Politics and Studies: 2012

Friday, January 13, 2012

Back Seat to Nuclear Weapons

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.

Aristotle A Man of His Beliefs

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."

Arguments For & Against Congress

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.

Are immigrants a burden to the US Should we stop all immigr

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.

Apartheid in South Africa

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.

Anti-church

"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."

Analysis of President Bushs postcold war intervention polic

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.

An politcal arguement of sexual harrasment

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, InfoseekÒÓÔ 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.

An Explosive Answer

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.

American Sel 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.

American Civil War

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

All Men Created Equal Stephen Douglas versus Abraham Lincol

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."