
	With the addition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, many Americans are beginning to remember the Cold War and Vietnam. The war in Bosnia has been ongoing continuously since the breakaway of Yugoslavia from the former Soviet Union. In an effort to gain themselves an independent country, 3 ethnic-diverse groups are fighting over their rights to Bosnia. In an effort to save the peace, President Clinton stated:
"We can't be everywhere. We can't do everything. But where our interests and values are at stake -  and where we can make a difference - America must lead. We stood up for peace in Bosnia."5

With help from the UN and other countries, the United States has sent in peace-keepers and troops in an effort to stop the bloodshed.
	It is obvious that humankind perceives the United States as the policeman of the World. There are many with diverse opinions on the subject of United States foreign policy. Some say that the United States should just hole themselves up and not come out to help out another country. Others insist that it is our duty as Americans, being tied to other countries because of ancestry, that we must help any country in need, even if they don't know they're in need. In President Clinton's State of the Union Address he states that:
"All over the world," he declared, "people still look to us... We must not be an isolationist or the world's policeman. But we can be its best peacemaker."6

	The most recent peace-keeping mission is that of Haiti, where more than twenty thousand United States troops have been sent there to keep the peace of it's local inhabitants.
When he was before the United Nations, in concern to the ten thousand troops in Haiti the president said:
"America is a reluctant Super-power with no desire to be the world's policeman. The United States will use 'diplomacy when we can, but force is we must' because America has a 'special responsibility' to lead a generation with a 'sacred mission' to spread diplomacy around the globe."7

So it appears that the president is showing that although the United States does not want to police the world, we can just make sure it's peaceful.
	The majority of Americans feel that what the United States us doing is good, and that we should help out less-peaceful countries to become more like ours. In concern to Bosnia and why the United States shouldn't intervene:
"Once again the United States is about to plunge into another Vietnam. Before we make the same mistake twice it is important to make several things clear. First of all, our national interest is not involved in Bosnia. Bosnia is isolated, has no strategic resources, and it does not straddle or control international trade routes. Second, we are getting involved in a foreign civil war, as in Vietnam; we are not stemming any kind of international aggression. Third, America cannot afford to become the world's policeman."8

"I have felt for a long time now that the United States should be involved militarily in Bosnia. Once we created 'safe havens', we were morally obligated to make them both safe and havens. To our shame, we did neither. Now we are finally deploying to Bosnia, but for all the wrong reasons."9

	The idea of the United States losing a battle seems impossible to most American citizens today. Being the only remaining Super-Power has most Americans feeling that they're better than others. The undying truth is, in some cases they're not. Currently a Japanese child's education is about one hundred extra days than an American child. Statistics also show that among American children, a major percentage is lazy. The Voting Public has become less aware in Political Events, and some don't keep up with World Events either. The average American citizen goes home everyday and spends no time thinking about Bosnia, Haiti or any other country where United States troops are stationed. Most Americans only become aware of troops in a foreign country when one dies, or a big catastrophe occurs. China's economy is growing a mile a minute, they have the fastest child birth rate, and are expected to reach the level of a Super-Power within the next couple years.
	The foreign policy that President Clinton stated in his latest State of the Union address can be interpreted in various ways. Instead of referring to America as a policeman, he used the phrase "best peacemaker." He stated what a difference America made with it's troops, such as Bosnia, Haiti, North Korea, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. President Clinton forgot to mention to the beating the Chechen rebels received from Russia or any other significant event which appears to be a loss for the United Nations.
	The United Nations was formed on January 1, 1942 when twenty six nations created the United Nations Declaration in Washington DC It can be easily perceived that the United States heads the United Nations. Being the strongest of the four remaining Super-Powers the United States has always been placed above other countries when thinking of status. The United Nations has hundreds of peace-keeping missions a year, and in the course of these missions, troops are needed to keep the peace. Though the United States doesn't generally respond to little United Nations requests, the United States does give full support when a international law is broken. A good example of this would be the Persian Gulf War when neighboring Iraq invaded Kuwait without warning and took over the country, establishing martial law. This goes against treaties established by the United Nations and thus actions needed to be taken.
	America cannot continue to police the whole world, It is obvious that the troops are dispersed throughout it. If a catastrophe, uprising, war, etc.. were to break out what would the United States do. The troops would be out there and not in the country where they should be. A suggestion to President Clinton from one of his cabinet members was to convince the United Nations to form a UN Army. The whole project was to be volunteer, the soldiers were to be recruited from various countries, trying not to discriminate. United Nations Officers would go through a series of tests to make sure that no Sadaam Husseins came into control. The idea for a United Nations army is an honorable idea, yet questions arise such as where will the army be located, funding for equipment, and barracks would be needed. Weapons would have to be supplied, an array of ships, both land and air, up to date, new technology. This is going to cost a lot. Even now the United States is behind in our United Nations' payments. So where will all this money come from, China is currently trying to conform to it's increasing population, Japan is struggling though the economy is prospering. The answer is plainly private investors, but the purpose of the United Nations was to bring all of the world's countries together. This question will remain unsolved until either President Clinton, or United Nations' General Secretary Boutros-Boutros Ghali find an answer.
	Another topic involving the United States and how to limit our policing is NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is no longer because of the break up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. When NATO was in effect the United States had a weapon in it's arsenal that could have been used. The problem with NATO is not that it's too old, the problem is that it is need of repair. President Clinton should go over it with the adjoining countries and they should revise the foundations of NATO to fit the new world. Back when NATO was first beginning the thought of a global communications network called the Internet was unheard of. NATO could be a vital resource of the United Nations as well, with NATO the United Nations would be able to organize countries better, especially the militaries. The whole purpose behind NATO was to gather together the armies of the countries against the Soviet Union in the case of an attack. The problem with the United Nations is that they need to organize an army. 
"...that will ideally mean the creation of a specially trained force of soldiers put at the United Nations' disposal. The structure of their command would have to be clear-as clear as that of NATO, the only multinational outfit capable of packing the punch that any intervention force needs. That in turn would require big changes at the United Nations, but they are not impossible ones. If made, President Clinton would then have no good reason to withhold American units from future United Nations' operations commanded by non-Americans..."10

	Another problem, which President Clinton is solving with a budget cut, is military spending. With the cut, the already low defense budget will have to squander just to keep it's troops in foreign countries. Even in times of peace the government takes a big chunk out of the tax bin to pay for the military. If we had less troops in active duty throughout the world, the less we would have to pay for shipments to them. These shipments include food, weapons, ammo, armor, vehicles, aircraft, etc. These things can range from prices of four dollars up to a couple billion dollars. When they pay for this the money is taken away from other programs, such as scholarships, medi-care, transportation, etc. Each year spending for the troops increase phenomenally. There are a couple solutions, the president can jack up taxes, instead of cutting them, or bring home some of the troops.
"President Clinton's defense budget for 1996 will cut spending of $5.7 billion, but will complete the historic restructuring of United States' military from a Cold War juggernaut  to a leaner force designed for regional contingencies."11

	With Americans stationed in over twenty plus countries other than those outlined in this report, the United States would have a very hard time trying to recall them all back home. The stability of the country  may not handle it as well.  The United States will just have to face that because of it's first impression such a long time ago, the country will always be viewed as the world police. No matter how much military spending Clinton cuts, Americans themselves still feel a pride to be born and live in a country free from tyranny, where a person has a right to choose. Most Americans view foreign countries at war as a little lost puppy, wandering around haphazardly, searching for it's lost form of government. The United States citizens want to invite the puppy in and nurture it into a democracy like themselves. So far this policy has gone well, with minor incidents, hopefully in the years to come, it stays that way.	
 
Footnotes:
1)  Compton's NewMedia Inc., Compton's Encyclopedia
	Copyright 1994, WebPage from Electric Library
	URL=http://www.elibrary.com/	5/5/96
2)  Southwestern Company, The Volume Library (vol.2)
	Copyright1989, pg. 2212
3)  Compton's NewMedia Inc., Compton's Encyclopedia
	Copyright 1994, WebPage from Electric Library
	URL=http://www.elibrary.com/	5/5/96
4)    Southwestern Company, The Volume Library (vol.2)
	Copyright1989, pg. 2213
5)  Brewer, Norm, State of the Union:Clinton on everything from Bosnia to welfare reform
	Copyright 1996, WebPage from Electric Library
	URL=http://www.elibrary.com/	5/5/96
6)    Ibid., WebPage from Electric Library
	URL=http://www.elibrary.com/	5/5/96
7)    Omicinski, John, Clinton to UN: America not the World's Policeman
	Copyright 1994, WebPage from Electric Library
	URL=http://www.elibrary.com/	5/5/96
8)    Voorhis, Jerry L., Intervention in Bosnia:Opinions
	Copyright 1995, WebPage from Electric Library
	URL=http://www.elibrary.com/	5/5/96
9)    Ryan, Timothy, Intervention in Bosnia:Opinions
	Copyright 1995, WebPage from Electric Library
	URL=http://www.elibrary.com/	5/5/96
10)  Rubenstein, Ed., World Cop ?
	Copyright 1992, WebPage from Electric Library
	URL=http://www.elibrary.com/	5/5/96
11)  Spitzer, Kirk, Clinton proposes cutting defense budget by $5.7 billion
	Copyright 1995, WebPage from Electric Library
	URL=http://www.elibrary.com/	5/5/96
 Bibliographies:
1)  SouthWestern; The Volume Library (Vol. 2)
	SouthWestern Company, Nashville, Tennessee, Copyright 1989
2)  Spitzer, Kirk; Clinton Proposes Cutting Defense Budget by $5.7 million
	Gannett News Service, WebPage, URL=http://www.elibrary.com/, Copyright 1995
3)  Rubenstein, Ed; World Cop ?
	Economist Newspaper, WebPage, URL=http://www.elibrary.com/, Copyright 1992
4)  Omicinski, John; Clinton to U.N.:America not the world's policeman
	Gannett News Service, WebPage, URL=http://www.elibrary.com/, Copyright 1994
5)  Brewer, Norm; State of the Union:Clinton on everything from Bosnia to welfare reform
	Gannett News Service, WebPage, URL=http://www.elibrary.com/, Copyright 1996
6)    Compton's NewMedia Inc.; Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia
	Compton's NewMedia Inc., WebPage, URL=http://www.elibrary.com/, Copyright 1994
7)  Shapiro, Isaac; Intervention in Bosnia:Opinions
	Los Angeles Times, WebPage, URL=http://www.elibrary.com/, Copyright 1995
8)  Auster, Bruce B.; America as SuperCop
	US News & World Report. New York, Copyright 1994
9)  Summers Jr., Harry G.;Persian Gulf War Almanac
	Facts on File Inc., New York, Copyright 1995
10)  Vulliamy, Ed; Seasons in Hell: Understanding Bosnia's War
	St. Martin's Press, New York, Copyright 1992	
 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Use of the Word Power in The Declaration of Independence.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





Power and The Declaration of Independence










        There are many abstractions in the Declaration of Independence. These abstractions such as: rights, freedom, liberty and happiness have become the foundations of American society and have helped to shape the "American Identity." Power, another abstraction that reoccurs in all the major parts of the Declaration of Independence plays an equally important role in shaping "America identity." One forgets the abstraction of power, because it appears in relation to other institutions: the legislature, the King, the earth, and the military. The abstraction of power sets the tone of the Declaration, and shapes the colonists conception of government and society. Power in the Declaration of Independence flows from distinct bodies within society such as the King, the legislature, the military, and the colonists. 
        The Oxford English Dictionary defines power as, "the ability to do or effect something or anything, or to act upon a person or thing" (OED 2536). Throughout the ages according to the dictionary the word power has connoted similar meanings. In 1470 the word power meant to have strength and the ability to do something, "With all thair strang *poweir" (OED 2536) Nearly three hundred years later in 1785 the word power carried the same meaning of control, strength, and force, "power to produce an effect, supposes power not to produce it; otherwise it is not power but necessity" (OED 2536). This definition explains how the power government or social institutions rests in their ability to command people, rocks, colonies to do something they otherwise would not do. To make the people pay taxes. To make the rocks form into a fence. To make the colonists honor the King. The colonialists adopt this interpretation of power. They see power as a cruel force that has wedded them to a King who has "a history of repeated injuries and usurptions." The framers of the Declaration of Independence also believe powers given by God to the people must not be usurped. The conflict between these spheres of power the colonists believe, justifies their rebellion. 
        The uses of the word power set the tone of the Declaration of Independence. In the first sentence of the Declaration colonists condemn the King's violation of powers given by god to all men. 
        


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of natures God Entitle them (Wills 375).







        In this passage the writers of the Declaration of Independence are explaining their moral claim to rebel. This right finds its foundation on their interpretation of the abstraction of power. Colonists perceive power as bifurcated, a force the King uses to oppress them, and a force given to them by God allowing them to rebel. In the Declaration of Independence the colonists also write about power as a negative force. In the following quote power takes on a negative meaning because power rests in the hands of the King and not the people, "to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned" (Wills 376). Power when mentioned in association with the power of the people to make their own laws has a positive connotation, "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to Civil power" (Wills 377). 
        These two different uses of the word power transform the meaning and tone of the Declaration of Independence. The meaning changes from just a Declaration of independence from Britain because of various violations of tax laws, military expenditures, and colonists' rights; to a fundamental disagreement about power. Whether the King or civil authorities have a right to power. The colonists believe in the decentralization of power. The British support a centralized monarchy. The colonists believe power should flow up from the people to the rulers. The British believe power should flow down from the King to the subjects. 
        The two different uses of the world power also change the tone of the document. The colonist's definition of power as coercive in the hands of the King and good in the hands of civil authorities identifies the King as the enemy. He takes on the role of the enemy because he clutches the power in pre-colonial society. The tone of the Declaration of Independence becomes more severe; the Declarations vilifying of the fundamental power imbalances between the colonies and the King make the break between the two unbridgeable. The break between the colonies and the King became not just a tax or policy difference anymore, but a fundamental philosophical difference. 
        The colonists meaning of the word power changes depending on who possesses the power. In the hands of the King power corrupts in the hands of the colonists and the people it takes on divine qualities. The colonist's analysis of who has power fascinates. The colonists believe power to be a force that emanates from fixed points in society. In contrast more modern thinkers such as Nietzche and Foucault believe power flows throughout all of society (Miller 15). The colonists perceive in England power emanates directly from the King. Because of this interpretation they blame the King for the many wrongs they list in the body of the Declaration of Independence. The colonists do not blame the people of England or the English legislature. This allows the tone of the Declaration of Independence to soften. Instead, of being an attack on the institutions of English society the Declaration only attacks the King, the holder of power. Foucault's interpretation of power would differ sharply from the framers of the Declaration Of Independence. Foucault sees power as coming from the many technologies that society uses to control people: tax systems the law, patriarchy, family systems, legislatures, and even democracy. These technologies according to Foucault all represent different ways in which society controls its members (Foucault 307). The King under Foucault's interpretation of power bares little responcibilety for the grievances colonists have with England. The King in his view plays merely a role in the web of different technologies of control. Foucault would see the King as being controlled by many of the forces in society. Fulfilling his role is not so much his manifestation of his power as the power of English society and its ability to control the colonies and their inhabitants. If the colonists when writing the Declaration of Independence had this conception of power in mind the, the tone of the document would have been much stronger indicting all of English society. 
        The colonists interpretation of power has serious repercussions on the subsequent formulation of the US government. Because the colonists philosophical break with England was over the power of the King the framers of the Declaration of Independence sought to prevent a monarchy from arising in the United States. They sought to disperse power among the states and set up a system of counterbalancing branches of government that would prevent any single branch from having too much power. The ideas of federalism and decentralization were a direct outgrowth of the colonists interpretation of power. Power, in the Declaration of Independence carries more than just grammatical significance to the document. It shapes the document's meaning making it philosophically harsh toward the institution of the King and tempered toward English society. 


Works Cited









Wills, Garry. Inventing America. New York: Random House, 1978








Miller, James. The Passion of Michel Foucault. New York: Anchor Books, 1993








Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books, 1975








Oxford English Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press, 1994






































f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\The Yugoslavian Conflict.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
                                    The Yugoslavian Conflict


     Yugoslavia is a country burdened by feuding sides in a war that cannot 
soon be resolved.  The United Nations are attempting to help the situation, 
but until the people of Yugoslavia can come to an agreement continued warfare
and heartache is inevitable.

     The problems in Yugoslavia began because the country is separated into 
two distinct parts.  The north and west parts of the country were once under
 the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the south and the east were 
controlled by the Ottoman Empire.  This had extreme effects on the ethnic, 
cultural and economic differences between the two sides.  The three major 
religions in Yugoslavia were Greek Orthodox, Christianity, Roman Catholicism,
and Islam.  The population in the north and west parts of the country were 
mostly Catholic and the further south and east you went the population 
became more Orthodox.  

     Though these are all important factors contributing to the current 
problems in Yugoslavia, perhaps the most relevant issue is the issue of 
language.  It wouldn't really be proper to say that Serbian, Croatian, 
Slovenian, and Macedonian are the four major languages because some of the 
languages are so similar they could be considered the same one.  For example
Serbian and Croatian are so similar that government policy was to promote 
through the educational system the idea of a single Serbo-Croatian language.
However both the Serbians and the Croatians challenged this idea and went 
through great pains to identify vocabulary that would highlight the 
differences rather than the similarities.

     War finally broke out in Yugoslavia on June 25 1991, when Slovenia and 
Croatia proclaimed their independence and sovereignty, suspending the 
constitution of Yugoslavia and federal legislation on their territories.  
The first thing that Slovenian state did was to take over control of their 
borders, removing Yugoslavian border posts and replaced them with Slovenia 
Republic posts.  Federal authorities responded to this challenge by 
proclaiming the Slovenian acts illegal and charging that in the Republic of 
Slovenia some federal functions, notably customs services and air traffic 
control, had been forcibly taken over.  The taking over of the borders by 
Slovenian militia was deemed sufficient grounds to call out the Yugoslavian 
National Army.  This order was given from the ministry of defense, who had 
no authority to do so.  Yugoslavia was without a president at the time and 
control of the country was given to the supreme commander of the armed 
forces.  The whole affair was organized as military support to the federal 
police and customs personnel.  The Slovenians offered strong resistance with 
their territorial defense units, politically organized the withdrawal of 
their representatives from the presidency and the Executive Council of 
Yugoslavia, and directed a massive propaganda campaign presenting themselves 
as victims of brutal Yugoslavian National Army aggression.

     Croatia also attempted to claim independence, but they had a problem 
that the Slovenians didn't have to deal with.  They had a large population 
of Serbians in Croatia and with the new laws that the Croatian government 
tried to impose the minority Serbians were given no rights as a minority and 
were forced to go by the new found Croatian law.  This caused conflicts 
inside Croatia between the Serbian rebels and the Croatian National Guard 
who tried to keep order.  Many of these conflicts left many people dead and 
wounded.  The Yugoslavian National Army (JNA) openly sided with the Serbian 
rebels, the Croatians used this opportunity to start an all out anti-JNA 
campaign.  The JNA responded by saying that it took orders from the 
Presidency of Yugoslavia, not from Tudjman, the Croatian leader, and that it 
was constitutionally obliged to protect the integrity of the country and to
preserve peace when it was endangered.  Tudjman put all army units in 
Croatia on highest alert and ordered to shoot back if shot at.  The fighting 
began in August 1991.  After four and a half months of fighting the United 
Nations negotiated a precarious cease-fire, after fourteen previous failing 
attempts.  Although Croatia was arming itself with illegal weapons such as 
tanks and other heavy artillery, Tudjman knew that they wouldn't stand a 
chance on the battlefield with the combined forces of the JNA, Serb 
territorial defense units in Croatia, the local militia, and the irregular 
volunteers coming from Serbia.  Therefore the strategic aim was a political 
and diplomatic victory rather than a military one.  Croatia felt they still 
had a chance to win even though the JNA was in Croatia.  They had media 
support from Germany if the JNA was drawn deeper into the conflict.  Croatia 
decided to provoke the JNA by blockading barracks and cutting off communal 
supplies to them.  It was a gamble, they were hoping to draw the JNA into 
offensive action and gain political, material, and military support from the 
outside.  This plan worked and Croatia did win its independence.

     The last and perhaps most famous war in Yugoslavia that needs to be 
discussed is the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The war in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina like all the conflicts in Yugoslavia was a result of aggressive 
and uncompromising political abuse of national feelings.  "The main strategy 
of the parliamentary formations of each of the three groups was mass 
expulsion, popularly known as 'ethnic cleansing,' of the other two groups." 
(Crnobrnja pg.179)  

     In October 1991 a meeting was held with the three leaders of the 
warring states of Yugoslavia and Cyrus Vance of the United Nations.  An 
agreement was reached on an immediate cease-fire.  Each of the Yugoslav 
parties expressed a wish to see the speedy deployment of a UN peace-keeping 
operation.  Progress was made on some other issues, but the main one 
regarding the cease fire broke down almost immediately.  It was decided in 
mid December 1991 that the UN would become involved in the Yugoslavia 
situation and station UN troops on the Yugoslavia ground.  On January 2 1992 
Vance held a meeting between the military leaders of Croatia and the JNA at 
which a new cease fire agreement was signed.  This one did achieve a drastic 
reduction in fighting.  It also allowed the UN to send a group of military 
liaison officers who had the task of providing food offices to secure the 
cease fire and of preparing the ground for further implementation of the 
Vance Plan.  The UN decided to put the headquarters for the United Nations 
Protection Force (UNPROFOR) operation in Sarajevo.  It was hoped that the 
presence of the blue helmets and white UN vehicles would act to calm the 
situation.  It didn't, and only a few months after the installation of its 
headquarters, it was forced to withdraw.  "As time passed and the 
humanitarian problems to be addressed increased, so did the hardships and 
temptations of the UN troops performing their mission on the ground within a 
strictly limited mandate, poorly defined political objectives, and no muscle 
to defend them and the poorly defined political objectives.  In such a 
situation it was inevitable that the troops would be subjected to some 
humiliation and the authority of the UN would be undermined." 
(Crnobrnja pg.212)  The UN troops were treated as the enemy, they were 
accused of taking sides and had their vehicles stolen.  They have been shot 
at, wounded, and even killed.  On a few occasions the warring sides have 
masqueraded as UN troops, driving around in their vehicles with UN flags and 
opening fire on their opponents in order to draw fire against UN troops. 

     The situation in Yugoslavia is a grave one, and the United Nations is 
doing all it can to attain peace.  They are supplying medical help and 
arranging mediations between leaders, but until the people of Yugoslavia 
want peace there is nothing the UN can do. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\There is no need for the Bill of Rights.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
						
	The broad language of the second article of the Constitution left many questions about the power and authority of the President and the Executive branch of the Federal Government.  Since George Washington, each Chief Executive has come to the position with different beliefs on the responsibility and power of the President.  However the performance of the president is often shaped by outside factors which control how he must act as a Chief Executive.  The behavior of presidents come from a number of different criteria.  A president's personal character, his approach to the position and circumstances during his term all contribute to presidential behavior.  

	Presidents have approached the office from two vague positions.  They have believed, to varying degrees, that either the president has a strong leadership position and broad powers to direct the nation in one direction, or that the president has very limited powers dictated by the Constitution and should act like a chief administrator for the Federal Government.  These beliefs were reflected in their behavior while in the White House.  Franklin Roosevelt believed that the Federal Government had an obligation and interest in bringing the nation out of the depression.  In order to do this he initiated a number of agencies and projects to employ people.  In the first "Hundred Days" of Roosevelt's first term he initiated a number of programs which increased the size of the Federal Government and the power of the President.  He did all that he could to see that his proposals were put into place.  This included a failed court packing scheme to have a more friendly Supreme Court to find his programs constitutional (Lowi and Ginsberg 

										

230.)  In contrast to this belief in broad presidential authority by Franklin Roosevelt was Howard Taft.  Taft believed that Presidential authority was very limited the constitution and had to be specifically granted to the President by Congress or the Constitution (Lowi and Ginsberg 220.)  Another example of a passive approach to the presidency to is George Washington.  While he is often seen as a very influential president, his position as the first President require that he had to set many standards.  In fact President Washington hoped that the presidency would not be dominate.  In his inaugural address he argued for a strong legislature which he received (Lowi and Ginsburg 227.)  However, personal beliefs on the role of the president have been minor in the behavior of a President.  When required all Presidents have assumed power to quickly deal with a situation.

	A President's personality and beliefs are also a factor in determining his actions as a President.  Barber argues that a person's personality is shaped by his character, world view, and style all of which are established at different times in his life.  He argues that a person's character is established early in life, world view is shaped adolescence, and style in early adulthood.  These broad areas of personality come together to establish a style of leadership and presidential character.  Barber goes on to establish four categories of Presidential Character which are; active-positive, active-negative, passive-positive, passive-negative.  Jefferson was clearly an active-positive president who was proactive 

										

and enjoyed the power which he had.  Barber explains this by his Enlightenment education and good humor.  Adams would fit into his category of active-negative presidents who had a strong work ethic (a result of his Puritan heritage) but a harsh disposition.  Madison can be fit into the place of passive-positive.  He bowed to political pressure, but enjoyed his position because of his past in framing and support for the Constitution.  Finally a passive-negative president would be President Washington who was more or less forced into the office.  He hoped for stability in the new government and allowed others to take an active role in forming the institutions of the government.  His military background and obligation to perform community service explain this approach to community service (Woll 291-300.)    While Barber is successful is placing presidents into these categories, he gives very vague examples of character which explain their behavior as a president.  It would be difficult to successfully predict how future presidents would fit into his categories and they are too broad to explain behavior of presidents.

	Presidential behavior can also be seen in historical terms that the stature and power of the president has increased with the growth of the Federal Government.  Since the early twentieth century through the present day the Federal Government has grown in scope and size with almost each President.  This is also true with the United States in the area of international relations.  Presidents in the last century have taken a much larger 

										

part in legislature leadership because of the nature of their election process.  Presidents such as Reagan and Clinton ran on specific programs which they would implement.  Reagan acted in an active legislative way by proposing a tax cut and increased military spending, both of which he achieved.  Clinton tried to accomplish health care reform as well as welfare reform.  Both of these types of legislative leadership were different from the actions of Madison who was viewed as a "chief clerk" (Lowi and Ginsburg 228.)  Since Franklin Roosevelt the Federal Government has provided a wide array of services and regulations for the American public.  This has resulted in a growth of the executive branch.  The President has had to increase his role in developing policy as leader of the executive branch.  The growth of the United States into a global power has also changed the behavior of the President.  His almost complete control over foreign policy has made him the most powerful diplomat in the world.  This explanation, however, only shows the difference in the character of the office of the presidency in the past century.  How each individual president fits into this pattern is left unexplained.  

	The most important consideration in explaining presidential behavior is outside circumstances and events.  The nature of the office is for the president to be a reactionary on many different fronts.  For the most part the legislation that the president proposes is in response to a problem or concern by the public or the media.  The president must react to international events which may effect American interests.  Presidents who want to take 

										

a proactive approach to problems are often bogged down with problems which derail their plans.  President Kennedy was forced to devote most of his time to Cold War issues during his presidency than domestic affairs because he found himself in power during two of the biggest events of the Cold War.  The failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis forced Kennedy away from domestic issues which he promised to tackle.  Hoover's presidency was completely derailed because of the depression.  Lincoln focused himself completely at the task of keeping the Union, even if this meant blatant violations of civil liberties.  While circumstances may dictate what a President must deal with, it does not necessarily explain how he comes to a position on issues and deals with problems.  

	The behavior of a President can only be explained as a combination of many factors.  His personal politics and approach to the power of the Presidency will explain if he will try to lead the whole government and beyond that the whole nation, or if he will act as a clerk, putting into action the orders of Congress.  A Presidents character and style of leadership are an important factor in his approach to leadership.  The size and duty of the Federal Government also effect a President's behavior and the priorities of his office.  Finally a President must react to events at home and abroad which are out of his control.  The pressures that these events and the public reaction to them probably have the greatest influence over his behavior and decisions.  

										

	Actions and behavior of a President are the result of a complex set of circumstances.  No one criteria can be used to explain the behavior of the president in any event.  Explaining actions on the basis of one criteria is futile and should be reserved to talk radio hosts.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Time for reform considering the failures of the electoral co.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

TIME FOR REFORM? CONSIDERING THE FAILURES OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Description: This paper discusses the many shortcomings of the Electoral
College, and posits possible alternative electoral processes which likely be
more democratic.

Time for Reform?
Considering the failures of the Electoral College

A common misconception among American is that when they vote they elect the President. The truth is not
nearly this simple. What in fact happens when a person votes is that there vote goes for an Elector. This
Elector (who is selected by the respective state in which a vote is cast) casts ballots for two individuals, the
President and the Vice-President. Each state has the same number of electors as there are Senate and House
of Representative members for that State. When the voting has stopped the candidate who receives the
majority of the Electoral votes for a state receives all the electoral votes for that state. All the votes are
transmitted to Washington, D.C. for tallying, and the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes wins
the presidency. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the responsibility of selecting the next
President falls upon the House of Representatives. This elaborate system of Presidential selection is thought
by many to be an 18th century anachronism (Hoxie p. 717), what it is in fact is the product of a 200 year old
debate over who should select the President and why. 

In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to respect the principles of both Federalists and
States Righters (republicans) (Hoxie p. 717). Summarily a compromise was struck between those who felt
Congress should select the President and those who felt the states should have a say. In 1788 the Electoral
College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College was to allow people a say in who lead them,
but was also to protect against the general public's ignorance of politics. Why the fear of the peoples
ignorance of politics? It was argued that the people, left to their own devices could be swayed by a few
designing men to elect a king or demagogue (McManus p. 19). With the Electoral College in place the people
could make a screened decision about who the highest authority in the land was to be (Bailey & Shafritz (p.
60); at the same time the fear of the newly formed nation being destroyed by a demagogue could be put to rest
because wiser men had the final say.

200 years later the system is still designed to safeguard against the ignorant capacities of the people. The
Electoral College has remained relatively unchanged in form and function since 1787, the year of its
formulation. This in itself poses a problem because in 200 years the stakes have changed yet the College has
remained the same. A safeguard against a demagogue may still be relevant, but the College as this safeguard
has proved flawed in other capacities. These flaws have shed light on the many paths to undemocratic
election. The question then is what shall the priorities be? Shall the flaws be addressed or are they
acceptable foibles of a system that has effectively prevented the rise of a king for 200 years? To answer this
question we must first consider a number of events past and possible that have or could have occurred as a
result of the flaws Electoral College.

The Unfaithful Elector
Under the current processes of the Electoral College, when a member of the general electorate casts a vote
for a candidate he is in fact casting a vote for an Electoral College member who is an elector for that
candidate. Bound only by tradition this College member is expected to remain faithful to the candidate he has
initially agreed to elect. This has not always happened. In past instances Electoral College member have
proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful elector ignores the will of the general electorate and instead selects
candidate other than the one he was expected to elect (McGaughey, p. 81). This unfaithfulness summarily
subjugates all the votes for a candidate in a particular district. In all fairness it is important to note that
instances of unfaithful electors are few and far between, and in fact 26 states have laws preventing against
unfaithful electors (McGauhey, p.81). Despite this the fact remains that the possibility of an unfaithful
elector does exist and it exists because the system is designed to circumvent around direct popular election
of the President.
The Numbers Flaw
The unfaithful elector is an example of how the popular will can be purposely ignored. The Numbers Flaw
reveals how the will of the people can be passed over unintentionally due to flaw of design (McNown, Lecture
Notes, 2/20/93).

(a)6/b(4) | (a)6/b(6) Candidate a: 18
| Candidate b: 22
-------------|------------ 
| Electoral Votes
(a)6/b(4) | (a)0/b(10) Candidate a: 3
| Candidate b: 1

In this theoretical example candidate (a) receives a minority of the popular votes with 18, but a majority of
the electoral votes with three. Candidate (b) receives a majority of the popular votes with 22, but receives
only one electoral vote. Under the winner-take-all system, the candidate with the majority of the electoral
votes not only wins the state but also receives all the electoral votes for that state. In this hypothetical
situation candidate (a) receiving a minority of the popular votes wins the state and takes all the electoral
votes. The acceptability of this denial of the popular will, unintentional or otherwise, is questionable to say
the least.

Tie Game
The problem posed by no one person receiving a majority of the electoral votes (a tie) first came to head in
the 1800 elections. The success of political parties served to turn Electoral College members into agents of
the parties Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). This so galvanized the 1800 elections that the Republican electors cast
their two votes for the two Republican candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr respectively. It was
assumed that Jefferson would be President and Burr the Vice-President. Unfortunately their was no
constitutional doctrine to affirm this assumption. As a result the ever audacious Aaron Burr challenged
Jefferson election as President and the issue had to be sent to the House for resolution (Bailey & Shafritz, p.
61). Any debating on the issue was only incidental; when all was said and done the issue was decided by one
man, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, and the Federalists were in control of the House when the decision was to
be made. Hamilton, who disagreed with Jefferson but overwhelmingly distrusted Burr, orchestrated a blank
ballot initiative among the Federalists which allowed the Republicans to select Jefferson as President (Bailey
& Shafritz, p. 61). Though this entire incident was significant the most noteworthy aspect was the fact that
the President was essentially chosen by one man. The final decision was taken entirely out of the hands of the
people and was left to the mercy of the biases of a single individual. In all fairness it should be noted that the
12th amendment was formulated out of the Jefferson-Burr to forever lay to rest the question of who is
President and Vice-President in a tie. The 12th amendment stipulates that electors are to cast separate votes
for the President and Vice President, and summarily an event such as the Jefferson-Burr incident cannot
happen again. (Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). In effect the 12th prevents the issue of a tie from going to the House
under a very narrow scope of conditions. This is far less of a solution than one which would have prevented
this issue from going to the House at all because when the issue of who would be President went to the House
in 1800, the issue of democracy was left to compromise. This all serves to reveal yet another flaw of the
Electoral College process. Congressional selection of the President can lead to democratic compromise. This
would seem an area of concern. Though some would argue we have had 200 years to distance ourselves from
such maladies as the elections of 1800, the following reveals how close to home the flaws 200 year old
institution can hit.
The Wallace Debacle

In 1968 a three-way tie nearly brought to head the same undemocratic modes of presidential selections that
emerged 200 years earlier with the Jefferson-Burr incident. The 1968 elections race was extremely close.
Richard Nixon barley received a majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency. Had Nixon failed to get
a majority a number of bizarre scenarios might have emerged. The candidates in the race were Richard Nixon,
Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace respectively. Had Nixon failed to win a majority Wallace would have been
in a position to control who the next President would be (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65). Though he could not have
won himself Wallace could have used his votes as swing votes to give Nixon a majority, or give Humphrey
enough to prevent Nixon from getting a majority (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65). In the latter instance the issue
would have, as in 1800, been sent to the House for rectification. In either instance Wallace would have had a
great deal to gain, and the temptation to wheel and deal (at the compromise of democracy) would have been
great indeed. It is possible Wallace could have used his influence with Southern House members to get
Humphrey elected. In the process he would have likely `garnered great political clout for himself. Wallace
could have bargained with Nixon for an administration position in Nixon's cabinet in return for Wallace's
electoral votes. The possible scenarios are endless, and for the most part irrelevant. What is relevant is that
the processes of the Electoral College again paved a path for democratic compromise, just as it did in 1800. If
time is the mechanism for change then apparently not enough time has passed. 

Conclusion
The shortcomings of the Electoral College presented above are only a few of many flaws. Others flaws include
the bias toward small and large states, which gives these states a disproportionate advantage; The bias
toward those who live in urban areas and therefore enjoy a stronger vote than those living in sparsely
populated areas (Bailey & Shafritz p. 63). The list of flaws is extensive. The question that still remains is
whether or not the flaws are extensive enough to warrant change? The Electoral College has successfully
provided the U.S. with its Presidents for 200 years and has done so without allowing the ascension of a
demagogue. But in the process of 200 years of electing the College has allowed the will of the people to be
compromised. Granted at the time of the 1800 elections the College was young and its shortcomings were not
entirely clear. 200 years later the flaws have revealed themselves or have been revealed in various fashion.
The question remains then are flaws acceptable considering the duty the College performs? If the purpose of
the College is to provide democracy but prevent demagoguery then its success seems uncertain. The U.S. has
seen no demagogue but has seen compromise of democracy. The evidence shows that the flaws of the Electoral
College are responsible for democratic compromise. It would seem then that the flaws of the college are
self-defeating to the purpose of the college. If this is then it is definitely time for reform. 

1 Bailey, Harry A. Jr., Shafritz, Jay M. The American Presidency, (California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1988)
Chapter III

2 McGauhey, Elizabeth P., "Democracy at Risk," Policy Review, Winter 1993: 79-81

3 R. Gordon Hoxie, "Alexander Hamilton and the Electoral System Revisited," Presidential Studies Quarterly, v.
18 n. 4 p. 717-720

4 John F. McManus, "Let the Constitution Work," The New American, v. 8 n. 14 p. 19

5 William P. Hoar, "The Electoral College: How The Republic Chooses its President," New American, v. 8 n. 16 p.
23-28 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Too Young .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

\




Too Young?


By
Aaron Dechant


English Comp. I A
Mr. Keller
25 October 1996











	In 1643 a sixteen year old boy was put to death for sodomizing a cow. Three
hundred and fifty years later, sixteen states have legitimized the execution of juveniles.
Four of those twelve states have lowered the legal age of execution to twelve. For
whatever reasons the death penalty has been supported by the public since this country's
existence. In this day and age of increasing violence, both juvenile and adult, it is time to
re-examine the use of the death penalty as the ultimate solution to crime. The social
repercussions of enforcing the state executions of juveniles far outweigh any of the benefits
that may be gained.

	The cry for the death penalty is most loudly heard when referring to it as use of a
deterrent. According to Allen Kale "it is estimated that about 76% of the American public
support the use of the death penalty as a deterrent, however that support drops to less than
9% when referring specifically to juveniles." (Kale 1) The mindset of the American public
seems to be drastically different when dealing juveniles. And yet, with only 9% of the
public supporting the policy, it remains in effect.

	 Another strong outcry for the death penalty comes from those wanting restitution
for the death of a loved one. It is the thought that a life is the ultimate price to pay which
fuels this argument. The delineation between adults and juveniles is much less clear on this
point. Age doesn't seem to make much of a difference when dealing with restitution. Putting
an individual to death seems to put the minds of certain individuals at ease. This argument
is what makes that 9% seem to be the vast majority.

	The distinction between juveniles and adults is a very important one.  It is often a
deciding factor when one is choosing to support the death penalty or not. Although the
difference often consists of just a few short years, it is those years which make all the
difference. Often its deterrent effect and costs are greatly affected by age and maturity. In
fact, most theories and reasons for supporting the death penalty are flawed when applying
them to juveniles.

	The debate over whether or not the death penalty is an effective deterrent is likely
to continue as long as it is in place. However, its deterrent effect towards juveniles is more
obvious. There are several reasons why the death penalty does not deter children. The
death penalty has a very unique effect on juveniles. It has now become an ineffective means
of deterring crime while in some cases actually acting as an incentive for crime. 

	The first reason the death penalty is an ineffective tool for law enforcement has to
do with the hypocrisy surrounding the policy. Because the state is actively taking part in
killing, the death penalty is seen as hypocritical by juveniles. It is of course, hard to
believe that juveniles not murder when they regularly see it being done by the government
with the apparent approval of society. This was supported when Victor Strieb stated that 
		"Now they see government officials struggling with a problem of their own,
		a person whose behavior is unacceptable to them. How do government
		officials solve their problem? They kill or execute the person who is
		causing the problem. Is it wrong to kill someone to solve a problem?... It is
		akin to a lecture to children about the evils of smoking being delivered by a
		lecturer who is puffing on a cigarette." (Strieb 61)	

	The next deals with the lack of maturity that most juveniles show. Every juvenile is
dealing with enormous amounts of stress everyday. It is these pressures that affect the
deterrent effect of the juvenile death penalty. Each juvenile deals with this stress in a
different way, however, because of this stress, many adolescents act impulsively at times.
Henry Heft explains that
		"Peer pressure and family environment subject adolescents to enormous
		psychological and emotional stress. Adolescents respond to stressful
		situations by acting impulsively and without the mature judgments expected
		from adults. These characteristics are shared by all adolescents...Thus, the
		possibility of capitol punishment is meaningless to juveniles and has no
		deterrent effect." (Heft 30)

	Finally it can be seen that not only does the death penalty hold no deterrent for
juveniles but in some cases it act as an incentive for crime. This can happen for two
separate reasons. The first deals with the peer pressure mentioned above. Because death is
seen as "the ultimate stake" the committing of a crime that would warrant the death penalty
could put a juvenile in a position to gain great respect from his peers. The second deals
with the hypocrisy, also mentioned above. With the state legitimizing killing as it does,
some minors are compelled and encouraged to commit crime. It is as though they feel no
responsibility to abide by the laws the government sets down when that government doesn't
follow them itself.

	The problems surrounding the death penalty go far beyond the actual juveniles
(un)affected by it. Through the debate over it's justification as well as the actual carrying
out of an execution all of society is affected. These effects range from the millions being
spent on the appeals process to the racist way it is carried out. Whatever the effect may be,
it is not something that can be swept under the rug. These are issues which are present in
everyone's life.

	Proponents of the death penalty like it because it saves billions compared to life in
prison. That would be true if one were comparing the cost of electricity for the electric
chair, or the price of rope for a hanging. Unfortunately these are not the only costs involved
with putting a person to death. There are a countless number of appeals granted in every
capital case. All of these cases require prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other court fees;
all of which costs money. The majority of this money ends up falling onto the taxpayers,
seeing as most juveniles in capital cases lack the needed funds. The bottom line is that the
average death row case costs a significant amount more then life imprisonment would. In
fact Carl Horwitz explains that "In comparison to life  imprisonment capitol cases cost
about two million dollars more."  (Horwitz 4) These costs come about largely in part
because of the extensive appeals process that is involved in every capital case."   

	Possibly the worst result of having the death penalty is its tendency to block other
programs. This happens for two distinct reasons. The first is because the death penalty is
seen by many as an "end all" solution. With the death penalty in place it seems as though
many feel that nothing else is needed. However there seems to also be some structural
barriers that the death penalty puts into place. In areas where the juvenile death penalty is
in place there are a lower number of programs such as community policing or midnight
basketball.  Bright tells us that 
		"The policies resulting from this approach are costing our society a 	
		tremendous price in money, in the corruption of the judiciary, and in
		diverting millions of dollars from education, drug programs, community
		policing, and other programs that would actually help to prevent crime."
		(Bright 6)

	The next way the juvenile death penalty adversely affects society has to do with an
age old dilemma; racism. Time and time again it is argued that capitol cases are the modern
equivalent to something along the line of the Ku Klux Klan. There are several informal
statistics which lead people to believe that the death penalty is racist. These statistics
include the higher number of capital cases found in the South. However there are more
significant arguments to be made. Racism can be found both in charging, sentencing, and
imposition of the death penalty. Steve Radic tells us that 
	
		" Presently, about half the people on death row are from minority groups
		that represent only about twenty percent of the country's population. 	
		About forty percent of those who have been executed since the death
		penalty was allowed to resume in 1976 have been African-Americans,
		even though they constitute only twelve percent of the population."(Radic 4)    

	We are living in a time of increased crime and violence. With teenagers growing up
as murders there is obviously something not working. James Fox believes that 
		"given the worsening conditions in which children are raised, given the
		breakdown of all our institutions as well as of our cultural norms, given our
		wholesale disinvestment in youth, we will likely have many more then
		5,000 teen killers per year.... Our nation faces a future bloodbath of juvenile
		violence that will make 1996 look like the good old days." (Fox 71)

	When it comes down to it, it is time to start working on crime before it happens
rather then after. One way to start this process it to eliminate one of the most costly, racist,
and ineffective policy ever enacted in this country.
	
	Clearly there are issues surrounding the death penalty which need to be addressed.
If it is to continue to be used it must be re-examined. There are several factors which need
to be taken into consideration; not simply the sleep that families can get after an execution.
Whether it's the costs, its use as a deterrent, the death penalty continues to fail its intended
purpose. This is not something to be ignored, and it is not something that "they" have to
deal with. The impacts of the death penalty affect us all. If nothing else these juveniles are
simply too young.  

























Works Cited
Bright, Steven. Young Blood. New York: Hampton and Row, 1993 

Fox, James. "Innocent Killers. Christian Science Moniter 12 Feb. 1996: 71-72

Heft, Henry. "Deterring Juveniles." A.B.A. Journal June 1989: 30

Horwitz, Carl. "Effective Means of Deterring Criminals." Crime and Criminals May1995:1

Kale, Allen. "How does the public feel?" Time Aug. 1995: 35

Radic Steve. "Searching For Answers." Criminal Justice Ethics July 1996: 5 

Strieb, Victor. Imposing the Death Penalty on Children. California: Sage, 1987

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\triple e senate.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 Public interest in the Senate is currently stronger than it ever has been.  Nearly everyone agrees that our present Senate is unsatisfactory.  Political parties such as the New Democratic Party want the outright abolition of the Senate while others such as the Reform Party want to elect it.  Since the Senate has not been considered an effective forum for regional representation-which was one of the reasons for its creation-many Canadians have wondered what reforms would allow it to perform that role better.  The objectives of Senate reform are based on one idea, that of enhancing the quality of regional representation of politicians within national political institutions.  Through the implementation of a Triple E Senate (Equal, Effective, Elected), a federal principle can be constructed into the national government and therefore provide a check on the majority in the House of Commons.	

A major function of second chambers is legislative review. This means that bills coming from the other house are examined, revised and sometimes delayed.  Unless regional representation is included, the legislative review function does not examine the purpose of proposed legislation, but instead attempts to improve it technically.   In federal systems, the legislative review function of the Senate is only secondary to their role in providing for representation for various parts of the country in the national legislature. Representation is selected in favour of the smaller regions, in contrast to the first chamber, where representation is always based on population.   Therefore the functions associated 
with the Senate are legislative review and the representation of the various regions on a different basis from the lower house.

	The Fathers of Confederation originally intended for the Senate to play the legislative review role.  As sir John A. MacDonald said, the Senate was to have "the sober second thought in legislation" and should not be "a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House".   They also agreed on a particular qualification of Senators, which was intended to help them act as a check against the majority in the Lower House.  This qualification has remained unchanged since 1867, but its practical meaning has long been discarded.

	The other major role meant for the Senate was to preserve what MacDonald called "sectional interests".  It is believed that this agreement about representation in the Senate was the main factor that allowed the Canadian federation to be formed.   The Senate has functioned quite effectively as a house of legislative review up to the present time, but its intended role in regional representation has not been as effectively performed.




                                                                                                                                                     	A major reason for this ineffectiveness is the method of appointment.  By having the federal government alone appoint Senators and for such long terms (until the age of 
seventy-five), the Senate's ability to represent the regions of Canada has been weakened.   During long appointments, the responsiveness to the views and concerns of the represented is not always guaranteed.  There is also no obligation to account to their respective regions and their representation is not put to any public test.  Even if Senators did perform an adequate role as representatives, the public might not see it in the light.   

	The implementation of a Senate which is elected rather than appointed would ensure that representatives were more responsive to the public.  It would also give the Senate the authority to exercise the substantial powers given to it by the Canadian Constitution.  Any political institution can obtain formal or legal powers, but if the public does not want them to use it, these powers may not be exercised.   In addition, most Canadians have reservations about appointments to a legislative body for such a long term in this, a more democratic age than when the Senate was established.

	Senators in our Upper House do not really represent anyone except for the one who appointed them-the Prime Minister.  It is because of this reason that they cannot effectively express the views of anyone since their appointment lacks legitimacy in our democratic age.  However, when Senators criticize and delay the legislative process, they 
only remind us of how much could be accomplished effectively if only they represented the people who had elected them. 

	Another important function of second chambers in federal systems like Canada's is the representation of the regions on a basis other than representation by population.  When different people from different regions wish to achieve a common goal while protecting their respective regionally-based differences against majority rule, a federal system of government is utilized.   When this is the case, the Upper House is seen as a political check on the rule of a simple majority.  It also reflects the diverse interests of the regions of the federation to the lower chamber.  

	In countries like Canada where there are two distinct linguistic groups geographically concentrated within its borders, protection of the interests of the minority group can be established through specially weighted representation of the political units in the second chamber.   It was because of this reason that the French-speaking Fathers of Confederation sought equal representation in the Senate for the three original regions (Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes).  This would balance out the House of Commons where there was no guarantee of proportional francophone representation. 
											        
	As it stands today, the Senate has 104 seats, which are divided into 4 divisions.  Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the western provinces each share 24 seats.  Newfoundland has 6 seats while the Yukon and Northwest Territories have 1 each.  In the case of Quebec, 24 regions were created in order to have a balance of anglophone and francophone representatives.  Under the proposed Triple E Senate, there would be 6 representatives from each and every province while the territories had one each.  This would provide for a new 62 member Senate which would be elected at the same time as Members of Parliament.  The only exception would be Quebec where Senators would be hand-chosen by the National Assembly. 

	The principle of equality simply means that every province or region would be equally represented in the Senate regardless of its population.  The need for equal representation arises when provinces like Ontario are compared to Prince Edward Island, Since Ontario's population is so huge compared to many other provinces, it along with Quebec could automatically become the majority in the Commons when their interests were similar.  The comparison between Ontario and Prince Edward Island might be a bit extreme, but what it really equates to is that Alberta and other provinces cannot have the same powers as Ontario and Quebec. With equal representation, no province would have to worry about being outvoted by such a wide margin that the interests of the citizens were completely ignored. 
											        
	The Government of Canada stresses the importance in strengthening the role of the Senate in representing people from all parts of the country.  Equal representation allows the Parliament to speak and act with greater authority on behalf of all Canadians.  Meanwhile, a delicate equilibrium must be established if the Senate's role in regional representation is to be upgraded while maintaining the effectiveness of Parliament. 

	At the time of its creation, the Senate was assigned extensive formal authority and with only two qualifications, it would be equal in power to the House of Commons.  Not until recently were limitations placed on the Upper Chamber's powers as a result of constitutional amendments.  However, even today, no federal legislation can be passed until it has been passed by majorities in both the Senate and the House of Commons.   The problem of the present Senate is not a lack of power, but the lack of confidence and legitimacy that would allow it to maintain and use that power.  The Canadian Upper House has all the formal legal power imaginable, including a complete veto on any and all government legislation.   Even with so much power, the Senate has felt no justification in defying the Lower House ever since the widespread democratic sentiment in Canada not long after Confederation.




	Another reason for the Senate's past ineffectiveness is due to the fact that Senate appointments are partisan in nature.  The majority in the Upper House would usually 
correspond to the majority in the Lower House since appointments were made by the Prime Minister.  The House of Commons will continue to be the subject to tight party discipline, whereas it can be less strict in the Senate, since it was designed so that it does not control the fate of the government.  Another reason is because the majority of amendments to bills have been introduced to the Senate after it was already approved by the House of Commons.  Therefore, it did not really matter whether or not there was a majority in both chambers by the same party. 

	One of the benefits of the Triple E Senate is that it will definitely have a positive effect on the rest of Canada's political institutions.  If the House of Commons was to have a reformed Senate watching over it, it would have to work harder, implement more compromises into their policies and this would make it that much more effective.  The regional interests and views on national policy can also be dealt with by a reformed Senate, thus allowing provincial powers to focus on their respective mandates instead of  just campaigning on national policies. 




	Regionalism is a major force in Canada, one that pervades almost all aspects of our political lives.  Therefore, it is extremely important that  a means of expression is available to us in our national institutions.  The Triple E Senate builds a federal principle into the national government which then provides a more effective regional balance on the majority rule of the House of Commons.  More specifically, a reformed Senate will enhance the 
visibility of provincial and regional representation in Ottawa, create more effective territorial checks and balances within the legislative process and improve the credibility and legitimacy of the national government in disaffected regions of Canada.   Ten years ago, the concept of a Triple E Senate was unimaginable, but it is very much on the minds of Canadians these days.  Due to insufficient regional and provincial representation at the national level , Canadians are now asking whether we could not follow the example of other federations by strengthening the second chamber of our national Parliament.












				BIBLIOGRAPHY

Campbell, Colin. The Canadian Senate.  Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada
	Ltd.,1978.
Dyck, Rand. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches.  Scarborough: Nelson Canada, 1996.
Fox, Paul w., ed.  Politics: Canada Seventh Edition.  Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.,
	1991.
Kunz, F.A.  The Modern Senate of Canada / 1925-1963.  Toronto: University of Toronto
	Press, 1967.
MacGuigan, The Hon. Mark.  Reform of the Senate: A Discussion Paper.  Ottawa:
	Publications Canada, 1983.
MacKay, Robert A.  The Unreformed Senate of Canada.  Toronto: Oxford University 
	Press, 1963. 
White, Randall.  Voice of Region: The Long Journey to Senate Reform in Canada.
	Toronto: Dundurn Press Ltd., 1991.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\U S criminal justice system.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
HSIN-CHIEH LIN
BLACK STUDIES 100
JANUARY 13, 1997

U.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

    
       In order to keep a safe society, it is important to establish a nation with good education to teach people judging from right or wrong , excellent police force to keep our street safe, and most of all, a good criminal justice system to carry out the justice. United States is a place with little crimes, a nation with nice houses, beautiful beaches, and expensive shops without property just like what I seen in the American movies in my opinion before I arrived here. The very moment I stood in my dream street, Hollywood boulevard, I was shocked at the scenario. I then realized that this is a place no different from other countries The United States has many problems too, especially in crimes and its criminal justice system. 

    The major feature of the U.S. criminal justice system is the jury system which is found nowhere else in the world except here in the America. The jury system originally was designed such that a decision of whether a person is guilty or innocent will not fall only into one individual's hand but a group of people. This feature gives the U.S. criminal justice system a lot of strength in a way that in order for 10 people to agree on a person being guilty or not, the court must supply sufficient amount of evidence so that no one will be punished by mistake. Moreover, since the jury selection is done so secretly and strict that it is not possible to judge any one in court in the favor of any side, it is the decision of the jurors who were selected from regular citizens to find any guilty or innocent. However, the major weakness of the jury system is that will the defendant get the fair trial if jurors are being prejudice. As I observe several years in the United States, racism do still exist in the United States unlike what I though before coming here. It is impossible to get a fair trial for African Americans who is being trial in a white neighbor and vice versa. This weakness of this U.S. criminal justice system has cause many problems that the jury system must be reformed. A rule should always be modified and updated along with the change of the time and society, and jury system is one of the rules that needs change. 

    Another major weakness in the criminal justice system of the United States I observed is the slow speed of the process. Before coming to the United States, I never know it would take about ten years for a death sentence to carry out. If any person is given death sentence and fail to appeal, he should be executed right away without hesitation, instead of wasting tax payer's money on feeding and keeping them alive. Trials are also taking too much time too; for an example, the famous O.J. Simpson trial which took more than 1 year to get a conclusion. The longer a trial takes, the more tax money is wasted. Over 10 million dollars spent on the O.J. trial has been estimated While making sure any one won't be punished if he is innocent, the U.S. criminal justice system should be change in such a way that it will speed up the process. 
 
    Another major problem with the U.S. criminal justice system is that the punishments are not strict enough to stop or decrease the crimes. I saw the other day in the news that a drunk driver who killed a kid was only sentenced to 1 year in prison with a fine of five thousand dollars. I was shocked at how a precious life is only worth five thousand dollars and how many drunk drivers are still out there. A rapist would get out of prison easily in just a few years; for example, Mike Tyson. I was also surprised when I saw that ninety percent of the rapists are those who committed the same crimes before. If all these rapists are sentenced to life in prison, there will be ninety percent less of women who will get rape out there. What is the use of law and a criminal justice system if people keep repeating the crimes after punishment. When I was back in the Singapore which is also called garden city, I was deeply impressed with the clean and the low rate of crimes of the nation. The country is so clean that you rarely find trash on the floor, and you rarely see murder on the news for the whole year. I later found out that the law of Singapore is so strict that nobody dares to break easily; for examples, dumping trash will cause a minimum fine of five hundred U.S. dollars and death is the only punishment for importing drugs like cocaine and killing anyone. These laws has work well that Singapore is one of the safest and cleanest countries in the world now.  Thus,  a reform in this area of the system is necessary and inevitable in order to improve American society which is unsafe and fill with crimes. 

    No criminal justice system is perfect and designed to last forever.  As the crime rate in the cities in this nation is rising at a steady rate, it proves that the original criminal justice system is already out of the date and requires change. The government should first evaluate the jury system carefully ,and then reform it. Second, the justice branch should speed up all the process in order to meet the needs and on the other hand save tax payer's money. Last but not least, we should tighten the existing law in order to keep the serious criminals locked away from the society, and prevent people from committing crimes. Nevertheless, for  the U.S. criminal system which has been established for a while, a major modification and reform is needed eagerly in order to improve the society and protect the innocents.
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\U S Foreign Policy and Jewish Immigration.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

	PART  I   HISTORICAL  REVIEW  AND  ANALYSIS

	In reviewing the events which gave rise to the U.S.'s foreign policy toward
Jewish refugees, we must identify the relevant factors upon which such decisions
were made.  Factors including the U.S. government's policy mechanisms, it's
bureaucracy and public opinion, coupled with the narrow domestic political
mindedness of President Roosevelt, lead us to ask;  Why was the American
government apathetic to the point of culpability, and isolationist to the point of
irresponsibility, with respect to the systematic persecution and annihilation of the
Jewish people of Europe during the period between 1938-1945?
	Throughout the years of 1933-1939, led by Neville Chamberlain and the
British, the United States was pursuing a policy of appeasement toward Hitler. 
They had tolerated his military build-up and occupation of the Rhineland, both
violations of the Treaty of Versailles, as well as the annexing of Austria and the
take-over of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.  Hitler realized early on in his
expansionist campaign that Western leaders were too busy dealing with their own
domestic problems to pose any real opposition.  In the United States, Americans
were wrestling with the ravages of the Great Depression.  With the lingering
memory of the more than 300,000 U.S. troops either killed or injured in World
War I, isolationism was the dominant sentiment in most political circles. 
Americans were not going to be "dragged" into another war by the British.  The
Depression had bred increased xenophobia and anti-Semitism, and with upward of
30% unemployment in some industrial areas1, many Americans wanted to see
immigration halted completely.  It was in this context that the democratic world,
led by the United States, was faced with a refugee problem that it was morally
bound to deal with.  The question then became; what would they do?  
		Persecution of the Jews in Germany began officially on  April 1st
1933.  Hitler had come to power a few weeks earlier and he immediately began the
plan, as outlined in his book Mein Kampf, to eliminate "the eternal mushroom of
humanity - Jews".2  German Jews were stripped of their citizenship by the
Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935 and had their businesses and stockholdings seized
in 1938.  Civil servants, newspaper editors, soldiers and members of the judiciary
were dismissed from their positions, while lawyers and physicians were forbidden
to practice.  Anti-Jewish violence peaked on 9 November 1938, known as the
"Night of the Broken Glass" or Kristallnacht, when over 1000 synagogues were
burned.  Jewish schools, hospitals, books, cemeteries and homes were  also
destroyed3.
	The mistreatment of non-Aryans in Germany was common knowledge in
the U.S. in 1938.  After the anschluss, the flow of refugees exceeded the
capabilities of both the Nansen Office and the Autonomous Office of High
Commissioner for Refugees.  The commission had been formed in response to the
anti-Jewish persecution and had but the "tacit endorsement of the United States". 
In light of the League's incapability, President Roosevelt and then Secretary of
State Cordell Hull, invited the representatives of more than 30 nations and 39
private organizations to an international conference at Evian, to discuss the refugee
problem.  Myron C. Taylor, past chairman of U.S. Steel Corporation, was named
the chairman of the American delegation.  In the weeks before the conference,
Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, in London, felt the growing concern in the British
Foreign Office as to the American position on the conference and the refugee
question in general.  He cabled the U.S. State Department expressing his concern,
and received an evasive reply from Secretary Hull.  Hull explained that it was the
French, that had assumed control of the planning of the conference and that he
would be advised of their position "in the near future".  No reply ever came and on
the eve of the conference the British were unaware of U.S. refugee policy4, a
practice that would recur throughout the refugee crisis.  Assistant Secretary of
State George Messersmith, in briefing the President's Advisory Committee on
Political Refugees (PACPR) before Evian, expressed the U.S. desire to "create
some permanent apparatus to deal with the refugee problem," but they,
"envisioned no plan of official assistance to refugees."5  Taylor expressed this
policy in his opening speech at Evian in saying that the U.S. would accept 27,000
refugees as outlined in the German and Austrian quotas, no more.  The only
concrete achievement of the conference was the creation of the Intergovernmental
Committee on Refugees (IGCR), which was to be a voluntary organization, totally
dependent on private funding.  Furthermore, no member of the IGCR would be
expected to change immigration policies and quotas.  The obvious lack of intended
action was summed up in the final communiqu� of the conference, "The
governments of the countries of refuge and settlement should not assume any
obligations for the financing of involuntary emigration."6 The conference
concluded and Taylor, weary of the fact that nothing had been accomplished in the
week at Evian, cabled the State Department warning that if the United States does
not move to act, "other countries of settlement will claim that they are not
obligated to commit themselves."7  Secretary Hull cabled back reminding Taylor
of the rigid immigration laws and the restrictionist sentiment in Congress.  The
unwillingness of the U.S. to set the example, allowed for the attending nations to
keep their borders closed, hiding behind domestic unemployment, anti-Semitism
and, American apathy.
		So, before war broke out in September 1939, during that same
summer, President Roosevelt called for the deactivation of the IGCR, the now
600,000 refugees in need of aid were nowhere closer to asylum than they were at
its creation.  The U.S. government had successfully maintained a policy of
restrictionism and isolationism.  But the refugee problem would take a nasty turn,
presenting them with a more serious moral headache.
	Three months after the conference at Evian the worst purging of German
Jewry yet took place in what came to be known as Kristallnacht.  Thirty thousand
Jews were arrested and anti-Jewish violence peaked.  In protest, President
Roosevelt ordered the American ambassador, Hugh Wilson, to return to
Washington, but refused to impose diplomatic or economic sanctions on the Nazi
government8.  Roosevelt publicly denounced Nazi brutality, saying that he could
scarcely believe the Nazi barbarism.  But when asked about getting masses of Jews
out of Germany, he replied, "The time is not ripe for that," and when questioned
further about the possibility of relaxing immigration restrictions, he responded,
"That is not in contemplation, we have the quota system."9  This policy of rhetoric
had been predominant in the U.S. approach to the refugees and would continue
well into the war.  Even Hitler commented with bitter sarcasm regarding Western
hypocrisy, "It is a shameful example to observe today how the entire democratic
world dissolves in tears of pity, but then in spite of its obvious duty to help, closes
its heart to the poor, tortured people."10  Prompted by the U.S., the international
committee refused to even acknowledge publicly that the main refugee problem,
was a Jewish one.
	The organized mass slaughter began with the German invasion of the Soviet
Union in June 1941, this was accomplished through the use of mobile
extermination units that followed behind the advancing Nazi army11.  Scholars on
the subject have questioned when exactly, the Western world knew about the
atrocities occurring in Europe. From July 1941 until the end of 1942, U.S.
intelligence operations in Europe were only beginning to get underway.  However
British intelligence was the focal point of all news coming out of Occupied
Europe.  Early reports from aerial reconnaissance, returning soldiers, escaping
citizens, prisoners of war, neutrals, as well as reports from Polish, Dutch, French
and Czech intelligent services, all reported 'unofficial stories' - the State
Department viewed them as rumors - about Nazi plans of extermination12.  In May
1942, a report was transmitted to London from the Jewish Socialist Party in Poland
warning that the Germans had "embarked on the physical extermination of the
Jewish population on Polish soil.13"  European news, such as the Swedish
Socialdemokraten, published a report in the Fall of 1941 about the killing of Jews,
"There was no doubt that this was a case of premeditated mass murder."14 
Newspapers in Western Europe and the United States picked up on the reports
later.  The London Daily Telegraph published an article on June 30 headlined,
"More Than 1 Million Jews Killed in Europe."15  The New York Times covered
the story that same day, skeptically putting it in the middle of the paper.16 
Reports, although filing into the United States at an accelerated rate, were still
considered unconfirmed.  
	In November 1943, the Gillette-Rogers resolution was introduced in the
Senate and in the House.  The resolution called for "the creation by the President
of a commission of diplomatic, economic, and military experts to formulate and
effectuate a plan of action to save the surviving Jewish people from extinction..."17 
SRes. 203 was supported unanimously, but in the House H.R. 352 faced the
opposition of Breckinridge Long.  In his testimony, he pointed out that with "every
legitimate thing" already being done, any more action by Congress would "be
construed as a repudiation of the acts of the Executive branch."18  Very impressed
by his words, the Committee on Foreign Affairs voted down the Gillette-Rogers
Bill on 26 December 1943.	
	
PART II ACTORS, GOALS AND POLICY DECISIONS

	During the months leading up to the Bermuda Conference of April 1943,
the State Department vetoed the idea of temporary harboring of refugees in the
U.S., based on security reasons and the critical food shortage.  They ruled out
rescue operations because that would require diversion from the war effort.  In
addition they refused to use their abundant political influence to pressure Britain
into loosening immigration to Palestine.  At Bermuda, the U.S. and Britain
reiterated the fact that they were not willing to change quotas or immigration and
stressed that no diversion from the war effort should be employed for the refugees. 
The only positive outcome of the conference was the revival of the IGC, whose
mandate gave relief to those already rescued but did not participate in rescuing. 
The New York Times writing on the conference noted, "Not only were ways and
means to save the remaining Jews in Europe not devised, but their problem was
not even touched upon, put on the agenda or discussed."19  Three million people
had already perished.  
	It was already quite obvious that the American government didn't want to
help, and it was beginning to appear as if there were certain people in key places
who didn't want other nations to help either.  However, in 1944, the tide of
American foreign policy was going to shift.  The changes were precipitated by a
report submitted to the President by the Secretary of  Treasury, Henry Morgenthau
Jr., dated  January 16th 1994, entitled "A Personal Report to the President".  The
report outlined the State Department's repression of news of the Final Solution in
cable No. 354, its policy of apathy, and recommended that all rescue operations be
removed from its hands.  The report and the recommendations formulated had the
desired effect both because it was 'political dynamite' and because 1944 was an
election year20.  The report consequently spurred a chain of events in favor of
cooperation toward rescue, no matter how limited.  On  January 22nd 1944,
Executive Order 9417 established the War Refugee Board.  Morgenthau, Hull and
Henry Stimson were to head the WRB, and John Pehle, a member of Morgenthau's
Treasury staff, was named Director.  Agents were installed in Ankara, Istanbul,
Lisbon and North Africa, funding, negotiating and coordinating relief programs. 
The WRB sent threats of punishment to Axis nations in an effort to deter them
from collaborating with the Nazis in the deportation of Jews.21  
		The State Department, a major actor in the policy making process,
although removed from the issue, continued to subtly obstruct the workings of the
WRB.  The board requested that a message be transmitted via Switzerland to Latin
America countries, requesting them to validate fraudulent visas for Jews interned
in a German camp at Vittel, France.  Internal confusion caused the transmission to
be delayed and in the interim 250 people were sent to Auschwitz.22  After
eyewitness accounts and drawings of Auschwitz were made available to the WRB
in June 1944, they suggested the bombing of the gas chambers or the rail lines
leading to it.  Assistant Secretary of the Army, John J. McCloy said that the
bombing would be of "doubtful efficiency"23 and would require a "diversion of
considerable air support".24  With respect to the diversion of air support between
July and November 1944, the American 15th AF division, stationed in Italy,
carried out over 2,800 bomber attacks on Blechhammer, the synthetic oil and
rubber works factory not 5 miles from the gas chambers.  The chambers were
never bombed.  Later, parts of Auschwitz as well as pursuant documents to the
camps atrocities would be destroyed -  but by the Nazi's, in an attempt to hide the
evidence from the world.  The U.S. could not have rescued people from German
occupied countries, but they could have redefined the status of those being held in
camps to prisoners of war.  This would have made them subjects of international
law, legally binding the International Red Cross to protect them.  This wasn't done
either.25
		It is fairly easy to look back on history and comment on what could
have been done, but the reality in this particular case is that while many options
were of "doubtful efficiency", many others were quite viable.  Up to 1944, with
the creation of the WRB, and to a lesser degree afterward, the U.S. rejected
proposals of rescue attempts through neutrals, Axis allies, North African ports,
diplomatic means, threats, incentives and the use of physical force.  The question
is why were these decisions made?   Scholars and politicians have attributed U.S.
policy to discrepancies between early reports, the incredibility of the horror
stories, the desire not to antagonize the Germans into escalating the level of terror
to one the allies couldn't match and the U.S. goal to end the war achieving "rescue
through victory."26  This paper contends that although all of these did influence
American immigration policy, domestic factors, such as public opinion, the U.S.
bureaucratic process and the position and influence of certain key actors had the
most profound effects on why these decisions were made. 
		A more realistic explanation of U.S. policy then would be the
process of bureaucratic decision making itself, and not the morality of the
individual decision makers.  From this notion stems two very important influences. 
Within the bureaucracy, deviation from the accepted norms was viewed with
disdain.  Bureaucrats who questioned the morality of a given policy also had their
loyalty questioned.  So a bureaucrat wanting to look good in the eyes of his
superior, was better off going with the flow.  Secondly, one could argue a most
influential factor was the sheer size of the foreign policy making machine. 
Responsibility, as it is today, was diffused throughout dozens of agencies and
thousands of individuals so that blame is very difficult to pin on any one
individual.  When everyone is responsible, no one is.  The bureaucrat will refer
back to the phrase that was carried all the way to the Nuremberg Trials and echoed
in Adolf Eichmann's trial:  'I was doing my job' or 'I was following orders'.  Thus
passing the buck onto his superior and on up through the hierarchy of power. 
Eventually, though, whether willingly or unwillingly, somebody must bear the
brunt for those who covered their faces and blindly followed orders.  
		Restrictionism was a sentiment widely embraced in American
politics and flowed from many sources.  Jobs were scarce and the unemployed
feared immigrants who would be willing to work for lower wages.  This unrealistic
fear would carry into the following decades.  Somewhat ironically, it was this fear
which motivated many Germans into scapegoating not only immigrants, but actual
German citizens, taking the blame for everything from unemployment to inflation. 
Far right neo-Nazi groups were gaining momentum as the depression had bred
intergroup racial tension.  A January 3rd 1939 report, from the House Committee
on Un-American activities reported the existence of 135 organization that were
regarded as fascist.  The German-American Bund was receiving program direction
and funding directly from the Nazi ministry of propaganda and was trying to
frustrate legislation which it deemed prejudicial to the Fatherland (i.e. the
harboring of German refugees).  The political climate was restrictionist to the
point that decision makers, both Jewish and not, favoring rescue felt that others
would question their patriotism and loyalty to the U.S..  Charges of dual loyalty
would surface wherever efforts were made to utilize American resources, to aid
the refugees.27    		
	All of the above mentioned factors allowed the U.S. to adopt the easier
refugee policy rather than the morally correct one.  The man who individually had
the most power to change and direct U.S. policy was President Roosevelt.  The
American Jewish population adored F.D.R. and even after several years of rhetoric
without action, Jewish support for the president had not wavered.  It might partly
have been because of this admiration that while nothing was being done, American
Jews believed that the President wanted to help them.  It is quite probable that
Roosevelt, being the humanitarian that he was, did want to see Nazi 'barbarism'
stopped, but siding with the Jews bore a political price he was not willing to pay. 
With critics having labeled his New Deal a "Jew Deal", with Congress and more
than two-thirds of the population against the admission of refugees, and with his
popular support at an all-time low, to have pushed for the refuge issue would have
meant political suicide.  His perception of the refugees in a narrow domestic
political context made self-justification of his policies much easier.  When
weighing the pros and cons in light of domestic factors, apathy was the only
logical answer.  In this context, even Roosevelt's Jewish advisors advised against
the creation of a "Jewish Problem".  He proceeded to pursue a policy which earned
him points at home while risking very little, and substituted symbolic reassurance
for commitment.28  Role theory predicts that the actor, when given the choice
between two camps, will chose the side which promises the least threats. 
Roosevelt wanted to avoid confrontation with the WASP elite who were making a
lot of isolationist and restrictionist noise.  The American Jewish community,
which wanted to avoid stirring up anti-Semitism and allegations of dual-loyalty,
while doing what it could, tried hard not to 'rock the boat'.29  Again, Roosevelt
acted quite predictably.  In order to avoid taking the criticism for his own inaction,
he passed the responsibility onto Breckinridge Long and the State Department.
	Some researchers have claimed that Roosevelt didn't think that the war was
really about the Jewish Question, and it was therefore very low on his list of
priorities.  But others contend that U.S. hesitance to accept the Nazi priority on the
Jewish question stemmed form the desire to avoid turning the war into one to save
the Jews.  The acceptance of such a fact, could have interfered with the full
mobilization of U.S. forces.30  It was no secret, though, that the Nazis viewed the
Jewish Question as central in their ideological quest toward world domination.  As
early as February 1939, this was brought to the President's attention by George
Rublee at the White House.  This occurred during negotiations by Rublee for the
emigration of 150,000 Jews from Germany.  The President asked why only Jews,
so Rublee explained  to him that "Berlin only recognized a Jewish problem and
refused to negotiate on anything else."31  Further proof that Roosevelt knew was
the fact that in August of 1942, in a White House press conference, he said, "The
communication which I have just received...gives rise to the fear that... the
barbaric and unrelenting character of the [Nazis]...may lead to the extermination of
a certain population."32

	PART  III   DISCUSSION  AND  CONCLUSION

	Another theory defends Roosevelt, claiming that he didn't understand the
meaning of Auschwitz.  Oliver Wendell Holmes described Roosevelt as
"possessing a third-rate intellect but a first-rate temperament."33  Although it did
not require an analytical genius to put together the rumors, or the fact that the
railways headed to Auschwitz, from directions all over Europe.  The kilometers of
enclosed land and the disappearing Jews, is what Lacquer calls, "the blindness of
perception: the horrific paradox of 'knowing' and still not being 'aware'."34  He
claims that to a certain extent rejection of such information is a normal
psychological mechanism.  Images of factories producing soap, glue, lubricants
and artificial fertilizers from corpses, gas chambers packed with naked, emaciated
people forced to hold their children above their heads as to maximize space, and
sadistic medical experiments using humans as guinea pigs, are notions which the
human mind cannot immediately perceive or process,  even when actually
confronted with it.  W.A. Wisser't Hooft, a Protestant theologian and First
Secretary of the World Council of Churches, said "People could find no place in
their consciousness for such an unimaginable horror...they did not have the
imagination together with the courage to face it.  It is possible to live in a twilight
between knowing and not knowing."35  Furthermore, the events were taking place
in towns and cities which F.D.R., let alone the average American, had never heard
of before, confounding the reality of the situation making it more difficult to
comprehend.  Another factor supporting this view is that the casualty numbers
reported in the newspapers were in the order of hundreds of thousands or millions,
numbers extremely difficult for people to relate to.  Joseph Stalin said that, "One
death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic", and truth of his words lies in
the fact that greater than a certain magnitude, numbers lose all meaning.  The
shortcoming of this theory lies in the fact that had there been a will, collectively,
after extensively reviewing the reports, even with a minimal understanding, there
could have been a way.  Since, for the most part, no 'way' was devised, one can
infer that the 'will' was nonexistent.
	Breckinridge Long, in the higher echelons of power, stated U.S.
immigration policy when he said, "We can delay and effectively stop for a
temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into United States. 
We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way
and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone
the granting of visas."36  In this sense, U.S. policy toward refugees and immigrants
did succeed, at least in theory.  That is to say, they succeeded in not allowing more
immigrants and effectively stalling any rescue attempts even before they could be
implemented.  However, the decisions taken by the actors involved would prove
rather unsuccessful, within the realm of public opinion.  In fact, as early as 1943,
the U.S. would divert it's power and attention away from rescue attempts vis a vis
their immigration policy, toward damage control.
	On December 17th 1942, for the first time since the beginning of the war,
11 allied governments and DeGaulle's Free France published a common
declaration announcing Hitler's intention to exterminate the Jews.  U.S. minister to
Switzerland,  Leland Harrison, had met with Dr. Reigner and had been sending
reports to the State Department, which was trying to formulate a picture of what
the situation was in occupied Europe.  On February 10th 1943, Harrision
forwarded another message on The Final Solution and received cable no. 35437
from Breckenridge Long, then head of the War Special Problems Division,
instructing him to stop forwarding reports of mass murder, as they could have
"embarrassing" repercussions in the United States.38   Without the proper facts,
any type of action would be greatly impeded; The State Department was cutting of
it's information at the source.  Thus, damage control had already begun, via the
State Departments blissful ignorance, in efforts to halt negative publicity and
World condemnation.
	Patriotic organizations such as the Crusaders, Sentinels of the Republic and
the American Liberty League preached 100% Americanism.  While the more
conservative Allied Patriotic Societies, Junior Order of American Merchants,
American Medical Association, BPOE and Chamber of Commerce, with a
combined membership of 5 million, bombarded Congress with resolutions and
recommendations to halt immigration completely.  Nativism, patriotism,
xenophobia and anti-Semitism all affected U.S. attitudes toward refugees.  An
Elmo Roper poll of 1938-39 showed that although 95% of Americans polled
disapproved of the existing Nazi regime, only 8.7% favored the immigration of
more European refugees, while 83% were adamantly against.39  The political
climate was restrictionist to the point that decision makers, both Jewish and not,
favoring rescue felt that others would question their patriotism and loyalty to the
U.S..  Charges of dual loyalty would surface wherever efforts were made to utilize
American resources to aid the refugees.  In 1943, after one-third of European Jews
had already been killed, less than half of the Americans polled believed that mass
murder was occurring.  In December 1944, 75% believed that the Nazis were
killing in the concentration camps but estimated the severity at 100,000 deaths or
less.  Only by May 1945 could 85% acknowledge that mass murder had
occurred.40   Furthermore, American Jewish leaders were unable to unify
themselves, limiting them in their ability to maximize pressure on the government
and to create adequate political incentive.
	In retrospect it is evident that the decisions made, carried the "word" of the
American people.  They issued the orders, whether that person was the President,
the House of Representatives, the Senate, the State Department, interest groups or
an individual citizen, the American people had spoke.  It is unfortunate but not
surprising, that the only year during which immigration of the entire German and
Austrian quotas was permitted was 1939.  From 1939-1944, of a potential 900,000
immigrants outlined in the already resrictionist quotas, less than 125,000 Jews
were accepted, while more than two thirds of the positions went unfilled.41 
However, the voice of pressure groups, important bureaucrats, political leaders, the
decision making machine and the American people was heard and mirrored by the
presidents actions.  He can be held responsible for not having the political courage
or the moral convictions to risk his political career to aid the Jews of Europe, but
he can not be blamed for acting on the will of his own nation.  This is in effect his
job: Government of the people, by the people, for the people.  It's ironic that
politicians often choose a policy based on gains and losses of support, and while
they do this for selfish reasons, they end up representing the majority view.  The
above mentioned domestic factors Roosevelt had to contend with, played a major
and even laid the foundation for the decisions made.  There were those who
advocated rescue, but they could not penetrate the wall of science.  Had the
majority of the population wanted to open the doors to Jews fleeing persecution,
the Congressmen would have wanted to, as would have the President.
	Inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty are the words, " Send
these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.  I lift my lamp beside the golden door,".  It
is for history to judge why a country, made up entirely of immigrants and
promising freedom and opportunity to the home less of the world, closed "the
golden door" in this momentous time of need.  Paradoxically, the events in
Germany which lead to the closing of the gates, are also for history to judge.

	















				Bibliography

1. Bauer,Yehuda "When Did the Know?" Bystanders to the Holocaust (The Nazi
Holocaust: v. 8) (Westport: Meckler Corporation, 1989), 

2. Berenbaum,Michael The World Must Know (Toronto: Little, Brown and
Company, 1993), 

3. Fein,Helen Accounting for Genocide (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.,
1979), 

4. Feingold,Henry L.  The Politics of Rescue (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
University Press, 1970), 

5. ---,"The government Response" in The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy and
Genocide,ed. San Jose Conferences on the Holocaust. New York: Kraus
International Publications,1980.

6. ---,"Who shall Bear the Guilt for the Holocaust: The Human Dilemma" in
bystan 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Unheard Voices Saskatchewan Farmers in Canadas Political Ar.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Saskatchewan farmers have been continually ignored in Canada's institutional
landscape.  Never has the situation been more evident as it is with the possibility of
Quebec separation.  The Canadian governments ignorance of farmers' needs has caused a
cynical view of the political process in the eyes of farmers.  One of the major sources of
the cynicism is that Canadian federal institutions are developed so that most political of the
clout is developed from the east.  The eastern domination of the House of Commons, and
indirectly the Senate, means that Saskatchewan wheat farmers do not have a strong voice
in Canadian political decisions.  But what does the Saskatchewan lack of representation in
Canada's political institutions in Ottawa mean?  What can Saskatchewan wheat farmers do
to rectify the situation? And, following a Quebec separation what can wheat farmers do to
uphold their livelihood?  The intent of this report is to focus on the actions Saskatchewan
wheat farmers can take to ensure their success in the future.  A focus on the recent
political policy decisions by the federal government, the need for intrastate institutional
reform, and effects of a possible Quebec separation will all be analyzed.
	The current institutional landscape of Canada has not acted favorably for
Saskatchewan wheat farmers.  The development of the institutions, ie. the House of
Commons and the Senate, and the policies that have developed from these institutions
have continually ignored the needs of prairie farmers, emphasizing the cynicism
Saskatchewan wheat farmers have towards the political process.  The antipathy towards
the political institutions has  developed because of recent cost-cutting initiatives and
deregulatory procedures by the government and by mis-representation of farmers' needs in
government today.  The failure of Saskatchewan wheat farmers to express their needs in
the Canadian political arena successfully, when compared to other constituencies, is based
on the fact that Saskatchewan's representation in Canada's political institutions is weak. 
The result is the development of policies contrary to what would be accepted by farmers.
	Saskatchewan wheat farmers, in accordance with most constituencies in the west,
have desired a institutional change to the Upper House in Canada.  In 1867, when the
institutions were developed, the goal was to develop two different political "bodies".  One,
the House of Commons, would represent the Canadian people by means of elected
representatives in a representation by population scenario.  The second, the Senate, would
be a source of "sober second thought."  In its creation the senate was intended to protect
the ideals of individual regions.  However, to the chagrin of Saskatchewan wheat farmers,
the intended regional focus of the senate never developed and, hence, the senate has been
an institution that has been the focus of a lot of antipathy from the West.  The drive for
modifications to the Senate has been pressed by Saskatchewan wheat farmers in an
attempt to uphold their livelihood in a nation in which they're ignored.  
	The development of intrastate federalism in the senate is typically the most desired
institutional change.  Intrastate federalism aids in bringing regional representation to the
national political arena.  The desire for regional representation in the Senate is held in high
demand by Saskatchewan wheat farmers.  The most prominent suggestion is for a Triple E
senate (equal, effective, and elected) instead of the current form of the Upper House. 
Support for a Triple E senate is virtually guaranteed by Saskatchewan wheat farmer,
because their views would have better representation in a central political institution which
historically has ignored their needs.  The reasoning behind the lack of regionalism in the
Canadian senate is based on two important factors.  "First, Canadian senators were not
selected by provincial legislatures or governments, but rather were appointed by the
federal government... Secondly, Canadians opted for equal representation by region rather
than equal representation by province."  Thus, the senate's actions are extremely similar
to the actions of the House of Commons.  
	To answer the question of what Saskatchewan wheat farmers need to do to uphold
their livelihood concentrates on the necessity for a senate reform based on intrastate
federalism.  The hope is that by doing so Saskatchewan farmers would have a strong voice
in the national political arena.  However, modifying the senate is an extremely arduous
task.  Senate reform would most likely have to follow the current amending formula of the
seven-fifty rule.  The seven-fifty rule declares that any amendments made to the
constitution have the support of two-thirds of the provincial legislatures (seven, in the
current Confederation) containing fifty percent of the population agreeing to the
modification.  The modifications would be difficult to achieve because the politicians in
the east, who currently hold a lot of the clout in the current landscape, would be opposed
to any changes that would see them lose power.  Upon Quebec separation senate reform
would be even more difficult to achieve.  Without Quebec, Ontario currently has 49.8% of
the remaining population.  According to Statistics Canada demographics from July 1st,
1996.  So, using  the current amending formula without Quebec in confederation , the
likelihood of Saskatchewan farmers having a voice in central political institutions becomes
even less likely as modifications to the institutions would only be possible if all the
provinces, besides Ontario, were in favor of the change.
	Without provincial representation in a central institution the needs of
Saskatchewan wheat farmers will be continually ignored as the provinces with the largest
population continue to develop policies to achieve their own goals.  One suggestion has
been modification to the House of Commons, however, this seems even more unlikely
then reform to the Upper House.  The goal of the senate in its creation, as was noted
earlier, was to provide "sober second thought."  Regional leaders can argue that the senate
does not fulfill the goals it was created to attain, and hopefully modify the senate to attain
the regional needs they desire.  The House of Commons intent was always to be an elected
body that was selected through representation by population and, thus, modifications to
the House of Commons are less likely then changes to the Senate because the intentions of
the House of Commons have been achieved.
	The fact that the institutional landscape in Canada currently favors the east can be
seen in three recent policy initiatives by the federal government.  The policy changes have
not been beneficial to farmers in Saskatchewan, and continue to be focused on what will
help the east develop.  The policy changes have involved 1) the elimination of the
monopoly the Canadian Wheat Board had; 2) deregulatory initiatives involving the
creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); and, 3) a cost-cutting
policy initiative that saw the elimination of the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement.  Each policy
change has caused deep cuts at the roots  of Saskatchewan wheat farmers.  A focus on the
policy changes shows that the policies have gained some support in other provinces,
namely Alberta, but the policies have considerably hurt Saskatchewan farmers.
	Making modifications to price-support systems, such as the Canadian Wheat
Board (CWB), is not a pragmatic solution in the minds of Saskatchewan wheat farmers. 
Price-support systems have always been supported by Saskatchewan wheat farmers but
recently Alberta wheat farmers have complained that the CWB is not effective and elected
for a free-market system.  Currently, the CWB operates under a pooled-payment system in
which, "Farmer's are currently paid an average price based on the board's sales profits." 
The strength of the CWB in Saskatchewan was firmly developed in the CWB's ability to
rescue farming life during the Depression of the 1930's.  It is for that reason that many
Saskatchewan wheat farmers are skeptical of losing the CWB and the possibility of
returning to a financially insecure market, as was prominent in the 1930's.
	For any change to be made by the federal government there has to be support for
the change in some part of the country.  In the case of developing a free-market system
most of the support came from Alberta wheat farmers.  Alberta wheat farmers support a
free market system because of the recent high prices which are not reflected in the CWB,
as it sets a moderate price so that it can support farmers in times of trouble.  Desiring to
take advantage of the high prices Alberta wheat farmers seemingly ignore the problems
that a free-market system brings with it, especially in the fluctuating market that would
likely develop following Quebec separation.  Both the price-support and free-market
systems have there pro's and con's and perhaps only time will tell which system is more
effective.  Alberta farmers, however, were not affected by the Depression as much as
Saskatchewan farmers which is much of the reasoning behind the support for the CWB.
	The development of Free Trade has been another deregulatory concept that has
been detrimental to Saskatchewan wheat farmers.  The passing of the Canada-United
States Trade Agreement (CUSTA), which has since developed into the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), has caused the agricultural economy to drop
considerably.  The National Farmers Union 1991 statement assists in highlighting the
effects that free trade has had on farmers.  For example, milling wheat for consumption
was $7.00 per bushel before the introduction of CUSTA and almost instantly the price
dropped to $3.75 per bushel.  The current price is now $3.10 per bushel.  The net loss
forced unwillingly on the prairie wheat farmers was $300 million dollars.  The loss of
which is certain to have a detrimental effect on the lifestyle and progress of Saskatchewan
wheat farmers.  
	With the continuing focus of the east towards free trade and the loss of power held
by the CWB, the international market becomes very important.   A focus on the
international market is extremely important as it highlights the effects of Saskatchewan
farmers as the market proceeds in its current direction.  The competition that is waged
between the United States, European Community, and Canada causes the price of wheat
to drop due to the elasticity of wheat on the world market.  Wheat is an elastic
commodity, especially with the inception of free-trade, because of the vast number of
available substitutes.  What the elasticity of wheat means to Saskatchewan farmers is that
any price changes will have a serious effect on the quantity of goods bought by
consumers.  With even a modest price increase consumers will simply look elsewhere for
wheat, an option available to them because of Free Trade.  The result is a drop in prices as
the competition looks for means to attract the masses towards their product. 
Unfortunately for farmers the low prices mean low profits, and a deprivation of their
livelihood.  Quebec separation would develop yet another arena of competition from
Quebec farmers, despite their small numbers.  The argument that Canadian farmers would
be successful in a free-market system where they can compete with international
competitors is false.  The elasticity of wheat means that, even if Canadian farmers were to
become the largest wheat suppliers in the world, they would do so only with low prices
and insignificant advantages to Saskatchewan wheat farmers.
	One recent federal cost-recovery initiative involved the abolition of the Crow's
Nest Pass Agreement.  The agreement was arranged in 1898 when the Canadian Pacific
Railway was granted "a $3.3 million subsidy to build a railway over the Crowsnest
pass...In return, the CPR agreed to reduce in perpetuity its eastbound freight rates on
grain."  In practice, the Crow, as it was commonly referred too, protected wheat farmers
from outlandish high transportation costs that the CPR previously used in the prairies to
cover its expensive maintenance costs in the Rocky Mountains and Lake Superior areas of
Canada.  With the elimination of the Crow on August 1st, 1996 a modest increase in the
cost of transportation costs placed on farmers to $15 a tonne was seen.  "To soften this
blow, the federal government [shelled] out $1.6 billion in land payments to farmers and
[spent] $300 million improving the transportation system."  Unfortunately for farmers,
the one-time support of the federal government after the crow will not prevent continuing
transportation prices in the future.  With the death of the Crow, small railways and grain
elevators will shut down in favor of larger and more centralized means of collecting and
preparing grain for transport meaning that small-scale farmers will have to travel farther
with their wheat to get it off to market.  Additionally, as the quasi free-market develops,
an expectation for lower wheat prices gives the small-scale farmers another slap-in-the-
face.  One author predicts, "...hundreds of miles of railway track will be abandoned, scores
of elevators close, large swathes of farmland will be returned to native grasses and dozens
of small communities will die as development shifts to larger regional centers."
	The abolition of the Crow has gained a small amount of support from farmers in
Alberta.  The reason being that the transportation costs will not affect the farmers as bad
as they will in Saskatchewan and the development of  large regional centers, already
present in Alberta, will bring new initiatives and diversity.  In the meantime, the
Saskatchewan wheat farmers have been forced to sacrifice their lifestyle to survive in a
new economic agenda pushed by the bureaucrats in the east and by an open market
competition to the south.  Survival for the common farmer in Saskatchewan has become
increasingly more difficult as the federal government continues on its policy changes based
on the idea that bigger is better, to the demise of the common farmer.
	One of the alleviating factors during the abolition of the crow was the possibility of
Saskatchewan wheat farmers to use the St. Lawrence Seaway as a means of finding lower
costs to farmers.  However, with the possible separation of Quebec, the use of the St.
Lawrence Seaway is unknown.  Depending on the agreements made by the Quebec and
Canadian governments following separation the price of transportation may go up even
further as Saskatchewan wheat farmers would lose a possible location to ship their grain. 
This would assuredly cause an influx of prices in transportation costs to farmers as the
Canadian Pacific Railways would undoubtedly continue its trend of charging high prices to
prairie farmers transporting their goods to the west, to combat the expenses of getting
through the treacherous Rocky Mountains.
	Exports are a concern to Saskatchewan farmers on a whole, but more so to those
involved in the egg, poultry, and dairy aspects of agriculture.  Egg, poultry, and dairy are
produced under a Supply/Management organization.  In other words, there is a strict
management of goods to ensure that farmers produce only what will satisfy domestic
needs.  When the system works efficiently no surpluses or shortages of egg, poultry, and
dairy are created in Canada.  If Quebec were to separate, especially with Quebec being a
primary dairy producer in Canada, a number of initiatives would need to be developed to
ensure that there is neither a shortage or surplus of goods.  The repercussions of this
would involve the need for farmers in Saskatchewan to focus more on dairy production,
so that the needs of the nation are matched.  Also, egg and poultry producers in
Saskatchewan may be down-scaled or forced to close as the goods they produce would no
longer be needed by the rest of the country.  To prevent any developing problems it is
imperative that the Saskatchewan farmers have some voice in the political discussion
following a Quebec separation.  Theoretically, we could simply import from Quebec after
separation is made to ensure that the demand of Canadians are met by Quebec supply. 
However, the solution is not an easy one because the cost of dealing with Quebec would
likely be a high one due to an increase in transaction costs.  Transaction costs are, "the
costs arising from finding a trading partner, negotiating an agreement about the price and
other aspects of the exchange, and of ensuring that the terms of the agreement are
fulfilled."  Simply put there would be an influx in the transaction costs between Quebec
and Canada as the trading agreement is modified.  Again Saskatchewan farmers, upon
Quebec separation, are faced with yet another hurdle to clear in their attempts to uphold
their lifestyle.
	In sum, the political policy development that has been developed in the East has
seriously effected Saskatchewan wheat farmers.  They have lost a means for protection
from a fluctuating market because of modifications to the price-support structure of the
CWB, which could be extremely detrimental with the development of a new country and
unstable economy.  The international competition, witnessed through the eastern
politicians focus for free trade, has caused the price of grain to drop considerably because
of the elasticity of wheat caused by an increase in competition and substitutes.  Finally, the
rising transportation costs, due to the elimination of the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement, has
meant that Saskatchewan wheat farmers spend more money to get their product to a
market which has gotten progressively worse.  Saskatchewan farmers are forced to spend
more money to get their product to a weak market, which could get weaker in a new
developing country due to an unstable economy and the increase in transaction costs.
	The importance of the institutions ability to steer Canada's policy needs to be
analyzed here to ensure its power and importance is understood.  "Institutions are like
channels or grooves along which economic, ideological, cultural and political forces
flow."  Simply, the power of political institutions is not an abstract quality .  With the
branches of government built under the principle of representation by population the
political clout is going to be held where the largest population is held, the east.  The result
is that of small constituencies are weakly represented in national governments which fail to
realize the practical implications their policy developments have to constituencies not
prominent in the east, such as Saskatchewan wheat farmers.  The policies the national
government have developed in recent events have spoiled the agricultural community in
Saskatchewan.  However, a change to the political institutions would cause a change in
the policies that the governments created simply because the "grooves" would cause
policies to follow a different political, cultural, and economic flow.
	Canadian political institutions have a serious effect on policy development in the
nation.  With the power being held almost solely in the east small constituencies, such as
Saskatchewan wheat farmers are forced to concentrate on methods to modify the
institutions so that they serve their needs.  Recent policy developments have had a
detrimental effect on Saskatchewan wheat farmers growth and the only means for farmers
to prevent this in the future is to modify the institutions.  However, Quebec separation
poses a difficult problem for Saskatchewan wheat farmers.  Not only does separation
mean that the economy farmers rely heavily on will drop but it separation also means that
institutional reform is even less likely.  The situation is not futile, and although the road is
a difficult one Saskatchewan wheat farmers have faced adversity before.  It appears that
their unity and strength will be called upon again as they attempt to gain representation in
Canada's national institutions before their lifestyle becomes a concept of the past.

Keith Archer et al., Paramters of Power: Canada's Political Institutions.
Scarborough:Nelson Canada (1995), pg. 180.
Canadian Dimensions- Population and average growth rates, Canada, the provinces, and
territories."  Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, July 1st, 1996.  Web site:
http://WWW.StatCan.CA/Documents/English/Pgdb/People/Population/demo02a.htm
David Roberts, "Farmers worry report won't bring change," The Globe and Mail (July
11, 1996), A9.
Terry Johnson, "After the Crow, new hope in the country," Alberta Report (August
21st, 1995), 15.
Richard Gwyn, "End of an Era," Calgary Herald (August 1st, 1995), A5.
Terry Johnson, "After the Crow, new hope in the country," Alberta Report (August
21st, 1995), 15.
Robin Bade et al., Economics: Canada in the Global Enviroment.  Toronto: Addison
Wesley Publishers Ltd. (1991), pg. G-13.
Keith Archer et al., Paramters of Power: Canada's Political Institutions.  Scarborough:
Nelson Canada (1995), pg. 3. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Uniqueness of the US Constitution.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The Uniqueness of the American Constitution 



      We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 



       This document, written more than 200 years ago is still the backbone that allows America to be an example of freedom and righteousness to the rest of the world.  Unlike any other government doctrine, the Constitution has remained an active governing force through the changes of American society.  It allows its citizens the basic freedom of human beings and does not infringe on one's individuality.  In its uniqueness, the Constitution not only gives freedom but also protects its people economically, religiously, politically, and socially. 



        Power is a delicate element and the Constitution is careful in defining where certain powers lie.  One of the novelties about this doctrine is that it does a clever job of dividing certain powers between the state and federal governments.  Monetary units, for example, are issued exclusively by the federal government.  This is not only more convenient for traveling purposes, but also allows for a more 'united' spirit.  People in California can easily view a commercial for a product affiliated with New York without having to translate the cost or watch the television screen scroll down 50 different prices.  The Stock Market functions fairly smooth now, but with an East Texas businessman trying to sell to a novice buyer from Minnesota, things would be complicated and time consuming.  Other examples of powers held only by the federal government are the formation and control of a militia and foreign relations.  If each state had its own army and own foreign policy combined, the idea of being 'united' would be only an idea.  These states would be more like small countries, more like Europe.  With too much power on a state level, a main government could not function, and with too much power in the national government, states would be just boundary lines for the names of places.  The states hold just enough power to keep the federal government from having complete control.  This adds a balance that had no duplicate in any country, which perhaps is what leaves many people dreaming of America. 



        One of the elements people incorporate into the American dream is religious freedom.  The governing forces of this country have no religious or denominational theme.  Instead, the founding fathers made it clear that a government should function according to basic human decency and morale, not religion.  A strict separation of church and government is declared in the Constitution.  This is not to prevent holiness from entering politics, but to keep politics from entering holiness.  Often times in governing bodies, though the motives are pure, the outcome is somewhat crooked.  This is why such a separation is necessary; to keep government from corrupting church.  Another reason is simply to prevent governing bodies from dictating individual beliefs, because America was never meant to be a dictatorship. 



        From the start, Americans, like all groups of people needed an example.  They needed someone not to be a dictator, but a leader.  Due to the division of powers in the federal government today, the threat of dictatorship is almost non-existent.  The President can be overridden by Congress as well as by the Supreme Court.  Congress can likewise be overridden by the President.  There is no branch of government that is allowed more power than another.  This prevents any one body from becoming too powerful or having too much input in national affairs.  This division of power and the fact that Congress is made up of so many individuals gives the general public a more active role in government.  The Constitution states, 'We the People', which is what makes this document and America so unique. 



        Since the people rule themselves, American government cannot infringe on many of the choices one makes.  Due to the Bill of Rights, citizens have the right to say, hear, write, and be anywhere they wish to be.  However, there are limitations in order to protect the peace and general welfare of a community.  For the most part, though, Americans are free.  Starting from disorganized colonies and idle wanderers, this land has underwent major revolutions to become the nesting house for freedom and dreams that it is today. 



        Times in 1787 were extremely different than in 1997.  With the memory of Great Britain's heavy hand so fresh in the minds of early Americans, one can imagine the apprehension and excitement of starting fresh.  The men who wrote the Constitution however, were not starting fresh.  They remembered Britain's fo9llies and learned what to do different.  Each article and each amendment to the Constitution has reasoning behind it, somewhat of a try-fail method of government.  Fortunately for the American citizens and for all who live in the United States, it has worked.  The Constitution is the reason for the American Empire. 
  
  
  
  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\United Nations.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The United Nations is an organization of sovereign nations  not a world government. It provides the machinery to help find solutions to disputes or problems, and to deal with virtually any matter of concern to humanity.<P>
It does not legislate like a national parliament. But in the meeting rooms and corridors of the UN, representatives of almost all countries of the world large and small, rich and poor, with varying political views and social systems have a voice and vote in shaping the policies of the international community. The year 1995 marks the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Organization.<P>
The UN has six main organs, listed below. All are based at UN Headquarters in New York, except the International Court of Justice, which is located at The Hague, Netherlands.<P>
<H3>The General Assembly</H3><P>
The General Assembly, sometimes called the nearest thing to a world parliament, is the main deliberative body. All Member States are represented in it, and each has one vote. Decisions on ordinary matters are taken by simple majority. Important questions require a two-thirds majority.<P>
The Assembly holds its regular sessions from mid-September to mid-December; special or emergency sessions are held when necessary. Even when the Assembly is not in session, its work goes on in special committees and bodies.<P>
The Assembly has the right to discuss and make recommendations on all matters within the scope of the UN Charter. It has no power to compel action by any Government, but its recommendations carry the weight of world opinion. The Assembly also sets policies and determines programmes for the UN Secretariat. It sets goals and directs activities for development, approves the budget of peace-keeping operations and calls for world conferences on major issues. Occupying a central position in the UN,
the Assembly receives reports from other organs, admits new Members, approves the budget and appoints the Secretary-General.<P>
<H3>The Security Council</H3><P>
The UN Charter, an international treaty, obligates States to settle their international disputes by peaceful means. They are to refrain from the threat or use of force against other States, and may bring any dispute before the Security Council. The Security Council is the organ to which the Charter gives primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security. It can be convened at any time, whenever peace is threatened. Member States are obligated to carry out its decisions. The Council has 15 members. Five of these China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States are permanent members. The other 10 are
elected by the Assembly for two-year terms. Decisions require nine votes; except in votes on procedural questions, a decision cannot be taken if there is a negative vote by a permanent member (known as the "veto").<P>
When a threat to international peace is brought before the Council, it usually first asks the parties to reach agreement by peaceful means. The Council may undertake mediation or set forth principles for a settlement. It may request the Secretary-General to investigate and report on a situation. If fighting breaks out, the Council tries to secure a  cease-fire. It may send peace-keeping missions to troubled areas, with the consent of the parties involved, to reduce tension and keep opposing forces apart. It may deploy peace-keepers to prevent the outbreak of conflict. It has the power to enforce its decisions by imposing economic sanctions and by ordering collective military action. The Council also makes recommendations to the Assembly on a candidate for Secretary-General and on the admission of new Members to the UN.<P>
<H3>The Economic and Social Council</H3><P>
Working under the authority of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council coordinates the economic and social work of the UN and related specialized agencies and institutions. The Council has 54 members. It usually holds two organizational and one substantive session each year; the substantive session includes a high-level special meeting, attended by Ministers and other high officials, to discuss major economic and social issues.<P>
The Council recommends and directs activities aimed, for instance, at promoting economic growth of developing countries, administering development projects, promoting the observance of human rights, ending discrimination against minorities, spreading the benefits of science and technology, and fostering world cooperation in areas such as better housing, family planning and crime prevention.<P>
<H3>The Trusteeship Council</H3><P>
The Trusteeship Council was established to ensure that Governments responsible for administering Trust Territories take adequate steps to prepare them for self-government or independence. In 1994, the Security Council terminated the UN Trusteeship Agreement for the last of the original 11 Trusteeships the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau), administered by the United States. The task of the Trusteeship System was thus completed, with all Trust Territories attaining self-government or independence, either as separate States or by joining neighbouring independent countries. The Trusteeship Council, by amending its rules of procedure, will now meet as and where occasion may require.<P>
<H3>The International Court of Justice</H3><P>
The International Court of Justice (also known as the World Court) is the main judicial organ of the UN. It consists of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council. Only countries may be parties in cases brought before the Court. If a country does not wish to take part in a proceeding it does not have to do so (unless required by special treaty provisions), but if it accepts, it is obligated to comply with the
Court's decision.<P>
<H3>The Secretariat</H3><P>
The Secretariat works for all the other organs of the UN and administers their programmes. Made up of a staff working at Headquarters and all over the world, it carries out the day-to-day work of the UN. At its head is the Secretary-General. Staff members are drawn from some 170 countries.<P>
<HR>
<A NAME=peace><H3>WHAT THE UN DOES FOR PEACE . . .</H3></A>
<P>
Throughout its 50 years of existence, a central purpose of the UN has been to preserve world peace. The UN has helped resolve disputes between nations, reduce tensions, prevent conflicts and put an end to fighting. It has carried out complex operations involving peacemaking, peace-keeping and humanitarian assistance. It has thus played a major role in resolving some of the most protracted conflicts of recent years. The means at its disposal to bring about peace are varied: a Security Council decision
ordering a cease-fire and laying down guidelines for settling a dispute . . . good offices of the Secretary-General . . . a compromise worked out by a mediator . . . unpublicized diplomatic approaches during informal encounters . . . dispatch of a fact-finding team . . . observer missions or peace-keeping forces made up of contingents from Member States under the command of the UN.<P>
The demand for UN peace-keeping has increased dramatically, with 21 new operations in 1988-1994, compared with 13 over the previous 40 years.<P>
In early 1995, about 69,000 UN troops, military observers and civilian police, provided by 77 countries, were deployed in various areas of the world. More than 720,000 military personnel have served with the UN forces since 1948, and more than 1,100 peace-keepers have lost their lives. Many thousands of civilians have also served.<P>
<H3>. . . in Somalia</H3><P>
The civil war that broke out in 1991 resulted in more than 300,000 people dead and five million threatened by hunger. The UN helped eliminate mass starvation, stop the large-scale killings and bring a bitter conflict to an end. It established in April 1992 the UN Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM), followed in December by the Unified Task Force, led by the United States. As a result, the level of killings, starvation and malnutrition fell
dramatically. In 1993, a new UN Operation (UNOSOM II) replaced the Unified Task Force. UNOSOM II sought to restore order, promote reconciliation and help rebuild Somalia's civil society and economy; its mandate ended in March 1995. Various UN agencies are at work, under difficult conditions, to provide humanitarian assistance.<P>
<H3>. . . in Mozambique</H3><P>
The UN has helped secure peace in Mozambique. In 1992, to facilitate implementation of the peace agreement between the Government and the Mozambican National Resistance (RENAMO), the Security Council set up the UN Operation in Mozambique (ONUMOZ). ONUMOZ monitored the cease-fire, verified the demobilization of combatants, coordinated humanitarian aid and monitored in 1994 the country's first multi-party elections, which led to the peaceful installation of a new Government. ONUMOZ successfully completed its mission in January 1995.<P>
<H3>. . . in Cambodia</H3><P>
The UN helped end the 12-year conflict in Cambodia. The Secretary-General over the years exercised his good offices in the search for peace, and in 1988 presented proposals for a political settlement. High-level meetings of the five permanent members of the Security Council led to the signing in 1991 of the Agreements on Cambodia a peace treaty to end the conflict and prepare the country for elections. The Agreements assigned the UN an unprecedented role. A large operation, the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), was set up to supervise the cease-fire, disarm combatants, repatriate refugees, and organize and conduct free and fair elections. The May 1993 elections led to the peaceful installation of a new Government in September 1993, thus successfully fulfilling UNTAC's task.<P>
<H3>. . . in Iran and Iraq</H3><P>
The UN was instrumental in ending the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq. Intensive mediation efforts by the Security Council and the Secretary-General led in August 1988 to a cease-fire and to the acceptance by both countries of a 1987 UN peace plan. After the cease-fire, the  UN military observers of the UN Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNIIMOG) were deployed between the two opposing armies to supervise the end of
the hostilities and troop withdrawal. UNIIMOG completed its task in 1991.<P>
<H3>. . . in Afghanistan</H3><P>
The UN played a similar peacemaking role in Afghanistan. As a result of six years of negotiations conducted by a personal envoy of the Secretary-General, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Soviet Union and the United States signed in April 1988 agreements aiming at a settlement of the conflict. To verify compliance with the agreements, the UN deployed the observers of the UN Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Soviet troop withdrawal was completed on schedule in 1989, thus fulfilling the Mission's task. The Secretary-General and his personal envoy have continued to work for a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan.<P>
<H3>. . . in Central America</H3><P>
The UN has helped resolve the conflicts in Central America. The UN Observer Group in Central America (ONUCA), in place between 1989 and 1992, monitored security commitments undertaken by five Central American countries. It also helped demobilize some 22,000 members of the Nicaraguan resistance (also known as "contras"), who in March-June 1990 turned in their weapons to ONUCA. Another UN mission monitored the February 1990 elections in Nicaragua	the first UN-monitored elections in an independent country.<P>
In El Salvador, the Secretary-General assisted in talks between the Government and the Farabundo Mart� National Liberation Front (FMLN) aimed at ending the 12-year conflict. The Secretary-General's mediation led to the 1992 peace agreement between the Government and FMLN, which ended the conflict and opened the way to national reconciliation. The UN Observer Mission in El Salvador monitored all agreements concluded between the Government and FMLN, and observed the 1994 elections. In Guatemala, the UN supervised talks between the Government and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG), which led in 1994 to two agreements opening the
way to a settlement of the 30-year conflict. In November 1994, the UN set up a Mission for the Verification of Human Rights in Guatemala.<P>
<H3>. . . in Haiti</H3><P>
In 1990, the UN monitored the first democratic elections in Haiti, which led to the installation of a Government headed by President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. After a military coup in 1991 forced Mr. Aristide into exile, the UN mediated an agreement for the return to democracy. In the absence of further progress, the Security Council authorized in 1994 the formation of a multinational force and the use of all necessary means to facilitate the departure of the military leaders. After the landing of the United
States led multinational force, President Aristide returned to Haiti in October 1994. A UN peace-keeping force, the UN Mission in Haiti, is in place to sustain the secure and stable environment established by the multinational force.<P>
<H3>. . . in the former Yugoslavia</H3><P>
The UN has strenuously sought to resolve the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. To help restore peace, the UN imposed in 1991 an arms embargo, while the Secretary-General and his envoy assisted in seeking a solution to the crisis. A peace-keeping force, the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR), deployed in 1992, sought to create conditions of peace and security in Croatia, facilitated the delivery of humanitarian relief in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, and helped ensure that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was not drawn into the conflict. In 1995, UNPROFOR was split into three operations covering the three countries.  As UN-sponsored negotiations continued, the UN peace-keeping forces and UN agencies sought to maintain cease-fires, protect the population and provide humanitarian assistance.<P>
<H3>. . . in the Middle East</H3><P>
The Middle East has long been a major concern to the UN. In 1948 a military observer group, the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), was set up to monitor the truce called for by the Security Council during the first Arab-Israeli war. UNTSO's functions have evolved, but its military observers have remained in the area, helping to defuse tension.
A peace-keeping force, the UN Emergency Force, was created in 1956 at the time of the Suez crisis. It oversaw the withdrawal of British, French and Israeli troops and contributed to peace and stability in the region. After the 1973 war, two peace-keeping forces were dispatched to the Middle East. The second UN Emergency Force remained in the Sinai until 1979, when an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was signed. The UN Disengagement Observer Force, deployed on the Golan Heights in 1974, maintains an area of separation there between Israeli and Syrian troops. The UN Interim Force in
Lebanon, created in 1978, contributes to stability in southern Lebanon and provides protection to the population of the area. Hand in hand with its peace-keeping activities, the UN has made continuous efforts to find a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) set forth the principles for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace and remain the basis for an overall settlement. The UN Secretary-General warmly welcomed, in September 1993, the exchange of letters of mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the signing by both sides of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. A UN Special
Coordinator oversees the development assistance provided by the UN system to the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.<P>
<H3>Other operations</H3><P>
In early 1995, UN "blue helmets" were also present in many other troubled areas. UN missions were seeking to contribute to security and help achieve reconciliation in Rwanda (UNAMIR, established 1993), bring peace to Angola (UNAVEM, 1989), supervise a referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO, 1991) and promote a return to normal conditions in Cyprus (UNFICYP, 1964).
Military observers were in place in Tajikistan (UNMOT, established 1994), in Liberia (UNOMIL, 1993), in Georgia (UNOMIG, 1993), at the Iraq-Kuwait border (UNIKOM, 1991), and in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, at the cease-fire line between India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP, 1949).<P>
<H3>The Secretary-General's role</H3>
The Secretary-General plays a central role in peacemaking, both personally and by appointing Special Representatives or teams for specific goals, such as negotiation or fact- finding. He may also bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which appears to threaten international peace and security. The Secretary- General wasinstrumental in averting a threat to peace during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, in securing through his Special Representative the 1965 cease-fire in the Dominican Republic and in proposing, with the Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, the 1988 peace plan for Western Sahara, which led to a cease-fire there in 1991.<P>
<H3>Disarmament</H3><P>
Halting the arms race and reducing and eventually eliminating all weapons of war are major concerns of the UN. The UN has been a permanent forum for holding disarmament negotiations, making recommendations and initiating studies. Negotiations have been held bilaterally and through international bodies such as the Conference on Disarmament, which meets regularly in Geneva. Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), ratified by over 170 countries, nuclear-weapon States agree not to provide nuclear weapons to other countries and to pursue nuclear disarmament; non-nuclear weapon States agree not to develop or obtain nuclear weapons. Concluded under UN auspices, the Treaty came into force in 1970. A major step in advancing non-proliferation was taken in 1995, when
a Review Conference extended the Treaty indefinitely. Other treaties have been concluded to ban nuclear-weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water (1963); ban nuclear weapons from outer space (1967), the sea-bed and ocean floor (1971); prohibit the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological weapons (1972) and of chemical weapons (1992); reduce conventional armed forces in Europe (1990); and ban or restrict other classes of weapons.<P>
<HR>
<A NAME=justice><H3>WHAT THE UN DOES FOR JUSTICE . . .</H3></A>
<P>
The Charter goals of justice and equal rights, for individuals and for peoples, have been pursued by the UN from its early days. As one of its first tasks, the UN formulated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a historic proclamation of the basic rights and freedoms to which all men and women are entitled the right to life, liberty and nationality, to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to work, to be educated, to
take part in government, and many other rights.<P>
The Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948, a date commemorated every year as Human Rights Day. Two International Covenants one on economic, social and cultural rights and the other on civil and political rights which expand and make legally binding the rights set forth in the Declaration came into force in 1976. These three documents constitute the International Bill of Human Rights, a standard and a goal for all countries and peoples. Many other international conventions have been concluded under UN auspices on women's rights, racial discrimination, the rights of children and many other human rights.<P>
The UN Commission on Human Rights is the only intergovernmental body that conducts public meetings on violations of human rights wherever they occur in the world. It reviews the human rights performance of countries and receives complaints about violations. Special Rapporteurs of the Commission monitor the human rights situation in specific countries.<P>
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, first appointed in 1994, coordinates the human rights activities of the UN system, dispatches fact-finding missions and investigates violations.<P>
UN operations are currently monitoring the human rights situation in Haiti and Guatemala. A similar operation was in place in El Salvador from 1991 to 1995.<P>
<H3>Self-determination and independence</H3><P>
One of the most important rights self-determination, or the right of peoples to govern themselves was a goal when the Charter was signed. Today it has become a reality in most of the lands formerly under colonial rule.
In 1960, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, in which it proclaimed the necessity of bringing colonialism to a speedy end. Since then, some 60 former colonial Territories, inhabited by more than 80 million people, have attained independence and joined the UN as sovereign Members. Now, as the UN celebrates its Fiftieth Anniversary, only 17 Non-Self- Governing Territories remain. The Assembly has set the goal of ending colonialism by the year 2000, declaring the period 1990-2000 as the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.<P>
<H3>Namibia's independence</H3><P>
The UN helped bring about the independence of Namibia. It assumed direct
responsibility for Namibia in 1966, when the General Assembly revoked South Africa's Mandate to administer the Territory a decision South Africa rejected. Complex negotiations led in 1989 to the implementation of the 1978 UN plan for the independence of Namibia. The UN Transition Assistance Group was deployed throughout Namibia to monitor the withdrawal of South African troops and the registration of some 700,000 voters, as well as the elections, held in November 1989. The elections led to the installation of the first independent Government, and to Namibia's independence in 1990.<P>
<H3>Election monitoring</H3><P>
At Government request, the UN also dispatched electoral observers to monitor elections in Nicaragua (1990), Haiti (1990), Angola (1992), El Salvador, South Africa and Mozambique (1994). The observers monitored the preparation and holding of the elections. On election day, they visited polling stations throughout the country and monitored vote counting, and could thus certify that the elections had been free and fair. UN observers also monitored the 1993 referendum in Eritrea. In addition, since 1992 the UN has provided technical assistance in the preparation and holding of elections to more than 40 countries.<P>
<H3>Apartheid</H3><P>
For more than three decades, the UN carried out a sustained campaign against South Africa's apartheid (racial segregation) system, denounced by the General Assembly as "a crime against humanity". The campaign, which ranged from an arms embargo to a convention against segregated sports events, was an important factor in bringing about a democratically elected Government, realized in April 1994 with elections in which, for the first time, all South Africans could vote. The UN Observer Mission in South Africa
assisted in the transition and observed the election. With the installation of a non-racial and democratic Government in May 1994, the apartheid system came to an end.<P>
<H3>International law</H3><P>
The UN has made major contributions towards expanding the rule of law among nations through its codification and development of international law. The International Court of Justice assists countries in solving legal disputes, and has issued important advisory opinions on UN activities. The International Law Commission works to further the development of international law. The UN has initiated hundreds of international conventions and treaties, ranging from agreements governing diplomatic relations and international trade to those to protect the environment. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is the main legal instrument to further women's equality. The Convention
against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is the key international treaty against drug trafficking. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea seeks to ensure equitable access by all countries to the riches of the oceans, protect them from pollution and facilitate freedom of navigation and research.<P>
<HR>
<A NAME=development><H3>WHAT THE UN DOES FOR DEVELOPMENT</H3></A>
<P>
Lasting world peace requires social and economic development for all. This link is recognized by the Charter, which assigns to the UN, as one of its main functions, the promotion of higher standards of living, full employment and economic and social progress. Thus a major part of UN work measured in terms of budget and personnel involved goes into numerous programmes aimed at achieving a better life for all people of the world.
Three fourths of the world's people live in developing countries, and 1.3 billion are living in abject poverty. While the world's 23 richest countries taken together have a per capita income of $22,160, the 40 poorest countries have a per capita income of $390 a ratio of 56 to 1.<P>
The General Assembly has stressed the need to reshape international economic
relations so developing countries can take their just place in the world economy. In a series of ten-year International Development Strategies adopted since 1961, the Assembly has recommended measures to coordinate the efforts of Governments and international organizations to reduce the gap between rich and poor countries. The Assembly is now elaborating a blueprint for action to promote international cooperation for development, on the basis of the 1994 report of the Secretary-General, An Agenda for Development.<P><P>
A round of world conferences seeks to promote practical ways of solving global problems, by focusing on Environment and Development (1992), Population and Development (1994), Social Development (1995), the Advancement of Women (1995), and Human Settlements (1996).<P>
<H3>Assistance to development</H3><P>
In the forefront of efforts to bring about social and economic progress is the UN Development Programme (UNDP). The UN's largest provider of grants for technical assistance, and the chief coordinator of UN development cooperation, UNDP focuses its programmes on eliminating poverty, creating employment, advancing women's status and protecting the environment. With an annual budget of about $1 billion, it works in 175 developing countries and territories. In addition, UNDP-financed activities stimulate some $9 billion a year in follow-up investment from public and private sources.
UNDP receives voluntary contributions from nearly every Government in the world. Recipient Governments pay over half the costs involved in the projects. The poorest countries receive 87 per cent of UNDP resources.<P>
Among the many other programmes working for development is the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), currently carrying out assistance projects in 138 countries. Major areas of activity are immunization, primary health care, nutrition and basic education. Total expenditures in 1994 amounted to an estimated $972 million. <P>
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) works to encourage and coordinate sound
environmental practices everywhere. It supports environmental projects, raises environmental awareness and promotes major environmental treaties.
Many other UN bodies are at work to foster development: among them are the World Food Programme, the UN Population Fund, the UN Centre for Human Settlements and the UN Conference on Trade and Development.<P>
<H3>Humanitarian assistance</H3><P>
When countries are stricken by war, famine or natural disaster, the UN helps provide humanitarian aid. Part of this aid is in the form of direct assistance from the UN and its agencies, such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF.
In 1994, the UN raised $1.9 billion for humanitarian assistance operations.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provides international protection and material assistance (food, shelter, medical aid, education) to the world's 23 million refugees, at the same time seeking durable solutions to their plight. All UN emergency assistance is coordinated by the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, who heads the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs.<P>
<H3>The specialized agencies</H3><P>
Fourteen specialized agencies work for development and international cooperation in their areas of expertise:<P>
<UL>
<LI>	International Labour Organization (ILO)
<LI>	Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO)
<LI>	UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
<LI>	World Health Organization (WHO)
<LI>	World Bank
<LI>	International Monetary Fund (IMF)
<LI>	International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
<LI>	Universal Postal Union (UPU)
<LI>	International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
<LI>	World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
<LI>	International Maritime Organization (IMO)
<LI>	World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
<LI>	International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
<LI>	UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).
</UL>
Although not a specialized agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an autonomous intergovernmental organization under the aegis of the UN.<P>
The UN and its specialized agencies make up the UN system of organizations.
For further information about the UN, please contact:<P>
<PRE>
Public Inquiries
UN Secretariat
Room GA-58
New York, NY 10017
USA
</PRE>
or the Information Centre in your country.
<HR>
Updated: 23 June 1995
</HTML>
The United Nations is an organization of sovereign nations  not a world government. It provides the machinery to help find solutions to disputes or problems, and to deal with virtually any matter of concern to humanity.<P>
It 
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\UNTITLED.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
	Have you ever thought of what America would be like under a different style of government.  Thomas Jefferson said "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing."  If the governmental system that is in place is not meeting the needs of the country then that governmental system must be changed.  For those of you who do not understand the meaning of Anarchy, Webster has defined it as follows:
Anarchy:	<`an-ahr-kee>...noun.  1. A social structure without law and order, 						government, or authority.  2. Utter  confusion.  
					3. A rebellion against what is accepted as right or 						correct.

Anarchy usually starts off small and grows over a long period of time... at first, primitive forms of Anarchy such as crank calls, and petty theft will begin the process.  At this point, frequent failure or getting caught may put a stop to the increasing chaotic tendencies within the person   in question.  If the child Anarchist is successful in his endeavors, however, he will move on to bigger and better things.  The real fun stuff starts in high-school...  there are endless possibilities for amusement at the expense of   others.  One thing to remember however  is that there are many obstacles which stand in your path such as cops, locks, alarms and of course, the most important thing to watch out for is carelessness on your part.  It is because of carelessness that many good hell raisers have met  their  fate.  There is a place for the Anarchist everywhere.  College campuses, bus stations, metropolises, and even small rural Idaho mountain ranches are common places to find Anarchists. Anarchism provides fun, entertainment, and is somewhat cheap, making it a viable alternative for college students.
	College students do need to have fun and entertainment amongst their studies.  Anarchism can provide that fun and entertainment.  Before you can go out and have fun, you must prepare yourself.  First things first you must decide what you are going to do.  Are you going to just cause mayhem or really have some fun by exploding something (could an exploding clock tower fit into your plans)?  Your plans directly effect what you take with you.   For a successful strike on  your target area, you will need the following:

         o Camouflage (dark clothing, mask)-   To prevent discovery & Identification

         o A small bat or solid stick/bar  - 	To  eliminate  people or  dogs  who  get in 							the way & to increase destructive power

         o A small, "efficient" weapon  - 	For serious  emergencies only! (knives or 							mini-chucks are good)

         o Flashlight                     	 -   	So you can see!

         o Several projectiles             -   	Yes,  even the  most basic of prehistoric 							weaponry can be the Anarchist's  best 							friend.  Everything  from rocks  to eggs to 							your little brother classifies, anything that 							can be  used  to  damage  or  destroy  							when thrown will do... however,  due to the 							relative inexpensiveness and availability of 							rocks leads to their wide usage. 

         o Smoke Bombs                     -  	A valuable tool

         o Flammables 		 - 	A  MUST!!!!  Gasoline, hair spray, ANYTHING 							that burns enthusiastically classifies.  								However,  with the availability of gasoline, 							and the relative inexpensiveness, (now 							1.44/gal!), this most often becomes the  							chosen  fluid.  

         o Explosives                      	 -  	Not compulsory for the job  but   they   sure 							add a spark to the evening!  These are a  							personal favorite. As everybody knows, 							there are many, many, files floating 'round 							out there ( on the Internet) on this  topic.  I  							have  seen  docs and  plans for  everything 							from the front  axle  car  bomb to the  							exploding ball-point pen. 


         o Spray Paint              	            -  	To   mark   out   your territory  &  let  the 							world  know  you  were there...

         o Lock Picks & a Bag            -	Just in  case  an easy target for theft 								presents itself while your vandalizing

         o Transportation		 - 	(Preferably  motorized... be real).  Or, in 							many cases, a flock  of such.  A mandatory 							requirement for a successful authoritative  							attack,  for  true  Anarchists  don't  get 							caught at the scene.

Once  you  have all your equipment, you're ready to go.  Easy  targets  are
mail  boxes, bird feeders, X-mas lights (when in season) and greenhouses.  The
weapon you  will  use most is the bat or steel bar you brought along  in  your
trusty Anarchist's  bag.  Remember to spray paint the traditional encircled "A" 
where ever you go to let the world know Anarchy is alive an' well. 
     Now   you  have to use some direct methods to evade  capture.  Start  off
mild  by   simply  running. If they persist, create obstacles as you   go   by
knocking  things   down  in your wake, jumping fences, cars,  etc.  If  that 
fails, try a few smoke bombs lobbed over your shoulder to block their view...  
NO! Hmmmm well it's  time  to get serious because you smoke too  much 
to stay ahead  for  long.  So,  use  the explosives... that should do it  but 
if  not,  just  turn  around, whip out the projectiles or the weapon  of  your 
choice an' just beat the living ______ out of `em.  Now you can go home, being 
sure  to spray paint an  encircled "A"  on Mr. Johnson's bleeding  forehead... 
(heh, I doubt he'll chase  you  next time).
	There is a place for the Anarchist everywhere.  College campuses, bus stations, metropolises, and even small rural Idaho mountain ranches are common places to find Anarchists. Anarchism provides fun, entertainment, and is somewhat cheap, making it a viable alternative for college students.  Beware of the Anarchist,  for they are out there.




NOTE:

Please be aware that the contents of the essay are not necessarily the feelings of the author.  This essay was written as the point of view of an Anarchist. 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\US Term Limits.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
When the Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1789, it was without direction regarding term limits for legislators.  At the time, professional politicians were unheard of, and the idea of someone serving for more than one or two terms was unlikely.  So the Constitution did not formally address the issue of term limits, although it was understood that officeholders would limit themselves to one or two terms and then return to private life (1).  With the advent of the modern state, however, came the making of Congress as a career, and thus the voluntary removal of oneself from office, as envisioned by the founders, is no longer regularly undertaken in the United States Congress.  The structure of the Congress supports members who have held office for several terms thereby undermining the idea of the citizen-legislator put forth by the founders.  Instead of citizens who will soon return to the community that elected them, professional Congress-people spend more time in Washington than in their home states, and usually make Congress their career.  What has developed in recent years, in response to congressional careerism, is the drive to impose limits on the length of time someone may serve in Congress.  Currently, advocates of term limits are calling for two terms in the Senate, and three in the House.  It is possible, then, for a member to serve six years in the House, twelve years in the Senate, eight years as Vice President, and eight years as President, a total of thirty-six years.  It is not unlikely, therefore, that there will continue to be career politicians.  The issue is not about total time that one may participate in government, rather it is about how long one may serve in a particular capacity.  Term limits enjoy popular, but not political, support, thereby polarizing the electorate and the elected.  This paper will discuss the popular support for term limits, the arguments on both sides, and draw conclusions about the need for Congressional term limits in the United States
Support for term limits encompasses close to three-quarters of the American population (2).  The question is why.  The simple answer is that the American people no longer trust a system they view as corrupt and biased towards the few.  But the issue is really not this simple, nor is its basis of support.  While on the surface it is corruption and bias that feed the resolve for limits, underneath  it is too complex an issue to describe so succinctly.  Rather the issue includes Congressional scandals, allegations of bribery and sexual harassment, questionable campaign contributions, and Congressional perks such as no-interest loans and free, reserved parking at the airport (3).  "To many, it seem[s] that one reason Congress ha[s] lost touch with ordinary people [is] because so many members [are] in Congress too long." (4)  According to Ed Crane of the Cato Institute,
"Americans want to open up the political process.  They want their fellow citizens who live and work in the real world -- the private sector -- to represent them.  Not career legislators... It would allow good people from across the political spectrum to...participate in the political process as candidates, even if they happen to have spent most of their life outside the limelight in the private sector like the rest of us." (5)

Clearly voters support term limits for a variety of reasons, yet these reasons all share a common feature: the desire for a more competitive electoral process, and the hope that term limits will also limit corruption.  
	The strength of public support for term limits can be seen in the fact that several states voted to limit the length of time their representatives can serve in Congress.  By the middle of 1995, almost half of the states had limited the number of terms for their representatives.  This success of the term limit movement at the grass roots level faced a serious setback when the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 majority that such restrictions were unconstitutional.  They argued that "allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designed...to form a 'more perfect union'."(6)   The citizens and the state are at the mercy, therefore, of Congress in terms of implementing limits.
Congress must decide to amend the Constitution.  Since members of Congress face a conflict of interest on the issue of term limits, supporters of this initiative are going to have to become more creative in their lobbying.  An example of how states may be able to get around this decision is the idea that state representatives be asked to sign a statement regarding their support of term limits for Congress.  Those representatives who do not sign or agree to work towards term limits will have a notation beside their name in the next election cycle that indicates their disregard for public opinion. 
Term limits is a policy that has a base of endorsement in two important ways.  First, it already has the support of the American people, and second, it is an unofficial policy that has its roots in the Articles of Confederation, if not the Constitution.  Unfortunately, however these arguments alone are not enough to compel career legislators to adopt term limits.  There are several other key arguments in favor of term limits that may prove persuasive in the long run.
	The power of incumbents in Congress is considered a reflection of the professionalization of politics.  It is all but impossible for challengers to win against incumbents in the race for Congressional seats.  The professionalization of politics has "enhanced the electoral advantages of careerists" (7), or incumbents.  Conversely, "every enhancement of the power of incumbency exacerbates careerism"(8).  So a cycle is created wherein career politicians are more likely to get elected thereby encouraging politicians to become careerists.   "Given the power of incumbency, proponents of term limits argue that election to Congress, in essence, equals life tenure." (9)
When the triumph of incumbency is coupled with the seniority system that assigns positions of power based on length of service it creates an environment where voters are afraid not to re-elect their representative in case their state loses power.  Ironically, the more senior a member becomes, the less representative of his electorate and the more representative of special interests he becomes. One need only look at Senator Thurmon who has been in office since before Pearl Harbor.  He is 93 years old and is already the oldest serving Senator ever.  As Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, his position is important to his home state of South Carolina - a state with a large defense industry (10).  He is consistently re-elected because of his senior status within the Senate.  It is all but impossible for a candidate to launch a serious campaign against Thurmon, as no one is South Carolina wants to lose the power his Chairmanship brings.  Advocates argue that term limits will destroy the system of seniority and replace it with a system of meritocracy (11).  Since legislators will be serving a limited time, it is more likely that they will adhere to the desires of their constituents since they will soon be returning to live among them.
Opponents argue that limits already exist in the  form of the electoral process.  People who do not feel their representative is doing an adequate job can simply vote for someone else.  Incumbents are as likely as any other candidate not to get elected.  The argument continues with the idea that term limits will mean a loss of experience on the part of legislators.(12)  Because one serves in Congress for a potentially unlimited time, representatives are more likely to "know about the rules, routines, and procedures that are essential to survival in Congress...[and] may also know a great deal about how to use the federal bureaucracy to serve their constituents." (13)  Incumbents, therefore, are necessary for Congress to run smoothly.
The argument that representatives must be in place for a long time in order to fully appreciate how to get things done is inherently flawed.  The reason longer service in Congress is necessary now is that there are no limits to terms.  Therefore, Congress is controlled by its most powerful (or longest standing) members.  Term limits would remove the possibility of a seniority system and the advantages of incumbency thus creating  conditions of equality between member of Congress.
The incumbency and seniority systems have created conditions whereby leadership positions "are peopled exclusively by white males" (14).  Women and minorities are underrepresented not only in actual numbers in Congress, but also in terms of leadership.  Term limits would create more competitive elections and thus allow more women and minorities the opportunity for election.  The system as it currently exists discourages minorities from entering a race because in a majority of seats the incumbent wins.  Since the newcomers are not given the financial support of an incumbent, candidates must either be independently wealthy of stay out of the     race (15).
Critics argue that there is considerable turnover at each election without the imposition of term limits, and that talented people will not seek office unless their political career possibilities are long-term (16). It is difficult to counter the idea that women and minorities are underrepresented or that these groups would benefit from more competitive elections.  Rather, the focus is on the inevitability of professional politicians and careerism as a logical by-product of the electoral system; a product  that should simply be accepted by the people with no attempt to change it.   This argument avoids the issues of minority representation and incumbency advantages and attempts to divert attention away from the fact that minorities do not play an equal or even proportional role in Congress.
Proponents of term limits argue for a return to citizen-legislators.  "With the professionalization of American politics, instead of public engagement, we end up with public estrangement; instead of civic commitment, we foster civic abandonment; and instead of political empowerment, we are left with political confinement." (17)  A citizen-legislator is someone who has a career in the private sector, spends a relatively short time in the public eye and then returns home to live among his constituents again.  Since the senior members of Congress are most likely to be influenced by special interests, and are removed from the people they represent, it can be argued that the citizen-legislator will behave in the opposite manner.  The short-term member will likely pass fewer laws, and the laws he does support will be more reflective of his constituents' desires (18).  
Critics argue that term limits would cause legislators to ignore their constituents during their final terms, and that limits would simple shift power from the incumbents to the staff members and the lobbyists (19).  This shift would take power from those elected and give it a non-partisan bureaucracy.  New members would be at the mercy of their staff, and be crippled by their own inexperience.
 It is highly unlikely that a member soon returning to live again in the community that elected him would ignore what his constituents wanted, or become so far removed from them that he was unaware of their needs.  In terms of the power shift "any Capitol Hill observer knows that it's the most senior members who are most dependent on staff and lobbyists, not the hot-shot young freshmen." (20)   Therefore,  Representatives serving a limited number of terms are not likely to rely on their staffs to the extent that incumbents do currently, thereby eliminating the fear that permanent staff members will really be running the country.  Additionally, senior members currently seek to remain in Washington when they are no longer in office by locating a position as a lobbyists or bureaucrat.  With term limits this is also unlikely to happen "because the turnover on Capitol Hill will quickly make their contacts obsolete and their influence limited." (21)  
It can be argued that the term limits initiative is a solution looking for a problem.  Yet, it can also be argued that term limits is an issue whose time is now.  While term limits may not solve all that is wrong with the American system, it certainly is a step in the right direction.  The system as is currently exists is rife with rank and privilege.  In Congress, all members are supposedly equal,  yet it is quite obvious that some are more equal than others.  
Not only is the privlege of senior members a problem, but it also the perceived corruption that goes along with it.  As people see their legislators moving farther away from them and closer to special interests it is easy to become disillusioned with the system.  Because  representatives are constantly aware or the need for re-election they will often support bills that specifically help their state and in doing so appease the public enough to ensure their re-election bid.  But is this truly governing?   According to Ehrenhalt,
"Politics is, then, more than in the past, a job for people who prefer it to any other line of work.  About these people one more important point should be made: They tend not only to enjoy politics but to believe in government as an institution.  The more somebody is required to sacrifice time and money and private life to run for the city council, for the state legislature, or for Congress, the more important it is for that person to believe that government is a respectable enterprise with crucial work to do." (22)

With term limits, politics will not be about a career.  Rather, it will be about a genuine intent to foster change.  Term limits will government a respectable and approachable institution for all people. 
 What term limits may accomplish, then is a leveling of the playing field and the invitation for all to come play.  A representative government must reflect the people it represents.  This is not to say that the Congress must adopt a policy of affirmative action in order to have equal representation of women and minorities, rather  Congress must adopt term limits in order to foster competition and creativity in its members and its electoral process.  
When somewhere near seventy-five percent of a population supports an initiative, it would seem to be good government that would support it.  But when that initiative infringes on the length of time a member may serve in Congress it becomes a conflict of interest that is unlikely to be passed.  The very structure of Congress itself encourages members to seek re-election for several terms by rewarding the most senior members with positions of power and influence.  This makes incumbent politicians very difficult to beat in an election, and it ensures that the most powerful people in the nation will continue to be white males.  But white males do not reflect the cultural and ethnic make up of the United States.  Nor do they represent the many and varied interests of their constituents.  Term limits would make it very difficult for one cultural group to control the government.  By fostering competition and by creating a system where representatives must soon become the represented again, term limits set up a more representative and equitable governing body.  In addition, with the removal of seniority one gets meritocracy; with the citizen-legislator one becomes more aware of his constituents' needs, as he is never far from returning to them; with competition the United States Congress can be held up as a truly representative arm of government that includes women, minorities, and white men in equally powerful positions.  "Whose government is it anyway? With term limits, it's [the people's]." (23)










Endnotes
1	Fund, John H. "Term Limitations: An Idea Whose Time Has Come" Policy Analysis No. 141  October 30, 1996 

2	Editorial "Senate Tackles Term Limits" The Boston Herald  April 23, 1996

3	Levine, Herbert M.  Point-Counterpoint: Reading in American Government  St.Martin's Press, New York: 1995.  208

4	ibid, 208

5	Crane, Ed  "Campaign Reforms vs. Term Limits"  The Washington Times  June 26, 1996

6	Bandow, Doug  "The Political Revolution That Wasn't: Why Term Limits Are Needed Now More Than Ever"  Policy Analysis No. 259  September 5, 1996

7	ibid

8	Levine, 209

9	O'Connor, Karen and Larry J. Sabato  American Government: Roots and Reform  Allyn and Bacon,  Massachusetts.  1996.  198

10	"Thurmon-ator Looks Good to Break Senate Records"  Time November 2, 1996

11	Petracca, Mark "The Poison of Professional Politics"  Policy Analysis No. 151  May 10, 1991

12	Bandow

13	Petracca

14	Ferry, Jonathan  "Women Minorities and Term Limits: America's Path to a Representative Congress"  U.S. Term Limits Foundation Outlook Series  Vol 3, No 2.  July, 1994

15	ibid

16	Levine, 210

17	Petracca

18	Fund 

19	ibid

20	ibid

21	ibid

22	Ehrenhalt, Alan  The United States of Ambition: Politicians, Power, and the Pursuit of Office  Random House, New York.  1991:  20

23	Jacob, Paul  "Whose Government is it Anyway?"  this article will appear in the Journal of the West Los Angeles School of Law.





Bibliography

AllPolitics - Ballots By States "Ballot Measures by State"  October 30, 1996  www.allpolitics.ca

AllPolitics - Term Limits Debate  "Term Limits Stall in Senate"  April 23, 1996 www.allpolitics.ca

AllPolitics - South Carolina Senate Race "Thurmon-ator Looks Good to Break Senate Records"  November 2, 1996  Found at www.allpolitics.ca

Bandow, Doug  "Bias for Incumbents"  The Washington Times  October 17, 1996  www.washtimes-weekly.com/wash_times

Bandow, Doug  "The Political Revolution that Wasn't:  Why Term Limits are Needed Now More Than Ever"  Policy Analysis No. 259   September 5, 1996  www.cato.org/pubs/policyanalysis.html

"Senate Tackles Term Limits"  The Boston Herald  April 23, 1996  www.termlimits.org/index.shtml

Crane, Ed  "Campaign Reforms Vs. Term Limits"  The Washington Times  June 26, 1996  www.washtimes_weekly.com

Ehrenhalt, Alan  The United States of Ambition:  Politicians, Power, and the Pursuit of Office  Random House, New York.  1991

Ferry, Jonathan  "Women, Minorities and Term Limits:  America's Path to a Representative Congress"  U.S. Term Limits Foundation Outlook Series  July, 1994 Vol.3 No.2   www.termlimits.org/index.shtml

Fund, John H  "Term Limitation:  An Idea Whose Time Has Come"  Policy Analysis No. 141  October 30, 1990   www.cato.org/pubs/pas/policyanalysis.html

"Term Limits Excellent New Strategy"  The Florida Times Union  October 1, 1996  www.termlimits.org/index.shtml

Jacob, Paul  "Choosing Term Limits"  The Washington Times  August 7, 1996  www.termlimits.org

Jacob, Paul "Whose Government is it Anyway?"  www.termlimits.org/index.shtml

Kolbe, John  "Term Limits Sledgehammer"  Phoenix Gazette  June 7, 1996   www.termlimits.org

Levine, Herbert M.  Point-Counterpoint:  Readings in American Government  St. Martin's Press, New York.  1995

Nelson, Lars-Erik  "A Very Special Class of Federal Employee"  The Washington Post   January 5, 1996
www.termlimits.org/index.shtml

O'Connor, Karen and Larry J. Sabato  American Government:  Roots and Reform  Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts.  1996

Petracca, Mark  "The Poison of Professional Politics"  Policy Analysis No. 151 May 10, 1996
www.cato.org/pubs/pas/policyanalysis..html








 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Watergate Was The Nixon Whitehouse Involved .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
WATERGATE:
Was The Nixon White House Involved?
	
	What was Watergate?  "Watergate" is a term used to describe a complex web of political scandals occurring between 1972 and 1974.  On January 20, 1969, Richard M. Nixon had become the thirty-seventh president of the United States.  As Nixon entered the White House, he was "full of bitterness and anger about past defeats, and about years of perceived slights from others in the political establishment."  Nixon, a Republican, once stated that, "Washington is a city run primarily by Democrats and liberals, dominated by like-minded newspapers and other media."  Nixon's obligation to control his political destiny and to forestall the damaging of his agenda by incumbents urged him toward the development of what was, in effect, a "secret government" (Gettlin and Colodny 6).  The word, "Watergate", refers to the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C.  In addition to the hotel, the Watergate complex houses many business offices.  It was here that the offices of the Democratic National Committee were burglarized on June 17, 1972.  Five individuals were arrested at the Watergate complex after the burglary.  Charges were also pressed on G. George Liddy  and E. Howard Hunt ; the "Watergate Seven" were sentenced by Judge John Sirica.  Although Nixon was worried about the  break-in, he advised the White House press secretary, Ron Ziegler, to dismiss the incident as "a third-rate burglary" (Cannon 107).  In the years ensuing the invasion at the Watergate building, questions and controversy have surfaced consequent to whether or not the White House, under the control of President Nixon, was either directly or discursively involved in the planning and/or performing of any illegal deeds.  As the Watergate scandal unfolded, the Nixon administration was quick to mitigate the responsibility for the occurrences, however, in actuality, numerous facts and particulars ascertain White House involvement and justify the repercussions.    
	The arrests of the "Watergate Seven" eventually uncovered a "White House-sponsored plan of espionage against political opponents and a trail of complicity that led to many of the highest officials in the land" (Jacobs, "Watergate").  These high political executives included former United States Attorney General John Mitchell, White House Counsel John Dean, White House Special Assistant on Domestic Affairs John Ehrlichman, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, and President Nixon himself.  Evidence corroborating White House involvement was ample and immense. On April 30, 1973, close to a year after the burglary and subsequent to a grand jury investigation of the break-in, President Nixon affirmed the resignation of H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman and announced the dismissal of John Dean; United States Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resigned as well.  The resignations and dismissal were all results of pressure placed upon the White House to produce answers regarding the scandal that consummated in the officials' insubordinations.  However, the United States government is based upon a system of "checks and balances" where no one person or party can make an ultimate decision. The noncompliances of the White House and its administrators did not thwart the public's progression towards the answers in the case.	
	Washington, no outsider to "political shenanigans and chicanery," had never had a political burglary before.  Four of the seven individuals apprehended for the Watergate break-in were connected with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and were hired hands "on call" to take care of the agency's "less tasteful work"; bugging phones or picking locks (Cannon 107).  When arrested and searched, in the pockets of two of the burglars the police retrieved the name and phone number of E. Howard Hunt.  Police traced the number and found it to be in the Nixon White House.  Bringing to question, what business did members of a CIA task force that specialized in burglary and spying have with officials in the White House?  Also retrieved from the five individuals detained at the scene, was, altogether, $2,300 in cash, primarily in hundred-dollar bills with the serial numbers in sequence.  This was coincidental because, John Ehrlichman once revealed, "Bob [H.R.] Haldeman said nothing to the rest of us about $350,000 the President had him skim off the top of the 1972 campaign funds to be held in a safe-deposit box (by Alex Butterfield ) for 'emergencies'" (342).  Perhaps, Nixon and his cabinet members and the other officials who did "business" with Nixon, saw the Democratic campaign as an "emergency" that they needed to take action against.
	In May 1973, the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Activities opened hearings on Watergate, placing Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina as chairman.  John Dean was of the first individuals to be interrogated.  A series of startling revelations followed.  Dean testified, under oath, that John Mitchell had ordered the break-in at the Watergate and that a major attempt was under way to hide White House involvement.  Dean also claimed that the president had authorized payments to the burglars to keep them quiet.  The payments can be justified by the evidence found on the five men when they were apprehended at the scene of the crime. The $2,300 that the authorities had found on the men were in exact order, by serial number.  Throughout the whole ordeal, Nixon emphasized his cabinet members to abolish the public's belief of a cover-up. Nixon stated, "A cover-up is the worst thing; cover-up is how I nailed Truman. It can hurt deeply."  Nixon also directed his spokesman to, "Tell them, no one in the White House was involved.....At the Committee to Re-elect, there is a possible involvement of a few lower-level officials" (Ehrlichman 354).  In these statements, Nixon reveals the need for him and his administration to subterfuge their cover-up of the Watergate scandal.      
	The testimony of Alexander Butterfield was the affirmation that unlocked the whole investigation and eventually became the most disastrous of all.  "On July 16, 1973, Butterfield told the committee, on nationwide television, that Nixon had ordered a taping system installed in the White House to automatically record all conversations" (Jacobs, "Watergate").  These tapes could have been the answer to all the questions in the public's minds.  If Nixon or his cabinet members were involved in the Watergate scandal, their voices would be on tape. If they were not involved, they would be free of conviction; the tapes helped either way.  
	Archibald Cox  quickly subpoenaed eight relevant tapes to confirm John Dean's testimony. However, Nixon refused to release the tapes, claiming that "they were vital to national security."  U.S. District Court Judge John Sirica ruled that Nixon must give the tapes to Cox, and an appeals court reaffirmed the resolution (Jacobs, "Watergate").  Nonetheless, Nixon held his ground and would not give in.  If Nixon was indeed innocent of any and all wrongdoings, so he claimed, why was he so preoccupied with the releasing of the tapes that would set him free of questioning? On Saturday, October 20, 1973, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to dismiss Cox.  Richardson refused and resigned instead, as did Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Ultimately, the solicitor general dismissed Cox.  The actions on this day were classified as the "Saturday night massacre."       
	Public protests and suggestions from his political advisors forced Nixon to turn over the tapes to Sirica.   Certain subpoenaed conversations were deficient, and one tape had a mysterious gap of eighteen-and-a-half minutes.  Experts analyzed the tapes and concluded that the gap was the result of five separate erasures.  Perchance, these erasures removed the information which would have ended the controversy and brought to life the truth of the White House's involvement in the Watergate scandal.  
	In March 1974, a grand jury indicted Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and four other White House officials for their part in the Watergate cover-up and named President Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator" (Jacobs, "Watergate").  In the subsequent months, Nixon was instructed to, and later did, release transcripts for forty-two more tapes. The conversations revealed Nixon's monumental concern with reproving political opponents and thwarting the Watergate investigation.  Succeeding investigations have also revealed that the Nixon administration supplicated large sums of money in illegal campaign contributions. The money was put forth to underwrite political espionage in addition to paying more than $500,000 to the Watergate burglars.  Also surfaced was, "a related group that performed illegal activities for the administration," known as the "plumbers" (Gettlin and Colodny 377).  The group had been doing whatever necessary to "stop leaks to the press" (Cannon 269).  In an administration where, supposedly, no one is doing any wrong, it does not seem reasonable nor does it seem justifiable to appoint a group that specializes in hiding things from the public. 
	As the Watergate scandal unfolded, the Nixon administration was quick to mitigate the responsibility for the occurrences, however, in actuality, numerous facts and particulars ascertain White House involvement and justify the repercussions.  The controversy surrounding the conspiracy at Watergate is simply a matter of the public's lack of awareness to the facts in the case.  If the facts are carefully reviewed, it is nearly an indisputable conclusion.  It was obvious that the Nixon administration was indeed run in a secretive manner.  The officials were openly involved in espionage and many other illegal acts.  The president himself was approved for three articles of impeachment; he was charged with: "Misusing his power in order to violate the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, obstructing justice in the Watergate affair, and defying Judiciary Committee subpoenas" (Farnsworth, "Nixon's Watergate").  Rather than face almost assured impeachment, Nixon resigned on August 9, the first U.S. president to do so.  A month later his successor, Gerald Ford pardoned him for all crimes he might have committed while in office; Nixon was then immune from fedral prosecution. President Nixon and his cabinet members failed to realize that the constitutional system of checks and balances would work to prevent abuses as it was intended to by the Founding Fathers.  






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































WATERGATE:
Was The Nixon White House Involved?
	
	What was Watergate?  "Watergate" is a term used to describe a complex web of political scandals occurring between 1972 and 1974.  On January 20, 1969, Richard M. Nixon had become the thirty-seventh president of the United States.  As Nixon entered the White House, he was "full of bitterness and anger about past defeats, and about years of perceived slights from others in the political establishment."  Nixon, a Republican, once stated that, "Washington is a city run primarily by Democrats and liberals, dominated by like-minded newspapers and other media."  Nixon's obligation to control his political destiny and to forestall the damaging of his agenda by incumbents urged him toward the development of what was, in effect, a "secret government" (Gettlin and Colodny 6).  The word, "Watergate", refers to the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C.  In addition to the hotel, the Watergate complex houses many business offices.  It was here that the offices of the Democratic National Committee were burglarized on June 17, 1972.  Five individuals were arrested at the Watergate complex after the burglary.  Charges were also pressed on G. George Liddy  and E. Howard Hunt ; the "Watergate Seven" were sentenced by Judge John Sirica.  Although Nixon was worried about the  break-in, he advised the White House press secretary, Ron Ziegler, to dismiss the incident as "a third-rate burglary" (Cannon 107).  In the years ensuing the invasion at the Watergate building, questions and controversy have surfaced consequent to whether or not the White House, under the control of President Nixon, was either directly or discursively involved in the planning and/or performing of any illegal deeds.  As the Watergate scandal unfolded, the Nixon administration was quick to mitigate the responsibility for the occurrences, however, in actuality, numerous facts and particulars ascertain White House involvement and justify the repercussions.    
	The arrests of the "Watergate Seven" eventually uncovered a "White House-sponsored plan of espionage against political opponents and a trail of complicity that led to many of the highest officials in the land" (Jacobs, "Watergate").  These high political executives included former United States Attorney General John Mitchell, White House Counsel John Dean, White House Special Assistant on Domestic Affairs John Ehrlichman, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, and President Nixon himself.  Evidence corroborating White House involvement was ample and immense. On April 30, 1973, close to a year after the burglary and subsequent to a grand jury investigation of the break-in, President Nixon affirmed the resignation of H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman and announced the dismissal of John Dean; United States Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resigned as well.  The resignations and dismissal were all results of pressure placed upon the White House to produce answers regarding the scandal that consummated in the officials' insubordinations.  However, the United States government is based upon a system of "checks and balances" where no one person or party can make an ultimate decision. The noncompliances of the White House and its administrators did not thwart the public's progression towards the answers in the case.	
	Washington, no outsider to "political shenanigans and chicanery," had never had a political burglary before.  Four of the seven individuals apprehended for the Watergate break-in were connected with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and were hired hands "on call" to take care of the agency's "less tasteful work"; bugging phones or picking locks (Cannon 107).  When arrested and searched, in the pockets of two of the burglars the police retrieved the name and phone number of E. Howard Hunt.  Police traced the number and found it to be in the Nixon White House.  Bringing to question, what business did members of a CIA task force that specialized in burglary and spying have with officials in the White House?  Also retrieved from the five individuals detained at the scene, was, altogether, $2,300 in cash, primarily in hundred-dollar bills with the serial numbers in sequence.  This was coincidental because, John Ehrlichman once revealed, "Bob [H.R.] Haldeman said nothing to the rest of us about $350,000 the President had him skim off the top of the 1972 campaign funds to be held in a safe-deposit box (by Alex Butterfield ) for 'emergencies'" (342).  Perhaps, Nixon and his cabinet members and the other officials who did "business" with Nixon, saw the Democratic campaign as an "emergency" that they needed to take action against.
	In May 1973, the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Activities opened hearings on Watergate, placing Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina as chairman.  John Dean was of the first individuals to be interrogated.  A series of startling revelations followed.  Dean testified, under oath, that John Mitchell had ordered the break-in at the Watergate and that a major attempt was under way to hide White House involvement.  Dean also claimed that the president had authorized payments to the burglars to keep them quiet.  The payments can be justified by the evidence found on the five men when they were apprehended at the scene of the crime. The $2,300 that the authorities had found on the men were in exact order, by serial number.  Throughout the whole ordeal, Nixon emphasized his cabinet members to abolish the public's belief of a cover-up. Nixon stated, "A cover-up is the worst thing; cover-up is how I nailed Truman. It can hurt deeply."  Nixon also directed his spokesman to, "Tell them, no one in the White House was involved.....At the Committee to Re-elect, there is a possible involvement of a few lower-level officials" (Ehrlichman 354).  In these statements, Nixon reveals the need for him and his administration to subterfuge their cover-up of the Watergate scandal.      
	The testimony of Alexander Butterfield was the affirmation that unlocked the whole investigation and eventually became the most disastrous of all.  "On July 16, 1973, Butterfield told the committee, on nationwide television, that Nixon had ordered a taping system installed in the White House to automatically record all conversations" (Jacobs, "Watergate").  These tapes could have been the answer to all the questions in the public's minds.  If Nixon or his cabinet members were involved in the Watergate scandal, their voices would be on tape. If they were not involved, they would be free of conviction; the tapes helped either way.  
	Archibald Cox  quickly subpoenaed eight relevant tapes to confirm John Dean's testimony. However, Nixon refused to release the tapes, claiming that "they were vital to national security."  U.S. District Court Judge John Sirica ruled that Nixon must give the tapes to Cox, and an appeals court reaffirmed the resolution (Jacobs, "Watergate").  Nonetheless, Nixon held his ground and would not give in.  If Nixon was indeed innocent of any and all wrongdoings, so he claimed, why was he so preoccupied with the releasing of the tapes that would set him free of questioning? On Saturday, October 20, 1973, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to dismiss Cox.  Richardson refused and resigned instead, as did Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Ultimately, the solicitor general dismissed Cox.  The actions on this day were classified as the "Saturday night massacre."       
	Public protests and suggestions from his political advisors forced Nixon to turn over the tapes to Sirica.   Certain subpoenaed conversations were deficient, and one tape had a mysterious gap of eighteen-and-a-half minutes.  Experts analyzed the tapes and concluded that the gap was the result of five separate erasures.  Perchance, these erasures removed the information which would have ended the controversy and brought to life the truth of the White House's involvement in the Watergate scandal.  
	In March 1974, a grand jury indicted Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and four other White House officials for their part in the Watergate cover-up and named President Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator" (Jacobs, "Watergate").  In the subsequent months, Nixon was instructed to, and later did, release transcripts for forty-two more tapes. The conversations revealed Nixon's monumental concern with reproving political opponents and thwarting the Watergate investigation.  Succeeding investigations have also revealed that the Nixon administration supplicated large sums of money in illegal campaign contributions. The money was put forth to underwrite political espionage in addition to paying more than $500,000 to the Watergate burglars.  Also surfaced was, "a related group that performed illegal activities for the administration," known as the "plumbers" (Gettlin and Colodny 377).  The group had been doing whatever necessary to "stop leaks to the press" (Cannon 269).  In an administration where, supposedly, no one is doing any wrong, it does not seem reasonable nor does it seem justifiable to appoint a group that specializes in hiding things from the public. 
	As the Watergate scandal unfolded, the Nixon administration was quick to mitigate the responsibility for the occurrences, however, in actuality, numerous facts and particulars ascertain White House involvement and justify the repercussions.  The controversy surrounding the conspiracy at Watergate is simply a matter of the public's lack of awareness to the facts in the case.  If the facts are carefully reviewed, it is nearly an indisputable conclusion.  It was obvious that the Nixon administration was indeed run in a secretive manner.  The officials were openly involved in espionage and many other illegal acts.  The president himself was approved for three articles of impeachment; he was charged with: "Misusing his power in order to violate the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, obstructing justice in the Watergate affair, and defying Judiciary Committee subpoenas" (Farnsworth, "Nixon's Watergate").  Rather than face almost assured impeachment, Nixon resigned on August 9, the first U.S. president to do so.  A month later his successor, Gerald Ford pardoned him for all crimes he might have committed while in office; Nixon was then immune from fedral prosecution. President Nixon and his cabinet members failed to realize that the constitutional system of checks and balances would work to prevent abuses as it was intended to by the Founding Fathers.  






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\welfare.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

	Welfare.  Whether you collect it, or you pay for it (and for EVERY working American does one of the two), most citizens of our country are familiar with it.  Yet as every second of the day passes, more and more of my money and yours is being allotted to this growing epidemic called welfare.  The Personal Responsibility Act, signed by the President, was a monumental change in welfare as we know, or used to know it.  The welfare system is still in need or more strict and stringent policy reform, yet the Personal Responsibility Act was a prodigious step in the right direction. 
	In the past few years, the federal governments and state governments have tried to change and improve the welfare system.  The Clinton Administration campaigned to "end welfare as we know it."  The Administration's proposal limits AFDC benefits to two years, during which employment services would be provided to recipients.  Nearly 20 welfare reform bills have been introduced in the 103rd Congress.  Besides the above mentioned bill, three major proposals were offered by Republican members: The GOP Leadership Welfare bill, The Real Welfare Reform Act, and The Welfare and Teenage Pregnancy Reduction Act.  Now the Republicans have pulled together a strong and controversial bill on welfare reform.  The Personal Responsibility Act is an attempt to overhaul the welfare system by putting limits on eligibility and reducing dependency on government.  This bill addresses the increasing problem of illegitimacy, requires welfare recipients to work, and caps welfare spending.  Current programs will be consolidated, time limits will be placed on benefits and savings are to go to deficit reduction.  The bill's main thrust is to give states greater control over the benefits programs, work programs, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments and requirements.
	Under the bill, the structure for AFDC payments will drastically change.  Mothers under the age of 18 may no longer receive AFDC payments for children born out of wedlock and mothers who are ages 18, 19, and 20 can be prohibited by the states from receiving AFDC payments and housing benefits.  Mothers must also establish paternity to as a condition for receiving AFDC payments, except in cases of rape and incest and if the state determines that efforts to establish paternity would result in physical danger to the mother.  The bill requires states to establish paternity in ninety percent of their cases.  States are also encouraged to develop procedures in public hospitals and clinics to determine paternity and establish legal procedures that help pinpoint paternity in a reasonable time period.  Also, in order to reduce the amount of time families are on welfare, states must begin moving welfare recipients into work programs if they have received welfare for two years.  States are given the option to drop families from receiving AFDC benefits after they have received welfare for two years if at least one year has been spent in a work program.  States must drop families from the program after they have received a total of five years of AFDC benefits.
	The bill allows states to design their own work programs and determine who will be required to participate.  Welfare recipients must work an average of 35 hours a week or enroll in work training programs.  By the year 2001, 1.5 million AFDC recipients will be required to work.
	The bill grants greater flexibility to states allowing them to design their own work programs and determine who participates in them and can choose to opt out of the current AFDC program by converting their share of AFDC payments into fixed annual block grants.
	The bill is also designed to diminish the number to teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births.  It prohibits AFDC payments and housing benefits to mothers under age 18 who give birth to out-of-wedlock children.  The state has the option of extending this prohibition to mothers ages 18, 19, and 20.  The savings generated from this provision to deny AFDC to minor mothers is returned to the states in the form of block grants to provide services to help these young mothers who illegitimate children. The state will use the funds for programs to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies, to promote adoption, to establish and operate orphanages, to establish and operate residential group homes for unwed mothers, or for any purpose the state deems appropriate.  None of the funds may be used for abortion services or abortion counseling.
	The bill also includes a number of other provisions to reduce illegitimacy.  While AFDC is prohibited to mothers ages 17 and younger who have children out of wedlock, mothers age 18 who give birth to illegitimate children must live at home in order to receive aid.  Mothers already receiving benefits will not receive an increase if additional children are born out of wedlock.
	States are allowed to establish their own work training and education programs to help recipients move from the welfare program to paid employment as soon as possible.  The training programs require recipients to work for an average of 35 hours a week or 30 hours a week plus five hours engages in job search activities.  One parent in a two parent family is required to work 32 hours a week plus eight hours of job searching.  
	As long as states meet the participation requirements, the federal government will not advise other parts of the program.  States will design their own work programs and determine who will be required to participate in them.  Part of the participation requirement is requiring a certain number of recipients to participate in the job program.  Starting in 1996, 100,000 AFDC recipients will be required to work; in 1997, 200,000 recipients will be required; in 1998, 400,000 will be required; in 1999 600,000 recipients will be required; in 2000, 900,000 will be required; and by 2001, 1.5 million recipients will be required to work.
	Identified non-parents, usually men, who receive food stamp benefits are required to work eight hours a week for those benefits.  
	The bill caps the spending growth of AFDC, SSI and numerous public housing programs, and the mandatory work program established under the bill. The cap equals the amount spent the preceding year for these programs with an adjustment for inflation plus growth in poverty population.  The entitlement status  of these programs is ended.  The bill also consolidates a number of nutrition programs into a block grant to states funded in the first year at 95 percent of the aggregate amount of the individual programs.  Programs consolidated into the block grant include food stamps, the supplemental feeding program, infants, children, and the school lunch and breakfast programs, among others.  Under the block grant, states will distribute food assistance to economically disadvantaged individuals more freely.  
	To further reduce welfare spending, welfare assistance is denied to non-citizens, except refugees over 75 years of age, those lawfully admitted to the U.S., or those who have resided in the U.S. for at least five years.  Emergency medical assistance will continue to be provided to non-citizens.	
	The bill allows states to create their own work programs and determine who participates in them.  States can also opt our of the AFDC program and convert their AFDC payments into a fixed annual block grant and have the option to provide new residents AFDC benefits comparable to the level provided in the state in which they previously resided.  To help combat illiteracy, states may reduce AFDC payments by up to $75 per month to mothers under the age of 21 who have not completed high school or earned their high school "equivalency".  Payments may also be reduced if a dependent child does not maintain minimum school attendance.  
	State adoption agencies are encouraged, under the bill, to decrease the amount of time a child must wait to be adopted.  Specifically, the bill prohibits states from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin when placing children for adoption.  
	AFDC beneficiaries who the state identifies as addicted to drugs or alcohol must enroll in an addiction treatment program and participate in random drug testing in order to continue receiving welfare benefits. 
	The bill is estimated to result in a net savings of approximately $40 billion over five years.  The denial of welfare to non-citizens saves about $22 billion, the cap on welfare spending saves about $18 billion, the nutrition block grant saves about $11 billion, and the requirement for paternity establishment saves about $2 billion.  The costs included in the bill are $9.9 billion for the work program and approximately $2 billion for miscellaneous state options.
		OK, personally, I don't see what the big fuss these whiny little democrats are making over this bill.  "You shouldn't be so hard on un-wed teenage mothers."  Well, lets think about this one.  They're unwed, they're teenage, and they're mothers.  Not a good combination.    The majority of women on welfare had their first child as a teenager.  Most of these births now occur outside of marriage and are unintended.  Actually, I don't think that we're being hard enough.  They're lucky to receive any benefits at all.  If this were my bill, payments to unwed teens would end altogether.  It's ridiculous to have a fifteen year old pregnant and out of school sitting at home sucking up government dough.  The government isn't punishing them.  They've punished themselves.  If anything the government is giving these kids an incentive to be more responsible.  Welfare is a crutch.  And people use it even after their broken leg has healed. 
	And what about those who are not legitimately in this country?  Thousands upon thousands of immigrants enter this country each year,  because they know in America, they can receive benefits without even becoming a citizen.  This needs to end right now.  American citizens hard at work each day should not have to waste their tax dollars on the illegal Perez family from just over the border who don't speak a word of English nor contribute any of their money to this country.  Illegal immigrants under no circumstance should receive any money of any kind.  They do not belong to this country nor do they contribute toward it.  
	As I stated in Congress in Action, I work at Genovese.  I make sixty-five dollars a week.  I SHOULD be making eighty, but fifteen dollars of my money each week goes to the federal government to give to some illegal family or single mother.  I pay for this family's clothing.  I pay for this family's food.  I pay for this family's home.  But of course, my fifteen dollars a week is not enough to pay for all of the family's expenses.  So you, and your family have to pay more money each year so that some other family doesn't have to.   I'm seventeen years old.  I am going to an Ivy League university next year.  I can't afford to spend fifteen dollars on some illegal family in Texas or some single irresponsible mother.  And do you know what the tragic part is?  This "family" does not give a single dime back to the government.  And for illegal immigrants, that same government which gives them millions of OUR dollars a year, doesn't even acknowledge that they exist.  Somehow, THAT doesn't sound very fair to me.  
	And in fear or their payments ending, a great number of legal immigrants have rushed to turn in their applications for U.S. citizenship.  At no time in history has the number of applicants for U.S. citizenship been so large.  In Los Angeles County alone, it's quadrupled in just two years.  "In '94 I think we were running about 75,000 applications a year.  Last year, we ran about 175,000, and we're looking at about 300,000 this year," says Richard Rogers, who works in the Los Angeles branch of the Immigration and Naturalization service. Thanks to The Personal Responsibility Act, hundreds of thousands more non-citizens are applying to officially be a member of our country, and in turn contribute towards it.  Many crybaby liberals believe these "harsh" laws make non citizens worry about their benefits.  Good.  If they don't give or do anything FOR our government, they SHOULD worry if the government decides not to give them anything.  That worry is what pushes them to become a part of our nation, and be a REAL, tax paying American citizens.  Only until then can they at least expect some benefits.
	Limiting AFDC payment by $75 to those who haven't completed high school or gained a high school equivalency seemed way liberal to me.  High school drop-out is one of the big reasons for the enormous about of money welfare consumes each year.  If you don't have at least a high school education, you will find it tough to land a job that will support yourself, let alone a family as well.  School keeps kids off of the streets, and out of trouble with drugs, sex and pregnancies- things that will run them right out of school and right onto the welfare payroll.  Democrats love making a big sob story out of welfare "victims."  It makes me truly sick.  Want to hear a sob story?  Me hardly seeing my family for four years because I was too busy studying, and involving myself in the school and community, bettering other's lives, so that I may improve myself as a person, go on to a good school, and make a success of myself.  And the federal government didn't give me a cent.  They shouldn't have to.  So if I shouldn't get paid for doing more than what I am have  to, or am supposed to do, why should some pregnant, crackhead, sixteen year old girl get paid every week for doing what she's NOT supposed to do?  There's a sob story.  
	And spare me the argument that drug addicts are victims deserving a safety net, or that at least their children are.  That mentality, in psychological circles is called "enabling"-making it possible for chronically maladjusted people to indulge their self destructive behavior at the expense of themselves and others.  What "enabling" actually does is help destroy the people you ought to be trying to aid.  It is irresponsible.  Stop and think.  You have people on welfare who are drug addicts.  You give them cash.  What do you think happens?  They buy drugs.  If there is any money left they MAY (1 in a million chance) use it as intended.  If not, they fall back on their main means for scoring.  This means stealing or selling their bodies to get more of a fix, or just to survive and make ends meet.  This is how it really is on the streets for those welfare recipients who are also drug addicts.  So why not do them a favor and say you can't be a drug addict and a welfare recipient at the same time.  Being an addict doesn't necessarily mean you are a complete idiot.  A substantial percentage of them aren't happy about their addictions, but they need a big push to break their dependency cycle.  The dumbest thing in the world is to give an addict cash.  So why should our welfare system do that in the name of doing good?  Why not make it universally clear that welfare benefits will only go to people who, among other things, can pass a drug test at the time of application, and at random periods thereafter?  Why shouldn't welfare policy discourage drug addiction?   God knows that we can't rely on the President, seeing as how the public has re-elected a man whose first presidency showed a doubling of teen drug use, as well as a leader who admitted to smoking pot and said he would do it again.  Cutting off welfare to those with a drug addiction has nothing to do with individual liberties.  The individual is free to choose between continuing addiction or continuing welfare.  
	And as for the time restraint..why is it even 5 years that they can stay on AFDC?  One is quite sufficient.  Do you know how long it took me to get my job at Genovese???  Five days, not five years!  And I am not even out of high school.  It pays above minimum wage, the full time benefits are excellent, there is not a single reason why welfare recipients could not hold a job such as that.  Yet year after year we continue to find them at home waiting for Bob the mailman to deliver their welfare check.  Pathetic.  That is the only work to describe it.  No, perhaps pathetic and sickening.  
	And are we forgetting something?  There exists something called the TENTH AMENDMENT!!  Those powers not given to Congress, nor specifically enumerated, are reserved for the states and respectfully to the people.  The powers specifically enumerated to Congress are found in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.  The only facet of this Article that the most loose construction liberal mind MIGHT be able to construe as a reason for increasing welfare is that "The Congress shall have Power to....provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Providing for the general welfare of America means ensure that it's citizen's lives are protected, not spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the welfare system.  Welfare is not a responsibility of the federal government.  It is one of the states, or respectively, the people.. 	The American voters sent a clear message on that November 8th of 1994.  They want to see a positive change in government.  Many of these same voters are pointing a finger at welfare as a perfect example of big government at work wasting taxpayer money.  Congress was able to push through to legislation that greatly enhances the fight against the welfare trap.  Yet it is not the end of the war.  There are still several more battles to go until we may sign a peace treaty.










Endnotes (works cited in the text according to number)

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\What is fascism and why does it emerge .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

What is Fascism and Why does it Emerge?


The purpose of this essay is to explain what fascism is and why it emerges.

Fascism is a political ideology that consists of an all powering totalitarian government, which has total control of the people, the nation and the economy. The fascist economic system creates an upper class  for the owning/ruling class and leaves the working class in a lower state who in turn produce for the elite. To justify themselves as beneficial to the oppressed lower class, the fascist installs an extreme sense of Nationalisms and organicism.  If these method do not work then force is used.  Fascism emerges out of economic crisis, a revolutionary promise and reaction to capitalism.    It is often allowed to emerge because it is usually easy to get support from the upper class.

The fascist political structure consists of a totalitarian government with an extreme sense of absolutism.  Absolutism is the principle of a absolute power in control with power that transcends even the laws itself, under the control of one main dictator who carries  traits of  of a geniuses or of a hero.  This way the masses can be drawn into him through emotion and appeal.  With the totalitarian government the fascist has total control of the nation and the people.

Along with the fascist total ruling over the people and nation came its total ruling over the economy.  Although different fascist have had different economic structures, all regimes more or less, have had the same model. The main defining character of the fascist economy is the principle of goverment-buisness relationship. Like the first fascist regime in Italy, its leader created a system where private ownership was 
Kaspersion 2
allowed but state intervention was issued on management and labour.  He did this by creating grouped established syndicates, such as "The National Confederation of Commerce" or the "The National Federation of Credit and Insurgence".  The government then controlled these under managing agencies called "Corporations" which in turn would regulate issues and guidelines such as supply and demand,  labour disputes or what interest the business is to aim at.  Although the system is supposed to function as a partnership, the government is always in control and dominate.  

Although the fascists claim this system is in the interest of the nation, it is only in the interest of more empowerment  for the government.  Due to this system both the states interest and the interest of the owning class are integrated which creates an elite.  Therefore the development and technology only serves the interest of the elite and not the working class which is to be convinced to interact with promoting the sense that there dedication is necessary for the wellbeing of the nation.

Nationalism is a force which the fascist uses to eliminate conflict between social classes and restore unity through shared values such as race, language, religion and unifies men through symbols and traditions of a nation.  It reduces the risk of liberal individualism and focuses on funnelling aggression into a powerful force and channelling it against  outsiders so individuals will not question the state.   

Nationalism often relies on the use of a scapegoat.  The most blatant example of  this was Hitler's  scapegoating on the Jews.  He would blame them for the defeat of Germany in World War 1,  or claim they were the downfall of Germany.  Hitler took this idea to an extreme and later went on to ethnic cleansing which resulted in the death of 6 million Jews.

Another method of motivating the masses is to present the concept of organicism.  Organicism is the theory of viewing a nation like a growing powerful single body.  It focuses on the idea that  the body is made up of individual components all having individual functions, but are unimportant, and only important as a whole body.  The fascist applies this principle to the notion that the individual is unimportant as a single person but significant in the fact that it's a component of the community and the interest 
Kaspersion 3
of the state which is the superior element of exisistence.  The fascist feels that all 
means for the state are justifiable and "there is no room for detachment from the cause, for neutrality or for the luxury of being a mere spectator"(Growth, 97).  The fascist also uses this principle in justifying the rationality of the fascist economic system with demoralising the image of the individual as a person producing for himself, and not for the community as he should be.

If nationalism and organicism do not supply enough motivation to create a dominant ideology, the fascist resorts to "tapping deeper levels of motivation"(...,19) and uses coercive force. They try to achieve a goal of breaking down the individual spirit of liberalism and will resort to violence ways if necessary.  

The other use of force that the fascist utilises for conformity is to misinform the masses or not inform them at all.  Examples of this can either be the dismissal of civil rights such as freedom of speech or assembly or controlling the means of informative sources such as newspapers television and other sorts of communication.  These are tactics the fascist utilises if the population does not consent to the government.
 
Fascism emerges as a response to capitalism.  It is a revolutionary promise to rehabilitate a nation in economic depression or unemployment by uniting and focusing  the economic power of all social classes.  This in turn is to restabilise a nation economically.  It utilises the principle of nationalism to try to unite the social classes and if that does not work it resorts to force, "a coercive method of  resolving conflicts within an industrially more advanced society"(Ebenstein,81).  Usually fascism reinvests economic gain into its military with the hope of trying to mobilise the nation to its full capacity.  This system of government usually emerges when other forms of government have failed.  Where democracy lacked in a sense of hope and faith, fascism excelled.  Post war Germany, Italy and Argentina in 1955 can all exemplify this theory of emergence:

After World War 1, Italy had a poor economy and its national identified diminished.  To build the nation and strengthen it economically was to create a state the would take full control to accomplish this, the people were desperate for a solution.  

Kaspersion 4
World War I also effected Germany in an economic sense.  It left the country bankrupt, millions were jobless and the Treaty of Versailles left the nation with reparations.  The national socialists and  communists were the two main parties at the time. The Nazis utilised their economic plan to restore the nation winning mass appeal which enabled them to implement their plan of  imperialistic conquest which was Hitters real goal.  

Another period in which the economic condition enabled fascism to emerge was Argentina in 1930.  It was at this time a predominantly agricultural nation.  The conflict was landowners who were a comparison of feudal barons.  There was also the trend of world wide depression and the emergence of an anarchist movement that aimed at direct appropriation of farm and land ownership.  This attempt at unifying the South American country was overthrown ten years later.

Another factor that helps the fascist come into power is mass support from the owning class.  They see fascism as way of securing their wealth and corporations, and see it as protection from labour disputes. They support the fascist into office and then they themselves claim power as an elite.

In conclusion the fascists main concern is power.  They take total control over the people and all issues of the nation by totalitarianism.  The economic system is only in the interest of the state, creating an elite class and therefore oppressing the lower classes who are made to believe in the nation while its there blood and sweat that produces for the government,  and if they do not they are violently forced.  The only reason this type of government emerges is because it appears as a solution to economic crisis in time of despair and gets support from the powerful upper class which benefit from it, the lower class are oppressed. 








										Kaspersion 6

					Works consulted

Aston, E.B 		"The Fascist and his State of Mind".   New York: William Morrow 				and Co., 1937 ed.

Cohen, Carl 		"Communism Fascism and Democracy".   New York:Random 				House, 1963.

De Felice, Renzo 	"Interpretations of Fascism".   Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University 				Press, 1977.

Ebenstein, Alan O.	"Today's Isms"  New Jersey:  Prentice Hall, 1985

 "The Fascist Beast"  Economist, Apr 9' 1994.

Groth, Alexander. J 	"Major Ideologies:  An Interpretation Survey of Democracy, 					Socialism and Nationalism".   Toronto: John Willy and sons INC.,    			1971.

Kolinsky, Martin	"Social and Political Movements In Western Europe".  London: 				Croom Helm, 1976.

"The Comparison from the Existence of Communism to the Community of Existence" 
			Political Theory, August 19995.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\what is the public interest .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


                                                                                                               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 don�t want any part of government interfering with us when it comes to much of our private lives.  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\What Makes America Great.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
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.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\when corporations rule the world.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 



	The book "When corporations Rule the World" by David Korten describes the way things will be in the future with multi-national corporations.  These large corporations are found all over the world.  There are many different problems that are appearing and many of them can be seen to be connected to corporations.  We need to look at what is occurring with corporations and see if they are causing more problems or are helping to solve problems of the world.  David Korten addresses this question in his book.  He points out many of the problems that are being caused by multi-national corporations in the world today. He points out the effects to communities, families, the individual and the environment that are being forgotten about in the ever expanding process of economic globalization.  Korten states " the process of economic globalization  are not only spreading mass poverty, environmental devastation and social disintegration, they are also weakening our capacity for constructive social and cultural innovation at a time when such innovation is needed as never before"  (269).
Corporations have not always been as big and powerful as the are today.  Through economic globalization they have become very powerful.  "Corporations have emerged as the dominant governance institutions on the planet, with the largest among them reaching into virtually every country of the world and exceeding most governments in size and power" (54).  Prior to the Civil War,  owners were personally responsible for any liabilities or debts the company incurred, including wages owed to workers.  Early Americans feared corporations as a threat to democracy and freedom.  After the Civil War, owners and managers of corporations pressed relentlessly to expand their powers, and the courts gave them what they wanted.  Perhaps the most important change occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations the full constitutional protections of individual citizens.  By the early 20th century, courts had limited the liability of share holders;  corporations had been given perpetual life times;  othe number of owners was no longer restricted; the capital they could control was infinite.  Some corporations were even given the power of eminent domain.  In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court bestowed natural rights on unnatural creatures, amoral beasts that were created to serve selfish men.  Now corporations had life and liberty, but no morals, and the fears of the early Americans were soon realized.
		There are many problems that can be seen being caused by the multi-national corporations that have spread all over the world.  One of these problems is the thoughtlessness of these large corporations to abuse the environment that we all have to live in.  Corporations have been destroying both the renewable and non-renewable resources of the world.  Many of the nonrenewable resources are being used at very excessive rates for profit to the few and nothing for the people where the natural resources are being taken from.  "When industrialization caused countries to exceed their national resource limits, they simply reached out to obtain what was needed from beyond their own borders, generally by colonizing the resources of non-industrial people" (27).   
		Many renewable resources are also being destroyed all over the world and this is having very devastating effects to many people.  One of these main resources is the polluting of the fresh water and air in the world and the ability to absorb our wastes.  One example of this is the amount of damage that has done by acid rain.  "At the global level, each year deserts encroach on another 6 billion hectares of once productive land, the area covered by tropical forests is reduced by 11 million hectares, there is a net loss of 26 billion tons of soil from oxidation and erosion, and 1.5 billion hectares of prime agricultural land are abandoned due to salinization form irrigation projects" (28).
		Two of the most important aspects  of good health are in the abundance of clean water and proper sanitation.  "Countries with high income levels are experiencing increases in rates of cancer, respiratory illness is, stress and cardiovascular disorders, and birth defects, as well as falling sperm counts" (41).  This is due mostly to what is left after economic growth, waste and pollution.	
		One of the other effects is that many of these multi-national corporations have much more power than many governments of the world.  "As markets become freer and more global, the power to  govern increasingly passes from national governments to global corporations, and the interests of those corporations, and the interests of those corporations diverge ever farther from the human interests" (67).  This means that these corporations have the power to influence many decisions that are made by the governments of the world.  This can be done in two main ways.  The first is in helping to get the people that they feel will help make political decisions that will benefit them.  This is done through the many donations that are made to the campaign funds of those individuals.  The other way is in the nature of the corporation.  This is through the large amounts of capital that the success of the corporation of the is dependent on.  In democracies, a  person gets one vote.  "In the market one dollar is one vote, and you get as many votes as you have dollars.  No dollar, no vote.  Markets are inherently biased in favor of people of wealth" (66).  This means that the market only recognizes money, not people.  It gives no voice of the penniless, and when not balanced by constraining political forces can become and instrument of oppression by which the wealthy monopolize society's resources leaving the less fortunate with out land, jobs, technology or other means of livelihood.  "Money is its sole measure of value, and its practice is advancing policies that are deepening social and environmental disintegration every where" (69).  
		These huge corporations are also effecting and changing our lives in another way.  These corporations are able to manipulate the cultural values and universal symbols of the societies of the world.  "Our cultural symbols provide an important source of identity and meaning; they affirm our worth, our place in society....When control of our cultural symbols passes to corporations, we are essentially yielding to them the power to define who we are...We become simply members of the "Pepsi generation" detached from place and any meaning other than those a corporation finds is profitable to confer on us" (158).   The societies of the world, are loosing their heritage and traditions that had separated each of them and made them each unique.  As the world grows smaller through technology and we become more dependent on each other many of these important traditions that united a community are being lost and forgotten. The corporations are looking to just make a profit.  
		There are many other problems that are being caused by multinational corporations that are being over looked because they can not be measured by monetary means.  These are the effects that the individual and society are noticing more and are trying to have to deal with.  The first of these is in the feeling of job security.  "Not so long ago, the firm which a person worked was almost like family.  It was primary support system in an otherwise impersonal and transient world.  A good job was far more than an income.  It was a source of identity and of valued and enduring relationships" (245).  With these large corporations we are getting away from this feeling of security.  Many people are learning that "no amount of money can buy peace of mind, a strong and loving family, caring friends, and a feeling that one is meaningful and important work" (243).  This is becoming true for people with jobs on any level.  There is no longer any  job security for virtually anyone at any level.
		This feeling is also bring on many other problems.  These are in the family.  With out security stress levels can become very high causing many problems in the family.  Is this why the divorce rate in America has climbed to unbelievable heights?  "High rates of deprivation, depression, divorce, teenage pregnancy, violence, alcoholism,  drug abuse, crime and suicide are among the more evident consequences in both high and low income countries" (45).
		One of the other main problems falls to the poor societies of the world. They end up getting totally neglected by multinational corporations.  This is done on all levels.  From the taking of natural non-renewable resources to the poor not being able to make any impact on the decisions made because they do not have the capital to make their 'vote'.  They are being excluded from land, technology is eliminating jobs faster than it is creating new ones, and public services that were placed there to help them are being dismantled because there is not enough funds.  This is all being done to increase the wealth of those who really do not need any more.  These large corporations do not have feelings or think of the destructive things that are being caused by their practices.  
		There are many things that need to be done to turn all of these problems around.  Major changes will have to occur.  One of these changes is trying to get back to small businesses that this country was started on and still depends on today.  Locally owned small businesses are not only the foundation for strong communities; they are the driving force of strong economies.  Small businesses are our engines of innovation and job creation.  One example of this how small business is better than large corporations, is in the court case where an 81 year old woman, sued the huge multinational corporation of McDonalds for serving her a coffee heated to 180-190 degrees, far above the average temperature of 140 degrees.  She was hospitalized for 8 days and had to undergo skin grafts for third degree burns.  She was awarded $2.9 million dollars in the case.  The jury was told that this had happened to 700 patrons over the past 10 years who had burned themselves on the super heated coffee.  Only after the verdict did any fast food changes evaluate this unnecessary practice of subjecting their customers to this potential injury.
		If this had occurred at a local neighborhood coffee shop, think of the consequences.  How many customers would get burned until a customer talked to the owner and demand that the temperature get turned down.  Big corporations require a legal system that allows the average citizen to force them to pay for their mistakes and mend their ways.  Local business are able to more easily hear the voice of their customers and remedy the problems more quickly and easily. 
		Connected with this, since corporations can not be eliminated, they need to at least change their ways.  They need to "Think globally, act locally" (271).  This means that the need to help out the community.  To set up programs for the people of the community.  To bring 'community' back into the cities and towns where these businesses are.  They also need to make sure that these efforts are working and reaching the people that really would benefit from them.
		"We must decide whether the power to govern will be in the hands of living people or will reside with corporate entities driven by a different agenda.  To regain control of our future and bring human societies into balance with the planet, we must reclaim the power we have yielded to the corporation" (48).  This statement means to main things.  That we as individuals must work together to reclaim the power that was given to these corporations and that they are abusing.  It also states that societies need to come into balance with the planet, mainly the environment.  
		Korten states the three main things that have to change in order to come into balance with the environment.  These are  one the "Rates of use of renewable resources do no exceed the rates at which the ecosystem is able to regenerate them."  Second, " Rates of consumption or irretrievable disposal of nonrenewable resources do not exceed the rates at which nonrenewable substitutes are developed and phased into use."  Third, "Rates of pollution emission into the environment do not exceed the rates of the ecosystem's natural assimilative capacity."  (272).   With out more strict laws that effect corporations world wide it is going to be very difficult to have an impact on improving the environment.  
		In this book, Korten makes important points to opening the eyes of society to making changes to the free market and the multinational corporations that rule over it.  He points out the effects of the threefold of human crisis, the deepening of poverty, the social disintegration and  environmental destruction.  At the heart of this destruction is the corporations.  The are unaccountable for the polluting and driven by an addiction to economic growth, the serve the interests of a very small international elite and are harming the rest of us.  He hopes on the co-existence revolution that is bound to come.  He also looks to an awakening of civil society and the growth of more social movements.  
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Who was to blame for the Cold War .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Who was to blame for the Cold War?


	The blame for the Cold War cannot be placed on one person -- it developed as a series of chain reactions as a struggle for supremacy.  It can be argued that the Cold War was inevitable, and therefore no one's fault, due to the differences in the capitalist and communist ideologies.  It was only the need for self-preservation that had caused the two countries to sink their differences temporarily during the Second World War.  Yet many of the tensions that existed in the Cold War can be attributed to Stalin's policy of Soviet expansion.  It is necessary, therefore, to examine the role of Stalin as a catalyst to the Cold War.

	Stalin's foreign policies contributed an enormous amount to the tensions of the Cold War.  His aim, to take advantage of the military situation in post-war Europe to strengthen Russian influence, was perceived to be a threat to the Americans.  Stalin was highly effective in his goal to gain territory, with victories in Poland, Romania, and Finland.  To the western world, this success looked as if it were the beginning of serious Russian aggressions.  The western view of the time saw Stalin as doing one of two things: either continuing the expansionist policies of the tsars that preceded him, or worse, spreading communism across the world now that his "one-state" notion had been fulfilled.  It also must be mentioned that Stalin is seen as wanting "unchalleged personal power and a rebuilt Russia strong enough to withstand 'caplitalist encirclement.'"1

	Admittedly, the first view of Stalin, as an imperialist leader, may be skewed.  The Russians claim, and have always claimed, that Stalin's motives were purely defensive.  Stalin's wished to create a buffer zone of Communist states around him to protect Soviet Russia from the capitalist West.  In this sense, his moves were not aggressive at all -- they were truly defensive moves to protect the Soviet system.  His suspicions of Western hostility were not unfounded: the British and U.S. intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918-1920) were still fresh in Stalin's memory when he took power.  Furthermore, Stalin was bitter because he was not informed of U.S. nuclear capabilities until shortly before the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.  Compounding tensions was the fact that Stalin's request that Russia be allowed to participate in the occupation of Japan was denied, even though Russia had declared war on Japan on 8th August (the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 10th August) and had been responsible for annexing south Sakhalin as agreed to at Yalta.  This failure to be included in the Western world's politics created an even deeper rift between the two superpowers.

	Clashes between Stalin and the West first appear at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences in February and July 1946, respectively.  Though the mood at Yalta was more or less cooperative, Stalin agitated matters by demanding that all German territory east of the Rivers Oder and Neisse be given to Poland (and thus remain under Soviet influence).  Both Roosevelt and Churchill refused to agree to these demands.  The Soviet Union responded bluntly, saying "..the Soviet Government cannot agree to the existence in Poland of a Government hostile to it."2  The atmosphere at the Potsdam Conference was noticeably cooler, with Truman replacing Roosevelt as the representative from the United States.  "Truman...had been kept in complete ignorance by Roosevelt about foreign policy,"3 which meant that Truman was not aware of the secret assurances of security Roosevelt had made to Stalin.  His policy towards Soviet Russia, then, was much more severe than that of Roosevelt.  He was quoted as saying "We must stand up to the Russians...We have been too easy with them."4  Both Truman and Churchill were annoyed because Germany east of the Rivers Oder and Neisse were being occupied by Russian troops and were being run by the pro-communist Polish government, who expelled over five million Germans.  This went directly against the agreements made at Yalta earlier in the year.  The west viewed this as an act of aggression on the part of the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union responded with a statement saying "Poland broders with the Soviet Union, what [sic] cannot be said of Great Britain or the United States."5

	From this point, the Cold War truly becomes a chain reaction.  In March of 1946, Churchill presented his 'Iron Curtain' speech at Fulton, Missouri, in response to the spread of communism in eastern Europe.  He called for a western alliance to combat the threat.  Stalin's response was hostile: rather than trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement, Stalin continued to tighten his grip on eastern Europe.  Communist governments were installed in every area of eastern Europe (barring Czechoslovakia) by the end of 1947.  These governments were implemented by guerrilla tactics: elections were rigged, non-communist members of the governments were expelled, with many being arrested or executed, and eventually, Stalin dissolved all non-communist political parties.  Stalin began to implement a reign of terror using the Russian Army and his secret police force.  Moreover, Stalin had increased his influence in the Russian zone of Germany as if it belonged to Russia.  He allowed only the communist party and drained the area of its vital resources.  

	The West reacted.  It appeared to them that Russia's attitude went against all of the promises that Stalin had made at Yalta -- namely, that Stalin would permit free elections in the eastern European states.  Russia argued that it needed to maintain a sphere of influence in the area for security reasons: to this, even Churchill agreed in 1944.  Further, Russia argued that the areas had never had democratic governments, and that a communist system would allow these 'backward countries' to progress and flourish.  Stalin's policy of expansion worried the West: in response, the West introduced the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, both of which sought to arrest the spread of communism.

	Stalin's aggressive tactics did not end with creating a sphere of influence.  Stalin re-established Cominform in September 1947.  Cominform represented a union of all of the communist states within Europe, including representatives from the French and Italian communist parties.  Even within this communist structure, Stalin had to exert his influence.  It was not enough for a state to be merely communist: it had to adopt the Russian-style communism.  Furthermore, the states within Cominform were expected to keep trade within the Cominform member states, and were discouraged from making any contact with the Western world.  Russia strengthened the ties with the Cominform countries through the Molotov plan, which offered Russian aid to the satellite states, and the establishment of Comecon, which served to coordinate the economic policies of the communist states.  These actions on the part of Stalin only increased the rift between the capitalist and the communist systems, and made future compromise and negotiations more difficult.

	Perhaps the most aggressive move that Stalin made, however, was the takeover of Czechoslovakia in February 1948.  Several key issues arose in this conflict.  First, the U.S. felt alienated when Czechoslovakia rejected Marshall Aid, which the U.S. blamed on the influence of the communist party.  Second, the Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia was a communist, the President and Foreign Minister were not.  Finally, the fact that the communists took power in Czechoslovakia by means of an armed coup sent waves of fear through the western world, causing the 'iron curtain' to fall even further.  The U.N. had its hands tied, because there were 'free' elections (the candidates were all communist) and there was no proof of Russian involvement.  While it cannot be proved that Stalin ordered the coup, the signals were clear: Stalin had likely encouraged the coup, and it was not coincidental that Russian troops in Austria were moved up to the Czech border.  Czechoslovakia was the final east-west bridge, and with the fall of it, the 'iron curtain' was complete.

	The final hostile movement of Stalin of importance was the Berlin blockade and airlift.  When Russia grew dissatisfied with the economic disparity that had developed in Berlin, it responded by closing all road, rail and canal links between West Berlin and West German.  The goal was to force western powers from West Berlin by reducing it to the starvation point.

	While the blame for the Cold War cannot be placed on a single man, Stalin's expansionist policy was clearly an ever-present catalyst in the war.  Certain Truman was not blameless, but the U.S. was not expanding its empire -- the Soviet Union was.  Whether the expansion was for self-preservation, or whether it was merely imperialistic expansion, is relatively immaterial.  What Stalin's actions unarguably did was start a string of chain-reactions within the western powers, and therefore, a good deal of the blame must rest with him.

	                                     


Bibliography

Aronsen, Lawrence & Martin Kitchen, The Origins of the Cold War in Comparative Perspective: American, British and Canadian Relations with the Soviet Union 1941-1948.  London: MacMillan Press, 1988. 

Davis, Lynn E.  The Cold War Begins: Soviet-American Conflict over Eastern Europe.  New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974.

Dockrill, Michael.  The Cold War: 1945-1963.  London: MacMillan Education Ltd., 1988.

Halle, Louis J.  The Cold War as History.  London: Chatto & Windus, 1971.

Jonsson, Christer.  Superpower: Comparing American and Soviet Foreign Policy.  London: Frances Pinter Publishers, 1984.

LaFeber, Walter.  America, Russia, and the Cold War 1945-1990, 6th ed..  New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1991.

Maier, Charles S., ed. The Origins of the Cold War and Contemporary Europe.  New York: New Viewpoints, 1978.

McCauley, Martin.  The Origins of the Cold War.  Essex: Longman Group Ltd., 1983.

Smith, Joseph.  The Cold War, 1945-1965.  Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Ltd., 1989.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Why a County should not ban the Sale of alcohol.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 



	I propose to change the current status of Craighead County, Arkansas from a dry county to a wet county.  Although there are strong arguments that the benefits of being a dry county are greater than the drawbacks, it is important to reassess those ideas.  There are two very important drawbacks to a dry county.  One is the loss of businesses and revenues from businesses that sell or serve alcoholic beverages.  The second is the safety of those who consume alcohol.
	First, we must consider the annual amount of money that leaves the pockets of Craighead County citizens and goes into the neighboring counties.  As most know you are unable to purchase alcohol under the current laws.  Yet, people do not refrain from the consumption of alcoholic beverages.  Logically we can conclude that people purchase the alcohol elsewhere.  Money that could recycle itself into the economy of Craighead County contributes to others.  There are numerous small businesses along the county line that sell only alcohol. Craighead is a college county.  College students spend approximately $4.2 billion annually to purchase 430 million gallons of alcoholic beverages.   These businesses could be run here, in Jonesboro, instead of places like Harrisburg and Truman.  The fact is that people are going to drink.  Why not sell to Craighead citizens in Craighead?  It makes far greater sense to put back where you take out.  Meaning if you earn a living in Craighead one should purchase from those there as well.  If the citizens could legally buy alcohol her they would not be helping out their neighbors.  Not only by bringing in those stores that specialize in alcohol, but those businesses who serve it as well, Craighead could increase it's income for small business men and for the county. Tax money from liquor sales goes 20% to counties on basis of unincorporated population, and  80% to cities on basis of incorporated population.   In turn that would increase employment by creating jobs.  Certain restaurant chains refuse to expand into the area partially because they can not serve alcoholic beverages to those of legal age.  Business creates jobs, that is a fact, but if business will not build in the area naturally there will be less work.  By making Craighead County a "wet" county not only would it increase the per capita income of those there but increase the job availability as well.
	More important than the economic aspects of turning Craighead into a wet county is the safety of the citizens.  Drinking and driving is a deadly act.  If Craighead county was a wet county it would decrease driving time to purchase it and decrease the chances of deaths due to drinking and driving.  It is that simple.  Jonesboro houses a vast number of college students.  Despite the fact that approximately half are under age they do drink;  Not only those that are under age but those that have had their 21st birthday.  No amount of lecturing and preaching is going to change the fact that college students drink and often in access.  A matter of fact in a survey done in 1990, 80% of all college students drink alcohol on a fairly regular basis.  Of the 80%, 2/3rds of them had been intoxicated within the last two weeks prior to the survey.   We can not only look at the students of Arkansas State University, we must also take into consideration adults as well.
	Accidents can happen to anyone, at any time.  By having to drive the added distance, outside county lines, we add miles to the possibility of an accident.  Not only are there added miles, but because they are going to purchase alcohol, the chances for an accident are greater.  I do not wish to condone the actions of those who chose to break the law in that way, but it is not only their lives at risk.  When there is a drunk driver on the road they create a very deadly weapon.  Those innocent passers by are also at risk.  If Craighead was a wet county the people who decide to drink have less distance to cover to obtain alcohol and less of a chance to drink it before they reach their destination.  It does not make right the actions of those under age.  However, we must consider the value of human life.  If even some of the contributing factors could be eliminated, even decreased, the lives of the innocent as well as the guilty might be saved in the event that someone drinks and drives.
	With the added availability of alcohol the novelty of drinking goes down.  For some, the attraction to alcohol is the sole fact that they are not supposed to have it.  By making Craighead a wet county we take that desire away.  
	In conclusion, there are a great many circumstances that should be examined before any decision is made.  By making it a wet county, business will develop and other means of employment will occur.  The biggest benefit is indisputably that which involves human life.  If people do not have to drive to get the alcohol the chances of a related accident significantly go down.  Human life is invaluable, it is fragile and therefore needs all the help it can get.  I in no way condone the illegal consumption of alcohol or its consumption to a great excess.  But there are benefits to making Craighead County a wet county that can not be ignored.  Therefore I propose that there be a change in that particular aspect of the county.
	
	
 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Why Did the Polls Get it Wrong in 1992 .TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Why Did the Polls Get it Wrong in 1992?

Opinion polls play a major role in politics, they can be used by the Government to decide when to call and election, and, among other things, how their pre-election campaigns are run.  Throughout the history of opinion polling, from the time when polling began to be widely used before an election, in 1945, until 1987, the last general election before 1992, the polls have on average been correct to within 1.3% of the vote share between the three leading parties, and the 'other' category (Crewe, 1992, p. 478).  This puts all the previous opinion polls well within the 3% margin of error.  Because of the past accuracy of opinion polling, the system has had great credibility and has always been trusted, both by the public, and political parties.  The way polling forecasts can affect the way people vote is very dramatic, this is because they can be a 'self fulfilling prophecy', in that some voters like to back the 'winning team', and others only vote for a party they feel has a real chance.  This was demonstrated in 1983, when the Alliance, frustrated with the media concentrating only on their position in the polls, leaked their own private polls to the press, resulting in a late surge of support (Crewe, 1992, p.478).

Britain generally has a much greater number of opinion polls carried out than in other countries, this is due to the large number of national newspapers, and the amount of current affairs programming on television.  The period prior to the 1992 general election saw a much greater intensity of opinion polling than ever before. During the 29 days between the date of the announcement of the actual election date, 11th  March, and the election date itself, 9th April, there were a total of no less than 57 national opinion polls.

The 1992 election will always be remembered as the one the pollsters got wrong, during the lead up to the election, they almost all showed Labour ahead of the Tories. Of the four polls carried out in the two days prior to the actual election date, all of them pointed to a hung parliament; one put the Conservatives 0.5% ahead, one put Labour and the Tories neck and neck, the other two showed Labour ahead by  a narrow margin (Crewe, 1992, p. 8).  On the actual day of the election, exit polls carried out by the BBC and ITN both showed there would be a hung parliament, although both of them had the Conservatives slightly ahead.  They were both not far from the actual Conservative 43%, and Labour 35%, and if they had predicted using a uniform swing assumption, they would have been very close to the real result.  But they adjusted the figures as they were suspicious of the results being so far out of line with the mornings polls.

The polls were not up to their normally high closeness to the actual results for one, or both, of two very broad reasons.  Firstly there must have been a late swing of undecided voters to Conservative, or secondly, that the polls that were carried out were all inaccurate, obviously for the same or similar reasons.

Looking at the first explanation, the theory that there was a late swing of 'undecided' voters in the favour of the Tories, this would have meant that the polling companies had all been correct at the time.  But this, in itself, could not possibly have accounted for the incorrectness of the polls.  The swing would have had to be in the order of 4%, which is unbelievably high.  Although there were an exceptional number of 'undecideds' on the eve of the election, and it was evident from the post election recall surveys that there was a late swing towards the Tories (Crewe, 1992, p. 485).

Before we can look at the second explanation, that the polls were simply wrong, we should look at where the 1992 polls differed from the past, remarkably accurate polls.  Polling practices had not changed much from previous years, nor had the style of the polling, the questions, samples, etc.  One reason that has been put forward is that the polls didn't check that people were eligible to vote or not, this may have caused major discrepancies in the outcome of the polls.  The reason this may have caused such a big problem is that a lot of people may have taken part in opinion polls when they were not registered to vote, this is because they were avoiding having to pay poll tax.  In general the people avoiding the poll tax in this way were Labour voters, which could explain why the forecast polls showed Labour in the lead.  On the other hand some people may have thought that simply paying their poll tax entitled them to vote, and did not actually register.  There were reports of dozens of people being turned away from polling stations, as they were not registered, this was especially true at polling stations near council estates, again this is where there would be a majority of Labour voters (Crewe, 1992, p.487).  A Granada TV survey of unregistered voters, found that of those interviewed, 42% would have voted Labour, compared to 21% Conservative.  Some have said that another reason for the polls inaccuracies was because they didn't take into account overseas voters, but these are in negligible numbers (on average 50 per constituency, 0.07% of electorate).

Another good reason for the polls inaccuracies is that, as one columnist put it, we are becoming 'a nation of liars'.  This is because a lot of people simply lied to opinion pollsters.  It is believed the majority of those who did this were Conservative voters, who because of the 'shame factor' didn't like admitting that they voted Tory.  Also, there could have been a prominence of Conservative voters who didn't want to divulge their vote to pollsters.  These could have accounted for up to 5% of voters (Crewe, 1992, p. 487).  Also it is argued that some of the electorate taking part in opinion polls lied about their vote to express their views on certain issues, but still wanting to vote for a different party; for example, a person who actually voted Tory could have told opinion pollsters that they were going to vote for the Green Party because they are concerned about 'green' issues.  This would, in theory, have caused the Conservatives to worry about the popularity of the Green Party, and focus more on environmental issues. This kind of thing would have affected the accuracy of the opinion polls.

The fact that some Conservative voters would lie when faced with an opinion pollsters questions does still not explain away the fact that exit polls underestimated the actual Tory lead.  This is because these were carried out by a secret ballot, so a 'shameful' Tory would not have had to tell of their vote face-to-face with someone.  So, the exit polls should have been far more accurate that the forecast polls.  This discrepancy is possibly because the 'exit' polls were carried out at a selection of polling stations that did not reflect the nation properly as a whole.  i.e. there was a lower proportion of council tenants interviewed in exit polls than there are in the total electorate.

In conclusion, I believe that the failure of the opinion polls to accurately predict the outcome of the election is a mixture of both a last-minute swing of undecided voters towards the Conservatives, as was evident from very late polls, and follow-up surveys, and a systematic underestimation of the Conservative lead, due to the aforementioned 'shame factor'; and also an overestimation of Labours position, due to the poll tax, as explained above.


Bibliography

Broughton, D. (1995), Public Opinion Polling and Politics in Britain, Harvester Whitsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.

Coxall, B. & Robins, L. (1994), Contemporary British Politics (2nd Ed.), Macmillan, London.

Crewe, I. (1992), 'A Nation of Liars: opinion polls and the 1992 general election', Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 45, pp. 475-495.

Crewe, I. (1992), 'Why did Labour lose (yet again)?', Politics Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 8-9.

Jones, B. & Kavanagh, D. (1994), British Politics Today (5th Ed.), Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Ippolito, S.D. (1976), Public Opinion and Responsible Democracy, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

 




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Why do governments find it so hard to control public expendit.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Why do governments find it so hard to control public expenditure?

	Since the 1970's rising public expenditure has become a politically salient issue, with the focus being on the difficulties experienced in trying to control it.  In order to answer a question concerning why governments find it hard to control public expenditure it is first necessary to look at the reasons for the growth in public spending.  There are three approaches which attempt to give reasons for growing public expenditure which I intend to scrutinise, these are, the societal system approach, the political system approach and the governmental system approach.  An evaluation of these approaches should in turn shed light as to why governments find rising public expenditure hard to control.  Following this approach which gives a wide outlook on the problems facing governments in controlling public expenditure, I will look at the post 1979 conservative government as it in particular targeted controlling expenditure upon taking office.

	Under the societal system approach one reason why a growth in public spending can be seen to have occurred is due to Wagner's 'law of increasing state activity.'  Wagner's claim is that as per capita real income increases in particular nations, they will spend a higher proportion of national product through government.  As Wagner's reasons for increased public expenditure tend to be centralised around industrialisation and its associated effects it is not surprising to find that he thought the density of urban living would increase social frictions to such an extent that the government would be called in to handle it.  That is to say, urban living would result in the need for enhanced police protection and other forms of government regulation.  Wagner also believed that with growing industry certain investments would require so much capital that the state would have to provide it.  He thought there would also be public goods that may not be in the interests of an entrepreneur to provide.

	There are counter arguments to Wagner's suggestions, the first of these is that it could be argued that increased density would provide opportunities for economies of scale.  Thus, the proximity of people to one another could result in networks of personal support, lessening the need for public services.  Secondly, contrary to Wagner's arguments for public good provision by the state, it is possible to show other countries that either do without it, or provide for user charges.  This shifts the burden from general revenues to those who benefit most directly.

	Another reason for rising government expenditure under the societal system approach is expressed via Tarschy's 'demonstration effect.'  He suggests that the coming of television "has led to increased awareness of the standard of living enjoyed by other segments in society and even in other parts of the world.  As a consequence, expectations and pretensions mount, and people get increasingly sensitive to, injustices in the distribution of public goods."  But, if people become aware of goods they would like, then why don't they work harder.

	Peacock and Wiseman (1961) have suggested an alternative hypothesis known as the 'displacement effect', in which they believe public expenditure is limited by available revenues.  They suggest that we have seen increases in revenue occurring because after the two world wars the level of taxation, although falling down from the enormously high levels in wartime, did not recede back to the old level.  Thus their hypothesis is that major crises expand the public tolerance for increased levels of taxation.  An argument against this hypothesis is that why did expenditure continue to rise in the 1960's when there was no displacement effect.

	Another attempt at explaining rising public expenditure occurs under the political system approach which proposes that pressures from within the political system itself is responsible.  Anthony Downs suggests that public spending should be seen as a function of party competition, in which each party pursues policies it thinks the public wants.  The government will seek to set spending and tax levels at a point which will give them the greatest support.  They will therefore attempt to maximise the visible effects of spending and try to disguise the costs of taxation to the public.  According to Anthony Downs this will result in the size of a governments budget being less than optimal.  "In so far as taxation can be concealed from the electorate, the government budget will tend to be greater than the correct one.  Voters will underestimate the costs they are paying for special benefits received and parties will build this bias into their budget."  The problem with this approach is that although it is useful in explaining the way in which government raises and spends money it isn't very helpful in explaining the growth in expenditure.

	There is also the party ideologies influence to consider in this approach, in that under a socialist government we would expect to see greater public expenditure.  This is not always the case though as according to Wildavsky "non-socialist, liberal, Catholic or conservative parties when they are in power, often spend proportionately as much (or more) as do avowed socialists" The reason that a fall in state spending does not occur according to Wildavsky is that non-socialist parties will not substantially  reduce the level of spending they inherit.  It appears that there exists a consensus between the parties in that there will not be expenditure cuts below existing levels.

	As well as ideology, structure of the state can also be examined to determine if there is any relationship between centralisation, decentralisation and state spending.  The outcomes may go either way as although centralised states may spend less per capita because they are better able to exert control from the top, it could also be argued that because the cost of spending programmes is diffused over the largest number of taxpayers, none has sufficient interest in reducing expenditure to lower total costs.  Less centralised states on the other hand might spend more because there are so many more spending spigots to turn on, or they may spend less per capita because the multiplicity of  local governments makes the connection closer between taxing and spending.  Wildavsky argues that it is within centralised states that we see higher public expenditure, which may be because all highly centralised governments are big on social service spending.

	The governmental system approach can be seen to try and explain growth in public spending through two models.  The first of these is the rational model in which governments will set out its goals and values and what policies it will use to achieve them, such as cost-benefit analysis, expectations, etc.  But the problem with this view is that the theory is not according to reality.  Firstly, it is not feasible to list all government options, secondly, no informational techniques are available to work out the cost-benefit analysis of every decision, and finally there is the assumption that one group of people have all the necessary techniques, skills and information to make the decisions, and this is simply not true.  It would appear that the rational model is established on an irrational basis as it contains subjective values.

	The second model which attempts to explain growth in expenditure under the governmental system approach is the budgetary  incrementalism model.  This model suggest that the largest determining factor of the size and content of this years budget is last years budget.  This is supported by Wilensky as he says "precedent is the major determinant of who gets what the government has to give, and how much goes to the programme or agency depends on what it got last time around" Two factors further encourage this model, the first being that the magnitude of the process (40%-45% of GDP is public expenditure) would imply that there is not the time or money to assess costs, and so a government will look to the margins and leave the rest unchanged.  Secondly, there is the assumption that decisions are made sequentially and so the outcome depends on the order that decisions are taken.  The budget can therefore be seen to be like an iceberg, with by far the largest part of it being below the surface, outside the control of anyone.

	For the three approaches that attempt to explain the growth in expenditure it is possible to see some evidence as to why governments may find it difficult to control public expenditure even though there exists arguments against some of these approaches.  The most prominent indications being industrialisation under the societal system approach, party competition and state structure in the political system approach and incrementalism within the governmental system approach.  Yet these theories just present a widespread outlook and so I now turn my attention to the post 1979 Thatcher administration to see the problems it faced in controlling public expenditure upon taking office.

	The conservative administration that came to power in 1979 believed that public spending absorbed too great a share of national resources.  Its view was that over the years public spending had been increased on assumptions about economic growth which were not achieved, the inevitable result being a growing burden of taxes and borrowing.  If the conservative government were to control public expenditure it could use three main options available to it.  The first of these was off loading to the private sector, the second being to contain expenditure on the programmes that are retained, and thirdly  reducing the costs of running public services through greater efficiency.

	At first off loading appears to be a healthy option for the government as in 1979 only a small proportion of claims on the public purse could be attributed to the provision of services which the private sector could not profitably supply; these being defence and law and order which accounted for 14 per cent of total public spending.  Thus around 75 per cent of all public spending goes on services or systems of income support which private markets can provide.  As such, education and health which constituted 26 per cent of total spending did not count as public goods as markets can and do supply them were the demand exists.  This was not a popular view in the UK as since the second world war there had been an assumption that these services should be available free, and the criterion of whether people used them should be need, and not ability to pay.  This was also true of social security payments which in 1979 accounted for a further 24 per cent of expenditure; this now means that around three quarters of public expenditure is accountable for.

	This structure of public spending in 1979 raises two important points, firstly the main welfare services of health, education and social services had to be tackled if public spending was to be reduced or merely contained, and secondly, there were few areas of public spending which did not command support across the political spectrum.  Therefore public expenditure cuts by off loading could not be effective unless it undermined some of the basic assumptions underlying the role of the public sector throughout the post-war period.

	If the government had succeeded in off-loading then the task of restricting the growth of public spending would have been easy, but they off loaded little, leaving the conservatives with the task of containing and wherever possible reducing expenditure on existing programmes.  This wasn't an impossible task as only three years earlier there labour predecessors had succeeded in reducing expenditure, but this was only because it was the price it had to pay for being bailed out of trouble by the IMF.  Although this cut in expenditure only lasted for one year as by 1978 public expenditure was rising again.  The conservative's faced two problems in containing expenditure, firstly, there was demand factors to consider such as pressures from users and providers for better services.  Secondly, there was the supply factors such as changes in demography, as well as new technology and the price of goods and labour, which all tend to raise the costs of the services to be provided.

	For the demand factors a reason why increased pressure from users would have occurred is because the major services of health, education and income support are all 'superior goods'; that is, as incomes grow, people tend to want more of them.  Yet in most of the public sector the pressure for more spending comes from those who provide the services, from the government departments and their ministers who sponsor them.  It is in the interest of ministers to spend more rather than less as their political success tends to be identified with the new programmes they introduce.

	In terms of the supply factors which present difficulties for containing expenditure there is the fact  that during the 1980's changes occurred in the structure of the population which added to the pressure for more spending.  For example the population was aging, and the number of young people entering the labour market rose at a time of record unemployment so the government was more or less compelled to mount programmes designed to occupy them.  Changes in technology also contributed to cost increases, for example, the department of health plans that advances in medical techniques will add half a per cent a year to the cost of running the service, and a similar process works in defence.  There are economic pressures too as most of the public sector services are labour intensive, so that in areas like health care which involve face to face contact, there is little scope for substituting capital for labour, which is the normal way of reducing costs in other parts of the economy.

	The arguments expressed above shoe that containment of public expenditure was also subject to many problems for the conservative government, thus it had to turn to efficiency drives to reduce the cost of running public services.  When the conservatives came to power in 1979 they put efficiency at the top of their priorities for the public sector.  In their 1981 white paper 'Efficiency in the Civil Service' it stated "the government took office determined to improve the efficiency of the Civil Service, to eliminate waste and to promote methods of administration which enable and encourage staff to give, the best possible value to the taxpayer."  Raising efficiency for the government was therefore not only a manifesto commitment but also the only way in which the otherwise incompatible objectives of cutting spending whilst preserving services could be combined.  If the government could get more out of the resources they had at their disposal, then increasing pressures to spend could be made consistent with little or no growth in spending.

	Due to the nature of public services in the UK it remained that the only available avenue open to the conservatives to control public expenditure was through greater efficiency of public services.  Yet  there were still more obstacles to be faced in order to achieve greater efficiency, the most prominent one being that those responsible for running the public sector, from the ministers to the service providers, had little time to denote to ensuring that the services they were responsible for were efficiently run.  Their priorities lay elsewhere, for ministers with devising policies and ensuring their acceptance, whilst service providers were more concerned with the standard and scope of the service they worked in rather than whether it was provided in the most economical way.  This problem of encouraging greater efficiency as well as the governments apparent inability to contain expenditure or to off-load it, seem to me to illustrate the reasons why governments find it so hard to control public expenditure.

Bibliography

A Harrison (1989) 'The Control of Public Expenditure 1979-89'

A Jordan & J Richardson (1987) 'British Politics and the Policy Process' ch. 9

L Pliatsky (1989) 'The Treasury Under Mrs Thatcher' 

A Wildavsky (1985) 'The logic of public sector growth' in J- E Lane (ed) State and Market
  




























f:\12000 essays\politics & studies (280)\Woodrow Wilson.TXT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
From the beginning of the 1912 election, the people could sense the new ideas of Woodrow Wilson would move them in the right direction.  Wilson's idea of New Freedom would almost guarantee his presidential victory in 1912.  In contrast to Wilson's New Freedom, Roosevelt's New Nationalism called for the continued consolidation of trusts and labor unions, paralleled by the growth of powerful regulatory agencies.  Roosevelt's ideas were founded in the Herbert Croly's novel, The Promise Of American Life written in 1910.  Although both Wilson and Roosevelt favored a more active government role in economic and social affairs, Wilson's favored small enterprise, entrepreneurship, and the free functioning of unregulated and unmonopolized markets.  Obviously, from the results of the 1912 election, the people favored Wilson's New Freedom.
	Wilson entered office with a more clear cut plan of what he wanted to achieve than any other president before him.  The new president called for an all out assault on what Wilson called "the triple wall of privilege": the tariff, the banks, and the trusts.  In early 1913, Wilson attempted to lower the tariff.  Wilson shattered the precedent set by Jeffer-son to send a messenger to address Congress when Wilson himself formally addressed Congress.  This had a huge effect on Congress to pass the proposed Underwood Tariff Bill, which provided a substantial reduction of rates.  The new Underwood Tariff substan-tially reduced import fees.  It also was a landmark in tax legislation.  Under authority granted by the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress enacted a graduated income tax.  By 1917, revenue from income tax was greatly more than from the tariff and would continue on this trend for many years.
	Next, Woodrow Wilson was determined to conquer the Bankers.  The old banking system had been greatly outgrown by economic expansion.  The country's banking was still under the old Civil War National Banking Act which revealed many glaring defects.  In the Panic of 1907, many flaws of the banking system, including the inelasticity of the currency, were overwhelmingly obvious.  Wilson was determined to fix these problems.  In June of 1913, Wilson made his second personal appearance to address Congress, this time for a plea to reform the banking system.  And in 1913, again appealing to the public, Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, now considered the most important piece of eco-nomic legislature between the Civil War and the New Deal.  The new Federal Reserve Board, appointed by the president, oversaw a nationwide system of twelve regional re-served districts, each with its own central bank.  The final authority over these banks was granted to the Federal Reserve Board, which guaranteed a substantial measure of public control.  The board was also empowered to issue paper money called "Federal Reserve Notes."  The amount of money in circulation could be swiftly increased as needed for the legitimate requirements of business.
	In 1914, Woodrow Wilson tried to tame the trusts.  Again making a personal ap-pearance to address Congress with his propositions helped dramatize the situation and sway the support towards his ideas.  Congress responded with the Federal Trade Commis-sion Act of 1914.  The new law empowered a presidentially appointed commission to toughen regulations on interstate commerce.  This was supposed to crush monopolies by wiping out unfair trade policies.  Next came the Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914, which was meant to further strangle the major monopolies.  It lengthened the list of business practices deemed objectionable in the Sherman Act.  Now, price discrimination and inter-locking directorates were gravely forbidden.
	Wilson had caught the attention of the public by conquering the "triple wall of privilege."  With the full support of the public, Wilson pressed ahead with further reforms.  The Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916 made credit available to farmers at low rates of inter-est.  The Warehouse Act of 1916 authorized loans on the security of staple crops.  Other laws also benefited rural America by providing for highway construction and the estab-lishment of agricultural extension work in the state colleges.  In 1915, Wilson passed the La Follette Seamen's Act which required decent treatment and a living wage on American merchant ships.  Wilson further helped the workers with the Workingmen's Compensation Act of 1916, granting assistance to federal civil-service employees during periods of dis-ability.  In the same year the president approved an act restricting child labor on products flowing into interstate commerce, though the Supreme Court deemed the law unconstitu-tional.  And in 1916, the Adamson Act of 1916 established an eight-hour work day for all employees on trains in interstate commerce, with extra pay for overtime.  Wilson made giant steps in improving the quality of life for Americans.
	Although Wilson had much success in America policies, Woodrow Wilson did lack the ability to achieve greatness when dealing with foreign policy.  Wilson stopped dollar diplomacy immediately after entering office.  Then in 1914, Wilson persuaded Congress to repeal the Panama Canal Tolls Act of 1912, which had exempted American shipping tolls which provoked major protests from Britain.  Wilson also signed the Jones Act in 1916 granting the Philippines independence as soon they could operate a stable governmental system.  Wilson also partially defused a dangerous situation between Japan and California.  California passed a law prohibiting Japanese settlers from owning land.  The main reason California did this was to discourage Japanese from settling in California.  Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan pleaded with California to ease its position.  California gave in and the problem was partially defused for the time being.
	But Wilson did have trouble in Haiti and Mexico.  The climax of disorders was in 1914-1915 when the Haitian leader was overthrown.  Wilson sent troops into Haiti to protect the American citizens living there.  Wilson concluded a treaty with Haiti under the conditions that the United States provide supervision of finances and the police for the Haitian nation.  In the same year Wilson sent marines to stop rioting in the Dominican Re-public.  And in 1917, Wilson purchased from Denmark the Virgin Islands in the West In-dies.  Wilson's plan of anti-imperialism did not hold any more.
	In April, 1914, a small group of American sailors was mistakenly arrested in the Atlantic Seaport of Tampico, Mexico.  The Mexicans promptly released the captives and apologized, but they to give the twenty-one gun salute that the American admiral de-manded.  Wilson, determined to eliminate Huerta, asked Congress for authority to use forces against Mexico.  Before Congress could act, Wilson ordered the navy, which was seeking to intercept a German ship bearing arms to Huerta, to seize the Mexican port of Vera Cruz, Huerta as well as Carranza condemned this American intervention.  If it was for the intervention of the ABC Powers3/4Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, America would have most likely gone to war with Mexico over this ridiculous issue.  But in January 1916, "Pancho" Villa killed eighteen American citizens in Santa Ysabel, Mexico.  Then in March 1916, Villa and his gang shot up Columbus, New Mexico, killing seventeen Americans.  Under Wilson's orders, General John J. ("Black Jack") Pershing commanded his army into Mexico killing most of Villa's gang and innocent bystanders, but they never caught Villa himself.  This was not one of America's finest moments.
	But Wilson's greatest blunder in foreign policy was after the end of World War I.  Wilson's fourteen points was a brilliant set of ideas to help both the Allies and the Central Powers.  Wilson was never out to hurt any country, unlike Britain and France who wanted revenge on Germany.  Wilson knew that if they punished Germany for World War I, that it would only come back to haunt them.  He was right.  But many people did not listen to him.  Wilson decided to go to Paris in person to fight for his fourteen points.  This infuri-ated the Republicans.  The Republicans were even more infuriated with what Wilson did next.  Wilson needed people from Congress to attend the Paris Peace Conference with him.  He neglected to bring one Republican from the Senate.  Little did he know that the Republicans would not sign the treaty because of Wilson's political blunder.  In Paris, Wil-son was extremely disappointed with Britain and France.  They did not agree with his fourteen points and at the end Wilson had to sacrifice many of his ideas to get the League of Nations in the treaty.  As you know, the United States did not enter the League because of Wilson's stubborn attitude of all or nothing.  Wilson's political blunder in dealing with foreign relations hurt him as president.
	Although Wilson was a master in forming American polices, his scheme on foreign policies was not as clear cut and precise.  In America, Wilson passed many invaluable laws fighting the tariff and the trusts.  He also set up a brilliant banking system which could fluctuate with the good times and bad times.  But Wilson was stubborn, which was espe-cially seen when his fourteen points failed.  He would not settle for just some of his plan.  It was either all or nothing.  And as it turned out, it was nothing.  Wilson was a genius at working with the Americans, but failed at being one of our greater presidents dealing with foreign policy.