Cry for Freedom

Although Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King, Jr. are both skilled orators and use similar rhetorical devices to appeal to their audiences, their call for freedom for two totally different kinds of people. Both Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King, Jr. show their strengths as speakers through their use of these rhetorical devices. Among these are parallelism, allusions, metaphors, and rhetorical questions. Both speakers use these devices well. Martin Luther King, Jr. is infamous for using parallelism when he states, "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" Martin Luther King, Jr. also alludes to the Declaration of independence many times in his speech. "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." These rhetorical devices help Martin Luther King, Jr. keep his audience attentive and highly interested.

Patrick Henry uses biblical allusion when he states, "It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our Country." Another rhetorical device that Henry uses well is imagery. A good example of Henry's imagery is, "The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!" Henry uses these and many more devices to keep the attention and the open mind of his audience who was mostly opposed to his viewpoint.

These two speeches were much more different than they are alike. The main difference between the two speeches, in a general sense was that one calls for a change through violence and war, while the other calls for a peaceful solution. Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses calls for a revolution against Great Britain. This must have been a difficult speech for Henry to deliver because he was speaking to a group of people who were opposed to his ideals. They gave the speech pre-revolution and was an attempt to persuade the Virginia delegates to solve the colonies' problems with the British through war.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech was much different than Henry's. First of all, King was asking for a peaceful solution to the problems between the white Americans and the African- Americans. This speech was also different from Henry's because he was speaking to a crowd that was supportive of what he had to say. They aimed this speech, given on the Lincoln Memorial in the early 1960's, at persuading African-Americans to solve their problems with whites through a peaceful method.

Both Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches had their similarities and differences. Among their similarities are that both were good orators. They displayed this through the good, similar rhetorical devices that they used, and through the way their audience reacted to their speeches. Both men were taking risks by speaking the ways and at the times they did speak. Among the differences between the two speeches are the changes that they are causing, and the way in which the change is to be made.

When Corporations Rule the World

The book "When corporations Rule the World" by David Korten describes the way things will be in the future with multi-national corporations. These large corporations are found all over the world. There are many different problems that are appearing and many of them can be seen to be connected to corporations. We need to look at what is occurring with corporations and see if they are causing more problems or are helping to solve problems of the world. David Korten addresses this question in his book. He points out many of the problems that are being caused by multi-national corporations in the world today. He points out the effects to communities, families, the individual and the environment that are being forgotten about in the ever expanding process of economic globalization. Korten states " the process of economic globalization are not only spreading mass poverty, environmental devastation and social disintegration, they are also weakening our capacity for constructive social and cultural innovation at a time when such innovation is needed as never before" .

Corporations have not always been as big and powerful as the are today. Through economic globalization they have become very powerful. "Corporations have emerged as the dominant governance institutions on the planet, with the largest among them reaching into virtually every country of the world and exceeding most governments in size and power". Prior to the Civil War, owners were personally responsible for any liabilities or debts the company incurred, including wages owed to workers. Early Americans feared corporations as a threat to democracy and freedom. After the Civil War, owners and managers of corporations pressed relentlessly to expand their powers, and the courts gave them what they wanted. Perhaps the most important change occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations the full constitutional protections of individual citizens. By the early 20th century, courts had limited the liability of share holders; corporations had been given perpetual life times; the number of owners was no longer restricted; the capital they could control was infinite. Some corporations were even given the power of eminent domain. In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court bestowed natural rights on unnatural creatures, amoral beasts that were created to serve selfish men. Now corporations had life and liberty, but no morals, and the fears of the early Americans were soon realized.

There are many problems that can be seen being caused by the multi-national corporations that have spread all over the world. One of these problems is the thoughtlessness of these large corporations to abuse the environment that we all have to live in. Corporations have been destroying both the renewable and non-renewable resources of the world. Many of the nonrenewable resources are being used at very excessive rates for profit to the few and nothing for the people where the natural resources are being taken from. "When industrialization caused countries to exceed their national resource limits, they simply reached out to obtain what was needed from beyond their own borders, generally by colonizing the resources of non-industrial people".

Many renewable resources are also being destroyed all over the world and this is having very devastating effects to many people. One of these main resources is the polluting of the fresh water and air in the world and the ability to absorb our wastes. One example of this is the amount of damage that has done by acid rain. "At the global level, each year deserts encroach on another 6 billion hectares of once productive land, the area covered by tropical forests is reduced by 11 million hectares, there is a net loss of 26 billion tons of soil from oxidation and erosion, and 1.5 billion hectares of prime agricultural land are abandoned due to salinization form irrigation projects".

Two of the most important aspects of good health are in the abundance of clean water and proper sanitation. "Countries with high income levels are experiencing increases in rates of cancer, respiratory illness is, stress and cardiovascular disorders, and birth defects, as well as falling sperm counts". This is due mostly to what is left after economic growth, waste and pollution.

One of the other effects is that many of these multi-national corporations have much more power than many governments of the world. "As markets become freer and more global, the power to govern increasingly passes from national governments to global corporations, and the interests of those corporations, and the interests of those corporations diverge ever farther from the human interests". This means that these corporations have the power to influence many decisions that are made by the governments of the world. This can be done in two main ways. The first is in helping to get the people that they feel will help make political decisions that will benefit them. This is done through the many donations that are made to the campaign funds of those individuals. The other way is in the nature of the corporation. This is through the large amounts of capital that the success of the corporation of the is dependent on. In democracies, a person gets one vote. "In the market one dollar is one vote, and you get as many votes as you have dollars. No dollar, no vote. Markets are inherently biased in favor of people of wealth". This means that the market only recognizes money, not people. It gives no voice of the penniless, and when not balanced by constraining political forces can become and instrument of oppression by which the wealthy monopolize society's resources leaving the less fortunate with out land, jobs, technology or other means of livelihood. "Money is its sole measure of value, and its practice is advancing policies that are deepening social and environmental disintegration every where".

These huge corporations are also effecting and changing our lives in another way. These corporations are able to manipulate the cultural values and universal symbols of the societies of the world. "Our cultural symbols provide an important source of identity and meaning; they affirm our worth, our place in society....When control of our cultural symbols passes to corporations, we are essentially yielding to them the power to define who we are...We become simply members of the "Pepsi generation" detached from place and any meaning other than those a corporation finds is profitable to confer on us". The societies of the world, are loosing their heritage and traditions that had separated each of them and made them each unique. As the world grows smaller through technology and we become more dependent on each other many of these important traditions that united a community are being lost and forgotten. The corporations are looking to just make a profit.

There are many other problems that are being caused by multinational corporations that are being over looked because they can not be measured by monetary means. These are the effects that the individual and society are noticing more and are trying to have to deal with. The first of these is in the feeling of job security. "Not so long ago, the firm which a person worked was almost like family. It was primary support system in an otherwise impersonal and transient world. A good job was far more than an income. It was a source of identity and of valued and enduring relationships". With these large corporations we are getting away from this feeling of security. Many people are learning that "no amount of money can buy peace of mind, a strong and loving family, caring friends, and a feeling that one is meaningful and important work". This is becoming true for people with jobs on any level. There is no longer any job security for virtually anyone at any level.

This feeling is also bring on many other problems. These are in the family. With out security stress levels can become very high causing many problems in the family. Is this why the divorce rate in America has climbed to unbelievable heights? "High rates of deprivation, depression, divorce, teenage pregnancy, violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime and suicide are among the more evident consequences in both high and low income countries".

One of the other main problems falls to the poor societies of the world. They end up getting totally neglected by multinational corporations. This is done on all levels. From the taking of natural non-renewable resources to the poor not being able to make any impact on the decisions made because they do not have the capital to make their 'vote'. They are being excluded from land, technology is eliminating jobs faster than it is creating new ones, and public services that were placed there to help them are being dismantled because there is not enough funds. This is all being done to increase the wealth of those who really do not need any more. These large corporations do not have feelings or think of the destructive things that are being caused by their practices.

There are many things that need to be done to turn all of these problems around. Major changes will have to occur. One of these changes is trying to get back to small businesses that this country was started on and still depends on today. Locally owned small businesses are not only the foundation for strong communities; they are the driving force of strong economies. Small businesses are our engines of innovation and job creation. One example of this how small business is better than large corporations, is in the court case where an 81 year old woman, sued the huge multinational corporation of McDonalds for serving her a coffee heated to 180-190 degrees, far above the average temperature of 140 degrees. She was hospitalized for 8 days and had to undergo skin grafts for third degree burns. She was awarded $2.9 million dollars in the case. The jury was told that this had happened to 700 patrons over the past 10 years who had burned themselves on the super heated coffee. Only after the verdict did any fast food changes evaluate this unnecessary practice of subjecting their customers to this potential injury.

If this had occurred at a local neighborhood coffee shop, think of the consequences. How many customers would get burned until a customer talked to the owner and demand that the temperature get turned down. Big corporations require a legal system that allows the average citizen to force them to pay for their mistakes and mend their ways. Local business are able to more easily hear the voice of their customers and remedy the problems more quickly and easily.

Connected with this, since corporations can not be eliminated, they need to at least change their ways. They need to "Think globally, act locally". This means that the need to help out the community. To set up programs for the people of the community. To bring 'community' back into the cities and towns where these businesses are. They also need to make sure that these efforts are working and reaching the people that really would benefit from them.

"We must decide whether the power to govern will be in the hands of living people or will reside with corporate entities driven by a different agenda. To regain control of our future and bring human societies into balance with the planet, we must reclaim the power we have yielded to the corporation". This statement means two main things. That we as individuals must work together to reclaim the power that was given to these corporations and that they are abusing. It also states that societies need to come into balance with the planet, mainly the environment.

Korten states the three main things that have to change in order to come into balance with the environment. These are one the "Rates of use of renewable resources do no exceed the rates at which the ecosystem is able to regenerate them." Second, " Rates of consumption or irretrievable disposal of nonrenewable resources do not exceed the rates at which nonrenewable substitutes are developed and phased into use." Third, "Rates of pollution emission into the environment do not exceed the rates of the ecosystem's natural assimilative capacity.". With out more strict laws that effect corporations world wide it is going to be very difficult to have an impact on improving the environment.

In this book, Korten makes important points to opening the eyes of society to making changes to the free market and the multinational corporations that rule over it. He points out the effects of the threefold of human crisis, the deepening of poverty, the social disintegration and environmental destruction. At the heart of this destruction is the corporations. The are unaccountable for the polluting and driven by an addiction to economic growth, the serve the interests of a very small international elite and are harming the rest of us. He hopes on the co-existence revolution that is bound to come. He also looks to an awakening of civil society and the growth of more social movements.

Was Hurricane Katrina Allowed to Happen?

INDICATIONS THE HURRICANE KATRINA DISASTER WAS PURPOSELY ALLOWED TO HAPPEN

Not much to say here- just watch the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7288762817759323585

and draw your own conclusions!

Freedom of Expression

No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history. Since the Bush administration took office, however, our freedom of expression has been under attack; any derogatory comments aimed at the president or his actions are labeled "unpatriotic", and those making the comments are singled out for punishment.

The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect toward the freedom of religion. It also prevents the government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Since the early history of our country, the protection of basic freedoms has been of the utmost importance to Americans.

In Langston Hughes' poem, "Freedom," he emphasizes the struggle to enjoy the freedoms that he knows are rightfully his. He reflects the American desire for freedom now when he says, "I do not need my freedom when I'm dead. I cannot live on tomorrow's bread." He recognizes the need for freedom in its entirety without compromise or fear.

I think Langston Hughes captures the essence of the American immigrants' quest for freedom in his poem, "Freedom's Plow." He accurately describes American's as arriving with nothing but dreams and building America with the hopes of finding greater freedom or freedom for the first time. He depicts how people of all backgrounds worked together for one cause: freedom.

What is Fascism and Why does it Emerge?

Fascism is a political ideology that consists of an all powering totalitarian government, which has total control of the people, the nation and the economy. The fascist economic system creates an upper class for the owning/ruling class and leaves the working class in a lower state who in turn produce for the elite. To justify themselves as beneficial to the oppressed lower class, the fascist installs an extreme sense of Nationalisms and organicism. If these method do not work then force is used. Fascism emerges out of economic crisis, a revolutionary promise and reaction to capitalism. It is often allowed to emerge because it is usually easy to get support from the upper class. Some believe that the Bush/Cheney government is borderline facist.

The fascist political structure consists of a totalitarian government with an extreme sense of absolutism. Absolutism is the principle of a absolute power in control with power that transcends even the laws itself, under the control of one main dictator who carries traits of of a geniuses or of a hero. This way the masses can be drawn into him through emotion and appeal. With the totalitarian government the fascist has total control of the nation and the people.

Along with the fascist total ruling over the people and nation came its total ruling over the economy. Although different fascist have had different economic structures, all regimes more or less, have had the same model. The main defining character of the fascist economy is the principle of goverment-buisness relationship. Like the first fascist regime in Italy, its leader created a system where private ownership was allowed but state intervention was issued on management and labour. He did this by creating grouped established syndicates, such as "The National Confederation of Commerce" or the "The National Federation of Credit and Insurgence". The government then controlled these under managing agencies called "Corporations" which in turn would regulate issues and guidelines such as supply and demand, labour disputes or what interest the business is to aim at. Although the system is supposed to function as a partnership, the government is always in control and dominant.

Although the fascists claim this system is in the interest of the nation, it is only in the interest of more empowerment for the government. Due to this system both the states interest and the interest of the owning class are integrated which creates an elite. Therefore the development and technology only serves the interest of the elite and not the working class which is to be convinced to interact with promoting the sense that there dedication is necessary for the wellbeing of the nation.

Nationalism is a force which the fascist uses to eliminate conflict between social classes and restore unity through shared values such as race, language, religion and unifies men through symbols and traditions of a nation. It reduces the risk of liberal individualism and focuses on funnelling aggression into a powerful force and channelling it against outsiders so individuals will not question the state.

Nationalism often relies on the use of a scapegoat. The most blatant example of this was Hitler's scapegoating on the Jews. He would blame them for the defeat of Germany in World War 1, or claim they were the downfall of Germany. Hitler took this idea to an extreme and later went on to ethnic cleansing which resulted in the death of 6 million Jews.

Another method of motivating the masses is to present the concept of organicism. Organicism is the theory of viewing a nation like a growing powerful single body. It focuses on the idea that the body is made up of individual components all having individual functions, but are unimportant, and only important as a whole body. The fascist applies this principle to the notion that the individual is unimportant as a single person but significant in the fact that it's a component of the community and the interest of the state which is the superior element of exisistence. The fascist feels that all means for the state are justifiable and "there is no room for detachment from the cause, for neutrality or for the luxury of being a mere spectator". The fascist also uses this principle in justifying the rationality of the fascist economic system with demoralising the image of the individual as a person producing for himself, and not for the community as he should be.

If nationalism and organicism do not supply enough motivation to create a dominant ideology, the fascist resorts to "tapping deeper levels of motivation" and uses coercive force. They try to achieve a goal of breaking down the individual spirit of liberalism and will resort to violent ways if necessary.

The other use of force that the fascist utilises for conformity is to misinform the masses or not inform them at all. Examples of this can either be the dismissal of civil rights such as freedom of speech or assembly or controlling the means of informative sources such as newspapers television and other sorts of communication. These are tactics the fascist utilises if the population does not consent to the government.

Fascism emerges as a response to capitalism. It is a revolutionary promise to rehabilitate a nation in economic depression or unemployment by uniting and focusing the economic power of all social classes. This in turn is to restabilise a nation economically. It utilises the principle of nationalism to try to unite the social classes and if that does not work it resorts to force, "a coercive method of resolving conflicts within an industrially more advanced society". Usually fascism reinvests economic gain into its military with the hope of trying to mobilise the nation to its full capacity. This system of government usually emerges when other forms of government have failed. Where democracy lacked in a sense of hope and faith, fascism excelled. Post war Germany, Italy and Argentina in 1955 can all exemplify this theory of emergence:
After World War 1, Italy had a poor economy and its national identified diminished. To build the nation and strengthen it economically was to create a state the would take full control to accomplish this, the people were desperate for a solution.

World War I also effected Germany in an economic sense. It left the country bankrupt, millions were jobless and the Treaty of Versailles left the nation with reparations. The national socialists and communists were the two main parties at the time. The Nazis utilised their economic plan to restore the nation winning mass appeal which enabled them to implement their plan of imperialistic conquest which was Hitler's real goal.

Another period in which the economic condition enabled fascism to emerge was Argentina in 1930. It was at this time a predominantly agricultural nation. The conflict was landowners who were a comparison of feudal barons. There was also the trend of world wide depression and the emergence of an anarchist movement that aimed at direct appropriation of farm and land ownership. This attempt at unifying the South American country was overthrown ten years later.

Another factor that helps the fascist come into power is mass support from the owning class. They see fascism as way of securing their wealth and corporations, and see it as protection from labour disputes. They support the fascist into office and then they themselves claim power as an elite.

In conclusion the fascists main concern is power. They take total control over the people and all issues of the nation by totalitarianism. They manipulate and steal elections, or eliminate elections altogether. The economic system is only in the interest of the state, creating an elite class and therefore oppressing the lower classes who are made to believe in the nation while its there blood and sweat that produces for the government, and if they do not they are violently forced. The only reason this type of government emerges is because it appears as a solution to economic crisis in time of despair and gets support from the powerful upper class which benefits from it, while the lower classes are oppressed.

United States v. Richard Nixon

Throughout American history, the fear that our leaders may sometimes think themselves above the law has always been evident. The fear is that power brings corruptness. To prevent this, however, the system of checks and balances has been installed into the Constitution. No one branch of government stands above the law in this setup. This point was reasserted in the the Supreme Court case of 1974, United States v. Nixon. This case involved the President of the United States, at that time Richard Nixon, and the people of the United States. The case was based on the infamous Watergate scandal in which Nixon was said to be involved. The case came about when Nixon refused to deliver subpoenad tapes to the Special Prosecutor that could have possibly incriminated him. Nixon attempted to quash this subpoena by claiming executive privelege. The Special Prosecutor argued this claim successfully. The President then appealed this ruling from the District Court to the Court of Appeals. In the Appeals Court, the Special Prosecutor filed for a writ of certiorari which was petitioned by the President. Both petitions were granted and handed to the Supreme Court.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the basic arguements were as follows. President Nixon's attorneys argued that the District Court was out of its jurisdiction when it issued the subpoena to Nixon, making the case void. They stated that the dispute between the President and the Special Prosecutor was strictly executive, and by mediating them, the court broke the doctrine of seperation of powers. They also argued with executive privilege, the right of the President to withold information from Congress. To this, the District Court said that the judiciary, not the President, was the final arbiter of a claim of executive privilege. The Court also argued that the Special Prosecutor was vested power by the Attorney General who had the right under the constitution to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States government.

In its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the District Court. They ruled that President Nixon's insubordinance was unjustified. They felt that neither the claim of invalid jurisdiction nor that of executive privilege were applicable. The decision was unanimous. There was concurring opinion by Raoul Berger that stated that he affirmed the Court's decision, but he believed the decision cut too closely the right of executive privilege in the case that the information is irrelevant and the President needs to keep his privacy.

This case was positive proof to the American people that the justice system in our country is indeed working if even the President's wrongdoings can be rectified. It was a statement of equalness among all and set forth the precedent that nobody in this country is above the law.

Now, we have another situation with another Richard, namely Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney has said on national TV that if he is subpoenaed, he will refuse to present himself for questioning. He thinks he is above the law. Never in our history have we had such an arrogant Vice President. It is time for impeachment proceedings to begin.

Are Immigrants a Burden to the US?

Immigrants are not a burden to the U.S. Therefore, we shouldn't stop all immigration . Immigrants are hard workers and are not causing unemployment for legal citizens.

The work ethic of today's immigrants is as strong as that of the Irish, Italians, and Poles of early immigration. According to a 1990 census, foreign born males have a 77% labor force participation. Now, compare that to the 74% participation of native-born Americans and you see that immigrants are not as lazy as some would have you believe. 5.1% of working age immigrants, the majority of which were legally admitted, receive welfare benefits. 5.3% of working age, native born Americans also receive welfare benefits . Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the minority of those receiving welfare and are not the only ones receiving it as the facts show.

Immigrants, even undocumented ones are not causing unemployment for legal citizens. The INS says that there are 1.25% of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Around 1% can't be the cause of the 7% unemployment rate. The loss of jobs and lower wages are primarily aren't the effect of immigration. The loss of jobs and lower wages are primarily an effect of manufacturers moving overseas and federal economic policies. So, what are the jobs that immigrants are supposedly stealing from us? Well, undocumented immigrants typically work in low wage-jobs not filled by U.S. born workers.

Bush's proposed walls on both our Mexican and our Canadian borders will not solve any problems. These projects were probaby designed to put more money into Halliburton and Dick Cheney's pockets.

Arguments for and against Congress

There is a definite need for Congress in the United States. It serves many roles such as making laws, implementing national policy and watching over the other two branches of government. These are just a few of the duties of our U.S. Congress. Although they are essential to our government, there are potential problems. People are not always satisfied with the length of time involved in passing a law as well as the deadlock Congress can experience on an issue. Another potential problem people see with Congress is representation. Not all Americans feel that they are equally represented.

The Congress of the United States is viewed by many as the largest branch in government. Some people might even say it is the most important. This is due to the roles Congress pays in our government. Congress is responsible for the lawmaking in our country as well as implementing national policy. The power to make laws was given to Congress by our forefathers when they constructed our constitution. Passing laws is very important to our country because without them we would be living in chaos. Of course, all our laws are not perfect but for the most part our Congress does a good job at keeping this country under control. The problems with lawmaking that most people see is the time involved in getting a law passed. In order for a bill to become a law it must first be "introduced to the House or Senate, or both, then referred to a committee." (Cummings / Wise 479). This can be a very time consuming process. Anyone interested in having a law passed must realize the process involved and be patient. In addition to lawmaking Congress is also involved in passing amendments. Our nation has been able to grow and strengthen due to the amendment process. In order for our government to keep up with the changing times it is crucial that we make adjustments to the constitution. The downfall is that the amendments passed have not always kept up with changing times. Arguments against Congress would be that they taken to long in enforcing the amendments.

The U.S. Congress must also implement national policy. The Congress must regulate commerce in order to create a prosperous economy. It is up to Congress to monitor the growth of the economy and be ready to act if necessary. Congress has the power to implement monetary policy in which they decrease taxes to induce spending during a slow economic period. They can also increase taxes if there is a threat of inflation. The problems with the role of Congress in the economy is again the time factor. It takes time to get the policy going so Congress must be able to detect future economic problems in order for it to be effective.

Congress makes up one of three branches of government. The three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial were designed in a way to prevent any one branch from having absolute power over our nation. Each branch was given the job to check and balance the other two branches. Congress has the job of watching over the president. If Congress detects any corruption by the president, it can bring about changes to impeach the president. Also, if the president becomes incapacitated it is up to Congress to determine him as unfit to continue his duties. Another way Congress checks the president is that it must approve any treaties to ensure that the president does not have too much power when it comes to foreign affairs. "The Senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online). People will argue that Congress gives the president too much power in the area of foreign affairs. "Bush embarked on major war against Iraq in 1991, without a declaration of war by Congress." (Cummings / Wise 448). Although these checks and balances are necessary they can also cause conflicts between branches. There is always a possibility that the majority in Congress can be of a different party than that of the president. "The disadvantage of the American system is the deadlock that can develop between the president and the Congress over policy when each is in control of a different party." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online)

There is a definite need for Congress in the United States. It serves many roles such as making laws, implementing national policy and watching over the other two branches of government. These are just a few of the duties of our U.S. Congress. Although they are essential to our government, there are potential problems. People are not always satisfied with the length of time involved in passing a law as well as the deadlock Congress can experience on an issue. Another potential problem people see with Congress is representation. Not all Americans feel that they are equally represented.

The Congress of the United States is viewed by many as the largest branch in government. Some people might even say it is the most important. This is due to the roles Congress pays in our government. Congress is responsible for the lawmaking in our country as well as implementing national policy. The power to make laws was given to Congress by our forefathers when they constructed our constitution. Passing laws is very important to our country because without them we would be living in chaos. Of course, all our laws are not perfect but for the most part our Congress does a good job at keeping this country under control. The problems with lawmaking that most people see is the time involved in getting a law passed. In order for a bill to become a law it must first be "introduced to the House or Senate, or both, then referred to a committee." (Cummings / Wise 479). This can be a very time consuming process. Anyone interested in having a law passed must realize the process involved and be patient. In addition to lawmaking Congress is also involved in passing amendments. Our nation has been able to grow and strengthen due to the amendment process. In order for our government to keep up with the changing times it is crucial that we make adjustments to the constitution. The downfall is that the amendments passed have not always kept up with changing times. Arguments against Congress would be that they taken to long in enforcing the amendments.

The U.S. Congress must also implement national policy. The Congress must regulate commerce in order to create a prosperous economy. It is up to Congress to monitor the growth of the economy and be ready to act if necessary. Congress has the power to implement monetary policy in which they decrease taxes to induce spending during a slow economic period. They can also increase taxes if there is a threat of inflation. The problems with the role of Congress in the economy is again the time factor. It takes time to get the policy going so Congress must be able to detect future economic problems in order for it to be effective.

Congress makes up one of three branches of government. The three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial were designed in a way to prevent any one branch from having absolute power over our nation. Each branch was given the job to check and balance the other two branches. Congress has the job of watching over the president. If Congress detects any corruption by the president, it can bring about changes to impeach the president. Also, if the president becomes incapacitated it is up to Congress to determine him as unfit to continue his duties. Another way Congress checks the president is that it must approve any treaties to ensure that the president does not have too much power when it comes to foreign affairs. "The Senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online). People will argue that Congress gives the president too much power in the area of foreign affairs. "Bush embarked on major war against Iraq in 1991, without a declaration of war by Congress." (Cummings / Wise 448). Although these checks and balances are necessary they can also cause conflicts between branches. There is always a possibility that the majority in Congress can be of a different party than that of the president. "The disadvantage of the American system is the deadlock that can develop between the president and the Congress over policy when each is in control of a different party." (Compton's Encyclopedia, Online)

Representation was a key issue when the House and Senate were being designed. Many were worried about how the states would receive equal representation in government. It was decided that the Senate would be made up of two senators from each state and the House representatives would be chosen on the basis of population. In general this would seem fair as far as the states are concerned but what about the people. Who is it that makes up our Congress? Are they everyday people you and I? Many will say that our Congress is a representative to what the people want. The fact is that the United States is becoming increasingly diverse as time goes on, but just recently has Congress began to change. "More than half the nations population are women, but the 102nd Congress had only thirty one women members." (Cummings / Wise 453). In addition, our nation is made up of mostly blue collared workers, yet the most predominant occupation of Congress members are lawyers. With this in mind the Congress must strive to understand and represent the needs of the people. Congress cannot ignore the disadvantage groups that feel unrepresented in the system. "Until the enactment of Medicare in 1965, Congress declined to pass health care legislation for the elderly." (Cummings / Wise 446).

There will always be people for and people against any branch in government. The reason being, government is not perfect, nor are the people who run it. Laws take time to create and policies take time to be implemented. You cannot deny the fact that regardless of the time involved these procedures are a major and necessary step. Over all Congress does a good job with the roles and duties it is given. When it comes to representation, the vote lies in our hands. We have the power to vote for who we want to represent us. We can make a difference if we get involved in electing those who share the same ideas of the people to make us a better a better nation.

Iraq's Oil

When people started saying that the war in Iraq was about oil, I always thought they were paranoid or stupid. After all, it's not as though the US were just going to march in and seize the oil like some colonial-era invaders. I'm still not sure what I think, but there were two articles published on AlterNet.org that do as well a job of explaining the conflicts of interest as I have ever seen.

Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil (Part Two)

I really encourage you to read at least the first article. It explains some of the history and what is going to happen to Iraq's oil. I've tried to list the main points of the article.

1. Iraq has a lot of oil.
2. That oil is easy to get to and cheap to process.
3. Because of sanctions, Iraqi oil hasn't been on the market as much as it could be.
4. Oil companies want to get into Iraq and get a share of the profits by providing Iraq with oil services and buying and selling that oil.
5. The oil companies lobbied hard for regime change throughout the 90s, hoping to get more access to Iraq under a more West-friendly government.
6. In 2000, they got two of their own elected to the top two jobs in America.
7. Two weeks after taking office, Cheney held secret meetings with top oil executives while he was drafting the administrations energy policy.
8. The Bush White House had plans was determined to attack Iraq even before they began building a case.
9. As part of debt relief for Iraq, the US and British big four oil companies are negotiating production service agreements (PSAs) for the extraction of Iraq's oil. Under these agreements, the Iraqis technically retain ownership of the oil reserves, but the terms are lucrative for the oil companies and give them much more control than is normal.

The article gives sources and details for these points and greatly expands on number 9. Part two goes into even greater detail and examines Jim Baker's "eye-popping conflict of interest" in his involvement. I would like to hear your thoughts after reading the article. To me, it seems like some pretty damning evidence. I wonder when we'll start to hear more about this in the news.

Welcome to my blog about Politics!

It's an exciting time for those interested in Politics, especially since today is the day after an historic election in the United States that has restored many people's faith and belief in the American Political system and especially in the validity of American Elections.
Hundreds of years ago the term politics was unheard of,the word layed scrambled among the alphabet, and the power behind the undeveloped word lied still. Today, politics is a wellknown word to us all and the power behind it has governed us for many centuries. Differences of opinions in politics havecreated what we know as political parties. The political parties of the United States are the oldest in the world; amongDemocratic nations, they may also be the weakest. American voters attitudes and traditions are big factors in what makesour parties weak. A Political Party is a group that seeks to elect candidates to public office by giving them a party identification. Although there are more than two political parties, the Democratic and Republican Parties, they have dominated thepolitical system for hundreds of years. Other parties that exist but, are not very familiar are the Whig Party, LibertarianParty, Socialist Worker Party, Communist Party of the United States of America, National Hamiltonian Party, NationalProhibition Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and the Know-Nothing Party. In the United States, the labels of the two major political parties have always had a relatively strong appeal for thevoters. Because of that, third parties and independent candidates have rarely had much competitive success at thenational or even the state level. There has hardly, maybe never, been a strong national party organization in this country.Though there have, however, been long periods in which certain state, city, and county components of the Democratic andRepublican Parties have been organizationally powerful. Political Parties were developed because of differences in opinions on subjects; each party was comprised of individuals with similar views. The question that seems to come into mind often is, "How do the parties really differ?" The answer isvery complex, much depending on what aspect of the party we are looking at: their history, their policies and platforms,their leadership, their rank, and their level of government--national, state, or local. A lot of it also depends on our own view of how we see it from where we sit.