tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21354603908784544242024-03-05T03:28:36.814-05:00USA AffairsA contemporary look at the United States and the rising difficulties and challenges it faces in the 21st century. Current political affairs, both domestic and global, combined with thoughtful analysis.Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-54414279113727325932012-03-23T02:48:00.004-04:002012-03-23T03:03:22.082-04:00Mitt Romney: This Is His Time<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW8pVO_WNdkggbkyEScsMFeYN_cnoiC68TUZ3NoliRoE7Xqsg2K4EfdIJv2UOWYa_A1-o5YiY6EQfNVDYv0H_wUrA3Tnug8Rwle2JAeMo6qZNS21FqpYGJUXbj0SH15YHFfKEBOpfYvOE/s1600/Mitt%252BRomney%252BCampaigns%252BLas%252BVegas%252B8vx99uYaFsql.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img aea="true" border="0" height="237px" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW8pVO_WNdkggbkyEScsMFeYN_cnoiC68TUZ3NoliRoE7Xqsg2K4EfdIJv2UOWYa_A1-o5YiY6EQfNVDYv0H_wUrA3Tnug8Rwle2JAeMo6qZNS21FqpYGJUXbj0SH15YHFfKEBOpfYvOE/s320/Mitt%252BRomney%252BCampaigns%252BLas%252BVegas%252B8vx99uYaFsql.jpg" width="320px" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Calibri;">With over half of all state caucuses and primaries finished, Mitt Romney has proven to Republican voters he has the stamina and support to represent the party and wage a full-scale general campaign. Up until this point, no other candidate has proven they can deliver a knock-out punch to the prevailing Romney candidacy. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">This has proven to be a very unique primary season; the lengthy and arduous election schedule this year (contests spreading from January to June) has made it nearly impossible for any candidate to swiftly capture the coveted 1144 delegates needed for the ultimate prize: the party’s nomination. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">While some political commentators suggest Romney has yet to garner the total support of the party, they ignore the fact that the 2012 Republican Primary contest has been, in large part, a four-way race. All things considered, Romney has performed exceptionally well - winning over half of all contests with extraordinary margins of victory and earning nearly double the amount of popular votes as his closest competitor, Senator Rick Santorum.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Even still, some conservatives continue to flirt with the idea of a Santorum nomination. While his ideas echo much of the party’s core-conservative base, the fact is that most Republicans find themselves somewhere in the middle between center and far-right. Nominating a Santorum-type candidate in this election cycle would alienate many much-needed independents and would leave the Republicans with a weaker candidate when it comes to the economy. While Santorum’s fiscal record is very conservative, it is unmatched by that of Romney’s. There is simply no comparison between the economic and private-sector experience of Mitt Romney and any other candidate. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Comparisons have been made to the grueling Democratic primary season of 2008 with, then-candidates, Obama and Clinton. However, as much as some think Romney has faced a tough battle within his own party, it’s safe to say that either candidate, Obama or Clinton, would’ve loved to have been in Romney’s position now at this stage in their primary process. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The time has come for Santorum, Gingrich (yes, he’s still in it) and Paul (him too) to rally around the inevitable and deserved Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. It is inconceivable that any other candidate will surge at this point and win a majority of the delegates; in some cases, it’s nearly impossible. Just as Mitt Romney promptly conceded to John McCain in early 2008, the remaining Republican candidates should follow proper discourse, step down and put the party first. If there is any desire to combat the looming $1 billon candidacy of President Obama, Republicans must unite behind Romney now and begin the general election process.</span></div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-84107099107161924362011-12-21T00:13:00.001-05:002011-12-21T00:21:09.445-05:00Gingrich Under Fire<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOGigdSnvLQRxMGy7gb8F8_juEAEp3AF1vsl9l-c2eZw04Toe7coU2wexEyTpY6cKv8GCNotvqw5gCAMCr0PW6F4vwCb2BYtiVJjiep337TflsEzuhLMWjelKg6rEzm3zXg1tDCIN8W7M/s1600/newt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213px" oda="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOGigdSnvLQRxMGy7gb8F8_juEAEp3AF1vsl9l-c2eZw04Toe7coU2wexEyTpY6cKv8GCNotvqw5gCAMCr0PW6F4vwCb2BYtiVJjiep337TflsEzuhLMWjelKg6rEzm3zXg1tDCIN8W7M/s320/newt.jpg" width="320px" /></a></div>There is a growing sentiment in the United States for accountability in every facet of government. With the public growing more leery of federal affairs, a new national conversation has sparked as seen in the last Republican Primary debate. <br />
<br />
In an effort to display his outrage towards federal justices who have 'gone too far' in his opinion with their liberal agendas, the former Speaker suggested that judges be brought to Washington and, under a Gingrich Administration, testify before Congress on legal proceedings in their court.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that some federal justices have been known to act independently of the law - in the 9th Circuit alone, 88% of the rulings got overturned in a recent term. This statistic highlights the fundamental differences some of those justices have with the rest of America. Accountability and fair justice should be paramount in our nation's highest courts. However what Newt Gingrich has proposed would undoubtedly tilt the scale of justice away from the courts and leave the congress with more power and influence than it already has. <br />
<br />
The furthest thing from fair and unbiased is Washington, D.C. Why then would we send our federal justices there to get caught up in a political storm of which the only way to weather is to play into it? <br />
<br />
Assuming a President Gingrich could actually impose such a fundamentally distorted way of legal procedure, the checks and balances as we know it in the federal government would be anything but balanced. This idea of bringing justices before Congress, with the help of the Capitol Police if need be, to testify and explain their individual rulings is certainly a zany (as Mitt Romney has said) and actually redundant way to keep the courts in check. <br />
<br />
The Framers knew full well that not every citizen would interpret the Constitution the same way. For this reason, a specific structure was put in place that allowed the people to elect representatives (who shared similar beliefs as them) to pick justices (who shared similar beliefs as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">them</i>). If, for some odd reason, justices are in clear opposition of the widely accepted opinion of the public who chose them in the first place, they can be impeached quite easily. <br />
<br />
What Gingrich is forgetting is that we already have a system that monitors the judicial branch of government - likewise, the system works because the "monitors" are also being <em>monitored</em>. If we fuss with this structure in any way, you elevate one branch above another and suddenly the democracy becomes some sort of oligarchy. The precedent something like this would set would be disastrous.Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-61678928743453315192011-08-15T03:31:00.000-04:002011-08-15T03:31:53.224-04:00GOP Candidates Take the Stage<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi74Sy25AHY_962MU7hox8sWcusstMkVtAddb0wWBMX4Wzf6fW-lo3wzcD311bTxIpOVrFT3_PDpo6TriLqtfI3dsxiLn83NdXt673YCwgVZdFXmZlHmUVJrrkJRChOEQVkLrSM8NFMyPU/s1600/debate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="217px" naa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi74Sy25AHY_962MU7hox8sWcusstMkVtAddb0wWBMX4Wzf6fW-lo3wzcD311bTxIpOVrFT3_PDpo6TriLqtfI3dsxiLn83NdXt673YCwgVZdFXmZlHmUVJrrkJRChOEQVkLrSM8NFMyPU/s320/debate.jpg" width="320px" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;">Last Thursday, the Republican contenders for the party’s nomination squared off in Ames, Iowa in one of many scheduled primary debates. The candidates, many of whom have already begun to encounter the fierceness of a national campaign, are coming under closer scrutiny as the electorate becomes increasingly dissatisfied with the economic direction of the country. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;">Just one week ago, the national credit rating was downgraded for the first time in the nation’s history. With so much on the line, this nomination process will be something much different from previous election cycles. The public tolerance for cheap political rhetoric and vague campaign <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">promises is waning. In such an uncertain and desperate time, the American people don’t have time to hear meaningless chatter from candidates who seek to deflect the important questions and who lack specificity in their proposals.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">At the debate, all of the candidates underwent considerable scrutiny for comments they have made in the past that now conflict with their most recent stances on the issues. When asked about his fragile campaign by Fox News reporter, Chris Wallace, Newt Gingrich quipped, </span><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">"I'd love to see the rest of tonight's debate asking us about what we would do to lead an America whose president has failed to lead, instead of playing Mickey Mouse games."</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The audience seemed to respond most passionately at Gingrich’s comment than almost any other the whole night. This moment sent a clear message that the American people aren’t interested in horse-race politics as usual, they want to hear from the candidates about their specific proposals to get America out of this economic downfall.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">As the Republican field comes closer into focus, the party is still waiting to hear from newcomer, Rick Perry, and potentially, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin. It seems as though no one (except the Ron Paul fans) are committing to any specific candidate just yet – a clear sign that this time around, the party’s nominee won’t be about the person themselves, but rather the ideas they represent and their commitment to save America.</span></div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-85566041491615506102011-06-09T22:14:00.003-04:002011-06-09T22:19:17.542-04:00Weiner Scandal: Week Two<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtxGCM0erf1BveCFEizxCbN4Xbsm_vgtE6rTj13jE22EwLt1AfP2FGk5yQFPK-_kcVAyYa2vCga3TRjh5DyZZVt4bgpVy8sTphXbLI_tzp4w53LYiMLizasJtWUWtY8Q5s5X8HJW34O9I/s1600/weiner+scandal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200px" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtxGCM0erf1BveCFEizxCbN4Xbsm_vgtE6rTj13jE22EwLt1AfP2FGk5yQFPK-_kcVAyYa2vCga3TRjh5DyZZVt4bgpVy8sTphXbLI_tzp4w53LYiMLizasJtWUWtY8Q5s5X8HJW34O9I/s200/weiner+scandal.jpg" t8="true" width="200px" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With a failing economy, troop casualties in the Middle-East and high unemployment, it seems frustrating that the country’s attention has been shifted to Anthony Weiner’s cyber-scandal. In a time when we need our nation’s leaders to be worrying about bigger issues, instead we’re talking about a Congressman’s unwillingness to resign. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Earlier this year, when Congressman Chris Lee of New York was caught in a brief cyber-scandal, the Congressman swiftly resigned within three hours of the news breaking. Much of the push for his resignation came from his party’s leadership, John Boehner himself, who believed Representative Lee could no longer be effective in Congress anymore. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In contrast, “Weinergate” is nearing its second week in the headlines and the only reason for such attention is the fact that Representative Anthony Weiner, along with the majority of his fellow party members, do not see his resignation crucial at this point. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Only eight members of the Democratic Party have called for Weiner’s resignation as of June 8<sup>th</sup>. While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for an ethics investigation surrounding the case, that could take up to months to play-out while, in the meantime, this scandal continues to be the center of our nation’s attention. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With all judgment aside, it is not conceivable that Anthony Weiner can be as effective for the Democratic party as he was leading up to this scandal. Once an outspoken voice for the liberal activists in Congress, Weiner now faces a chamber full of colleagues who will find it politically risky to side with the Congressman even if they find themselves agreeing with his politics. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If left untouched, this scandal could define the Democratic Party in a negative way much like how the Mark Foley scandal of 2006 cost Republicans the House of Representatives. The most advantageous thing for Weiner, the Democrats and the efficiency of Congress is for Anthony Weiner’s quick resignation. However, since Weiner has showed his unwillingness to see the vast majority of Americans dissent with his decision to stay in Congress, he now brings down with him his own party who is unable to reach any collective agreement on this issue either. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It’s time to hold our elected leaders accountable for their actions and send the right message to the youth of this country. The United States Congress should be seen as an honorable institution with offices held by only the most upstanding of citizens. Instead, we’re left with a man who is unable to put ego aside and do what’s best for his party, his constituents and this country at this time.</span></div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-18476263910361701112011-04-10T23:31:00.000-04:002011-04-10T23:31:22.554-04:00Foreign Analysis: Christianity in Nigeria<!--StartFragment--> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigRAPf5JG8dJJQZ_6dPhT-K0CXgfNVElU22KJ9L32ysFom2Zs7fu50pNKJVJKqNFfzGzHIVwo1naSvPWTqB_sCYvLjLot_3q_S1oSCf0EZUR02TCLHcJUC84V4v4Y86Rls_DpLs7PY6is/s1600/ABUJA-NATIONAL-CHURCH-OF-NIGERIA.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigRAPf5JG8dJJQZ_6dPhT-K0CXgfNVElU22KJ9L32ysFom2Zs7fu50pNKJVJKqNFfzGzHIVwo1naSvPWTqB_sCYvLjLot_3q_S1oSCf0EZUR02TCLHcJUC84V4v4Y86Rls_DpLs7PY6is/s320/ABUJA-NATIONAL-CHURCH-OF-NIGERIA.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">Achieving independence in 1960, Nigeria has proven to be a multifaceted nation with an extensive and complex history. One of the most significant and vital forces for the growth of the region has been the introduction of Christianity in the second millennia. With this element, the region has developed into a culturally diverse country severely impacted by Western ideals - a nation on the brink of complete global integration.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b>HISTORY OF NIGERIA<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Nestled in the Gulf of Guinea region in mid-Western Africa, the location of Nigeria reveals much about its history. With extensive Muslim influence from the North, Christianity naturally found its niche in the Southern part of the African continent, leaving an undefined central region wherein lies present-day Nigeria. Because of the central coordinates of the country, this area has become affected by believers of both religions. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It wasn’t until the fifteenth-century when Spanish explorers, in a quest to find a trade route to Western Asia, stumbled upon this area rich with natural resources and native inhabitants. The Spanish, being dominated by Judea–Christian beliefs, were the first of the colonizers to feel a minor obligation to spread their faith. However, their desire for material wealth and their interest in the slave trade made this “mission” unsuccessful. The natives who had come in contact with this Western ideology were soon shipped off as cargo in the global slave trade. As well, local kings seemed to be more impressed with the Europeans’ weaponry than their religious beliefs. Thus, the little influence Christianity had obtained during this period had quickly dwindled and, by the early sixteenth-century, there was little to no representation of the faith in the region. Christianity would have to wait several centuries before a significant presence could be realized in the region. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Contributing to the difficult establishment of Christianity during this time, and the lack of any significant cultural penetration, lies in the fact that this region has been home to many different kingdoms and communities throughout the past several centuries. These communities, with their own unique cultures and languages, limited the ability of outside forces making their way in and establishing a base. The Igbo, Yoruba, and Hausa-Fulani were, and continue to be, the largest ethnic communities in the region. The Igbo, lying in the Eastern region - the Yoruba, from the West and South- and the Hausa-Fulani, from the North are a symbol to the cultural commitment by the natives to their ethnic roots. Naturally, any Western presence wouldn’t normally be well-received in an area with such strong cultural boundaries. Moreover, these large communities working together under a common law seems hard to digest given the vast differences among them in terms of geography, heritage, and culture. Thus, any imposing colonial force that dared to unite these entities in any way would have been, as Great Britain was, met with opposition.<sup>1</sup> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b>PRE-COLONIALISM<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Following the Spanish intervention in the region, the area surrounding present-day Nigeria grew into a scattering of tribes and communities. Each mini-society developed its own culture and possessed individuality in a way that allowed each territory to become its own unique entity. The groups formed local governments and participated in the trans-Saharan trade. The exchange between the Africans and the merchant travelers resulted in the spreading of goods and ideas. From this relationship, West Africans found themselves becoming increasingly influenced by Islamic ideas. In the years to follow, two states, the Hausa and the Fulani, grew to become rich with Muslim traditions. The culture had penetrated the region so forcefully that, by the nineteenth-century, the northern states became dominated by the established belief system. In an attempt to unify their religious forces, in 1804 the Fulani waged a jihad on their neighboring state, the Hausa, in an attempt to rid the area of non-Muslim practices. As a result, Islam achieved a much tighter grip on the region and the permeation of religion into the political sphere flourished. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the interim period, Europe began to see significant changes relating to their practice of slavery. Word had gotten back to England concerning the harsh treatment of slaves abroad and the practice of slavery became increasingly unpopular amongst the English; change was beginning to be demanded. In an almost unanimous opinion, the British insisted on the end of the slave trade as they had come to know it. In Great Britain, slavery successfully became abolished in 1807 and, in an effort to “moralize” the region that they had been slave trading with, sought to end slavery in the West African region. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the years to follow, Great Britain and their unified Christian base began to conduct expeditions to the African continent, specifically, the Gulf of Guinea. The imperial power initiated their law proclaiming the end to the slave trade in the African region of present-day Nigeria and policed the area with their naval forces. With the government’s commitment to the issue, Christian missionaries were safe to move in and work with the governmental agencies in establishing a strong allied force in the region. With both private and public organizations working together, the British presence in present-day Nigeria fortified while the bond between the Western world and the African region came into sharper focus.<sup>2</sup> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b>EARLY BRITISH INVOLVEMENT<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>By the mid-nineteenth-century, Great Britain had pioneered expeditions to the Gulf of Guinea region in an attempt to end the slave trade. In 1841, the British, funded by the Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade, began this crusade. In particular, Christian missionaries were among the first Europeans to begin such work. Slavery soon began to deteriorate in the region. Freed slaves, who had been in closest contact with the missions, began to follow the Christian faith more seriously and soon achieved a considerable populace of believers. The freed slaves began to see the British and their Christian fundamental beliefs as the root behind their liberation. The Europeans, who had initially been the ones to enslave them, had now chartered the way for their emancipation. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This time, European intervention came with a considerable and forceful Christian coalition who saw slavery as the evil it was. With their commitment to the region and to their core beliefs, the Christian missionaries made a huge impact on the natives. The Europeans successfully became a symbol of Christianity to the natives and credited their ability to free the Africans to their religious duties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because the exporting of inhabitants fell so rapidly, the freed natives were able to more swiftly spread the Christian principles.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the years to follow, Christianity became such a growing force that it began to challenge the pre-established religions in the area such as the African Traditional Religion and, of course, Islam. With the European presence in the region and Christianity taking hold of the people, schools were more easily founded and Christian principles were to be taught in them. Now, the faith had effectively reached the grassroots of the society and the presence of Christianity was undeniable. Hospitals were constructed and medicine was introduced to the severely needy area. Trade relations with the West became stronger and economy of the southern region began to sprout. The British also had the means to construct the first forms of infrastructure this area had ever seen. Roads and modernized travel routes were resisted up until this time because of the accessibility it gave to slave traders. Europeans participating in the slave trade abused the first forms of infrastructure in this region which led to the natives willingly restricting the construction of roads in an attempt to protect them from the possibility of slavery. However, as the ultimate symbol of trust, the newly freed slaves and the gratuitous people of the region openly accepted the British willingness to create a modernized infrastructure for the area. The British had earned the trust of the Africans and had demonstrated that they could be protectors of the natives; they also committed to the idea of westernizing the region. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While the British maintained that they followed an “indirect rule” style of management in the region, the impacts of their culture became increasingly more apparent. To their credit, the British had successfully ended the slave trade in the region and, to a large extent, earned the respect of the natives in the South. Without British involvement, it is hard to say whether or not slavery would have come to an end so quickly and with such finality. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Gulf of Guinea region started to see the first glimpses of cultural clashing as Christianity took off in the South and Islam continued to conquer the North. Because the Europeans, who had spread the Christian faith in the first place, were only served by dealing with the commercial, Southern coastal area, there was little motivation to bring Western ideas up North where it would be met with resistance. As a result, Christianity became static in the South and unification began amongst the local communities who had subscribed to the religion. With this growing cultural commonality between the Europeans and the West Africans, further plans were able to come to fruition – British prospects of obtaining an African trading partner and establishing a commercial relationship with the area rich with natural resources. Colonialism became the natural next step.<sup>3</sup> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b>COLONIALSM <o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>By the mid-nineteenth century, the British presence in present-day Nigeria had brought much reform to the region. With European involvement, slave trade in the Gulf of Guinea area had come to an end, prospects of an economy grew, and the introduction of Christianity had brought about the first cultural tie to the Western world. With a common faith, the British could more easily work with their converts and establish a colony in the region - Nigeria. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While the Europeans had seemingly good intentions, the arbitrary border divisions that were cut out neglected to realize any common thread amongst the natives and, in effect, brought the Southern Christian communities and Northern Islamic cities under one state. In 1901, Great Britain officially became the protectorate of Nigeria and gained a tighter grip on the region. As a result, trade relations were cemented and the African coast started to experience a more balanced exchange with Europeans. However, the dichotomy between the North and South of Nigeria still remained. The differences between the two areas of the colony were apparent and little was done on Great Britain’s part to successfully unify the tribes. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>By the end of WWII, the Nigerians had experienced the first glimpses of political global integration with their participation in the world war. Yet, they began to question the force behind their ascension and whether or not the British power had grown to be a direct ruler in the region. While the churches established by the Europeans were widely instrumental in freeing the people and modernizing the communities, they had become increasingly officious and had not entertained African participation on a managerial level. As an effect, Africans began to develop their own denominations of Christianity and formed churches that were solely run by natives. These early signals of independence started in the churches and eventually led to a nationalist movement across Nigeria. No longer would the natives be restricted to acting only in the interests of the British.<sup>4</sup> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b>END OF COLONIALISM<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">While the British had freed the African slaves, helped the Nigerians modernize, and introduced the region to a global economy, they had also imposed a Westminster style of government on the people. This blanket governing principle challenged the established local governments and demonstrated perhaps an imbalance in the relationship between the natives and the Europeans. By the end of WWII, independence became a serious consideration for the Nigerians. However, a large issue facing the region was how to organize such a large populace. The area the British had carved out included many different ethnic groups and two major religious groups acting under one state. As a result, the Western-educated elites were among the first to step up and claim authority for their respective political sects. The problem with this concept was that these Western-educated elites were still somewhat loyal to Western ideas and had a difficult time representing the region as a whole. In the years to follow, an effective constitution was set up which paved the way for complete independence. By 1960, the colony of Nigeria had successfully become its own sovereign country and had with it a promising economy.<sup>5</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b>IMPACT<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>British involvement in the area of present-day Nigeria had lasting effects. Stemming from the ending of the slave trade and the introduction of Christianity in the mid-nineteenth century, Great Britain became a strong protector of the region and was able to, with the growth of cultural similarities, bring about modernization and change to the area. Among the benefits of being a protectorate of a global superpower, Nigeria was blessed with new schools, roads, hospitals, and found itself with an increase in employment. Connections to the Western world helped develop the colony in a way that wouldn’t have been possible given the many different local communities that existed, all acting independently. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>However, the massive grouping of the North and South of Nigeria into one state didn’t come without challenge. As Samuel Huntington points out, clash of civilizations is a key political indicator and is at the root of all major conflict. Nigeria, in its own right, experienced this clash when the Muslim North unified with the Southern Christian communities. Great Britain neglected to consider this important and defining element and, for its own purposes, created the large colony anyway. This ultimately led to the struggle of two large communities and their attempt to work together. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Great Britain would not have had a chance at claiming Nigeria for its own unless it had developed some sort of cultural commonality with the people. The introduction of Christianity, and crediting the religion for the liberation of the slaves, allowed the Europeans to more easily find common ground with the natives. From this point, the British were able to continue their “indirect rule” in an easier fashion while being seen as allies with the African people. While these religious ideas helped bond the Europeans and Africans, it proved to be one of the greatest challenges to independence when, by the 1950s, the North and South of Nigeria desired to unify themselves. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The conflict that took place between the different religious sects that had now been formed, hindered the creation a new style of government to take place in Nigeria. By the mid-twentieth century, the demographics in Nigeria displayed the emergence of Christianity as an equal force to the established Muslim population. The two groups would now have to work together with this new element despite the vast differences in ideology. For instance, the desire to implement Sharia Law in the Muslim North seriously conflicted with Christian beliefs in the southern part of the colony. This fundamental disconnect divided the two areas of the colony and helped perpetuate social instability. Had the British not divided the region of Nigeria into the arbitrary territory that it became, this conflict would have been less likely given the ill-need of the Muslims and Christians to work together.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Today, clashes between the North and South continue in Nigeria. After decades of political turbulence, Nigeria has just recently found itself out of a military-style of government and into a more democratic form of organization. However, this new system hasn’t done much in terms of preventing cultural conflicts. In 2010, the Jos Riots, involving the Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba groups, was seen as a holy conflict amongst Muslims and Christians. The desire for Islamic extremists to rid the North and middle parts of the country of opposing religious beliefs is still in effect. Had the British never introduced Christianity in this region, there is a possibility that the expansion of Islam would have persisted in Nigeria and, if nothing else, unified the people easier.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b>CONCLUSION<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is right to think that Great Britain had good intentions moving into the Gulf of Guinea region. They helped end the slave trade, set up schools, opened hospitals, developed infrastructure, and helped create a modern economy. All this wouldn’t have been possible without the introduction of Christianity and its usefulness in bringing the people together. From a point of cultural identification, the Europeans and Africans could more easily work together and, thus, Western ideals could be spread. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While the colony remained under “indirect rule,” the spread of Christianity allowed less uncertainty on the Europeans’ part in terms of evaluating Africans’ willingness to work with them. The faith allowed a strong bond to be made between the people and permitted growth much faster. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Today, Nigeria is home to the largest population on the African continent, fifty-percent of whom are Christian. With a promising economy and a Westernized system of government, Nigeria has the potential to become a key player in the global political arena. Their Christian base is their key into the Western world and has certainly transformed the country into the nation it is today.</div><!--EndFragment-->Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-24953819317831621262011-01-10T22:47:00.010-05:002011-01-11T00:04:29.332-05:00Tragedy in Arizona<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpn76DQArxzzFPl8B_RdWYMaiJMCRsTGaBHuxnXaWRI7xk6UJ6A6LoOclGAJG42ER3Gsgv0k9AJBi7J9HC_R7mM0GKBWrQHIBtQoXEqn50Ioz5GKc9CNQhKjqC5nfeYpvieEMD85ELeJ0/s1600/arizona.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpn76DQArxzzFPl8B_RdWYMaiJMCRsTGaBHuxnXaWRI7xk6UJ6A6LoOclGAJG42ER3Gsgv0k9AJBi7J9HC_R7mM0GKBWrQHIBtQoXEqn50Ioz5GKc9CNQhKjqC5nfeYpvieEMD85ELeJ0/s320/arizona.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">In what has proven to be one of the most shocking and horrific crimes of late, the recent shooting in Arizona by 22 year-old, Jared Loughner, has left the country in deep sorrow. The shooting, involving 19 innocent people, included Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who represents Arizona’s 8<sup>th</sup> Congressional District, among several other government workers. The event, which occurred last Saturday, has made a major dent in the image of this democratic-republic which seeks to encourage personal freedom of speech and accept persons with differing views.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">However, what has been just as shocking in recent days as the rampage itself, has been the heated and highly charged political fight that has erupted from many who seem to believe the shooting had a deeper political objective from some on the fringe of the conservative movement.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">If there is anything America knows how to do, it is to come together and unite in trying times - this has been proven time and time again in the wake of numerous national tragedies. It is alarming then that some, like Paul Krugman of the New York Times, would try to paint this terrible event as an act of terror on behalf of the Tea Party or a larger political movement within the United States. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While it is true that Giffords, who won her district in November by only about 1.5%, has been under criticism by those who disagree with her support of the controversial health care bill, she still remains a "Blue Dog" Democrat holding many conservative views. It is questionable then that Loughner, a 22-year-old college dropout, would act in response to her personal political views which remain quite moderate. Perhaps instead of categorizing himself with the interests of any specific political group, the motivation for Loughner's crime was driven by an anarchist and psychotic mentality which has been suggested from personal posts on his Myspace page.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">It has been suggested in the media that perhaps rhetoric like Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” graphic featured on her website for the 2010 midterm election (including Giffords’ district) has provoked this tragedy. This claim is left with little evidence that Loughner himself ever saw the graphic or even involved himself in the political atmosphere of his region. It should be noted, though, that imagery like Palin’s “crosshairs” map is common in political campaigns. In 2004, Democrats featured a bull’s-eye “target” map highlighting key Republican districts in hopes of a political shift in those areas. It’s a peculiar political strategy, but not one atypical of national campaigns from both ends of the political spectrum. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Pointing fingers and calling blame on a broad group only diverts attention from the real catastrophe and is certainly not a productive way to grieve and mourn the loss of innocent life which includes the deaths of nine innocent people. The victims included a 9-year-old girl and John Roll, a federal judge nominated by President George H.W. Bush.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">It is important that Americans come together and do everything in their power to avoid politicizing this event. The families of those affected deserve the grace and respect of every American regardless of political identification. Just as President Obama and the First Lady led the nation in a moment of silence today, so should every American take example from them and remain patriots to their country – patriots who know no boundaries when it comes to revering their own. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div> <br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOH37LzlY-p58HEeODVwJhbiFRphoUW-Y3OQvXDbAyNre0kA9sJz3u5CzQag8HUEbWb9XFJyh0KCzCBuNWoVLNOG5y7YF37qMPGYw91Pf0CozWn0MVuH5sMTUQ2iGZqlJ3XUcDjJcdgcM/s1600/crosshairs1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="273" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOH37LzlY-p58HEeODVwJhbiFRphoUW-Y3OQvXDbAyNre0kA9sJz3u5CzQag8HUEbWb9XFJyh0KCzCBuNWoVLNOG5y7YF37qMPGYw91Pf0CozWn0MVuH5sMTUQ2iGZqlJ3XUcDjJcdgcM/s320/crosshairs1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">2010 Republican "Victory Map"</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> </div> <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="cssfloat: right; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEbAVHjBYfsnmy1_GggwgUH5B_jMB4W5zsd0zKM9vt6S6w5kZJC4p38V4dsH_88AP3eCwAaCIobedl6040oHHVru85L73625vJtmvtZh1LV5HJ8zY7V7eu9GSEHvjs94mtQQ1csXloXS8/s1600/target1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="283" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEbAVHjBYfsnmy1_GggwgUH5B_jMB4W5zsd0zKM9vt6S6w5kZJC4p38V4dsH_88AP3eCwAaCIobedl6040oHHVru85L73625vJtmvtZh1LV5HJ8zY7V7eu9GSEHvjs94mtQQ1csXloXS8/s320/target1.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">2004 Democrat "Victory Map"</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> </div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> </div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-15642805305451900192011-01-09T21:52:00.000-05:002011-01-09T21:52:51.166-05:00John Boehner: The New Speaker<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-cMv68tN8Eutj2TKYUyLW_DQ5Q4Rpt2POHKpecypPyF3mG4LjKxzBRLwDbnbET1CNMkFAikPteHrVw2pD9gm3ZnnYrwyiKmMpmNytBYF5l8IIuRZPkfkKeWO4Y56Smz_nKxFcrj-fHwc/s1600/john+boehner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-cMv68tN8Eutj2TKYUyLW_DQ5Q4Rpt2POHKpecypPyF3mG4LjKxzBRLwDbnbET1CNMkFAikPteHrVw2pD9gm3ZnnYrwyiKmMpmNytBYF5l8IIuRZPkfkKeWO4Y56Smz_nKxFcrj-fHwc/s320/john+boehner.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">It has been four years since the House of Representatives has been led by a Republican. With John Boehner’s ascension to the position of Speaker of the House, the newly sworn in 112<sup>th</sup> Congress will see a much different course than that led by predecessor, Nancy Pelosi. With his Mid-Western roots and conservative approach to politics, Boehner was a likely candidate to lead the new Republican majority; what matters now is will his leadership be effective? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">The 2010 mid-term election was one of the most heated in years. With health care a top issue during the pre-election debates, the new Congress will now face the reality of repealing the bill. John Boehner will now have to lead this fight and garner the support of the public who, in recent polls, show a divided view on the issue. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Most public opinion research suggests that just over 44% of Americans would like to see Obama’s Health Care Bill repealed while 40% favor keeping it. Understandably, Republicans make up the majority of those in favor of repealing the bill, but it will be John Boehner’s responsibility to rally Democrats as well who might be on the fence with the issue. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">If the House effectively passes a measure to repeal the Health Care Bill, President Obama will almost certainly use his veto power. It will then be up to possible moderate-Democrats to override his veto. Because it’s unlikely Congress will have enough votes to override an executive veto, a different course may be needed to reach a realistic conclusion to the issue.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">If Boehner proceeds with the intent of completely destroying the previous bill, he risks Congress becoming just as divided as the previous one was. Perhaps the sensible solution is to make broad and fundamental changes to the current bill while keeping intact the intent of the bill which is to make healthcare available and affordable to the vast majority of Americans – a goal supported by both parties. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">However, it seems that John Boehner is looking to make this Congress similar to that of Newt Gingrich’s <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and his “Republican Revolution.” While the Congress led by Gingrich made sweeping reforms in the 1990s (with the cooperation of President Clinton), the political landscape was much different then. For one, President Clinton proved to be a conservative Democrat – this was best seen with his Welfare Reform Act of 1996. President Obama hasn’t shown any signs of coming to the center, but maybe, like Clinton, Obama will realize he may have to compromise in order to make progress and achieve the change he promised. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Whatever happens in the next two years, John Boehner will have to answer to his constituents and the broader American electorate. While Congress appears to be on his side, rallying other political officials who may not have similar views will prove to be the biggest challenge with this Congress – that includes the President. If this can’t be achieved, the American people are in store for a stagnant and disappointing era in Congressional history. </span><br />
</span>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-50411536623634681482011-01-02T01:40:00.005-05:002011-01-03T01:05:44.161-05:00The 112th Congress: A Fresh Start<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglLrIoKeoslcg6h-unuxyRY1HzkKmx_Yv7t-0j9M-6tkws8izEfBP4EinymiE8hobOjDKh6OkA8qtfIEn6jB3hdD_AcROdxfE54h_fvqyhNYF2S0U_O2QVV4uSsHzWywbJGOEuIETrlI4/s1600/112.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglLrIoKeoslcg6h-unuxyRY1HzkKmx_Yv7t-0j9M-6tkws8izEfBP4EinymiE8hobOjDKh6OkA8qtfIEn6jB3hdD_AcROdxfE54h_fvqyhNYF2S0U_O2QVV4uSsHzWywbJGOEuIETrlI4/s320/112.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In an historic change of political leadership, Republicans' control of the House with the 112th Congress is sure to bring change to Washington.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> With Nancy Pelosi gone and John Boehner likely to be the new Speaker of the House, Obama faces a new political landscape. However, with so much to be expected of this new Congress, much like the election of Barack Obama in 2008, can the new political force deliver? America has spoken and the expectations are high.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There is no doubt the dramatic shift of power in the House is a bold statement from the American people; the 111th Congress' ways of operation proved too dramatic and "taxing" for mainstream America. However, Democrats still have a slim majority in the Senate (and, of course, a Democratic president) which will prove to be a political obstacle course getting legislation agreed upon and signed into law.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">With the help of the Tea Party movement, Republicans' aggressive attacks on the Democrats yielded successful returns in key races throughout the U.S. Now, the challenge these newly elected officials face is how far right will the country (and the Democrats in congress) allow them to bend? Keeping campaign promises is hard to do, especially in a political climate like Washington, D.C. The Tea Party and middle-America will be expecting a lot from the 112th Congress - restrained spending, tax cuts, smaller government, overall fiscal responsibility and the possible repeal of the new Health Care Reform Bill. These are major elements Americans expect to see delivered from their new Congress. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">With the lame duck session in December, Obama proved he and some fellow Democrats may be willing to reach across the aisle. This was best seen with the recent extension of the Bush Tax Cuts which the majority of Americans supported. If compromises like these continue, there will be much to be anticipated with the 112th Congress. If not, Americans are sure to rally together and hold these politicians responsible - the 2010 election showed they can. Regardless the political fight, Obama must be willing to come to the center or risk a huge upset in 2012.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There is no clear indicator as to what 2011 will bring for Congress and the American people. Will Congress participate in a political stalemate or will Democrats, for the first time since Obama was elected, come to the center? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The political tides in Washington are shifting in a way that hasn't been seen in quite some time - a Democrat in the White House and a split Congress. However, if there is one lesson to be learned from the 111th Congress, it is to adhere to the will of the American people. With the House up for re-election every two years, America has seen just how quickly the tables can turn in Washington. Democrats' loss of 60+ seats in the November elections proved to lawmakers that the power is with the people.</span>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-48022154576535579372010-12-30T18:53:00.013-05:002011-01-03T01:13:33.234-05:00Sarah Palin: What will 2011 Bring?<div style="line-height: 150%;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI9c9SDJwPiT0a4t16rGHu46PLVYNSzKfWYar_WId139czYKTq2jVNixlCYHTgl68hoIy2F6WU2ZJEBWBgR-d7j7kDiVZn0KRDTFdJdjB7wkRr6f3wW2-auQi_nQfx_WVHlVd9PPwOB0s/s1600/sarah+palin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI9c9SDJwPiT0a4t16rGHu46PLVYNSzKfWYar_WId139czYKTq2jVNixlCYHTgl68hoIy2F6WU2ZJEBWBgR-d7j7kDiVZn0KRDTFdJdjB7wkRr6f3wW2-auQi_nQfx_WVHlVd9PPwOB0s/s320/sarah+palin.jpg" width="219" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In a year when she wasn't even running for office, Sarah Palin managed to keep things interesting and alive in 2010. From a successful book to Tea Party endorsements, not to mention a reality TV show, Palin proved she is a force to be reckoned with no matter what side of the aisle your politics fall. Many of the candidates endorsed by Palin went on to win major seats in Congress and helped regain control of the House for Republicans. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is no secret that the mainstream media, news outlets, TV personalities and liberal journalists have it out for Palin. This assertion is based off the observation of months of a grueling vice-presidential campaign (where the public witnessed massive amounts of unprecedented attacks hurled on Palin and her family). However, even after the 2008 political season, the criticism and dislike for Palin has actually managed to grow amongst those least fond of Palin. Why?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As the old saying goes, “You’re not anybody ‘til somebody hates you.” In the flicker of time which has been Sarah Palin’s ascension into the political spotlight, a militia of critics has begun aggressive strikes against the potential threat to Obama and her criticism of his “fundamental change” of America. Surely there are other voices in the GOP that have well-articulated the dissatisfaction from the Right with the current administration and the direction of the country - people like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, to name a couple - but what scares the full-time critics on the Left the most is that Palin may actually have the conservative message sticking with mainstream America.<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What exposes liberals’ fear the most is the assumption they have that Sarah Palin wants to run for President. There is widespread panic amongst the Left that she will run for president, win, crush Obama, and become the first female to hold the office…that is quite a scenario that even conservative supporters haven’t thought much about. It’s unclear if Palin has even thought that far ahead (even though 2012 isn’t too far away at all); but with her resignation as Governor, her outspokenness in the media, and her care-free lifestyle post-Governor, it appears that Sarah Palin isn’t playing by the rule book. If she really wanted all the things liberals fear, Palin would be conducting herself much differently...perhaps more like a typical <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">politician</i>. However, this firestorm of opposition may have actually ignited something within the Right. As Newton's Law states, "every action is <span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">accompanied</span> by a reaction of equal magnitude." In this case, the reaction may be Palin herself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It was just more than two years ago that Sarah Palin splashed onto the national stage and took hold of the GOP in a conservative “renaissance” – the term may sound a bit exaggerated, but there is something to be said for a serious female Republican candidate in the 21<sup>st</sup> century taking charge of her party and stirring up new found excitement within the base. If there is anything to take away from all the criticism Palin faces and that we, the public, must endure, it is that one things is clear (even if Palin’s political ambitions are not): the Left has <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">something</i> to fear; rather than fear it yourself, investigate what that “something” is and make your own opinion.</span> </div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-77993498339222498772010-12-30T10:00:00.000-05:002010-12-31T01:35:49.446-05:00The American System<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgklz0HndLBkjZuXsebu0v1oU1IP6rk3w-R8xByUQM8b0Vo7O3S8TjZUj4J-VwK3-grSy5cfDupdPzURlMd4vpipx-h97WeglAXeQQ5HaxSBSUD-lLuoCLjyvJeNHmFYccAhewzlSO2kl8/s1600/capitol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgklz0HndLBkjZuXsebu0v1oU1IP6rk3w-R8xByUQM8b0Vo7O3S8TjZUj4J-VwK3-grSy5cfDupdPzURlMd4vpipx-h97WeglAXeQQ5HaxSBSUD-lLuoCLjyvJeNHmFYccAhewzlSO2kl8/s320/capitol.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The American system of government is one of the strongest in the world. It has survived over 200 years in part because of the people, but largely because of the careful way it is set up. Complete with three equal branches of government (the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), the United States’ approach to government ensures control over the three branches through the system of checks and balances. While each branch is given its own specific constitutional authority over the other and unto itself, there are times when a certain branch of government may overstep its power. With over two centuries of consistent growth, the Executive Branch has expanded its authority the most and its’ powers have most often been found to be overreaching. In contrast, the Judicial Branch has been most effective at maintaining its limited power over the other branches and has most visibly upheld its limited constitutional authority throughout the course of the past two centuries. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Executive Branch of government, outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution, has very limited powers; these powers, obtained by the President, include (1) the position of Commander-in-Chief of the military, (2) the power to make foreign treaties (3) appoint cabinet members and federal judges and (4) give a State of the Union address to Congress. These limited powers have grown vastly - even within the last decade. This ever-growing problem started to gain momentum in the 1930s with President Roosevelt. With FDR’s New Deal came huge amounts of government programs and an increase in executive agencies and authorities. This problem escalated into the 1960s when the term “The Imperial Presidency” was coined by historian, Arthur Schlesinger, and his observation of the modern presidency up until Richard Nixon. Perhaps it was this awareness of the increasing size of the Executive Branch which initiated the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This resolution sought to clarify the War Powers Act of 1941 which blatantly gave the President vast authority and the means to execute World War II. Since this time and into the 21<sup>st</sup> century, we’ve seen the passage of the Patriot Act of 2001 which has given the Executive Branch the power and capability to use secret surveillance techniques, amongst other enhanced improved intelligence devices, in order to intercept terrorists’ plots. In more recent years, President Obama has not only continued to use the power of Executive Privilege in an effort to maintain secrecy within the branch, but he has increased the amount of government Czars and appointments, all of whom are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> subject to congressional approval. By the structure of the Constitution, it seems that the Founding Fathers never intended the executive branch to be this vast and powerful. In fact, the position of “President” wasn’t developed until the final days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This ever-growing branch of government has proven to be the biggest offender of constitutional violations and has most visibly overreached its’ authority consistently throughout history.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Dealing most intimately with interpreting the constitution, and the stringency that is required to do so, has allowed the Judicial Branch to uphold its constitutional authority the best. The Judicial Branch of the United States, comprised of nine Supreme Court justices, has most strictly maintained its’ constitutional authority stated in the Constitution while remaining completely functional and greatly influential. With the power of Judicial Review, this branch of government is constantly on watch and thoroughly knows the boundaries of the Constitution. Perhaps it is because of the Supreme Court’s ill-incentive to act under political pressure that it has been able to accomplish so much while maintaining the integrity of the institution. While it can be argued that the Supreme Court has the ability to “legislates from the bench,” this concept is paradoxical in that the Supreme Court inevitably “legislates from the bench” when it strikes down laws and declares bills to be unconstitutional. While it doesn’t physically write down laws like Congress, the act of rejection does amount to something of influence. However, throughout the course of two centuries, the Supreme Court has never increased in size and it still remains the smallest branch of government. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is important that our government remains closely bound to the limits of the Constitution. We’ve seen the powers of the President and the Executive Branch increase profoundly over the last two centuries. It seems that a new executive or governmental agency is born every day while the powers of the President become increasingly greyer. On the other hand, the Judicial Branch of our government, acting in strict coherence to the powers given to it by the Constitution, has remained an important element in maintaining the checks and balances of our federal system.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-71508089816446305832010-12-29T01:02:00.005-05:002010-12-30T19:24:34.956-05:00Track Two: The Grassroots of America<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;">The American system of government is unique in that it lends itself to track two entities. These entities, which include interest groups, lobbyists, the media, think tanks and public opinion, offer a counter-balance to the powerful and almighty government which constantly checks in with track two activities. While these entities don’t hold any specific or legal power, they do influence decision makers and, ultimately, make government more effective and responsive to what citizens want. Because, by nature, track two entities represent public sentiment on various topics, it is ensured that the vast majority of all major (and even minor) issues have a voice in the government. Such advocacy gives a sense of direction for legislators and public officials while bringing the power back to the people. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It would be quite a task for every citizen of the United States to be a watchdog of the government or even to keep up with its’ activity, for this reason, track two entities have evolved into major players in the U.S. system. Because of individuals who commit their life work to being lobbyists or workers for special interest groups, we have concerned people in Washington, D.C. knocking on legislators’ doors demanding action on important and often overlooked issues. Consider the AARP which seeks to voice concerns for retired people, the NRA which has sought to preserve the Second Amendment or the Planned Parenthood Federation which has committed itself to reproductive health issues – all these entities represent large amounts of citizens whose voices may not be heard without some sort of formal organization fighting for them in the nation’s capitol.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The beauty of track two entities is the balance it maintains within its own boundaries. For every conservative-based interest group, there is a liberal-based interest group; where there is a liberal-based think tank, there is a conservative-based think tank. This natural equilibrium ensures stability and keeps each entity from becoming too powerful or influential. By organizing common thought and developing ideas in track two, our government officials are given a more tangible device from which to act. Without such organized groups targeting specific issues, our elected officials would be hearing a periphery of white noise and would lack any accountability for their actions. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The most important feature of track two entities is that they are completely separate from government and a direct result from the private sector. The private sector is where most Americans find themselves working and habituating in, so it is important that our government hears from this unofficial majority. This privatization is most clearly seen in the media where personal opinions and verbal attacks can be made in public declaration. While these media-based track two entities like Fox News or CNN have their own bias, they are in harmony with each other by holding public officials accountable and carefully watching the legislation coming out of Congress. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Track two entities offer the American people peace of mind knowing that somewhere there is an official organization with diplomats working for a vital cause. While these track two entities don’t represent the views and beliefs of every citizen, the numbers are all relative and without such groups working on our behalf, it would be questionable what our government’s pursuits would be.<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-47071797393161341392010-12-28T01:00:00.001-05:002010-12-31T01:23:25.037-05:00Our Civil Liberties: The 1st Amendment<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip5jx5OPUbNCExbqkNjH5cdhbjyqKyVcd1i_XpSmvG8j-HSmqQ-CydEpFxpDur_2MwCRC3WSqVpuIGMhnTFxLyb4oQtYoLvvEim92dBbwpk4k0Hvc-izlqc5mLQTJsm3SPZU-xlFqKHg4/s1600/constitution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip5jx5OPUbNCExbqkNjH5cdhbjyqKyVcd1i_XpSmvG8j-HSmqQ-CydEpFxpDur_2MwCRC3WSqVpuIGMhnTFxLyb4oQtYoLvvEim92dBbwpk4k0Hvc-izlqc5mLQTJsm3SPZU-xlFqKHg4/s320/constitution.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Strong civil liberties are what have defined the United States for over two centuries. It is this independence from the government that allows security for the citizens and protects basic human freedoms. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly are all First Amendment rights that Americans value. The respect for these basic freedoms comes from the country’s history that has evolved just as greatly as the people in it. The U.S. has become the model of democracy around the world and has continually put its people before itself. As challenges to these core principles have made their way into the political and social landscape of the country, it has only strengthened the First Amendment. Congress and the courts in the United States have most certainly gotten better in abiding by all aspects of the First Amendment. We have gone from a nation controlled by white, land-owning men, to a nation where its’ own President, in retrospect, wouldn’t have been allowed to ride in the front of a city bus just fifty years prior. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>A most basic freedom we have as Americans is ‘freedom of speech.’ Where this freedom usually gets skewed is with regards to government and protest. However, the freedom of speech means just that – freedom to express oneself without worriment of backlash by one’s own government. With the 1990 Supreme Court case, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">U.S. v Eichman</i>, the act of ‘flag burning’ became constitutionally acceptable. Prior to this ruling, the 1989 Flag Protection Act prevented flag desecration because of the statement it made about the government. While flag desecration is widely accepted as disrespectful, Americans have the basic freedom to make any statement they want about any institution.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>With regards to freedom of religion, Americans share in the luxury of being able to follow any religion they choose, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">if</i> they so choose, no matter the core beliefs of the religion itself . In the 1940 case of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Cantwell v Connecticut</i>, two Jehovah’s Witnesses were publically sharing their anti-Catholic views in a vastly Catholic area. While the remarks made by the two were offensive to Catholics and displayed their own religion as intolerant of the Catholic faith, they were protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment which gives all Americans the right to believe and preach any views they’d like. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Freedom of the press is another First Amendment right that has given way to many challenges. In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Near v Minnesota</i>, the issue of malicious and scandalous depictions of individuals in public newspapers came under fire. However, with the ruling of 1931 by the Supreme Court, protection for newspapers and the content published in them was upheld. The fact that this case was within the last century makes it notable that these freedoms we take for granted every day are constantly being challenged.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The right of Americans to organize peacefully and convene about any topic, no matter how obscure or offensive it may be, is another basic First Amendment right – the freedom of assembly. In 1963, with the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Edwards v South Carolina</i> Supreme Court case, it was decided that 187 black protestors were in their right to march outside a South Carolina State House. While the formal organization of these people was to protest and challenge the state government’s segregation laws, the state had no right to deny the group’s right to protest despite the direct threat the group posed towards the government. The group’s actions were supported by the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the First Amendment making this case a clear example of the government’s inability to get in the way of any assembly no matter how ideologically threatening it may be.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>With all of these cases, the common thread is the underlying First Amendment issues that are at stake. Even more concerning is that these cases are all from the 20<sup>th</sup> century which makes the First Amendment a living, breathing Amendment consistently being challenged and called into question. It is reassuring that, despite extremes in content of speech, that all Americans have the right to say what they believe and live according to that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><br />
</div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-68149936335867951372010-12-27T23:00:00.000-05:002010-12-31T01:39:37.616-05:00Russia: A March to the 21st Century<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwWdrwMFm9HmcJj3PiPW0X4dZ-yqAuK1FB44Lk87_qmmo6zSfXlwks_JEaEKO8RSCzDitKYdWf5LPw-ptjtnd4PXsxadzxoyCBLpdg79pqmajux6biOSQFzi3beAkGEzHUW0-RvHxPqJA/s1600/russia1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwWdrwMFm9HmcJj3PiPW0X4dZ-yqAuK1FB44Lk87_qmmo6zSfXlwks_JEaEKO8RSCzDitKYdWf5LPw-ptjtnd4PXsxadzxoyCBLpdg79pqmajux6biOSQFzi3beAkGEzHUW0-RvHxPqJA/s320/russia1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">INTRODUCTION</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Russian politics and economics have long been structured around the environmental composition of the country – in essence, the abundance of natural energy. Throughout its relatively brief history, subsequent to the 1917 revolution, the Soviet Union experienced an array of political leadership. With each new leader came a slightly new direction for the country. Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev each made their own distinctive imprint in the country’s history while carrying out policies that ultimately served <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">state</i> interests first. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 came certain anticipations as to what the face of the new state would look like. After years of collectivization, socialized agriculture, and the nationalization of industries, practices first implemented in the Stalin Era as the means to achieve economic power, the USSR eventually fell. This collapse of the largest and longest lasting communist regime allowed the <span style="line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">forthcoming of “new” ideas on government. However, as new Russian history is unfolding, we are seeing not a shift towards new ideas but rather a return to old ones.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in; tab-stops: center 3.0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">USSR AS A SUPERPOWER</span></b><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Beginning in 1921, Lenin's Soviet government made industrial modernization a priority. But it was under Stalin that the system of central planning was fully developed and the industrialization of the Russian Republic reached its peak. Throughout the Stalin period, investment resources were directed into heavy manufacturing at the expense of consumer or light industry” (RussiansAbroad).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in; text-indent: 0.3in;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">During the Cold War, the USSR enjoyed years of strong control on the state’s commerce and a tightening of domestic investment of business. It was during this time that Soviets sought to discourage and ultimately restrict foreign investment. Every move during this time was characterized by unwavering loyalty to the state. There was no such thing as personal improvement. Improvement efforts were to be dedicated solely to the Soviet state. All “energies” were focused on sustaining the USSR’s superpower status. Soviet militaristic goals were also achieved during this time. Though the USSR could now assert itself with the only other world player of the time, the United States, influence on smaller entities, like Chechnia, was still questionable.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">RETURN OF A SUPERPOWER</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>When the USSR finally collapsed in 1991, the future of the state was undoubtedly uncertain. However by realizing Russia’s energy potential, the country quickly grew the economy into a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">people’s </i>economy full of private investment and ownership. These economic freedoms, which were otherwise unknown during the Soviet-era, contributed to the boost in morale and hope for the baby-country. While the USSR experienced some of the best possible militaristic achievements, Russia post-1991 struggled to assert itself on a global stage. That would soon come to an end though. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Perhaps it was nostalgia for previous times of power and, ultimately, a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">voice</i> that pushed President Vladimir Putin to kick the country into high-gear and demand the return of Russia to superpower status. To achieve such a goal would be preposterous – after all, prior to Putin coming into power, Russia had just experience an economic melt-down in 1998 that for sure sent the state into frenzy. It was his vision and swift and thought-out policy plans that would transform the country practically overnight. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">With the control of Russia practically all his, Putin emphasized the need for business to be nationalized. He feared that private owners of business don’t always act in the best interest of the state. In his view, “if left on their own, private owners become too absorbed in pursuing their own interest and are more interested in damaging their competitors than helping the state” (Goldman, 98). It was this firm stance on government control that would be an ever-reoccurring theme throughout his rule. With business seized by the state, Russia could now use companies like Gazprom as a vessel to carry out national interests and policy. By using the major energy producing company as a bargaining tool, it put Russia back on the map and reasserted itself in a much broader financial arena. The utter dependency of Russian GDP on oil production accounted for Putin’s 100% devotion to such political and economic policy. Realizing internal struggles with tax evasion and corruption, Putin introduced a flat tax of 13% as the means to lessen the incentive to cheat, a practice that had long been performed. With his focus on economic growth, Putin also sought to remove the bureaucratic mess that ultimately slowed down business and discouraged entrepreneurs (Goldman, 96). </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">With all this focus on the economy, it could be argued that militaristic goals went unnoticed and unrealized. Perhaps this is true as today we still have yet to see Russia reassert itself militarily. However, with only a month into being Prime Minister, Putin ordered Russian troops to invade Chechnia as a way of reasserting Russia’s authority there (Goldman, 94). Though this was a small endeavor in the big scope of things, it does say something about Putin’s piercing vision for the country – to regain the immense and fearsome control it had during the Soviet-era. As Marx would say though – Does the end justify the means? </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">CONCLUSION</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There is no doubt Russia has rebounded after swiftly taking over control of, and nationalizing, gas and oil. The state, in its infant stages, went from times of doubt and uncertainty, to a place of clear vision and relative prosper. What happened though to the freedoms gained with the collapse of the USSR? With business once again being nationalized and more restrictions on foreign investment being made, Putin, in ways, pushed Russia in a 180 degree rotation back to the ways Soviets used to run things. By putting politics and business on the same page, Putin effectively launched the country’s idealistic vision for the future practically by himself. This practice reeks of a return to authoritarianism and has ultimately made Russia less transparent in its efforts to reassert itself in the world. With threats of cutting off gas to reliant countries and having the life line to the rest of Europe, Russia has strategically put itself in a win-win position - having the voice of a superpower and the wealth needed to sustain it. It is noted that Putin has been extremely popular amongst the Russian people. This is a man who practically transformed a blooming country while returning it to its previous status: a ferocious world player – most certainly not afraid to play dirty. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">WORKS CITED</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;">Goldman, Marshall I. <u>Petrostate: Putin, power and the new Russia</u>.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt;">Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2008.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;">"Russia: Manufacturing.” <i>History Russians Abroad</i>. RussiansAbroad.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt;">17 Mar. 2009 < http://www.russiansabroad.com/russian_history_226.html>.</div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-3082791891993304572010-12-27T00:59:00.000-05:002010-12-30T19:28:42.847-05:00The 14th Amendment<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;">The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has become a fundamental pillar of our modern democracy. From this vital amendment, which guarantees equal protection for all citizens under the law, the United States has been able to progress and fortify the rights of its people through an array of legal issues and moral circumstances. Because of the establishment of this amendment, the civil rights of all people have been guaranteed; this notion has gained powerful legal status and is the basis of many Supreme Court cases concerning civil rights. However, the amendment itself means nothing without the application by the people of whom it was written. While this amendment provides equal protection under the law for all people, it does <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> guarantee that state laws or initiatives will always abide by it first. In the case of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Loving v Virginia</i> and in the 2008 California Proposition 8 vote, the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment is evident. While the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Loving v Virginia</i> case prevailed in the Supreme Court under the elements of ‘equal protection under the law,’ Proposition 8 has yet to be decided in the Supreme Court despite sharing very similar components as the case from nearly 50 years prior. Both of these cases pioneer a new wave of social awareness for minority groups seeking to gain <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">equal</i> legal protection under the law in the pursuit of happiness. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Loving v Virginia</i>, an interracial couple fought for their marriage to gain legal recognition despite the law of Virginia stating that, at that time, interracial marriage was illegal. Because the law fell under the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924,” passed by the Virginia State Legislature, there was no meaningful Civil Rights legislation at the time to protect the state’s people from this blatantly discriminate piece of legislation. It wasn’t until 1967, with this case, that the Fourteenth Amendment was used in a court of law to defend the couple and similar couples nation-wide. Because the Fourteenth Amendment was written out of the Reconstruction Era, it dealt primarily with the protection of racial minorities. ‘Equal protection under the law’ includes all races and, thus, an interracial couple’s marriage is just as valid as any other couples’. This case dealt with the law protecting everyone’s basic freedom to live in the pursuit of happiness; however nearly fifty years later in 2008, there continues to be challenges to this basic principle. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In 2008, California held a vote on Proposition 8 which sought to bring equality to the gay community of the state in the realm of marriage. The result of the vote was unsuccessful for the gay marriage movement; yet, the principles of the case are strikingly similar to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Loving v Virginia</i> in respect to two individuals unable to commit to each other because of discriminatory measures of the state prohibiting marriage. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the people of California (regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and in every other state are guaranteed equal protection under the law. If heterosexuals are able to marry, from a legal standpoint, homosexuals should be too. Equal protection under the law knows no boundaries; in the 1960s, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Loving</i> case wiped out an outdated state law based on the Fourteenth Amendment and its application to marriage. In 2010, this standard has every right to be applied again. After nearly 50 years of Civil Rights legislation being enacted on behalf of a racial minority, it is completely plausible that the Fourteenth Amendment can be used to justify the rights of other minorities as well.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The two cases of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Loving v Virginia</i> and Proposition 8 both demonstrate a fundamental right of all citizens to pursue happiness and marry a person of their choosing. With Loving, discriminatory legislation on the basis of race was the barrier for the couple. With the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court struck down the law of Virginia and guaranteed the rights of the people of Virginia with regard to marriage. In California, the issue of marriage continues to be a battle with the gay community who is fighting to get equal protection under the law. With application of the Fourteenth Amendment the gay community of California may be able to solidify their rights for marriage in the Supreme Court on the basis of ‘equal protection under the law.’ Whether it be a racial factor or the issue of sexual orientation, the institution of marriage remains a tradition that, legally, should be accessible to all people. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-64374713745112870622010-12-25T00:49:00.000-05:002010-12-30T19:27:50.970-05:00International Relations (IR): Three Levels of Analysis<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;">Because of the anarchic global arena that we live in, the study of International Relations (IR) is constantly forced to consider and examine how best to approach such a complex and abstract concept as worldwide interface. J. David Singer attempts to explain the global political structure with respect and accreditation to Kenneth Waltz’s original concept of “Levels of Analysis,” in his writing, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">International Conflict: Three Levels of Analysis. </i>Though his [Singer] findings are inconclusive in terms of favoring one level of analysis over another when considering how best to approach IR, the arrangement and classification conceived by Waltz can conceptualize the numerous political theorists’ models and offer a more keen understanding of foreign actors and their place in the international system. While each of the levels of analysis (Individual, National, and Systemic) offer their own unique approach to understanding the international system, IR can best be explained and understood at the “Systemic Level.” At this high level of analysis, describing, explaining and predicting events in IR is most effective because of (1) the wide scope that is used to view broad issues, (2) the disregard for cultural/individual factors that could contentiously play into the system, and (3) the attention paid to identifying the dominant forces in the field and, consequently, finding patterns in the larger picture. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To properly assess the efficacy of the Systemic Level in the study of IR, we must first consider the Levels of Analysis as a whole and what each level suggests. Beginning with the “First-Image” examination, the Individual Level of analysis takes in to account the specific psyche of human beings and their natural state of being whether it be an optimistic or pessimistic view. For an optimist, man can and should be changed for the better while a pessimist would argue the reverse – man is selfish and greedy and the only thing stopping him is a larger political and social system.<sup>1</sup> Examining distinctive qualities of humans as well as culture and religion, a First Level analysis of IR lacks meaning in terms of creating a clear picture of the international system as a functioning entity especially in a post- Peace of Westphalia-world where many different nation-states make up the majority of “official” foreign affairs. The inherit danger in drawing on the Individual Level for meaning in a global realm is the tendency for First-Image analyses to get too philosophical relying on assumptions and theories as to explain the true state of mankind which in itself is debatable . From such a weak foundation as this, accurate predictions are unlikely to be had given the massive amount of assumptions that need to be made first. Considering individuals and their place in the international system is undoubtedly useful in IR, however this level of analysis does not allow for a broader understanding of global politics and the forces in play.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Shifting to the National/State Level of analysis, we see a better grasp of the elements in play, but perhaps lack a complete understanding of their place in the broader system. The Second-Image analysis is concerned with the internal structure of states, sifting out good and bad states, and (ideally) trying to change them for the better.<sup>2</sup> With such an approach to IR as this, one concerns themselves with specific functions and faults of a state rather than the state as a whole and how it fits in to the international structure. When conducting foreign relations, one must consider how the state fits in to the larger system regardless of whether or not they are a mirror image of the “perfectly democratic” United States. By judging individual states based on their own unique political/social makeup, we are left with a better image of what that state represents by itself, but as far as how the state fares in a larger arena, we can’t be totally sure.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Taking in to account the two lower levels of analysis, the Systemic Level of analysis doesn’t concern itself with cultural or even particular state-specific political distinctions; the purpose of Third-Image analysis is to find stability in an anarchic world. With so many international actors, the Systemic read on foreign affairs is practical in approach and realistic in practice. In this level of analysis, one looks at the dominant forces in the field that cause war and their weight in the system as a whole.<sup>3</sup> The unique factor of a Systemic Level of analysis approach to IR is its ability to encompass the two lower levels of analysis, Individual and National /State Level analyses. With these First and Second-Image analyses considered, a Third-Image analysis can better assess and predict future events. The main purpose of IR is to gain the most accurate picture of the international system and the most influential/significant actors in it; in a Systemic Level of analysis, the framework is built to start the process of examining where best to shift national energies.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>With the “Three Levels of Analysis” approach to IR conceived by Kenneth Waltz and further articulated by J. David Singer, we are given an organized structure in our political school of thought to better help us understand and predict events in an international system. Since it is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">system,</i> the Third-Image analysis or Systemic Level of analysis serves most effective in best explaining and understanding IR. This approach to grasping the broad picture of IR forces one to channel thought through a wider spectrum considering larger factors in play in an anarchic world. The Systemic Level’s more common success in predicting foreign affairs does not come from its attention to fickle details of a state but rather its awareness of the international system as a functioning whole.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><br />
</div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-53833872926673728522010-12-24T00:41:00.001-05:002010-12-31T01:25:29.680-05:00Comparative Politics: A Look at Cuba<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxh7AFRFi6Yc7W4OQQH5P4yN6EjuIjuj-675_qdvzPbVD1-2cB_DWtvdSVMZp1xUO7HSHX1r30iblumKvlNDWFPiVZGiJ8EheGmU3RLb9TGDbcVm1a35AJFqikPzhqsKpM81AKyLPhIY/s1600/cuba.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxh7AFRFi6Yc7W4OQQH5P4yN6EjuIjuj-675_qdvzPbVD1-2cB_DWtvdSVMZp1xUO7HSHX1r30iblumKvlNDWFPiVZGiJ8EheGmU3RLb9TGDbcVm1a35AJFqikPzhqsKpM81AKyLPhIY/s320/cuba.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">INTRODUCTION</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What makes a sovereign country truly independent is its ability to face economic and political challenges head on. This direct approach to tackling societal problems instills a certain integrity and loyalty from a government to its people. Whether it be political and economic involvement from the United States or the specific aid sent from the Soviet Union, Cuba has struggled to express <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">its</i> complete sovereignty following the Spanish-American War. The inability of the nation to break free from foreign dominion revolves around the premise of financial insecurity and the aspiration of Cuba to be a world player. However, with financial insecurity comes both political and militaristic instability as well. Thus, due to the relatively young nature of the country along with its desire to be recognized in a global arena throughout the 20<sup>th</sup> century, Cuba has long been forced to accept political and economic conditions from other political powers that have restricted their facility to have a voice.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">THE PRICE OF INDEPENDENCE </b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>By the end of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, Cuba had struggled for its independence from Spain multiple times. It wasn’t until the Spanish-American War in 1898 that Cuba would become free from Spanish control. With the militaristic aid of the United States, Cuba was able to come out a free nation and by 1902 gained formal independence. The assistance from the United States didn’t come for free though. The years following the Spanish-American War would be dominated by U.S. involvement both politically and economically. The mantra of ‘U.S. interests first and Cuba’s second,’ would resonate in American politics until the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century beginning with the rule of Fidel Castro.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">U.S. INVOLVEMENT </b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As Cuba emerged a free nation, it needed support, both economically and politically, to get started. Since the U.S. had so <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">generously</i> defended its neighbor to the south at the end of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, American involvement was unavoidable.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0.6in;">“Social disarticulation marked the early republic. The planter class had little choice but to relinquish economic reconstruction to foreign capital and bind its well-being to U.S. investments. The consolidation and expansion of Spanish interests also limited Cuban opportunities in commerce, industry, and the professions.” (Perez-Stable, 37)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;">The United States knew very well its intentions in Cuba - to expand its sphere of influence and acquire an economic base to the south. Of the first political moves the U.S. took towards Cuba, was the Platt Amendment. The amendment was an addition to the Cuban Constitution stating that the United States had the right to "intervene in Cuba in order to protect U.S. economic and political interests and to protect the life of U.S. citizens in Cuba." The amendment, passed in 1899, would ensure political and economic relations with Cuba for the next 50 years. Of the many conditions that came with the Platt Amendment was the right of the United States to establish a military presence on the island. Cuba would be forced to sell or lease any party of the island for the establishment of American naval bases. This idea soon came to fruition with the creation of the American Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, in 1903. With a physical presence on the island, the U.S. could better manage its southern “playground.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As far as economic affairs are concerned, the reliance on Cuban sugar by the United States proved to be the grounds for American economic involvement on the island. With the 1903 reciprocity trade treaty came a 20% tariff reduction in the U.S. and a 20%-40% tariff reduction on American products in Cuba. The total reliance on sugar production in Cuba proved to be the driving force of the economy. As a result, when sugar production suffered, so did the Cuban economy. There was also little motivation to create new industry because of the overreliance on sugar. All the while, the United States was sitting back and enjoying the economic and political luxuries that this tiny island was producing for it. However, with the emergence of Fidel Castro as a political leader in the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century and growing tension between the two countries due to American hostility to Castro’s socialist plans, the United States eventually broke relations with Cuba and placed countless embargos on Cuban relations. Out of all this came a new protector for Cuba, the Soviet Union.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">SOVIET INVOLVEMENT</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>With the United States out of Cuba, alternative foreign relations needed to be made quickly if Cuba wanted to regain its grip both politically and economically. It seemed only logical that the other global superpower of the time (and adversary of the United States) would step in. The Soviet Union soon replaced the U.S.’s position in Cuba and quickly made its mark in the political and economic landscape of the small country. Since American demand for Cuban sugar was no longer, the Soviets filled the spot and, in exchange, provided the island with cheaper oil. By 1972, Cuba joined the Soviet-formed CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) which sought to unite communist states on economic grounds. This major step economically tightened the grip the Soviet Union had on Cuba while reassuring the island financial stability for a time.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Soviet political influence in Cuba came almost immediately after the United States’ withdraw from the country. In 1962, the first major political step taken by the Soviets towards the Cubans was facilitating the military artillery used during, what came to be known as, the “Missile Crisis.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In an effort to portray Cuba as a nation that wouldn’t budge to the United States, <span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Khrushchev effectively equipped Cuba with armory that made the U.S. rethink harsh treatment towards the small country. When the issue finally got resolved, it wasn’t Cuba who negotiated with the U.S., it was the Soviet Union. This motion instilled the grudge that the U.S. still had towards Cuba while making it clear that the Soviet Union would call the shots as far as Cuban foreign policy was concerned. The control that the Soviet Union had on Cuba wasn’t anything they weren’t used to. Similar control was most definitely seen during the years of U.S. occupation in Cuba.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">CONCLUSION</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>With as far as Cuba has come over the past couple of centuries, it is hard to say whether or not they were ever completely “independent.” Whether it was U.S. involvement in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century or Soviet influence in the latter part of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, Cuba never got the chance to fully express its own agenda on a global scale. Furthermore, neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union helped Cuba in the long run. Whereas both countries helped consume the major Cuban export of sugar, it pigeonholed the economy and made it completely reliant on a single crop. On a political basis, the U.S. tried to impose its own traditions and government on foreign soil (which we know has all too often resulted poorly) while Cuba tried harder and harder to resist. This resistance was relieved with Soviet political influence which sought to promote communist ideals; however, in the long run it was these ideals that have further exemplified Cuba’s inability to sustain a common peace amongst the citizens. The artillery that was briefly seen in the early 1960’s from the Soviets to Cuba was short-lived and artificially inflated the political power of Cuba towards the United States. </span>Neither country’s involvement in Cuba truly benefited Cuban desires to become “independent;” the country instead rode on the coat tails of foreign interest. The key lesson to be learned is for a developing nation to learn its boundaries and be careful of getting ahead of its time. Cuba is a perfect example of a government trying to rapidly emerge its birthing nation into a global arena too soon. By leaching on to the two biggest superpowers of the time, Cuba’s fate (both politically and economically) rested in the hands of others. The inability for Cuba to resist the pressures of foreign involvement and the reliance <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">on</i> foreign involvement can accurately characterize 20<sup>th</sup> century Cuba.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">WORKS CITED</b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;">1. Perez-Stable, Marifeli. <u>The Cuban Revolution: Origins, Course, and Legacy</u>.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.</div></div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135460390878454424.post-52548351888247304912010-12-23T00:23:00.002-05:002010-12-31T01:27:50.942-05:00A Modern Shia Revival<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi26VGH1dcz0DLP6rjYcj3a9NZ465qpet8urfmy0Yj7kPkkwcM8LRUOxnasDv44hPkTy6mmKABkhsnWRZx3eqLzhvv0M8VuhWOXo5sV6idvuPFZzWYu6aG47IpuPrCyCueimEsS7M7qgtA/s1600/shia1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: left; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi26VGH1dcz0DLP6rjYcj3a9NZ465qpet8urfmy0Yj7kPkkwcM8LRUOxnasDv44hPkTy6mmKABkhsnWRZx3eqLzhvv0M8VuhWOXo5sV6idvuPFZzWYu6aG47IpuPrCyCueimEsS7M7qgtA/s320/shia1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">INTRODUCTION</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>The Middle East has long been home to an age-old conflict that, at its core, deals with the division of two major Muslim factions in the region. From these two groups, we see a divided history that dates back to 632 C.E. and the rightful successor of the prophet, Muhammad. Subsequent to his death, the Islamic faith began to take on two distinct identities that were conceived by (1) followers of the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, and (2) followers of the prophet’s close friend and father-in-law, Abu Bakr. The first group, calling themselves “Shia,” is the minority today and make up only about 10% of Muslims worldwide; the latter group, representing the majority, are dubbed as “Sunnis” and have, in recent years, had most of the political control in the Middle East. The two Muslim sects have their religious roots deeply embedded in everyday life – affecting their traditions, lifestyle and, ultimately, politics. However, following the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Shia gained a significant voice in Middle Eastern politics. Today, the Shia continue their march toward equality and wider representation in the region despite Sunni opposition. Investigating the history of the Islamic faith and the quarrel between its two religious groups can only create a clearer picture of the Muslim community at large and the events that shape Middle Eastern politics today. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">PHILOSPHICAL DIFFERENCES </b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Islamic faith came to origin in the seventh century with the prophet, Muhammad. After his death, disputes over the rightful <span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">leader of the faith divided the religion’s followers into two groups, the Shia and the Sunnis. The Shia organized around Muhammad’s blood-relative and cousin, Ali, while Sunnis chose to have Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s close friend and father-in-law, as their religious leader. However, following the assassination of Ali by Muawiya, Shia resentment towards the opposing Sunni took on a new odium. The Shia people “evolved as moral and religious resistance to Sunni authority” and thus, “to survive…grew insular;” today, their people continue to “challenge the political authority of the caliphs” and have found security within Iranian and, quite recently, Iraqi borders.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Shia have remained a fairly small community within the Islamic faith while the Sunnis, on the other hand, amount to nearly 90% of all Muslims. According to Sunni doctrine, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">they</i> are the orthodox branch of Islam and represent a traditional approach to the religion. The basis for their teachings revolves solely on the Quran and includes the acceptance of two types of leaders – a religious leader and a political leader. Whereas the Shia recognize one religious and political figure, Sunnis have more of a separation between church and state. They don’t believe that it is a religious figure’s birthright to lead the religion, nor do they accept the opinion of their political figure to be absolute.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Despite their division, “<span style="color: black;">the two communities share fundamental beliefs - the "oneness" of Allah, that Muhammad was the last prophet, prayer, fasting and the pilgrimage to Mecca for example” (BBC News). Nevertheless, the fact remains that the two groups remain much divided. The treatment of one another depends on the leadership of the given community – for Sunni in Iran, gaining a significant voice has proved very difficult.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">POLITICAL DIFFERENCES</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Within the Islamic faith, religion and politics are acutely connected. This relationship stems from the original disagreement concerning the rightful leader of the religion. Ergo, Muslims sharing similar theological beliefs pertaining to the foundations of the Islamic faith tend to convene together in similar political realms as well. Shia, for the most part, represent the poorest of inhabitants in countries like Lebanon and are widely seen as unsophisticated and low class citizens. It’s this discrimination that has divided the Muslim community into two opposing sects and continues the two contrasting notions concerning leadership. According to Shia doctrine, political and religious leadership should be intertwined and come from the same source whereas Sunnis maintain the idea that there is a clear division between political and religious figures. This opposition has manifested itself through the creation of Shia-controlled Iran and the unique “Islamic Republic” style of government in place.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">SHIA DISCRIMINATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in; text-indent: 27pt;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Because the Shia-Sunni quarrel dates back centuries, discrimination of the minority is deeply embedded in the roots of Middle Eastern history. The Shia have widely been persecuted due to the posing threat they have had on the Sunni over time: </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“Militarily established and holding control over the Umayyad government, many Sunni rulers perceived the Shia as a threat – both to their political and religious authority…the Sunni rulers under the Umayyads sought to marginalize the Shia minority and later the Abbasids turned on their Shia allies and further imprisoned, persecuted, and killed Shias” (Nasr 52).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In recent years, the gaining support for the Shia people, especially post-Iranian Revolution, has propelled this trepidation further. The Shia are widely seen as simple and low class people who need to be controlled throughout the Middle East. Discrimination extends from most corners of the Arab-speaking world and threatens the livelihood of the faith. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">THE RISE OF IRAN</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>By 1979, growing hatred for the Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, reached a tipping point. The growing neglect the Shah developed towards the Shia religious clergy over disputed issues like modernization and his ostracized authoritarian rule, proved to be fatal. The Iranian people were also not pleased by the way their country had become a puppet for the United States. Following the revolution, they brought back Ayatollah Khomeini to lead, ultimately showing their regained strength as a Shia nation. With Khomeini in power, changes were made to bring back the Shia clerical presence in the government that had been lacking with the Shah. With the return of a combined religious <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and</i> political state, Iran could now more effectively launch its anti-American agenda and become a stronger, but insolated, country. Today, Iran continues to refer to the United States as “The Great Satan” because of our dark past which includes putting the Shah in power for our own interests. Despite the Shah’s ability to modernize Iran and bring about some good change, the country is seen in this era as stronger because of the regrouping and restorations it’s made within its borders.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">CONCLUSION</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Iran that we see today is in many ways different from the Iran of the mid-twentieth century led by the Shah. Since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 and most certainly since the election of Ali Khamenei in 1989, Iran has seen the formation of a true <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Shia</i> state; by taking on such a title, Iran accepts the terms of the religion which may or may not be suitable to the interests of many Westerners – perhaps even some native Iranians, thus opening up the possibility for revolution. The Shah’s Iran sought to bring about modernization, education reform and a clear step towards a secular nation. By directly merging the Shia religion with Iranian politics, the country has in affect strengthened its power and put its citizens under complete government control. Using the Islamic faith as a political tool, Iran is taking advantage of its people - such a way of life doesn’t sound like the definition of “freedom” as it is known in the United States. By continuing flawed policy such as the condemning of homosexuals and the limited rights of women, Iran cannot plausibly exude characteristics of a free nation. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>With such defective domestic policy, it is hard to imagine Iran being a threat in a global arena. Nevertheless, anti-U.S. sentiment combined with growing military strength has made it clear that Iran is demanding a voice. It has been uncertain over the years whether or not Iran has financially supported terrorism - certainly the country is not willing to admit such a claim. However, with the unique makeup of the government along with clear opposing views on issues like Israel’s right to exist, Iranian and American leaders are being forced to communicate; by achieving such a right, Iran has proven its growing political status. The threat the country poses to the West is visible through its interest in developing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the inability of the U.S. to reach negotiations with Iran has propelled this struggle and has allowed Iran to rule with fear both domestically and abroad. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><strong>WORKS CITED</strong></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">1. “The Shia Revival: Class Notes” Borzutzky, Silvia: Comparative Politics.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
2. </span>"BBC NEWS". British Broadcasting Corporation. April 30, 2009<br />
<span style="color: white;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6213248.stm>.<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 0in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
3. </span>Nasr, Vali. <u>The Shia Revival</u>. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></div>Nick Marcuccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14437476811954984729noreply@blogger.com1