Liana on Greece and the Theatre

Greece and the Theatre

Written by: Robert Knox

Through all of the Greeks tough times they found refuge in the peace and community of the theatre.

“The orphaned children of those Athenians who had fallen in battle were cared for and educated by the city; once they had reached young manhood, they were paraded in the theatre in full armor, to receive the blessings of the people. Honors and distinctions decreed for foreign heads of state and individuals were conferred in the theater at the festival”. (22)

Even though the fallen were no with them, their legacies and bloodlines were respectfully maintained through the community. Greece has always been poor, but they had each other, they had their gods and they were rich in spirit.

“The audience with its knowledge of the past and future, is on the level of the gods; they see the ambition, passion and actions of the characters against the larger pattern of their lives and of the characters against the larger pattern of their lives and deaths. The spectator is involved emotionally in the heroic struggles of the protagonist, a man like himself, and at the same time can view his heroic action from the standpoint of superior knowledge, the knowledge possessed by those gods whose prophesies of the future play so large a role in Sophoclean tragedy”. (24)

Through the theatre, the Greeks showed that politically they weren’t only a democracy but that they had a democratic way of life. The theatre was created by the people, for the people. They mixed politics, religion and recreation on the stage. It was somewhere to go to lighten up the spirit, to forget about every day troubles and put yourself on another level, a higher level where immediate obstacles can be forgotten and you could sit and be lost in someone else’s life for a while. Giving you the ability to converse and interact with the entire community building each person as well as the production.

What happened to the people that took in Oedipus after he left his home?

How long did it take Oedipus to find out his wife was his mother?

It said Antigone was his guide when he was wondering around with no eyeballs, was she with him when he dies?

How did Oedipus finally die?

Liana on Human Rights

Political Science 1

Final Exam

A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth. If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy. Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This frivolous phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't disprove the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference when it comes to the morality of abortion.

It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice. That is the argument of people, pro-choice. That the woman has the right to choose, sacrificing her fetus’ rights for her own.

Pro-abortion advocates consistently rely on the same arguments they have used for decades. When a woman is pregnant, science tells us that the new life she carries is a complete and fully new human being from the moment of fertilization. By the time most abortions can be performed, the baby already has a beating heart and identifiable brain waves. The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique a new person/human being as you are from me, and as deserving of protection under the law as we are. The baby every mother carries as she faces a life and death decision has a beating heart at 18 days after fertilization and brain waves as early as six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed until nine weeks of the pregnancy. Even RU 486 chemical abortions can't be done until after six weeks. Every mother is faced with profound decisions to make for herself and her child but these decisions can never include the right to kill her baby.

Mothers facing difficult pregnancies require accurate and compassionate information about the facts of fetal development as well as the practical help that is available to them through the more than 3,000 mother helping centers around the USA. Mothers have a right to be fully informed about the facts at least 24 hours before making this life or death decision for themselves and their child. We will never end poverty in our world simply by killing poor children. The poor mother who is encouraged to have an abortion today is just as poor tomorrow. Problems such as lack of job security, education, or abuse are not cured by ignoring their existence in a woman's life and turning to abortion as a way to make it all "go away."

The problem is lack of development -- not population. What women of the world desire are good basic health care for themselves and their families. In those countries where abortion is not legal, it is often because of strong cultural and religious beliefs that respect each new life. That respect needs to be backed up with wiser development plans not more dangerous and deadly abortion activity. In countries where there is not even the guarantee of clean running water, abortion will only become a death sentence for third world women and their babies.

The conclusion I draw to this issue is doctors don't cure illness by killing the patient. Aborting a child with a disability or illness is the height of prejudice. When a family learns that the child they are expecting may have a special need, that family needs support and good solid medical information -- not the death of their most fragile member. I believe that abortion should only be considered an option in the case of rape or incest. An April 2004 Zogby poll found that 56% of Americans support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest or when it threatens the life of the mother. In a statistical breakdown of “Why do Women have Abortions” it shows that 93% of Americans have abortions because the woman feels unready for child and the responsibility, feels she can't afford the baby, has all the children she wants and other family responsibilities, relationship problem such as single motherhood, feels she isn't mature enough, interference with education or career plans, or her parents or partner wants abortion. It shows that only 7% of Americans have abortions due to rape, incest, the baby having a health complication, or the mother having a health complication. I personally think that is wrong, I also believe that killing your baby for your convenience is not your right. That is murder. When a woman has been raped or a victim of incest, she has been the victim of a terrifying act of violence of which she is a true victim. Tragically, we are some times faced with a second victim of this great crime committed by the rapist, a baby. While pregnancy is extremely rare from rape, it can happen. The cruelest thing that can happen to the women in question is to now be pitted against her child, who is the second victim. In several studies done across America, women who were encouraged to use abortion in such circumstances felt that they had been put through a second act of violence, the violence and pain of the mechanical rape of abortion. Worse than that, they stated feelings of being made into the victimizer of their own child. They felt that their baby had paid with its life for the crime of the rapist. I believe in the cases of rape or incest it is then the mothers choice. I believe that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. Killing your baby because it interferes with your life is selfish, you never know what that child could become, or what joy it could bring to another family that can not physically have children.

The Bible requires the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes, including practicing evil sorcery, adultery, homosexual behavior, doing work on Saturday and murder. It even calls for some criminals (e.g. prostitutes who are the daughters of priests) to be tortured to death by being burned alive. Most Christians, with the exception of those in the Reconstruction movement, feel that many of these grounds for the death penalty no longer apply to Christian societies. U.S. However, Bible passages are still used to promote the retention of capital punishment for murderers. A few conservative Christians advocate that homosexuals also be executed. Many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance. They feel that certain crimes are so heinous that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response. Many people feel that the death penalty will deter criminals from killing. This does not seem to be confirmed by an analysis of the available data. However, it feels intuitively correct for many people. "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." (Edward Koch). Once a convicted murder is executed and buried, there are no further maintenance costs to the state. This appears to be invalid; the cost to the state paying for multiple appeals is generally greater than the cost of imprisoning an inmate. Once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone.

Some Christians feel that they are no longer bound by the legal codes of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the death penalty is no longer required. Since the Bible was written, as society became more tolerant, we eliminated the death penalty for pre-marital sex, practicing a different religion, engaging in prostitution, homosexual behavior, blasphemy, rebellion by teenagers, etc. Some people believe we should eliminate it for murder as well. Abolitionists often quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position. She had been sentenced to death by stoning, but Jesus used a cleaver ploy to gain her freedom. He suggested that the accuser who was without sin cast the first stone. None were free of sin and thus none could start the execution. Some theologians believe that the early church was closer to Jesus' teachings than are the present-day churches. They were unalterably opposed to the death penalty. Early Christians would not take a person to court if there were any possibility that they could be executed if found guilty. Some people believe that capital punishment is playing God, that executing people before their natural death Some Christians believe that God places people on Earth for a purpose. If we kill them prematurely, then we may be thwarting God's will. Some feel that permitting premeditated murder is totally unacceptable, even if committed by the state. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life as seen by the general population and brutalizes society. It is based on a need for revenge. A Quaker group suggests that It "violates our belief in the human capacity for change.... [It] powerfully reinforces the idea that killing can be a proper way of responding to those who have wronged us. We do not believe that reinforcement of that idea can lead to healthier and safer communities." The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the homicide rate. There are some indications that executions actually increase the murder rate. The costs to the state of funding appeals by convicted murderers would more than pay for their permanent incarceration. Human life has intrinsic value, even if a person has murdered another individual. The death penalty denies the sacredness of human life. Live is so precious that nobody should ever be killed, even by the state. The mentally ill, poor, males and racial minorities are over-represented among those executed. One pilot study of over 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row found that all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably all suffered from brain damage. Women convicted of murder are almost never executed; that is a penalty that is almost entirely reserved for men. A 1986 study in Georgia showed that persons who killed "whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites.” Many convicted murderers are later found innocent, and have been pardoned. It is impossible to pardon a corpse. In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review. They found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed." Some consider capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment. By killing the person before the time when they would have naturally died, we are eliminating any chance that they might have for salvation. The family of the prisoner is victimized and punished by having their loved one murdered by the state. Yet the family is usually innocent of any crime. Some jury members are reluctant to convict in murder trials because of the possibility of executing an innocent person. Thus, many killers go free and are never punished. Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person.

I believe that there is nothing cruel or unusual about execution. If you take a life, you deserve to have your own life taken, in certain circumstances. If however you accidentally took someone’s life I do not think your life should be taken, only for premeditated murder, such as Abortion. If you are willing to abort your baby, you too should die.

Liana on Political Parties

Political Science 1

Exam 2

Political parties allow people to find strength in numbers, to organize, and to identify with a general approach to the people. Parties provide an identity so that voters have some idea of what they are getting when they support a vote for a candidate. Political parties represent a general view about the relationship between a government and society. Knowing that a candidate is a member of one party provides an introduction to the kinds of positions he or she will support. In any given election there may be hundreds of candidates, and it is very difficult for the voter to judge the individual record and platform of every eligible candidate. Party identification allows a voter to make an informed choice without researching every detail about a campaign.

It basically is a coalition of people organized formally to recruit, nominate, and elect candidates for public office. They are involved in running the government, creating and executing shared political goals through the election of officials to the executive and legislative branches of government, and they bring stability to the political system.

Political parties unite broad groups of individuals under a common set of beliefs and principals about how government should work. Parties recruit members and candidates for public office so their ideas are represented on the local, state and federal government levels. Most major parties tend to embrace general principals and a range of opinions about public affairs. It is not expected for every member to agree across the board about all their political goals. Parties rely on their members to raise funds, spread the word about candidates and policies and persuade others to support the party. Political parties provide a key connection between citizens and government. It is imperative to remember that citizens can belong to a political party without agreeing with every position it supports. Often there is conflict between party loyalty and personal opinion. There can be vast differences between parties at the local state and national level. Depending on sociality and morality it is all geographical. People in the south, generally tend to have different views from people in the north.

The way the public plays a role in political parties if you are or are not a member of a party is through interest groups. There are many different kinds of interest groups, for and against platform topics. Interest groups are one important instrument through which citizens in the United States make their ideas, needs, and views known to elected officials. You can usually find an interest group that focuses on their concerns, no matter how specialized they may be. Interest groups often get started at the state and local levels, later combining into nation wide organizations. Interest groups are not centralized; they are all over the United States, and run closely encouraging a greater variety of interest groups. It would look as if it would weaken the party system, because the social and economic diversity of the 50 states make strict party discipline difficult.

The American tradition of freedom of speech, press, and assembly means that just about any point of view expressed by an interest group, no matter how radical, is permitted a public exposure. Interest groups are categorized in three categories: business, labor, and agriculture. The type of interest group experiencing the most rapid growth since 1970 is the "public interest group." Political scientist Jeffrey Berry defines a public interest group as one that supports goals that are not of direct material benefit to its members but rather express their values pertaining to society as a whole. The first public interest groups were spawned by the civil rights, women's rights, and environmental activities of the 1960s. Supporters of these causes often went through an evolution over time that transferred the expression of their views from street protest to organized action within the political system. Later, public interest groups mobilized on new issues, such as the rights of the disabled, prevention of child abuse or domestic violence, and gay/lesbian rights. These groups have also been major advocates for programs benefiting the poor.

It would seem logical to assume that interest groups with a large base of support in the population would be the most influential. Elected officials champion the policies advocated by significant majorities in opinion polling, because they want to add the large number of potential voters supporting these positions to their winning coalitions. However, several factors obscure this picture. It is true that millions of citizens belong to interest groups and that some, such as the environmentalist Sierra Club and the AFL/CIO, the labor organization, are quite large. However, a closer look shows that most mass-membership groups enroll only a small fraction of their potential supporters. For example, polls show substantial majorities of Americans in favor of strong environmental regulations. These supporters constitute a pool of millions of potential members for environmental interest groups. Though, even the largest environmental groups claim memberships of fewer than one million. This relatively small number of members is in keeping with the overall principle that the number of citizens who join interest groups is a small fraction of the U.S. population.

Another serious problem faced by a mass-membership group is translating citizen support for the group into votes for candidates that support its goals. Voting is a complex act, involving multiple motivations and influences: the candidate's personality, party loyalty, and a range of issues. Voting studies show that many voters are not fully aware of the policy positions taken by candidates they support. As a result, it is often difficult for a group to show that the voting choices of its supporters are primarily motivated by its particular issues. Groups that can convince candidates of their voting power become feared and respected. For example, the National Rifle Association (NRA), which opposes gun control laws, has convinced legislators that its members will vote for or against them solely on this issue. Therefore, the NRA has influence far out of proportion to its numbers, even though most Americans favor stronger gun control laws.

To belong to a interest group you usually become a member and donate some of your money to your cause, information is another resource for interest groups, information is the most powerful resource that an interest group can possess. Information is exchanged in several ways.

As there are many different interest groups, they don’t necessarily have to belong to one party, as mentioned above, just because you are a republican doesn’t mean that you won’t have some democratic, or green opinions as well. The republican party typically wants to lower taxes and rely on private and market driven solutions to social problems, while the democratic party usually supports higher taxes and public, government- based solutions to some issues. John McCain believes in the importance of keeping marginal tax rates low. But, tax cuts work best when accompanied by lower spending. Higher taxes and greater spending discourage entrepreneurship, foster wasteful tax-planning and slow long-term growth. Intelligently-formulated tax cuts and sensible tax reform will deliver much higher growth when they are accompanied by lower spending.

On the contrary, senator, Hillary Clinton introduced a plan that ties increases in the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises, so that if Congress votes a raise for itself, the minimum wage goes up as well. Hillary has consistently supported tax relief for middle-class families. She has supported permanently ending the marriage penalty, extending the lower-income tax rates, providing a deduction for college tuition, and providing a refundable child tax credit and adoption tax credit. In New York, Hillary championed tax incentives like wage credits for businesses and job creation in upstate New York and elsewhere. She also helped launch economic development initiatives to provide critical resources to small and micro businesses and helped launch a private sector venture called New Jobs for New York that makes venture capital available to New York's innovators.

Republicans are known to be the conservatives and Democrats to be the liberals. Conservatives are known on the right and Liberals on the left. Another topic of controversy is Abortion. John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
In 1993, John McCain and his wife, Cindy, adopted a little girl with a cleft palate from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. Bridget, now in high school, has been a blessing to the McCain family and helped make adoption advocacy a personal issue for the Senator. The McCain family experience is not unique; millions of families have had their lives transformed by the adoption of a child. As president, motivated by his personal experience, John McCain will seek ways to promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy.

Opposite of that is Mike Gravel supports a woman’s right to decide if and when to have children, and to make the difficult decision about abortion without interference by government. Comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education, including accurate information about contraception, can help to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions. Parity in health insurance and access to family health care services, including family planning education, would also benefit the health and welfare of infants and children, who need and deserve to be wanted and loved.

Some other key issues on the platform are, gun control, budget and economy, drugs, education, corporations, immigration, welfare and poverty, foreign policy, health care, and each sides stance on same sex marriage. Each side has its own unique stance, usually opposing the other party. There are more than just the republican and democratic parties, there are thousands of parties. We just primarily run on a two party system and it seems to be working fine. One thing the two candidates have in common in the 2008 election is, they are both Leo’s, both born in the fifth astrological month of the zodiac calendar, and the eighth month of our traditional calendar. McCain is a dinosaur, and Obama is just a sapling, but according to the stars they both share the same characteristics such as arrogant, intolerant, self serving, interfering, risk-taking, strong and independent. If you can’t find comfort in that similarity, they are both married, maybe there is some comfort in that for the American people. They may have different opinions, but how different would they really be at approaching the problems of the people?

Liana on Federalism

Political Science 1

Exam 1

To completely understand how and why federalism works you have to know that there are 3 main branches of government. Legislative, makes the laws of the land, represented by two bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Executive oversees the management of government, and Judiciary interprets the laws of the land as stated, or implied by the constitution.

Federalism is a way of organizing government so that power is divided between the national government and other governmental bodies, such as state governments. Because this method to check and balance power assigns each government its own powers, we also call this dual sovereignty. The reason for that is there can be no government that works for the people, and for the government unless it has self discipline and self control. As humans, we generally look out for our best interest, its human nature. Government is made up of humans and they are generally looking out for their best interests, they are politicians, it is in their nature. The people for the constitution were called Federalists, the people against the constitution were called Antifederalists, the Antifederalist party was for liberty opposed to democracy they believed that liberty could only be guaranteed in a small republic where the rulers were physically close to and closely examined by the people. They proposed limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The United States Federalist system is a democratic federal republic, meaning it is ideally a system where the people elect representatives who they expect are going to obey the mandate of the people they represent, regardless of their own personal beliefs, however they are free to act on their own, based on their own personal beliefs, conscience, or other factors, to do what they feel is right, because in 1790 the people were generally not educated and the representatives were picked as representatives because they were more aware. The system was good ideally, however, they gave the Supreme Court the ultimate power by leaving the constitution so vague. Alan Keyes a Republican said on September 11, 2003 that “Without the basis in written law, and without the basis in our Constitution ratified by the people, judges can't make laws. And if we accept the notion that their dictates are law, then we have not only submitted to tyranny, we have abandoned a republican form of government.” Federalism was set up so there would be no ultimate power no “one over many”, however that is exactly what we have, however when the founding fathers were creating our federalist system drawing from Aristotle, and John Locke, they had in mind, the president, being the head and drew up the constitution to not give that one man too much power.

Who really has all the power? The US Supreme court is a group of selected individuals, by the elected president, that serve for life and can only be removed by impeachment. We the people do not elect US Supreme Court justices. It is 2008, and most of Americans are literate, however our government doesn’t have enough faith in us to elect new Supreme Court justices, and even if we wanted to bring it up, we couldn’t because it would go straight to the Supreme Court. It almost looks as if the President is the temporary coach, the Supreme Court is the undefeated team and the Congress is the referee, as far as making the rules, not as far as making the calls. The team makes all the calls, we the people are the losing team. It looks as if the founders did want some form of a centralized government with more than one person in control, “many over many”. It really wouldn’t matter who is president because that is temporary, the Supreme Court is the leader of this country. Federalism set us up for that. There is no way to challenge the Supreme Court, it is the way it is, and there is nothing we, the people can do to change that.

The Constitution specifically grants certain powers to the national government, such as declaring war, negotiating treaties, and raising armies. Consequently it denies the states powers granted to the national government because if the states were allowed to engage in these actions it would weaken or undermine the national government. However, the boundary between national and state powers and responsibilities is sometimes unclear, because the constitution was created as a work in progress, the laws and times change. In the case McCulloch v. Maryland the state of Maryland sued a federal agency they believe has failed to live up to its responsibilities. This case relates generally with the dispersion of power between state and federal governments. After the First Bank of the United States had folded in 1811, due to a lack of congressional support, inflation in the years following the War of 1812 Congress established a new national bank in 1816. After a war there is always a recession or depression. The Second Bank of the United States was authorized by Congress to help control the unregulated issuance of currency by state banks. Maryland set an example opposing the banks constitutionality by imposing a tax on all banks not chartered by the state. When the U.S. branch bank in Baltimore refused to pay taxes, Maryland brought suit for collection from the bank. Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote the overt opinion: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” The chartering of a bank, according to the Court, was a power implied from the power over federal fiscal operations. Maryland believed they were hit harder than any other state at that time, and as a state they believed they had the right to tax a federal agency. However, the tax was voted unconstitutional. One of the most important decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, Marshall's opinion called for a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government. The case became the legal origin of later expansions of federal power.

Again, the boundary between national and state powers and responsibilities is sometimes blurred, because the constitution was created as a work in progress, the laws and times are all relative, nothing is absolute. In the case of Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824, John Marshall was still Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This case refers to the commerce clause, and if the federal government had power over interstate commerce. Fulton and his partner, Robert Livingston, negotiated a deal where the New York State legislature would grant them an exclusive, long-term contract to operate and license all steam-powered vessels in the waters of New York. Aaron Ogden obtained a license from Livingston to operate steam-powered ferryboats that Fulton owned on the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. Meanwhile, in New Jersey, Thomas Gibbons made his living carrying passengers by steamboat from the small town of Elizabethtown, New Jersey to New York City. Gibbons operated under a coasting license granted by the Federal Government, rather than under a license issued by either State. Gibbons had no New York license, so Ogden asked the New York courts to issue a ruling forbidding him landing rights to the port of New York. The New York courts issued the restriction. Gibbons appealed to the U.S. courts, arguing that his possession of a federal coasting license outdated the licensing requirements of New York State. The commerce clause; Article I, Section 8. Chief Justice John Marshall said ". . . Few things were better known, than the immediate causes which led to the adoption of the present constitution . . . that the prevailing motive was to regulate commerce; to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences, resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law."

In the end, the flexibility created by our Constitution allows for a hardheaded response to the evolving challenges we face as a nation. It creates the chance for policy-makers to gauge whether problems are best confronted in town halls or state capitals or in Washington– or in some combination of all of them– and then to work together to assign each level of government its appropriate responsibility. That these tasks change over time is a sign not of weakness, but of the system's continuing strength.