Share an Essay with a Friend!

After trading off some essays in vent last night; a handful of us though it would be cool to open up thread on here to trade essays.

Rules:
- Only college level essays, Freshman comp doesn't count; but you can try. AP LIT is worth more than freshman comp though.
- Nothing about a specific book. We have all done dozens of book reports, or short story reports. Personally, I have done over 80 short story analasis papers in college. In all of your lives, there might be 2 of you who ever read the same short story and get similar questions to what I was assigned. If you have a paper due, on a specific book or short story, post on here asking if anyone has a paper on it. News articles are fine though.
- Don't overburden this with your 13 pages of poor grammar that is the sci-flic story you started writing 2 years ago. Creative writing is fine, so long as is is something that might be usable. Life changing experiences, stellar examples of dialouge, ect.


Lastly, Please include a subject title, and what class it could work for. A report on a recent news event would work in an American History class, an English class, or a Social class; that way if someone is looking for something like an essay on freuds theory, they could look for one on psychology, and hope to gain some knowledge from it.

When I get home tonight, I will copy/paste a few essays onto here.

Keep in mind, you should alter these papers a little if you plan to submit them, to make the teacher believe it is something you wrote. Add in a few lines in a couple of paragraphs that shows your opinion of the matter.

Lol i have a sci-fi story. Its pretty cool. No essays though.

Descartes Dream, Evil Demon & Arch-Deceiver Director theories
- The point of these theories is to get us to question our ordinary reliance on sense experience for our knowledge f the world and to challenge our complacency, our confidence that what we take to be real is real.
Dream Theory
- if we perceive an item incorrectly we can always correct it though further investigation. For example, a distant cylinder water tower may look square, but we can correct ourselves by seeing it from a different, closer view.
- The dream theory asks, have you ever had a dream you were sure was real? What is you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?
- Descartes said himself, ”I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep.”
- This calls into question every bit of knowledge we have that is based on sensory experience.
- Since dream content is derived from reality, we can, at least, be sure that our experience imitates reality.
- It is impossible for us to determine definitively whether we are dreaming or not because any test we might perform may, itself be part of the dream we are experiencing.
Evil Demon Theory
- This argument puts forward the possibility that, according to Descartes, “some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me
- Everything we experience may be an illusion. We cannot be sure of anything, not even basic mathematical truths.
- This raises the possibility that we can be manipulated into taking an illusory world for reality.
- The concept of total illusion makes it very hard to determine when we have escaped it. We may have only entered into a higher illusory world with the possibility of infinite higher worlds.
Arch Deceiver Director
- As we watch a movie, we are aware that we are seeing an illusion. This does not stop us from being fooled into believing an illusion within the movie.
- In many films, the director will deceive the audience into believing a false notion because he may wish to draw them in.
- Often time this works, and when the truth is realized we feel disoriented. This is because the truth challenges what we have assumed was the truth and also our confidence in that knowledge.
- This helps us appreciate how vulnerable the senses are to deception.
- The director is able to systematically mislead the audience, leading them to make false inferences.






- Two people have been arrested for the same crime (doesn’t matter who did it)
- Both are psychological egoists, they do everything for personal gain.
- Both want to spend as little time in jail as possible.
- The police give both people the same options.
- Both know that the other has the same options, and there will be no revenge on a suspect for any decisions made.
- Will they act in self-interest or will they work together?
This is the prisoners’ dilemma.
I will also be discussing the two options the prisoners are given, pareto-optimal outcomes, and the dominant outcome.

Paragraph 1: the possible decisions the prisoners have.
- The prisoners have three possible options.
- Both do not confess and get three years in jail each.
- Both confess and get five years in jail each.
- One confesses and gets one year in prison. While, the other will remain silent, and receive ten years in prison.
- For both the first preference would be to get one year in prison at the expense of the other.
- The second preference would be three years, and the third preference would be five years in prison.
- Now the police allow both suspects to discuss the options with each other. What would they pick for their option and what would be the actual outcome?
-
Paragraph 2: pareto optimal outcomes argument for both suspects choosing not to confess.
- An outcome is pareto-optimal if there is no other possible outcome where one suspect does better at the expense of the other(granting one more utility). Three years for both prisoners is the pareto optimal outcome in this situation.
- Both prisoners know the other is acting with self-interested motivation; this makes it seem justifiable for the other to do the same.
- If both are acting for self-interested reasons, both will choose to confess. This will get them both five years each.
- Instead, if both act for moral reasons, both will get three years each.
- The assumption that it is not rational for one to act in self-interested reasons ignores the deal where one gets one year and the other gets ten.
Paragraph 3: the dominant outcome for this situation is both confessing.
- Dominant outcome: this is the best possible outcome for a suspect that does not know, in advance, what the other suspect is going to choose.
- The suspect know if the other suspect confesses it is better for him to confess
- If the other suspect does not confess, it is better for him to confess.
- No matter what the other prisoner does, it is always better for the suspect to confess.









Plato’s view of the soul
- The soul is immaterial, indestructible and immortal.
- Human existence is a struggle between reason and desire, a struggle that reason should win.

Three parts make up our “soul”
- The three parts are reason, desire, and spirit.
- Reason is the part that knows reality and that calculates and makes decisions.
- Desire is irrational, selfish, and has instinctive urges and cravings. These include all physical desires, such as hunger, thirst and sexual desire.
- The spirited part, or thumos, is courage or powerful feelings. Seems to punish the self for irrational desires and urges. The spirited part includes willpower shame and other feelings that influence our behaviour.
- Spirited part is distinguished from the reasoning part because children show spirit before they show reasoning powers and because sometimes the reasoning part commands the spirited part.
A well ordered soul vs. a disorderly soul
- Mental health is a harmonious balance of the three parts, each playing their proper role.
- The role of the rational part is to govern the whole.
- The role of the spirited part is to, with the help of the reasoning part, keep the desiring element from controlling us, and thus to leave the rational part free to gain knowledge that is best for the whole.
- When our three parts are not balanced, the desiring part comes to control our being by making us slaves to our desires.
- Reason is the “higher” part of the self, and the desiring element is the “lower” part.

Hume’s view and Descartes & Kant’s view of the soul
- Descartes and Kant’s view of the soul is similar to Plato’s view. The only difference is that they believe the desiring element is only of the body and not the soul.
- Hume’s view is that there is no struggle between reason and desire; the desiring part controls the desires and emotions that motivate us. For Hume, “reason is, and ought only to be the slave to the passions”.

Freud’s view of the soul
- Freud divides the soul into three parts.
- The ego is what we regard as ourselves and which we use to interact with the world. The egos job is to balance the three parts.
- The superego is the moral conscience, which contains social standards and expectations gained through life.
- The id is what contains all instinctual drives that constantly seek satisfaction. We are not directly aware of the id.
- The main conflict is of the superego, with the help of the ego, to repress the desires of the id.
- Repression is necessary if we are going to live and function in an ordered society. These repressions continue to exist in our unconscious, even sometimes resurfacing in various cases of neurosis.

umm, blazin, that isn't an essay no offense. That looks more like lecture notes..

- Forgive the few tense/grammar errors these were from first semester freshman year, as well as the footnote indicators.


Julius Caesar Autobiography... Classics 110 (Canada, not sure if these classes are the same in USA)


As surely as Apollo1 guides the blazing sun to Nox’s2 dusk from Aurora’s3 dawn, descension into the black abyss of death and exile happens as inevitably as ascension into the brightness of grandeur. I, Gaius Julius Caesar triumphantly conquered thee impossible obstacles where all others have failed. Although some will argue that Alexander of Macedonia still holds this honor, I overcame the weaknesses of the flesh that consumed the drunken youth. I, Caesar son of Venus4, am paramount amongst humanity and archetype of eminence. The epic military campaigns I embarked upon have dropped the blood-drunken barbarians to their knees in submission, annexing all of Gaul for our beloved republic. Through magnificent cunning and seduction of Fortuna5, I have risen as oil repelling the watery clutches of my powerful enemies in Rome. My breathtaking charm and unmatched wit have made the powerful Cleopatra of Egypt a pet whom I dominate and manipulate as a mere puppet to ensure Roman sustentation. Alexander was an extraordinary conqueror, but contrarily to me the boy did not possess the temperance, mercy, diplomacy or piety that fuses the alpha and the omega to allow the ascension to divinity.


 The bloodlust bred into the Gaulish tribes from perpetual warfare within their own territory and against their common enemies of Germanic tribes has created a particular savageness within their race. Naturally endowed with extraordinary bravery and valor, these uncivilized tribes fought like barbaric Spartans; the Belgae and Helvetii tribes the fiercest examples. The first six years of the Gallic conquests were an extremely challenging game of latrunculi6, playing upon grudges, vanity and greed I found myself able to use the tribes against each other to my own ends. Tribes such as the Aedui, Sequani and Arverni proved to be useful time and time again. But their commitments to Rome eventually faded away and were forgotten; the liberty and self-determination the Gallic tribes lived under for centuries was longed for by chieftains once again. Civilized society began to seem unnatural for the Gallic tribes as I attempted to break apart the consuming darkness over the region with the torch of Roman enlightenment. Chieftains and their infamous cutthroat competition did not appreciate this to any extent, as now they were limited by me in the pillaging of their own nation for personal wealth and glory. Soon propaganda spread amongst the tribes and for the first time Gaulish tribes united behind a single man as king. Vercingetorix a young Gallic aristocrat from the Arvernian tribe, whom I have had previous personal relations with in my attempts of civilizing these barbarians. Vercingetorix raised hordes against Rome for endeavoring to save Gaul from consuming itself, Romans were viewed as tyrants for suppressing the aggressive barbaric nature of the region. The entire Gallic campaign depended on the tribes being broken apart and pacified as single units, but if the tribes were to ever unify against Rome, a massive horde could arise; an unstoppable force striking an unmovable object. Myself and Vercingetorix scrimmaged in many battles throughout Gaul, and as each of us gained increasingly substantial amounts of power I began to realize an interesting crossroads of fate. For if Vercingetorix was to fall all of Gaul would be Rome’s. The Gaul’s understood strength and if Rome’s strength crushed all of Gaulish accumulated might under their unified king, soon the tribes would realize that the Republic of Rome is unwavering and Gaulish darkness could not extinguish Roman light. I strategically pinned Vercingetorix upon a high hill town in Alesia. It seems upon these hills that the destiny of Gaul would be decided, for the victor of this battle would reign supreme upon the other as both myself and Vercingetorix were pinned. As I mentioned the Gaul’s had the high ground and tactical advantage, but Rome had the technological and engineering advantages. Quickly ditches were dug and traps were created to delay and break apart offensive waves. Massive siege towers and ramparts were constructed to span between these for the protection of my flanks and to funnel the Gauls into their gruesome fate at the end of Roman swords. Both sides successfully called upon the tribes of Gaul for additional warriors to gain advantage over each other, as these relief armies arrived Gaul’s destiny could now be decided. On the third day of siege Vercingetorix and his relief army stormed into a weak spot in the Roman line, a haphazard attempt to outflank and surround the Roman army. Labienus proved again to be a brilliant commander as he defended the fort. Additional cohorts and calvary Labienus ordered enveloped the offensive strike of Vercingetorix; massive massacre followed. Vercingetorix realized that recovery from such a massive defeat was impossible and surrender was inevitable. The king of the Gaul’s rode down to the Roman camp upon a fine horse, attired in beautiful armor and kneeled at my feet in submission, Caesar claiming all of Gaul for our glorious republic. Though Alexanders exploits were on a much more massive scale then my own at Gaul, the boy did not have to deal with or worry of the intricacy’s of politics as I had to abroad, or on the homefront. The peoples that Alexander conquered were civilized before his arrival, thus already being prone to a single entity ruling over them, and all those who had opposed him were swiftly and unmercifully made examples of. After Alexanders death there was no loyalty towards the empire he had created because the fear that he embedded into these cultures was lifted. But I successfully transformed Gaul into a province of the Republic bringing civilization to the region and eventually pacifying the Gaul’s savageness and created a society dedicated to the cause of Rome that will continue long after my death upon the mortal planes.


For decades I felt as Atlas7 being crushed beneath the weight of the world as the Optimates8 attempted to shackle me down to their aristocracy as they eviscerated the Republic for the prosperity of a few, like denying citizens land in their fierce opposition to the Rullan Land Bill94. My colleagues could not understand that the true power of Rome does not lie within the walls of the Forum, or the hands of a few old men. The wealth and power lies within the hands of the masses and outside of confinements of Rome within the provinces. Although this system had been held together for centuries, it would have inevitably crumbled beneath the ravaging mobs of the people and the continuous raids of the barbaric tribes surrounding Rome if I had not defended our Republic. On the contrary to what the Optimates would have you believe, no amount of pretty oration or fabricated laws would ever be able to soothe starved and oppressed plebs from cutting the throats of noblemen, or Germanic barbarians from raping and pillaging Rome, but for the preservation of Rome I was slandered a blasphemer. I succumbed into despair as my old and dear friend Pompey Magnus10 decided to not join me in rebuilding the glory of Rome from the disgusting state that the Republic had fallen into. Instead joining the rank and file of the treacherous Optimates and abandoning our triumvirate oath, Pompey sealed his fate by betraying a brother for the chains that imprisoned him. Spilling the blood of the very people that I have been born to redeem felt like my soul being crucified, every battle won felt like an inch of the nails being driven in deeper. The most excruciating of these victories was on the plain of Pharsalus where the decisive battle between Pompey the Great and I, Caesar took place. Pompey outnumbering my infantry with a massive 45,0001 legionnaires compared to my meager 22,0001; some 6,0001 or more calvary towering over my 1,0001. In the minds of many this battle was over before it began, but Pompey was consumed by a vital character flaw; hubris. Ignorantly his mathematical probability did not account for the bond between myself and my legions, that of father and son, our experience of Gaul branded a confidence and hardiness that was never before fathomable. The calvary Pompey solemnly believed was harder then steel and would pierce the heart of the Popularis11, shattered like the clay pots they were as they met my veteran lines. The repulsion and crippling of Pompey’s esteemed calvary plummeted moral and with the addition of my final cohort reserves the amateurs line broke, and Pompey spiraled down from grace and met his unfortunate fate upon his escape to the protection of the Ptolemies. To my delight, my dear friend Marcus Junius Brutus12 survived; the rebellious tendencies of adolescence and poisonous whispers can taint even the noblest of patricians. I see a magnificent future for Brutus by my side and truly hope to put this disagreement of politics behind us. Even though Alexander conquered masses of poorly equipped Persians under the weak leadership of Darius III and many small city-states, the boy fled India with his tail between his legs at the command of his army who later deserted him. The lad never championed over real challenges such as defeating such a worthy adversary as Pompey Magnus and the Roman Senate.
 Being a grand politician and conqueror of other nations are only a few of many qualities that define a colossus.

Venus’s game of seduction is very a important attribute that all great men must grasp. Inheriting this gift through my bloodline as the descendants of Venus, I have gained much personal pleasure through my abundant affairs with many outstanding women throughout my life. The most prized of these relations was with that of Cleopatra, the diamond of Egypt. Not only serving as the toy that fulfills my highest expectations of pleasure, she is an extremely useful pawn. The stomach of Rome depends on grain imported from Egyptian farms, without a steady stream of Egyptian grain Rome will starve. Egyptians are an intensely proud people that are not easily controlled, thus creating a very challenging obstacle to overcome. Installing a Roman figure head in government would never be accepted by the Egyptians and the population would rebel. A direct attack and war would be difficult with the costs of the Gallic Wars and the recent Civil War. If the war was not short, a possible uprising would begin as the plebs starved in Rome, not to mention Scipio and Cato were still at large and attempting to regain control of Rome. Cleopatra with her outstanding beauty and unmatched charisma but still tainted with the ignorance of youth proved to be the perfect solution to this complicated issue. Co-ruler, brother and husband Ptolemy XIV did not take kindly to Cleopatra reemerging from exile in Syria to join us in Alexandria. The foolish and arrogant child defied the greatness of Rome and began a war to reclaim Egypt under his sole control. Fortunately the deceiving adolescent proved to be a half wit, and incompetent sovereign; success was a cause of good fortune, not skill. Within a short time the child was defeated and later drowned to his death on way to exile. On top of the tremendous debt Cleopatra now owes to me personally for the reclamation of her throne, she has fanatically fallen in love with myself giving me a son. Although she might believe that Caesarian will have legitimacy in Rome. Octavian13 was named sole heir and with his vast cunning and pride Octavian will never allow the child or Cleopatra to gain any momentum within Rome if I am to meet an unfortunate fate in the short future. In a few short months I have conquered Egypt for the most part diplomatically, and eternally consolidated Egypt as a vassal of Rome. This is a feat that Alexander could never have dreamed of accomplishing for him and Hespaestion14 would have been too busy with each other, nailing rebels to crucifixes or selling children into slavery to control the eminence of Cleopatra.


The name Gaius Julius Caesar will echo through the pages of history for millennia to come. Politicians will study and mimic my oration, conquerors will compare themselves to my greatness, romantics will dream of my seductive exploits. For I have broken Rome out of her cocoon and completed her metamorphosis so she may now soar. Now on the Ides of March, all internal and immediate external threats to my power are now quelled and now hold the title of dictator perpetuo15. After some short business to be carried out in the forum I can continue my quest. For the time being it seems I have gained a small foothold over Alexanders greatness, but this is not enough, for people still question who is the greater man and who to base their lives after. With my superior skills I will have the entirety of the known world under the control of the Roman Republic before my magnificent life comes to a close so that Rome, Caesar and the ascendancy to divinity are all synonymous.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political Power of the Delphic Oracle - Classics 102


Human societies generally shape the world to fit the needs of the human race and guide the Earth down the pathway of the future. In every sect human society whether it be religious institutions, political bodies, educational systems, there exists power structures that organize the strongest, to lead the weakest down the path of time. What happens though when even humanity in its great intelligence loses sight of this pathway, and must submit to the chaotic nature of the universe? The heart of religion is the fear of the unknown and humans inability to fathom the concept that they might be at the top of the pyramid. When humans begin to lose control of what is happening in their lives they begin to put their faith upon someone or something more powerful than themselves to lead them into the future. For Ancient Hellenics, Apollo and Dionysos were deities capable of foreseeing the future. It was believed that these gods could embody a mortal priestess of the Delphic temple, known as the Pythia, for a short period of time to share their magnificent endowment of prophecy with humanity. The Oracle at Delphi wielded absolute political power throughout the ancient world with its supreme, and direct influence into major decisions of nearly every Greek city-state. The blind belief of the Oracles prophetic nature can be clearly seen during the Greco-Persian Wars in which Sparta and Athens, the most powerful city-states, inquired, and followed the Oracle’s instructions to the letter during the Second-Invasion of Greece in 480 till 479 B.C. Not only did the Oracle directly influence the political bodies of Greece, but it inspired individuals through its prophecies. The Oracle justified Lycurgus reformation of Spartan law and the creation of the agoge institution, creating one of the most powerful military states that the world has ever seen. Socrates was another one of these individuals who began a school of thought whose students, most notably Plato, would mold political philosophy for thousands of years. Deep religious zeal and fear of the unknown fostered paramount power within the Oracle, and didn’t so much foretell the future, but shaped the future itself.


 The Oracle at Delphi was said to inspire one of the greatest last stands in European history, the Battle of Thermopylae. Xerxes I, succeeder of Darius I, vowed revenge upon the Greeks for the former’s defeat at Marathon and the subsequent invasion of Sardis1. Xerxes summoned what is held to believe the largest army ever mustered at this point in history to complete what his predecessor could not. Herodotus claims Xerxes left Persia with a force numbering 2,317,610 soldiers2; historians argue that this is a gross exaggeration of the actual number. But it is generally believed that Xerxes’s invasion force was of a vastness that the world had not seen before3. Upon hearing the news of the planned Second Invasion of Greece, the Spartans consulted the Oracle of Delphi, with whom they have had a long outstanding history with. The Spartans received the following prophecy regarding Xerxes’s planned invasion: “O ye men who dwell in the streets of broad Lacedaemon! Either your glorious town shall be sacked by the children of Perseus, Or, in exchange, must all through the whole Laconian country Mourn for the loss of a king, descendant of great Heracles. He cannot be withstood by the courage of bulls nor of lions, Strive as they may; he is mighty as Jove; there is nought that shall stay him, Till he have got for his prey your king, or your glorious city.4” Leonidas, a king of Sparta, and supposed descendant of Heracles, had deep suspicions of Persian invasion that were solidified both in reality and now by the supernatural prophecies of Delphi. Although, attempting to gather the largest force possible for the defense of Greece, Leonidas was forbidden the use of the full Spartan army because of religious law barring military campaigning during the Olympic and Carneia festivals; strictly enforced by the Euphors, the protectors of Spartan law, whom were even above the kings. Leonidas discovered up a loophole though, law granted a king to muster a personal bodyguard of 300 Spartiates, the elite of the Spartan military. It is assumed that Leonidas deeply believed in the oracles words as logistically this was a suicidal plan that was made possible through the exploitation of sacred Spartan law, the same laws Leonidas was sworn to protect under the penalty of death. The narrow pass of Thermopylae was calculated to be en route of Persian invasion. Tactically Thermopylae proved to be hugely to Hellenes advantage as Persian numbers counted for nothing as long as the Greek forces could maintain a solid blockade of the pass; the pass was also Xerxes’s only entrance into mountainous Greece. Two days of solid fighting proved to be completely fruitless for the Persians, wave after wave of Persian infantry was massacred by Spartan and allied Greek forces with relatively few losses to the Hellenes, even the fabled Immortals of Persia were crushed. On the second night, a Greek traitor by the name of Ephialtes reported a secret way around the pass to outflank and encircle the Greek forces. On the third day after learning about the Persian advance, Leonidas sent away the majority of his forces and held his ground with his remaining Spartans. Handfuls of Thespians and Thebans also refused to leave his side. The Greek forces continued to fight on, despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered, the Greeks still managed to inflict horrible causalities upon the Persians. The Greeks fought on until every last one of them were cut down in an unending rain of Persian arrows5. The battle of Thermopylae beautifully illustrates the outstanding significance of the Oracle upon political behaviour; a king and outstanding general is willing to sacrifice himself to satisfy the prophetic nature of the Delphic Oracle and even bend and attempt to break the very laws he is sworn to protect.


The Spartans were not alone in consulting Delphi on how to stop the advance of the Persians, the Athenians also sent for prophecies. The first received by the Pythoness Aristoness spoke of the annihilation of Athens: “Wretches, why sit ye here?Fly, fly to the ends of creation, [...] All ruined and lost. Since fire, and impetuous Ares, Speeding along in a Syrian chariot, hastes to destroy her. Not alone shalt thou suffer; full many the towers he will level, Many the shrines of the gods he will give to a fiery destruction. Even now they stand with dark sweat horribly dripping, Trembling and quaking for fear; and lo! from Black blood, sign prophetic of hard distresses impending. Get ye away from the temple; and brood on the ills that await ye!6” The Athenians who received this reply were deeply anguished and decided to attempt at a second prophecy so that they could have some insight into how they may stop the eradication of their state. The second prophecy was much more optimistic, “Pallas has not been able to soften the lord of Olympus, Though she has often prayed him, and urged him with excellent counsel [...] Then far-seeing Jove grants this to the prayers of Athene; Safe shall the wooden wall continue for thee and thy children. Wait not the tramp of the horse, nor the foot-men mightily moving Over the land, but turn your hack to the foe, and retire ye. Yet shall a day arrive when ye shall meet him in battle. Holy Salamis, thou shalt destroy the offspring of women, When men scatter the seed, or when they gather the harvest.7” The prophesies of Delphi were infamously ambiguous and thus were open to heavy interpretation to what was truly meant. Through the second prophecy the Athenians finally agreed that the wooden walls were to refer to a vast navy and Salamis as where the Persians were to be defeated. This interpretation was introduced by an Athenian named Thermistocles. Thermistocles argued that because the adjective was holy and not luckless that it is meant that Athenians will have victory at Salamis8. Salamis was a small island located off the coast of mainland Greece which would require a naval campaign, proving the premise that the use of the Athenian fleet through the wooden walls line of the Delphic prophecy. This is another massive example of how influential the Pythia and Delphic Oracle were upon the ancient political structures. Not only are they deciding a king’s fate such as in the case of Leonidas, but the Oracle at times formed military strategy for the most powerful of Greek city-states.


 The Delphic Oracle was supposed to be one of the only direct links the Greeks had with their gods, as political leaders began to instill massive reforms within their states they would obtain prophecies from the oracle in order to prove their actions were pious to the masses. Lycurgus, the fabled Spartan who revolutionized Spartan society in many ways, most notably the agoge used the Oracle to confirm his ideology. The agoge was a lifestyle in which young males would be taken from their families at the age of seven to be trained their entire lives for military service to the Spartan State9. In speculation, Lycurgus must have met some fierce opposition when his reforms were put into effect. This probably prompted him to consult to Oracle of the piety of his actions: “Oh! thou great Lycurgus, that com’st to my beautiful dwelling, Dear to love, and to all who sit in the halls of Olympus, Whether to hail thee a god I know not, or only a mortal.” Upon his consultation the Oracle of Delphi implied that he is among the dearest to the gods of Olympus, and his status of a mortal is currently a debate. After installing a complete reform of ones society a prophecy directly from the gods praising the revolutionary is as good as it gets. This single prophecy justified the installation of the agoge educational system which effectively transformed Spartan society into a complete and utter military state. Not only was the Oracle influential in times of strife and warefare, but it functioned as a highly respected adviser in the processes of state building. The Oracles eminence can be found in nearly all functions of ancient Hellenes political life.


 The Oracle not only directly influenced states but also served as a testament to individuals greatness, such was the case of Socrates. Chaerephon, a dear friend to Socrates consulted Delphi on whether Socrates truly was the wisest man in the world; the Oracle agreed that it was Socrates who held this noble title10. Upon hearing this prophecy Socrates made it his life mission to either prove the Oracle right or wrong. Socrates gained renowned fame for his philosophical style and search for truth. Under Socrates came a great deal of young apprentices, the philosopher Plato was one of these apprentices. Socrates, with no written works directly created by himself was immortalized within Plato’s vast works. Socrates served as the central protagonist in the majority of Plato’s work, Plato’s The Republic, which is considered to be on of the most influential political theory works ever written was one of Plato’s dialogues that featured Socrates as the central figure. The Republic preached how humanity could create the perfect city-state, one ruled by philosopher kings and morality. The ideas of this book has touched political and religious leaders since its conception in 380 B.C.. Marcus Tullius Cicero, the famous Roman Orator and statesman wrote a commentary, De re publica, upon The Republic which was held-fast by Roman politicians for centuries. Later St. Augustine, one of Catholicism’s most respected scholars would reference Plato’s work in his book The City of God; The Republic along with many other of Plato’s works, are still taught in many contemporary universities in 2010 A.D., 2390 years after it was originally published. Although, many events also played a contributing factor to the rise of Plato’s and Socrate’s massive influence, the Delphic Oracles proclamation can be said to be the initial inertia that began the entire process.


 The Delphic Oracle had unprecedented power throughout the ancient Hellenes world, its advice and prophecies were sought after by many for every type of reason whether it be warfare, state building, personal interest, alliances or any other event in which the outcome could not be clearly calculated. For this reason, Delphi was even above governments, in that when a government was unsure of its actions it would take orders from Delphi, ultimately making it the most powerful political institution throughout the Greek states.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian Political Culture - Political Science 101

The contrasts between the Montagnards and Feuillants during the French Legislative Assemblies of 1791 manifested an ideological polarity within contemporary democratic framework. Right-left philosophies have created a schism that has split the foundation of the Canadian political structure. As Canada evolves it faces more, and more controversial issues to resolve, politicians must transcend the partisanship of the past. Modern governments ought to start make decisions based on maturing modern values from society and not restrict cultural and social movements because of outdated doctrines. The full rights of homosexuals and same-sex partners have been a fiercely debated topic that eventually won support, approval and legality through the cultural to political osmosis. The age old debate of the continuation of marijuana and hemp prohibition is another hot topic that is gaining increasing attention and support. Fundamentally the left wish to usher in these shifts of paradigm while the right oppose them, thus when a societies values evolve a battle ensues. An unstoppable force strikes an unmovable object.


 Time eventually corrodes controversy and slowly as a society grows its values and beliefs grow along with it. Always changing and reforming, a political system must keep pace with societies evolutions. On July 20th, 2005 Canada became the third country in the world, and first American country to legalize and recognize same-sex marriage. This is one of the finest examples of how Canada’s constantly changing political culture shapes and forms party ideology. In a 36 year battle since decriminalization, the gay culture slowly gained acceptance within the majority of Canadian social culture. Homosexuality underwent a metamorphosis and for one of the first times in history supporting homosexuality was not a political suicide. Bill C-38 or Civil Marriage Act of 2005 sparked another classic feud between left and right. Paul Martin’s Liberal minority government introduced and passed the contentious bill with the majority of NDP, Liberal and Bloc Members of Parliaments support. The majority of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Members of Parliament voted Bill C-38 down, and following the ratification of Bill C-38 Stephen Harper vowed to have a free re-vote on the subject if he were to win the election in the near future. Landmark ideals such as gay marriage impact political parties as long as they are able to draw power from the voting population. Liberals will push forward while the Conservatives dig in their heels, and everyone else eventually falls off the fence to the left, or to the right.


 In Christian creation theory a prohibition was placed upon Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of knowledge. If Christian beliefs are correct an omnipotent god and the creator of the universe could not stop two humans from themselves and their curious nature, so how does the government expect to do better with more then 30 million people? The truth is that fabricated laws will never deter humanity from vice and even government is beginning to admit this: “The fact of the matter is that prohibition has never worked.”1 In British Columbia an internationally renowned black market has grown beyond the control of the provincial, or national governments. The Frasier Institute estimates annually the British Columbian marijuana market grosses around 2 000 000 0002 dollars, while some speculations from sources inside the trade believe the number could be up to 7 000 000 0003 dollars. The infinite potential for hemp products once an abundant supply was able to be grown legally could further compound these figures. The legalization and taxation of cannabis could mean huge economic boosts for the struggling province of British Columbia. As always the people already disregard the laws that they believe are illegitimate, and the Liberals fight to abolish taboo while the Conservatives squeeze their grip tighter. Events such as the annual protests on the 20th of April across Canada, or the many head-shops that constantly spring up across urban areas show the slow decay of the unjust mandates of yesterday, and as the Cannabis Culture of today is absorbed into the Canadian culture of tomorrow, politicians will have a new pool to drain power from. The unstoppable force of revolution smashes against the immovable object of reaction once again in the perpetual right-left struggle. This becomes especially true as a third judicial variable becomes added to the equation, “July 13, 2007 Ontario Court ruling possession laws unconstitutional.4”


Political culture is the driving force behind political party theory. A political party is elected from the populous. Thus, when a movement sweeps across the voting body it is natural that the parties take advantage and become the battle standard for the movement to rally under in the nations political body. More votes, more power and more justification for their existence through leeching off of cultural movements.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pressing Political Issue - Political Science 101

The corruptive tendency of power has plagued humanity since Mesopotamian kings sent the first soldiers to war and began taxing citizens to carry the financial loss. Human addiction to power and wealth has caused the rise and fall of most great civilizations, and in the 21st Century this addiction threatens the destruction of ideologies in which form western civilization. The ignorance of the past; apathy of the future and gradual fall of libertarian ideals threaten the newly formed hope of a world built upon freedom, justice and harmony. 


Time and time again republics erode away back into a state of authority through humans perpetual lust for power. The American Revolution in 1776 created the first sustainable republic in two millennia, but recently has started to complete its revolutionary cycle back around into authoritarianism. The passing and ratification of bills such as The Patriot Act which is described by former Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano as, “The most abominable, unconstitutional, hateful, from the point of freedom, piece of legislature [...]” 1, through Rahm Emanuel, the Chief of Staff in President Obama’s regime suggesting compulsory youth groups: “It’s time for the real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American”2 and President Obama campaigning on a civilian militia: “We can not continue to rely upon our military to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded, [...]”3 begin to spark some very eerie memories of the mid 20th century. No longer is the pursuit of happiness available, but the age old pursuit of power has reincarnated. These strong militaristic and nationalist feelings should sound alarms from what has been seen from the last 4000 years of civilized existence, especially towards the superpower who is preaching global peace at the end of a gun barrel, but no alarms are sounded, more missile defense systems are installed over seas, more weapons of mass massacre are innovated and tested in combat, and slowly the drapery falls.


 The corporate take over of North American, and European economics which has resulted in extreme manipulation for select interests has had detrimental effects over the last century. Capitalist ideology has significantly improved standards of living for millions, but has also created an oligarchy within the system that has not been fully realized till recently, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” 4 The sub-prime mortgage meltdown and fractional reserve system are among many examples of corruption that results from the acquisition of unregulated power within a society. Upon the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, trillions of dollars were handed out to the corporate regimes globally and in return for example executive bonuses are given out for contributing to the collapse of the global economy, such as at AIG; the CEO’s of GM, Ford and Chrysler refusing to part with luxuries such as private jets to save their company. The automaker bailout highlights Jefferson’s foresight particularly from the Canadian perspective, where tax-payers are expected to loan out an enormous 8.5 billion dollars to save foreign companies, or else thousands could potentially lose everything, and Ontario’s economy could buckle. Letting private interests whose sole goal is to amass as much wealth as possible, while operating with delusions of grandeur, control a nations economy is a frightening paradox in which must be abolished for any progress of egalitarian goals to continue.


Although these corruptions do not inflict humanity as a whole, they are evident within many individuals. This is a world held together by the brinksmanship by a unipolar power, and technological innovations constantly outrun moral and ideology advances. Promotion of peace, prosperity and co-existence are ever more essential concepts that need to be grasped, understood and defended by the masses. Industrialized nations must lead by example and not by threat of force; fire can not be fought with fire.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebute to Ted Byfields' The Genuine Culture - English 102


In his argument “The Genuine Culture of Alberta” Ted Byfield illustrates the differences between the two cultures that he believes exist within Alberta. The first culture is the traditionally accepted definition that revolves around the arts, which he labels as an artificial culture. Byfield advocates the real culture of Alberta exists within the province’s pubs. Byfield states as his thesis, “what in fact is the only real culture of Alberta, places like the Beverly Crest Hotel” (161). In other words, Byfield believes the only true culture in Alberta resides in activities that are supported by the majority of the population. Although Byfield’s personal experience as part of the Beverly Crest Hotel culture, clear process structure, and his relation between his thesis, premises and conclusion give credibility and validity. However, the lack of supporting evidence and many logical fallacies undermine the soundness of his argument.


 Introducing his first minor premise, Byfield implants a naysayer rhetorical question as a reference to a hypothetical authority. In a switch to the future tense, his topic sentence rests upon an implied questionable assumption. That this future person will not write about Albertans support of the theatrical arts (162). Furthermore, because it is hypothetical this is a fallacy of inappropriate authority. To support his implied claim, he uses a voice marker to make use of facts and figures evidence. According to Byfield, “The point is that for every Albertan who attends such places there are a thousand others who attend the province’s various Beverly Crests” (162). The essence of his argument is because less than one percent of people attend these institutions they should not be considered part of Albertan culture. Indeed, it is highly likely that attendance is much less in the fine arts institutions as opposed to bars. Byfield uses no reliable source to verify this statistic. My own view is that what Byfield insists is evidence, is in fact fictional, making this premise unsound. Ultimately what is at stake here is the integrity of theatrical arts in Alberta.


 Throughout the following several paragraphs, Byfield describes the Beverly Crest culture through personal narrative. He emphasizes effective first person voice markers such as: we, us, and our in order to self-identify with fellow patrons. Byfield then switches voice markers into third person when describing outsiders, such as the bikers, and the murder victim (162). This adds credibility to his claims about the Beverly Crest culture, as Byfield becomes a primary source of information. Throughout his descriptions of activities of this culture; Byfield uses figurative language to allude the Beverly Crest Hotel to the fine arts: “this dance begins with a kind of demure and delicate tiptoe about a central stage [...]” (163).  Basically, Byfield implies that the Beverly Crest culture participates in the same activities as the arts culture. These figurative implications add weight to the argument that the artificial and real cultures are alike. Though I concede that these cultures can be alike, I insist that these examples are defeated in the conclusion of his narrative. He insists that it is unfair that the artificial culture is subsidized by government, while complaining how his culture functions solely upon private funding (164).  Although I agree with Byfield to a point I cannot accept his conclusion. He makes use of ad hominen to overgeneralize an entire culture, “because it is predicated upon a supposed and unproven superiority. Why, after all, should a plot less, pointless, largely incomprehensible theatrical offering […]” (164).  This attack matters because Byfield later admits that he is mostly ignorant of Canadian theatre (165).  By focusing on his disproval of the artificial culture he overlooks the fact that he admits to not having sufficient knowledge of what he is attacking.


 It has become common in Byfield’s commentary to make claims about the unpopularity of the fine arts culture. Byfield reports a statistic that claims 1 in 26,000 Canadians purchase a Canadian novel. Although I grant that this is relatively legitimate evidence, because it is backed up by another published work, John Metcalf’s “Freedom From Culture” (166). I still maintain that because it is not a primary statistical source, it only has limited credibility. However, the credibility of this statistic quickly becomes irrelevant. The following topic sentence undermines the logic of the premise by incorporating additional ad hominen attacks and overgeneralizations in attempts at further proving his premise: “If playwrights who produce meaningless twaddle […] authors who compose mere bafflegab […]” (166).  In other words, Byfield argues that because of low popularity these works deserve to be unfairly slandered. Leading into his final premise, which an artist’s responsibility is to show us what our culture is because of the artist’s ability to see what others cannot (166-167).  Byfield contradicts himself.  On the one hand, he argues that an artist’s creation is meaningless twaddle. One the other hand, he is also demanding that this artist, that is only capable of producing meaningless twaddle, teach what his culture is. In short, Byfield makes a slippery slope logical fallacy.


 The logic of the argument is that the artist is so far disconnected from the populace while being immersed in their own artificial culture; there remains no one to inform the majority of people what culture is (167). Thus Byfield argues the dilution of culture occurs. As a result of this dilution the birthrate has dropped, immigration is soaring, and multiculturalism is destroying Canadian culture (167). Common sense seems to dictate that unpopular novels, and plays have little correlation with a dropping birthrate, and heightened immigration. I deplore another one of Byfield’s tendencies to spin logical fallacies to convince the reader. In my opinion this conclusion largely falls under the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. My conclusion, then, is that, Byfield raises a few good points about the unnoticed culture of Albertans whom patronize many of the local pubs. Although, due to his continuous cashiering of the art culture without providing a single primary source of evidence and incorporating constant use of fallacy to make up for his lack of evidence. Byfield’s argument of how the only true, genuine culture that exists in Alberta resides in establishments such as the Beverly Crest Hotel, may be valid. Though it is completely unsound, and his conclusion of correlating his premises to broader social issues is absolutely illogical.


Epic, you have parenthetical citations, but no sources... but other than that, good shit.

Developmental Psychology

Carol Gilligan
Carol Gilligan was the first person to look into gender differences when researching the role of mental processes of moral development. Before her, men really ruled the psychology field, and got to make whatever observations the felt were true. Not to say that men were wrong, but what they were lacking was a womans voice. What they could all agree on was that, as humans, we can all develop the ability to learn right from wrong. We learn to evaluate situations before going into them. She has layed a general framework for the development of women. What it comes down to though, is it actual psychological development that is part of our core, or is it just social norms that force us into a predetermined cast?
While Freud would suggest that all development is based around a father figure, Gilligan suggests that that is is based both on gender, and the relationship with the mother. Gilligan suggests that the central moral problem for females, is the conflict between self and others. She theororizes that there are three levels that females go through, and these changes are based on changes in self, rather than defined cognitive capability. In the first stage, the preconventional stage, the goal of a female is individual survival. She will then go through a transition phase from selfishness to responsibility to others. Once she has done that, she will be in the conventional stage. In this stage, the belief is that self sacrifice is goodness. Later, to move onto the post conventional stage, she has to transition from goodness, to the truth that she is a person to. At this point, her goal is nonviolence. Don`t hurt yourself or others.
While her theory isnt wrong in my opinion, I feel that it is simply a theory. Just like when there was a theory that the earth was the center of the solar system. Sure, it is a good idea, until it is proven wrong. Just like all of the men based their ideas on men, she is a woman, who based her ideas on being a woman. It isnt until the last half of our development in the uterus that we even have a sex, we cant be THAT different, psychologically. Society just puts stress on men and women in different ways. You could argue that on average, men move through their psychological stages through fighting. Get your ass kicked in first grade, and you learn `i need to be stronger` if you dont become strong enough, you are forever in that first stage. If you get big and strong, you move into the next stage. Once there, you need to learn that with great power, comes great responsibility in order to move onto the next stage. Finally, you have to accept that your son can kick your ass. If you dont have a son, you will never be able to finish your training as an adult. Using that as a thesis, and doing a lot of studies to try to prove that a correct argument, someone could eventually prove it correct. A scientist can prove that the holocaust never happened, because that is what he wanted to prove.
Her thesis isn`t as silly as saying the holocaust never happened; though it is just to general in my opinion. As long as history has been recorded, young girls are forced to learn that self sacrifice is goodness. That isnt their brain developing, that is thousands of years of men ruling the world, creating a social norm that is adopted as reality. The final transition stage is that a woman has to understand the truth that she is a person to; what kind of statement is that? Women dont feel like they are people? Usually by highschool, half of the girls believe they are the most important person in the world. Does this mean girls are done maturing at that time? I feel this whole study is just a feminist movement. Sure, there is truth to it, but it is just piles so high with womans rights drool, that it is hard to dig through to get solid conclusions of my own. Again, granted the time frame that she started her work, she really had to lay it on pretty thick for any man to pay attention to it.
Her strongest argument, that I feel is very valid, is that women are not inferior to men, as Erikson, Freud, and Kohlberg thought. Her argument was simply that women develop differently than men, so shouldn`t be judged on the same scale. She should have stuck more to proving other theories wrong, than trying to lay all new claims. Any theory can be proven wrong, so by making her own theory, based on her own opinion, she can also be proven wrong. Three wrongs dont make a right, however, proving 3 people wrong, makes you right.
In terms of psychological development, and what I have learned, I feel that Gilligan is on par with the rest of the great minds. Her theories offer just as much support as the other ones, and have just as many faults. Psychology is no definite thing, because you cant directly measure how this development happens; you just have to know that it happens. Honestly, I feel these theories are a lot like religion. We all just want a reason for what we are doing. Why are these things happening in our lives? What can we expect? No one really knows, but we can provide you with hundreds of possible answers.

============================================================

History
French Revolution

The French Revolution during the late 1700's changed the shape of politics in much of Europe. The old system of government that contolled France had favored the rich and taken advantage of the poor; much like america during the Industrial Revolution. The high-class french people, though were few, controlled most of the wealth; which the lower-class people resented. At the Bastille, there was a straw that broke a camels back, and the floodgates were open! A group of peasants started a revolution, with good intention, to try to balance out the power in their country. Though they failed to achieve their main goals of "Fraternity, Liberty, and Equality" they did manage to change their government, and Europe forever.
The French Revolution was considered a watershed in European history because the French caused people to start asking questions. France had taken part in many other wars in a short time; many of them were over freedom from tyrants. France had spent a lot of money trying to fund these wars, and the lower-class citizens were feeling the pains of it, while the high class citizens were still living in bliss. Because of uprisings, the king and nobles agreed on the creation of the National Assembly. The assembly abolished most forms of privilege for richer people, ranging from allowing peasants to hunt on noble land, and removing tax exemption from high-class people. The new government system had to take into account the wants and needs of commoners; rather than only the wealthy people. Other European governments and rulers were not too happy with the French after the Revolution. They knew that their own citizens had seen the power that the French public wielded, and as a result, those governments were never again able to feel secure in their rule after 1799.
The most important and radical consequence of the French Revolution was the abolition of Feudalism. With the collapse of the existing system, all elements of feudalism were abolished including serfdom and the rights of privledges the nobility and the clergy were taken away. This inspired the idea of democracy across much of Europe and other parts of the world. The Declaration of the Rights of Man was a lot like our Declaration of Independence, and it was a great outline for the rest of Europe to follow. On top of the creation of a democratic government, they had created capitolism! By breaking down the larger monopolies that controlled all the land and wealth and giving it to the serfs, there was a lot more competition between people, and more people could make a livable wage from selling their goods, while competition kept prices low.
Fraternity, Liberty, and Equality were the ideals of the French Revolution. Of the three words the greatest is equality. There is no liberty in poverty. There is no fraternity between rich and poor. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen says, "Liberty consists of being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights." This definately failed for the French. Many people were killed because they didn't support the revolution. Many were killed because it was thought that they didnt support the revolution. The Fear is what caused people to follow the revolution. Equality was defined as, The law "must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents." Which again, was proven wrong when anyone who rose to any form of control was being killed for fear that they might gain too much control. People with power still rose to the top and controlled the rest of the people. They did liberate themselves though, you can't really agrue against that. They inspiried a large part of the world to be liberated as well.

=========================================================
English/Social Problems
Euthanasia

Euthanasia, What Is it and Why Should You Know About It?
Margaret Somerville, writer of "Getting the Facts Right about Euthanasia," explains to us what euthanasia is, and why how so many people are wrong in their assumptions about it. Put simply, euthanasia is assisted suicide. Most people are unaware as to what that even means though! 49 percent of Quebec physicians mistakenly thought a form of palliative care was euthanasia (Somerville). If even physicians do not understand what euthanasia is, how can we expect law-making officials to understand and agree on a solution for it? I believe if more people understood the process of euthanasia, they would be more willing to support it.
Sommerville's main point is that, "The issue in the euthanasian debate is not if we die- we all eventually die. The issue is how we die and whether some means of dying should remain prohibited." Many people believe that allowing a patient to die is euthanasia, but it is not. Sommerville continues, "Witnesses seem to be confusing euthanasia and necessary pain or physical suffering relief. The distinction between them hinges on the physicians primary intention on giving the care." Allowing a patient to remain in excruciating pain is illegal, so doctors have to give them drugs. Not every death by overdose is euthanasia though. Gregory Katz says that in Britain, "The policy is now more focused on the motivation of the suspect rather than the characteristics of the victims." Another source of confusion for most people is the difference between being taken off life support and being euthanized. Somerville says, "First, the primary intention is different in the two cases: In withdrawing life-support treatment, it is to respect the patients right to refuse all treatment; in euthanasia it is to kill the patient." The actions are similar and the outcomes are the same, but they are viewed very differently by the justice system.
Somerville does a great job of presenting unbiased information to support her idea that the general population is under-educated on what euthanasia even is. She openly admits, in sections, to being against euthanasia; her goal is to stress the need for education though. Through education she hopes people will agree with her AFTER the facts. Somerville states, "The issue is whether some means of death should remain prohibited. I believe they should." The author puts a lot of pressure on the fact that there is a major difference between what is legal and illegal. When she offers her ideals, she uses statement like "I believe" and "I feel" which allows the reader to separate opinion from fact. I agree with her main theme that people need to be better educated about euthanasia. If it were better understood, it could be legalized much easier. Yardley tells us, "At least 36 terminally ill people died last year after taking lethal medication prescribed by doctors under Washington State's new physician-assisted suicide law." 36 people is not many in the grand scale of things. The majority of them were cancer patience. In a handful of state, it has become legal for doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients who are terminally ill, and would like to die.
In many publications euthanasia is referred to as "allowing someone to die of natural means," which is wrong. Taking someone off from life support, a feeding tube, or medications is NOT euthanasia. ProCon.org tells us on its top 10 list for supporting euthanasia "When do we withhold which therapies and allow nature to take it's course? When are we, through our own indecisions and fears fears of morality, allowing wondrous medical methods to pervrsely prolong the dying rather than the living?" Though on paper this is a potent argument, it isn't addressing euthanasia. Life support for the dying doesn't really play a role in euthanasia, nor does allowing them to be taken off it. In Canada there is a big ordeal with 95 year old Bernice Packford, who wants to die on her own terms, rather than to painful heart failure. Macleans says, "It's also the case that Packford herself falls short of even the liberal criteria of C-384. She is not suffering from a terminal illness or severe pain. She simply wants to check out at a time and place she finds convenient." Because everything in the euthanasia debate is so rigid, a 95 year old woman who is to afraid to end her own life, must live in fear. She is healthy, but has heart conditions and wants to die with her family around her after saying her final farewells.
This is a very difficult ordeal to mend. You cannot force a person to be educated, and the global media would rather look at Brangalina's new Haitian child than to deal with real issues. As far as lawmakers go, I believe everyone involved in voting or passing a law on euthanasia should have to read and research what the medical definition of euthanasia is. Everyone gets their information from left and right wing news stations, and various sob stories told by friends, family, and the occasional news story. If you present everyone with the wrong information over and over again, they will learn it to be fact. To fix this problem you have to start at the top and let the truth spread to replace uneducated rumors.

Works Cited
Katz, Gregory. "Britain's top prosecutor publishes new rules on what assisted suicide cases will land in court." Chicago Tribune 25 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Mar. 2010.
"Our stake in this life and death decision." Maclean's 29 Mar. 2010. Web. Academic Search Complete. Apr. 20 2010.
"Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?" ProCon.org 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 2 Mar. 2010.
Somerville, Margaret. "Getting the facts right about euthanasia." MercatorNet 2 Mar. 2010. Web. 3 Mar. 2010.
Yardley, William. "At Least 36 Took Lives Under New Suicide Law." New York Times Mar. 5 2010. Web. Academic Search Complete. Apr. 20 2010.

=========================================================

English/Social Problems

Affirmative Action: Racism to fight Racism
White Males are becoming the minority in America. No, they are not being run off with pitch forks, but they are being discriminated against by our employment and education systems. Affirmative Action has stood the test of time, however, public discrimination against non-white and female minorities has not. It was created over 40 years ago to ensure women and non-whites could obtain jobs and education in a system that was pinned against them. Sex and race no longer play the same role in these systems though. In fact, we have the opposite affect going on now. A white male who is more qualified for a job, or spot in a college, has a less likely chance to be granted that position over a minority, based simply upon race. 40 years ago, the problem was the same, except it was the ethnic people not getting the jobs. Supporters of affirmative action claim that students starting at a disadvantage need a boost. They base this disadvantage on race. They also suggest that Affirmative Action keeps stereotypes at bay and that without it, racism could spring forth again. Though that could happen, we will also never have a truly color-blind America until Affirmative Action is done away with. If jobs and educational positions were given out based completely on qualifications, then our consumer economy would gain a boost from the competitive job market.
Affirmative Action, created in 1961 by Kennedy, was created as a way to deal with discrimination that continued after the civil rights laws were made. The goal of it was simply to level the playing field for all people, regardless of their race or gender. Affirmative Action was created as a temporary program, until society based less things on race.
There have been two important court cases in recent years, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, in which two women were rejected from the university of Michigan simply because they were white.
"The university acknowledges it has used race as a factor in admissions, relying on a complicated point scale to rate applicants. Grades and academics are most important, but members of 'under-represented' social and ethic minority groups have received extra points" (CNN.com).
Gratz's lawyer said the point bonus was worth a whole grade point on a students GPA.
Race isn't the only problem with college admissions, gender has become a big deal as well. Mary Marklein says "There are more men than women ages 18-24 in the USA -- 15 million vs. 14.2 million... Nationally, the male/female ratio on campus today is 43/57" A generation ago the split was nearly even, and a generation before that, the split was the opposite, with mostly men going to college. Though this has become a problem, there is no Affirmative Action targeting only males, regardless of their race. In fact, "In 2000, a federal judge told the University of Georgia to stop awarding bonus points to males (and minorities) in admissions" (Marklein). In many colleges, to get more women or people of ethnic backgrounds, they are awarded extra points. If the same thing targets males, whom are a minority compared to women, it is deemed unlawful.
Supporters of Affirmative Action are more concerned with what could happen if the laws were removed, rather than what the laws are currently doing. They argue that diversity is desirable, but it wont always happen if left to chance. "Part of the education process is learning to interact with other races and nationalities" (Messerli). Learning to interact with other races should help in the fight against racism and ignorance is a pretty solid statement. It is widely believed that affirmative action will break stereotypes. The supporters say than students with a disadvantage need a boost. An inner-city minority may not have the paper qualifications to get into a good school. Affirmative Action gives them a chance succeed. Their weakest "main" argument, in my opinion, is that we owe minorities for the painful discrimination we put them through in the past.
Affirmative Action leads to reverse discrimination. A question that has caused a lot of fuss among supporters is, "Why should he under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee?" (Sacks & Thiel) To agree with that, Thomas Sowell has observed, "Preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle and upper-class backgrounds." and, "Preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers)" (Sacks & Thiel) To blindly support someone based on skin color is racist. I mean, it is the definition of racist! We should be more focused on helping poor Americans, or Americans in poor situations. We create more stereotypes by admitting through law that it is alright to give unfair treatment to people based completely on their skin color or gender. This gives the illusion that these people must be worse at jobs and less educated, if they cannot complete the same benchmarks without a legal, helping hand from the government. Also, because of this line of thinking, when minorities do accomplish something big, their accomplishments can be belittled because they had help. A black man who works his ass off to become Secretary of State, worked hard to get there; it wasn't because the president felt bad for him because he was a black man. Ronald Roach says, "The election of Obama to be our president reconfirms that the American people are ready for color-blind policies that prohibit race-conscious affirmative action." Obama didn't get elected president because of Affirmative Action, he won the majority vote! Minorities can work just as hard as white males and accomplish just as much; they do not need a helping hand due to their gender or skin color.
To fix this growing problem, we should simply do away with Affirmative Action. Work and education would be based on knowledge and productivity. A lot of money could be saved if there was less pressure put on race. In Milwaukee there was a big problem when the state was hiring more expensive minority contractors simply because they were a minority. Sean Ryan and Paul Snyder write, "State law (PDF) permits, but does not require, the Department of Administration to award projects to minority firms that come within 5 percent of the low bid." An extra 1.3 million dollars of tax payer money went to this minority group simply because they were a minority. In the real working world, you hire contractors based on their bids.
Grothman, the state representative said "I'm frustrated there aren’t other politicians out there with the guts to do something and I want this to be done as soon as possible, before we waste more money on state projects" (Ryan & Snyder) It really becomes an issue when you add up all the extra money going to minorities simply because they are minorities. On a funny note, all of our American companies move to other countries to abuse non-white workers. Here they are put on a pedestal. Missouri is having a similar problem, and they are campaigning to do-away with the law. Angela Tablac reports, "If passed, the initiative will overturn a 2005 executive order by Gov. Matt Blunt that sets goals to award 10 percent of state agencies' contracted work to minority businesses and 5 percent to women-owned companies." Really, it is depressing that we have to make laws to give more work to certain companies based completely on their race. It is happening around the country, and slowly being overturned.
If we were to hire people based on their price and workmanship there would be much more competition in the marketplace. If we accepted students into college based on their credentials, then we would have less college drop outs. As a consumer-run country, having smarter, harder working citizens would give the failing economy a nice boost. "Tim Asher, executive director of the Grain Valley, said, 'A playing field is level and fair if everyone is competing with the same rules'" (Tablac). Just like the special ed kid in the back of your class who has a teachers aid explaining all the answers on the test to him. The kid has no idea what year Columbus sailed to America, but he will get a 95% on the test and make the school look good without having to take the effort to really teach him. We can have the illusion of being an equal opportunity country, or we can actually be equal opportunity; it is a lot easier to fake, but it is unjust.

Works Cited
Marklein, Mary. "College gender gap widens: 57% are women" USA Today 19 Nov. 2005. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Apr. 2010.
Messerli, Joe. "Should affirmative action policies, which give preferential treatment based on minority status, be eliminated?" BalancedPolitics.org 1 Apr. 2009. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.
"Narrow use of Affirmative Action preserved in college admissions" CNN.com 25 Dec. 2003. Web. 9 Apr. 2010.
Roach, Ronald. "Renewing the Fight Against Affirmative Action." Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 5 Feb. 2009. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Apr. 2010.
Ryan, Sean and Snyder, Paul. "Affirmative action not fair, Wisconsn state representative says" The Daily Reporter (Milwaukee, WI) 25 Aug. 2008. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Apr. 2010.
Sacks, David and Thiel, Peter. "The Case Against Affirmative Action" Stanford Magazine 1996. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.
Tablac, Angela. "Effort underway to overturn affirmative action in state contracts" St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO) 6 Feb. 2008. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Apr. 2010

==========================================================

History
Colombian Exchange


Before Columbus discovered America, the Old World and the New World had lived in spleded isolation. However, after Columbus and the Columbian Exchange these two worlds were united forever! Obviously this country is full of a bunch of over caffinated white people; and 600 years ago this country didn't know what a white person was. Other than the obvious things that we learn in elementary school about slavery, the slaughtering of the natives, and a lot of boat rides across the Atlantic, there are many aspects in which the two world benifited from each other and changed the the way they lived their lives because of it. Among the most popular things traded between the worlds, other than people, were various foods, cultures, and diseases.
After the Columbian Exchange the two worlds had become one. They shared so many things back and forth that each world couldn't be considered whole anymore without the contributions of the other. The native Americans got horses from the old world. That is, the old world brought horses here that ran wild and spawned like crazy. Because of this, the natives could hunt on horseback and travel farther and wider. The true gain from horses for the natives was the free time it provided them with. The buffalo hunt was a long, hard, dangerous endevor until they got horses, which made it simple it comparison. The natives were now free to practice the arts and philosophy. The introduction of wheat and cattle into America allowed us to endlessly farm bread and beef. While in Europe, potatos had become the main food for poor people after extracting them from South America. They were denied by the general public at first, but eventually were lured into eating them. Corn was also a major food brought from the New World to the Old World, created from generations of altering grass. Because of how long corn would stay perserved for, it is really what fueled the slave trade.
The slave trade and other transportation of people between the Old World and the New World also changed the world forever. Boats would capture Africans and bring them to the New World to work as slaves on plantations. The worst plantations were sugar cane pantations; though they were also the staple of the economy at the time, and for 150 years. The New World was really run completely on slavry; it allowed us to carve civilization into the wilderness. Also, because of all the things produced in the New World, we were trading heavily with the Old World, creating what we would now refer to as our Foreign Trade Policy. Even Africa was gaining ground due to slavery. In africa they were introduced to kasaba, chili peppers, pumpkins, sweet potatos, and corn; mostly staple foods for the poor. The Old World also got coacoa, pineapples, tabacco, most beans, and tomatos. The complete list of what went back and forth with the slaves is surprisingly long, and cosidering both the New World and the Old World still benifit from much of what was sent back and forth, that would suggest that we really did become one world.
Before the Columbian Exchange the New World and Old World had lived in simple, content isolation. Through hundreds of years of trade though, it is hard to imagine either world without the things they had obtained from the other. Sure slavery was bad, but you have to look past that, to everything else that was going on at the time; the growth of culture and economics. There isn't a major World event happening that isn't somehow related to the Columbian Exchange.

==========================================================

English/Social Problems

China in Google!
In "Google in China," the New York Times, explains how Chinese censorship is causing a lot of problems for Google. China has strict laws on what people are allowed to access through the internet, or be displayed in any form of media for that matter. As an independent nation, China has the right to make such laws, but how far should a company have to go to be able to sell its services in China? Google would lose a lot of money if it were to stop providing its services to China, and the Chinese people would lose a lot of possibilities for education and recreation. Though I do not agree with the way the Times addressed this matter I believe, like the Times that Google and China should put some effort into making a deal work, for the people, and for the entities. They could simply write up a legal contract to prevent future breaches. Both entities have the right to make their own demands, and if Google can't work out a deal, eventually another company will!
In China a person cannot search for things that are offensive to the government. The Times says, searches "such as 'Tienanmen Square massacre' do not work" ("Google in China"). Gady Epstein tells us, "Last May news leaked that regulators would force computer makers to install a filtering program called Green Dam Youth Escort. The ostensible reason was to protect children from porn, but Green Dam would also filter out politically sensitive terms and collect private user data." The main reason Google wants to "pull out" of China is because of a recent cyber-attack in which the Chinese government attempted to hack into the G-mail accounts of human rights activists. Through its efforts, Google may be winning the support of human rights activists around the world. As the Times states, "If Google pulls out of China, the biggest losers would be the Chinese people"("Google in China"). The Times also says, "The Chinese government, which heavily censors the news that Google was protesting its censorship, does not appear to realize that the whole nation would suffer"("Google in China"). The Times supports the idea of Google trying to work a deal out with China for the sake of the Chinese citizens. They believe the internet is a very powerful tool for people to advance in society, and supports Google trying to maintain a relationship with China, though it offers no solution to the problem.
Although the Times does a great job of informing us of the problems between Google and China, they fail to give us any possible solution, let alone a reason for Google to stay in China from Google's perspective. The Times only gives two main reasons why Google should keep its relations with China, neither of which give Google any reason to do so. First the Times says: "If Google pulls out of China, the biggest losers are the Chinese people" ("Google in China"). Next, "Google's defiance of China is winning praise from human rights groups and open-Internet advocates" ("Google in China"). The focus of these statements is on groups of people not directly related to the matter. This problem is between Google and China; the opinion of the general public doesn't affect the decisions of a communist country and a business. With all of its "human rights" comments it would appear as though they are trying to pull on your emotional cord, rather giving arguable reasons why Google should stay in China. The real problem, which is barely touched on, is that Chinese government officials hacked into G-mail, a part of Google. The fact that China censors the information of the public, or that the peoples accounts that were hacked were Chinese human rights activists, has nothing to do with the real problem between the 2 entities. The actions of the Chinese government are the problem; they went against the user agreement everyone who uses Google is forced into. It is like making a big business deal with someone, and then they pickpocket you outside the building. It is just bad business ethics on the side of China.
It would be in the best interest of Google to continue trying to work out a deal with China. "By picking on a suspect foreign company, officials can raise their profile and buttress domestic competitors, all while winning points internally for backing a popular campaign"(Epstein). Epstein points out that for China, this is more of a political move just to score some points; China doesn't have some burning passion against Google, and eventually will reach a limit where they have to give in. Google could easily step-up security measures, or write up a legal contract mandating that if anything along those lines is attempted again, there will be a severe fine or legal action. I do not condone the actions of China, and I do not believe Google should be forced to operate under the conditions China is trying to impose. As the Times says, "There are limits to the price an American company should be willing to pay for access to 300 million web users" ("Google in China"). However, America is all about competition! There are more web viewers in China than in America, and a company could easily skyrocket its earnings by sealing a deal with China. If Google is unwilling to work out a deal with China, then someone out there will be willing to. China is a communist country and has the power to write its own laws. While Google is being harmed directly by China, it has the right and reason to complain. When you are doing business with a foreign nation though, you have to be willing to play by their rules. I believe that even if Google left China, another company like Microsoft, Ask Jeeves, Yahoo, MSN, or Dog-pile would be willing to play ball with the Chinese government in exchange for the 300 million web viewers.


Works Cited
Epstein, Gady. "China's Porn Trick." Forbes 3 Jan. 2010. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Feb. 2010.
"Google in China" New York Times 14 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Feb 2010.

=========================================================
English/Satire

Assisted Suicide
Have you ever watched a kitten run out in front of your car just in time to go "th-thump" under the wheel? Would you have felt bad if that kitten was abused and tortured every day by its owner, and was in constant pain? Maybe you killing that kitten savd it from years of pain and anguish! If the kitten could talk to you beforehand, and say "Please kill me, it is too painful to live." would you feel it is still an aweful thing to kill the kitten? Assisted suicide is that exact same issue you would be forced with. Both sides of the argument can provide a lot of speculation, but neither side truly knows what will happen if the laws are changed. What evidence we have from other states and countries shows that it wont affect the death rate anyway. The magazine Christianity Today shows how Christians feel on the matter, along with why they are against the matter. The Lancet Neurology shows the viewpoint of a person with a family member who wants assistance in suicide. American Journal of Bioethics shows the laws around the matter, how confusing they can be, and why they exist.
The laws on the matter are written clearly, though they aren't enforced in a stable manner. "Under section 2 of the 1961 Suicide act 'A person who aids, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or attempt by another to commit suicide shall be liable on conviction of indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years"(Jane Qiu 310). With this in mind, also note that the Director of Public Prosecutions(DDP) is the person to decide if it is brought to trial or not. The law is clearly written but they give you a lot of elbow room and most people aren't brought to court. "It's like having a speed limit of 30 miles an hour and asking for clear guidance about whether someone who exceeds that limit would be punished or not"(Jane Qiu 310). A big problem is how unsafe people feel when going through with assisted suicide. The lawmakers themselves are finding loopholes in the system to allow assisted suicide. We cannot simply ask to partake in this deed because it is illegal, but we are allowed to do it! If the justice department is willing to turn a blind eye to cases of assisted suicide then they should just legalize it.
In ancient Sparta someone who was too old or feeble to work was banished to die. Though this isn't directly helping them cut their own head off, it was a way to kill them and allow the younger people to prospor. A strong argument against the legalization of assisted suicide is that it is believed, "The right to die could easily become the duty to die" and "It will quickly become a very slippery slope." Elderly people, poor people, and mentally ill people could be coaxed into suicide by people close to them or even by their doctors. I believe that once you are of no use to society you SHOULD die! If everyone aged 70 and over who was not in the workforce died right now, the nations wealth would double per capita. For a doctor it may be a lot easier to help someone die than to perform a hard operation. Records from Oregon, where it is legal to assist in suicide state, "There has been no significant difference in the proportion of the elderly and disabled receiving such practices before and after the law was enacted"(Jane Qiu 311). Assuming Oregon is an average state then, on average, nothing would change. You do always run the risk of corruption in anything you make legal, but there are always dozens of new regulations to keep things in balance. If a whole state keeps records and the number of assisted suicide cases doesnt increase over time, we can use that as a basis for our knowledge that, "Just because something is legal doesn"t mean people will do it more." In countries where there are no drinking laws, people are a lot more "mature" about their drinking habits.
The christian community has taken a strong moral stand against assisted suicide. According to the Bible, you are not allowed a decent burial if you commit suicide; you go to hell. Christians have worked together on many account to protest against the legalization of assisted suicide. Although they are yet to accomplish anything, they are still putting in the effort, in hopes that it will pay off. "Catholics and evangelicals worked together to oppose Oregon's Assisted Suicide law, but the coalition was not strong enough in 2008 to resist voter approval in Washington state"(Palliam). Christians, the group that has shaped this country into what it is today, don't even have the power to keep assisted suicide from becoming legal. Many people believe that if Christians want it to be illegal to assist in suicide, they should work together and come up with hospice programs for the elderly.(Palliam) The christian community should try to enhance the value of life for people who are contemplating assisted suicide. The majority of people who want to end their life are unhappy with their condition of living. Rather than saying, "you have to stay alive and be miserable" they should be given reason to want to make that choice on their own free will. "Suicide, the intentional taking of ones life, has probably been a part of human behavior since pre-history. Many ancient texts including the Rig Veda, the Bible, and the Koran mention suicide" (Sharma). The bible says you cannot kill yourself, but it tells stories of suicide! In other civilizations such as feudal Japan and other asian countries suicide was considered a sin for most, but an honor for others. Everyone prays to a different invisible man in the sky, just because your invisible man doesn't like something doesn't mean everyone should have to suffer without out.
The government will attempt to take all of your rights away before the day you die, so we should be fighting for every right we can get! Sharma says, "If a person has a right to live, the question is whether he has the right not to live." With the majority of laws, you are allowed to refuse them. As part of your freedom of speech, you have the right to shut up. You have the right to a lawyer, and you have the right to refuse one. You have the right to live, you should also have the right to refuse to live. Many people who need help killing themselves are in so much pain they consider it cruel and unusual punishment to be forced to live. Cruel and unusual punishment is illegal, unless you go to Guantanamo Bay. That works for everyone too, because we can't let the terrorists win!
Assisted suicide will always be a debated topic. The people who support the law have many viable reasons to believe what they do; as do the people who are against the law. The nation does the best it can to be flexible with both sides of the arguments, though it is clearly written that it is illegal to assist with suicide. It is also very clear that the legalization of assisted suicide is something that is becoming widespread. Weather you want it or not, more states are making it legal and more nations even are allowing it to be practiced. Quite frankly it doesn't matter what you want or what you believe, because I'm right, and assisted suicide is something that will happen either way.

Work Cited
Pulliam, Sarah. "Quieter Killings." Christianity Today Mar. 2009, Vol. 53, Issue 3.
Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Broome Community Coll. Lib., Binghamton, NY. 8 April. 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com>.
Qiu, Jane. "Assisted Suicide: a matter of life and death." The Lancet Neurology April 2009, Vol 8, Issue 4. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Broome Community Coll. Lib., Binghamton, NY. 8 April. 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com>.
Sharma, B.C. "Is Attempted Suicide an Offense." American Journal of Bioethics 2009. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Broome Community Coll. Lib., Binghamton, NY. 8 April. 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com>.

Quote :

Canadian Political Culture - Political Science 101

epic i didn't realize it was a humor forum XD

i don't really have anything that short i can upload... do you guys want some longer sci papers?

HLWG wrote:

Epic, you have parenthetical citations, but no sources... but other than that, good shit.

Ya, thats because all my sources are footnotes that are ... bottom frames ... if that makes sense. Long and short they generally don't copy and paste very well, if you want to sources really bad I can post them, more of a hassle though; especially since this is just a "hey read my essay" and I'm not really trying to prove anything.. Because well I already did that.

And fuck you Charge.

Mr.Blonde wrote:

i don't really have anything that short i can upload... do you guys want some longer sci papers?

I don't know if you could really call baking soda volcanoes science...

the point of this thread is to get out of doing work by stealing someone else's essay, so we can play more CHA. i would post some of mine... but all of my essays have been either C papers, or personalized to the specific books used in class.

Oh, well if you end up using it message me and ill send you the footnotes..

you realize it'll be a pain in the ass to copy any of these b/c of safe assignments now? they check that shit pretty thoroughly... uhh nohomo

??? those programs search widely used internet sites (such as ones that offer free essays) and news articles and such.

I have ran all of my essays through that system actually (cuz it is free) and only 1 of them came up as plagarized. And, well, it was. I found 4 free essays on the topic online, and copy/pasted entire paragraphs from them into the paper.

It would be silly to think that site actually scans 100% of the internet though... Especially a free forumwith a unique domain, and only 50 unique visitors a day, on average.

2500 unique visitors a day is considered a small site. Real sites are over 100,000; and truly popular sites are well over a million.

Hell, the evee TD site has about 500-1000 unique visitors a day!

you aren't gonna get caught for using an essay from here i can garuntee unless the original person who posted the essay plagurized.

Introduction
Through this essay, I analyze just how “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter”. Throughout this essay, I will use the term “self-serving bias” to describe this idea. First, the necessary definition of terrorism is explained. Second, examples of self-serving terrorism used by the United States are given in order to show how the use of terrorism is usually self-serving, and that this bias exists as much here as anywhere else. The third section of this essay examines results of a survey given to Israelis and Palestinians with regard to international terrorism as well as terrorism perpetrated against them and by them. The purpose of this examination is to gain empirical evidence that can be used to prove the self-serving bias that exists in the label “terrorism”.
The Definition of Terrorism
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, and most definitions offered in the international arena are tainted by self-serving motivations (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 537). Moreover, even though there is no consensus on what terrorism is, most people seem to believe it is bad and should be eradicated (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 539). Since terrorism has such stigma and far-reaching effects, it is important to label it correctly.
First, the word terrorist can be a derogatory term used to undermine opponents’ efforts by labelling them as illegitimate (Crenshaw, 2000, p. 406). Alternatively, it could be used as an analytical tool to describe the phenomenon of terrorism. However, it is important to realize that terrorism is as much a derogative label as it is an analytical tool used for intellectual studies (Crenshaw, 2000, p. 406).
Second, Terrorism requires the perception of an unjust government, disillusionment with existing government (Crenshaw, 2000, p. 410). If there were no one terrorists are justified in combating, their fanaticism would decrease.
Third, the purpose of terrorism is to intimidate a watching popular audience by harming only a few. In this sense, terrorism is meant to wound, not destroy (Crenshaw, 2000, p. 406). This shows that the terrorists are not really trying to take down the system. They are only trying to gain attention for their political goals in order to incite change in the system.
Fourth, Terrorism is an interpretation of events and their presumed causes (Turk, 2004, p. 271). This is an important point because it makes the distinction between the false presumption that terrorists simply exist and the correct assumption that the word terrorist is simply a label used to vilify an opponent. These interpretations usually involve a conscious effort to manipulate perceptions to promote certain ideas and interests at the expense of others (Turk, 2004, p. 271-272). An example of this is how, in the political arena, the government’s terrorist is merely their opposition’s martyr (Turk, 2004, p. 272).
With these subcategories of terrorism identified, we gain a new, better definition of what terrorism really is. To sum it up, terrorism is a label, used as a derogatory term or as an analytical tool, used to describe the deliberate targeting of more or less randomly selected victims whose deaths and injuries are expected to weaken the governments will to persist in a political conflict (Turk, 2004, p. 273). The prescribed goal of terrorism is odd because the common theme for most theories regarding terrorism is that it most often leads to oppressive action by the state instead of leading to the reforms that the terrorists seek to incite (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1983, p. 41).
The biggest problem with terrorism is that governments are exempt from the label. This is because political violence committed by states against civilians is defined as “war crimes” or "crimes against humanity” (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 538). This is why the definition of state terrorism would be redundant. In addition, this is why only political violence committed by organizations should be considered terrorism (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 538).
Self-Serving Uses of Terrorism by the United States
There are great deals of examples of people using terrorism to meet their own needs. Through these examples, I hope to prove that terrorism is just a label used here and abroad to ascribe their opponents as the cause of political violence in question.
The first example of self-serving terrorism is how the US government filters the names on their terrorist watch list. “[L]ists of terrorists organizations and individuals [...] are the results of policy decisions regarding the potential costs and benefits of including and excluding certain parties on such lists” (Turk, 2004, p. 272). Examples of this unfair practice are as follows. Bulgaria, East Germany, Libya, North Korea and Syria were named soviet controlled sponsors of anti-American terrorism when this was not at all evident. In this case, the soviets were the “real terrorists” but the regions surrounding it were still so troublesome they were included under the umbrella of this label (Turk, 2004, p. 272). The use of the label terrorism was used to transfer support from the military campaign against the soviets to the surrounding areas that would be harder to quell without the public support. The other example is how few incidents within the United States have been referred to as terrorism despite its long history of violence associated with labour, politics, race and religion (Turk, 2004, p. 272).
The government’s self-serving use of the media in relation to terrorism is essential. The media can portray to the public the ideologies of the government. In particular, the media can substantially help the government label their enemies as terrorist. This is shown in a few examples. First, the most common message in the media is that violence expresses hate, which only leads to reciprocal violence (Turk, 2004, p. 275). Second, Assassins are portrayed as lone disturbed persons whose murderous acts are attributable to their individual pathologies (Turk, 2004, p. 274). These views of terrorism shift attention away from the political aspect of the crime and places responsibility for the consequences on the “lone disturbed person”. This shift obviously serves the government because the last thing they want is focus on a problem that plagues their own system.
If you need evidence of this bias in the media, you need go no further than your television. The evidence is in how it is highly unlikely to find views in the western media that are sympathetic to terrorism and feel it is a legitimate form of defence and protection against oppression (Turk, 2004, p. 275). This is a very flawed system. This also shows how the media uses terrorism as a self-serving tool in order to get higher ratings.
Self-Serving Terrorism on an International Scale
After peace negotiations broke down between Israel and Palestine in 2000, conflict escalated between the two groups (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 541). This was followed by a series of suicide bombings and shooting on Israel buses by Palestinians resulted in 39 Israeli deaths and various other wounded (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 542). Israel retaliated by invading several Palestinian towns and instituting closures and blockades. The number of Palestinians dead as a cause of this was 67 (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 542). Interestingly enough, throughout this conflict (and still today) these two groups both regard the others violent actions as terrorism (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 541). The conflict gave the need for a study to analyze it. Therefore, a study was conducted to get a better idea of how Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians used terrorism in relation to violence (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 543).
The survey found that Jews greatly underrated acts of violence committed by Israelis as terrorism, while overwhelmingly judging as terrorism all acts of violence committed by Palestinians (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 545). The same self-serving bias was seen in the Palestinians view of terrorism (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 545). This is the finest example I could find of the self-serving bias that exists when dealing with the label terrorist. In the study, only 41 % of Palestinians saw 9/11 as a terrorist act. This may be due to the fact the media widely reported the perpetrators of 9/11 were Muslim. In this, we see a self-serving bias perpetrated by Palestinians who obviously felt some link or kinship with the assumed perpetrators of 9/11(Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 546). Also worth noting is the results of the survey that show that Both Israeli and Palestinian sides overwhelmingly justify violent means to meet their goals (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 553)
Conclusion
In conclusion, the definition of terrorism provided gives an outline of just what terrorism really is. The examples of America’s use self-serving terrorism shows just how prevalent this bias really is. In addition, the examination of the results obtained from a survey on Israeli and Palestinian conflicts show this same self-serving bias. More importantly, the survey results give us empirical data that allows us a much better estimate of real world conditions compared to other unsubstantiated theories.



References
Crenshaw M. (2000). The Psychology of Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century, Political
Psychology, vol. 21(2), 405-420.
Hamilton, L. C. & Hamilton, J. D. (1983). Dynamics of Terrorism, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.
27(1), 39-54.
Shamir, J. & Shikaki K. (2002). Self-Serving Perceptions of Terrorism among Israelis and Palestinians,
Political Psychology, Vol. 23(3), 537-557.
Turk, A. T. (2004). Sociology of Terrorism. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30, 271-286.

I dont mean to be rude at all by this; but you are in high-school, aren't you? I just cant see a college professor giving that a passing grade; in terms of paper mechanics.

You really shouldnt worry about getting an F for plaigerism, because this site requires you to login to access anything. Plus, like glorn said, this is an absurdly small site in relation to other websites whos main focus is plaigerism/selling papers.

the teacher only allowed 3-4 sources and made a point to make us use them as much as possible.

it was a first year political science class. the teacher was trying to get us interested in the subject while also teaching us how to use/find sources correctly.

also, it was done within two days crammed full of studying and red bull.

sure, the structure is very simple and needs more complexity, but the info given is very useful and makes my point clear.

it was actually more of the intro of:

"I will introduce this by telling you in this essay, that I...."

and, "In conclusion"

And with the sources, it is good to use them a lot; however, you need to, after the quote has been properly introduces, explain the quote in your own words, opinion, or experiences. Give some support to the quote.

but, I guess intro non-english classes have really no stipulations about grammar.

The information is good; it is just the formatting that got me. Dont mind me though, I write about 40 papers a semester (146 since I started college, including my short answer ones) so, am half grammar nazi.

thanks for the constructive criticism.

i appreciate it but also kind of resent it.


What really grinds my gears is how

When trying to write a paper that gets a basic piece of info across, I need to weave rhetorical devices and twists into it just so that an amazingly distracted audience can find 4 minutes to read it.

Well, reading and writing, in a sense, are becoming dead arts. You can say this about most things though. No longer do really ANY forms of work hold the same content as they used to. Look at firefighters. Their money comes from the local government (volunteer fire companies through donations) and is based really on who votes for what. I was talking with a firefighter, who explained that now days, it isnt about putting out fires and saving people. It is about a service; like someone delivering dry-cleaning. Because fire codes are so much better than they once were, few people really need to be saved.

How would you like to read a short story that just says, "Learn better morals".
essentially, that is what short stories are; short, interesting ways for people to learn about morals by getting drawn into a story.

^^The same goes for paper writing; you have to draw your reader in, bring them into whatever you are writing about so that they can better relate to it.

*****
On a better note; does anyone have a decent quality essay on Che, the Mexican Revolution, or any other major Latin American theme?

Its not cited at all... its just a short 1 pager that i wrote for the book i'm reading in class today... happy reading, as epic knows i accept all types of critique and criticism. especially in reference to clarity.






The system of castes has held a long standing tradition in all societies. Within these systems, people are judged by factors of worth, such as social status, political position, economic class, and even by their job. In Mirita Ojito’s “Finding Manana”, a reader is introduced to troubles and hardships of the author as she relays the experience of her family’s life within and journey out of a Communist Cuba to America. At the start of the narration Ojito uses the claim that “in [her] world people earned the right to have things through hard work and the right political attitude, not because they were lucky” as a starting point in her description of Communist Cuba in comparison to Capitalist America. The descriptions in the text, as well as the trend of unemployment in the United States, demonstrate that despite equal beginnings, opportunity, and rights for citizens in both countries, that human nature still develops a social ranking system inevitably generally favors the principle of individual worth.


One example of this being shown in text is when Ojito describes the lengths the situation that their area regularly faces. Ojito states, that while there were many power outages in the surrounding area, a place with “no diplomats…, no foreign students, [and] no Eastern Europeans” was not likely to receive any form of aid. For Ojito and her family, the fact that these seemingly “equally righted” citizens must bear worsened conditions because they are not seen as being worth as much as those of higher standards (I.E. diplomats, Europeans, ect) is a direct example of the system of worth affecting society.


Another example can be seen in the high level of unemployment in the United States. Many of these people are jobless because they do not get “lucky” (17), in terms of education, status, or affluence, despite being in the supposed “Land of Equality” and “Opportunity”. Because of this, a society that deems all humans equal, judges them to be unworthy of employment as opposed to someone who has these qualities, whether it be by luck or hard work.


The drastically large amount of similarities that are shown in Ojito’s “Finding Manana” and America’s unemployment rate, demonstrate that the no matter how “equally born” each individual man is, when living and interacting among other humans, they are still always judged by their worth before anything else.

Rhetorical devices and concise argument structure is heavily needed blazin'. It's not just something teachers do to piss you off, it boils down to how your reader is going to be persudaded and understand your point. If you just lie down fact by fact by fact, thats great. But people generally won't really give a shit about it unless it A) Affects them B) Has a Main theme/point that relates to a broad aspect or C) Stirs up emotion or on and on. If I just tell America is a Republic. You'll say neat. If I say America is a Republic, and this is important because it ensures the freedoms of its citizens while allowing them to govern themselves. Your still stating the information you were previously, while persuading your reader of why this actually matters and why they should continue reading and understanding your facts. And this isn't just a new concept, Humanity has been practising this for thousands of years. THis is exactly why reading, writing and most noteable oratorical study were such widely understood studies in Ancient Greek/Roman/Chinese or any other major culture in ancient times.

Anyways, if you want help with structure here is a basic outline...


Intro Paragraphs

Hook Sentence
(Author and Work if it is based off a single work)
Thesis Statement (Main Premise)
Blue Print
Transition


Body Paragraphs

Topic Sentence
Claim (Minor Premise)
Evidence
Interpretation
Transition

Conclusion Paragraph

Topic Sentence
Concluding Statements that tie all your Claims (Minor Premises) to your Thesis (Major Premise).
Food For Thought/Ender

This is very basic, kind of limiting but following this and understanding what these all do will get you 80%-100% on all structure parts of an essay in any course. If you don't know how to make all these flow together or what they mean, get a hold of me on B.Net / Vent or in a Private forum message and I'll explain them all in detail...

Oh and this is deductive logic/arguing. I write most of my essays deductively, because well it's how i naturally argue. If you want help with inductive I can help a bit, but not as much.