For the apparent animosity between the band's leading members, i dedicate this bumper sticker to them -

In rock,
The creation of music presupposes the existence of a band.

What was heard were mere songs, not music.
Only instruments and voices played together like forced clockwork

Tonight,
There was no music because there was no band.

O, para sa mga taong puro "basically, actually" ang sinasabi pag wala nang ibang masabi or pag nawawala sa sinasabi, eto ang paliwanag para sa ating lahat na may sala.

Please join my campaign to eliminate the tedious use of the word 'basically.'

Here is the reasoning::

The word "basically" is an overused verbal tick which demeans and condescends to the listener. It is at the same time a way for the speaker to inflate his own self esteem by flogging and repeating words that appear to emphasize personal knowledge.

It is a fault which has become, I fear, some sort of custom or accepted
colloquialism.

This is a repost of a blog entry, written more than three years ago at a time when the Arroyo regime was facing its worst crisis yet - the Hello Garci scandal of July 2005.

Then and now, the regime foists Charter Change as its viable alternative to the country's worsening political and economic situation - political illegitimacy then and the twin energy and food crises at present, in order to subvert the incorrigible fact that this government is beyond reform and deserved to be ousted from power in the soonest possible time.

Nonetheless, the people's response is the same still today - neither federalism nor parliamentarism can solve the chronic crisis of Philippine society. More so, GMA's continued perpetuation in power via Charter Change can only further entrench Philippine semi-feudalism and imperialist subservience, notwithstanding enabling the futher division of spoils of corruption and pervasive bureaucrat-capitalism among her closest national and regional allies.

Friday, July 25, 2005

Hands-down, the charter change proposal must be shot down at once by the people.

It will only serve the interests of the ruling clique as their knees shake relentlessly over the threat of ousting this regime by the very people who led two successful uprisings against despotic presidents.

They shout parliamentarism and federalism. Again, these measures are spoils sold by the fascist Ramos to woo local warlords in the countryside in supporting the Cha-Cha measure. Besides, in a parliamentary form of government, there are no term limits for the members of parliament. So Noynoy Aquino will forever be the MP of Tarlac, so will the Duranos and Garcias of Cebu, the Dutertes of Davao, the Singsons and Marcoses of Ilocos, the Dimaporos of Mindanao, the Dys of Isabela and all the other landlord-comprador politicians in the reactionary Congress.

Warlordism and feudal political domination will persist. Bureaucrat-capitalism will have reached its finest hour as the best MP lapdog of US Imperialism will be the PM for life as he will forever kowtow to the interests of foreign capital, and the landlords in the countryside who wield the power to the vote of no confidence against him, in the event he decides to go against the whims and caprices of the imperialist and the comprador ruling class.

The sectoral representation of the marginalized we all dream of will soon be a pipe dream. At its worse, it could lead to the abolition of the partylist system - the singlemost effective voice of the people in a ruling class-dominated Congress, and demonized as entrypoints for communists to power.

Federalism is no better. They shout that Visayas and Mindanao are left behind against the development of Luzon. It diverts the point that it is the entire country, and the entire toiling masses that are left behind regardless of their location, in the countryside nor in the cities, as the ruling class isstill the one who benefit from this semi-feudal economy of cheap exports and influx of surplus imports that permits this extent of poverty and underdevelopment.

Besides, how do you expect the state of Samar-Leyte and others to take off economically as effectively as the Cebu or Davao state in the future? It will only heighten the contradictions in the countryside, as the people in the most depressed of areas in the country will forever be bound to the fields that they toil but do not own. The prospects are far more disastrous than what what we have at present.

And as with parliamentarism, warlordism, patronage politics and bureaucrat capitalism will have its field day as soon as federalism exists as there would never be a need to answer to the federal government on accounts of political repression such as militarization in the countryside and supression of basic rights such as rights to education, among others.

As they blur the debate on political issues on the Charter amendments, the reactionary elite is also scheming to change the nationalist economic provisions set out in the Charter, which has always angered foreign investors and most importantly, US imperialism. As they have done with the Mining Act of 1995, the 60-40 equity ratio between Filipino and foreign ownership will most definetely be scrapped and also allow foreign private ownership of land.

This definitely contradicts constitutional edicts on national patrimony and disregards decades of people's struggles to expel imperialist economic controls on Philippine laws. As we speak, these equity ratios are not even followed by a lot of transnational companies. This will only serve to legitimize the intensified ransacking of our economy and natural resources. This is in line of course with the neo-liberal globalization policies championed by Ramos during his time.

Ramos is such a great fascist and opportunist. His plans are well-crafted, letting us die and struggle our way, sacrificing lives in order to reverberate our program of systemic change to the people and yet he can posture himself so well and make pretensions that charter change is systemic change. He knows the breaking point in every political crisis and forsees the gains of the revolutionary movement. He has done so in EDSA 1 and many other times. He is at it again.

But what is by far more alarming is the prospect of reactionary efforts to obliterate the national democratic struggle waged across the archipelago. Though the armed struggle will continue snowballing across the countryside, there is a danger of the localization of legal struggles among separate states instead of the people struggling on a national scale with its center at the heart of the national government, as what we do now.

Well, let them bring it on. The broad masses of people will shoot it down at the first glance of reactionary maneuverings, as they have consistently done before and as they do now with the ousting of the current regime.

No to Cha-cha. Oust Gloria.

Once again, the University of the Philippines has reared its fascist head and completely shed its progressive and liberal pretensions as an academic institution.

Gross and Fascist Disrespect to Two Former Regents while in the Exercise of University-Honored Freedom of Expression

On the 27^th of April, during the final phase of the Centennial Commencement Exercises in UP Diliman, two former Student Regents of the University of the Philippines, J.M. Terry L. Ridon (2007 UP SR) and Ken Leonard Ramos (2005 UP SR), were almost mauled and forcibly pushed like common criminals and no-gooders by members of the UP Police Force (UPF) and the UP Diliman Social Services Brigade (SSB) as they were going up the center stage in Quezon Hall to approach former colleagues in the Board of Regents and the UP Administration, while attempting to conclusively seek clearance from the Vice-Chancellor for Community Affairs of UP Diliman (UPD-VCCA) for the coordinated and traditional lightning protest rally seeking to challenge new UP graduates to Serve the People, as per the agreement of former SR Ridon and the VCCA prior to the start of the University Commencement Exercises.

Despite pleas and cries by the former UP SRs to the UPF to recognize their right to attend the convocation of past and present UP System officials during the graduation, the UPF forcibly pushed the two former UP officials away and even grabbed them by their clothing until they were clearly out of the garrison-like security barricade in Quezon Hall. One security official even uttered, “Wala kaming pakialam kung sino pa kayo, basta walang order sa amin, wala kayong karapatan pumasok.” Another also said, “Wala kaming pakialam kung ano pang sabihin ninyo, wala naman kayo sa programa sasali-sali kayo. This the UPF said despite fully knowing the clear orders of the VCCA to allow at least four student leaders to unfurl the Serve the People banner on the bridgeway of Quezon Hall.

The UPF, the SSB, and the central organizers of the UPD Commencement Exercises are clearly in bad faith for this gross disrespect to two former UP System officials that served the University in the best way they can during their respective terms, notwithstanding being among the members of the Board of Regents who have clearly stood for better benefits of SSB members, and better pay for UPF officers. All of these things apparently were of no import to the organizers, particularly the UPF and the SSB, as they treated the former Regents as if they were rioting no-gooders. Clearly, none of the two acted such, and they came neatly dressed in a barong and polo, ready to face former colleagues and impart to fellow students the unstated wisdom of the need to serve the country at a time of crisis. The organizers and UP security officers even conveniently forgot that former Regents join the Graduation Processional and have a place in the center stage. More so, even if former SR Ridon invoked the clearance gave by the Office of the VCCA and despite providing information that the UP President herself knows the former UP Student Regents’ attendance in the graduation, the UP security officers continued to forcibly push the former Regents away from the center stage while hurling invectives similar to those stated above.

Moreover, the two former Regents clearly stated their intentions to the UP Administration prior to the Commencement Exercises that there shall be no attempts to disrupt the program, to the extent that they even asked that the lightning protest be seamlessly integrated into the graduation program. However, the UP Administration clearly reneged on its word to the former UP SRs who volunteered to unfurl the banners to avoid unexpected inconveniences with graduation organizers, believing that fundamental respect would still be accorded them as former UP System officials.

What is most surprising in all of these is the clear attempt by graduation organizers, particularly the UPF and the SSB, to wantonly break the agreement between the VCCA and former UP SR Ridon, even as they perfectly knew the order from the VCCA to allow a maximum of eight student leaders to unfurl their banner.

Unstated Fascist University Policy on Dissent is the Main Issue

In all of these, accountability for this gross disrespect to former UP officials lies not only on the shoulders of particular officers of the SSB, UPF and graduation organizers. Full accountability lies on the doorsteps of the UP Administration itself, for its unstated policy of effectively dismantling dissent from students, faculty, staff, among other sectors, even if they be former Student Regents, co-equal student representatives of the UP President in the highest policy-making bodies of the University.

No one forgets how the microphone of the former UP SR was turned off while addressing freshman students on the anti-student impacts of the tuition increase during the June 2007 Freshman Orientation at the UP Theater. During the 2007 UP Lantern Parade, the speech of a former USC Councilor was forcibly cut short for sharply integrating the need of celebrating the spirit of Christmas while confronting commercialization issues. Student leaders and activists were all unceremoniously harangued, pushed, and punched by UP security forces such as the SSB and the UPF during these University events.

On the other hand, it has also been these UP security forces that have been involved in UP-ordered demolitions of underlying urban poor communities at the periphery of UPD’s academic core zone, in pursuit of an anti-people UP policy to clear the University of urban blight. Lastly, it has also been these UP security forces through UP Administration orders that have forcibly and bloodily dismantled the picket of illegally dismissed utility workers by Care Best agency, all of which have led to numerous injuries, including former USC Chairperson Juan Paolo Alfonso.

It is precisely these instances and direct orders of force from high officials of the University Administration which has emboldened our very own security forces to act as if they are security forces of the Arroyo administration when they deal with dissenting members and communities of the University. Lest we forget, the UPF and the SSB’s mandate amounts merely to maintaining peace and order, without infringing on clear and time-honored political and civil rights of members in a university purporting to advocate academic freedom.

In the events stated above, most especially the unfortunate incident involving former UP Regents, we submit that there is a clear transgression of such a mandate. By these acts, the differentiation between rabid Arroyo security forces and aging and well-loved UP security officers shall have blurred, and political repression outside UP shall now have seeped into an academic community supposedly comprised of freedom and democracy-loving persons, by the very policies of our own UP Administration. Only by changing its unstated fascist policy on dissenting members of the academic community can we fully expect a return to its supposedly democratic ideals.

The Demand for a Public Apology and the Relief of Directly Erring Officers

Given all these, the two former Student Regents and the Office of the Student Regent unequivocally demand a formal public apology from UP System and UP Diliman officials for grossly disrespecting the persons of former UP Board of Regents members and assaulting the dignity and integrity of the Office of the Student Regent which facilitated the agreement between the VCCA and the protest rally organizers. By reneging on the agreement to allow the unfurling banners and almost mauling former UP system officials, the Office of the Student Regent’s integrity as the highest student representation in the University shall have been blemished and rendered nugatory for all to disrespect.

We wish to remind the UP Administration that even if we are mere students of this University, we are still former Regents who have fully served the University. More so, the Office which we once represented embody the protracted struggle of the Iskolars ng Bayan to defend their democratic rights, inside or outside UP. The UP security forces may push us all they want, and harangue our persons, but we shall never allow the one of the most cherished UP student institution we once represented to be disrespected like such. If we allow UP to browbeat and intimidate UP Student Regents, shall we then presume that crueler treatment awaits the ordinary UP student?

On the other hand, we demand the immediate relief upon investigation of all directly involved UP security officers in the April 27^th incident with the former UP Student Regents. They must be made to pay the price for their arrogance, gross disrespect to former UP officials, and most importantly, defying a clear order from the VCCA to allow student leaders, former UP SRS, to unfurl banners as part of the lightning protest during the commencement exercises. There is no defense to their insubordination and arrogance, as the former UP Regents were clearly within their rights to enter the center stage and approach the VCCA to seek conclusive clearance for the unfurling of the Serve the People banner. By preventing the unfurling of the banner at the bridgeway of Quezon Hall, the graduation organizers and the UP security officials have successfully frustrated the students’ exercise of their right to free expression, as per agreement with the VCCA.

The University of the Philippines has always been proud of its democratic traditions. With the event above, all these seems to have been completely dismantled. We sincerely hope that the UP Administration does its part in reassuring our former Student Regents, the student institutions they once represented, and the Iskolars ng Bayan in general, that the UP is still the bastion of free thinking, expression and critical dissent.

Ken Leonard Ramos J.M. Terry L. Ridon

2005 UP Student Regent 2007 UP Student Regent

Terry Ridon: theyre confusing price controls of recent past with reasonable price controls, as though the answer to the crisis would decisively be price controls per se.

Terry Ridon: nonetheless, we have to state clearly that price controls, while effective, is not the magic bullet answer, but it shall always be a long-term shift in agricultural policy, where government conclusively directs the phase of development of the productive forces in Philippine agriculture.

Terry Ridon: the price control we speak of, is reasonable and policy-engaged, where determination of the true price of rice is not dependent on the mere say-so of rice traders but based on government-intervened research and comprehensive consultation with stakeholders, particularly the peasant and the consuming public.

Terry Ridon: stating these, we still believe that moderated price controls on rice, particularly for the consumption of lower-income classes are imperative in the face of continuing sharp increases in the price of rice. clearly, to allow the market itself to ultimately determine the price would cause greater harm than the alarmist chants of neoliberals of impending government collapse with price controls

Terry Ridon: by chanting their alarmist dispositions, the neoliberals fail to point one important fact in the collapse of price controls of years past - the failure of governments to implement deep-seated economic reforms, in general, and in agricultural policy, in particular.

Terry Ridon: lastly, among the big steps forward in struggling against the entire crisis would be:

1) a complete rechanneling of defense spending, PDAF to agriculture and basic social services, 2) a petition for debt relief to multi-lateral and bilateral funding agencies given the extraordinary situation the country and other states in the third world face, 3) the immediate passage of the genuine AR bill in replacement of the CARP, 4) a suspension of VAT on rice, oil and other foodstuffs without abolishing the need for rice quotas

Terry Ridon: in the final analysis, however, primary responsibility for this crisis shall always fall in the doorsteps of Malacanang, for continuously implementing a failed policy in agriculture, where the DA and the DAR themselves are complicit in the conversion of thousands of hectares of ricelands into cash crop areas and real estate properties, such as industrial parks, golf courses and subdivisions. lest we forget, instead of a full-concentration of efforts in averting the sharp rise in rice prices, the current administration prior to the full explosion of this crisis has been busy dipping its hands into multi-billion corruption scandals such as the ZTE Broadband and Cybereducation deals.

Terry Ridon: given these, while we sincerely believe that comprehensive policy reform is needed for the people to conclusively confront this crisis, we believe that it is not this government that shall make it so, as it seems to be more interested in receiving good media mileage of raids on unseen rice hoarders than actually confronting its failed policies head on. as such, the prospect of forcibly ousting this regime for its remains a viable option, adding to its already long list of crimes against the people in its seven years in power.

Terry Ridon: if we marched as a people against corruption these past few months, all the more must we rage against this government's ineptitude in confronting this crisis of much agricultural irony.

Terry Ridon: there was a time when rice was as abundant as water, as the soil from which it sprang. soon, it might be more expensive than the dollar exchange rate and the petrol that powers trucks and jeepneys.

Terry Ridon: and no, i will not eat kamote.

Terry Ridon: but i will oust this president for all of these.

At around 830pm, on the 29th of March, posh households in Metro Manila turned off the lights in their mansions in response to the Department of Energy's pretentious Earth Hour campaign, supposedly to increase awareness on global.

JM, apparently, unmindful of such a campaign calls up Carlos' mobile.

JM: Hey bro, what's up? Let's have coffee tonight.

Carlos: I can't, I'm with my family, observing Earth Hour. We turned out our lights tonight, to spread word on Global Warming, ala Al Gore.

JM: Oh. That's great, doing your bit for the environment. It must be hot in your place tonight though.

Carlos: Not at all bro, coz the centralized airconditioning's turned on as always.

There goes your little bit of saving energy for Mother Earth! Congrats on a failed and pretentious undertaking!

While on their way to the supermarket on the 29th of March, Joma's mom told him,

"Hey Joma, you better stop rubbing elbows with the Commies. If they catch you with them, you're good as dead."

Mama's boy Joma slightly squirmed and shook his head, as if to assert that he's not doing any subversive evil deed.

Joma's mom then uttered, "By the way, its the founding of the Communist Party today right? Oh dear, you better focus more on your English teaching than..."

And in a rapid-fire AK-47 reply , Joma blurted, "No, it's not today, it's just the founding of the NPA!"

there is a fundamental importance on taking pictures of subjects most people wont exactly photograph.

by taking their pictures and showing it to the world, we are not actually trivializing their plight into a mere UNICEF postcard.

better yet, it is through our pictures that we best articulate the deepest longings of a democratic society, that there is much more that needs to be done instead of palliative measures to solve poverty.

with photos, let our hearts bleed with the grim and gritty reality of their situation. at the very least we bled, instead of turning a blind eye to the reality of it all.

lastly, though, when we do take these kinds of pictures, the general framework should never be, "ill shoot the image because they look pretty in their poverty."

rather, it ought to be, "ill shoot this image because their poverty is not at all pretty."

In Mackubins Thomas Owens’ article, Realism, Iraq and the Bush Doctrine, a clarification was given insofar as realist theory is concerned in the context of the publication of the Iraqi Study Group report which recommended that the United States find common grounds with Iran and Syria in ensuring political stability in Iraq and the entire Middle East as well. Prior to a discussion on the main points of the article, Owens clearly delineated realist theory and its variants, where realism takes primacy on the importance of power and military security in international affairs. Most important of these variants are the structural realists that contend that since states have no common superior, they are the primary determinants for their own security needs, in which at the end of the day, states shall take steps necessary for its survival.

Nonetheless, the wide-ranging criticism on the Bush Doctrine, even from the ranks of the traditional realists is due to the possibility of an anti-hegemonic balancing act by other states in response to its exercise of military might. Nothing of this sort has occurred in the last few years of American occupation in Iraq, which leads us to surmise that the occupation in itself by the Americans is seen as consistent with the interests of other international state actors. On the other hand, realists seemed to fail to distinguish between the United States and other states that does not share the former’s brand of liberal democracy, as the issues of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism are far more pressing issues to consider and resolve than the need to repudiate Bush’s so-called neoconservative doctrine. Some realists are also erred in asserting that American foreign policy is being compromised in favor of Israeli foreign policy. This assertion is very far-fetched and denigrates from the very concept of realism which relies exclusively on the international balance of power in its foreign policy decisions.

In all of these, a discussion now of the much maligned theory of neo-conservatism is paramount in discussing the flaws of realism in assessing the problems in Iraq and the current international balance of power. Neo-conservatives do not simply assess the international balance of power on its face, but analyze the internal workings of regimes across the globe as well, notwithstanding the necessity of articulating the deepest values of a liberal democracy in one’s foreign policy. Actually, the Bush doctrine is even a variant of realism as its role as the world’s current hegemonic power holds the peace and prosperity in the world in place as it is seen as a power that provides the world with collective economic stability and international security. It has also been said that if the hegemonic stability of the world is disrupted, the more dangerous it shall be for the world, deriving from the historical lessons of the disintegration of the hegemonic power of Britain a century ago that has led to economic depressions and world wars. It must not be misconstrued though that American hegemonic power is a go-it-alone approach that ignores international institutions and intimidates both friends and allies, among others. American foreign policy carries with it a benevolent principle that US power is good not only for itself but for the rest of the world, harping on the familiar line that the US can only be secure once the rest of the world is secure. More so, the American goal of expanding democracy around the world is consistent with the principle that the security of a state is more enhanced if it is surrounded by other states with similar principles, interests and goals. President Bush himself said that America will always be more secure when freedom is on the march than on retreat.

One of the most important facets of constitutionalism is the concept of judicial review, as it is the procedure that determines the legality or illegality of the decision-making process utilized by persons given delegated authority by parliament, among others. In states with written constitutions and well-entrenched concepts of constitutional supremacy, judicial review is accorded much power and reverence as it can invalidate even acts of its own parliament or legislature. It is not so in the United Kingdom, as the Acts of Parliament are conclusive upon the courts, due to the concept of parliamentary supremacy. Courts can only review acts of delegated authority such as bye-laws that were passed and implemented by local authorities in pursuit of a more general act of Congress. If these bye-laws are inconsistent with parent act of Congress, the courts can strike these down and render them void. More so, the acts of public institutions may also be reviewed if they act in excess of its jurisdiction or powers. Insofar as the rule of law is concerned, the concept of judicial review comes to the fore due to the inherent distrust of the discretionary powers of government especially possible arbitrary acts which may be detrimental in the protection of the rights of the people. A mechanism such as judicial review must exist for this purpose. On the other hand, judicial review is indispensable in the separation of powers as it serves as a check on the powers of the executive branch insofar as its delegated authority is concerned. If the executive oversteps the bounds of delegated authority from parliament, the judiciary has the power to strike these acts down. In the exercise of the court’s power of judicial review, there are certain requirements which parties must conform to in order to avail of this remedy such as the requisites that the complained act arises from delegated authority by a statute, the necessity that the complained parties be public institutions, and the existence of a governmental interest in the decision-making power in question.

There are two steps in procedure of judicial review – the permission stage and the substantive hearing stage. There are also time restrictions such as the need for the complaint to be filed within three months after the grounds for claiming judicial review arose, notwithstanding the importance of possessing sufficient locus standi to pursue the case at hand. The remedies then that are available to claimants are in the form of petitions for mandamus, certiorari and prohibition which can all compel the public bodies complained by injured parties to follow the orders of the court when a favorable decision is given.

However, Acts of Parliament sometimes incorporates ouster clauses to shield delegated authority from the purview of judicial review. This practice has always been held as objectionable to the rule of law and usurps the powers of the courts, erroneously premised on the point that judicial review inconveniences government. Nonetheless, even if such ouster clauses exist, the courts are not precluded from exercising their authority of review. One of the more recent controversies on this is on the immigration system, with critics asserting that illegal immigrants shall abuse the law with their applications for review on their cases. Fortunately this part of the bill was struck down.

On the other hand, the most important requisite for judicial review is the possession of locus standi by the injured parties, and the test has always been the necessity of a claimant having sufficient interest in the resolution of the controversy. The claims may be asserted when individual rights are affected, notwithstanding the capacity of groups to assert the claims of its individual members. In the permission stage, the court may already strike down a claim if it is shown that clearly, no sufficient interest lies, but the court may also do so during substantive hearing if the court is not conclusively convinced that the requisite standing is present. In recent cases, standing was liberally construed in favor of persons or groups that do not exactly possess sufficient interest but were merely asserting a public right, such as a taxpayer’s suit, among others, because the merits of the cases were seen as far more important a consideration than a conclusive determination of the standing of claimants.

As the United Kingdom does not possess a written constitution unlike other states, it has been Parliament that has always been regarded as bearing supreme authority insofar as statutes and laws are concerned. With no written constitution, there is nothing that subsequent statutes can conform itself with save for the exercise of the authority of Parliament in the crafting of its laws.

Parliamentary Supremacy has three main elements - Parliament can make any law whatsoever and no body or court of law can question an Act of Parliament, no Parliament can bind either itself or its successors, and no limit can be placed on the territorial extent of Acts of Parliament. The first of these elements is more popularly known as the Enrolled Bill doctrine. It simply states that all the judiciary can ever do insofar as statutes of Parliament are concerned is to parse through the Parliamentary Roll and nothing more, as the judiciary must afford fundamental respect and conclusiveness over the acts of Parliament, especially the process by which statutes were passed. The second main element is better known as the implied repeal rule which simply states that subsequent Parliaments can expressly or impliedly repeal previous statutes made by present and past Parliaments as subsequent parliaments possess the same powers and authority of all prior parliaments in existence. More so, the implied repeal rule also shows that past Parliaments cannot restrain future parliaments from exercising their authority of legislation. The last main element is known as the territorial extent doctrine which asserts that parliament can enact statutes that are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United Kindom, such as the High-jacking Act of 1982, in which hi-jacking is punished even if it be committed outside the territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

However, the Manner and Form Thesis has come to challenge this traditional view of parliamentary supremacy, as some limitations on this exist, such as when the law require a certain procedure in order that previously enacted statutes may be changed. One good example of this is the requirement of a referendum among the people of Northern Ireland insofar as some of its territories are concerned. The Manner and Form thesis clearly delineates the boundaries in which the courts may intervene and even invalidate acts of the legislature such as those regarding procedure and composition but never on the area of its exercise of power. More so, it has been said that its power to change the law includes the power to change the law affecting itself because the legal sovereign herself may impose legal restrictions upon its acts. However, for as long as the enrolled bill doctrine is in effect and recognized both by Parliament and the courts of law, a big stumbling block exists that precludes the recognition of this view into legal contemplation.

On the other hand, a further challenge to the Supremacy of Parliament has been the legal effects of the European Community Law which is incorporated in to the UK legal system through the European Communities Act 1972, and asserted in case law through Mccarthys v Smith (1979) 3 All ER 325 that views that Treaty above as not only an aid in statutory construction and legal implementation but as having the force of law which must be given priority over and above national laws. Of important note are the Factortame cases which gave the distinction as what kinds of repeals parliament can make insofar as treaties are concerned. It was shown in these cases that parliament cannot simply impliedly repeal acts which tend to conflict with the international treaty signed by the UK but may do so if the repeal is express. In one case, a statute was actually disapplied though not invalidated for its failure to conform to the international treaty.

In all of these, confusion does exist as to which approach must be used insofar as parliamentary supremacy is concerned. The Factortame cases, though, are the most plausible and realistic in application as it clearly categorizes the kinds of statutes which may only be expressly or impliedly repealed, unlike in the traditional view that all statutes may be impliedly repealed even without qualifications. This distinction is very important because it recognizes a hierarchy of law that exists in the UK legal system.

There are two main approaches to defining a constitution – the concrete definition and the abstract definition. The concrete definition approach refers to a written set of rules a state adopts which defines the roles and functions of government, the rights of the people against the power of the state, among others. This type includes the Constitution of the United States of America, which was ratified by the end of the 18^th century. Many states of the world adopted this form of written constitution to articulate the powers of their governments and the rights of their people, such as the present Iraqi government and the Republic of the Philippines. On the other hand, the abstract definition approach recognizes states such as the United Kingdom to possess its own constitution even if no written type exists, as it has rules which ‘establish and regulate or govern the government’ and deal with the relationship between the State and citizens, such as the Representation of the Peoples Act 2000. However, there are vehement objections from the likes of intellectuals such as Paine and Ridley that the UK has no constitution. Ridley asserts that a constitution is established by the people themselves and not presumed to exist, thus, the UK only possesses only a system of government with a set of rules and never a constitution. On the other hand, Paine views the existence of the British government without a constitution as power without a right as no limit on governmental power exists.

Nonetheless, a way out of this debate is to focus more on the purposes of a constitution rather than on its form. Jefferson best articulated these purposes, which includes the allocation and limitation of powers of government, the articulation of moral democratic principles of society and the accordance of government to democratic principles. As such, if these are the benchmarks that we shall use in determining as to whether or not the UK has a constitution, sources of constitutional exist that would show that a constitution does exist in UK such as statutes, common law, conventions, treaties, and even the Royal Prerogative. Concretely, these include Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, Race Relations Act 1976, the landmark case of M v Home Office ([1994] 1 AC 377), among many other laws and cases which subscribe to the Jeffersonian notion of the purposes of constitution.

However, there is still a debate as to whether the sum of all these statutes and sources of constitutional rules taken together can be considered as conclusive enough to say that a constitution exists in UK, especially when one of the fundamental requisites of a constitution is the consent of the people and the establishment of the people of a constitutional government. Prima facie, though, especially with all the statutes that seemingly conform to the Jeffersonian purposes of a constitution, it can somehow be said that the UK does possess a constitution. However, if the question is related to Paine’s assertion that a government without a constitution operates without a right, the answer would be in the negative. For as long as the UK does not possess a written constitution that clearly delineates the powers of government and the rights of the people, no constitution exists in UK as the existence of a constitution requires a positive act on the part of the people and never presumed to exist on the basis of the presence of laws and cases that seem to pertain to its existence.

This oft-quoted statement is a testament as to how diverse a society’s perception of historical figures can be. Different world leaders, especially revolutionaries are often portrayed in different respects, according to the ideological prism one uses to analyze the life of the world’s greatest men and women. Mao Zedong, for example, will always be remembered by the majority of the Chinese population who lived through the years prior to the 1949 Chinese revolution as the leader of a people’s movement that liberated Chinese society from a semi-feudal and semi-colonial system ruled by bourgeois compradors and big landowners under the auspices of foreign imperialism. He is also remembered by some sections of Chinese society as a ruthless dictator who insisted on an experimental utopian social system that led to the deaths of millions of his people due to hunger and famine. In contemporary history, on the other hand, Arab nationalists and anti-imperialists view the legacy of Saddam Hussein as a triumph of the repudiation of American intrusion into Arab soil, while American conservatives view his reign of terror as one of the most dastardly regimes the world has seen in the last fifty years. Nonetheless, it is this historical ambivalence that the life of Michael Collins as an Irish revolutionary shall be analyzed in this paper, especially on questions as to whether he can be considered a villain or a patriot.

Michael Collins was an Irish revolutionary who fervently sought the independence of Ireland from the “illegal occupation” of England, and led one of the bloodiest armed struggles against the British Empire. Collins came to the fore during the Easter Rising, which was one of the first attempts for centuries of British rule that militant Irish republicans sought to win Irish independence by force of arms. It must be understood that the armed struggle which was started during the Easter Rising and continued on even by the Irish Republican Army until recent past was a reaction to the timid parliamentary politics that was being espoused by the Irish Parliamentary Party of John Redmond. This party was seen by many militant republicans led by Michael Collins as a capitulating force and utterly incapable of leading the Irish people in the path to independence. As such, the Easter Rising was hatched and implemented by throngs of Irish revolutionaries which sought to grab the reins of political power from the British in the lightning fashion of an urban insurrection by seizing buildings in Dublin and cordon-off the city to surmount a violent counter-attack from British security forces, notwithstanding guerilla attacks at British soldiers – a tactic that was mastered by Collins through his flying columns. As expected, the British forces soon after counter-attacked and they were decisively able to quell the rebellion in a week, with the leading members and cadres of the Irish republican movement arrested and even executed by the British. This foolish tactic of political violence was premised on the theory that the bloodletting of the leaders and members of the republican movement would soon after inspire the struggle of a thousand-fold more people. While this tactic of violence had a definite shock-value both to the British Empire and the Irish public, it was very costly to the Irish republican cause because it lost much of its respected leaders, especially John Connolly, the head of the Irish armed socialist movement that inspired much of the forces to wage armed struggle against the British Empire. In all of these, and even to the events leading to the signing of the Peace treaty between the Ireland and England, Michael Collins can be considered a patriot as he knew at what historic moment the necessity of armed struggle beckons, alongside his other comrades in the Irish republican movement. By supporting the armed struggle, no matter how ill-advised their insurrectionary tactic was, Collins recognized that Irish political power and national sovereignty can never be attained by simply waging a peaceful parliamentary struggle against the British crown, as the Empire will never hand over sovereignty of rich Irish lands on a silver platter. Instead, it must be forcibly taken through violent means. Nonetheless, it is only in Collins’ role prior to the peace treaty that he can be considered a patriot as he capitulated to the might of the British Empire when he acceded to the treaty and abruptly ended hostilities between the warring nations. Many in the radical sections of the Irish Republican Army saw the signing of the treaty and Collin’s support for it as a betrayal of the Irish revolution, especially to the Irish martyrs who only wanted to witness an Ireland that had its people as its sovereign and not the English throne. For this, Collins was assassinated during the Irish Civil War, dying in the same violent manner as the armed struggle he valiantly espoused in the years after the Easter Rising.

On the other hand, it can somehow be said that Collins model of political violence is comparable to the theory of armed struggle by Che Guevara, particularly his foco theory. Che Guevara believed that a single guerilla force, no matter how small, carrying out armed revolution in any country is capable of spreading like wildfire and inspiring the masses to join the revolution. Both of them believed in the necessity of guerilla warfare as the most effective tool at systematically reducing the strength of the enemy, especially an enemy with almost unlimited military resources fighting against a revolutionary movement with meager resources. It must also be said that both revolutionary leaders repudiated the grabbing of political power through an urban insurrection as it opened revolutionary movement and its supporters to the heavy weight of a counter-attack by enemy forces which might be utter detrimental to the revolutionary cause.

In all of these, though, it must be reiterated that despite the faults and failures of Michael Collins, especially when he capitulated to British forces instead of seeing the Irish revolution to its fruition, his life as an Irish patriot and hero can never be discounted. He lived at a concrete historical moment which challenged him and many other Irishmen to stand up against a mighty empire and determine their own destiny as a people.

Works Cited:

1. Castaneda, J. (1998). Comandante: The life and death of Ché Guevara. Vintage Publishing.
2. Fox, R.M. (1943). The History of the Irish Citizen Army. Dublin: James Duffy & Co.
3. Hopkinson, M. Green Against Green, the Irish Civil War, pp.83-87
4. Kostick, Conor & Collins. (2000). The Easter Rising. Dublin: O'Brien Press
5. Townshend, C. (2005). Easter 1916: the Irish rebellion. London: Allen Lane.

The movie An Inconvenient Truth, can never be as effective as a wake-up call to millions of Americans if it were not for the courage of conviction of its main character – former Vice-President Al Gore. The movie’s message is ultimately tied to the manner by which Gore inspired a national grassroots network of Americans that much can be done, no matter how small nor simple, in the war against global warming. This paper shall examine the lengths Al Gore took to send his message to the people of America and the deep-seated changes and prospects which his life-long advocacy fueled and transformed.

Since 2001, Gore has embarked on an educational blitzkrieg of the evil of global warming as to why all governments of the world must come together and act decisively to combat the looming threat not only to mankind but to the existence of life on earth. He lectured in different places – universities, colleges, town halls, theaters – all venues in which Gore can spread the message, inspire people and get them to act together with him in his fight for a better world. He has cut across an entire cross-section of American society in convincing them of the validity of his cause – conservative Christians, liberals, ethnic communities and a host of different diverse groups who otherwise would not have come together unless the fate of humanity is involved. At the center of it all was Al Gore, the defeated presidential aspirant who never lost his spurs despite his tragic loss and even proved to the entire world that a presidential setback can never preclude a good man from serving his people.

Nonetheless, his advocacy is never without intense opposition from an elite section of American society. In a recently concluded congressional hearing, Al Gore was again taken for granted by senior Republican congressmen who obviously had in their objectives the debunking of his premises against global warming by using ad hominem attacks and using argumentation fallacies to bring Al Gore and his advocacy to a corner. They kept on saying that the scientific evidence proving global warming is a fraud, despite the massive evidence presented by international scholars during a meeting in Paris a few months back. More so, Al Gore is being portrayed as simply interested in riding the tide of global warming for his own personal interests as he perfectly knew how important a unifying issue it was for a great majority of the American people.

All of these criticisms and lies never stopped Al Gore from continuing on with his struggle and being true to his mission of education the people on the evils of global warming. His film, The Inconvenient Truth, was even given an Academy Award for being the best documentary of 2006, in recognition of his relentless efforts in molding the minds of the American public. He has been able to create a pressure group to lobby Congress to form policies which would protect the earth from further heating up, and restrict industries from over-producing toxic fumes that would soon enough contribute to the heating process of the earth.

On the other hand, his advocacy of awareness on global warming has also tacitly compelled much of the world to heed his call to lessen carbon emissions and has tacitly given much credence to the global trend of states to phase-out CFCs in industrial, commercial and residential uses, except for products utilized for medicinal purposes, among others. Greater awareness of the issue has even led to the ratification of scores of states of the Kyoto Protocol, save for the United States, which has a powerful lobby that pressures and restrains the American government from fostering and consolidating environmental unity with the world. Nonetheless, as signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, the signatory states are obliged to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases in a given length of time. While much of the industrialized world and even emerging economies have yet to follow the provisions of the Protocol strictly, its ratification and implementation is a good sign that the international community already recognizes the imminent global problem if not enough steps are taken by state actors in the soonest possible time.

However, there is no better indication that his campaign against global warming has taken the high road than the recently released UN Report on Global Warming which blamed much of the world’s heating on human activities which may seem to possess merely localized effects at first but contains environmental repercussions in a global scale, such as the melting of the ice caps and glaciers. This report underscores the truth of what Al Gore has been saying since his early years as a young statesman. If the world continues to immerse itself in a state of denial on the issue, the effects of the heating of the world has dire consequences, such as changing climate patterns and more environmental disasters.

In all of these, it is clear the movie concretely chronicled how deep Vice-President Gore’s campaign and struggle has become, not only for the American people but to the world. His work has inspired a better understanding of the issue and has even led the international community to stand at attention. Without the political pressure that his campaign and movement created, no scientific study on global warming in the magnitude as the UN Paris report above could ever had come about, especially in the light of counter-assertions by developed states against the veracity of the claims of global heating. With this, the work of the movie and the man is halfway done.

Recently, both Houses of Congress initiated legislation on the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq by March 2008. With the majority of representatives in the House and the Senate coming from the Democratic Party, it is expected that the legislation will pass, subject only to veto powers of the US President, as part of the system of checks and balances in government. Publicly, President George W. Bush berated the legislature for their obstinacy in opposing his administration’s policy in Iraq and had already threatened to truly exercise his executive powers and send the legislation to the dustbin of history. If he does veto the legislation, the Democrat-led majority in Congress will only have achieved a symbolic victory, as their numbers are not enough to overturn the expected veto of the proposed legislation. Predictably, the political conflict on the war in Iraq will only further escalate the political bickering of both branches of government and increasing the polarization of American society. On the other hand, the issue as to whether or not American troops must leave Iraq in the soonest possible time has been the subject of intense debates from all sides of the political spectrum and American society since the war in Iraq reached its fourth year last month, that the final outcome of the executive-legislative standoff is pivotal in tipping the balance of support for the continuing war in Iraq. In discussing the complex issues on the withdrawal bill, the paper shall examine newspaper editorials critique the broadsheets comments regarding the policy proposals to obtain an understanding of the political economic issues involved with regard to governmental economic policy in general, notwithstanding gaining a sense of the deep public opinion that has hounded this fiscal aspect of the war in Iraq.

The Contextual Backdrop – Iraq Enters its Fifth Year

The Washington Post editorial gave a balanced analysis of the past few years of American occupation in Iraq. While it criticized much the way the plans for reconstruction were executed, it still held optimistic views on how the United States can get out of the current impasse and struggle forth against growing international criticism for the war. Aside from this it as great that the editorial recognized not simply the failures of the American troops but also the marked contradictions between the Americans and the Iraqi people even prior to the invasion as it said that the United States is still paying the price for its betrayal of Shiites and Kurds during the Persian Gulf War against Iran, where the United States tacitly colluded with Saddam in the bloody war against the Islamists of Iran. More so, there is also a critical analysis that the failure of diplomacy is never a sufficient argument to start a war. It can be remembered that the March 2003 invasion seemed like a knee-jerk reaction to the failure of negotiations between Iraq and the international community. Yet, the United States government, despite international condemnation through the United Nations insisted on going ahead with the invasion. As a result, it proved very difficult for the United States to rally international support due to its strident attempt at unilateralism instead of consolidating and convincing the world on the legitimacy of the war. The discourse on the failure of second-guessing the Iraqi people is relevant as well because the violence of the past few years have shown that the forced transplantation of Western-style democracy in a country rife with tribal and clannish wars can never be feasible despite international support and American resources at all fronts. It perhaps seemed clear now how impossible it was to institute a democratic government in the context of the creation and reproduction of regional warlords with religious undertones. More so, the editorial also scathingly reviews the grand deception of the Bush administration when it presented its case to Congress and to the world, as up to now not a single weapon of mass destruction has been found. For all of these faults by the Bush administration, the editorial does not stand simply to oppose the war and demand the pullout of troops, as it recognizes how responsible the United States is for the current surge of violence in Iraq that it cannot simply turn its back and leave. It understands that calling for a US troop pullout per se will never solve the woes of the Iraqi people nor lessen US accountability. As such, it supports all the efforts by different interest groups from all sectors and sides of the political spectrum to continue securing Iraq while gradually diminishing US troops in Iraq.

The Troop Withdrawal Bill and Public Opinion

The San Jose Mercury News has been very straight forward in its analysis of the conflict between the Bush administration and the Democrat-controlled Houses of Congress, “Congress should continue to call the president's bluff: no withdrawal plan, no new money for the war.” It sternly critiques the tough-guy Iraqi policy of the Bush administration for deviating from the sound military advice of his generals and even the bipartisan Iraqi Study Group to set a definite deadline for troop withdrawal, notwithstanding presenting the solid data in Iraq that legitimizes the growing call to finally pull out the troops, such as the immense loss of American and Iraqi lives, the costly $350 billion military spending, the displacement of millions of Iraqis, and the unrealistic goal of imposing peace and democracy. The editorial above is absolutely correct in asserting that Congress must continue calling the bluff of the President because it ensures that Congress will continue wielding the upper hand in the negotiations on the entire issue of the war, even if the President is the commander-in-chief. The power of the purse of Congress is an all important component in American democracy’s system of checks and balances that even the most powerful man in the world must recognize its authority, especially if he seeks the support of a coequal branch of government for funding his war. By calling the bluff, Congress can decisively pressure the government to accede to its demands of a troop pullout as vetoing the bill would be foolish because it would also mean vetoing the budget appropriations for the war. In this situation, the hands of the President are tied to the demands of Congress which President Bush must diplomatically resolve instead of unilaterally insisting on his plans without Congress approval. More so, the situation in Iraq and the weakening security situation in the United States should provide enough backdrop for the President to clearly rethink his position and work on a lasting solution to the crisis between branches of government but to decisively resolve the Iraqi question.

The Sacramento Bee editorial affirms and further articulates the statement of the San Jose Mercury News on the necessity of Congress’ assertions for a schedule for the withdrawal of the troops as part of the increased military spending on the Iraq war, as the Democrat-led Congress was only reflecting the increasing anti-war sentiments of the American people who decisively voted the Democrats into office. The editorial describes the political stalemate between the President and Congress as the opportunity to force both branches of government to veer away from very extreme demands such as immediate or no troop withdrawals. It also gives the Bush administration a chance of letting Gen. Petraus deliver results in improving the security situation of the Iraqi people and the US troops stationed there, especially in hotbed areas of sectarian violence and insurgency. Nonetheless, it affirms the Bush administration’s policy of engaging its regional allies in the Middle East to help the United States resolve the Iraqi question, as part of the implementation of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and to stem the growing international criticism of unilateral American policy on reconstruction and development of the war-torn nation. The Sacramento Bee editorial added another dimension in the political economic factors that determine the current tussle between the Bush administration and the US Congress – the utter need of support by different states, especially regional allies in the Middle East. This can also be used as another bargaining chip by the US Congress to definitely pressure the Bush administration to accede to its demands, especially when these efforts by top executive officials led by the Secretary of State can be viewed merely as an afterthought as a result of the international flak the Bush administration has been receiving for its unilateralist foreign policy.

Final Call’s editorial, on the other hand, is an outright repudiation of both branches of government in the thick of conflict. It berates President Bush for continuing on with the war based on false intelligence and without consideration for the tremendous toll on US economic resources and American lives. It also castigates the Democrat-led US Congress for not doing enough in ensuring that the US troops in Iraq would go home immediately, asserting that the reason why American voters sent them to Congress is not to extend the war but to end the war as soon as possible. The editorial rejects even the one-year deadline set by the leading Democrats in Congress as it contained numerous loopholes that could even extend the war past the set deadline, and it even surmised that perhaps the basis for the seeming feet-dragging of Democrats on the immediate troop withdrawal has been the insertion of $25 million pork barrel funds for their use in their local districts, notwithstanding the political pressure from Republican counterparts for being weak on the defense of the American people. While this publication appears to toe the radical line of immediate troop withdrawal unlike the centrist-liberal positions of the previous editorials, it nonetheless presents a realistic picture of the current state of American politics today, in the context of how Congress acts especially when pork barrel funds are concerned. In many parliaments and congresses around the world, the congressional pork barrel has always been the source of much corruption and internal arrangements between political parties in securing concessions from each other. It is remarkable that Final Call’s editorial raised this possibility, as insertions of pork barrel provisions into bills of national importance raises questions on the sincerity of congressional leaders in truly responding to the people’s demand to withdraw the troops in Iraq.

In the Christian Science Monitor’s article on the troop withdrawal bill, it highlighted the questions by Republican representative in both Houses of Congress and anti-pork barrel watchdogs on the propriety of add-ons which are non-defense related, to the extent that a Republican congressman branded these non-defense appropriations a form of bribery to secure support from both Democrats and Republicans to join the congressional bandwagon. However, Democrats in Congress have admitted that their legislation is largely symbolic, as they do not posses the numbers to overturn a presidential veto. Such a veto, though, might be counterproductive, as it would also mean the veto of the budget bill in its entirety. On the other hand, the article is unique as it presents another dimension on the political economic factors that determine the decisions of Congress and the President – the swinging public opinion. Both branches of government are also relying on public opinion, as it is the single-most potent instrument in forcing a branch of government to submit, especially when hundreds of thousands of Americans start trooping to the streets demanding an immediate or gradual troop withdrawal. Nonetheless, the Democrats feel that public opinion is on their side on the matter, as evidenced by their win in the polls which was assessed as the stinging repudiation of President Bush’s waning Iraq policy.

In all of these, it is clear that the outcome of the decisions of both branches of government and the prospective resolution to the crisis are largely dependent on different factors other than the premises of the Iraq war itself and the party lines that the Democrats and Republicans draw. As stated above, it is also dependent on international support and concern, parochial interests such as the non-defense add-ons through pork barrel, and ultimately, American public opinion on the state of the Iraq war. Nonetheless, it is absolutely imperative now that the Bush administration and the Democrat-led Congress find a workable compromise on the issue with troop withdrawal as a non-negotiable segment in the compromise agreement. Congress tight leash on the purse of government is also pivotal in ensuring that the executive branch will be compelled to listen despite the latter’s immense powers. In the ultimate analysis, though, it must be clear to both branches of government that a way above their political bickering is essential in the effective resolution of the war, as the American troops deserve no less than a united government in confronting their woes and sending them home.

Works Cited:

1. Chaddock, Gail Russell. “Congress puts its marker on Iraq war, but how big?.” Christian Science Monitor. March 26, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0326/p02s01-uspo.html on April 18, 2007.
2. “Congress right to insist on Iraq withdrawal timeline.” San Jose Mercury News. April 12, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_5648673?nclick_check=1 on April 18, 2007.
3. “Democrats in Congress: Wishy-washy or weak?.” Final Call. April 13, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/printer_3373.shtml on April 18, 2007.
4. “Stalemate over Iraq strategy isn't a bad thing.” The Sacramento Bee. March 25, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/324/v- print/story/143152.html on April 18, 2007.
5. ______________. “Lessons of War: The fighting in Iraq enters its fifth year.”

Washington Post. March 18, 2007.

Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violent struggle against the British Empire was a result of the political situation in India. Prior to World War II, the world has witnessed the rise of the Soviet Union in terms of political and military power. We also saw the rise of popular national liberation movements across the colonized world. In most colonies, the way of gaining independence from Western colonialism has been through the waging of armed revolutions, such as the struggle of the Chinese and the Malaysians, led by Mao Tsetung and Sukarno, respectively. However, such a type of struggle for Indian independence was essentially difficult in Indian society where a strict and clearly defined caste system was in place. The caste system hindered the creation of unity of Indians as a united people while transcending class divisions. More so, divisions between the ranks of the Indian people became more pronounced as fighting between rightist Hindu fundamentalists and left-wing communists never stopped, with both espousing violent means of securing Indian independence. All of these confused the majority of a people who continued to wallow in poverty and desolation. In all of these, Mahatma Gandhi emerged to present an alternative viewpoint, a seeming middle-ground between the pro-people radicalism of the left and the religious conservatism of the right. It was founded on the principle of non-violent struggle. It dismantled all previous ideas that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Gandhi turned the idea of revolution on its head and succeeded in doing so. While a major factor for their triumph was the waning power of the British empire after World War II, their struggle through non-violent means inspired other civil libertarians the world over to give peace and non-violent struggle a chance prior to the taking of arms.

As can be seen from above, Mahatma Gandhi was clearly faced with almost immense tasks, particularly leading the Indian people in the path to independence, despite the power of the British Empire and the ethnic tensions evident in Indian society. At a time when almost the entire colonial peoples of the world were engaged in armed struggle, Gandhi decisively implemented his idea of non-violent struggle to force the British Empire to recognize their demands for sovereignty and independence. He utilized creative forms of protest, such as the non-payment of taxes, peaceful marches to the sea, even if these actions were met with brutal force by British security forces. One of the great things about Gandhi was his ability to present his vision of a free and independent India to the masses in very simple terms which could be clearly understood and grasped. More so, he fully understood that Indian culture was still basically rooted in Hinduism. He believed that the application of foreign theories such as Marxism and nationalism might isolate the independence movement from the vast majority of the people. He was also a very simple man, who embraced the entire cross-section of Indian society, even the so-called untouchables, to the extent of earning the ire of the elite Brahmin caste. As such, his own person was a concrete mobilizing force to move the Indian people into action and determine their destiny. On the other hand, a minor weakness of his leadership was the seeming personality cult that ensued even years after his death. This is shown by the absence of second-liners to continue his work in building a just and peaceful Indian society. While all the mass actions were joined by Indians from different castes, the focus was always primarily on Gandhi’s thoughts and decisions. Such a personality-based leadership, while effective in inspiring people into action, cannot work in the long-term insofar as empowering the people and sustaining the gains of Indian independence. This is due to the lack of a concrete organizational structure to effectively implement the ideas of Gandhi. Lastly, Mahatma seemed to favor speaking in very mystical and vague language, which tends to confuse his followers as to the exact meaning of what he wants to articulate.

Nonetheless, his leadership style was still very effective in mobilizing almost a billion people to demand their independence from the British Empire. Being a charismatic leader, he used his gift of astute yet mystical articulation to convince all sectors of Indian society about the necessity of seeking independence. The clearness of vision and objectives, and the creativity of his means of action of pursuit of these goals, were also indispensable factors of his success in leadership. More so, his propensity for personal sacrifice, at the cost of his life and liberty, in pursuit of his goals are very high on the list of his outstanding leadership qualities. Years of imprisonment and the beatings he received from the British security forces did not deter him from continuing his leadership. This is a crucial part of his leadership style, especially when not many leaders in the world are prepared to do sacrifices like such. Usually, leaders are hidden above their ivory towers and palaces, to the extent of alienating themselves from the people they serve. Gandhi, however, was different, as he was like the common everyman, save that it was his leadership of commitment and sacrifice that helped his people achieve independence.

In terms of my own personal leadership style, I accede to the leadership traits of Gandhi, in terms of his clarity of vision and propensity for sacrifice. In any organization, these are very fundamental because these will determine how the followers will appreciate their role in the organization. If the vision and goals are clear, the followers can quantitatively measure, in a given amount of time, the progress of the organization and their individual development as well, relative to the vision and objectives. It ensures that the organization does not operate in limbo, without any purpose or necessity of existence. Gandhi’s propensity for sacrifice can also be incorporated in my leadership style. It is important for followers to see and realize that the leader himself is willing to lay himself on the line in pursuit of the vision and goals of the organization. Such a leadership trait reassures the followers that the leader is serious about the success and development of the organization and dismantles notions that the leader’s only interest is to make his people follow orders and deliver results. However, my leadership style differs with Gandhi insofar as adopting a pragmatic and realistic view on plans and actions. I would accede more, in this regard, to the Leninist maxim of “concrete analysis of concrete conditions”, instead of the Gandhian mode of relying heavily on a notion of non-violence in the face of difficult odds, as I still contend that the success of Gandhi and his movement was also based on external factors (e.g. British losses after World War II) than his non-violence alone. I even surmise that without the world wars and the decline of the British Empire, his non-violent movement would never have been successful.

Nonetheless, the above mentioned leadership traits of Gandhi are included in my notion of the ideal leader – clarity of vision and goals, and propensity for sacrifice. In analyzing situations and challenges, and making decisions, it must include the Leninist maxim of “concrete analysis of concrete conditions”, without, of course, prejudicing the principles and objectives inherent in the organization. A leader must always seek to create candor and camaraderie among his followers, to drive home the point that no unseen barrier exists between them. More importantly, the leader must always seek ways of empowering his people and training new second liners, based on the idea that leaders, no matter how great they are, will always have to step down and be replaced by new blood. If possible, the leader must shun micro-managing the affairs of the organization, especially when competent persons have been assigned to ensure the success of projects and goals. However, while being democratic and consultative as possible, the leader must exercise full control of the more important decisions of the organization, based on the notion that his experience and vision will always be beneficial for the future of the organization.

Works Cited:

1. Gandhi, M. (1962). Essential Gandhi. Edited by Louis Fischer. New York: Vintage Books.

At present, mobile phones have become an integral and necessary part of American life, which is almost entirely different more than a decade ago, when mobile phones were still considered a luxury by many Americans. Perhaps one of the best evidence of its necessity for every American has been the experience of September the 11^th, when hundreds of mobile phone calls were made, sending messages of love, hope, despair, grief and sadness. On the other hand, the mobile phone industry has already overwhelmingly penetrated the mass market, notwithstanding the seemingly endless production of high-end, high-tech models for the upscale markets. Even in developing countries such as the Philippines, mobiles phones have become an utter necessity, as even landless peasants and urban slum dwellers brandish mid-end mobile phones from Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Motorola, to the extent that sometimes, food on the table is sacrificed to simply ensure that their mobile phones are fully operational. On the other hand, mobile phones are now being used as the catch-all mobile equipment for the cosmopolitan individual, with endless features being introduced in a single phone, such as GPS systems, roadmaps, hi-speed internet access, mp3 players, high-pixel cameras, among many other things which have transformed the mobile phone from a mere communications equipment to the ultimate gadget of the contemporary times. The sleek and chic phones are used everywhere, for as long as the batteries work and a network signal is present, even while driving cars in heavy traffic and on the freeway. As a result, this almost non-stop of the mobile phones has posed new physical and cultural problems which must be re-examined and prevented. This paper will examine these problems in the context of mobile phone use while driving a vehicle and it shall argue for the prohibition of its use in the context given above.

There is no better argument for the prohibition of the use of mobile phones while driving a vehicle than the limitless possibility of vehicular accidents while operating a mobile phone, especially on freeways. This possibility of accidents does not involve only the conventional use of mobile phones during driving, such as voice calling and text messaging, but includes all the other added functions of the contemporary mobile phone, including playing its built-in games, taking pictures, choosing mp3 playlists, among others. In the Republic of the Philippines, the world-renowned text messaging capital of the world, an ordinance is enforced banning the use of mobile phones while driving a vehicle, with heavy fines imposed if found guilty by law enforcement agents, notwithstanding the possibility of full revocation of driving privileges for indefinite periods. According to the Manila Times, a widely respected broadsheet of national circulation, the Metro Manila-wide ordinance was enacted by the different cities and municipalities encompassing the Philippine’s National Capital Region mainly for the public good and order, as thousands of vehicular accidents in the Philippines have identified cell phone usage while driving vehicles as the proximate cause of these accidents (Reyes, 2006). These accidents do not include car-to-car collisions alone, but includes pedestrian deaths and damages to property, particularly government property, that the economic costs of these accidents are to the utter disadvantage of the Filipino public. More so, it is a fundamental idea in driving school that even little distractions to the full concentration of driving a vehicle can lead to unwanted results, as the hand-eye coordination between the wheel and the road is greatly diminished, even if the driver simply pushes a few buttons to access his mp3 playlists. Driving involves split-second decisions which, if interfered with, may lead to violent car crashes and even deaths. These alarming situations have even stirred into action major mobile phone companies such as Nokia, the mobile phone of choice by many Filipinos, to launch information and advocacy campaigns discouraging the use of mobile phones while driving, which was creatively called Phonethics. According to the SME Community Philippines magazine (2006), Nokia Philippines advocated an educational platform to remind the public about the responsible use of cellphones in which the campaign was broadcast in mainstream tri-media and supplemented by road signs along major thoroughfares of key cities nationwide, especially in the light of increasing road accidents, petty crimes and social faux pas attributed to the relentless use of these mobile devices.

Another decisive argument against the use of cellphones while driving is the spawning of culture of over-reliance to mobile gadgets for a wide array of human activity, to the extent that it breeds delinquency and irresponsibility in the guise of greater efficiency of work and communications. While it is true that the advent of mobile phone communications has revolutionized the way people connect with each other, sometimes it is being used as an excuse of failure to perform duties and responsibilities well. A sad yet relevant example is the shocking Virginia Tech massacre that has moved the world into sorrow. While the killings were occurring, the students had absolute access to electronic gadgets such as laptops and mobile phones to communicate to state security forces and media the grim events that were presently happening in their school. It is true that their calls were very important for the quick response of policemen, but such an over-reliance to the speed at which messages can be sent and processed to government agencies, tacitly overlooked the more important necessity of the school having a comprehensive emergency security plan to prevent atrocities of this magnitude from ever occurring.

On a lighter note, it also breeds delinquency and irresponsibility because mobile phone calls while driving are usually done to reassure colleagues, friends, and family members as to their exact location as of the moment, especially when there are scheduled meetings and appointments. If people were more professional and cordial in keeping commitments and promises, such reassurance might not even be needed anymore, thus, saving the person from the economic costs of a voice call, and the physical risks of accidents.

Most importantly, mobile phone use while driving, in whatever form, prospectively endangers the right to life and property, not only of the driver using the mobile phone but also those who may be inconvenienced as a result of vehicular accident that ensues. As such, the state, in the exercise of its police power, has every right to intervene and prohibit its use and enjoyment to promote the public good and welfare of the majority of its citizens and curtail the social evil of vehicular accidents from frequently occurring in the streets of its jurisdiction. The evils as a result of mobile phone use while driving does not only prejudice human life but the general enjoyment of property as well.

In all of these, there is a recognition that the use of mobile phones per se is greatly beneficial to the majority of the population, save for its use while driving a vehicle as the social evil that results from it is too grave to warrant a lenient position from the state and concerned citizens. The technology of mobile phones continues upgrading as every new model is released to the markets of the world, which must be fully supported and encouraged even by the government. However, for as long as no acceptable security features are presently equipped in current mobile phones to stem the loss of concentration while driving, there is no reason whatsoever to continue allowing its use while driving vehicles.

Works Cited:

1. Reyes, C. (2006, August 20). MMDA: Unwelcome do-gooder. The Sunday Times. Retrieved from http://www.manilatimes.net/national/ 2006/aug/20/yehey/top_stories/20060820top4.html on 23 April 2007.

2. Adding Social Value to Your Brand. (2006). SME Community Philippines magazine, Vol. 1 No. 3.

The legal profession is a form of public trust which is given only to those qualified enough to uphold the law and assist in the administration of justice. It is a duty of public service which involves sincerity, integrity and reliability, in which pecuniary considerations are a mere by-product, notwithstanding establishing lawyer-client relationships in the highest degree of fiduciary. The lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics to which the ends of justice are the primary considerations. In rendering legal services to his clients, he must observe utmost fidelity to the cause of his client regardless of his personal beliefs on his client’s guilt or innocence, as even the most guilty of all criminals can still avail of the different protections afforded by the law. Sometimes, though, lawyers are faced with legal complications in providing the most adequate defenses for their clients especially when the latter are found to have deliberately violated the laws of the land. These acts do no include justifying circumstances in criminal prosecutions as these are been deemed lawful when convincingly proven in court. The acts contemplated here are acts which are considered, on its face, patent violations of the law bereft of any legal justification. However, these illegal acts do not preclude the rendering of legal services for the protection of their rights. Among the conditions and circumstances that utterly warrant the defense of illegal acts are those which are challenged based on constitutional issues involving the due process and equal protection clauses, and constitutionally-protected freedoms such as free expression and the right to privacy.

The due process and the equal protection clauses have been two of the most important protections afforded by the US Constitution to the American people to safeguard them from the unwarranted intrusions of government into the free exercise of their democratic rights. As a result, many previously considered violations of the law were overturned by the US Supreme Court for abridging the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution, to the extent that entire statutes were declared unconstitutional and taken off the statute books.

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, two gay couples were charged and convicted for “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex,” (539 U.S. 558) and violating the Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a), which provides that a person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex. The homosexual couple asserted that their conviction was an infringement of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth amendment, in which the majority opinion answered thus –

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Such homosexual acts in the privacy of a person’s home is subsumed in the concept stated above and their autonomy as persons to decide for themselves the concept of their own existence and meaning must be respected by the Court and the law. While convicted in the lower courts for violating the law, they were vindicated by the ruling of the Supreme Court based on their constitutional challenge.

A case that was won based on procedural due process is the case of Tumey v. Ohio in which Tumey was arrested and charged with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor at White Oak, another village in Hamilton county, Ohio, on a warrant issued by the mayor of North College Hill. The mayor of the town then proceeded to try and convict Tumey under the existing law. His conviction was challenged based on the pecuniary interest of the mayor in convicting Tumey as he stood to gain from the amount of the costs in each case, in addition to his regular salary, as compensation for hearing such cases. There is, therefore, no way by which the mayor may be paid for his service as judge, if he does not convict those who are brought before him. The US Supreme Court looked favorably on the assertions of Tumey, reversed his conviction, and remanded the case for further trial, due to the utter lack of impartiality in the previous proceedings with the mayor sitting as a judge. This is proof once again that constitutional challenges protect the rights even of persons seen to have deliberately violated the law.

In Lanzetta v. New Jersey, the appellants were indicted and convicted under the New Jersey Statute which prosecutes “any person not engaged in any lawful occupation, known to be a member of any gang consisting of two or more persons, who has been convicted at least three times of being a disorderly person, or who has been convicted of any crime, in this or any other State, is declared to be a gangster. The US Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional for being repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment as the word “gang” and “gangster” is vague such that even those who belong to a group whose objective may be legal may unnecessarily be covered. Hence, due to vagueness, there is no sufficient warning to the public as to what exactly is proscribed by the law. The persons in this case, even if found to be true gangsters in a socio-cultural sense, had their convictions reversed simply due to the vagueness of the law.

In the case of In Re Lynch, John Lynch was released from prison that supposedly condemned him for life behind bars as the US Supreme Court found the penalty for this offense of indecent exposure too cruel for such a light offense, relative to more heinous crimes with the same penalty. Lynch was definitely found guilty of his crime, yet the law still afforded him adequate protection despite his offenses when it was challenged based on the constitutional issue of disproportionate punishments which, although not cruel or unusual in its method, it is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the libel suit of L.B. Sullivan against the New York Times did not earn the affirmation of the US Supreme Court as it held that the interest of the public outweighs the interest of any other individual. While the New York Times might, on its face, erred in accurately reporting the facts of the civil rights demonstration involving Martin Luther King, the newspaper cannot be held for its criticisms of the official conduct of public officials. In this case, the freedom of the press saved the New York Times from settling the multi-million dollar libel suit filed by Sullivan even if the lower courts found them guilty of the offense.

In the famous case of Griswold v. Connecticut, Drs. Griswold and Buxton were found guilty of violating 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut and fined $100 each for giving information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception, notwithstanding examining a married woman and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. The US Supreme Court reversed their convictions based on a discussion of the penumbra of rights which are formed by emanations from those constitutional guarantees that help give them life and substance. This is shown in past cases wherein, though not directly involved, the right to privacy was upheld. The court, in verbatim even said –

The present case, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms."

Yet again, the US Supreme Court intervened in expunging responsibility from individuals who were found to be in blatant violation of the existing laws of the land.

In all of these, it is patently clear that individuals found to be in deliberate violation of existing laws can still be afforded protection by our system of laws. While many other conditions and exceptions exist to warrant the defense of supposedly erring individuals and groups, the best way of going around the violations of the law is through a sound constitutional challenge before the courts of law, from the lowest courts all the way up to the US Supreme Court. It must be remembered that these are done not only for the sheer obstinacy of defending the cause of the client but also in pursuit of upholding the rule of law, the integrity of the courts and assist in the administration of justice. The duties of the lawyers are not only to prosecute and defend, but also to ensure that justice is done to all those who deserve it.

Cases Cited:

1. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
2. Tumey v. Ohio, 373 US 510 (1927)
3. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 US 451 (1939)
4. In Re Lynch, 8 Cal 3^rd 410 P. 2d (1972)
5. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964)
6. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 47A (1965)

Just recently, North Korean President King Jong Il proudly proclaimed the success of his government’s underground testing of their first-ever nuclear weapon in the barren hinterlands of the his reclusive country. Western countries, led by the United States, quickly condemned the move as an imminent threat to the security of the Korean peninsula and the international political system in general, especially in the light of the withdrawal of North Korea from the six-party talks negotiating the shutdown of North Korea’s nuclear facilities. On the other hand, the nuclear testing was hailed overwhelmingly by anti-imperialist states around the globe, led by Venezuela and Cuba, and anti-imperialist movements comprising mostly of Marxist parties of every sort, such as the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Communist Party of India-Maoist. It was seen as a triumph of the Korean people against the intense political pressure by US imperialism to bring the North Korean government to its knees on all fronts – militarily and economically. Nonetheless, while the North Korean government was euphoric over its success, it earned the ire of the general international community through the United Nations that sweeping economic sanctions were imposed such as strict inspection of cargo shipments entering North Korean territory, notwithstanding the long-standing implied trade embargo by scores of countries around the world. Actually, the Korean peninsula has been the perennial site of unending geopolitical tensions in the East Asian region since the Korean War in the fifties. This paper will examine the nature of the six-party talks and North Korean brinksmanship in the context of North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The Six-Party Talks

The Six-Party Talks include the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea’s official name), South Korea, United States, Russia, Japan, and the People’s Republic of China, whose essential goal has been the peaceful and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The talks were launched primarily due to the refusal of the United States to foster bilateral talks with the DPRK due to the latter’s breach of a 1994 Framework Agreement. Moreover, it contained economic commitments by the member states to the DPRK, in terms aiding its energy requirements for as long as the DPRK abandons its nuclear program, particularly its pursuit of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the United States and its allies formally assured the DPRK that it shall not result to acts of aggression against the reclusive country and seek alternative ways in resolving the diplomatic issues with the DPRK.

According to Dr. Edberto Villegas (personal communication, 2007), a political economist of the University of the Philippines specializing of socialist politics, the Six-Party talks was formed not only to stabilize the threat of the DPRK against the United States and South Korea, but to secure the geopolitical interests of the member states as well. Japanese participation in the talks is very important as the DPRK has time and again threatened Japan, due to historic tensions since the Japanese invasion of the Korean peninsula a century ago and continues even up to the present, especially as Japan is now seen as a reliable ally of the United States in enforcing its foreign policies in the region. China is also interested in the talks as it is within its national interest that the Korean peninsula is stable to prevent the undocumented and illegal migration of North Koreans to Chinese territories. (globalsecurity.org, 2007)

North Korean Brinksmanship

In international politics, the DPRK and its leader, Kim Jong Il, has been adjudged the master of nuclear brinksmanship in securing economic and military concessions from world powers, including the United States. As the DPRK knows fully well its geopolitical handicap, it continually breaches international agreements in supposed pursuit and assertion of its national interest and sovereignty, especially when it deliberately withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and insisted on producing nuclear weapons for its defense against perceptions of a conspiracy by the United States forcibly overthrow the Kim Jong Il regime by force. According Villegas (personal communication, 2007), the DPRK fully believes that only by building up its military capability, particularly nuclear power, can the DPRK secure substantial concessions from world powers, consistent with the Maoist maxim of political power emerging from the barrel of a gun. These concessions, however, are not entirely of a military or diplomatic character, but usually in terms of economic aid, as the DPRK continues to battle years of infertile agricultural lands and famine that has led to the deaths and exodus of thousands of North Koreans. As can be seen from the recent nuclear testing in the hinterlands of North Korea, the world, while united in its condemnation of the act, has acceded, to a certain extent, to the demands of the North Korean government such as the release of its $25 million frozen assets in Macau and the delivery of more economic aid from developed nations. Nonetheless, it can be surmised that the actuations of the DPRK and the flaunting of its military might are not exactly aimed at threatening the world, especially South Korea, Japan and the United States, but only to secure adequate leverage for political and economic agreements which would not have been possible if the DPRK acted otherwise. More so, the DPRK are not that ignorant of the military history of the world to foolishly start military aggressions against perceived enemy states, knowing fully well the superior military power of the United States and its allies. (personal communication, 2007)

However, in order to fully understand the North Korean nuclear question, the DPRK strategy of Songun politics must be examined. According to Han of the Unification Institute in New York, the DPRK views the relationship of the DPRK and the United States not as co-equal states in international law but as opposing and antagonistic entities representing the conflict between imperialism and socialism, in which peaceful coexistence is never possible. King Jong Il believes that all of these are part of the efforts of the DPRK to foist an ideological confrontation against the United States and secure the socialist gains in the Korean peninsula (Han, 2003) More so, the Songun politics of the DPRK involves the building of a strong revolutionary army to save the North Korean socialist system from collapse, over and above the necessity of putting adequate food on the tables of the Korean people. Such an utterly militarist mindset is a big departure from the classical Marxist theory of empowering the working class and the withering away of the state, leading foreign policy experts to believe that King Jong Il’s brinksmanship is merely to ensure the survival of his family’s hold on the entire North Korean political system. (globalsecurity.org) Nonetheless, the military outcome of policies like these has been very effective in forcing the international community to stand at attention and listen to the demands, even blackmail, of the DPRK.

Conclusion: The World and the Way Forward

The Korean nuclear question has given the United States and the international community a terrible political headache which all must continually confront until the threat of the DPRK has been conclusively neutralized. While it is true that independent nations such as the DPRK must assert its national sovereignty at all times against external threats, particularly imperialist countries, the manner by which the reclusive regime of King Jong Il has been conducting the defense of its homeland and revolution borders on a subjective revolutionary hysteria which the rulers of the DPRK are exploiting to the prejudice of the welfare of its people. There are many other ways to confront modern imperialism which are no less revolutionary, such as the strides achieved by the Venezuelan and Cuban governments in their experiment with socialism without adversely affecting the lives of their people. As such, it is clearly the responsibility of the international community to diplomatically convince the DPRK to gradually embrace the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and cease using military blackmail as a ruse to secure concessions from world powers. An outright denuclearization policy as suggested by the United States and Japan might be totally unrealistic at present, and might even provoke the DPRK further. The path to a lasting peace in the Korean peninsula is an arduous one which can only be confronted if the world itself is prepared to build confidence with the DPRK that aggression against the communist country is none of the options considered to resolve the long-standing diplomatic dispute on nuclear weapons.

Works Cited:

1. Han, Ho-sok. Songun Politics of North Korea & the Situation on the Korean Peninsula. Songun Politics Study Group. Sept. 8, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.geocities.com/songunpoliticsstudygroup/Songuninterview.htm l on April 17, 2007.
2. Six-Party Talks. GlobalSecurity.Org. Retrieved from http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/6-party.htm on April 16, 2007.
3. Villegas, Edberto. Email Interview. April 14, 2007.

At the center of the maelstrom of public discontent over the firing of the US attorneys is the democratic concept of government officials serving at the pleasure of the US President. Since the controversy erupted, the Bush administration has continually insisted on the President’s prerogative to end the services of government officials who failed in conclusively securing the confidence of the President in implementing the policy agenda of the administration. In the case of the fired US attorneys, they were all deemed incapable of promoting the initiatives of the President, such as the Project Safe Neighborhoods and the filing of immigration cases against illegal aliens, according to Kyle Sampson, the recently resigned chief of staff of US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales.

However, there has been much speculation from many sectors on the real basis of the seeming arbitrary act of President George W. Bush – that the attorneys were being pressured to help in the electoral campaign of the Republican Party. The fired attorneys themselves and Democratic Party members expectedly fed some of these speculations. Carol Lam, the former US attorney of San Diego, was believed to have been fired for her wide-ranging public corruption case that involved former Republican congressman, Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California. John McKay, the former US attorney of Seattle, was supposedly fired for his refusal to prosecute voter fraud cases after the 2004 Washington gubernatorial elections where the Republican candidate narrowly lost. Moreover, David Iglesias, the former US attorney in Albuquerque, N.M., received relentless harassing phone calls from Republicans in Congress for his failure to bring cases against Democratic candidates especially election-year investigations. These serious assertions of unwanted political influence by the Bush administration on the legal-judicial functions of the US attorneys utterly pale the statements of the Office of the Attorney-General that their relief was performance-related. In the case of Atty. Lam, no conclusive proof was ever shown that she abdicated her responsibility in enforcing the policy initiatives of the Bush administration on gun control and immigration, nor did the Justice Department ever bring their complaints to the attention of the relieved US attorney.

On the other hand, the Senate investigation on the issue has yielded much information that the White House itself had a direct hand in the decision to fire the US Attorneys, especially as political adviser Karl Rove was involved, notwithstanding the exchange of correspondence and documents between the White House and Justice Department prior to the decision. Even Sampson complained about such a heavy-handed manner of political influence and collusion among members of the Republican Party, specifically the case of Republican Sen. Domenici in which he hurriedly sent over names of new persons for prospective appointment for the vacated post of Atty. Iglesias in Albuquerque.

At present, the investigations continue and have since added more fire to an already deeply polarized American public insofar as the Bush administration and its policies are concerned.

Op-Ed

A series of unfortunate events have relentlessly struck the Bush administration the past few months, since their defeat in the mid-term elections last year. The Iraq war, as it reached its fourth year last month, continues to cement greater public support for the withdrawal of US troops and repudiate President Bush’s future plans of increasing troop deployment in the war-torn region. More so, a very aggressive Democrat-led Senate and House of Representatives have been very effective in frustrating much of the administration’s policies, even if only in a symbolic fashion, to the extent that sectors, especially in the liberal left, are now proclaiming his lame-duck status. As these issues have already been giving the Bush administration major political headaches, the indiscriminate firing of US attorneys should never have been allowed to come to pass. The administration’s reasons are clearly indefensible, even if the official basis for the attorney’s relief was performance-related, as the particular circumstances of the attorneys showed the blatant political influence and intervention by the GOP on the official duties and functions of the attorneys. While it is true that US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, their duties cannot be directly interfered with for the political ends of the ruling party in government as it would run contrary to the very ends of justice, truth and fairness that all attorneys were sworn to uphold. More so, their loyalty to the government is not to President Bush himself, but to the Office he represents and all the democratic ideals, principles and policies subsumed under that Office. As a result of all these, the controversy has further discredited the Bush administration and fueled speculation that it is flouting the law for its own political benefit.

Works Cited:

1. Grier, P. & Chaddock G. (2007). Firing of US attorneys: Was it too political?. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0330/p01s02-usju.html?page=2. 16 April 2007.
2. Pappu, S. (2007). Firing Line. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702423_2.html. 16 April 2007.

The advances of the world capitalist system and relatively stable international relations have enabled the progress of different countries around the world, especially in Europe and North America. Today, with the advent of rapid technological output and scientific research, households are slowly transformed into wireless and interconnected hubs of electronics and appliances, ranging from Bluetooth-activated microwaves to High-Definition fifty-inch Plasma televisions. From the use of room-sized computer mainframes generations ago, people are now akin to acquiring the latest palm-size personal digital assistants and camera-ready mobile phones. In a macroeconomic scale, on the other hand, the economies of the European Union, the United States and other developed countries have continued to boom despite the cyclical recessions in the business cycle of the capitalist system. However, this forward march of developed countries and some newly-industrialized countries in Asia is obscured by the continued disparity of wealth and economic development in Third World countries, most of which serve as the export-processing zones and sources of raw materials for multinational corporations based in the developed world. This paper seeks to discuss the irony of progress at the expense of underdeveloped and developing countries in the context of China.

China has been touted as the next rival of the United States as an economic superpower, especially at a time when the Chinese economy has been registering double-digit growth rates, even to the extent of “heating-up.” As a result of Deng Xiaoping’s socialism with Chinese characteristics, China has opened its doors to market reforms and allowed the influx of foreign investors to set-up factories and commercial centers inside the once heartland of fierce anti-capitalist ferment. By opening up its economy, China has soon provided the world with cheaply-made quality goods of all kinds, from sports shoes and children’s toys, to mobile phones and Ipods. This has proven beneficial for the world over, especially for multinational corporations as they were able to keep their products competitively priced in the world market. However, this has come at the cost of the Chinese worker, supposedly China’s most valuable resource under a socialist system. According to Raymond Lotta, an American political economist whose expertise is on China, the economic growth of China has been due to the transformation of the entire Chinese economy and its productive labor into one massive-scale sweatshop, in which Chinese laborers are utterly underpaid despite the hefty workload in the factories, especially those involved in exports. The competitive advantage of cheap labor has been exploitatively utilized to serve the ends not of the Chinese people but the narrow interests of foreign capitalists with the Chinese government serving as a conduit.

If such a system is continued, however, it would definitely ensure that the world would continue its enjoyment of cheap consumer goods of all kinds, including hi-fi speakers, laptops, among many other things. This is one of the ultimate ironies of progress in the world today –while most of the world enjoys the goods produced and sold in hypermarkets and retail stores, a Chinese woman works, with low wages and little benefits, for more than eight hours day in a textile factory in Shenzen or Guandong just to produce the svelte Gap jeans that has been selling like hotcakes in a Macy’s or Sears department store. While progress, including all its fruits, must be welcomed, it must never be at the expense of other people, especially workers in the Third World.

The Mayan civilization, one of the most technologically advanced and dominant civilizations in the New World from 250CE to 900 CE, had abandoned their cities around 900 AD, due to the complex effects of hunger, famine, sickness and overpopulation, among others. Their advances in agriculture, science and technology were never enough to halt the exodus from the big cities such as Copan to smaller city-like complexes founded by the remaining Mayan nobles, as the agricultural lands in the big cities ceased to be fertile enough to feed the entire Mayan population, notwithstanding the dire effects of conquests by competing civilizations and Spanish conquistadores. As such, not only did Copan collapse as a center of Mayan civilization, but including other Mayan cities such as Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Caracol, Altun Ha, Tlum, Tikal.

The inevitable collapse of the Mayan civilization did not only entail the exodus of its people but the corresponding loss of its language, religion, economy and culture. Prior to its destruction, the Mayans developed a language system similar to the Egyptians in which they wrote using pictures and symbols to represent words and ideas. These writings, called glyphs, were found on walls and books which contained information about Mayan gods and its people.

On one hand, as the Mayans were an agricultural people that highly depended on their fertile lands, one of their gods was Chac, the rain god. To gods like Chac, the Mayans made different kinds of sacrifices to seek their blessings, which included food offerings, bloodlettings and even human sacrifices. It must be emphasized though that the Mayans did not used its own people in the human sacrifices but captives from wars.

Unfortunately, the Mayan gods did not come to their aid when their entire civilization was destroyed, to the extent that even their prized advances in agriculture failed them. It can even be surmised that at the time of the Mayan collapse, there were not enough maize, beans, squash, avocado pear, avocado, sweet potato, guava, chili peppers, cocoa beans, vanilla beans, papaya, tomatoes, dogs, turkeys and ducks for every Mayan household regardless of their social status. Aside from food production, other aspects of its agricultural economy must have suffered as well, including the production of dye, chewing gum, handicrafts, embroidery, herbal medicines and even the logging of timber for temples and houses.

On the other hand, the Mayan collapse also included the abandonment of a cultural phenomenon that was rooted in the Mayan religion – the Mayan ballgame that was a combination of basketball, volleyball and football. It was a social event participated by the entire community that the players who were able to maneuver the ball through the hoop, which was twenty-seven feet off the ground, were given jewelry and clothing by spectators.

The losses of Mayan culture due to its collapse also included their own indigenous concept of beauty in which babies’ heads were pressed to make their heads longer, nose bridges were purposely broken to add curvature, and body parts, such as tongues, ears, lips and noses were pierced with objects such as jewelry. More so, the colorful indigenous dresses, headdresses and huipiles which were used in day-today activities and even in celebrations and feasts were forgotten.

In all of these, as the Mayans left their cities to settle in smaller complexes, it also brought the end of their historic legacy to the world. Nonetheless, their once great civilization, while forever gone, shall always be part of the historic record that conclusively shows the extent of the Mayan contribution to the development of the world.

The matrimonial practice of the use of the husband’s surname in substitution of the wife’s maiden name is a tacit reflection of the continued perpetration of a social imbalance of power between men and women, despite the marked changes in the empowerment and importance of women in different aspects of society – work, politics and culture. The practice is, at best, only symbolic of the subjugation of women for centuries, especially in view of the fact that even the maiden name of the wife was derived from the surname of her father, as her mother lost her own maiden name upon marriage as well. More so, this formal-legal practice stretches back for centuries prior to the first consolidation of a women’s movement based on their empowerment and rights, to the extent that the practice is now viewed simply to facilitate legal efficiency in the transfer and protection of rights and properties among families. However, much work and advocacy can still be done to dismantle this patriarchal and tacitly chauvinist legal practice, such as legislation that orders the mutual consent of the spouses as the basis of the changing of surnames upon marriage, instead of the presumptions of the law. Thereby, the law ensures that the wife was given the right to assert herself upon marriage as to whether or not she intends to retain her maiden name or adopt the surname of her husband. Nonetheless, as this practice is simply more symbolic of male dominance over women, it must be said that there are more pervasive forms of domination that women must focus on and advocate further than this legal practice, because even if the law looks favorably on women insofar as their maiden name is concerned, the more substantive forms of subjugation and dominance such as domestic violence and harassment in the workplace shall continue to happen. While the legal practice of adopting the maiden of the wife is proof of the social practice of dominance, women must not lose sight of the more direct attacks against their rights such as those stated above.

The American Declaration of Independence immortally stated thus, “All men are created equal.” This phrase has ultimately shaped much of contemporary world history, with revolutions waged in its name, as oppressed peasants and workers struggled forth against exploitative landlords and capitalists, and colonial subjects freed themselves from the might of world empires. In present terms, the proverbial phrase has even been expanded to cover the equality of sex and gender, the equality of creed and religion, the equality of races and many other derivatives of the basic assumption that no monolithic legal-formal or political hierarchy must exist between different people. Indeed, the discourse on equality has already evolved from this simple statement that the basic definition of equality has been significantly debated upon, without finality, by scholars, intellectuals, policymakers and even the people themselves in their sovereign capacity. This paper seeks to discuss three forms of equality recognized by contemporary society – equality of opportunity, equality of starting conditions and equality of results.

Equality of opportunity is the creation of a social, political, economic and cultural environment in which people, regardless of their race, creed, gender and other social differentiations are not excluded from access to basic services such as healthcare, education, housing, land reform (for Third World countries), employment opportunities, among other social benefits which the state provides to its citizens. This definition does not disdain hierarchy per se, but wrongful justifications of the existence of such a hierarchy. The historic example of this is the racial segregation of African-Americans, where they were prevented from enrolling in universities because they were considered an inferior class based on the color of their skin. Equality of opportunity simply means that access to social goods, especially marginal and minimal ones, must always be available to all people that would seek its benefit such that a cancer-stricken Jew in Nazi Germany must be afforded adequate healthcare regardless of the Nazi hatred for his race. This, however, does not preclude the state from creating valid classifications in the exercise of its police powers, such as preventing persons who failed state bar examinations from practicing the legal profession due to the state interest ensuring the integrity of the judicial system and the administration of justice, and assigning mentally-ill patients to asylums and away from the rest of the population, in the interest of public safety and order.

Equality of outcome, on the other hand, is the result of the seeming immeasurability of the equality of opportunity in terms of measuring equality as it can be computed through the net worth of persons or families, thereby allowing an empirical equality analysis on a societal scale. It is an egalitarian theory that seeks to reduce the concrete material differences between groups of people or households in a society. Attempts by governments to achieve such a form of equality has been through a progressive taxation system, in which people in the higher incomes brackets necessarily pay more taxes than those in the lower income brackets. This has been done through the institution of income taxation, although sometimes governments, such as the Republic of the Philippines, have removed the income taxes of minimum-wage earners altogether while imposing heavy luxury taxes on the usual products of the rich. Another example is providing heavy agricultural subsidies and support services to rural farmers in the Third World, taking into consideration the expected low prices of agricultural products and the influx of competing cheap foreign agricultural goods.

Equality of starting conditions can be said to be halfway between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, albeit in a more radical sense. It is similar to equal opportunity insofar as it seeks objective fairness in the access of people to social goods. It is comparable to equality of outcome insofar as it does not depend on the abstract and conceptual equality of gender, race, creed, ideology, among others, but on the equality of the material conditions among the society’s people, though in a more literal sense. It is based on the idea that equality operates only until the time that society has provided the basic social goods equally to all persons or households, after which it is then up to the persons or households to decide for themselves how best to maximize the benefits given them. For example, a land reform program provides ten Venezuelan campesinos five hectares of high-grade land to till, in which after land transfer, the obligation of equality of the government will now have ceased for as long as it provided the ten campesinos the same starting conditions (high-grade land) as all the others.

The definition of equality in the declaration of independence, in my opinion, is a combination of the concept of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity provides a concept of equality that destroys all irrational prejudices created by long-held unempirical presumptions by people. It can readily be asserted by any person, at any time, in which patent violations of this formal-legal equality occur. It provides individual protection to marginalized groups such as ethnic minorities and was even the rallying cry of the African-American civil rights movement and women’s suffrage movement. Equal opportunity is a beacon of democratic rights and welfare from state and even non-state interventions on the fundamental rights of the people. On the other hand, equality of outcome is also subsumed by the immortal phrase in the Declaration of Independence because it is a message to the state and its government to proactively implement laws and rules which would ensure that the wealth of society is relatively distributed across all income levels and not only benefiting a privileged class of people. It directs the state to evolve a progressive system of taxation in which the rich are taxed more than the working people through higher taxes on income and luxury goods, with its proceeds directly channeled to basic social services such as healthcare, education and housing. Equality of outcome also imposes a restraint on government overspending on less important appropriations such as funding war chests and military aid on friendly states for as long as social services are not adequately funded by government.

France is the primary immigrant destination in Western Europe, and the United States has historically been the melting pot of races from all over the world. According to Simon (1998)’s statistical data illustrating the population of immigrants, between the end of World War II and 2000, there were approximately 14 million new immigrants in the United States while France had about 10 million immigrants. In addition, the United States currently has about 24.6 million foreigners while there are 3.6 million foreign born residents in France (Simon, 1998).

The profiles of immigrants are varied – they can be our grandparents, and friends. They come from all over the world for many reasons such as religious persecution, racial tension, poverty and political reasons. Throughout history, immigrants have always had a great impact on a country’s society and its economy that accommodating the influx of new immigrants has been challenging as well. Nonetheless, the integration of immigrants into the society to which they migrate is essential for the future wellbeing of states. In this paper, the focus shall be on explaining various immigrant integration policies in France and the United States which include social interventions in the aspects of education, religion, culture, housing, workforce, social protection in case of immigrant Muslims in France and immigrant Filipinos in the United States. Furthermore, I would argue that that integration policy in France and the United States reflects the ruling government’s fundamental political ideology.

France

The French revolution began in 1789 and it established a secular state in France. The revolution also established a republican ideal which guaranteed religious freedom and imposed the separation of church and the state. Equal rights for all citizens abolished the formal-legal social hierarchy, which gave citizenships to Jews, notwithstanding providing free public education for all including Muslims in Europe.

As a result of the gains from the fall of the monarchy, the state ensures that the people of France lives within equal rights under the republican ideal. As such, the French government does not provide special considerations in public and private law for different religions or political groups to ensure that equal opportunities are afforded to every citizen.

According to Adrian Favell’s article, Integration Policy and Integration Research in Europe, there are three parts of the integration/assimilation process of the state: public education, military service, and employment.

For many years, the public schools were a key method of integrating immigrants into a society in which the state puts a very high premium on educating the youth regardless of their ethnic, social or religious background.

A second factor that promoted integration was military service during the First World War. Before the war, there were immigrants from various parts of the world who only spoke their ethnic languages, but the French government consolidated ethnic groups together by making them join the military service which helped immigrants to learn French language and republicanism. While most of these groups belonged to their former colonies, it did not preclude the French government from teaching them the cultural system and language of France.

A third factor of integration was employment. Due to the republican and libertarian ideals established by public education and the notion of equal rights, there was limited discrimination in the workplace against ethnic and religious minorities.

According to the Stephanie Giry’s article France and its Muslims, she argues that in France, the large Muslim immigrant community has proven to be problematic. There are approximately 6 million people of Muslim background, who mostly come from Algeria and Morocco and other parts of Middle East. It has been described as problematic because of the perception that Muslim communities are not considered well-integrated into French society. Education levels are often low among Muslims in a backdrop of a pervasive racial discrimination against some Muslims in employment. More so, the French government has refused to grant special privileges to them in public institutions such as disallowing Muslim girls to wear head scarves to class in public schools. (Muslims in Europe)

In France, there are approximately 35 percent of Muslims who are still practicing their Islam faith and religion which has resulted, in creating complex problems between a considerable number of Muslims and the French government. This is due to the strong attachment of Muslims to their traditions and languages, and the existence of government limitations on multiculturalism that precludes the full integration of Muslim people into the ideals of French society.

France is one of the most united of all European states due to its historic successes such as the French Revolution. While the revolution established secularism, the French people have apprehensions that the French “identity” would be diluted by immigrants from all over the world, to the extent that immigrants are often viewed as “others” in France. As a result, multiculturalism as an ideology and as a government policy is not very popular.

Despite the government’s strong belief in its republican ideology, there has been some efforts in French government promoting integration since 2002. First of all, the government appointed new members of public service agencies in 2006 for the further development and evaluation of integration policies which are designed to help facilitate social inclusion and access to employment of immigrants. More so, the National Agency for migration and the welcome of foreign residents (Anaem) was established in 2005 which has been responsible for welcoming migrants, and providing citizenship education and language learning. On the other hand, the French government is placing a high priority on learning the French language as part of its comprehensive integration policy for immigrants, in a backdrop of a changing government attitude towards immigration, as evidenced by its decision in 2004 to create a national museum of immigration history. Lastly, the High Authority to Fight Discrimination and to Promote Equality (Halde) was formed in 2004 which wasdesigned to combat all types of discrimination against immigrants and also promote equality (Major project, French Government Portal).

All of these efforts to promote integration among immigrants in France can be seen as a reflection of the fundamental political ideology carried by the ruling government, notwithstanding the political accommodation that ensues in the balance of political forces at a given time. These changes in French domestic policy on immigration stems, primarily from the radical backlash and violence that ensued in French suburbs a few years back which centered on immigrant issues such as employment opportunities and education access for the immigrant youth. On the other hand, the government of French President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Villepin can be viewed as a centrist, even liberal government that is not totally averse to the issue of immigrant integration compared to right and far-right parties who have consistently campaigned for stricter immigration controls by the French government. This kind of ideology is championed, at present, by the leading contender to the French government leadership, right-wing leader Sarkozy, as he vowed to clamp down on illegal immigrants who have flocked from poorer countries, especially Algeria and Morocco, in search of greener pastures in France. On the other hand, the socialist contender for the French presidency, Michele Bachelet, has argued for more openness and understanding of the immigrant question as she continually asserts in her campaign sorties that the immigrant problem is far more complex than simply blaming the illegal immigrants for the loss of jobs of the native French citizens.

In all of these, it is clear that French domestic policy on immigration and integration has a long way to go, especially at a time of global hysteria on Islamic terrorism. However, the question as to whether future policy will turn towards greater multi-culturalism or further immigration control will ultimately be left into the hands of whoever it is that will control the French presidency and the French parliament, including the prevailing ideology the French government will pursue in the future.

United States

More than any other nation on earth, the United States of America has a long history of immigration and even integration policies. Its primordial townships and cities were all a product of European, primarily English, immigration to the New World. On the other hand, the African-American population, were forcibly emigrated from the deserts of Africa to serve as chattel for colonial and American landowners to tend their cotton and corn fields. At present, different kinds of races from the world over has populated the different cities of the US, which includes Chinese, Japanese, Middle Easterns, Hispanics, Malays, and Filipinos. They have entered the US mainland in search for the American Dream, leaving behind their usually poverty-laden countries in pursuit of a better life in the United States. While various races walk about the streets of cosmopolitan areas and even the rural countryside in the US now, this study is particularly interested in the immigration of Filipinos to the United States and the particular integration policy which the US government affords them, because of their home country’s continuing colonial and post-colonial relations with the United States.

The Philippines, unlike the other countries and races mentioned above, is different because it was once the colonial pride of the United States in South East Asia. Even after its nominal independence in 1946, the United States even continued to exert influence in Philippine politics and economy due to several trade agreements signed in the last century, notwithstanding treaty agreement that ensured the continued operation of US bases in the Philippines, including Subic Naval Base which at one time was the largest naval base outside the continental United States. (Constantino, 1987)

As a result, the United States offered many privileges to Filipinos who wanted to flock to the United States in search of a new home and livelihood. According to Migrante International (personal communication, 2007), a non-government organization supporting Filipino migrants abroad, the United States, for the longest time, was very generous in granting citizenships and even green-cards to Filipinos, especially professionals in the field of engineering and healthcare, notwithstanding giving the brightest Philippine military cadets scholarships to prestigious American military academies such as West Point in New York. At present, Filipino nurses, and even doctors, have relentlessly immigrated to the United States, to fill the unceasing demand for foreign nurses, nursing technicians and caregivers in thousands of hospitals in the US. While this immigration of healthcare professionals has been detrimental to the Philippine healthcare system, it has given tens of thousands of previously underpaid Filipino healthcare professionals the opportunity to receive adequate compensation for their work in US hospitals.

The United States government, on the other hand, even if generous in providing citizenships and green-cards to Filipino professionals, have been utterly strict when dealing with illegal Filipino immigrants, in the same manner that Border Patrol agents continuously crack down on illegal Mexican immigrants. According to Migrante International (personal communication, 2007), Filipino illegal immigrants have a very hard time securing employment, usually contenting themselves with odd jobs, as they do not possess the required federal licenses for employment, such as the Green Card, to the extent that these illegals face immediate deportment once found to have overstayed in the United States. Nonetheless, the US government still affords adequate integration measures for legal immigrants to live a normal American life as they have access to free public education and even healthcare services. Being true to the democratic ideal of equal opportunities, no formal-legal discrimination exists between natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens such as Filipino immigrants. More so, the right of Filipino communities to organize themselves and form societies for their benefit, unity and enjoyment is also protected by the US government as part of fundamental democratic rights afforded by the US Constitution. As a result, countless county-, city-, and even state-wide organizations have been set-up by Filipinos to consolidate themselves to be productive force in American society, economy and even politics.

However, the specific issue of US government policies on Filipino immigrants cannot be examined without taking into consideration the current debate on immigration in the United States under the Bush administration. Last year, hundreds of thousands of legal and illegal immigrants from different countries joined a national day of protest in key cities to dramatize their opposition to the proposal of the Bush administration for stricter control measures to curb illegal immigration, especially through dangerous routes across the US-Mexico border. While this elicited intense condemnation and protests from a very large multi-cultural immigrant community, it has also received support from mostly Republican-oriented and conservative Americans who view relentless immigration as an affront to home-grown American values and a further threat to the already pressing unemployment problem. Nonetheless, the Bush proposals and the looming crackdown on illegal immigrants stem, as in France, from the prevailing political ideology pursued by the ruling Bush administration –right-wing neo-conservatism, notwithstanding the general conservative ideology of the Republican Party. Such an ideology, while not entirely averse to immigration per se, would necessarily find ways and means of curbing illegal immigration as it attacks the fundamental interests of their powerful political base – the generally conservative Christian/rural/southern cross-section of the American population. On the other hand, a different immigrant integration policy might ensue if the Democratic Party were to determine such a domestic policy, as the Democrats generally pursue a liberal-center ideology that tends to favor the protection and advancement of the rights and privileges of the country’s growing immigrant population. More so, a big chunk of its political base comes from the immigrant populations in key cities of the United States such that a policy similar to the Republican proposal would definitely be detrimental to its cause.

In all of these, the policy of immigration and integration of the United States, especially with regard to Filipinos, and other races in general, must still be re-assessed and reconfigured if the full integration of immigrants is undertaken as a long-term domestic policy of the US government. The decades of struggle of the American people against racial discrimination might have even helped many immigrants surmount the difficulty in penetrating American culture and society. But it is still up to the US government if it shall decisively pursue multi-culturalism or further constrict immigrant opportunities in the country.

Towards Greater Understanding and Acceptance

The current events that transpired in the United States and France refocused the immigration debate in both countries. While their governments have undertaken different measures to fully integrate the immigrant population to their societies, culture and economy, the tasks of these governments towards this end are not yet over. Sound integration policies of these governments can never be achieved for as long as the prevailing ideologies in these governments consider immigration as a threat to a nation’s economy, culture and values. There can be no greater understanding and acceptance of a very complex issue such as immigration if a direct, or even tacit, disdain for immigration per se exists as part of the prevailing fundamental ideology in ruling governments.

Works Cited:

1. Migrante International. “Filipino Immigration in America.” Email to author. April 11, 2007.

2. Constantino, Renato. A Continuing Past. 1987.

3. Coalition for Comprehensive Immigrant Reform. Principles for Comprehensive Immigrant Reform. Immigrant Solidarity Network. (21 March 2007). 10 April 2007. <http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/cgi-bin/datacgi/database.cgi?file= Issues&report=SingleArticle&ArticleID=0807>

The United States of America has always been described as the contemporary land of milk and honey, as shown by the long-running chase of many Americans and even much of the world peoples, for the American Dream. No other country in the world possessed technology so advanced, an economy so stable and a political system so strong than the United States, that many working people have called the US their home. The two essays, Swollen Expectations and Two Ways to Belong in America, talks about life of the common working people in America and how it changed of over the past few decades. The first essay discusses the different changes American society underwent in terms of acquiring personal property and technology, notwithstanding the changing needs and necessities of the average American family. Two Ways to Belong in America, on the other hand, gives a more specific detail about the lives of the common working people in America, in the eyes of two immigrant Indian women who have settled in the United States since the 1960s. This paper aims to compare and contrast the two essays in the light of the present issues on domestic wealth and immigration.

The two essays are similar only insofar as describing the immense opportunities that lay before American citizens. Swollen Expectations chronicled the changes in income and property acquisitions of the American public through the decades such as their propensity to purchase larger homes compared to generations before and their taste for larger automobiles, evidenced by the jump in SUV purchases in recent years, despite the oil price hikes. They also now embark on purchasing home appliances laden with technology such as CD players, microwave ovens, and personal computers, among others, notwithstanding the spreading tastes of the American public for different types of international cuisine such as Chinese and Thai. These facts concretely show that the realities and perceptions of the common working people about the opportunities that lay before them have been altered, even swelled, in the last few decades. This kind of swollen expectations can even be conjectured as the basis as to why thousands of immigrants, represented by the Indian sisters in the essay Two Ways to Belong in America, continue to flock to America in search of stable incomes and the American Dream. They sometimes comes in droves, as legal or illegal immigrants, in search for greener pastures, especially when the chances of success for lower income bracket families is much better in America than their countries of origin. Such swollen expectations drive these immigrants to chase the American Dream as well and soon enough drive their Chevrolets, sip specialty coffees, watch DVD movies, embark on space tourism, and many other opportunities that lay before them once they hit it big in the thousands of workplaces in the United States.

However, while there truly are immense opportunities that lay before American citizens as described by Swollen Expectations, the story of the Indian sisters shows that, in reality, the opportunity to pursue such an American Dream is not the same for everybody else, especially immigrants, regardless of their American citizenship or their possession of the Green Card. The federal government, in the exercise of its inherent powers, can still grab this opportunity away from the Indian sisters through stricter immigration laws, even if the two have totally embraced American culture or retained their Indian heritage. More so, by including prior immigrants in the stricter control measures, their continued stay in the United States and their pursuit of the opportunities that lay before them might only be a pipe dream soon enough.

Nonetheless, the two essays provides a message of how great a country the United States has become – opening its doors to different races and relatively allowing all those who would wish to seek greener pastures the opportunity to do so. In a backdrop of a people’s swelling expectations, starting out immigrants, even American citizens from poorer states, have a competitive chance in determining their destiny inside the United States of America.

Works Cited:

1. De Graaf, J., Wann D., & Naylor T. Swollen Expectations. Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. Ed. Laurie Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. pp. 425-431.

2. Mukherjee, B. Two Ways to Belong in America. Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. Ed. Laurie Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. pp. 415-418.

Tenth Edition.

In the last century of horrible wars and combat operations that American soldiers have participated in for the defense of freedom and democracy, not a few stories of unimaginable carnage and death has been recorded by history books and even re-imagined by American literature. However, the best of these stories do not necessarily have to be written with the stark reality of blood, wounds and used riles, as some of these harrowing experiences had been described after the horrors were over. The two short stories, Soldier’s Home and The Red Convertible, tacitly yet fully depicted the devastating psychological and emotional issues that war inflicts on American soldiers, regardless of the theater of combat they are fighting in, especially when these proud and victorious soldiers came home to start a new life.

In Soldier’s Home, Krebs, more passionately called by his mother as Harold, returned a little too late to his town in Oklahoma, as the celebrations for the returning soldiers had already ended. In his return, he was a new man, but in a more negative sense, as he was alienated from his family and the other townspeople he interacted with, save for the fondness he shares with his sister. The townspeople disdained him as he lied so many times about his experience of the war, notwithstanding his exaggerated stories, to the extent that even those in the pool room, a traditionally expected gullible bunch of men, were doubtful of the accuracy of his tales. More so, Krebs also had trouble with girls in his town as he did not want to go through all the trouble of talking to them, perhaps even dating them. He even compared these girls to those he met in Europe, as he got away with European girls without the need of much talking. On the other hand, he was also being more isolated from his family as he continued on with his life unemployed and loveless, in sharp contrast to the other soldiers in their town who were advancing in their careers. His mother naively egged him to find a job, be ambitious and seek help from his father, which he rejected through his reluctance to pray with his mother and failing to follow her advice to visit his father before going to his sister’s baseball game.

In The Red Convertible, Lyman’s brother, Henry, just got home from the Vietnam War and was very different compared to before, as he was already very quiet, especially when watching television, and seemed very uneasy moving about the house, to the extent that their mother contemplated seeking medical help. Henry’s condition might have been caused by the traumas of war as he showed some irregular movements while watching television such as gripping the armrests as hard as he could as if he was moving at high speeds. On another instance, his lip was bloodied for accidental biting but paid not attention to such injury that Henry even shoved Lyman away as he was about to help his older brother. However, Henry’s alienation from his family and himself only ceased when Lyman deliberately destroyed their beloved red convertible which made Henry return, to a certain extent, to his old self – the cheerful and adventurous older brother, as they soon after rode out once more into a driving frenzy to places unknown.

In both short stories, it is clear that alienation resulted as a result of the wars they fought in, which manifested expressly as soon as they got to their own towns and families. However, while their alienations proved to be disturbing to the people around them, it did not preclude them from reaching out to the world in other ways possible, such as when Henry started opening up to Lyman as soon as the latter almost destroyed the car and when Krebs purposely defied his mother’s request to visit his father and instead walked on to his sister’s baseball game. While these stories tell a message of sadness and disillusionment that valiant soldiers who fought for the country sometimes lead miserable lives when they get back home, a message of hope is also present that their alienation will soon enough wither away.. It is hope not in the grand manner – but a hope that is tacit yet binding, hidden, but life-changing.

April 9, 2007

Dearest President George W. Bush:

Greetings of peace!

Recently, both Houses of Congress initiated legislation on the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq by March 2008. With the majority of representatives in the House and the Senate coming from the Democratic Party, it is expected that the legislation will pass, subject only to your veto powers, as part of the system of checks and balances in government. Publicly, you have berated the legislature for their obstinacy in opposing your policy in Iraq and had already threatened to truly exercise your executive powers and send the legislation to the dustbin of history. If you do, the Democrat-led majority in Congress will have only achieved a symbolic victory, as their numbers are not enough to overturn your veto of the proposed legislation. Expectedly, the political conflict on the war in Iraq will only further escalate the political bickering of both branches of government and increasing the polarization of American society.

As such, I am writing to you not only as a youth of this nation but as an American citizen fully dedicated to our ideals of freedom and democracy. Mr. President, American participation in the war in Iraq has got to stop in the soonest possible time, and your administration’s plans of increasing troops in the war-torn region shall only add to the political anxieties and lingering doubts of our people on our true role in this war that has claimed the lives of more than a thousand of our people and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis locked in sectarian battles and insurgents’ attacks. More so, we supported your war in the beginning because you had us believe of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the research facilities of Saddam Hussein that ultimately threatened the security of our nation. As the war entered its fourth year, our security forces in Iraq have yet to discover a single ounce of the bio-chemical weapons hidden in the bunkers of Saddam’s fallen armories. While I concede that we, as a people, must never abdicate responsibility from a nation which we helped liberate from the tyranny of Saddam, direct American participation in the war must now end as the costs of the war on American resources and lives had already compromised much of the other fundamental rights and freedoms secured to its people by our democracy.

This letter is not only a plea to finally support the withdrawal of troops as proposed by the US Congress, but also to request your administration to rethink its policy in Iraq and secure a better solution to the crisis, such as transferring to the United Nations peacekeepers the responsibility of securing peace and order, especially where sectarian violence is rife. Mr. President, our work in Iraq is done, and furthering our stay in Iraq would only heighten American sentiments against the war and even your legacy as a President. It is now time to implement a viable and immediate exit plan in Iraq, without compromising our stature in the international community and sacrificing much of the public trust given to your administration by the American people.

Thank you and more power.

The promulgation of the 1945 Japanese Constitution was among the consequences of the defeat of Japanese forces in the war in the Pacific against the United States, as the US-directed and imposed constitution effectively destroyed prior rights and powers of the state of Japan, including the absolute rights of the Japanese emperor as the head of state and government, and the power of the state to create and strengthen its armed forces against external and internal threats. To an extent, the Japanese Constitution adopted a Western-style government in which sovereignty resides in the Japanese people and not the Emperor, repudiating a centuries-old political relationship that held the Emperor as the one that exercised sovereign powers. These new roles were essential in dismantling Japan’s militarist past and prevent it from initiating subsequent wars of aggression against more Asian nations. Definitely, all these roles do not correspond to the traditional Japanese past where the Emperor was the absolute ruler and revered as a demigod by the Japanese people, notwithstanding his absolute leadership of the Japanese Imperial Army.

While the world has indeed benefited from this forced arrangement, curbing the right and power of the state to build an armed forces for its protection exposes the Japanese people to unwarranted attacks from within and without, especially at a time of global terrorism, as the Constitution itself disallows the right of belligerency of the Japanese state – a right universally recognized by the community of nations and international law. In the hysteria of the international community on military research by rogue states, any attempt by the Japanese government to simply improve its military capability would always be construed as reverting to its militarist past, to the prejudice of fully safeguarding the state against attacks by international terrorists.

In all of these, while the new roles given to the Emperor and the military indeed rectified grave historical mistakes of Japan, especially in demystifying the Imperial Household from its demigod status, an incapacitated Japanese armed forces will never be in the interest of its people and even the international community.

In the history of the world, there will always be a critical juncture in which the people in a sovereign nation will rise up against the immense socio-economic and political contradictions that have besieged their very existence as a people. Events like these are replete not only in the developed world, as in the case of the French, Russian and American Revolutions, but also in former colonies of the great superpowers. The Malaysians, under the leadership of Sukarno, emerged victorious in their British struggle for independence, and so have been the Vietnamese, in their struggle against the French until their victory against the Americans in the 1970s, among other heroic stories of relentless struggles of a people in revolt. However, there is no more historic event that is no more important and transformative event in the Pacific region in the twentieth century than the 1986 EDSA[1] People Power Revolution in the Philippines. This revolution has also been called the “bloodless revolution”, as it forced, through sheer mass mobilization, the ouster of a feared Philippine dictator without the firing of a single shot. As such, the historic event presented a new mode of the people’s peaceful assertion of sovereignty other than elections, to the extent that many political analysts even surmised that the 1986 Philippine Revolution inspired many other democratic movements around the world, including the ill-fated Chinese student movement that climaxed in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. This paper will examine the important events that transpired and why the peaceful revolution in the Philippines can be considered the most important event in the Pacific region in the twentieth century.

On the 21^st of September, 1972, the late dictator President Ferdinand E. Marcos placed the entire Philippines under the state of martial law, on the excuse of a state of lawlessness and the leaps and bounds of a resurgent communist insurgency.[2] The privilege of the writ of the habeas corpus was suspended and expectedly, warrantless arrests ensued.[3] However, most of those arrested were neither the criminals nor the rebels that President wanted to eliminate and neutralize, but high-profile leaders of the mainstream political opposition led by Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr., the populist Philippine senator who was assassinated by suspected Marcos security elements a few years prior to the EDSA Revolution.[4] More so, thousands of political activists of the militant national democratic movement were sent to military stockades, tortured in military safe houses, forcibly disappeared or summarily executed in almost fourteen years of military dictatorship.[5] Nonetheless, it is this kind of state of repression is the backdrop of the events that led to the 1986 Revolution. On the other hand, the Philippine economy was on the brink of collapse, as the dictator generously secured onerous debts from multilateral lending institutions which did not translate into development projects but instead diverted to the infamous Marcos family Swiss accounts.[6] In an email interview, Prof. Bobby Tuazon, a political science professor-political activist at the University of the Philippines, said that the EDSA revolution actually started when Sen. Benigno Aquino was assassinated at the Manila International Airport on the 21 August, 1983, as it was an event that united and awakened a once pliant and intimidated Filipino people.[7] The assasination even led former Marcos cabinet minister, Francisco Tatad, Jr.[8] to conclude that –

Aquino’s assassination lit a fire of protest which the country had not seen before. In the months ahead, its flames raged in the city and countryside. Ugarte Field in Makati, the financial district, took its place beside Liwasang Bonifacio (Bonifacio Plaza) in downtown Manila as a center of protest. Here, the upper and the middle class marched with the poor, the professionals with the workers and the unemployed.

Nonetheless, as the Filipinos were already enraged at the senseless assassination of a high-ranking leader of the anti-Marcos movement, the militant ferment to change the Marcos regime started anew in the years 1983-1985. Street protests were once again swelling to levels unseen during the entirety of martial rule, to the extent that it forced President Marcos to commit a serious political blunder – the calling of a snap presidential elections in which he fought against the widow of Sen. Aquino, former Philippine President Corazon Aquino. Expectedly, the snap elections was marred with massive cheating that election officials walked out of tabulation centers in disgust and both presidential candidates conducted their own inauguration addresses. On the other hand, a military coup was already brewing at the general headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines where two high-ranking security officials were seeking the ouster of the dictator and the support of the Filipino people.[9] Sensing the threat to the lives of the high-ranking military officials, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Manila, Jaime Cardinal Sin, sent out word to his flock to gather at EDSA to protect the military officials and their men who were standing up to President Marcos and his loyal generals. The Filipino people then proceeded to EDSA in the millions and stood in front of military tanks, armored vehicles and loaded rifles, and transformed themselves into an impenetrable shield of humanity that threatened the imminent fall of the dictator.[10] On the other hand, military generals loyal to the President were asking for Marcos’ approval to fire on the demonstrators and finally break the stalemate of one of the Pacific’s most gripping political crises. However, the President declined to strike, and the Filipino people on EDSA staked out for almost five days until President Marcos finally left for Hawaii on the 25^th of February, 1986.

In all of these, it can be safely said that the EDSA revolution is the most transformative event that occurred in the Pacific region in the twentieth century because it convincingly proved that despite decades of oppression, exploitation and fascist rule, a peaceful path towards democracy, peace and social justice is still possible. The Philippine experience showed that political power does not ultimately emerge from the barrel of the gun but from the sovereign will of the people. It teaches a lesson on liberal democracy which has been emulated in many parts of the world up to now, including the peaceful Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the bloodless yet militant people power in Venezuela – that the fate of democracy cannot only be determined through the ballot but also in very direct means of assertions of sovereignty such as cross-sectoral mass mobilizations that can make or unmake the existence of any despotic regime in the reins of powers.

Bibliography:

1. Baron, Cynthia S. and Suazo, Melba M. 1986. Nine Letters: The Story of the 1986 Filipino Revolution. Quezon City, Philippines. Gerardo P. Baron Books.
2. Pimentel, Benjamin. 1989. The Unusual Journey of Edgar Jopson.
3. Republic of the Philippines. September 21, 1972. Presidential Proclamation 1081: An Act Placing the Entire Philippines Under Martial Law..
4. Schock, Kurt. 2005. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies. Minneapolis, USA. University of Minnesota Press.
5. Simbulan, Nymia. April 17, 2007.Email interview to author.
6. Tatad, Francisco. 2006. The Beginning of a Revolution. http://library.thinkquest.org/15816/thebeginning.html.
7. Tuazon, Bobby. April 18, 2007.Email interview to author.
8. Villegas, Edberto. April 18, 2007.Email interview to author.

The Communist Manifesto and Animal Farm are both historical documents which vividly reflected the most important socio-economic contradictions and political movements that took place in the last two centuries. Both works can be said to be part of a continuum of the struggle between ideologies and socio-economic system – of perpetuating capitalism and establishing communism in societies the world over. The Communist Manifesto was the defining work of Karl Marx, the father of scientific socialism and dialectical materialism, which articulated the rallying cry for liberation of the working class and the proletariat in 19^th century Europe, at a time when the theory of socialism and communism was at its infancy. George Orwell’s Animal Farm, on the other hand, can be viewed as a scathing repudiation of the kind of political and socio-economic system Communism had become under the leadership of Josef Stalin, which was totally different from how Marx and Lenin envisioned it to be. In all of these, it is clear that both the Communist Manifesto and Animal Farm are adequate historical signposts to shed light on the path the Communist ideology took in the last two centuries, and whether it remained truthful to its end goal of liberating the working class from the yoke of poverty, exploitation and oppression. This paper will seek to describe and discuss major contemporary political, social, or economic events that influenced the writings of Marx and Orwell when these two works were published.

The Communist Manifesto

The opening line of the manifesto speaks of a specter that haunts Europe – the specter of Communism. Marx also describes, using historical materialism, the necessity for the proletariat of the world to rise up in revolution – to smash the capitalist system and establish socialism as a stage of transition before communism. It speaks of the dialectic between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, both of which represent antagonistic interests and contradictions which will never be resolved despite promises of higher wages and better living conditions for the people, notwithstanding explaining the fundamental difference between proletarians and a communists in which both do not have contradicting interests, only that the latter is the most advanced and resolute of the working class in destroying the bondage of their slavery to capital. The Manifesto also discussed the different kinds of socialism that existed in the history of the world prior to the development of the theory of scientific socialism by Marx and Engels in which it was concluded that all theories and forms of socialism that existed failed because it was not based on deep theoretical understanding of the dialectics between classes and the relations of productions throughout history – from the development of a slave society to feudalism until the establishment of the capitalist system in Europe.

Nonetheless, the obvious basis for writing the Communist Manifesto originates from the excesses of the explosion of the Industrial Revolution in the 19^th century, in which peasants who flocked to the cities to work in the factories were severely exploited by capitalist owners of the factories, through extremely low wages and poor working conditions, as the eight-hour workday was yet to be struggled forth by the proletariat. More so, the world has been changing drastically by the start of the 19^th century, especially when the French Revolution became successful in dismantling the feudal lands of the French monarchy and freed the peasants from their bondage to the land – signaling the end of an old and rotten economic system and the entry of a new one – capitalism. The economic factors of the colonial system also corresponded to the birth of capitalism as the dominant economic system as the industries produced so many goods to the extent that the colonial system became the repository of surplus products which could not be sold in Europe – planting the seeds of what would now be known as modern imperialism. On the other hand, an unlikely admission was given by the Manifesto – that at a certain period in the history of humanity, the bourgeois themselves was a revolutionary force as the masses that dismantled feudalism from the monarchies and landlords. This fact is a pivotal element of the Manifesto because it showed the loose alliance between capitalists and the toiling masses, insofar as revolutionizing the means of production, only to destroy such an alliance when the capitalists themselves are now in the reins of power.

The Communist Manifesto was also written as a critique of the other socialist theories and programs that existed prior to Marx’s scientific socialism, such as reactionary socialism, conservative socialism, and critical-utopian socialism. Marx concluded that all of these failed to truly establish socialism as the leaders and followers of these movements do not essentially seek to dismantle the capitalist system in the countries in which it exists but only provide false hopes of liberation to the masses. The Communists, on the other hand, are the only political movement in existence that truly works for the fundamental interests of the working class, struggling for their immediate aspirations and ultimately taking care of the future of that entire class of oppressed and exploited peoples.

Animal Farm

George Orwell’s Animal Farm was written at a time when the Soviet Union was under the leadership of Josef Stalin, in which the Russian Revolution was turning into a nightmare to the Russian people and all other nationalities that soon after joined the Iron Curtain. The book was fable that had very obvious references to historic figures of the communist movement such as Leon Trotsky, Stalin, Marx and Lenin. It depicted the communists as a movement in betrayal of the foundations of classical Marxist theory and practice of liberating the proletariat from exploitation and oppression as Stalin, in his long years in power, had been busy purging the Communist Party of traitors and sending rich peasants and landowners to gulags to be tortured and executed by the Red Army. No less than Leon Trotsky (Snowball in the Animal Farm), the Soviet Union’s most brilliant military tactician, was believed to have been ordered executed by Stalin. On the other hand, the Animal Farm also depicted the political contradictions between the Soviet Union and the capitalist states such as the Russian Civil War when soldiers from capitalist states tried to remove Bolsheviks from power shortly after the October Revolution, notwithstanding the tacit collusion between Nazi Germany and Stalin in 1939, prior to the betrayal of Hitler of his promise of non-invasion of the Soviet Union.

The Animal Farm also showed how the people under intense Stalinist repression struggled forth and asserted their rights against the Soviet dictator especially when peasants destroyed their agricultural products instead of giving these to the government. However, these struggles by the masses against a leader that supposedly represented their interests were met with heightened forms of repression through torture, executions and forced disappearances, allegedly perpetrated by Soviet security forces led by the KGB.

When Animal Farm was written, the Soviet Union was the only worker’s state in existence in a world that was dominated by capitalist countries and its colonies and neo-colonies. World War Two had just ended the Chinese Revolution of Mao Tsetung had yet to establish its foothold in Asia. But in a short span of decades after the glorious revolution in 1917, the promise of communism seemed more horrific than the excesses and poverty that enveloped much of the capitalist world, especially during the time of Stalin. Under his reign of terror, the hope for a better life and a better world for the peasants and the workers became just a pipe dream with Stalin emerging as no different from the Tsar and capitalists in other states in terms of oppression and exploitation to the extent of utterly dismantling the basic tenets of Marx and Lenin combined. Instead of the state withering away as Lenin predicted, Stalin created a police state and an overarching bureaucracy that controlled most of the people’s lives. Instead of producing more agricultural and industrial output as a result of socialist collectivization, hunger and poverty was a daily reality inside the Soviet Union during his time. Under Stalin, it can safely be surmised that the conditions were almost comparable to the wretched conditions during the despotism of the tsars.

The Promise Continues?

The two historic works presented the theory and practice of communism in two very different ways – communism in theory as Marx predicted, and communism in concrete practice under the leadership of Josef Stalin. In the context of present economic contradictions of the world capitalist order and the failures of the Soviet Union, it cannot still be safely said that the ideology is dead, as the working peoples of the world have yet to find another alternative to communism that would truly secure their fundamental interests and rights. However, it must be unequivocally stated that the theory of communism can never be left into the hands of tyrants and despots as it would totally betray the purpose of the nature of communist struggle and society as a class in struggle for the building of better world and a better future. By handing power to tyrants, even communist societies become no different from slave societies, feudal lands and capitalist orders in which the people – the masses – are forever exploited and oppressed by those at holding the reins of power.

Works Cited:

1. Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick. The Communist Manifesto. 1847.
2. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. United Kingdom: Secker and Warburg, 1945.

Seeking control of the budget process by both the legislative and executive branches of government is part of the system of checks and balances of American democracy. While it is true that the annual budget emanates from Congress as it has always been deemed to possess the power of the purse, it does not entirely control the budget process as the executive branch will also have to determine his legislative agenda for Congress – the priority bills and projects which Congress must speedily enact and finance, such as healthcare, education, and war spending.

Congress, on one hand, can choose not to follow the President’s legislative agenda if it stands on opposite sides of a political debate, such as the funding for the war in Iraq, as the President is having such a hard time, in a Democrat-dominated Congress, to convince the lawmakers to speedily and fully finance the ongoing military operations and infrastructure building in the war-torn region.

On the other hand, the President is not at all beholden to the whims and caprices of Congress, as he possesses veto powers to junk bills, including budget items in general appropriations, which he deems inconsistent with the general executive policies set by his administration. More so, these checks and balances can even escalate into political struggles that may not only create legal problems for both branches of government but polarize public opinion especially on very divisive issues, such as funding for stem-cell research, abortion, education, healthcare and the war spending.

In many Supreme Court decisions, the freedom of speech was either limited or protected based on the tests used by the Cour, such as the dangerous tendency test and the clear and present danger test, notwithstanding defining examples of prior restraint and subsequent punishment as part of state curtailments of the freedom of speech. More so, the Court also limited freedom of speech by excluding obscenity from such freedom.

In the landmark case of Near v Minnesota, the Court said –

'To prohibit the intent to excite those unfavorable sentiments against those who administer the Government, is equivalent to a prohibition of the actual excitement of them; and to prohibit the actual excitement of them is equivalent to a prohibition of discussions having that tendency and effect; which, again, is equivalent to a protection of those who administer the Government, if they should at any time deserve the contempt or hatrad of the people, against being exposed to it by free animadversions on their characters and conduct.

In New York Times v United States, where the government sought to bar the publication of the Pentagon papers, the Court said –

Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity xxx The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden.

In Miller v California, the Court set the rules on the determinacy of curtailing freedom of speech on the basis of obscenity in which material is taken as obscene if “(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

These are only some of the landmark cases that the US Supreme Court decided upon in relation to freedom of speech. In all of these, it is clear that the freedom of speech is never absolute and always subject to the police power of the state, but subject to review of the Court. These are all part of the American democracy we all so cherish – the system of checks and balances and powers of the state, in a backdrop of freedoms and rights granted to the sovereign American people.

The issue as to whether or not American troops must leave Iraq in the soonest possible time has been the subject of intense debates from all sides of the political spectrum and American society since the war in Iraq reached its fourth year last month, notwithstanding a troop withdrawal bill that is now pending in both Houses of Congress, which President George W. Bush threatens to veto. Parsing through the different national broadsheets, one of the more balanced editorials on the issue came from the Washington Post, in its editorial last 18^th of March, entitled Lessons of War.

The Washington Post editorial gave a balanced analysis of the past few years of American occupation in Iraq. While it criticized much the way the plans for reconstruction were executed, it still held optimistic views on how the United States can get out of the current impasse and struggle forth against growing international criticism for the war. More so, there is also a critical analysis that the failure of diplomacy is never a sufficient argument to start a war. It can be remembered that the March 2003 invasion seemed like a knee-jerk reaction to the failure of negotiations between Iraq and the international community. For all of these faults by the Bush administration, the editorial does not stand simply to oppose the war and demand the pullout of troops, as it recognizes how responsible the United States is for the current surge of violence in Iraq that it cannot simply turn its back and leave. It understands that calling for a US troop pullout per se will never solve the woes of the Iraqi people nor lessen US accountability. As such, it supports all the efforts by different interest groups from all sectors and sides of the political spectrum to continue securing Iraq while gradually diminishing US troops in Iraq.

On the other hand, while the sentiments to continue the military and peace operations in Iraq are understandable given the responsibility of the American government in the surge of violence there, the relentless increase in American death toll should compel the Bush administration to conclusively rethink its strategy in Iraq towards a position of immediate withdrawal and replacing the American security forces with UN peacekeeping troops that would hold a neutral yet defensive position in the current sectarian violence. This is the most plausible alternative especially when the fundamental premises of the American occupation have not been proven until now, such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist collusion between Al-Qaida and the fallen government of Saddam Hussein. More so, innocent American lives are being sacrificed in a well-meaning war that has blown out of proportion, with sectarian militias and insurgents targeting not only Iraqi civilians and American security forces, but even American journalists, peace workers and human rights advocates.

Nonetheless, in all of these, a middle ground in the current impasse can still be achieved in the debate as to whether to continue American occupation in Iraq. At present, the United States is truly responsible for the devastation in Iraq, most of which are not entirely its fault. But if the world’s only superpower leaves at this critical juncture in Iraq’s history only to save its bright young men in uniform, the fundamental reason for all our sacrifices will have been for naught and totally lost – the liberation of Iraq from a despot and the establishment of freedom and democracy. It is for this reason that an immediate troop pullout from the war-torn region is utterly unreasonable, without glossing over the fact that keeping the troops in Iraq in a very protracted period is just as unjustified. As such, the only plausible middle ground to this issue would be for the American security forces to stay in Iraq for as long as the international community, lead by the United Nations, is ready enough to take the cudgels of peacekeeping and infrastructure building from the hands of American troops in Iraq. Only then can a full troop withdrawal be undertaken without compromising the fundamental principles of occupying Iraq in the first place.

Works Cited

1. ______________. “Lessons of War: The fighting in Iraq enters its fifth year.”

Washington Post. March 18, 2007.

2. Savoy, Paul. “The Moral Case Against the Iraq War.” The Nation. May 31, 2004. March 20, 2007 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040531/savoy.

3. Eggen, Dan. “Bush Authorized Domestic Spying.” Washington Post 16 December 2005: A01

In a subcontinent that has been mired by centuries of feudal exploitation, class conflict and colonial subjugation, the prospects of contemporary democratization in South Asia seems utterly difficult, if not patently impossible, especially in the wake of current events in the countries in the region. Nepal is still recovering from the heels of a national crisis that almost toppled the monarchy. Sri Lanka still languishes from the effects of the tsunami disaster in its southern areas, notwithstanding the continuing threat of the Tamil Tigers. Pakistan and Bangladesh have both been experiencing a growth in Islamic fundamentalists that have resulted in suicide bombings. India, on the other hand, despite its so-called vibrant democracy, still has to contend with a growing Maoist insurgency in its countryside and hinterlands.

Nonetheless, the paper seeks to examine two of these South Asian states – Nepal and Bangladesh – in terms of how a variety of issues have undermined their democratic institutions and the forging of national identities among its population.

Nepal – Is it the Monarchy or the Insurgency to Blame?

Since the start of the Maoist insurgency led by Prachanda, the Nepalese monarchy and some international commentators have blamed the rebels for undermining the efforts of the present and past governments to establish a truly working democracy in peaceful co-existence with the Nepalese Monarchy. The monarchy charges the Maoist insurgency for terrorizing the villagers in the hinterlands of Nepal, leading blockades of the capital to push the government to its knees.

However, since the start of the government crackdown on its political opponents and the dissolution of Parliament, the discourse on the real causes of the curtailment of democracy in Nepal has focused on the repressive measures employed by the monarchy to crush any forms of dissent, to the extent that even the Maoists seem more morally ascendant than the apologists of King Gyanendra, as royal security forces have resorted to bloody repressive tactics, which according to Amnesty International utilized arbitrary arrests and torture. (Ganguly & Shoup, 2005) On the other hand, the mainstream political parties are also to be blamed for undermining the efforts towards democratization in Nepal due to their heedless, endless game of rent-seeking and more than petty personal quarrels and patronage squabbles. (Ganguly & Shoup, 2005) All of these inevitably contributed to the rise of the Maoists in the Nepalese politics, that the people have been wary of the conservative and moderate sections of the political system and have learned to embrace the radical politics of the insurgency.

On the other hand, the stumbling block to Nepalese democratization also operated in a backdrop of a society that was still enmeshed in socio-economic contradictions which gave the Maoists fertile soil to launch their revolution. In a paper by Stuart Gordon (2005), he explained that –

Nepal’s conflict is the product of a complicated convergence of regional, ethnic, and economic inequalities and deprivations. The majority of Nepal’s 36 major ethnic groups have been marginalized in a power structure in which multi-party democracy and modernization have, perversely, reinforced upper-caste privilege while also highlighting systematic inequality. The Maoists have attempted to mobilize grievances by appealing to

ethnic communities suffering discrimination, such as those of Tibeto-Burman

stock and the Dalits (untouchable castes).

While most members of mainstream political parties came from members of Nepalese society’s upper castes, the Maoists were able to secure the support and loyalty of a broad cross-section of the people’s lower castes, promising genuine land reform and a dismantling of the feudal and semi-feudal political economy that has relegated to poverty much of Nepal’s constituencies. The radical left was also responsible in brokering an alliance between the peasantry and the intelligentsia, which, in classical Maoist theory, was an indispensable alliance in waging revolution.

In the long road towards democratization, the left was able to mobilize not only the different economic classes, but ethnic minorities as well that – (Gordon 2005)

Partly as a consequence of democratization, the Maoists have been able to mobilize other castes and ethnic and familial groups (Dalits, Kham Magar, Sarki, Tamang, Damai, Gurung, Rai, Limbu, etc.), transforming the war from an intra- elite conflict into a fragmented inter-group struggle. In effect, in addition to being a conflict between ideologies, the war has become a much more broadly based struggle for emancipation from the ruling Brahmin, Chetri, and Newar elite.

In all of these, however, it is clear that the state and all its apparatuses have been clearly unable to realize the goals of a democratic Nepal and has since been isolated from the majority of its people, to the extent that the Maoists themselves – the anti-thesis of a free and democratic republic – are taking the cudgels for the monarchy and the mainstream political parties’ patent inability in enforcing a true democratic system that would truly benefit, in political and economic terms, the lives of the people, as it has been the revolutionary movement that has been able to create unities between castes and mobilize the minorities into action in fulfillment of their democratic hopes and aspirations.

Bangladesh – The Problems of Transition from Authoritarian Rule

Bangladesh democracy is also in peril, with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in their country in a backdrop of intense political bickerings among mainstream political parties that has led to relentless political crises. In 2005, the mainstream opposition continued its boycott of the Parliament, including massive street protests to force the ouster of the sitting government. Bangladesh also saw the rise in extrajudicial killings of more than three hundred persons in the span of a few months, notwithstanding the unprecedented death sentences on twenty-two persons for the murder of an oppositionist in Parliament. (Riaz 2006) The Ahmadiyyas, a Muslim subsect, have also been the target of political persecution from all fronts, that radical fundamentalists attacking the Ahmadiyyas are being helped even by Bangladeshi security forces in pulling down signboards of Ahamdiyya mosqes. (Riaz 2006) More so, Bangladesh again topped the list, for the last five years, of Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (Riaz 2006)

Nonetheless, all of these seem to be part of the continuing struggle of the Bangladeshi people in the path towards democratization, especially in the light of the long experience of the country under authoritarian rule, that the executive branch in government still tends to over-extend its powers despite the existence of a parliament and judiciary to maintain the checks and balances in government. (Datta) More so, because of this difficult transition to democracy, a true democratic culture within Bangladeshi society has not been created yet, that even the very concept of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances have yet to truly take root, especially when assertions of general corruption in high and low offices of government abound, with even the international community convinced of such a phenomenon in the Bangladeshi government. (Datta)

Conclusion

In both states, it is clear that governments, past and present, have been clearly unable to establish and sustain a democracy that will truly serve the needs of their people, especially in societies replete with generations of ethnic discrimination and caste oppression, to the extent that a real national identity of Nepalese and Bangladeshis has never been created, except for these societies as a heterogeneous mix of people from different social groupings. It must be definitely noted, however, that the foudning of democracy in regions that have been beset with decades of socio-economic and cultural contradictions would definitely find difficulty in such an undertaking.

The leading state actors in these countries must be able to sufficiently convince their people that building a true democracy is beyond the internal prejudices between classes and ethnic groups and instead founded on libertarian principles of social justice and the rule of law that knows no race nor creed, but only the upliftment of the lives of a society’s people and their pursuit of happiness and dignity, as individuals and as a people.

Works Cited:

1. Datta, S. Bangladesh: A Fragile Democracy. New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.
2. Ganguly, S. & Shoup, B. (2005). Nepal: Between Dictatorship and Anarchy. Journal of Democracy. Vol. 16, No. 4.
3. Gordon, S. (2005). Evaluating Nepal’s Integrated Security and Development Policy: Development, Democracy and Counter Insurgency. Asian Survey. Vol. 45, Issue 4, pp. 581–602.
4. Riaz, A. (2006). Bangladesh in 2005: Standing at a Crossroads. Asian Survey. Vol. 46, Issue 1, pp. 107–113
5. Uddin, S. Constructing Bangladesh: Religion, Ethnicity and Language in an Islamic Nation. University of Carolina Press.

1. How effectively has the separation of powers and the idea of checks and balances worked for the United States?

The separation of powers and the system of checks and balances have been the concrete expression of the glory of American democracy, especially on how effectively it can protect the rights and freedoms of the vast majority of American citizens without precluding the emergence of a stable and strong economy for the past hundred years. Moreover, the system of checks and balances has served to hinder the executive from exercising too much discretion over a majority of the country’s affairs, such as the extent of the executive’s propensity to declare war on perceived threats to national security ever since the United States rose to become one of the world’s superpowers. These checks have happened on a variety of occasions, especially when the executive tends to act in excess or without an express grant of the powers given them by constitution.

2. What were the reasons our forefathers divided the government into the legislative, judicial and presidential branches?

James Madison, father of the US Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the American Declaration of Independence and third US president, once said that “the absence of separation of powers is the very definition of tyranny.” (Hitchner and Harbold 1963, p. 170)

Without the separation of powers, if the American people would like to avoid any concentration of power which cannot be dismantled short of a revolution, as all the powers of government cannot be handled by a single person or group alone without necessarily curtailing much of the fundamental rights given the American people. The power to determine the destiny of the American people cannot simply be left into the hands of a very few, no matter how noble their intentions may be for the country.

For example, if the executive is granted unbridled discretion to exercise its police power of over the American people, this police power, which even under the regime of separation of powers, is the least illimitable and most pervasive of all governmental powers, can be further extended to trample upon the most basic of rights granted to the American people, such as the right to free speech and expression, assembly and association, all in the guise of exercising the police power of the state, regardless of the existence of a clear and present danger to warrant the exercise of such an awesome power.

3. How are the 3 branches of US Government suppose to interact?

In practice, the doctrine of separation of powers cannot be rigorously applied because it is modified by the system of checks and balances. While in a general sense, the executive implements the law, the legislature passes the law and the judiciary interprets the law, all other branches interact by wielding, to an extent, some of the functions of the other branches.

The President’s power to recommend a legislative program for approval by Congress and his veto power gives him some participation in the legislative process. The President’s exercise of executive powers is limited by the power of Congress over revenues and appropriations, notwithstanding other executive’s acts which require the ratification or approval of the US Congress. The judiciary on its part, stand as the final arbiter, of all acts of the executive and the legislature, especially when these two branches act wit lack or in excess of the powers granted by them by the US Constitution.

A strict separation of powers cannot be practices as it would result in what is called a deadlock of democracy, which would immobilize the functions and operations of government. Cooperation of the three branches of government as well as instrumentalities, agencies, and political subdivisions is essential to secure and effective and efficient government.

4. Is the system successful? Why or why not? Are the branches balanced in power? Why or why not?

These questions cannot simply be answered without qualifying it in the context of a particular period in American history, and there is perhaps no better example for this than the ongoing issue of the war in Iraq.

At present, the country is experiencing the beauty of this system in terms of the congressional rebuke of the war on Iraq, with the symbolic passage of bills to finally withdraw US troops from Iraq by March 2008. President George W. Bush has already threatened to veto the bills by the Democrat-led Congress, as part of his executive prerogative to check the excesses of a strong and hostile legislature. On the other hand, the US Supreme Court has also repudiated President Bush’s policy on extraterritorial prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, with the US SC granting these suspected terrorists constitutional rights as though they were under direct US jurisdiction.

In all of these, it is clear that no single branch of government seems to dominate the other two, even the executive which yields vast powers, including commanding the US Armed Forces. All branches know their place in the US Constitution and overstepping their powers would always result in a response from the other branches of government. As such, one cannot help but admire the statesmanship of President Bush, in his candid handling of the new Congress that has been relentless in its ferocity to challenge the validity and legitimacy of his ongoing war in Iraq. Even he knew the great need of continuing on with US military service in the war-torn country, he always shows deference to his counterparts in the legislature, in the manner befitting the respect due to a co-equal branch of the American government.

5. How was the conflict between supporters of a strong federal government and champions of states rights characterized then as apposed to now?

During the creation of the new American Republic, the individual states, the former colonies of the English, were very wary of the tyranny of the majority in terms of a complex number of issues, including slavery, notwithstanding skepticism on the powers that will be wielded by a federal government, which might encroach over the prerogatives, traditions and customs of the individual states. On the other hand, those who believed in a federal government believed that the loose confederation of states would be too weak in political power and unity to continue existing as a political entity – that these states needed a federal government to consolidate and unite the states based on common principles which were then enshrined in the present US Constitution.

On the other hand, the present conflict between states’ rights and federal rights have been more particularized now, touching on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, family, religion and many other things which states feel the federal government has been encroaching much upon. A good example has been the issue on whether to include the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in the public education system. Many conservative state governments have been proposing this but not without a harsh criticisms from liberal state actors in the federal government.

6. How could things be designed more efficiently?

In constitutionalism, efficiency of government is given less priority than the safeguarding of fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens, and affording all branches of government that powers it needs to serve the needs, hopes and aspirations of the American people. As the current system still works very well for the preservation of American democracy and even its prosperity, there is no need to change it yet, even if European parliamentarism would seem a more efficient system of governance with its fused executive and legislative branches.

Works Cited:

1. Hitcher, D. & Harbold, W. (1966). Modern Government. New York: Dodd Mead and Co.
2. Schader B. (2006). A State's Rights Federalist? Impossible. BlogCritics Magazine. Retrieved 1 April 2007 from <http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/21/160426.php.>.
3. Rothstein R. (2007). Are States' Rights The Bane Of Gay Rights?. QueerSighted: The Gay and Lesbian Community. Retrieved 1 April 2007 from <http://www.queersighted.com/2007/03/07/are-states-rights-the-bane-of- gay-rights.>

Introduction

[1]To ensure the rights of the workers, the international community established the International Labour Organization. Labour law is the law that efers to the regulation of work and dealings in the factories and other places of work, notwithstanding the relations between employers and employees. However, in the face of globalization of trade and services, labour law is deeply at peril, so are the millions of workers protected under its ambit.

Global trends around the world have shown that the more stringent and effective labour legislation, the more likely MNC's will relocate to another jurisdiction. As a result, globalization endangers the jobs and employment benefits that labour law was intended to protect. As in any enterprise, big and small, the maximization of profits and resources must be of paramount importance. By enlarging the scope of the World Trade Organization to the equalization of labour standards, the prospects of more efficient international trade relations become further possible, but not without triggering intense protests from the most affected stake-holder – the labor of the world.

World Trade Organization

There is only one international organisation responsible for the rules of trade among different countries – the World Trade Organization. It solves trade controversies among its 150 member states. It was established in 1995 under the Marrakech agreement which consist of a general agreement on tariffs and trade, agreements on sanitary and plant health measures, trade related perspective of intellectual property and technical barriers to trade.

Unfortunately, the WTO’s performance is considerably more harmful than predicted by the WTO critics before its approval. In considering long term strong WTO and regional trade agreements, such as NAFTA, the US government and other develop countries, has conceded much of its flexibility to independently advance health and safety standards that protect citizens.

Define ILO:

To ensure common justice for workers of the world, the United Nations created the International Labour Organization, its first specialised agency in 1946[2]. The ILO expresses international labour principles in the form of conventions. Conventions are the basis from which the standards of basic labour rights are created, including freedom of association, collective bargaining, elimination of forced labour, equality of chance and treatment, among others. It also gives technical support to member states, such as vocational training, employment rule, labour management and labour law.

Define NAALC and NAFTA

After WTO started its operation, many developing organisations were experiencing rapid expansion of regional trading blocks. These regional blocs have had some remarkable achievements, such as intensive liberalization measures, but unfortunately these have also become subject of great controversy, especially the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has caused a great uproar from militant labour unions in Latin America, Canada and the United States.

NAALC stands for North American agreement on labour cooperation, which is another organisation, which support and enforce labour rights internationally. NAALC maximized the use of bilateral and regional agreements to ease trade systems after observing specific labour standard. It was the first trade union to make important nexus between trade and labour rights.

On the other hand, NAFTA stands for North American free trade agreement[3] whose members are Canada, Mexico and USA. Since NAFTA started its operation, it removed half of all duties of USA goods shipped to Mexico. Eventually it eliminated other tariffs over a time of 14 years. This includes motor vehicles and automotive parts, and agriculture, computers and textiles. This organisation also provides intellectual property rights. It takes care of the patent, copyright and trademark.

Strengths of the WTO and Including Labour Standards in its Ambit

The WTO [4] is the key organisation operating the trade agreement around its member countries. It is very powerful because it can control the trade agreement across many countries. Agreements are decided unanimously by all member countries, which are also supported by their respective parliaments.

On the other hand, the best argument to liberalizing labour standards in a multi-lateral scale has been to afford better opportunities for labourers of developing countries in terms of competitiveness, productivity and efficiency. If trade ministers the world over can agree on a middle ground as to how labours standards should apply to all member states, it would be for the general benefit of all workers, and even the balance of the international economic system. It is important to strike a balance between the labour standards between developing countries, which are general lax and anti-worker, and developed countries, which have markedly provided much of their workers adequate benefits to secure a true Living wage. These two situations in different countries must find a middle ground so that labour standards and rights are preserved without prejudicing the utter need to create a stable, sustainable and efficient economic system in which trade barriers do not preclude the access of the people to commodities. In balancing the two factors, however, it must be noted that labour standards must always yield to sustaining the efficiency of the world economic system because the continued existence of industries, big or small, in all member states is more imperative than ensuring labour standards which might constitute as a big stumbling block in keeping the prices of commodities lower, thus, constraining market access due to higher prices. It must be remembered that the beauty of globalization has always been the breaking down of transactional costs and trade barriers to reduce prices considerably and flood the market with accessible goods for the people of the world. In the long run, balancing international trade in favour of the survival of industries rather than labour standards would benefit the workers soon enough. While to an extent, including labour standards to the ambit of the WTO might be burdensome for workers, especially workers in developed countries who might have to sacrifice much of their well-endowed benefits, the promise of globalization has not been to benefit a mere section of the world’s population, but to equalize the fruits and profits of international trade to all member states, thereby, relatively reducing poverty and hunger in a world-wide scale.

Weakness of the WTO and Including Labour Standards in its Ambit

The weakness of WTO is the continued perpetuation of regional trading blocs[5] as sometimes regional reforms turn out better, and more enforceable than the WTO. As the countries in regional blocs are more culturally and politically linked, the enforcement of obligations have been much easier than the multilateralism enforced by the WTO.

However, the most tacit yet glaring controversy the WTO has immersed itself into has been the prospects of compromising the interests of labour in the guise of freer market access and cheaper prices for goods traded. The phenomenon of globalization, has forced even without the need for legislation, Third World countries to turn into a haven of cheap-labour for the international market, to the extent that huge multinational and trans-national industries relentlessly search for factory sites that would offer the cheapest costs. No other greater example exists than the influx of direct capital investment to China. On the other hand, other Third World countries are forced to do away with stringent labour standards entrenched in Labor Codes and ILO standards in order to compete with China a gain a comparative advantage. As a result, countries like the Philippines, known for its high labour standards and the militancy of its working class, is veering into measures to subvert the protections given to labour, such as industry-scale contractualization policies. Contractualization is the phenomenon in which capitalists and employers employ, in a semi-annual contractual basis, all the workers in the production line it needs, to go around the labour standard loophole of automatically regularizing a person’s employment, with benefits, job security and union rights, once the person is employed after more than six months in any enterprise.

Nonetheless, in the area of labour, the current trend at present has shown that workers in the Third World are at a great disadvantage to developed countries in which the latter countries continuously employ and follow strict labour standards, whereas in the former countries, these already inadequate protections have been relaxed to suit the demands of a competitive advantage of cheap labour. The myth then of the equalization of playing fields is pierced because in glaring economic reality, the conditions of labour and the working people in both developed and underdeveloped areas of are utterly different. If the WTO were to include the globalization of labour standards aside from trade and services, it would totally be hard pressed to implement it, especially in the face of the patent inability of the WTO to force the withdrawal of agricultural farm subsidies on European farmers, in violation of WTO policies to level the playing field in agriculture. In WTO’s prospective policy on labour, it cannot be expected to uphold the stringent labour standards set by international labour organizations nor adhere to the intense lobby of worker’s unions to improve labour relations as such protections of labour would entail increased transaction costs (worker benefits and compensation, separation pay etc.) and jack up prices of goods distributed in the world market. The WTO would inimitably contradict itself if it upholds such stringent labour standards as it would mean that the WTO favours some barriers to trade such as stringent labour standards. However, in the even that the WTO does enact and encroach even on labour standards and dismantle those standards set by the WTO in pursuit of its neo-liberal economic agenda, it will surely be met with massive protests the working people the world over, as what happened in Seattle, Cancun and Hong Kong when agricultural subsidies were being liberalized. Like agriculture and land, labour is one of the more sensitive issues that can be the source of either developing the world economy or destroying it.

Recommendations

Based on the ILO and some other regional agreements such as NAALC, there have been controversies on whether the WTO should involve itself in adjudication and enforcement of international labour standards. It is not certain at present whether it will affect the aims of the WTO or not.

At the first WTO ministerial meeting in 1996 it was decided that whether WTO should renew its promise to observance of internationally recognised core labour standards or not. The ILO[6] was the competent body to set and maintain these standards. The question arises that whether WTO should keep its neutrality in labour standards or not.

An option[7] is to give the power to WTO to enforce international human rights via mandatory implication of trade measures against state that violate such rules. A weaker idea of this option is to empower WTO to enforce certain specified categories of human rights by introducing mandatory trade sanctions.

Nonetheless, the WTO should not interfere in labour standards because the ILO[8] exists to promote and protect these standards. More so, it may further create difficulties for the WTO in enforcing the already much violated international trade agreements. Adding more factors for adjudication and agreement might further complicate the dynamics of the organization, especially an issue as complex and controversial as labour. Unless the WTO can improve firstly on enforcing the multilaterally agreed upon trade agreements at present, the WTO has no business encroaching on the labour standards set by the ILO. The labour standards created by the ILO more than suffice to secure the rights of workers and ensure economic growth in affected industries the world over. Actually, these standards have even been violated by member countries already, to the detriment of workers around the world. But the solution to this can never be the encroachment by the WTO of these standards as the WTO does not exist primarily to regulate labour standards and rights, but to regulate international trade and all the industries under its ambit – an interest diametrically opposed to the idea of labour as a fundamental right, and the protection of labour as a primary obligation of states. An independent international organization that fully recognizes labour as such must still stand guard in its defence, rather than an international organization that simply treats labour as a matter of transactional costs in trade.

Conclusion:

While the World Trade Organization has been primarily effective in helping member states facilitate their trade relations and equalizing international trade to permit developing countries to compete with developed ones, encroaching upon the ambit of international labour standards might not be the wises thing to do at present. The WTO has, as of late, been having much trouble enforcing much of its trade agreements already, with the perennial breakdown of talks in different WTO rounds such as in Seattle and Cancun, and including labour standards in its ambit would definitely erode further its capacity to assert its legitimacy and authority to member states, especially when labour standards, over and above agriculture and intellectual property, are deeply controversial matters in all states. On the other hand, an organization exists for this purpose of securing labour standards and that is the International Labour Organization. The best thing to do now is not to allow the WTO to encroach on the field of labour standards, but to give the ILO more teeth in enforcing, protecting and asserting labour rights in an international scale, albeit in conjunction and support with labour organizations in different continents, regions, and countries.

Bibliography:

1. Andreyeva, N. 2000, Imperialism and Revolution, Available at http://www.wpb.be/guests/imperial.htm

2. Bhaumik T. K., The WTO: a discordant orchestra

3. Brenner, R. 1998, The Economic of Global Turbulence, A Special Report on the World Economy, 1950-98, New Left Review, London

4. Bullard N. 1998, Taming the Tigers: The IMF and the Asian Crisis, Tigers in Trouble, edited by Jomo K.S., Hong Kong University Press

5. Cheng E. et al, WTO: Globalisation at Gunpoint

6. Clough, S 1968, European Economic History, The Economies of Western Civilization, McGraw Hill

7. Fatoumata J. 2004, at the WTO: The Negotiations/Lessons of Cancun Behind the Scenes Real World of International Trade, 2Rev Ed edition, Zed Books Ltd

8. Goldstein, F. 2000, The Free Market Myth and Japan’s Banking Crisis

9. Grant T. 1997, An Analysis of the Global Economic Situation, Socialist Appeal

10. Greider, W. 1997, A Review of One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism, Simon and Shchuster

11. Jackson J. H. 2006, Sovereignty, the WTO and Changing Fundamentals of International Law

12. Richard P. 2003, Trinity: The IMF, and the WTO Unholy World Bank, Zed Books Ltd

13. Schorkopf F.., Peter-Tobias S., WTO

14. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, WTO Accessions and Development Policies

15. Villegas, E. 2000, Global Finance Capital and the Philippine Financial System, Institute of Political Economy, Manila

16. Wallach L. & Michelle S., The WTO: Five Years of Reasons to Resist Corporate Globalization

17. _________ 2002, Economic Crises and the Possibility of a Major World Crisis, Eleventh International Communist Seminar, Brussels, Belgium

18. <>

19. <>

20. <>

If there is a person who I would emulate my life with, in terms of merging leadership, business and service, I can think of no one else but former Vice-President Al Gore. For the entirety of his political career and even after controversially losing to George W. Bush in 2001, Al Gore never stopped nor rested on his ideals for a better America, albeit a better world, especially in his struggle against global warming.

Since 2001, Gore has embarked on an educational blitzkrieg of the evil of global warming as to why all governments of the world must come together and act decisively to combat the looming threat not only to mankind but to the existence of life on earth. He lectured in different places – universities, colleges, town halls, theaters – all venues in which Gore can spread the message, inspire people and get them to act together with him in his fight for a better world.

He has cut across an entire cross-section of American society in convincing them of the validity of his cause – conservative Christians, liberals, ethnic communities and a host of different diverse groups who otherwise would not have come together unless the fate of humanity is involved. At the center of it all was Al Gore, the defeated presidential aspirant who never lost his spurs despite his tragic loss and even proved to the entire world that a presidential setback can never preclude a good man from serving his people.

Nonetheless, his advocacy is never without intense opposition from an elite section of American society. In a recently concluded congressional hearing, Al Gore was again taken for granted by senior Republican congressmen who obviously had in their objectives the debunking of his premises against global warming by using ad hominem attacks and using argumentation fallacies to bring Al Gore and his advocacy to a corner. They kept on saying that the scientific evidence proving global warming is a fraud, despite the massive evidence presented by international scholars during a meeting in Paris a few months back. More so, Al Gore is being portrayed as simply interested in riding the tide of global warming for his own personal interests as he perfectly knew how important a unifying issue it was for a great majority of the American people.

All of these criticisms and lies never stopped Al Gore from continuing on with his struggle and being true to his mission of education the people on the evils of global warming. His film, The Inconvenient Truth, was even given an Academy Award for being the best documentary of 2006, in recognition of his relentless efforts in molding the minds of the American public. He has been able to create a pressure group to lobby Congress to form policies which would protect the earth from further heating up, and restrict industries from over-producing toxic fumes that would soon enough contribute to the heating process of the earth.

In all of these, much can be truly learned from Al Gore, even business leaders, on the manner by which a clearness and definiteness of vision exists in his mind despite the momentous tasks at hand. Business leaders, like Al Gore, must have the courage of conviction to stand up for the good and benefit of their companies and corporations, if they would want to see the fruition of their efforts, sacrifices and investments.

In the post September the 11^th hysteria that gripped the nation, at no time did the country experienced a resurgence in racial discrimination. By discrimination, I do not mean that of the African-American kind, as in generations past where our fellow citizens of color where segregated in the use of public utilities and treated as second class citizens, though I think some Americans still do harbor racial prejudice against them. By discrimination, I also do not mean resurgence of anti-Semitic blend, in the manner neo-Nazis in Europe and Australia have been regrouping and making themselves felt through riots and attacks.

The kind of discrimination that I witnessed was something new, novel even, which emerged only as the jumbo jets hit the towers and took the lives of thousands of our people. It is the racial discrimination that is now gripping thousands of Muslims and Middle Eastern men and women who reside and immigrate to the United States for business or in search of the American Dream.

Actually, I really did not notice it at first, especially as I went to school, as it was perfectly normal for me to see students of different races – Hispanics, Orientals, Malays, among others. I sometimes even see a little girl with a veil walking around the campus. I do travel once in a while with my family, visiting different countries and experiencing a host of other cultures different from our own.

But when I arrived back from vacation abroad two years ago, it was there that I realized that a new kind of racial discrimination exists in the light of the terror attacks that brought the nation to its knees and the quagmire that is Iraq.

It all happened at the JFK airport when my family and I got back from our summer trip in Thailand. As American citizens in our airports, we were a privileged bunch, and so are hundreds of thousands of American citizens that enter and exit the terminals of JFK every year. The gleeful welcome of immigration officials, while trite as they may seem, is such a healthy reassurance that ours is a proud and great country. More so, landing on American soil, polluted as it is, made me feel that there is really nothing else which an American could ever ask for than reside anywhere else in the world.

To a certain extent, my statements really hold true to other American jetsetters who do look the typical American citizen – Caucasian or African-American and a host of other races, for as long as the looks do not resemble a Middle Eastern descent and a valid passport is at hand. When we were lining up the immigration counter to have our passports checked, I noticed a young Middle Eastern family who were having such a hard time in securing clearance from immigration officials, especially when they also had the same flight as ours. I think they were bona fide American citizens, or at least immigrants of the country, as they queued on the same lane as my family.

The father of the family, in broken English with a heavy accent, was arguing with the immigration official to let them pass especially when they were able to furnish the required documents. Actually, I think they also had a difficult time during the X-ray inspection, as they took such a long time falling in line at that station as well.

At first glance, I did not mind it as much as I was very eager to have arrived in the country already and get my hands on the notebook I left at home. I did not pay much heed until I wrote this paper and researched about forms of discrimination the past few weeks. It’s sad that I realized that the incident that involved the Middle Eastern family was a formulaic case of the current trend of discrimination of Islamics and Middle Eastern person. It was called racial profiling. I really hate myself for knowing only now, and realizing that I myself have been duped into believing that most Middle Eastern men and women were intricately linked with the terrorist cells and groups that our proud soldiers were laying their lives for in Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually, I really thought that I was just a normal standard operating procedure in our airports – to toughen our homeland security in the fight against global terror. Only now have I realized that in pursuit of such a war without borders, we are also creating an invisible war back here at home, when we create a presumption in our minds that every Middle Easterner we meet in our schools, supermarkets and streets might be a terrorist until convincingly proven otherwise. It is quite perplexing to conjecture that perhaps one of the primary reasons as to why the Middle Eastern family was having more trouble than in securing an immigration clearance might simply be due to their ethnicity – social trait which they never yearned for nor had the capacity to determine for themselves. It is just patently unfortunate that in the hysteria against terrorism, the little kid of that Middle Eastern family had to experience the ordeal of being treated differently than most of us.

The phenomenon of popular in contemporary society will be examined using the vista of three thinkers, Jurgen Habermas, Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno – all of whom wrote convincing treatises on the interplay of society, culture and identity. A critical Marxist reading on Habermas’ Discourse Ethics is essential to present a current worldview of contemporary society in which popular culture is produced and reproduced. On the other hand, the exposition on the writings of Benjamin and Adorno, both Marxist thinkers, will show the patent difficulties in defining what exactly the role of popular culture is, in contemporary society.

According to Habermas, human beings are uniquely rational creatures with the ability to converse but not necessarily being dominated by instinct and coercion. There is recognition of the vulnerability of the individual. In us, there is the capability to interact such vulnerabilities, to have actions of thoughtfulness and consideration by instructing ourselves to include those who have been individuated, ostracized or marginalized. An interdependency between the individual and the collective in which a Life-World is created and a language community is produced brought about by communicative action. Life-world is the scheme one brings in an everyday sense. It helps create a worldview, used to make judgments and builds a self-identity vis-à-vis the world. This is how we hope to conduct ourselves in our interactions with others. (Braaten, 1991)

Jurgen Habermas errs in assuming the absence of conversations, if at all, relationships bereft of domination by coercion or by instinct. In a pluralistic world, social contradictions of class continue emanating despite the absence of an over-arching authority such as a feudal Catholic Church dictating on people.

While it is true that there is recognition of vulnerability among individuals and everyone has the capacity to act thoughtful, kind or considerate, it is precisely this vulnerability which is exploited by those who wish to enslave and oppress, even under a system which has ceased having the state at the center of society. Even rabid capitalists who fund military-industrial complexes have this innate capacity to be kind, to even be philanthropists to foundations and pour their loose millions into its funds. But this is not because of a consensus between people who are part of a social intercourse but due to class determinations in which a mask of benevolence should be worn by scheming capitalists to elicit images of corporate social responsibility. Even Hitler had propaganda posters kissing babies! The fact that the individuated, marginalized and ostracized is still in society’s periphery holds despite changes in superstructures and even in the modes of production, without the necessary prerequisite of revolution. There is interdependency, yes, but interdependency based on exploitation of classes in the service of profit. It is never borne out of love, in a social scale, that is. The language community that Habermas speaks of is actually a language of coercion and deception, using quasi-love and terror tactics to achieve an end on a hapless ruled majority. Oh, there is a tacit language too, the language of war between classes. There is actually no consensual discourse that occurs even in a postmodern society where the relations of production continue to press forth. The worldview too that is created by this is a worldview of a need to destroy the class dictatorship of the rulers on one hand and the need to suppress the revolutionary progress on the other. This is truly how it is hoped one would conduct one’s life recognizing the existence of a class war, using overt and covert forms of language and communications to destroy and obliterate one another.

Moral problems can most definitely be resolved rationally and objectively. It is precisely our gift of cognition which separates us from lesser animals. Questions on pre-marital sex, abortion, gay marriage and other looked down upon social taboos can be resolved by the use of intellect. Habermas is correct in saying that such can only be done in a pluralistic society where there is no dominant authority out to sanction and control. (Horster 1992) Gay marriage cannot certainly be allowed in a very feudal-patriarchal society such as Iran, but it is certainly allowed in Scandinavian nations with very lax socio-cultural norms. Women will be stoned to death in the Middle East if they had lovers and had sex outside their marriages! A college couple in the Philippines would most certainly be asked to tie the knot had they been caught by their parents having sex at the girl’s house! Pluralistic societies, which many misconstrue as postmodern societies have the luxury of deciding for themselves what to do without the need for social pressures from norms and traditions. But this laxity over norms contributes also to a decadent popular culture with norms trashed for selfish purposes and elicits irresponsible and immature behavior, especially among the youth. This is caused by the consumerism of a postmodern world and a manifestation of economic contradictions in an advanced stage of capitalism where, in the guise of liberalism and openness to change, people are rendered ignorant further as they are eaten up by a culture of consumerism brought precisely by the rational mind by using choice as an excuse.

In this Marxist critique of Habermas’ depiction of social relations, it is clear that even the basis and conceptualization of society in which popular culture springs forth is deeply debatable using different vistas of analysis and problematization, that a unified theory in explaining popular culture in all its excesses and benefits seem difficult. Nonetheless, popular culture has now enveloped the world, from Houston and London to Shanghai and Rio de Janeiro, in which popular culture icons such as McDonalds and even Britney Spears are received in frenzy by the people. Despite the pervasiveness of popular culture and the critique it receives from critical and radical scholars, Walter Benjamin, in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936), described that popular culture, art specifically, had a radical role in the emancipation of culture from the mystification of the elite in different societies, especially in its mechanistic reproduction through photographs, film and music. Benjamin (1936) said that –

An analysis of art in the age of mechanical reproduction must do justice to these relationships, for they lead us to an all-important insight: for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual. To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the “authentic” print makes no sense. But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics.

At a certain time in the history of popular culture, especially those art forms which were mechanically produced to reach thousands of people, it laid the foundation towards the democratization of culture in which the people themselves and not only royalty can wonder at the sight of beauty and creativity of art and culture.

Moreover, in pursuit of his discourse that popular culture and its art democratize its access to the people, he found no other medium of culture that enabled the collective enjoyment of culture other than film. He (Benjamin, 1936) quipped –

Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art. The reactionary attitude toward a Picasso painting changes into the progressive reaction toward a Chaplin movie. The progressive reaction is characterized by the direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the expert. Such fusion is of great social significance. The greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public.

Benjamin clearly saw in film the collective experience of the masses the depiction of their lives in its rawest form, bereft of the niceties that painting and other classical forms of art provided. Even up to now, descriptions that film is a communion with the people and society while in a movie theater abound – and such experience can never be replaced by all high-end HD LCD TVs produced for personal and individual consumption of the home. He also surmised that such art forms, even popular culture then and now, would pass from its previous radical state of emancipation towards a decadent epoch in the future, in which the reproduction of art and culture do not correspond anymore to its historic role in society. It can be said at present that popular culture might have passed on to the decadent stage already, in the face of tasteless box-office films with little social content but loads of entertainment value, and the rise of teeny-bopper artists without concrete musical talent save for their propensity to wiggle their bodies in sexy maneuvers. He (Benjamin 1936) said that –

One of the foremost tasks of art has always been the creation of a demand which could be fully satisfied only later. The history of every art form shows critical epochs in which a certain art form aspires to effects which could be fully obtained only with a changed technical standard, that is to say, in a new art form. The extravagances and crudities of art which thus appear, particularly in the so-called decadent epochs, actually arise from the nucleus of its richest historical energies.

These cultural excesses of present popular culture as anecdotally described and best represented by Britney Spears and Paris Hilton is no different from the artworks produced at the height of the reign of decadence in France prior to the French Revolution, in which art were produced at the expense of the poverty and hunger of the people. It is no different from the decadent cultural icons of today insofar as it permitted the reproduction of a popular culture that is bereft of any social content and value. Nonetheless, in classic Marxist analysis, such inertia towards cultural decadence is expected in a world capitalist system in chronic crisis as it is part of the tacit and express superstructural apparatuses of the bourgeois the world over, to make people forget the glaring socio-economic contradictions of the times – the decreasing healthcare benefits, the rising tuition in colleges and universities, the growing American death toll in Iraq, among other social issues, which the people can never play blind to, as these things, more than popular culture, define the enjoyment of their existence and their pursuit of happiness. The cultural push of popular culture, moreover, is no different from the celebration of the Roman Empire of gladiator matches and deaths, in a backdrop of economic contradictions wrought by an overextended empire and rebellions on all fronts.

This is the reason why Theodor Adorno, in The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (1944), said –

Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed.

His treatise is a scathing indictment of the road popular culture now takes towards decadence and the overall exposition that the social system in which popular culture operates forces it to stagnate into less artful forms. He even criticized the barrenness of the present cultural reproduction of beauty that reactionary cultural fanaticism serves in its methodical idolisation of individuality, to the extent that people, especially women of the world, must now conform to a universal standard of beauty - what we now know as the slim, sexy and smart woman that men ogle their eyes on, instead of a beauty that is utterly determined in the eye of every individual person. On the other hand, Adorno (1944) says that with the decadence in popular culture –

The irreconcilable elements of culture, art and distraction, are subordinated to one end and subsumed under one false formula: the totality of the culture industry. It consists of repetition. That its characteristic innovations are never anything more than improvements of mass reproduction is not external to the system. It is with good reason that the interest of innumerable consumers is directed to the technique, and not to the contents – which are stubbornly repeated, outworn, and by now half-discredited.

This trend is clearly evident until now, to the extent that the film industry relegates an isolated category of art films from the mainstream film industry for the simple reason that the techniques and storylines art films employ are uncannily different from what sells in the business of mainstream Hollywood. By divorcing content from technique in the framework of the film business, the quality of the art and culture that the people digest become more and more isolated from the reality of their lives. The rap music genre is a good example to explain this phenomenon. The roots of rap music has been jazz and blues, which were concrete expressions of centuries of untruth that African-Americans were less civilized and barbaric than the White Man. But as the music progressed and African-Americans were emancipated from slavery and segregation, the present crop of African-American artists seem to reproduce a popular culture that does not conform to the origins of their music as the content now speaks of drugs, sex and violence rather than the liberating messages of love, peace and struggle. Instead of rap music being the present expression of the struggle and liberation of the African-Americans from poverty and discrimination, the message is obliterated in the altar of commercialism and the mad-dash of individualistic and rapid accumulation of wealth among the African-Americans. The display of their heavy gold bling-blings in the rap music video is the best evidence of this.

In all of these, it is evident that comprehensively analyzing popular culture is as difficult as explaining the society in which it operates and reproduces. It is clear that popular culture, at one point in its existence, had a radical role to fill in the history of the world, especially in the democratization of cultural consumption, against the limited cultural access prior to that by royalty and the elite. On the other hand, popular culture is also on the brink of decadence, especially at present, where cultural forms and even norms now be transported and transplanted across all corners of the world in amazing speed. Nonetheless, the message of this paper is clear – while it is difficult to stop neither the march of history nor the reproduction of popular culture, globalized pop culture even, societies and the people who consume such culture must always be wary of its disconnects and excesses, especially in the depiction of the reality and contradictions of the people’s lives. In the ultimate analysis, a culture, even popular culture, that does not liberate, in whatever way or aspect, stagnates the consciousness of a people.

References:

1. Adorno, T. & Horkheimer M. (1944). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment and Mass Deception. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from http://marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture- industry.htm
2. Benjamin, W. (1936). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. Retrieved March 27, 2007 at http://marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
3. Braaten, J. (1991), Habermas's Critical Theory of Society, State University of New York Press,.
4. Horster, D. (1992). Habermas: An Introduction. Pennbridge
5. Geuss, R. (1981). The Idea of a Critical Theory, Cambridge University Press.
6. Giddens, A. (1971) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. An Analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
8. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
10. Lyotard, J. (1979). The Postmodern Condition Manchester University Press.
11. McCarthy, T. (1978). The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas, MIT Press.

One of the most well-researched and plausible explanations of the systemic financial crises of the world capitalist system has been given by capitalism’s primary ideological nemesis – Marxist political economy. Even before the Great Depression, one of capitalism’s most famous instances of systemic financial crises, Frederick Engels and Vladimir Lenin already surmised that the crisis of overproduction in the capitalist world would be the primary trigger of the systemic financial crises in the world economic order in which the resultant answer to such a crisis is the phenomenon of imperialism by advanced capitalist states of less developed, Third World countries (Andreyeva 2000). Such a crisis of overproduction, Marxists the world over quipped, is the primary culprit in historic systemic financial crises which have caused the spread of poverty, deaths and hunger in many continents and states. According to a paper presented to the Eleventh International Communist Seminar (2002), the contemporary nature of the crisis of overproduction was defined–

Owing to deregulation, privatisation, and liberalisation, there has been a marked decrease in the effective demand in the world. Structural Adjustment Policies in the third world and flexible work relations in the first world are contributing to a steep decline in demand. At the same time, the introduction of new technology (silicon chips, computers, fiber-optics, internet, robotics and so on) has rapidly increased the capacity for production but also made millions unemployed. Therefore, the increases in productive capacity are accompanied by a decline in the capacity to buy these products. This tendency has produced a chronic crisis of over-production in the world capitalist economy today. The October 1987 stock market crash, the East Asian currency crisis, followed by crisis in Russia, Brazil, and Argentina represent a global crisis of over-production. With the deregulation of state-managed capitalism, these oscillations (called cycles by bourgeois economists) have become enormous and threaten to become totally unmanageable. The imperialists have decided to allow sinking economies to sink because there is simply no political motivation to act otherwise (as was the case after the Second World War). Furthermore, the imperialists are increasingly unwilling to pay the economic costs of such an act. As stated earlier, the national and international debt are already high and an attempt to stave off the current crisis of overproduction by borrowing may possibly further aggravate this crisis.

According to classical Marxist political economists, the economic spasms caused by the crisis of overproduction have considerably hindered the working peoples of the world from purchasing the goods they produce as their wages continue to remain stagnant. This trend is detrimental to capitalists of all kinds, industrial, commercial and financial, as the purchasing power of the people will significantly be less that goods will be bought less in retail stores and supermarkets triggering a decrease in production in factories due to low demand, notwithstanding the inability of the people to deposit their savings in banks as a result of increased prices and low wages.

Nonetheless, one of the most brilliant ways in averting such crises of overproduction in industrial capital has been the development of finance capital in the forms of banks, hedge funds, and speculative capital. According to Global Finance Capital and the Philippine Financial System (Villegas 2000, p.68), finance capital mainly subsist on credit-capital or fictitious money, as distinct from money-capital (the latter based on a metallic standard like gold or silver) to accumulate more profit. As a result, credit-capital can thrive on speculation of future values of stocks and securities in which finance capital can overextend its credits beyond its actual reserves in the expectation of recovering the principal and increasing profits through interest. This phenomenon, while effective in the short-term leads to disastrous results as it merely creates a bubble economy. Due to over-extension of credits, bubble economies have led to severe financial crises when capital markets fall as what happened when Japanese capitalists withdrew $7.5 billion of their investments in East Asia since 1995, due to the Japanese recession and collapse of Japanese real estate prices. (Goldstein 2000) This withdrawal contributed much to the Asian Financial crisis of 1997 which caused the bankruptcies of hundreds of banks, closures of thousands of enterprises, and the laying-off of hundreds of thousands of workers, notwithstanding the withdrawal of speculative capital by Western investors on Asian businesses. While over-extension of credits may save economies in advanced capitalist states on the brink of overproduction, an economic-set-up like such is unsustainable as finance capital will always have to yield to the current state of industrial capital in these countries. If the economic contradictions brought about by the crisis of overproduction is never resolved, the bubble economy will burst, which can lead to collapse of entire economies of countries, as what happened in Southeast Asian countries in 1997.

In the globalization of trade, services and finance capital, government economic policies can only do so much to avert the trend of severe systemic financial crises of the world capitalists system. Truth to tell, the over-extension of credits through speculative capital, trusts, hedge funds, among others, are the best defenses of countries, especially in the developed world regulating an ensuing crisis. Governments, even in those hit by the 1997 crisis continue insisting on the value of investments as multipliers of production, which does improve enterprises in the short run, but until when? In the Philippines, the real estate market is again growing, and investments from the world over continue to flow to different projects, through direct capital and speculative capital. However, these were the same conditions present before the Thai baht was devalued in 1997. Will the bubble burst once again? In the ultimate analysis, for as long as economic contradictions between capital and labor continue to subsist in all corners of the world, whether developed, developing or underdeveloped, a resolution to any systemic financial crisis can never be achieved.

References:

1. Villegas, E. 2000, Global Finance Capital and the Philippine Financial System, Institute of Political Economy, Manila

2. _________ 2002, Economic Crises and the Possibility of a Major World Crisis, Eleventh International Communist Seminar, Brussels, Belgium

3. Andreyeva, N. 2000, Imperialism and Revolution, Available at http://www.wpb.be/guests/imperial.htm

4. Grant T. 1997, An Analysis of the Global Economic Situation, Socialist Appeal

5. Goldstein, F. 2000, The Free Market Myth and Japan’s Banking Crisis

6. Brenner, R. 1998, The Economic of Global Turbulence, A Special Report on the World Economy, 1950-98, New Left Review, London

7. Bullard N. 1998, Taming the Tigers: The IMF and the Asian Crisis, Tigers in Trouble, edited by Jomo K.S., Hong Kong University Press

The article, Do Organizations Have the Best People?, is a scathing critique of popularly held assumptions by corporations the world over, even multi-national ones, that hiring the best and the brightest employees would significantly improve the performance of the companies in all aspects in the long term. The article should that such an assumption is only but a myth which ought to be pierced in order to truly develop corporations, ensure organizational learning and deliver results for the company.

At the onset, the article presented premises by which the pervasive view of hiring only the best talents and shunning everyone else has been one of the leading management frameworks in many corporations. The premises were based on the idea that talent was never malleable and fixed, especially in the light of seemingly objective indicators such as IQ tests and set interview questions during the hiring process. Moreover, apologists of such a view surmise that immersing A-grade employees in a pool of similar A-grade employees would ipso facto result in better work outputs compared to a group of C-level employees led by a B-grade leader. Logically, it might seem to be a plausible assumption yet pales in the face of overwhelming evidence that individual capacities do not automatically lead to better results and profits for a company. According to the article, such a mind-set plays blind to many different factors in organizational culture and development such as the systems by which the employees work and the culture that defines and reproduces the kind of work and output employees and their leaders deliver.

As a result, the assumptions that talent is the overarching determinant in organizational success is dismantled and obliterated especially when evidence were presented to show otherwise, especially in the experience of top global corporations, in which a major determinant of success in work has been practice and experience. In one of the studies, there has been a considerable increase in the level of work employees deliver when they are familiar with the persons they are working with and continue to be so in the succeeding span of months and years on end. On the other hand, companies that simply do not employ the best talent defines all approach have shown that their employees actually do become smarter and work better when no management policy like such is employed, that rubs such incapacity of talent to its employees, because companies level the playing field by providing its employees the opportunities it needs to be better and smarter. Under a framework of only securing the best talent, such opportunities for growth is limited and hinders the further development of creativity and talent among its people.

The myth of best talent defines all approach was finally pierced when the article explained that the more pertinent issue to resolve in organizations is whether the management systems employed contributed to the development or further constriction of productivity and work output by the employees as a poor management system would ensure that even the hiring crème dela crème employees with thousands of dollars as signing bonuses would no necessarily lead to the expected results, and might even drag the company further down and the talent that these employees possess. On the other hand, those with brilliant management systems have been proven to transform formerly F-class employees into superstars, as in the case of the takeover of Toyota of an auto plant previously operated by an American corporation. When the American carmaker was operating the plant, productivity was low and professionalism even at its worse. But when Toyota took over, trained the same low-output employees in their training facilities in Japan and deployed them to the same auto plant, the result were very different, with absenteeism at a very low 3-percent, compared to double-digit figures before, notwithstanding achieving productivity and work outputs unseen before. The formerly below-par employees were given a break and they produced immense results! Such an experience, anecdotal as it is, shows that talent is really not the prime determinant nor the decisive factor in the success and failure of a company. Another glaring example of this fact is the sad story of NASA and the explosion of one of its space shuttles. In the investigations on the incident, it was found that the top-heavy structure of NASA is one of the prime culprits in the disaster as the bosses in NASA overruled the technical suggestions of its lower-level employees on the safety of the space shuttle, arguing erroneously that the technical crew must prove convincingly that the shuttle was totally unsafe. Such a management system that hinged on clear-cut and hierarchical power relations among its leaders and employees showed how such mindsets on talent and expertise can sometimes lead to fatal results.

It is important to draw attention to such a management mindset of best talent defines all because it also leads to the glorification of corporate individualism as though sound management systems and organizational culture do not matter in defining the success of the company. In reality, though, such a glorification leads to not-so-good results such as when industry hotshots are pirated from one company to another. A study was undertaken that showed that almost half of investor analysts performed poorly a year after they left their old companies.

Nonetheless, there is a solution to such an impasse but it takes root not on the changing of people for better talent but in a constant rethinking and reinvention of management systems which fit the organizational profile of the company. But prior to that, the stereotypes attached to natural talent must be broken, such as the presumption that talent evidenced by test results and interviews are fixed and unchanging, as everybody in the organization has the propensity to develop their own talent. In many cases, acquisition of higher academic degrees does not automatically result in greater productivity compared to simple college-level employees as the factors for the determination of such productivity do not rest on academic levels alone but on many other things.

In the ultimate analysis, the presumption must be this – bad systems are far worse than having bad people as bad systems drag even the best and the brightest down the quicksand of decreased outputs. In the NASA example, the basic systemic flaw in their management caused the denigration even of the smartest people as the monolithic NASA management system remained unchanged. The most concrete expression of this failure is the repetition of a more than a decade-old mistake in allowing the launching of a technically deficient space shuttle. The article said it best, “it was a system that made it difficult for smart people to do smart things.

Aside from this change in mindset of putting a premium on rethinking the management system rather than talent, it is important to recognize that it is far more important for the company’s employees to have wisdom rather than intelligence. Wisdom here is construed as the intellectual honesty to admit limitations and mistakes and asking help, all in pursuit of improving organizational dynamics. The best example for this has been the study of a group of nurses who had the best leadership and co-worker relationships yet reported more mistakes than all other nursing groups assessed. Such intellectual honesty disdained covering up mistakes as recognition exists that mistakes are all part of the working process, especially in hospital work, and it would be more detrimental for the company make excuses and blame other factors. Such admissions and honesty help in the over-all health of the company and objectively create ways and means to improve efficiency, productivity and work relations. The message here is clear – employee acquiescence totally undermines organizational development.

In all of these, it has been shown that putting the fate of the company on the best talent does not necessarily result in better results for the company, in all aspects. Over and above anything else, a management system that fits the organizational profile of the company must be emphasized rather than the mad dash of getting the best talent. More so, it is important to realize that a company does not need all the intelligence it has if it lacks organizational wisdom even among its present employees. Organizational wisdom ensures the objectivity in running the organization in all its working processes so that managers may best form sound decisions in implementing plans and policies in the company. Talent and intelligence is important, but never the primary determinant of success.

Reference:

1. Pffefer, J. & Sutton, R. (2006). Do the Best Organizations Have the Best People?, Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management (pp.85-106). Boston: Harvard Business School

The Lawrence v Texas case invited much criticism and praise from all sectors of American society when the US Supreme Court overturned a previous case in favor of upholding the equal protection clause in affirming the rights of homosexual individuals to engage in sexual acts in the privacy of their own home. It was deemed a legal and moral victory by the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender (LGBTs) communities who, in all fronts of law and politics, sought relentlessly to assert their rights and welfare. According to them, it signaled a rethinking of the American legal system of the role LGBTS play in the development of the community and American society in general. The Lawrence case was seen as repudiation of American conservatism and the perceived backwardness in thinking of many American institutions and social groups, especially in Texas, which saw homosexuality and homosexual acts as sinful and evil in absolute and even dogmatic Christian terms, without due regard to the changing socio-cultural, legal and economic relations of today. On the other hand, many actors in the American legal institutions criticized the decision intensely, not on moralist Christian terms, but on the way the decision was written, as it veered from the well-respected doctrine of stare decisis and bordered on another case of judicial activism/legislation where the Justices seemed to have incorporated their own understanding and objective biases on constitutional and statutory precepts which, in a textualist reading, are clearly not present in the text of the law nor in the constitution. Such allegations of judicial legislation, if true, are generally frowned upon by the American legal community and even political commentators as the judiciary takes it upon itself to tacitly invalidate a law when it should have exercised more discretion in upholding it, especially when a presumption exists that the judiciary must afford much leeway and respect for the actions of the legislature unless the law is found to be unfair, vague and arbitrary, among other tests of unconstitutionality and invalidity. In all of these, this paper seeks to investigate the profound effect of the Lawrence case on the relationship between morality and the law.

Prior to a discussion of the pertinent issues and the ratio desidendi that came to characterize this historic case, it is essential that a review of the basic facts be given. Quoting Justice Kennedy’s presentation of the facts –

In Houston, Texas, officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. They entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Geddes Lawrence, resided. The right of the police to enter does not seem to have been questioned. The officers observed Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were arrested, held in custody over night, and charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace.

The complaints described their crime as “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).” App. to Pet. for Cert. 127a, 139a. The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003). It provides: “A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.” The statute defines “[d]eviate sexual intercourse” as follows:

“(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

“(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.” §21.01(1).

The homosexual couple asserted that their conviction was an infringement of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth amendment, in which the lower courts denied their petitions until the petition for certiorari was granted by the US Supreme Court.

While there are many issues which the court resolved in this case, most pertinent to this paper is the sub-issue which asked: whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views [of morality] on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. The majority opinion answered by quoting a previous decision, “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992). For the longest time, the conduct of laws were defined by using moral precepts based on Judeo-Christian doctrines of morality which tended to obviate and set aside all other source of such morality as the basis of the law. The majority decision also presented statistical data that showed that many other states in the United States and even European countries already relaxed their laws against homosexual conduct, perhaps in apparent recognition of such statutes as affront to the preservation and development of the dignity of the human person as, quoting previous decision –

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Such homosexual acts in the privacy of a person’s home is subsumed in the concept stated above and their autonomy as persons to decide for themselves the concept of their own existence and meaning must be respected by the Court and the law. By affirming such, the court dismantles the previous Bower case which lent legitimacy in making protected conduct such as private homosexual acts criminal. Moreover, it is equally important to note that such overturning of a prior doctrine was based not on equal protection or due process principles and tests but on whether the Bowers case was valid or not, because it was important for the court to debunk the substantive validity of the Bowers decision to erase the legalized stigma of homosexuals which the Bowers decision created, especially when it continuance as a precedent destroys the human dignity even of homosexual persons.

On the other hand, Justice Scalia dissented not only on the basis of upholding the doctrine of stare decisis, but more substantively, asserting that –

Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority`s belief that certain sexual behavior is `immoral and unacceptable` constitutes a rational basis for regulation xxx The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are `immoral and unacceptable,` xxx the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest.

Scalia opined that a legitimate state interest existed in protecting the state of Texas from evil which the majority of its people viewed as an affront to its traditions, customs and morals, which does not only include homosexual acts but even fornication, adult incest, bestiality, obscenity, among other things. These immoral acts stated above are sufficient basis in the assertion of the state of its prerogative to limit the rights of the people in pursuit of such state interest such as protecting public morals. By upholding the majority opinion and its discourse of the Court’s role in the protection of liberty, the Court has sealed the end of morals legislation in which no state may now impose its own definition of morality despite the objections of the majority in any given society. Such decision is tantamount to an encroachment by the Court of the concrete expression of the interests of a people in their representation and passage of laws in state legislatures.

In all of these, while it is essential for the state and federal legal systems to uphold a consistent standard of morality in defining its laws, a considerable leeway must be accorded to the Court in determining if such laws are incompatible to the protections granted by the constitution for its people. As the protections and rights are granted by the Constitution, strict discretion must be given more to the passage of laws in limiting liberties and other rights by the legislature rather than such restraint is passed on to the courts. In the ultimate analysis, the court must determine the issues on morality and law not simply on the basis of past traditions and customs, including pasts decisions and doctrines, but must take into account the changing conditions of American society in all its aspects. The best example for this has been the time-honored principles of ensuring the eradication of racial prejudice in all our statutes as part of American society’s repudiation of its history of slavery. However, it must be clear that at one point in our people’s history, such constitutional tests in determining unequal protection based on racial prejudice was non-existent, and even the courts affirmed the socio-economic relations that existed prior to the abolition of the slavery system.

Much has been learned on how the American legal system works especially in the system of appeals and petitions for certiorari, where aggrieved parties may continuously appeal from the lower circuit courts to the highest court of the land if questions of law were not fully answered and substantiated by the lower courts. As the lower courts denied the petitions of the couple, they got a favorable decision from the US Supreme Court which disposed not only the constitutional question but corollary issues which dictate not only the law between the parties but on future jurisprudence as well. On the other hand, the Supreme Court justices used precedents in arguing their decisions, notwithstanding employing the different tests in equal protection and due process. It showed that American jurisprudence is a goldmine of decisions which may contradict each other but resolved upon the determination of the present Court. All the justices had different analyses on the same texts, using forensic methods traditionally used in disposing cases such as stare decisis and novel methods such as the one employed by the majority decision, to the extent of being accused of judicial legislation. Nonetheless, as the US Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, criticisms aside, the American people and the legal commentators can do nothing else but respect the decision, in the hope that in future cases the Lawrence decision will be affirmed or overturned.

Works Cited:

1. Lawrence v. Texas (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

2. Editorial Advisory Board (2003). Judicial activism. The Daily Record. August 18, 2003.

3. Editorial Advisory Board (2003). The Logic of Sex Laws. The Daily Record. August 18, 2003.

4. Geidner, Christopher (2003). Queer Eyes for the States' Rights Guy:
The Legal Issues Raised by the Proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. FindLaw’s Writ. Retrieved March 24, 2007 from writ.findlaw.com

5. Byfield, Ted (2006). The Folly Of Divorcing Religion From Politics (The Law IS based On Morality, Stupid Alert). World Internet Daily. Retrieved March 24, 2007 from www.freerepublic.com

Time is a reality of life that is utterly inescapable. Like God, it is omnipresent as no matter what a person does; time will always run out for things to be done and tasks to be finished. The factory worker in a tire factory will always have to make sure that he reaches the production quota set by management, lest he be fired from the company. The lawyer will have to ensure that he finishes the entire research of the pleading in a civil rights case, lest he be scolded by the judge and compromise the case of his client. The student will have to wake up early, lest he be late for school and earn the ire of the school administrators for tardiness. The investment banker of Morgan Stanley will lose his clients to other investment banks if he misses the train for canoodling with his wife before leaving home. In all of these examples, a major contributing factor for all of their actions is being on time. However, like God, time is also one of the most underestimated things in life, taken for granted as though it is never important. This paper aims to justify the importance of being on time as part of the daily life of persons and even society. There are three reasons why being on time is important – efficiency and productivity, (missed) opportunities, and cordial respect to peers and superiors.

Efficiency and Productivity

Being on time is actually an economic decision which is based on the concept of maximization of scarce resources in the least possible amount of time. In a given time frame for production, an hour for example, being late for a few minutes is already tantamount to a lessening of the production output for an entire hour because those few minutes of lateness were spent on idle work unrelated to the production at hand, such as being in transit. For example, if a female textile worker in China arrived five minutes late as production of Ralph Lauren shirts starts factory-wide, her lateness may delay the entire assembly line of production, especially when the female worker occupies a specialized and indispensable function in the assembly line, such a quality control officer that inspects each and every shirt that is produced by the factory. As a result of the delay in the operations due to a single person’s lateness, the profits and production for the day of the company might decrease in comparison to days when the factory worker arrives on time or prior to the start of production. In this example, the simple lateness of a person compromised the operations of the entire company, resulting to less efficiency and productivity leading to fewer profits. Another example of such lack of efficiency and productivity is in the classroom setting, especially in the universities when professors can invoke academic freedom on the way they choose to teach, to the extent that such freedom is used as the paramount excuse for their lateness or even absence in lectures. If the lecture on constitutional law, for instance, aims to cover the entire concept and jurisprudence of the due process clause for the day, the lateness of the professor of around fifteen minutes for a two-hour class already short-changes the students of his class because instead of covering the entire planned lecture, the professor might either reschedule the latter part on another day, or lecture so fast to finish everything to the prejudice of the full comprehension of students of the lecture. More so, such lateness also takes its toll on the resources of the university as a good fifteen minutes is devoted not for academic learning but idly waiting for the professor to arrive. Multiply this to the number of professors who are frequently late and the number of times that these professors are actually late, it could stretch on for hours on end that the school’s resources are wasted. In both cases, lateness instead of being on time lessens efficiency and productivity not only of the single late person but the other interacting parties as well.

(Missed) Opportunities

On a lighter note, being on time can determine the making or unmaking of a person, a group and even a people. The best example for this would be meeting deadlines for term papers and thesis in all academic levels. Many brilliant men and women have failed to graduate with honors or even failed to graduate at all for the simple reason that they failed to submit their papers on time. This does not speak simply of the final deadline but includes the submission of piece-meal parts of researches for the assessment of the professors and teachers as a delay even of the first part of a research or its draft can lead to cumulative consequences in the end, to the extent that many students would resort to procrastination through plagiarism, among many other things. On the other hand, being on time does not simply including arriving at the expected time but also pertains to being at the exact historical moment when destiny knocks on one’s door, as lateness and even early birds can jeopardize the seizing of opportunities for a person, a group or a people. Had the American liberation forces been late or too early when they set foot on Normandy, the history of the world might have been entirely different. Crudely too, if the geeky boy-next-door in a physics class delayed for another day the admission of love to his pretty classmate, the girl of his dreams might have soon gone steady with the high school jock. The point of this part is very fundamental – being on time, in the ways enumerated above, presents people with opportunities which they might soon miss or lose if they came even just a bit late or came a little too early.

Cordial Respect to Peers and Superiors

Finally, being on time gives the impression of cordial respect to peers and superiors to the extent that their time spent with the person on time is laden with trust, confidence and respect. It includes not only personal relationships but professional relationships as well, especially in sealing contracts and negotiating better terms for the company one represents. For example, the other party to a multi-billion dollar contract would more likely have better rapport and confidence to a person who comes flawlessly on time with all the documents prepared rather than a person late for the same corporate meeting because a person on time tacitly accords good faith and cordial relations to the other party by simply being on time.

In all of these, the three reasons above suffice to convincingly prove the importance of being on time, not only in simple social-anecdotal terms but also insofar as presenting the economic side of being on time. In the ultimate analysis, there actually no need to problematize and even embark on such a discourse on the importance of being on time. Such a trait should already be inherent in men and women who value people other than themselves. While lateness per se is really hard to eradicate especially when excuses are valid, lateness should be more of a very strict exception rather than a general rule, especially among young people who usually do otherwise. Be on time, and things will definitely get better in the long run, in all aspect of a person’s life.

The 1999 film Ten Things I Hate About You is a loose adaptation of William Shakespeare’s immortal play, The Taming of the Shrew. The plot lines are almost the same with character names that tacitly pertain to the original work. In Ten Things I Hate About You, the father of the beautiful sisters Kat and Bianca, who is rich and influential, will not let Bianca near a man until her older sister dates. This is a slight departure from the original play where the women were supposed to get married, as the movie is basically a teenage date movie. There is also the presence of two teenage men, Cameron and Patrick, the former is deeply in love with Bianca and the latter is perceived by the entire Padua High school population as never-do-gooder with preposterous myths created behind his back. As Cameron knows that Bianca’s father will never let her date anybody unless Kat dates as well, he devises a plan to have a guy date Kat as well by contracting Joey, an arrogant and popular high school guy, to pay Patrick, the rebel, to date Kat for a sum of money. While Patrick was at first reluctant to seriously take on the proposition by Joey, he soon after went along with it to the extent that he eventually fell in love with Kat. On the other hand, the other hopeless romantic, Cameron, is now in danger of losing Bianca as popular guy Joey has started making his moves to win her heart. Troubles also erupt towards the end of the film as the contract between Joey and Patrick is discovered by the softening yet still rebellious Kat, triggering her to revert back to hating all men – until she reads a sonnet she wrote in front of the whole class, professing her love to Patrick despite all his quirks and weirdness. Bianca would also get to know about Joey’s deception and his hidden objective to simply get her to bed, bereft of love, trust and affection. In the end, after the conflicts between Bianca and Cameron, and Patrick and Kat are resolved, the two couples all become lovers in this teenage romantic comedy. Nonetheless, this paper seeks to provide a discourse on the sophistication and intelligence given to women in film adaptations of Shakespearean plays, and the women in focus for Ten Things I Hate about You are no other than Kat and Bianca.

The two characters are central in the exposition of the different types of women and the role they play in a given society or environment, such as a Padua High School, in the context of the movie. Both characters represent the different psyches and personas of women throughout American society, in the same manner that the original Katarina and Bianca were representations of English society. But before we delve deeper on the individual characterizations of Kat and Bianca, it is imperative to present a background of the teenage milieu in which they were immersed in, in order to fully understand the nature and dynamics of both characters.

High school culture is very familiar to many Americans who took their education under the public school system, and the stereotypes of the kind of students who studied in these institutions are only further reproduced until it is changed by socio-cultural conditions in the future. Even present popular culture has been clearly adept in representing this culture and the social groups in which they interact and exist – groups of nerds and African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians, rich pretty-boys, sexy cheerleaders and popular girls, rockers and deviants, and many other permutations of the stereotypes that characterize American high school culture. The film is admirable for its accuracy in describing some of these groups, but best of all, for tacitly differentiating the various types of women and their worldview – in the person of Bianca and Kat.

Bianca is the popular high school girl who only wanted to be free in dating teenage boys and make the most out of her high school experience. While not exactly a bimbo, in popular parlance, she only begs for the opportunity to live the normal high school experience where dates come and go in between the intricacies of academic work, especially when she knows that she is being pursued and wooed by a rich and handsome guy like Joey, notwithstanding recognizing how beautiful she is that many people in school, including his French tutor Cameron, are really admire her. In response to all of these things and the conditions set by her father, Bianca at the onset blames Kat, the rebel sister, endlessly, as though dating men is the end-all, be-all of her high school life.

Her character is simple and shallow, as the primary interest has been the look for true high school love, which he never saw in Joey but found in the little yet sweet actions of Cameron. She is sophisticated, only perhaps in terms of her confidence and popularity in school. But in terms of sophistication in which women taken hold of their destiny in asserting themselves to men, including her father, there is none present. Bianca is a tacit representation of the subjugation of women as mere love objects that they themselves now also feel that true love is the only thing that would make their lives worthwhile. While she is empowered in terms of material wealth as she gets to strut fabulous clothes in front of the entire school, her empowerment is limited only to that. By blaming the perceived social deviance of Kat, she herself is sucked into the whole long-running stereotype that all women should fit only one ideal – to date men and be happy, in her context.

On the other hand, Kat is a repudiation of the stereotype set by Bianca for a teenage woman. She is rebellious and even hates men, in principle. She is a deviant in a sea of high school conformism. She is the representation of all things sophisticated and intelligent in a teenage woman. Her rebelliousness and non-conformism are mere tacit indications that another world and life is possible for women instead of trying to grab the attention of men and get out on dates. Kat, though her fellow students consider her a difficult to deal with, is never as trapped in the stereotype as Bianca nor as Shakespeare’s Kate. Even if her social life is a disaster, she enjoys music and intellectual pursuits. She has a car and a credit card. Best of all, she has been accepted to Sarah Lawrence. All of these indicate the tacit necessity for women to take control of their lives and strive to be independent of the prevailing high school stereotype of beauty and popularity. Her intelligence and sophistication is unquestionable and her rebellious behavior can be interpreted as more driving home a point that she will not stand down in the face of a pervasive high school culture that engulfs most American young women. Such intelligence and sophistication, however, does not preclude her from falling in love, as there is nothing wrong with love per se but the mad pursuit of love – the way Bianca seeks it. Her sonnet for Patrick is actually better, in fact more liberating, than the original Kate’s submission to place her hand below her husband’s foot. In Kat’s context, the sonnet is a true recognition and admission of love with mutual consent and trust, notwithstanding equal relations between her and Patrick. In the original Kate’s context, while it was an admission of love, intertwined with it was her consent of unequal relations between her and her husband.

Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violent struggle against the British Empire was a result of the contemporary political milieu of India, especially in the wake of intense political and economic contradictions between the British and other Western powers. Prior to World War II, the world has witnessed the rise of the Soviet Union in terms of political and military power, notwithstanding the rise of popular national liberation movements across the colonized world. In most colonies, the primary mode of securing independence from Western colonialism has been through the waging of armed revolutions, such as the struggle of the Chinese and the Malaysians, led by Mao Tsetung and Sukarno, respectively. However, such type of struggle for Indian independence was essentially difficult in Indian society where a strict and clearly defined caste system was in place that hindered the creation of unity of Indians as a united people while transcending class divisions. More so, divisions between the ranks of the Indian people became more pronounced as fighting between rightist Hindu fundamentalists and left-wing Maoist communists never ceased, with both espousing violent means of securing Indian independence. All of these confused the majority of a people who continued to wallow in poverty and desolation. In all of these, Mahatma Gandhi emerged to present an alternative viewpoint, a seeming middle-ground between the pro-people radicalism of the left and the religious conservatism of the right. It was founded on the principle of non-violent struggle which dismantled all prior notions that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Gandhi turned the idea of revolution on its head and succeeded in doing so. While a major factor for their triumph was the waning power of the British empire after World War II, their struggle through non-violent means inspired other civil libertarians the world over to give peace and non-violent struggle a chance prior to the taking of arms.

The political debate on whether it is best to have a strong or weak presidency has been going on since the dawning of the American Republic, but such a question usually crops up at a time when the security of the American people is in peril, or there is a clear and definite state interest for the American government to limit certain civil liberties of the people for the benefit of the general population. History has been replete on this political discourse especially since the United States convincingly expanded its sphere of influence across the entire world starting with the subjugation of the Philippine Islands to American colonial rule in 1899. As American influence, even imperialism and hegemony, spread across all parts of the world until the present time, the attacks on the democratic life of the American people and the existence of the Republic has been unceasing such as when Japanese militarists bombed Pearl Harbor at the start of World War II and the decades-long communist threat of the Soviet Union and allied socialist republics. In pursuit of the protection of the American Republic, the American presidency has always sought to explore ways and means on how to best defend the nation, militarily and diplomatically, without resorting to the curtailment of the civil liberties of the American people. However, for the most part, the American government with the US president at its head, has usually challenged the limits of such civil liberties. No best example can ever be had than the McCarthyist communist witch-hunts of the 1950s where suspected American communists from all sectors of American society were invited to the US Congress only to be vilified and falsely accused of their participation in the Communist Party of the USA. While there was no participation of the American president then in such congressional proceedings, it is clear that he acquiesced in the entire affair led by Sen. McCarthy, notwithstanding the complicity of security agencies of the federal government which are directly under the American President. On the other hand, as perceived curtailments of civil liberties happened throughout American contemporary history, there have been campaigns and struggles from American interest groups to call for the relegation of the American presidency as simply a watchtower of other government branches as the presidency has far too awesome executive powers that can curtail not only on civil-political rights but may even infringe on socio-economic and property rights as well. However, the resolution of the debate has always been in favor of strengthening the American presidency as it is clearly within the interest of the state and even the mandate of the American president to ensure the welfare and protection of the American people from threats from within and without.

However, in this era of global terrorism and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism the question of a strong presidency emerged once again. The debate is in the light of the recent discovery by the American public that President George W. Bush secretly authorized security forces in 2002 to gather intelligence through wiretapping of telephones and mobile phones, and eavesdropping on emails and other telecommunications services to swoop down on terrorist correspondence within the United States and abroad, without the fulfilling the statutory requisite of a warrant from a surveillance court. Moreover, the controversy erupted in the wake of the approval of the reauthorization of the US Patriot Act, a controversial law that granted very broad powers to security forces to swoop down on perceived enemies of the state, particularly suspected Islamic fundamentalists operating inside the continental United States. Nonetheless, the law is deemed by liberals and progressives as a direct attack on constitutional rights of the American people, especially when previously strict surveillance measures are now relaxed, notwithstanding assertions by the security community that the operations in pursuit of the US Patriot Act and the war on terror is not within the purview of the court. If this be so, this would also be tantamount to a curtailment of the judicial power and supremacy of the US Supreme Court to review all acts and omissions of the other branches and government, even if in the guise of national security. The controversy has also elicited further tensions between an American public that was already weary from the ravages of the Iraq War as many feared that even American homes and offices are no longer spared from the operations of the American government in its fight against terror. Nonetheless, the Bush administration has maintained that the president has inherent war powers which may not be expressed but implied in the Section on Executive power in the American constitution.

Truth to tell, the secret authorization given by President Bush to spy on the American people may find legal basis in the inherent war powers afforded the president, unless the statutory provisions ordering the securing of a warrant prior to surveillance are more controlling. Assuming without conceding that the Constitution grants such residual powers to the American president, the propriety of the authorization is most questionable, as it comes at the heels of growing American discontent over the war in Iraq, especially when the basis for invading Iraq (i.e. direct link with Al-Qaida and production of weapons of mass destruction) was not convincingly and truthfully conveyed by the president to the American people. Nonetheless, the act is well within the purview of the executive’s powers despite the public outrage that ensued upon discovery of the authorization.

Bibliography:

1. Eggen, Dan. “Bush Authorized Domestic Spying.” Washington Post 16 December 2005: A01

2. Eggen, Dan and Pincus, Walter. “Campaign To Justify Spying Intensifies.” Washington Post 24 January 2006: A04

3. Leopold, Jason. “Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11.” TruthOut (13 January 2006). 22 March 2007 <http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16920>.

4. Savoy, Paul. “The Moral Case Against the Iraq War.” The Nation (May 31, 2004). 22 March 2007 <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040531/savoy.>.

The editorials of the Washington Post and the Boston Herald both gave their own analyses on the state of the war in Iraq and how the Bush administration is crafting a new Iraqi policy, as the United States enters its fifth year of occupation in Iraq. This paper aims to compare and contrast both editorials and answer whether geographical location is a decisive factor in the determining the content of the editorials.

The Washington Post editorial gave a balanced analysis of the past few years of American occupation in Iraq. While it criticized much the way the plans for reconstruction were executed, it still held optimistic views on how the United States can get out of the current impasse and struggle forth against growing international criticism for the war. Aside from this it as great that the editorial recognized not simply the failures of the American troops but also the marked contradictions between the Americans and the Iraqi people even prior to the invasion as it said that the United States is still paying the price for its betrayal of Shiites and Kurds during the Persian Gulf War against Iran, where the United States tacitly colluded with Saddam in the bloody war against the Islamists of Iran. More so, there is also a critical analysis that the failure of diplomacy is never a sufficient argument to start a war. It can be remembered that the March 2003 invasion seemed like a knee-jerk reaction to the failure of negotiations between Iraq and the international community. Yet, the United States government, despite international condemnation through the United Nations insisted on going ahead with the invasion. As a result, it proved very difficult for the United States to rally international support due to its strident attempt at unilateralism instead of consolidating and convincing the world on the legitimacy of the war. The discourse on the failure of second-guessing the Iraqi people is relevant as well because the violence of the past few years have shown that the forced transplantation of Western-style democracy in a country rife with tribal and clannish wars can never be feasible despite international support and American resources at all fronts. It perhaps seemed clear now how impossible it was to institute a democratic government in the context of the creation and reproduction of regional warlords with religious undertones. More so, the editorial also scathingly reviews the grand deception of the Bush administration when it presented its case to Congress and to the world, as up to now not a single weapon of mass destruction has been found. For all of these faults by the Bush administration, the editorial does not stand simply to oppose the war and demand the pullout of troops, as it recognizes how responsible the United States is for the current surge of violence in Iraq that it cannot simply turn its back and leave. It understands that calling for a US troop pullout per se will never solve the woes of the Iraqi people nor lessen US accountability. As such, it supports all the efforts by different interest groups from all sectors and sides of the political spectrum to continue securing Iraq while gradually diminishing US troops in Iraq.

On the other hand, the Boston Herald was as critical of the four years that passed by highlighting the depressing socio-economic and political situation in Iraq at present. There has been no end in Iraqi immigration to other territories with 9,000 people leaving every month, notwithstanding the surge of criminal activity in the cities which has already blurred the lines of sectarian violence and the continuing insurgency against US occupation. More so, the Iraqi economy has been long in shambles with hyperinflation up to fifty percent, unemployment reaching sixty percent and full electricity not reaching Iraqi homes even in the cities. All of these factors occur at preset despite the Bush administration’s relentless assurances that the profits of oil and energy resources will be shared by every Iraqi. As to how it will ever be done despite the continued bombings and killings of Iraqis and Americans, it is yet to be seen.

In all of these, the Boston Herald stands on the same footing as the Washington Post in terms of its criticism of the four-year American occupation of Iraq. Both understand the necessity of leaving Iraq soon without compromising its commitment to the Iraqi people to enforce greater security and establish a working legitimate government recognized Iraqi people. The only difference between the two editorials is their articulation and description of the depressing situation in Iraq at present and how to best make the most out of the situation without the United States losing face in front of the Iraqi people, the international community and the American public. Nonetheless, the editorials from the Washington Post and the Boston Herald provide the American public continuing wake-up calls to reconsider our true role in the building of democracy in Iraq. Such critical commentaries are essential to balance the smoke and mirrors propaganda by the US government in covering up much of the destruction and deaths in Iraq. While the two editorials came from different parts of the United States, geographic location did not preclude the newspapers from critically writing the way they did as it only proves that the overwhelming opposition and discontent of the American people is now country-wide, with the exception of course of solid conservative circles in many parts of the country still.

The Moral Case Against the Iraq War by Paul Savoy was written in the heat of the 2004 US Presidential campaign when Americans were still ambivalent over their true, enlightened stand over the Iraq War. The paper does not include recent developments in American political life such as the victory of the Democrats in Congress and Senate which was viewed as a an indirect repudiation by the American people of the President Bush’s policy of winning the war, notwithstanding his much criticized plan of sending more US troops to the war-torn country despite the marked increase in sectarian violence and relentless attacks on coalition forces in almost all parts of Iraq. More so, Savoy’s article did not include a recent statistical research by eminent American professors and academic on the true number of Iraqi deaths which allegedly number to more than half a million deaths already. This research has been severely criticized by President Bush himself and his war policymakers yet it has given further basis to force and pressure the Bush administration to finally withdraw US troops and leave Iraq for good. These developments, notwithstanding, Savoy’s article continues to be relevant in the struggle of the American people to finally put a close to the vicious web of lies the Bush administration foisted upon our people to legitimize their war on Iraq.

The Moral Case Against Iraq articulates in detail the basis of the continuing opposition of the world and the American people to the war. While it is true that Saddam Hussein is a vicious tyrant and deserved to be punished for his crimes against the Iraqi people, it is not for the United States to impose on the Iraqi people of such a necessity as such a process of ousting a murderous dictator is subsumed under a people’s right to self-determination which not even the world’s only superpower can force. Such coercion through a war of aggression is not only immoral in the face of our people’s concern for the fundamental right to life but is also bereft of any legitimacy in international law, including overriding the peace-making processes of the United Nations. On the other hand, the article also lambasts the false basis for the war – the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which, President Bush says, would be used to attack the American mainland. Since 2003 up to now, no weapons of mass destruction has ever been found in Saddam’s military and scientific facilities, save for evidence of the existence of depleted uranium shells being used by American troops in bombing Iraqi villages and towns. In all of these, however, the relentless deaths of the Iraqi people in the hands of American troops and even through sectarian violence is the best argument against the war. As security forces in Iraq have failed in curbing violence, the cycle of bombings and assassinations have been an everyday affair, and no other culprit exists for this perpetuation of violence but the decision of sending troops to Iraq in 2003. In a constitutional sense and even in moral contemplation, the relentless killing of innocent civilians, even if accidental and collateral, can never be justified just so we as a people can sleep well every night, especially when the basis for such a war has been falsified by our government. It destroys our country as the bastion of constitutionalism, rationality and human rights and reduces our leaders, in the same category as all the other tyrants who ever existed in contemporary world history.

Reference:

1. Savoy, Paul. “The Moral Case Against the Iraq War.” The Nation. May 31, 2004. March 20, 2007 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040531/savoy.

A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings and My Singular Irene depicted in metaphorical detail contemporary expressions of alienation, repression in society today. Both short stories showed the utter excesses the subjugation of an individual to the whims and caprices of persons around them. More so, the examples of repression and subjugation was given in expressed and tacit terms in the two short stories as A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings showed how a community could punish and persecute an entity which they knew nothing about and My Singular Irene ironically expressed how a woman, despite her marriage, exists in a relationship of unequal footing with her husband. This paper explores concrete examples of alienation and repression vis-à-vis the fundamental need for personal freedom and the luxury of human community.

In Gabriel Garcia Marquez’ A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings, the angel that descended on the house of Pelayo was treated with utter disrespect, ridicule and even suspicion, primarily based on the community lack of utter knowledge about his entity. Not only did they send him to the chicken coop despite his injuries, he was subject of a devious money-making scheme by Pelayo, likening the Angel to freak shows of traveling carnivals. Such a treatment, like the spider woman, took away much of the (human) dignity of the angel. On the other hand, the priest of the community, instead of being awed by the sight of the old angel, prejudiced the old angel and even insinuated that his presence in the community is a work of the devil, out to fool and deceive the faithful who seek him in awe. In a sense, the angel was utterly objectified by the community and all the visitors who came to see him, as his presence seemed to reflect the community’s ambivalence towards the angel. Because aside from the physical and verbal tirades by many, he was also seen as a sort of a miracle worker that did not exactly cure the illnesses of the leper and the blind as the effect of his miracles were clearly not intended cure. Nonetheless, for all of these and his comedy of errors in curing the ill, he was still treated with ridicule and utter disrespect – an outcast in the community. Worst of all, despite cashing in on the old man to build a mansion and treating him like chattel, the Pelayos never had a single ounce of gratitude for all the forced help the angel gave to their family as Pelayo’s wife Elisenda simply gave a sigh of relief when the old angel finally set out to fly. In the end, the angel left the community the same way he came – silently, without fanfare but still met with ridicule by the people. The story of the angel says much of the contemporary alienation people experience in different societies of the world. The disdain by the community for the angel simply on the basis of their lack of knowledge about his entity is a concrete metaphor of the ethnocentrism that permeates in the world today where some races and countries see themselves above all other races and countries simply because they lack sufficient knowledge of a different race’s history, culture and struggle. More so, it also shows how people treat classes of people who are generally less educated, less financially-stable than themselves because instead of helping these people be better than their wretched state, usually it has been the privileged upper class which even sets the trap for the exploitation, oppression and alienation of a society’s underclass. On the other hand, the short story is s tacit message to all of the utter necessity of the building and consolidation of human communities that would stand against alienation, repression, silence and even oppression because it is never enough for a single individual such as the old angel to stand up against these evils because the community who committed such atrocities were never enlightened about what they have done and simply continue on with their lives. In order to defeat these social ills, it should be a community, even a societal effort to repudiate these evils and ensure that personal and collective freedom is ensured by all.

My Singular Irene, on the other hand, is a novel approach at depicting the subjugation of wives to their husbands and the perpetuation of unequal relations in marriage without the husband utterly knowing of such a relation. Narrated in the person of the husband, it shows how the husband objectifies the person of his wife insofar as treating her as a passive companion and provider of peace in the family. The husband bought a television not for their collective enjoyment but to ensure that his wife will not be bored nor ask too much questions as he thinks that a knowledgeable and educated woman is a dangerous one. The short story reeks of male chauvinism, a derivative of alienation, oppression in feminist parlance, because the husband presumes idiocy in the person of his wife especially when she is fascinated by the mountains and the flowers, notwithstanding expressly depicting his wife as a stupid, to the extent that she is being seen as a mere chattel in service of the husband. To an extent, the husband seems to love his wife dearly yet his fundamental flaw lies in loving his wife in very unequal terms that the love that he purports to profess becomes the very instrument of oppression, alienation and silence of the woman. By becoming a butterfly, Irene has tacitly repudiated the social chains her husband put in place that her companion-butterflies may even be seen as her fellow liberated and emancipated women who left their chauvinist husband in search of true love, with mutual respect, trust and equal relations between spouses. In the ultimate analysis, the short story is the best exponent of personal freedom from a very personal and domestic relationship. Nonetheless, such an emancipation of women cannot be done in isolated cases without the support of the community, which the butterflies did when they turned Irene into a butterfly as the requisite for freedom and liberation has also been the collection and consolidation of the collective experiences and struggles of women, and even all oppressed peoples.

In all of these, the message of the two short stories is clear – alienation, repression, chauvinism and all its social and economic derivatives are all social evils which should be dismantled if society is to move forward. However, these evils can never be destroyed if only a few individuals cry out and struggle, bereft of the support of the community and even the society that is outraged by these social evils. Personal freedom is fundamental in any society but in order to achieve this, the community itself must struggle – best yet, society itself must be victorious such a struggle.

The 1967 Arab-Israeli War gave Israel territories which were previously under the sovereignty of Egypt, Syria and Palestine. These include Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Golan Heights was originally Syrian territory which was captured by Israel after Syria and other Arab nations lost to Israel in 1967. At present, the state of Israel has sovereignty over the territory even if most of the residents in the area are Druze – Syrian-Arabs retained their Syrian citizenship even as Israeli citizenship is also offered. Despite being in foreign Israeli territory, they are still offered Syrian benefits such as free education and accessible healthcare programs. However, the Golan Heights are still being claimed by Syria as part of its territory and is deemed a critical part of Israel-Syria peace talks as no long-standing diplomatic resolution has been achieved, especially in the context that many among the population in Golan Heights are essentially Syrian in origin and culture.

The Sinai Peninsula is now part of Egyptian sovereignty in the wake of the peace accords in the 1979 between Israel and Egypt. During the 1970s, Israel finally agreed to transfer control of the peninsula to Egypt which lasted until 1982 where military forces of Israel finally left and settlements were dismantled. The Israeli transferred control despite the discovery of oil deposits in the area. At present, the Sinai peninsula is now a vibrant part of the Egyptian economy especially the St. Catherine Monastery which has been flocked by tourists the world over, as though the area was never a site of intense military action between Israel and Egypt.

Nonetheless, of all of the areas occupied by Israel after the 1967, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, taken together, represents reality of continuing Israeli repression and occupation of disputed Palestinian lands. Both areas are the fountainheads of Palestinian resistance to illegal Israeli rule and denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Ever since, Gaza Strip and the West Bank has been the site of relentless Israeli military offensives in pursuit of perceived Islamic militants who continuously terrorize Israeli installations and populations. Years of repression and denial by Israel has also paved the way for the founding of radical Islamist groups such as the ruling Hamas which vows to crush the state of Israel by utilizing all means possible, including armed struggle. Moreover, the areas have also been the scene of political infighting by Palestinian groups such as the Hamas and the discredited Fatah organization, which has links with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In recent days prior to the convening of a unity government, scores have already been killed from both sides since a power vacuum erupted in the light of international aid boycotts to the poverty-stricken areas. While the Palestinians have nominal control over these areas, the Israeli security forces are relentless in pursuing air raids, bombing operations and commando tactics to further harass Palestinians into submitting to Israeli demands, especially the recognition of the latter’s right to exist as a state. Finally, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank has also been dubbed as a concentration camp as Israeli forces have tightened control over these areas especially in prohibiting travel between Gaza and the West Bank – crippling the movement of trade and the administration of government.

References:

1. Aloni, Shlomo (2001). Arab-Israeli Air Wars 1947-1982. Osprey Aviation.
2. Bowen, Jeremy (2003). Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East. London: Simon & Schuster.
3. Finkelstein, Norman (2003). Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. New York: Verso.

For almost a century until the present, the Middle East has been the site of relentless political tensions that has involved not only regional state actors but even Western powers such as the United States and the former USSR, in a backdrop of a struggle for greater influence and control over badly needed energy resources such as natural gas and petroleum. Since the time of Western colonialism in the region, the primary political debate has always been the control and exploitation of the vast gas and oil resources, and to whose control and benefit must these resources be, especially when traces of foreign interventionism is replete in many countries. Wars have been fought over this debate and will continue to be such, especially at this time of a US-led global war against terror. Nonetheless, the Middle East, despite its Islamic conservatism, has not been spared from the rising secular tide of nationalism that has swept most of the Third World and former colonies of Western powers. In the context of a dwindling British empire and the protracted tensions of the Cold War came the rise of Arab nationalism – an ideology that sought to unite the nations from Morocco to the Arabian peninsula would be united under a common linguistic, cultural and historical heritage, notwithstanding the removal or minimization of direct Western influence in the Middle East, and the dissolution of regimes in the Arab world which are considered to be dependent upon favorability with the West to the detriment of their local populations. Arab nationalism is the ideology that bound the foreign policies of the leading Arab nationalist states in the region, Syria and Egypt, and the liberation forces of Palestine. This paper will study the intermingling of the foreign policies of these sovereign[1] entities from 1964-1993 in the context of their roles in the spread and increase of Arab nationalism in the region.

United Arab Republic

In 1958 the states of Egypt and Syria temporarily joined to create a new nation, the United Arab Republic. Such a union was generally seen as a general outgrowth of Arab nationalism (Bronson, 2000, p. 92), with both countries united in their disdain for Western interventionism in their vast resources. While such a union had its political faults which eventually led to its dissolution in the next years, it cemented a broad Arab united front against Western interventionism in the region – supporting the struggle of the Palestinian people and taking initiative in asserting Arab sovereignty in their own countries. Under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt successfully nationalized the Suez Canal, the centuries-old gateway of trade and people, notwithstanding recognizing the right to self-determination of smaller neighboring states such as Sudan. Foreign policies like such were very effective in consolidating a deep support cause of Arab nationalism among states which were not yet co-opted by Western powers. Egypt under Nasser shaped coups and revolutions throughout the Arab world in the 1950s and 1960s. (Alterman, 2005, p. 359). More so, Egypt continued to challenge the legitimacy of the existence of an Israeli state, especially when Israeli security forces militarily grabbed Egyptian territories and assimilated these as part of Israeli sovereignty. Nonetheless, Egypt soon after had a gradual openness on Israel as peace with Israel is not merely a goal in and of itself, but also a means to achieve other vital objectives which included tangible economic and military assistance, but also more intangibly in terms of diplomatic prominence, intelligence strengthening, technology transfer, and other areas. (Alterman, p. 358). But as soon as Egypt under the succeeding regimes after Nasser were seen to be co-opted as well by the Western powers, especially in Egypt’s peace pact with Israel in the 1979, its leading role in Arab nationalism started to dwindle as well, notwithstanding its lessening impact in regional relations, to the extent that it was expelled by the Arab League for a decade. On the other hand, while Syria gained little from the United Arab Republic (UAR), such a diplomatic arrangement led to the institutionalization of socialist programs of land reform and nationalization of basic industries until a coup was launched by military generals in 1961, which reversed the socialist gains under the UAR. Nonetheless, Syria was also united with Egypt in the struggle against the growing military power of Israel, where both states were embroiled in the Six Day Was and the Yom Kippur War where they utterly lost in the former and were relatively victorious in the latter. These wars and the political tensions in between them have been caused by the occupation of Israeli forces of former Arab territories such as Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. (Kramer, 1993) Such bitter diplomatic tensions between the three states have continued through the years, save until the time when Egypt’s foreign policy shifted towards accommodating Israel and other Western powers.

Palestine: The Tie That Binds

The struggle of the Palestinian people for their right to self-determination and against aggression sprang up at a time when parochial differences between Syria and Egypt came about which led to the collapse of the United Arab Republic. However, differences between these two leading Arab nationalist states never precluded the unwavering support of these nations to the fight of a dispossessed Palestinian people by Israel with the backing of the United States. Palestine, through an exiled Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), waged an armed struggle against Israel which concluded only during the Oslo Accords in the early 90s. While not a sovereign entity, the Palestinians through the PLO adopted a foreign policy that had its roots on secular Arab nationalism that sought the creation of the state of Palestine in the territories occupied by Israel, which Palestinians and most Arab nationalists as the leading vassal of the United States in the Middle East. The political tension with Israel started during the UN partition after World War II to provide the Jews with a homeland, where through such UN partition, Palestine was eliminated as a distinct territory. According to Heikal (1978), the main rallying point of Egypt, Syria and other Arab countries, especially in the pursuit of a united Arab system, was the Palestinian issue where even conservative regimes hostile to groupings such as the UAR were convinced of taking the Palestinian cause. Nonetheless, support by Arab nations of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli oppression and occupation and remains to be a source of unity among them, even if such support be tacit and indirect compared before.

In all of this, it is clear that a certain period in the history of the Middle East, a united Middle East was possible under the banner of Arab nationalism. However, due to regional, internal and external contradictions among the states, the cause of Arab nationalism has faltered and seems to be now relegated in the dustbins of history especially at a time that Israel continues to rise militarily and Arab regimes, save for Syria, are swept by the West’s call for democratization and reform.

References:

1. Alterman, Jon (2005). Dynamics Without Drama: New Options and Old Compromises in Egypt’s Foreign Policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 8, no. 3. pp.357-369.
2. Bronson, Rachel (2000). Syria: Hanging Together or Hanging Separately. The Washington Quarterly. pp. 91–105.
3. de La Gorce, Paul-Marie (1997). Europe and the Arab-Israel Conflict: A Survey. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3., pp. 5-16.
4. Heikal, Mohamed Hassanein (1978). Egyptian Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs.
5. Kramer, Martin, "Arab Nationalism: Mistaken Identity," Daedalus, Summer 1993, pp. 171-206.
6. Porath, Yehoshua (1974). The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929. London: Frank Cass.
7. Shikaki, Khalil (2002). Palestinians Divided. Foreign Affairs. p. 89-105.
8. Safty, Adel (2006). The Failure of Total War against Palestine and Lebanon. Z Magazine.<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22 &I temID=10864>. Retreived March 20, 2007