Share an Essay with a Friend!

Just a tip, to add into the above outline...

If you are making an argumentive paper, which the majority of papers written are; be sure to use STRONG facts to support your opponent. Nothing breaks an essay more than straw man arguments.
Clearly politics dont follow that. Local politcs are up for re election this week, and the past 2 months have been, "George Clemmings eats babies, created cancer in his lab, and sneaks into your house and night and puts armpit hairs on your deoderant! Come election day, dont vote for a man who wants to sacrifice your first born child in his satanic rituals; vote for a man of honor, of promise, a man born from the gods who can swim the english channel blindfolded!" "This is Tom Arnald, and I approve this message!"

I'm sure you have all heard that exact same thing in your life and thought, "Wow, politics is 1 huge crapshoot!" And that is exactly why, when trying to argue a point, you have to argue against your opponents strongest points, show their strengths and weaknesses; and explain how your opinion is better than theirs.

Also, Never use, "In my opinion" or "I believe" in an informative argumentive essay. Never refer to yourself in any way. Dont list out what you will do. "First I will explain why I am right, then I will explain why they are wrong!" No!

You just type the facts as they are, and be sure to use plenty of real-life examples to support any complex thought processes. Different people relate in different ways. If I just say that abortion is inherently devient, only 2 people will fully understand what I am saying. If I include that murder, cannibalism, and theft are the only things that have proven inherently devient throughout the history of mankind; it would then make the reader corrolate abortion with those things, without you directly stating that it is any of those things.

This is a way of leading a reader into believing what you believe without stating it. An actively engaged reader will retain a lot more information.

Quote :

I'm sure you have all heard that exact same thing in your life and thought, "Wow, politics is 1 huge crapshoot!" And that is exactly why, when trying to argue a point, you have to argue against your opponents strongest points, show their strengths and weaknesses; and explain how your opinion is better than theirs.

Haha I love ripping peoples arguments or leading them to do it themselves Socrates style. Probably one of the funnest things about learning argument structure, you can destroy them without even really forming an argument...

Quote :

Also, Never use, "In my opinion" or "I believe" in an informative argumentive essay. Never refer to yourself in any way. Dont list out what you will do. "First I will explain why I am right, then I will explain why they are wrong!" No!

Depends on the professor. Personal pronouns and the such can be used effectively, I agree on not using cliche terms like that. But dropping in a few first and second person voices here and there can really add to your paper. Find out from your professor first though.

Quote :

You just type the facts as they are, and be sure to use plenty of real-life examples to support any complex thought processes

And ya that's where the "evidence" part comes into play. Paraphrasing and direct quotes are your meat.

^^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.


-- I dunno, it just seems so condescending and manipulative.

i dont write short stories, i dont like to. It is a good way to make a purpose for ones own bad experiences (if it can help someone else than it was worth it) but i feel no need to preach morals or just how wonderful the world would be if...
i usually just summarize lit reviews and experiments that i have done. there is no need to draw someone in. i feel that to do so would imply i was compensating for a weakness in my experiment design or methods.
personally, i would rather get published in a reputable journal than PEOPLE, US Weekly or any other of those magazines people are obsessed with.

nm i'll post it after i've turned it in.
I'm actuall pretty proud of this one btw

this could be useful some day, bookmarked. Great idea Glorn. Any thing else on political science and economy?

I have a paper due on a book, "The Moral Underground" in which I sum up the book, address 3 critical reviews of the book, share my own critical review, and argue against a review which does not agree with me. Pretty basic, 4-6 pages (prolly be about 6- It is about politics, government, ethics, business management, and of course, economics. However, it is based on a book; so unless someone needs it, I wont be posting it.

Glorn2 wrote:

(prolly be about 6-

damn, thats a lot of pages... sunglasses is like what, 100 pages?

Food Fight
For the past fifteen years, obesity has become an ever growing problem within the United States. Since the late 1990s, the percent of obese Americans has risen drastically for adults, increasing from 19.4% to 74%, and for children, increasing from 6.5% to 19.6% (Streib; Hendrick). Despite nearly unanimous agreements that obesity is a problem, there is debate on how to properly solve it. In two articles about the subject, political health analyst for the CATO institute, Radley Balko, and professors of psychology and public health, respectively, Kelly Brownell and Marion Nestle, discuss the issue of obesity in the United States and give their two opposing views on the causes and proper solutions of the problem. In Balko’s opinion, he believes that government intervention on the issue of obesity is an ineffectual and harmful solution, and in order to solve the problem, the issue of obesity must become a matter of personal responsibility instead of an issue of public health. Conversely, Brownell and Nestle find fault in the personal responsibility argument and support stronger government intervention as the proper solution to the problem. As seen in their articles about obesity, Balko’s arguments and beliefs oppose Brownell and Nestle’s in terms of the direct cause of obesity and the correct solution that needs to be taken in order to help decrease it.

In Balko’s article, entitled “Government Has No Business in What You Eat”, he takes a stance against the idea of government intervention as a solution for the increase in obese Americans. Balko believes that government intervention is the “wrong approach” to solving obesity because it enforces restrictions on personal freedoms (Balko). Balko’s opinion is that personal health is an extension of one of our freedoms as a citizen. Balko’s idea also brings him to the conclusion that the government’s intervention within this personal realm is a direct violation of that freedom. To highlight this point, Balko cites present and possible examples of ways the government has integrated itself into the American diet. For instance, Balko references the restriction of selling sodas and junk food on campus, as well as the Oakland major, Jerry Brown’s, “Fat Tax”, and Congress’s possible mandate for restaurants to list calorie counts on their menus (Balko). By presenting these examples, Balko tries to enforce his point that the government is restricting personal freedoms by referencing the different areas of society that are already affected by government intervention.

In his article, Balko explains the faults he finds with the current solution to obesity. He does this by discussing the problems he has found with nationalized health care and why he believes it has a negative effect on the progress of decreasing obesity. Balko believes a nationalized health care system is a regressive component of government intervention and it aids in the degenerative nature that Balko claims government intervention fosters (Balko). To support this, Balko states that the current system of nationalized health care has two effects on people. It “removes the financial incentive to make health choices”, and it makes Americans “troublingly tolerant of government trespasses on our personal freedom” (Balko). Balko furthers this point by theoretically outlining the situation; if people are forced to cover for their fellow countrymen’s health problems, then they will be more likely to support government funded programs that prevent them. Balko uses the belief that the system of national health care is paradoxical to further his main point that the steps the government is trying to take in order to solve obesity are ineffectual and harmful to the progress of decreasing it.

Balko finally ends his article by explaining the idea of personal responsibility as the solution to the problem of obesity. This is outlined in Balko’s statement, “it’s difficult to think of a matter more private than what we choose to put in our bodies” (Balko). By using those words, Balko officially states what he believes to be the correct solution to obesity. He then restates a brief summary and ties this sentence back to his previous points with the purpose of supplementing the plausibility of his answer to obesity. Balko concludes his article by asking the readers to attempt to “take responsibility of [their] diet and exercise” and essentially accept his argument of personal responsibility over that of government intervention (Balko).
Contrary to Balko’s belief, that personal responsibility can solve obesity, Chairman of Yale’s Department of Psychology, Professor Kelly Brownell, and Professor of Public Health at New York University, Marion Nestle, express opposing sentiments about the solution and believe that stronger government intervention is needed in order to effectively solve the problem of obesity. In the article “Not if Blaming the Victim is Just an Excuse to Let the Industry Off the Hook”, Brownell and Nestle express what they believe is the direct cause of obesity in America, their disagreements and faults they have with the personal responsibility argument, and their own solution to correcting obesity.
The first thing that Brownell and Nestle do is explain what they believe is the cause of the drastic increase in obesity. Brownell and Nestle attempt this when they underline the relationship between the nature of the food industry and its impact on children. Brownell and Nestle state that the food industry is like any other industry and must grow in order to succeed within the United States (Brownell and Nestle). The majority of growth, as stated in the article, is done through large scale advertisement campaigns, such a Mc Donald’s “We Love to See You Smile” campaign which spent 250 times more than the United States Government did on campaigning for healthy choices, at 500 million dollars over 2 million (Brownell and Nestle). Through this comparison, Brownell and Kelly highlight and indirectly state that the current problem in the fight against obesity is the inadequacy of government intervention.

Brownell and Nestle next outline the different arguments against government intervention. According to Brownell and Nestle, there are three arguments that pro-industry and pro-personal responsibility groups use to excuse themselves from their role in causing obesity (Brownell and Nestle). The first argument is that being overweight is the fault of the consumer, not the industry. This is followed by the argument that the industry responds to the consumer’s demand but does not create it. The last argument, that Brownell and Nestle make note of, is forcing the food industries to market products, while revealing calorie count, is an attack on free speech. Brownell and Nestle combine these three points to represent the basis for the personal responsibility argument. In reply to the personal responsibility argument, Brownell and Nestle respond with their own counter points. In response to the idea, that people who are overweight are at fault for their own problems, Brownell and Nestle claim that this argument ignores the natural biology of human beings to enjoy foods with high sugar, fat, and calorie content to survive (Brownell and Nestle). Additionally, they respond by pointing out that the idea of personal responsibility has been around for years, and that there is still an increase in the number of obese people. Using these two points, Brownell and Nestle support the idea that obesity cannot be treated as a personal problem, because it is slowly increasing in prevalence worldwide. The final counter argument, made by Brownell and Nestle, rebuts the free speech argument made by personal responsibility activists. This is done by drawing a parallel between the situation of the food industry and tobacco companies. Brownell and Nestle argue, that while the nation accepted the idea of personal responsibility from tobacco companies, they still had a large and increasing number of health related cases in following decade (Brownell and Nestle).
Finally, Brownell and Nestle end the article by stating that the lack of government intervention is essentially the government working with the industry to “shift attention” from promoting good health habits (Brownell and Nestle). This statement highlights Brownell and Nestle’s beliefs that the government’s current response to poor health and obesity is lacking and requires more support in order to succeed.

When reading the articles, “Government Has No Business Interfering With What You Eat” and “Not if Blaming the Victim is Just an Excuse to Let Industry Off the Hook”, it is important to make note of an error that they share. While both articles follow a very similar format on how they organize the cause and solution of obesity, they also contain a flaw in their arguments, which turns them into logical fallacies. In Balko’s article, a logical fallacy appears when he proposes the idea that socialized medicine supports tolerance of the idea of government intervention. In his statement, “If my neighbor's heart attack shows up on my tax bill, I'm more likely to support state regulation of what he eats”, Balko makes a hasty generalization about society as a whole when he applies his own personal situations and beliefs to the habits of society(Balko). In Brownell and Nestle’s article, a logical fallacy shows up in their third counter argument against the personal responsibility method. The argument, that personal responsibility being default approach in the past is proof of a failed experiment, also uses a hasty generalization as the evidence is too little and broad to state that personal responsibility is a complete failure.

In addition to containing logical fallacies, the articles also lack an updated view on the current status of personal responsibility and government intervention, in regards to obesity. Since 2004, when both articles were published, many chain restaurants, such as Chipotle and McDonald’s, have posted calorie counts and nutritional information on their menus or on their public websites to cater to the public’s demand of making healthier choices(Chipotle; Mcdonald’s). In response to the public demand, the government and FDA also created a mandate in 2010 that requires all chain restaurants to also post their nutritional information in “‘clear conspicuous places’”(Hunter).

Although both articles attempt to solve the issue of obesity, they diverge when it comes to the cause of the problem and its solution. While Radley Balko argues that government intervention is a proponent of obesity and that personal responsibility is the answer, his opponents, Kelly Brownell and Marion Nestle, believe the exact opposite. Their belief is that the personal responsibility argument is an excuse used by the food industry to support their growth, and the only way to solve obesity is through stricter government intervention. Since the publication of these writings, six years ago, the United States has taken time to explore a different approach to the two solutions of personal responsibility and government intervention. The result of this approach is the solution of government intervention birthed from public demand, an offshoot of personal responsibility (Brownell and Nestle). By taking a combination of the ideas from Balko, Brownell, and Nestle, a solution has been created, whose goal is the promotion of healthier living and the fight against obesity.

Political Science / History ... Russia's Political Culture in Respect to perpetual dictatorships
-------------------------------------------------------

Throughout many civilizations, times of chaos and strife are resolved by appeals to authorative figures to reinstitute order and stability. This concept has echoed through Russian politics for centuries, stemming from the Time of Troubles that followed Ivan IV’s unification into contemporary times. With this constant factor of authoritarianism that has come to characterize Russian politics, will Russia truly become a liberal and democratic society? The strongman, or dictator, archetype has manifested in every Russian politician that has instituted revolutionary reform. For Russia to become a truly liberal democratic state, the people must shed the belief that a strongman will complete the metamorphosis of liberty.

The first Russian experiment with democracy resulted from the blunderings of Tsar Nicholas II of the Romanov dynasty, the original Russian strongmen. Following the detrimental events of Bloody Sunday, and the embarrassing defeat at Mukden, the Russian people demanded reform. Nicholas II ordered A.G. Bulygin, the Tsar’s Minister for Internal Affairs to draft legislation that would create an elected assembly . According to Alan Wood, “it was a woefully inadequate response to the new public mood which would now be satisfied with nothing less than a programme of nationwide elections to a constituent assembly with full legislative powers .” In other words, the people demanded a constitutional monarchy and an end to the absolutism in Russia. There was hope that Bulygin’s legislation would achieve this goal, however, it turned out to be a sham: “Hedged around as it was by so many territorial, electoral, financial, social and legislative restrictions, it was ludicrously inadequate to meet the political exigencies of the day ”. As this was realized, the nation erupted into chaos once more, massive strikes and mutiny enfolded. The Great October Strike paralyzed every cornerstone of the Russian society and economy. This forced Nicholas II to issue the October Manifesto, which in turn created the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers Deputies . Continuing riots, strikes and disorder resulted after the issuance of the October Manifesto. These events led to a massive crackdown, which can be summed up in Trepov’s statement, “shoot no blanks, spare no bullets ”. These suppressions can be seen as Nicholas II attempting to lead as a strongman. The 1905 Revolution marked an important step for the Russian people. For the first time they stood up for their naturally endowed rights en masse. Although, there were peasant uprisings in the days of serfdom, these were of the first politically driven demonstrations of the Russian peoples will, and desire for reform. Nicholas II would largely ignore the outcome of the 1905 Revolution, but the Russian people gained representation in government. Even though this representation was extremely limited, it was something.

As with all the Russian democratic experiments, the first state Duma was tainted by the authoritarian strongman. Article 4 of the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire stated, “To the All-Russian Emperor belongs supreme autocratic power ”. Basically, the new constitution, and Duma were created as a smokescreen to pacify the workers and peasants so that they would return to work. Later Nicholas II further showed the complete disregard for a democratic evolution of Russia when he dismissed the 1st and 2nd, suspended the 3rd, and prorogued the 4th Dumas when they showed too much radicalism, or went against Tsarist thought. Nevertheless, it showed progress. Even though Nicholas II attempted to undermine reforms, democracy still lived on. Eventually, the Tsar’s ineptness as a commander in WWI, compounded with his many other failing throughout his reign forced the Duma to demand his abdication. Furthermore, the vast majority of Russian officers agreed with the Duma; Tsar Nicholas was left with little choice but to step down as Tsar. The power of the state fell upon the hands of the Duma, which was renamed as the Provisional Government.

The Provisional Government, led by A.F. Kerensky, began to pave the way for a modern democratic state by instituting many reforms on par with individual and women’s rights. However, the Provisional Government acted in many of the wrong areas, the economy continued to fail, land reforms were delayed, and Russia continued on with the First World War. These were combined with many other short comings . The failings of the Tsar simply transferred over to the new democratic Provisional Government, because of the inability for the Government to institute the radical changes. The Provisional Government was viewed with the same contempt as the Tsar. As with Nicholas II, the inabilities to fix Russian society resulted in deviance, chaos, crisis and general disorder within the society. The military began to disintegrate, peasants began to seize land by force and the standard of living in Russian cities dropped far below the already devastating lows it had been . The chaos that ensued after the fall of the Romanov dynasty, combined with the inability of the Provisional Government to provide any meaningful reforms or restore order, paved the way for the October Revolution.

After the defeat of the Provisional Government in the October Revolution, Lenin began re-organizing the Russian state in his own manner. Where Lenin and his Bolshevik Party gained the upper hand over the competing parties attempting to do the same, was the duality of the Bolsheviks. Lenin created a tightly organized political party; the Bolsheviks also functioned as a militia . These two factors are attributed to their success. When the Bolsheviks weren’t able to completely take power within the Soviets through majorities, they forced their way into power through coercion. Once in power the Bolsheviks outlawed any opposing political parties, and ensured that no opposition would stand in their way using exile, or down right murder. After power was gained Lenin systematically created a totalitarian dictatorship of the Bolshevik party that would encompass the entire Russian state . Lenin quickly put in place the structure of the communist regime. The central power would result from the Politburo, in which the top leaders would sit; the Orgburo handled all party appointments for all levels of government; the secretariat was responsible for carrying out the decisions of the Orgburo. These three committees constituted the Central Committee, in which Lenin was the direct leader. According to Brooks and Chernyavskiy, “This consisted of the complete subordination of all party members, including those in very responsible positions, to the top leadership in the Politburo and to the sole leader, Lenin himself ”. This structure made Lenin paramount in the new Russian state. As Lenin took his reforms further to create the socialist utopia, devastating outcomes of Lenin’s implementation of War Communism occurred. Mass starvation, economic failure and a counter-revolutionary civil war, shifted the newly formed communist society towards rebellion. Lenin realized that Russia could not handle a fast reform, and a slower pragmatic course had to be taken . The New Economic Policy reverted back to semi-capitalist ways, in which peasants could trade their surpluses for commodities. When Lenin saw fit he took a pragmatic course that abandoned the doctrines of the party to ensure his leadership would not be overthrown. The foundations Lenin created would influence and control the Communist party for decades to come, however a lot of his ideals were construed in the interpretations of future party leaders. Nevertheless, while Lenin was alive, he was charismatic leader bent on revolution, stopping at no cost until victory was obtained.

Like his predecessors Mikhail Gorbachev carried the strongman archetype that is characterized by a focus on strong, centralized power. Although he did institute the sweeping reforms that lead Russia to become a democratic and market orientated state through perestroika and glasnost. The strong man persona was evident in the beginning of his career as he obtained the General Secretary position. He used the powers of the General Secretary to dismiss the old guard of Brezhnev, and appoint those who would loyally support his reform policies . Of the many reforms Gorbachev would begin to install throughout the Soviet Union, in my opinion, four rung with the most importance. First, the policy of economic reform that began to reconstruct Russia into a market-orientated economy. This was done through injecting foreign investment and lifting the bureaucratic restrictions that limited innovation and entrepreneurship . Secondly, the democratization of politics, first by calling for legitimate elections and defusing the legislative branch from the executive branch . Thirdly, freeing the media from the shackles of censorship in which they had been imprisoned for nearly a Century . Fourthly, the separation of judicial power from the executive branch played a crucial role, as now everyone was accountable for their behavior . These four reforms formed the foundations of glasnost and perestroika, as now it would be possible to have competition within the political system, while nonpolitical officials could comment on the measures taken, and nobody was in fear of serious repercussions for alternative views. However, where Gorbachev would fail as a true reformer, is on the fact that he could not let go of the Soviet dogma, and his strongman archetype. Gorbachev made it quite clear during his reformation that he would not be introducing a multi-party system, and his reforms in ways functioned to centralize his power to the top . Gorbachev failed to see the paradox of instituting democratic and free-market reform, while attempting to retain dominance of the Communist Party. A nation simply cannot be run by the two opposing forces of libertarianism and central authoritarian power.

The liberalization of Russia interestingly is characterized by the power struggle of a second strongman, after outmaneuvering and eventually stripping Gorbachev of his popularity. Yeltsin truly showed his strongman characteristics through the August Putsch. Gorbachev’s internal ministers, combined with the KGB and other senior officials, attempted a coup d’état, Yeltsin called together an opposition which holed itself up in the White House. Not backing down, even to a squad of tanks sent to obliterate his opposition. Yeltsin eventually turned the attackers into his own defense, along with a massive congregation of citizen supporters . This kind of steel from the Russian people had not been seen since before the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, during the Great Strikes. The democratic spirit seemed to have inspired those of St. Petersburg, and Moscow to risk all and attain freedom. The putsch was eventually revolted, and its leaders were arrested. Yeltsin and the people were finally ready to finish liberalizing Russia . Yeltsin, like Gorbachev, and many other rulers of Russia continued to be plagued by the strongman archetype. This was heavily seen in forming a presidential system, and finalizing the Constitution. As the new Legislature would not bend towards Yeltsin’s demands of giving authoritative power within the Presidency, “Yeltsin dissolved parliament by decree, and the opposition forces launched an armed uprising against him, which he suppressed ”. The political tensions grew more and more between Yeltsin and the Parliament, which would eventually lead to a massive rebellion. In the end, Parliamentary leaders rebelled against Yeltsin. Attempting the same tactic Yeltsin used against the first putsch, they holed themselves up in the White House. Although, this time the army backed the President; The White House was shelled, and “an unknown amount of people died ”. After the rebellion was suppressed, Yeltsin stood unopposed in instituting the dominant president, or “presidential republic ”. The use of force in order to ensure the strong centralized power to the top has been something that echoed through Russian political history. Yeltsin simply finished the adaption to a more efficient and modern system, not true, democratic reform and revolution. Russia yet again sounded the ringing bell of strongman authoritarianism.

Yeltsin’s heir, Vladimir Putin emits the strongman aura around him like no other has since the days of Lenin and Stalin. Aside from his past as a KGB agent, he regularly puts on displays of his strength on vitality. His politics also reflect his strongman, authoritarian lusts as well: “By new laws, threats, demotions, or criminal trials, Putin’s people controlled the bureaucracy, media, oligarchs, and private groups. Occasionally assassinations, rarely solved, silence persistent critics ”. These tactics of consolidating power reek heavily of Soviet past. However, due to the turmoil of the fire-sale that occurred during the Yeltsin years, “Putin’s approval rating among Russians was over 75 percent, far higher than any Western leader ”. On account of Yeltsin’s constitution reforms gained after the direct military suppression of the legislature in 1993, the President now has nearly autocratic power when desired. With the ability to set basic policy, appoint the Prime Minister and many other top officials, vetoing bills, and dissolving Parliament. If these are simply not enough, emergency powers can be given to himself that constitutes the power to rule by decree . The only thing that limits the power of the President is the constitutional clause that limits the President to two consecutive four year terms. Although at the end of his Presidency, Putin began to toy with the constitution to make the President weak, and the Prime Minister strong. Logically, a loyalist to Putin was put into power, Dmitri Medvedev who has recently come to be nicknamed “Putin’s son”. Medvedev instantly appointed Putin as his Prime Minister, and later began again toying with the Constitution in order to extend the President’s term to six years. Curiously this will take affect in 2012 when Medvedev’s term runs up and new elections must be held. For an outsider looking in, it’s extremely hard not to draw connections between the strong man, and Putin. His policies of centralizing power, toying with the Constitution and the creation of a cult figure around himself prove this. As the old proverb says, those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. As Putin’s power grows, it begins to remind this outsider of a Russian Uncle Joe. Do the Russian people simply do not understand their own history? Or is this repetition something much more, are they unable to except freedom, and truly desire authoritarian rule?

The varying wavelengths of Russian politics appear to be mind boggling at best. At each opportunity to grasp liberty, and create a free society, Russians have rejected these ideals; they throw their support behind the strongman time, and time again. This strongman twists and twists the system until it becomes unrecognizable, and suits only the needs for who is in power. Suppression, violence, fear and obedience have become central cultural foundations within Russian society. The future of democracy, as throughout Russian history, looks bleak. Each time democracy has been given a chance; the strongman has been able to take control of the reigns and steer Russia back into authoritarianism. As John Edward Acton famously stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”



Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter, Russia’s Age of Serfdom 1649 – 1861 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 2
Alan Wood, The Romanov Empire 1613-1917 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 325
Alan Wood, The Romanov Empire 1613-1917 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 325
Alan Wood, The Romanov Empire 1613-1917 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 328
Alan Wood, The Romanov Empire 1613-1917 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 328
Alan Wood, The Romanov Empire 1613-1917 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 329
Alan Wood, The Romanov Empire 1613-1917 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 330-331.

Jeffery Brooks and Georgiy, Lenin and the Making of the Soviet Union (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 13
Jeffery Brooks and Georgiy, Lenin and the Making of the Soviet Union (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 12
Jeffery Brooks and Georgiy, Lenin and the Making of the Soviet Union (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 16
Jeffery Brooks and Georgiy, Lenin and the Making of the Soviet Union (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 17
Jeffery Brooks and Georgiy, Lenin and the Making of the Soviet Union (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 18
Jeffery Brooks and Georgiy, Lenin and the Making of the Soviet Union (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), p. 21
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 48
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 48
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 48
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 48
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 49
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 50
Michael G. Roskin, Countries and Concepts Eleventh Edition (New York: Pearson Education, 2009), 318
Michael G. Roskin, Countries and Concepts Eleventh Edition (New York: Pearson Education, 2009), 318
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010),
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 60
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 61
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 322
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 322
Thomas F. Remington, Politics in Russia 6th Edition (New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2010), 320

Latin American Final, on Che Guevara. Would also work for political science.


Che, Immortalized in the Tears of Liberal High School Kids
The modern image of Che Guevara as an icon for freedom, representing the struggle of the underprivileged, was created from his revolutionary ideals and the way he threw himself whole heartedly into his beliefs. After traveling through much poverty stricken regions while studying medicine, he realized that the only way to help out the lower class people would be to start a revolution. After studying Marxism and traveling Latin America to learn first hand about reforms, he met Fidel Castro in Mexico. Che rose to power in Cuba after Castro overthrew the Cuban government and that is where Che really stood up for his ideals; opposed to becoming mad with power, like so many revolutionary leaders do. Eventually he left Cuba to help foreign nations with their revolutions, because he was a man of revolution, not of politics. In the modern world, Che is a symbol for everything he stood against. High-school kids who idolize him would be shot in front of a firing squad if he was alive today to witness their consumerism.
The daughter of Che is quite upset about the icon of her father as a marketing tool. Marc Lacey, author of A Revolutionary Icon, and Now, a Bikini claims, "In Cuba, Che is used both to make a buck and to make a point." After his image was added to a bikini it brought about the question, "What does the distant gaze, the scraggly beard and the beret adorned with a star - mean in a decidedly capitalist world?" (Lacey). Che spent his life trying to fight capitalism. After the communist party, lead by Fidel Castro took power in Cuba; Che left Cuba and attempted to help other nations with their communist uprisings. Che's daughter travels around the world giving speeches at conferences and rallies dealing with Che. At a rally in Italy she was signing some shirts for teenagers and discovered that they were fascists, and in fact, knew nothing about Che or his work.
With most cult followings, followers have no idea who they are actually following; they are just paying attention to the good myths and drawing their own conclusions. Che was a very violent man; and sometimes he was violent just for the sake of violence. Che once said, "Revolution without firing a shot? You're crazy!" Many of the young people who purchase merchandise with his picture on it like to consider themselves revolutionaries. This can play a pretty negative role in our future society, if the "liberal" youth are the ones who start shooting at will to demand change. Che really did love killing, he loved death, and at times was unable to see the difference between murder, and revolution. Much like the terror that went on during the French Revolution, Che went around killing anyone he suspected of not supporting the new government. In the article The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, the author states, "At other times he would simulate executions without carrying them out, as a method of psychological torture." Che would kill people simply for being Christians; which brings an ironic affect to the fact that Carlos Santana was wearing a Che tee-shirt and a gold crucifix to the Oscars (Llosa).
Che was in fact very much so like Joseph Stalin. Mention Stalin in a college level history class and you get the uneducated statements that a class of second graders would make about Columbus. Che is in the same category of mystified leaders, in many high-school and college level educational programs. Tens of thousands of Cubans were executed under Che's command, with no trial. Many more were placed into forced labor camps called Guanahacabibes, similar to the gulags of the Russian empire. "As Guevara himself told the Soviet ambassador Sergei Kudriavtsev, counterrevolutionaries were never 'to raise their head again" (Llosa). Che also said that if Russia did not remove the missiles from Cuba, then Cuba would have used them against America, targeting the largest cities. Shortly before Stalin was poisoned, he had planned to drop an atomic bomb on America as well. Even more impressive is that Che ended his relations with Russia, because he believed they were not communist enough. I don't think you can even buy a tee shirt with Stalin's face on it; and if you wore it around talking about revolution, someone would call the FBI on you.
The image of Che really has nothing to do with Che anymore. Stephanie Holmes, author of Che: The icon and the ad says, "Che Guevara has become a brand. And the brand's logo is the image, which represents change. It has become the icon of the outside thinker." No longer is Che a symbol for anti-capitalism, as he was when still alive. The majority of people who wear him on a shirt don’t even know the definition of capitalism. But why is this image as popular as a marketing tool? For starters, the man who took the picture, Alberto Korda, wanted to honor Che with the picture; because there was no memorial where he died, no pilgrimages to his death place, nothing that many great leaders were awarded after death. Rather, the use of this image is free to use. All it takes is a spark, and everyone will jump on the bandwagon of "free" to make a heavier profit. Ironic again, is that capitalism is what has made the memory and honoring of Che spread worldwide.
When I asked the question on an online forum to see the reactions of others to the mystery of why High school kids wear Che Guevara shirts, I was given the following answers:
"It's just trendy, something little stupid high scholars do to try and make a generic political statement. They think they're unique, though at the same time they're following a very basic trend."
"I seriously doubt they even know who the hell he is."
"It’s a symbol of rebellion; and that’s as far as they get to give you an explanation."
"They do the same with Charles Manson. What's so funny about this country is they don't care when it's a serial killer or a commie, but when someone where's a swastika ohnoes! Rascism! And they lose all sense of incoherent speech and become screeching monkies."
"I despise the Che shirt. I've thought, since I first saw it, that it was idiotic. I have a version of the shirt, however, featuring the ape from Planet of teh Apes instead of Che. It's my silent protest."
The discussion quickly turned into a flame-war about who can't spell what words, and who did what with that other guy’s mother, and all of the lovely things that occur on the internet when people have opposing viewpoints. The general reaction though was that people wear him without a clue who he was or what he stood for. Later in the argument it became quite apparent that few people knew much about him; and the few who did, had learned it minutes earlier from wikipedia.
The majority of Che inspired revolutions brought out military based governments, which rather than ruling with the support of the people for the better of the country; shot anyone who opposed them. In Cuba, the support of the people is what really allowed Che and Castro to overthrow the government. Powerful public speaking by Che and Fidel also kept the country intact. If the country didn't want them in power, there is no way they could have maintained power. In America we may have forgotten, as a culture, what Che stood for, but in Latin America, "Che Guevara's face remains a symbol of armed revolution and indigenous struggle" (Holmes). I believe Che sealed his reputation along with his fate when he said, "I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man.” That face on the shirt, it is only a man, for the majority of people. His ideals are gone from his image, as are his goals and teachings; forever to be, a face on a shirt.

Works Cited
Holmes, Stephanie. "Che: The icon and the ad" BBC News 5 October 2007. Web. 28 November 2010.
Lacey, Marc. "A Revolutionary Icon, and Now, a Bikini" The New York Times 9 October 2007. Web. 28 November 2010.
Llosa, Alvaro Vargas. "The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand" The Independent Institute 11 July 2005. Web. 29 November 2010.

where are your sources?

and what kind of citation style is that?

Havent written up my citations page yet; but that is MLA, citing articles from the internet (not novels). With short articles you do not need to give a page number; something you clearly havent learned.

*Edit, added works cited page.

Good essay, I saw numerous sentence fragments / improper use of semicolons / couple logical fallacies / and a few grammatical errors ("then" instead of than") type stuff. Might want to fix these up.

yeah; that is my rough draft still >< i will update it once I get a grade on it. This is for a history class, so I will prolly only revise it once. History teachers don't care nearly as much for grammar as english and lit teachers...

Glorn2 wrote:

Rules:
- Only college level essays

epicpowda11 wrote:

... numerous sentence fragments / improper use of semicolons / couple logical fallacies / and a few grammatical errors ("then" instead of than") type stuff. Might want to fix these up.

I thought you said you wrote a ton of papers?

ehh if its rough draft its rough draft

pfft, i expect nothing but the best. lol

Hey H, how about you write a paper on your debate?

ohh wait, what debate? a 7 year old with a flash card could win that one...

That's an ad hominen fallacy Glorn, your argument against H is therefore invalid and thus unsound due to personal attack. gg.

There was no personal attack, just a statement that I believe is true. A 7 year old able to read the correct words off an index card could overcome his argument. Just like your comment above is not a personal attack by anyones logic but your own; therefore, you lose via your own denunciation of my argument. gg.

Actually, your antecedent rhetorical question followed by the the snide remark can be connotated as a personal attack, as you are comparing his intelligence to that of a 7 year old. Basically you are saying that his debating skills are equal to that of someone of a much much lower intelligence than he is expected to have. Thus, a personal attack as being compared to a 7 year old at the age of 20ish is to infer that one is "stupid". By calling someone stupid you are this personally attacking him. gg.

would it be a personal attack to call out all of your spelling and grammar errors in that statement?

I was bringing to the table the severe differences between his expectations for me, and his expectations for himself. He created a very weak argument for himself with little backing; nothing A worthy; however, he suggest that I should have an A if I want him to consider my grade satisfactory.

And there is no way you can call that irrelevant. Take into account the concept of speed. To a small, fat child, someone running 20 MPH is really fast. To a grown man, someone running 40 MPH is insanely fast. To a cheetah, you are both an easy meal. The man who runs 40 MPH can call the fat child slow. he cannot call the cheetah slow.

The discussion was about the personal opinion of an individual; and opinions are not fact; thus are subject to any form of criticism. My statement was to reflect on his personal opinion of himself, in contrast to his opinion of me.

Analyze. gg.

u only dont need page numbers if you are using something like an article from the dictionary or an article from a newspaper. I dont use these types of sources because my work needs to be based on something more concrete than a report from the media. you must be taking a first year history course for them to be so lenient in regards to information you can cite

the only info i am permitted to cite are peer reviewed journal articles and books so.....



another question

why is it that when someone criticizes you, you need to go with the straw man argument.?


one more thing, was your professor ok with you including an internet conversation?

did you go on google scholar to find these articles or something??

just reading ur first paragraph i dont see any citation
i hope u dont get reported to your dean for plagerism
that paragraph is filled with information that is not your own.
you did not gain that info first hand and it is certainly not common knowledge

lets try to stay OT...

Maybe it is common knowledge? o.o I mean it IS glorn xD