Paper Title Class Grade
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Development in ECON 337 85%
Zimbabwe
Keaton, Director FILM
3051 81%
Critiquing Churchland PHIL 3211 90%
Critiquing
Bradley PHIL 3211 90%
Blacks, Prison, and BLST 2200 87%
Institutional
Racism
Revealing Marx PSCI 4004 92%
Time for Reform? PSCI
4011 98%
Considering the Failures
of the Electoral College
The
Just War Doctrine PSC 421 82%
and the Gulf Conflict
Jean Paul Sartre
and PHIL 102 100%
The Fundamental Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN ZIMBABWE
Description: Pretty much
self explanatory. This paper discusses the economic
development in the country
if Zimbabwe detailing the countries economic
successes and reasons for them.
Economic Development in Zimbabwe
The country of Zimbabwe is one
of the most economically developed on the African continent . A fairly young political
entity, Zimbabwe has only enjoyed recognized autonomy since 1980, the year in
which the United Kingdom repealed its imperialistic claims to the African nation
. Despite its youth the country has achieved a level of economic development uncharacteristic
of sub-Saharan African nations. Second only to South Africa in economic development,
Zimbabwe's economic system is one indicative of a transitional country, a country
making the transition from dependency underdevelopment to self-reliant industrialization.
The purpose of this essay is to make a cursory but adequate examination of Zimbabwean
socio-economic and political system, as means to analyzing the countries economic
development. The ultimate purpose of this study is to provide a model of the structure
necessary to achieve economic development where none previously existed. Zimbabwe
is an appropriate model because the dynamics of underdevelopment to development
in this country are readily apparent. This model can be useful in understanding
underdevelopment in other so called "third-world" countries and in determining
what is necessary for these countries to make the transition to industrialization.
Geography
Zimbabwe is a landlocked country in the southern, sub-Saharan
area of the African continent bordered by South Africa to the South, Botswana
to the West, Mozambique to the East and Zambia to the North. With an area of 391,090
km2 Zimbabwe is only slightly larger than the state of Colorado. Harare is Zimbabwe's
capital and largest city with a population of 1,100,000. Containing vast amounts
of rare mineralogical resources and possessing a favorable growing climate Zimbabwe's
economy is drawn almost equally between the mining of minerals ($2.2 billion)
and the production of staples and cash crops ($2.1 billion) .
People
Zimbabweans are comprised of two primary ethnic groups, the Shona, comprising
74% of the population and the Ndebele comprising 20%. Other ethnic black groups
and Asians make up 4% of the population while whites make up just over 1% of the
population. Zimbabwe has a population of 10.35 million people with a population
density of 24 persons per km2. 1992 census figures estimate Zimbabwe's growth
at 3.0% with 90% of this growth rate within the Shona group. This 3.0% growth
is quite rapid given its relation to the countries declining annual growth rate
of -15% .
History
Zimbabwe's history dates back to the 9th century
A.D., the believed period in which many great buildings were built, buildings
clearly indicative of an early and great civilization. Of the many sites the most
impressive is the Great Stone House or Great Zimbabwe the source of the countries
name. Despite the impressive nature of the Great Zimbabwe and the other building
sites, it is believed that the civilization that created them did not survive
to see the new millennium .
Some 900 years after the construction of
the Great Zimbabwe many other sights were built as Zimbabwe became the object
of British colonialism in 1888. It was in this year that John Cecil Rhodes obtained
mineral rights for the British throne and began the process of bringing Zimbabwe
home to Great Britain. Pleased with his accomplishment the throne honored Rhodes
by lending his name to the area, now calling it Rhodesia. Headed by Rhodes the
British South Africa Company (BSA) was chartered in 1889 with the responsibility
of colonizing the areas of Northern and Southern Rhodesia and bringing back to
the Kingdom the vast mineralogical resources Rhodesia had to offer .
Although a colony, throughout the existence of its charter Rhodesia enjoyed self-governing
and perceived autonomy. The United Kingdom reserved the right to intervene in
the policies of Rhodesia at any prompting, but this right was rarely employed
leaving Rhodesia's autonomy all but assumed. The perceived autonomy the nation
enjoyed allowed for the emergence of factions interested in developing Rhodesia's
mineralogical and agricultural potential for the purpose of stimulating domestic
growth only. Although growth would benefit the country as a whole, it would benefit
whites specifically by design. An apartheid-type land apportionment act passed
in 1934 allotted key resource rich areas to whites only. The perceived autonomy
and racists nature of Rhodesia would have great implications late in the countries
political future.
Politics
By 1960 Rhodesia was a country of two
factions: the ruling white minority who wanted complete independence from the
United Kingdom and the indigenous African majority who wanted greater control
of their country and an end to institutional racism. On November 11, 1965 in a
step to hasten along political change white progressives announced the Unilateral
Declaration of Independence (UDI) thereby declaring their independence from Great
Britain . The British government was not hostile to the UDI but did insist that
the Rhodesian government demonstrate its intention to move toward free and democratic
majority rule. Considering the majority of Rhodesia was African the ruling whites
were diametrically opposed to any such form of majority rule government and refused
to meet Great Britain's conditions of independence.
On December 16, 1966
Rhodesia made history by being the first country subject to United Nations economic
sanctions, suffering a complete embargo on key exports and imports . With a dilapidating
economy and African discontent with the white ruling minority Rhodesia fell into
a period of economic and political turmoil breeding uncertainty and general political
instability.
In 1974 Rhodesia's two primary black nationalists parties
combined to form a front against Rhodesia's governing policy. Robert Mugabe's
Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's
Union (ZAPU) united together to form a "Patriotic Front" against the
segregationist regime of Prime Minister Ian Smith . In 1976, under great political,
economic, and social pressure Smith ceded to foreign and domestic demands and
agreed to majority rule in principle. Through diplomatic channels and under British
auspices Rhodesia made the transition to majority rule and on December 21, 1979
political reforms were unofficially agreed upon. As a condition of this agreement
Rhodesia was granted independence from the Commonwealth, and all U.N. sanctions
were lifted with a decree that Rhodesia was to be internationally recognized as
a political state .
In late February, 1980 free democratic election were
held in Rhodesia for the first time with Mugabe's ZANU(PF) achieving an absolute
majority. Upon the victory of his party Mugabe was asked to form the first government
of the country of Zimbabwe. On April 18, 1980 the British Government formally
granted independence to the former Rhodesia and four months later Zimbabwe was
indoctrinated as a member of the United Nations .
Zimbabwe's political
system exists to this day as democratic and majoritarian all implemented through
a parliamentary system. Robert Mugabe remains as President and utilizes a foreign
policy of non-alignment. Despite this Zimbabwe is a member of the Organization
of African Unity (OAU) and performs primary trade with its neighboring African
state South Africa. It is the period from 1980 to the present that is most fundamental
in understanding Zimbabwe's economic system because it is in this period that
Zimbabwe's economic structure best reveals itself.
Economics
Zimbabwe's
economic structure is one of great potential. In the years prior to its independence
Zimbabwe put great emphasis in developing its mining industry and as a result
it is one of the most developed in Africa. The mining of such minerals as copper,
nickel, gold, and metallurgical-grade ferrochromite is responsible for nearly
half the countries $4.9 billion Gross Domestic Product (GDP) . The other half
of Zimbabwe's GDP is generated primarily in the agricultural sector with the majority
of this produced at subsistence levels by most of the population.
Zimbabwe
clearly has the potential to generate agriculture beyond the subsistence level
and thereby eliminate any degree of shortage. In any event subsistence would be
sufficient to eliminate shortage if not for recent devastating droughts.
Zimbabwe's mineral export industry is key to the nations developmental success.
Although small, the countries mining industry is modernized and strategically
developed toward exports. Many paved roads link mines and other industries together
that complement mining such as heavy machinery. Also, the areas within the vicinity
of the mines are highly developed and urbanized to ensure an adequate and able
workforce. Finally, Zimbabwe participates in non-aligned trade for non-strategic
products such as textiles. This greatly reduces the countries chance of becoming
dependent on a trade partner.
Conclusion
In many ways Zimbabwe is
a model for third-world economic development. Although not yet fully developed
Zimbabwe clearly has the potential to be a full fledged developed nation. Beyond
its vast resources Zimbabwe is structured in a way to promote development. This
fact in and of itself distinguishes Zimbabwe from most other Lesser Developed
Countries (LDC). Zimbabwe's economic structure is one in which they are essentially
self-sufficient and trade only for profit or for consumer goods. Also they perform
trade with many partners with no single partner comprising garnering more than
15% of import or export goods. By structuring the Zimbabwe's economic system in
a way that keeps its partners diversified and its imports non-strategic, Mugabe
has successfully led his nation to the path of development. The barriers left
to full development are quite minimal compared to the ones already dominated,
The structure of Zimbabwe's economic system is truly a model of economic development.
---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut
Here
KEATON, DIRECTOR
Description: The topic of this
paper is the actor and director Buster
Keaton. This paper discusses Buster
Keaton's contributions to silent film,
addressing specifically his use of
pragamatism as a tool of comedy.
Keaton, Director
Buster Keaton was
arguably the greatest comic ever to direct in the silent era of film. Though the
silent area of film was marked with many great comic directors, few possessed
the ingenuity to create humor at the level attained by Keaton. Keaton was rare
in that he recognized the humor that could be involved in problem solving. For
Keaton it was simple: create a problem and, no matter how massive, solve it in
the most practical manner possible. This method of pragmatic approaches to massive,
conventional problems made for brilliant, and intelligent humor- some of the funniest
ever to grace the silver screen. This was Buster Keaton's style of film making.
And coupled with the subtle facial expressions he maintained in his acting, no
matter what the situation (he acted in his own pictures), Buster Keaton, at his
height was one of the most successful directors in the silent era of American
cinema1 .
Buster Keaton began his career in 1898 at age three as part
of a successful family Vaudeville act. The act, carried out by father Joe, mother
Mary, and baby Buster, invariably depicted the comedic situations of a dysfunctional
family headed by an abusive, alcoholic father. Oddly enough this was no act. This
was in fact the true state of the Keaton family. The alcoholism in the Keaton
family would plague Buster later in life, but as a child Buster was a natural
entertainer. Even as a child Buster was known for is great "stone face."
This played extremely well with the audience as they watched Buster dawn only
subtle facial expressions as he was tossed about by his ruthless, inebriated father.
The act was one of Vaudevilles most successful and it was the start of the career
of one of America's greatest film comics2 .
Keaton's film career began
in 1916 when he ran into an overweight comic named "Fatty" Arbuckle.
Arbuckle was a mildly successful film comic working for a producer named Joe Schenck.
Arbuckle envisioned he and Keaton as an acting duo, doing feature length film
comedies. Arbuckle convinced Keaton to leave Vaudeville and Keaton's film career
was begun. Keaton's association with Arbuckle proved short lived due to "Fatty's"
some what perverse lifestyle (he allegedly raped and killed a film actress with
a bottle). Despite this, the relationship did last long enough for Arbuckle to
teach Keaton about the camera. Once the seed for camera work had been planted,
Buster took off. Under his producer Joe Schenck, Keaton directed and acted in
a slew of 1 and 2 reel shorts. The success of these prompted Schenck to fund a
production company just for Keaton films, and in 1919 Schenck founded Buster Keaton
Productions of which Buster Keaton was head director of all films and held complete,
creative control. The following year, 1920, to 1928, the period when Keaton held
complete creative control over all his films, was undeniable the period of Keaton
Masterpieces3 . Such films as One Week (1920), Cops (1920), Day Dreams (1922),
Sherlock, Jr. (1924), the first full featured film he had complete control over,
and The General (1927) were arguably some of the greatest films of the silent
era, comic or otherwise. In fact, some have gone as far to call The General one
of the greatest films ever made, sound or otherwise4.
It was in these
films that Keaton's genius shone, and the whole world laughed at one of films
greatest. And laugh they did, both at him and with him. At him, because Buster's
pragmatic film persona made for a level of humor well above sight gags and slapstick.
Buster was forever the guy just minding his business, forced to deal with the
conventional objects the mad, mad world put in his path.5 As problem after problem
abounded upon Keaton, the audience laughed hysterically at the only subtle facial
expression Keaton dawned in the face of these obstacles. The howl of laughter
continued on as Buster devised the most unlikely, yet most practical solutions
to deal with these problems. Take for example the rug laying scene of One Week.
In this scene Buster nails the rug down over his jacket. The solution? Cut the
rug away from around his jacket, put on the jacket, and the scrap piece of cut
out rug makes a nice welcome mat. All this executed with a straight face made
for incomparable humor.
Beside laughing at Keaton the audience laughed
with him as well. They laughed with Keaton because every laugh was the product
of a well calculated plan. Keaton never employed a hit-em-with-a-gag-and-hope-they-laugh
method humor. Keaton's style was much more involving and planned. Keaton made
the audience a part of the gag, adding reflexivity to the film6 . The bathtub
scene in One Week is a grand example. In this film Buster's screen wife played
by ______________ drops the soap out of the bathtub while taking a bath. Here
we see the inevitable Keatonesque problem, being grand in nature (nudity was forbidden
in American silent film after all). And the solution? Keatonesque as well: orthodox
pragmatism. If the camera man cannot film nudity then the most practical solution
is for the camera man to cover the camera lens with his hand while the nudity
is present. The audience is not laughing at Keaton in this scene but they are
very much laughing with him in the calculated comedic situation he created7.
Beyond employing pragmatism to create comedy, Keaton often utilized stunts
and special effects to invent humor. Keaton was an extremely agile and athletic
man, and he often used these attributes to pull off feats of skill which in and
of the fact that he was actually doing them created a type of exhilaration produced
humor. In other words, the humor was a product of the fact that Keaton was actually,
really performing these dangerous, daring stunts8. Although this form of inverted
reflexivity was probably not intended, it was none the less very effective at
humoring the audience. Beyond physical prowess, Keaton had a keen mind for the
concept of film and what it could mean. For Keaton what it meant was that time,
space, and environment in general on film was malleable and could be manipulated
with the greatest of ease9 . This of course was mind held theory; to visually
convey a theory of this sort to a viewing audience required a well planned film
with concise and exacting special effects. All of this played itself out brilliantly
in Keaton's first feature length film, Sherlock, Jr. (1924). Sherlock, Jr. was
a film about a man (Buster) who was accused of a crime, falls a asleep and dreams
himself into a film to clear his name of the crime he was accused of in reality.
This film inside of a film concept was the perfect vehicle to convey Keaton's
malleability of film environment theory. Keaton employed effective special effects
to show himself walking into the secondary film from the primary but the most
impressive effects were the "in the camera" special effects to show
the transition from reality (the primary film) to unreality (the secondary film)10.
In these scenes, Keaton pursues an action, and before the action is completed
the scene is changed. Example: Keaton jumping into the ocean and the entire scene
changes from ocean to snow while Keaton's in mid-flight. What Keaton is showing
is he, the real, making the transition to film, the fake. The implication is that
during the transition, Keaton is inanimate while the film world around him is
in a state of dynamics. Keaton stands still, while the world around him changes,
instantly. This is the malleability of film and Keaton conveys this too the audience
with great effectiveness. The transition scene(s) of Sherlock, Jr. are by far
the most revealing of Keaton's genius11.
Keaton's success lasted well
into the late 1920's when in 1928 he ran into marital problems and lost his wife
and monetary fortune in divorce. The devastation of these events caused his alcoholism,
a trait he inherited from his father, to sky rocket out of control12. As a result,
Keaton lost creative control of his films and was only hired onto films as a side-man,
returning him to the same status he held when he first started films just a decade
earlier. Despite the tragic end to his directing career Keaton's legacy remained;
his pragmatism based humor, along with his daring, almost exaggerated stunts,
and his strange fixation with trains and planes (as in straight lines) had their
influence, especially on a future Warner Bros. cartoonist named Tex Avery13. Keaton
died in mediocrity but despite this he remains undeniably one of film's Best Ever.
---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut
Here
CRITIQUING CHURCHLAND
Description: This paper is
a logical critique of Paul Churchland's argument
on introspection. This paper
supports Churchland's argument by use of
standard logical processes of proof,
validation, and soundness. Adressed
also in this paper is Nagel's writing
'What is it like to be a Bat.'
Critiquing Churchland
In his writing,
Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of the Brain, Paul M. Churchland
uses eliminative materialism to effectively (I must reluctantly admit) attack
dualism and the claim that the mind cannot be viewed by physicalist methods. The
eliminative materialistic method of attack is one in which older theories about
an issue are revised with new and reduced ones. This intertheorectical reduction
occurs specifically in the revised theory. The point in doing this according to
Churchland is to provide a new theory that "parallels, to a relevant degree"
the old one, while at the same time encompasses a more comprehensive basis. By
doing this the problems of introspection which plague the dualists are eliminated
and physicalist method of introspection is upheld. This may all seem somewhat
unintelligible, but in context it carries itself quite well. With that in mind
I will proceed immediately with Churchland's attack on the dualists.
For the dualists the mind is different from the body. The mind for dualists is
composed entirely of mental properties, while the body, including the brain, is
restricted to the realm of the physical. As a result of being divergent properties
one cannot explain the other. The significant implications are as such: I could
see red and describe it in a physical sense, but the sense that it is viewed in
my mind is entirely mental, and indescribable. Processes of the mind can only
be viewed through introspection which is itself a mental process and cannot leave
that realm. The physical and mental are divergent enough that there is no way
I can describe in the physical realm what I view in the mental. In attacking this
theory Churchland formulates one his own using the process of eliminative materialism.
The eliminative materialist view is that beliefs about the mind are the product
of "learned systems of beliefs;" and the dualists view of mind is the
product of a learned system of beliefs categorized as "folk psychology."
This folk psychology for the eliminative materialist employs simple common sense
wisdom about the mind. The most requisite example is that you cannot explain the
mind with the body because they are two divergent properties. Churchland proposes
this: what if we employed a far more comprehensive theory about the mind and its
properties. This theory has a scheme about it though; it is not a direct attack
on the dualists, in fact it is a derived, reduced theory that parallels the dualist
theory. Its purpose is to disprove dualists theory by their own game. The crux
of Churchland's argument is that we can know something physically with the sameness
that we know something phenomologically. That which is observed in the "common-sense
conceptual framework" can be observed with the exact sameness in an intertheoretically
reduced physicalist framework. The following quote contains examples Churchland
wants us to consider.
[In a reduced framework] a sound is identical with
being an oscillation in air pressure at 440hz; being red is identical with having
a certain triplet of electromagnetic reflectance efficiencies; being warm is identical
with having a certain mean level of microscopically energies, and so forth.
What the above examples entail is this: If we consider these things, sound,
red, warmth, in the reduced framework (FN) then do we not open the pathway to
explanation of those things which lie in the mental realm? For Churchland of course
we do. A simple revision in our processes of sensation makes description of the
mental possible through physical capacities. And Churchland argues, it is readily
possible to make this revision. He asks us to consider this: Can we learn to feel
what about 70° is? Yes certainly we can. Now consider a revised theory of
what 70° degrees is, something more comprehensive than the common-sense notion
which would state that we cannot describe how 70° feels to us. The eliminative
materialistic view of 70° is the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules
at about 6.2 x 10-21 joules. Can we learn to identify the mean kinetic energy
(KE) of air molecules at about 6.2 x 10-21 joules? Yes, just as readily as we
can learn to identify 70°. What is accomplished? The barriers which the subjectiveness
of phenomena pose are eliminated thereby re-classifying the subjective as objective.
What once could not be viewed because its realm was unreachable, is now easily
accessed. It might be argued that describing 70° as the mean kinetic energy
(KE) of air molecules at about 6.2 x 10-21 joules is nothing more than doing the
same thing two different ways. That, of course, is exactly what it is, but this
poses a problem for the dualists, especially Nagel, because by their rules we
could not feel the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at about 6.2 x 10-21
joules unless it was incongruent to 70°, which it is not. The following attack
on Nagel serves as a clarified explanation.
Churchland attacks Nagel's
writing What is it Like to Be a Bat. Specifically Churchland attacks Nagel's view
that in reduction, physicalist eliminate the phenomenal features of a substance.
The basis for this argument is that in reduction the subjective phenomena or experience
of something is lost. Churchland denies this. In fact Churchland implies that
the objective description of that which is thought to be subjective, is all that
retains something's phenomenological properties. Take for instance the red of
an Apple. The apples redness can be explained as a "certain wavelength triplet
of electromagnetic reflectance efficiencies." By Nagel's claim this explanation
loses the phenomena or red. For Nagel then red redness. By this alone you should
the shortcomings of Nagel. If not let us then return to our example about temperature.
By Nagel's rules something is lost when the experience of heat is described as
the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at 6.2 x 10-21 joules.
For Nagel then 70° the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at 6.2 x
10-21 joules. Nagel would of course be wrong since the above is in fact true.
What this proves is that their is in fact a necessary congruency between the objective
(physical) and the subjective (phenomenological). If there were not then the subjective
(what 70° feels like) would not be equal to the objective (what the mean
kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at 6.2 x 10-21 joules feels like.) They obviously
are the same so a congruency between the objective and the subjective must exist.
The objective and the subjective could, in fact be the same thing. If so then
dualist theory is quite literally, wiped from the map. Though an intriguing notion
it is not one which will be discussed here. It will suffice to say that Churchland
has made a valid enough argument to cast a shadow on the soundness of Nagel's
argument.
At this point we will consider the soundness of Churchland's
article. Churchland has presented a very good, and convincing argument, although
I agree with it only in part. What I agree with is that their is an error with
at least apart of Nagel's argument. This is disturbing to me because despite the
successful attack on Nagel I remain in support of his theory. I do not believe
that the mind and the brain are one in the same. This is of course an irrational
conclusion motivated by passion. I do not believe that my introspective horizons
are expanded by a cognitive process which allows me to explain the unexplainable.
This is a less irrational bit of sentiment, but irrational all the same because
it denies the soundness of Churchland. Passion aside I must admit that Churchland's
argument seems solid. There appears to be an irrefutable congruency between the
objective and the subjective which then leaves open the possibility that the mind
and the brain are one in the same. If I was irrational enough I suppose I might
argue that red redness or that 70° is not equal to the mean kinetic energy
(KE) of air molecules at 6.2 x 10-21 joules and therefore the congruency between
the subjective and the objective does not exist. I am not so irrational. The soundness
of Churchland article quite clearly prevails over that of Nagel's.
---Cut
Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here
CRITIQUING BRADLEY
Description: This paper critiques Bradley's
arguments in his writing 'The
Unreality of Space and Time.' This paper argues
against Bradley's position
using all logical methods necessary.
Critiquing
Bradley
In his article, The Unreality of Space and Time, F. H. Bradley argues
that space and time, as they exhibit themselves, are unreal. For Bradley space
and time are unreal because they both possess necessary, yet contradictory characteristics.
At this time we will depart from directly addressing the issue of time and restrict
ourselves to dealing solely with the issue of space, but note that the conclusion
and key premises are uniform to both issues.
For Bradley the problem
with space is that it is necessarily both ending and endless. Essential to its
being space must continue to an end which it cannot possess. Though unexplained,
the contradiction is revealed. Space, either how it is exhibited or how it is
perceived is self-contradictory and therefore unreal. In explanation Bradley presents
the following argument: Space is a relation. That is to say space is an association-
a connection between things. This associative nature of space derives from that
which constitutes space. For Bradley space consists of parts of space in relation
to each other. To grasp this premise you might consider any amount of space and
imagine that space divide in half. These two halves of space exist in relation
to each other. Either or both of these halves could further be divided endlessly
into oblivion. The picture one then should have is innumerable parts of space
in relation to each other continuing to no final limit. These infinite relational
parts of space constitute the relation that is space, the assumption being that
space is, what it is constituted of. A problem arises out of this because if space
is a relation it is required that it be relative to something other than itself.
It is not difficult to understand the logic behind this. Imagine having a conversation
speaking associatively about yourself. Such statements as "compared to myself
I am relatively tall" or "relative to myself I am very smart" would
surely classify you as a fool. A relation requires an association between two
or more things. And so a problem occurs. The continuity of space is hindered by
a necessary discreteness. Space as a whole must have a separateness to it. It
must have something to reference itself with, and space itself must be referencable.
By virtue of this condition space fails to be spatial. Space becomes a substantive,
qualitative thing, with boundaries. No longer can space continue endlessly as
it appears to, instead a necessary end exists, this end being where the associative
link between space and its reference begins. Bradley states that the beginning
of this reference is as illusory as spaces end. Both pass beyond themselves, never
endingly, while an end is essential to their being. With out this end where space
meets its reference space is not space, but with this end space is unreal. Without
a reference space fails to be a relation or fails to be space but with an end
it becomes a thing, a solid, qualitative and non-spatial. An so the contradiction
is revealed- space necessarily is what it necessarily cannot be and is therefore
unreal. To aid in considering the validity and soundness of this argument it is
re-presented in standard logical form below.
1. Space is constituted
of never ending parts of space in relation to each other.
2. If space is to
be space it must be the same as its constituents.
3. Space is space.
C1.
Space is never-ending and space is a relation.
4. If space is a relation then
it must be relative to something.
5. If space is relative to something then
space must have a boundary.
6. If space has a boundary then space must have
an end.
7. If space has an end then space cannot be never-ending without being
self-contradictory.
8. Space both has an end and is never-ending.
C2.
Space is self-contradictory.
9. If space is a self-contradictory then space
is unreal.
C. Space is unreal.
This is a valid argument. The form
is chain argument and implication which are both valid forms. All support links
are in place and so the argument is logistically valid. Although valid I do not
find this argument to be sound. Though Bradley makes a solid case, it appears
as though the crux of Bradley's problem derives from a fallible assumption. Bradley
assumption is that space is a relation because that which constitutes space is
a relation. By condition of being a relation space must be in relation to something
and by condition of that space fails to be endless or, in other words fails to
be what it must be. The assumption that initiates this great strife is that a
whole cannot extend beyond its parts; that is, space cannot be anything but a
relation because its parts are but relation. I find this assumption questionable
at best. Little that we know of is but that of its parts. What constitutes water
is not water, what constitutes water is 1 part Hydrogen and 2 parts Oxygen. What
constitutes air is not air, what constitutes air is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen,
and lesser amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, neon, etc. And even these elements
can be reduced to their atomic constituents. Admittedly authorities on atomism
consider the atom to be an irreducible structure; This shows that there may be
some things that are nothing more than the whole of their parts. Despite this
it is obvious that things can extend beyond their constituents. This is sufficient
to discredit Bradley's argument. Although it is possible that space is nothing
more than the relation that are its constituents, it is as well possible that
space is something beyond its constituents just as with air and water. Space may
in fact be endless because of the relational aspects of its constituents. Most
who would argue would attack the merit of my opposing argument at the preceding
point. Although it is possible that space could be something beyond its constituents
it is highly unlikely that it could be the antithesis of its constituents. That
is to say that it is doubtful that from x alone -x is achievable, or accurate
to this case, from relation alone, non-relation is achievable. This is certainly
a formidable challenge and one not easily addressed. In an attempt to address
it I propose this simple experiment. Place a small statuette on a desk. Turn on
a flashlight and aim it at the statuette. Change your position adjacent to the
statuette while still keeping the light aimed at it. Watch as the shadow moves
as you do. Are you not creating darkness out of light? Certainly the dynamics
prove you are in control, for the shadow moves as you do. That which is light
is creating dark. The antithesis is achieved. I must admit this is not the solid
example requisite to a discussion such as this. After all the statuette is factor
beyond light alone and so light alone is not creating darkness. In any event Bradley
never offers an explanation of the nature of space and in his failure to do so
does not present what other factors may or may not be in place. In his introduction
he states that space may in fact be "the product of non-spatial elements."
Though he does not pursue the notion in farther than this, this single sentence
is sufficient enough to show that Bradley believes some factors exist beyond what
he presents in the relevant writing. All considered then, factors un-presented
by Bradley may exist which would allow space to be the antithesis of its constituents.
And so my opposition to Bradley stands as is. My point of attack is little more
than obscure and it falls far short from proving that space is not a relation.
All my microcosmic argument shows is that space need not be the relation that
Bradley argues it is. Space could be something other than the relations that comprise
it. If so then problem does not exist. After all if space is not a relation then
it need not be in relation to anything, and so the possibility to be never-ending
remains intact. In all fairness to Bradley he may have a sound argument for why
he feels space is as its constituents are. Unfortunately he does not present that
argument here and as a result his conclusion that space is unreal is left questionable.
---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut
Here
BLACKS, PRISON, AND INSTITUTIONAL RACISM
Description:
The title pretty much says it all in this one. This paper
addresses the issue
of blacks in prison and explores the socio-economic
causes and solutions.
This paper uses many govermentally commissioned
reports.
Blacks,
Prison, and Institutional Racism
Introduction
Criminal justice and
security is one of the largest industries in the United States. Such a statistic
is (and rightly so) of great concern to Afro-Americans because a disproportionate
percentage of individuals under the control of the US Criminal Justice System
are from the Black community. This paper will look at the alarming statistics
and attempt to trace the roots of the disparity. It will then consider the affects
and explore possible solutions to the expanding problem.
The Imprisoned
Black Youth
Black communities throughout the U.S. are witnessing the institutionalization
of their youth. Of course institutionalization is nothing new to Afro-Americans,
it is something Blacks have faced since their existence in this country. In the
beginning Blacks were forced into the institution of slavery. After the abolition
of slavery Blacks faced institutional racism, that is, racism legitimated by the
whole of society directed against the few of society. As a facet of that institutional
racism Blacks are now forced to persevere the increasing trend of control by the
US Criminal Justice System. Control by the USCJS includes the probation, parole,
imprisonment, and death of Blacks. A study conducted by the Sentencing Project
in 1989 found tat more than one-fourth of all Blacks between the age of 20 and
29 are under the control of the USCJS . This alarming figure becomes more so when
you consider their are more Blacks in prison in this age group than their are
all Blacks in college . This clearly reveals what is meant by the institutionalization
of our Black youth. Black communities are being legally robbed of their youth
by a system that locks up those who pose a threat to the status quo of institutional
racism. The consequences of this are detrimental indeed. The children are the
future, but what future does a community have whose children are all locked up.
By virtue of robbing the Black community of their youth, the USCJS robs Black
communities of their future leaders and role models . With such a condition at
hand entire communities are lost and the ills of the urban ghettos are augmented.
To help explain why Blacks are being locked up, and what part of imprisonment
plays in institutional racism it would be helpful to first look at the roots of
institutional racism.
Institutional Racism And It's Roots
Institutional
racism was a term first coined by Stokley Carmichael in his book Black Power.
Concerning racism, Carmichael and co-author Charles V. Hamilton made the following
observation:
Racism is both overt and covert. It takes two, closely related
forms; individual Whites acting against individual Blacks, and acts by the total
of White community against the Black community. We call these individual racism
and institutional racism.
The authors go on to state that it is the
covertness of the second type, the institutional racism, that makes it so dangerous.
Because institutional racism is less obvious and it is less apparent were it is
emanating from (and it is emanating from everywhere) creeps up on you and overwhelms
you when you are not looking . Institutional racism, though coined by Carmichael,
existed long before it was conceived of in Black Power. As I have stated it has
existed since Blacks were first brought to this country. The leaders of early
America sought intentionally to oppress Blacks and do so legally. Of course back
then they did not bother with probation, parole or even long prison sentences.
Back then Blacks who went against the grain and objected to his treatment in even
the slightest was simply killed. Public lynching were a crowd drawer and a crowd
pleaser in the early American South. Blacks were not imprisoned as much because
they were seen as either useful our useless. A good "field hands" or
"house niggers" tended to their chores, did as they were told, and never
caused a problem, and were therefore worth their weight in gold. An "uppity
nigger" was no good to anyone and was either beaten into submission or put
to death . This reveals a very important aspect about the imprisonment of Blacks
today. During the period of slavery in the US Blacks were needed as workers and
were therefore used as so . What are Blacks needed for now? Despite the many accomplishments
of such great inventors as Granville T. Woods and Benjamin Bannicker, it would
seem that White society would have no use for Blacks. During the period of slavery
Blacks deemed useless were killed. In today's society Blacks are less often killed,
but are very often imprisoned. And by virtue of doing so Blacks are again used.
As I stated in the beginning criminal justice and security is one of the largest
industries in the US. The prison system is a multi-billion dollar industry and
it is rapidly increasing. So in an attempt to isolate and control the pariah,
the poor Black, an economic niche was filled. There is almost an incentive to
lock up Blacks because in doing so two birds are killed with one stone; the threat
to status quo and its members is contained and a buck is made in the process.
It seems the US has matriculated very little from the barbarism of the early 19th
century. Again White society is using Blacks for economic gain, again the system
is legitimated and legalized by the US Government, and again the burden on Blacks
is severely great.
The Value Of Black Life
Slavery in the 90's? A
scary, but none the less real condition. But what about when Blacks go beyond
their usefulness. What about when the threat that Blacks pose is a greater consideration
than the economic prosperity they bring? Just as in the period of slavery Blacks
are killed. A study conducted by the United States General Accounting Office (USGAO)
found that the death of Whites was the single greatest determinant in imposing
capital punishment . In other words, you are more likely to be legally killed,
if you murder a White man than if you kill a Black man. It would seem then that
the value of a White life is diametrically greater than that of a Black life.
To fully understand this you must look at it from all vantage points. If you kill
a White you are worth more dead; if you kill a Black you are worth more alive.
Another way to view the perceived greater wealth of a White life is this: a White
man who kills a Black man has a greater chance of living. A Black man who kills
a White man has a greater chance of dying. From every vantage point the value
of White life is greater than that of Black life. This is the single most fundamental
aspect of institutional racism. The belief that White life is greater than Black
life is the source of the problem. So much effort is put into maintaining this
status quo that Blacks find themselves time and time again put in the position
of subjection they are in today, and have been in since they first arrived in
the United States 400 years ago.
Looking For Solution
Solutions
to the problem of the institutionalization of Black youth will not come easy.
To plea for White society to stop imprisoning our future leaders would likely
fall on deaf ears. Most leaders do not look past their term of government so they
take the time to consider the long term implications of their legislation. In
other words, leaders do not consider the results of having the future leaders
of the Black communities imprisoned.
Also most do not care. In the sentencing
project it was pointed out that the "get tough" approach to crime in
which there was an increase of arrests, convictions and lengthy sentences has
decreased victimization rates less than 5% since 1973 . Despite the statistics
the "get tough" trend, which is disproportionately aimed against Blacks,
has continued. What I feel the only solution is, degrading as it may be, is for
Blacks to prove their worth. Blacks must prove that they are worth something to
White society beyond the economic niche they help fill in prison. Blacks must
prove that they are a benefit which Whites cannot do without. Once We have established
ourselves as benefactors then We can begin to break down the walls of institutional
racism, stop the digression of our communities, and truly advance.
---Cut
Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here
REVEALING MARX
Description: This paper discusses Marx's argument
on "estranged labour."
This is a rather microcosmic topic but it
is important because estranged
labour is the basis for all of Marx's writing,
most importantly, 'The
Communist Manifesto.'
Revealing Marx
In
Karl Marx's early writing on "estranged labour" there is a clear and
prevailing focus on the plight of the labourer. Marx's writing on estranged labour
is and attempt to draw a stark distinction between property owners and workers.
In the writing Marx argues that the worker becomes estranged from his labour because
he is not the recipient of the product he creates. As a result labour is objectified,
that is labour becomes the object of mans existence. As labour is objectified
man becomes disillusioned and enslaved. Marx argues that man becomes to be viewed
as a commodity worth only the labour he creates and man is further reduced to
a subsisting animal void of any capacity of freedom except the will to labour.
For Marx this all leads to the emergence of private property, the enemy of the
proletariat. In fact Marx's writing on estranged labour is a repudiation of private
property- a warning of how private property enslaves the worker. This writing
on estranged labour is an obvious point of basis for Marx's Communist Manifesto.
The purpose of this paper is to view Marx's concept of alienation (estranged
labour) and how it limits freedom. For Marx man's freedom is relinquished or in
fact wrested from his true nature once he becomes a labourer. This process is
thoroughly explained throughout Estranged Labour. This study will reveal this
process and argue it's validity. Appendant to this study on alienation there will
be a micro-study which will attempt to ascertain Marx's view of freedom (i.e.
positive or negative). The study on alienation in conjunction with the micro-study
on Marx's view of freedom will help not only reveal why Marx feels labour limits
mans freedom, but it will also identify exactly what kind of freedom is being
limited.
Estranged Labour
Karl Marx identifies estranged labour as
labour alien to man. Marx explains the condition of estranged labour as the result
of man participating in an institution alien to his nature. It is my interpretation
that man is alienated from his labour because he is not the reaper of what he
sows. Because he is never the recipient of his efforts the labourer lacks identity
with what he creates. For Marx then labour is "alien to the worker...[and]...does
not belong to his essential being." Marx identifies two explanations of why
mans lack of identity with labour leads him to be estranged from labour. (1) "[The
labourer] does not develop freely his physical and mental energy, but instead
mortifies his mind." In other words labour fails to nurture mans physical
and mental capacities and instead drains them. Because the worker is denied any
nurturing in his work no intimacy between the worker and his work develops. Lacking
an intimate relation with what he creates man is summarily estranged from his
labour. (2) Labour estranges man from himself. Marx argues that the labour the
worker produces does not belong to him, but to someone else. Given this condition
the labourer belongs to someone else and is therefore enslaved. As a result of
being enslaved the worker is reduced to a "subsisting animal", a condition
alien to him. As an end result man is estranged from himself and is entirely mortified.
Marx points to these to situations as the reason man is essentially estranged
from his labour. The incongruency between the world of things the worker creates
and the world the worker lives in is the estrangement.
Marx argues that
the worker first realizes he is estranged from his labour when it is apparent
he cannot attain what he appropriates. As a result of this realization the objectification
of labour occurs. For the worker the labour becomes an object, something shapeless
and unidentifiable. Because labour is objectified, the labourer begins to identify
the product of labour as labour. In other words all the worker can identify as
a product of his labour, given the condition of what he produces as a shapeless,
unidentifiable object, is labour. The worker is then left with only labour as
the end product of his efforts. The emerging condition is that he works to create
more work. For Marx the monotonous redundancy of this condition is highly detrimental
because the worker loses himself in his efforts. He argues that this situation
is analogous to a man and his religion. Marx writes, "The more man puts into
God the less he retains in himself....The worker puts his life into the object,
but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object." The result
of the worker belonging to the object is that he is enslaved. The worker belongs
to something else and his actions are dictated by that thing. For Marx, labour
turns man into a means. Workers become nothing more than the capital necessary
to produce a product. Labour for Marx reduces man to a means of production. As
a means of production man is diminished to a subsisting enslaved creature void
of his true nature. In this condition he is reduced to the most detrimental state
of man: one in which he is estranged from himself. To help expand on this theme
it is useful to look at Marx's allegory of man's life-activity.
Life-activity
and the Nature of Man
Of the variety of reasons Marx argues man is estranged
from his labour, probably the most significant is his belief that labour estranges
man from himself. Marx argues that the labour the worker produces does not belong
to the worker so in essence the worker does not belong to the worker. By virtue
of this condition Marx argues the worker is enslaved. Enslavement for Marx is
a condition alien to man and he becomes estranged from himself. For Marx, man
estranged from himself is stripped of his very nature. Not only because he is
enslaved but because his life-activity has been displaced. For Marx mans character
is free, conscious activity, and mans pursuit of his character is his life-activity.
Mans life-activity is then the object of his life. So by nature, mans own life
is the object of his existence. This is mans condition before labour. After labour
mans life-activity, that is, his free conscious, activity, or his very nature,
is displaced. In a pre-labour condition mans life was the object of his condition;
in a labour condition man exists to labour and his life-activity is reduced to
a means of his existence so he can labour. In effect labour necessitates itself
in man by supplanting mans true nature with an artificial one that re-prioritizes
mans goals. Man's goal then is not to pursue his life but to labour. He becomes
linked to his labour and is viewed in no other way. Man is reduced to chattel,
a commodity, the private property of another individual.
Conclusion
For Marx labour limits the freedom of man. Labour becomes the object of man's
existence and he therefore becomes enslaved by it. In considering the validity
of Marx's argument I feel Marx is correct that man's freedom is limited by the
fact that he is a labourer. But in opposition to Marx I believe that man's freedom
is no more limited as a labourer than as a farmer. Agrarian worker or labourer
man's freedom is limited. Whether he is identified by the product he creates in
a factory or in a wheat field in either case he is tied to his work and is not
viewed beyond it. In either instance the product is objectified because in either
instance the worker works only to create more work. Just as the labourer must
continue to work without end to subsist, so must the agrarian worker. The implication
then is that alienation is not the culprit that limits mans freedom, it is work
itself. Do not mistake this as an advocation for laziness. Instead consider the
implications of not working. If one did not work at all he or she would live a
life of poverty and would be far less free than if he did work. Working, either
as a labourer or a farmer, offers greater financial means and with greater financial
means comes greater freedom. This point of the argument stands up of course only
if you believe money can by freedom. I argue it can. Surely my freedom to buy
something is limited if I do not have the financial means. On the other hand if
I have greater financial means I have more freedom to buy things. So although
labour limits freedom to the extent that the worker becomes tied to his work,
labour also offers a far greater freedom than that of indigence. Labouring is
no less acceptable than agrarian work because the implications of partaking in
either are uniform to both and alienation holds no relevancy.
Appendage
1.
Marx on Freedom
Marx's view of freedom would seem a rather broad topic,
and I'm sure it is. For our purposes it is convenient to have just an idea of
what type of freedom Marx favors. For the sake of ease the scope of this study
will be limited to two (2) classifications of freedom: prescribed (positive) freedom
and negative liberties. Prescribed freedom would be guided freedoms, or freedoms
to do certain things. Negative liberties would be freedom to do all but what is
forbidden. In Marx's writing On The Jewish Question he identifies (but does not
necessarily advocates) liberty as "...the right to do everything which does
not harm others." In further argument Marx's states that "liberty as
a right of man is not founded upon the relationship between man and man; but rather
upon the separation of man from man." By this definition liberty is negative
liberty, and for Marx it is monistic and solitary. Marx then argues that private
property is the practical application of this negative liberty. He states "...[private]
property is...the right to enjoy ones fortune and dispose of it as one will; without
regard for other men and independently of society." Private property for
Marx is the mechanism by which man can be separate from other men and pursue his
(negative) liberty. Marx's writings on estranged labour and in The Communist Manifesto
are a clear repudiation of private property. What can be deduced then is that
Marx does not favor negative liberties. Negative liberties require private property
to exist and private property is for Marx the enslaver of the proletariat.
Negative freedom eliminated from the discussion we are left with Positive
or prescribed freedoms. Positive freedom, as was identified above, is the freedom
to pursue specified options. That is, freedom to do certain things. Man is not
necessarily given a choice of what these options are, he is simply free to pursue
them whatever they may be. Posistive freedoms then are the freedoms Marx likley
wishes to uphold by denouncing estarnged labour.
Bibliography
1Marx,
Karl, The Early Marx, (reserve packet)
2Marx, Karl and Engles, Freidrich,
The Communist Manifesto, London, England, 1888
---Cut Here---Cut
Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here
TIME FOR
REFORM? CONSIDERING THE FAILURES OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Description:
This paper discusses the many shortcomings of the Electoral
College, and posits
possible alternative electoral processes which likely be
more democratic.
Time for Reform?
Considering the failures of the Electoral College
A common misconception among American is that when they vote they elect the
President. The truth is not nearly this simple. What in fact happens when a person
votes is that there vote goes for an Elector. This Elector (who is selected by
the respective state in which a vote is cast) casts ballots for two individuals,
the President and the Vice-President. Each state has the same number of electors
as there are Senate and House of Representative members for that State. When the
voting has stopped the candidate who receives the majority of the Electoral votes
for a state receives all the electoral votes for that state. All the votes are
transmitted to Washington, D.C. for tallying, and the candidate with the majority
of the electoral votes wins the presidency. If no candidate receives a majority
of the vote, the responsibility of selecting the next President falls upon the
House of Representatives. This elaborate system of Presidential selection is thought
by many to be an 18th century anachronism (Hoxie p. 717), what it is in fact is
the product of a 200 year old debate over who should select the President and
why.
In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to
respect the principles of both Federalists and States Righters (republicans) (Hoxie
p. 717). Summarily a compromise was struck between those who felt Congress should
select the President and those who felt the states should have a say. In 1788
the Electoral College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College
was to allow people a say in who lead them, but was also to protect against the
general public's ignorance of politics. Why the fear of the peoples ignorance
of politics? It was argued that the people, left to their own devices could be
swayed by a few designing men to elect a king or demagogue (McManus p. 19). With
the Electoral College in place the people could make a screened decision about
who the highest authority in the land was to be (Bailey & Shafritz (p. 60);
at the same time the fear of the newly formed nation being destroyed by a demagogue
could be put to rest because wiser men had the final say.
200 years later
the system is still designed to safeguard against the ignorant capacities of the
people. The Electoral College has remained relatively unchanged in form and function
since 1787, the year of its formulation. This in itself poses a problem because
in 200 years the stakes have changed yet the College has remained the same. A
safeguard against a demagogue may still be relevant, but the College as this safeguard
has proved flawed in other capacities. These flaws have shed light on the many
paths to undemocratic election. The question then is what shall the priorities
be? Shall the flaws be addressed or are they acceptable foibles of a system that
has effectively prevented the rise of a king for 200 years? To answer this question
we must first consider a number of events past and possible that have or could
have occurred as a result of the flaws Electoral College.
The Unfaithful
Elector
Under the current processes of the Electoral College, when a member
of the general electorate casts a vote for a candidate he is in fact casting a
vote for an Electoral College member who is an elector for that candidate. Bound
only by tradition this College member is expected to remain faithful to the candidate
he has initially agreed to elect. This has not always happened. In past instances
Electoral College member have proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful elector
ignores the will of the general electorate and instead selects candidate other
than the one he was expected to elect (McGaughey, p. 81). This unfaithfulness
summarily subjugates all the votes for a candidate in a particular district. In
all fairness it is important to note that instances of unfaithful electors are
few and far between, and in fact 26 states have laws preventing against unfaithful
electors (McGauhey, p.81). Despite this the fact remains that the possibility
of an unfaithful elector does exist and it exists because the system is designed
to circumvent around direct popular election of the President.
The Numbers
Flaw
The unfaithful elector is an example of how the popular will can be purposely
ignored. The Numbers Flaw reveals how the will of the people can be passed over
unintentionally due to flaw of design (McNown, Lecture Notes, 2/20/93).
(a)6/b(4) | (a)6/b(6) Candidate a: 18
| Candidate b: 22
-------------|------------
| Electoral Votes
(a)6/b(4) | (a)0/b(10) Candidate a: 3
| Candidate
b: 1
In this theoretical example candidate (a) receives a minority
of the popular votes with 18, but a majority of the electoral votes with three.
Candidate (b) receives a majority of the popular votes with 22, but receives only
one electoral vote. Under the winner-take-all system, the candidate with the majority
of the electoral votes not only wins the state but also receives all the electoral
votes for that state. In this hypothetical situation candidate (a) receiving a
minority of the popular votes wins the state and takes all the electoral votes.
The acceptability of this denial of the popular will, unintentional or otherwise,
is questionable to say the least.
Tie Game
The problem posed by no
one person receiving a majority of the electoral votes (a tie) first came to head
in the 1800 elections. The success of political parties served to turn Electoral
College members into agents of the parties Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). This
so galvanized the 1800 elections that the Republican electors cast their two votes
for the two Republican candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr respectively.
It was assumed that Jefferson would be President and Burr the Vice-President.
Unfortunately their was no constitutional doctrine to affirm this assumption.
As a result the ever audacious Aaron Burr challenged Jefferson election as President
and the issue had to be sent to the House for resolution (Bailey & Shafritz,
p. 61). Any debating on the issue was only incidental; when all was said and done
the issue was decided by one man, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, and the Federalists
were in control of the House when the decision was to be made. Hamilton, who disagreed
with Jefferson but overwhelmingly distrusted Burr, orchestrated a blank ballot
initiative among the Federalists which allowed the Republicans to select Jefferson
as President (Bailey & Shafritz, p. 61). Though this entire incident was significant
the most noteworthy aspect was the fact that the President was essentially chosen
by one man. The final decision was taken entirely out of the hands of the people
and was left to the mercy of the biases of a single individual. In all fairness
it should be noted that the 12th amendment was formulated out of the Jefferson-Burr
to forever lay to rest the question of who is President and Vice-President in
a tie. The 12th amendment stipulates that electors are to cast separate votes
for the President and Vice President, and summarily an event such as the Jefferson-Burr
incident cannot happen again. (Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). In effect the 12th
prevents the issue of a tie from going to the House under a very narrow scope
of conditions. This is far less of a solution than one which would have prevented
this issue from going to the House at all because when the issue of who would
be President went to the House in 1800, the issue of democracy was left to compromise.
This all serves to reveal yet another flaw of the Electoral College process. Congressional
selection of the President can lead to democratic compromise. This would seem
an area of concern. Though some would argue we have had 200 years to distance
ourselves from such maladies as the elections of 1800, the following reveals how
close to home the flaws 200 year old institution can hit.
The Wallace Debacle
In 1968 a three-way tie nearly brought to head the same undemocratic modes
of presidential selections that emerged 200 years earlier with the Jefferson-Burr
incident. The 1968 elections race was extremely close. Richard Nixon barley received
a majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency. Had Nixon failed to get
a majority a number of bizarre scenarios might have emerged. The candidates in
the race were Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace respectively.
Had Nixon failed to win a majority Wallace would have been in a position to control
who the next President would be (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65). Though he could
not have won himself Wallace could have used his votes as swing votes to give
Nixon a majority, or give Humphrey enough to prevent Nixon from getting a majority
(Bailey & Shafritz p. 65). In the latter instance the issue would have, as
in 1800, been sent to the House for rectification. In either instance Wallace
would have had a great deal to gain, and the temptation to wheel and deal (at
the compromise of democracy) would have been great indeed. It is possible Wallace
could have used his influence with Southern House members to get Humphrey elected.
In the process he would have likely `garnered great political clout for himself.
Wallace could have bargained with Nixon for an administration position in Nixon's
cabinet in return for Wallace's electoral votes. The possible scenarios are endless,
and for the most part irrelevant. What is relevant is that the processes of the
Electoral College again paved a path for democratic compromise, just as it did
in 1800. If time is the mechanism for change then apparently not enough time has
passed.
Conclusion
The shortcomings of the Electoral College presented
above are only a few of many flaws. Others flaws include the bias toward small
and large states, which gives these states a disproportionate advantage; The bias
toward those who live in urban areas and therefore enjoy a stronger vote than
those living in sparsely populated areas (Bailey & Shafritz p. 63). The list
of flaws is extensive. The question that still remains is whether or not the flaws
are extensive enough to warrant change? The Electoral College has successfully
provided the U.S. with its Presidents for 200 years and has done so without allowing
the ascension of a demagogue. But in the process of 200 years of electing the
College has allowed the will of the people to be compromised. Granted at the time
of the 1800 elections the College was young and its shortcomings were not entirely
clear. 200 years later the flaws have revealed themselves or have been revealed
in various fashion. The question remains then are flaws acceptable considering
the duty the College performs? If the purpose of the College is to provide democracy
but prevent demagoguery then its success seems uncertain. The U.S. has seen no
demagogue but has seen compromise of democracy. The evidence shows that the flaws
of the Electoral College are responsible for democratic compromise. It would seem
then that the flaws of the college are self-defeating to the purpose of the college.
If this is then it is definitely time for reform.
1 Bailey, Harry A.
Jr., Shafritz, Jay M. The American Presidency, (California: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Co., 1988) Chapter III
2 McGauhey, Elizabeth P., "Democracy at Risk,"
Policy Review, Winter 1993: 79-81
3 R. Gordon Hoxie, "Alexander
Hamilton and the Electoral System Revisited," Presidential Studies Quarterly,
v. 18 n. 4 p. 717-720
4 John F. McManus, "Let the Constitution Work,"
The New American, v. 8 n. 14 p. 19
5 William P. Hoar, "The Electoral
College: How The Republic Chooses its President," New American, v. 8 n. 16
p. 23-28
---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut
Here---Cut Here
THE JUST WAR DOCTRINE AND THE GULF CONFLICT
Description: This paper discusses the tenets of the Just War Doctrine and
considers whether US involvement in the Gulf War upheld these tenets and to
what degree.
Just War Doctrine and the Gulf Conflict
In evaluating
US involvement in the Iraq conflict in terms of the Just War Doctrine - jus ad
bellum and jus in bello - it is my opinion that the US adhered to the Doctrine
in its entirety. The US acted justly both in its entering into the Gulf conflict
(jus ad bellum) and in its conduct while in the conflict (jus in bello). To support
this opinion I will individually address the co-parts that constitute the Just
War Doctrine and show how US participation in the Iraq war abstained from violating
the tenets of either co-part.
Jus Ad Bellum
Jus Ad Bellum, the justness
of entering into conflict consists of six primary tenets: legitimate authority,
just cause, proportionality, right intention, chance of success, and last resort.
1. Legitimate Authority - Only those of legitimate authority may justly lead
its country into war. This tenet disqualify revolutionaries, radicals and/or subversives
who seek to justly initiate war. War is to be the decisions of the head of state
and is to be subject to their guidance.
2. Just Cause - A just conflict may
not be initiated void of just cause. This tenet disallows justifying war for the
purpose of economic gain, land acquisition, or strategic position. If war is to
be justly initiated just cause, usually humanitarian, must first exist.
3.
Right Intention - This relates to the tenet of just cause. Just cause must be
followed by right intention. It would be unjust seek a goal devoid of the just
cause.
4. Proportionality - Also in relation to just cause is the tenet of
proportionality. Proportionality must exist between the cause and the decision
to go to war. For country (a) to initiate a total war with country (b) because
of a minor violation that country (b) was responsible for would be unproportional
and unjust. There is not cause enough to warrant country (b) being subjected to
a total war.
5. Chance of Success - War must be initiated with a chance of
success. It would be unjust to lead people into a war they have no chance of winning.
It would more just to bow to superiority and fight another day than to commit
to a policy of suicide.
6. Last Resort - This is probably the most important
of the jus ad bellum tenets. War should be the last resort. Every diplomatic effort
should be made to achieve a just cause without conflict. Only after all non-conflictory
options have been exhausted should war be committed to.
As to the question
of whether or not the US adhered to the tenet of jus ad bellum the reply is a
resounding yes. The US, under legitimate authority undertook the just cause of
alleviating the plight of a coalition partner. Saddam Husseins invasion of Kuwait
was unjust, or at least in violation of the Just War Doctrine, and the US sought
to reconcile matters. The goal, the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, was a
just one and was pursued proportionally. For nearly six months the US and other
UN/coalition partners made every diplomatic effort to resolve the conflict peacefully.
Secretary General of UN Security Council Junio Perez de Cuellar made several attempts
to hash out a peaceful plan with Saddam Hussein directly and during this time
the US abstained from any military action. In conjunction with efforts of Perez
de Cuellar, US Secretary of State James Baker spent countless hours negotiating
directly with the Iraqi Foreign Minister in an attempt to bring about a non-violent
end to the crisis. When all efforts failed to bring an end to the conflict by
peaceful means the UN Security Council drafted Resolution 678 which authorized
"all means necessary" to dislodge Iraqi forces from Kuwait. In one last
effort US President George Bush sent a direct communiqué to Saddam Hussein
asking the Iraqi President to leave peacefully or face an international conflict.
In the communiqué the President Bush wrote:
Mr. President:
We Stand at the brink of war between Iraq and the world. This is a war that
began with your invasion of Kuwait; this is a war that can be ended only by Iraq's
full and unconditional compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 678....The
international community is united in its call for Iraq to leave all of Kuwait
without condition and without further delay....We prefer a peaceful outcome. However,
anything less than full compliance...is unacceptable.
Only after Saddam
Hussein failed to comply with Resolution 678, the eighteenth resolution drawn
in response to Iraqs invasion of Kuwait, was the decision made to forcefully remove
Iraqi forces from Kuwait and launch Operation Desert Storm.
Jus In Bello
The second co-part of the two co-parts that constitute the Just War Doctrine is
jus in bello or justices in war. Jus in bello mandates that the following tenets
must be adhered to for justice in war to exist: proportionality, moral means,
purposeful deprivation of life.
1. Proportionality - This tenet of proportionality
eliminates overkill as a just means in war. Allegorically speaking, this tenet
says its unjust to use an H-bomb where a bayonet will suffice.
2. Moral
Means - The moral means tenet of jus in bello bars the use of indiscriminate weapons
and/or weapons that cause needless pain and suffering. Again, atomic weapons are
an apt example; nuclear weapons would be considered unjust because they indiscriminate
and capable of causing needless pain and suffering.
3. No Deprivation
of Life Without Cause - Under jus in bello it is unjust to kill when it can be
avoided. Deprivation of life without purpose is immoral and contradictory to the
Just War Doctrine.
When analyzing the justness of US conduct in the Gulf
Crisis, it is important to keep two points in mind: 1. The just cause was to remove
Iraqi forces from Kuwait; anything more and the Doctrine might be violated. 2.
UN Resolution 678 authorized the use of "all means necessary" to dislodge
Iraqi forces from Kuwait. This quite literally opened the door to Doctrine violation.
Any adherence to the Just War Doctrine would be by choice and not by fear of consequence.
It was in fact the choice the US to adhere to the Just War Doctrine and their
conduct in the conflict proves of this. The US goal was to remove Iraqi Forces
from Kuwait and prevent the possibility of any immediate reoccupation. This goal
was pursued and achieved, and done so in the most just manner possible. Though
the US possessed immense destructive capabilities they employed only that necessary
to get the job done. The most effective aspect of the coalition forces was their
air assault. The various jet-fueled fighters and bombers the US employed were
more than capable of turning Iraq quite literally into a parking lot. They did
not. Instead bombing occurred only where enemy forces or enemy armament was suspected
to be stored. Civilian areas were not fired upon unless a threat, such as an anti-aircraft
gun, was placed in a civilian area, and in these instances pin-point missiles
were used to eliminate the threat with as little destruction to the surrounding
area as possible. This adheres to the moral means doctrine which finds indiscriminate
weapons unjust. Though the US was authorized to use any and all means they employed
nothing more than what was necessary to complete the job adequately.
As I stated above UN Resolution 678 left the door wide open to possible violations
of International Law. Despite this US went beyond the call of duty to assure that
its role in the Gulf conflict was just. Risking their own well being, US pilots
often gave opposition forces a chance. In some instances such as when mobile SCUD
launcher or mobile anti-aircraft weapon was the target, fighter pilots allowed
enough of a margin between target lock and fire to allow the occupants of the
target to escape. This more than fulfills the tenet of none but purposeful killing.
Had they fired immediately they would have been with in there rights and not in
contradiction jus in bello.. Despite this, they did wait and allowed the enemy
the opportunity to disassociate themselves from their weapon. What could be more
just?
As to the question of proportionality of means, Senator Patrick
Moynihan NY-D lost an 11 to 1 on a vote to consider the use of limited nuclear
weapons. Though it was argued that these weapons would leave no atomic residue
and would have a limited blast radius consideration of their use was voted down
because they were unproportional to the threat.
Conclusion
US conduct
in the Gulf Crisis clearly supports my opinion that the US abided by International
Law. The Just War Doctrine which could have easily and without consequence been
tread on was instead upheld and morality remained prevalent in the hell we call
war. Hopefully others will follow the example the US set so well.
---Cut
Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here
JEAN PAUL SARTRE AND THE FUNDAMENTAL PROJECT
Description: This
paper discusses Sartre's 'fundamental project' as
described in his writing
'No Exit.' This paper is a critique of 'No Exit'
written to identify pre-notioned
themes of Sartre, in Sartre's writing.
Addressed also is the ideology of Sophism.
Jean Paul Sartre and the Fundamental Project
In this paper I am
addressing Jean Paul Sartre premise of the fundamental project. In my presentation
I will first give a brief over view of Sartre's existentialism. Next Sartre's
a notions of the spontaneous and reflective phases of consciousness will be my
focus Upon discussing the reflective phase I will go into depth about the fundamental
project, and why it is pursued, and I will give examples from No Exit. I will
conclude by making a brief contrast and comparisson between Garcin, a character
from No Exit, and myself.
Of all the philosophers we have studied in
our forum, I find I am most intrigued by the opinions of Jean Paul Sartre. Jean
Paul Sartre is accredited with articulating the premise that "existence precedes
essence." Sartre believes that man one day happened, occurred, or arrived
on the scene, or in his words, man was one day "dehissed from the hole"
and after this anomalous event his life took meaning. I think Sartre is bold in
positing this notion which is in stark contrast of widely accepted belief. It
is well regarded that life has a meaning that far transcends our short and insignificant
lives. For many cultures life is and whether we ever come to terms with life is
irrelevant because life will continue regardless of our of whether or not we understand
it to any extent. Sartre believes quite the opposite. He believes that life could
have no meaning unless we gave meaning to it. I think anyone pondering this notion
to any depth would agree. How could life possibly have any meaning if we do not
give any meaning to it. For some life has no meaning and they committed horrible
atrocities in strict accordance to their belief. For others life has too much
meaning and they spend their lives trying to reassure themselves that they have
grasped this meaning. I would like to take a moment to inspect this further.
There are those in our history who have established a religion. Why? As I
have posited, this could well have been done in an attempt to reassure oneself
that that he had come to terms with the meaning of life. I think Sartre would
believe as I that this act of reassurance is nothing more than what he calls a
fundamental project. Sartre believes that when we become anguished by the affairs
of life we pursue a fundamental project in an attempt to flee this anguish. Sartre
says that we try to make ourselves Gods in hopes that others would see us as divine,
and hold us in high or higher regard. To pursue a fundamental project according
to Sartre is to act in bad faith. And to act in bad faith Sartre says is to manifest
our freedom inauthentically. I will address these premises a little later in the
text; before I do I first I would like to present some requisite background Sartreian
philosophy in an attempt to convey a full understanding of why one sometimes feels
compelled to pursue a fundamental project.
Sartre believes that, man
experiences two primary phases of consciousness in his life, the spontaneous phase
and the reflective phase. In the spontaneous phase of his life, man does nothing
more that pursue a particular task, and does not acknowledge his status in life
or that there are those who would give him a degree of status. In this phase of
life man is in a shallow mode of being. He is not concerned with society and acts
accordingly (i.e. all statements are rhetoric, all questions are rhetorical).
In the reflective phase of consciousness, a significant event occurs. Man one
day realizes that he is not alone in this world. This realization is not without
consequences. When man acknowledges that there are others that makeup the society
in which he exist, the man in effect discovers that he has identity. People know
who he is and what he does. Subsequently man discovers that he is "a being
in the world for others" (notes 7/2/92). This realization cannot not be taken
lightly, because it has the effect of sending man down one of two very disparate
paths.
If man can acknowledge and accept his facticity situation, that
is, if he can acknowledge an accept that he is a being (thing) with a biological
and social past, and he can transcend beyond that to no thingness, the realm of
the être pour soi then he is according to Sartre acting clear headed, and
in good faith. That is man is acknowledging his facticity, that he come from athe
thing, but he knows that he is more than just a thing. Because he comes to this
logical conclusion he is acting in good faith; he is not pursuing a fundamental
project in an attempt to circumvent the possibility of angst (anguish). The outcome
of the path of good faith is that man manifests his freedom authentically and
therefore his freedom is real.
Those who do not act clear headed, and
fail to make a balance between facticity and transcendence will inevitably fall
into angst. Angst (German for anguish) is what is felt by those who cannot accept
that they come from the realm of the être en soi (realm of the being in
it self) and make attempts to deny there past. In an attempt to flee their past
and the anguish that can accompany it Sartre says some will pursue a fundamental
project. This project entails attempting to make ourselves a virtuoso or a God
that is constrained by neither the realm of the être en soi nor the realm
of the être pour soi (realm of the being for itself). Sartre considers this
"forsaking the whole for the sake of the part" because society meaning
to the fundamental pursuer is forgone to address the fears of this individual.
Sartre says to do this is to act in bad faith.
In the introductory section
of this text I spoke of those who compelled others to follow them to the answer
of the meaning of life. In my opinion these people were acting in bad faith. It
is my belief that the Sophists for example pursued a fundamental project in an
attempt to flee the anguish that accompanied the realization that their philosophies
of life may in fact be incorrect. A sophistry is defined as being a fallacious
argument; this fact in itself is think is evidence that Sophist tenet was not
highly regarded. Socrates often urged those in the Callipolis to ignore the Sophists
and find the meaning the meaning of life themselves. The Sophists responded in
kind by travelling throughout Athens spreading their "knowledge" and
attempting to garner support and gain new followers. This to me is a clear example
of a fundamental project. The Sophists, anguished by there situation took to lend
credence to the incredulous instead of admitting that there opinions were but
one possible interpretation of life. Admittedly I am no expert of Sophism, and
therefore those more scholarly than I may well consider all I have said of Sophism
a sophistry. This being a likely possibility to I will limit myself to referring
to only that which is quite familiar to me, such as Sartre's No Exit.
In No Exit the character Garcin is a clear cut example of an individual acting
in bad faith in an attempt to flee anguish. In the play three person, Estelle,
Garcin, and Inez are put in a room together to face hell. The hell for these three
is to put up with each other. The character Garcin is in hell after being shot
for fleeing France after W.W.II broke out in Europe. Prior to war Garcin was the
editor of a pacifist newspaper. When he defied war he was shot. Because of his
defiance he chose to think of himself as a hero and a martyr. (It should be noted
that all of Garcin's considerations were made postumously.) As the staory plays
out the character Inez forces Garcin to admit that he was not a hero and that
he in fact acted cowardly. Garcin then pursues a fundamental project to flee the
anguish that accompanies being labeled a coward. He tries to convince Estelle
that he is not a coward. Garcin feels that if he can convince Estelle that he
is not a coward then the words he hears spoken of him down earth will be hushed
and he will be the hero he wishes to be. This is exemplary of Sartre's notion
that when faced with angst some will not act clear headed and will pursue a project
in an attempt to lift themselves above and beyond the reality they are confronted
by. It is important at this time to reaffirm Sartre belief that a fundamental
project will inevitably fail. There are two reasons failure is inevitable: 1.
Sartre believes that "I am not what I am - I am what I am not." What
is meant by this is that we can never truly be what we wish to be. This is because
we are in this world for others and if we act in bad faith and do no try to legitimately
come to terms with this fact, then we will never be anything more than what others
wish us to be. This leads us to our next assurance of failure: Sartre says, "we
will never be regarded how we wish to be regarded." Sartre reasoning behind
this is that we are sentient beings who determine our own reality; we determine
our own truths because we perceive them in our own unique way. This being the
case the odds are astronomically minute that any two individuals would ever see
eye to eye on an issue. Therefore one who wishes to be regarded a certain way
could never be he is relying on others for the regard he seeks and the others
see him with eyes far different than his.
As events in the play would
have it, Garcin's fundamental project does fail. He first attempts to get Estelle
to believe that he is not a coward, but is disgruntled to find that Estelle could
care less; her only concern is to be around a man, any man. He next attempts to
convince Inez but is stalemated. Inez sees Garcin as the coward he is. Garcin
feels that if he can convince her then he could cast away the shadow that shades
his death. It is at this point that Inez says something quite insightful. "You're
a coward, Garcin, because I wish it." (No Exit, Pg 58, ln. 28). This is representative
of Sartre's reflective phase of consciouness. As I presented before, Sartre says
"we are a being inthe world for others." Prior to Inez making this statement
Garcin had been trying to flee the snguish that surrounded it. After the statement
was made I think an important revelation comes to light. In the conclusion of
the play when Garcin realizes that his fundamental project has failed he and that
he must spend the rest of eternity in hell with his tormentors he simply says
"...well lets get on with it." (No Exit, Pg. 61, ln. 31) What this says
to me is that Garcin is ready to come to terms with his situation with a clear
head. What in effect occured was an elongated pursunace of good fait. This makes
perfect since if you agree that man has but two choices in life, anguish or transcendence.
It would seem that Sartre would have us believe that there is really only one
end, but two paths of disparate length that lead to this end. This I think is
quite true, especially if you concur with what appears to be Sartre notion that
there is an existence after life. It seems time is irrelevant to Sartre and that
dead or alive you wil eventually have to yield that peace of mind will only come
with the acknowledment that transcendence is the only end. In an attempt to augment
the credence of this argument I would like to take a moment to address another
facet of Sartre's fundamental project.
Sartre says that any freedom
achieved via a fundamental project is inauthentically manifested and there for
delete. This so called freedom is nothing more than a facade according to Sartre
because the constraints were never addressed and transcendence never occurred.
Reflection without transcendence has the unfortunate outcome of constraining the
individual to the realm of the being. Confinement to this realm will leave the
individual with nothing but angst and angst continue to be the case until the
individual makes a legitimate effort to come to terms with facticity and the angst
that facticity can bring. I think this adequatley supports my argument that transcendence
is the only end. Confinement can not be an end in itself because peace of mind
is not achieved. The eyes are never allowed to close as Garcin would wish them
to. Sleep can not and will not come until transcendense to the pour soi occurs,
and we have acted in good faith and thereby manifested or freedom authentically.
With authentic freedom we can have piece of mind and rest.
I find Sartre
a great deal appealing because his tenets are down to earth and applicable to
life. An in-depth understanding of the universe as a whole is not necessary for
Sartre's tenets to be understood, and I think that that is important. I find it
quite easy to equate Sartreian thought with contemporary society. I can think
of many occasions in which I face a realization I was not prepared for. In many
of those occasions I fell into angst, and acted in bad faith in an attempt to
try and reconcile the situation. In these events I acted without a clear head,
and was worse off for having done so. Little I did was of any consequence and
reconciliation never cam while I was in this mode of thinking. In others my "human
reality" as Heidegger would call it lacked legitimacy because I had allowed
it to do so. I can equate this with the trials and tribulations Garcin persevered.
Garcin was truly anguished by his predicament and made poorly contemplated decisions
in an attempt to bring peace of mind. Garcin was a coward because Inez wished.
The situations that I have been in that I perceived as desparate were only so
because others perceived them as desparate. If I had initally used a clear head
and made a balance between how the situation was perceived by others and what
the situation really meant to me, then I would none of my bad experiences would
have come the hinderances upon my life they turned. In the end for both Garcin
and myself it became clear that peace of mind would not come until clear headness
was employed. Once a clear head is put to use then Sartre's belief that reconciliation
and peace of mind will inevitably come is vindicated. In Garcin case we can only
assume this. In my instance you can bank on it. Thank you.
---Cut
Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here