The Nature of Sacrifice in the History and Ideology of Gush Emunim :: Israel Middle East Political Essays

The Nature of Sacrifice In The History And Ideology Of The Gush Emunim There can be no argument that by living in small settlements in the hostile and explosive West Bank and Gaza Strip, Gush Emunim settlers are making some sort of sacrifice. Surrounded no doubt by hostile Palestinians who feel that the Israelis are occupying their home, religious settlers face the potential for violence and death on a daily basis. In what is becoming a more perilous state of affairs in Israel with each suicide bombing, shooting spree, or IDF incursion into the Palestinian territories and refugee camps, perhaps no one on the Israeli side faces as constant a risk of danger than the Gush Emunim. This paper will attempt to examine the very nature of sacrifice that the Gush Emunim are involved in, as well as the biblical justification for this sacrifice. I also mean to explore the biblical justification the Gush Emunim may use to support their willingness to resort to violence against the Palestinians in defending this sacrifice. Their attitude towards their hostile neighbors is the same attitude their ancestors held about the Canaanites: â€Å"you must be expelled, whether peacefully or violently, because this is our land according to God.† In the history and ideology of the Gush Emunim, examples of both Nancy Jay’s communion sacrifice as well as Hubert and Mauss’s contractual sacrifice are plenty. The sacred violence as a cultural foundation about which Gil Bailie writes can also be found. Furthermore, Girard’s mimetic desire is evident in the competition between Jews and Muslims over the sacred space that is Jerusalem. The history of the G ush Emunim is a highly complex one, yet it can be much more clearly understood when its sacrificial systems and propensity for violence are explained using some of the authors whom we have read in class. Settlement in a hostile environment is the sacrificial risk they take. They have occupied the place of a sacrificial victim. The Palestinians represent the threat to their Messianic purpose. Background The Gush Emunim are not, contrary to popular myth, a political party in Israel. While over the course of their existence they have gained much political influence, they did not form to gain seats in the Knesset and change domestic or international policy. This all came later.

Sophies Heart/By Lori Wick :: essays research papers

Sophie's Heart, by Lori Wick, is the story of Sophie, an educated young woman who moves from her homeland, Czechoslovakia, to America where she becomes a housekeeper for a loneyly young widower and his three children. This book takes place mainly in Wisconsin in the 1990's. Sophie moved from Czechoslovakia to American and became employed as a housekeeper for Alec Riley. She grew to love his three children and gradually her love extended to Alec himself, who returned her love with his own. Near the end of this novel, Sophie and Alec get married. Sophie Velikonja, a twenty-year old young woman, moved to America when her name was called on the request list to leave Czechoslovakia. She had not wanted to leaver her beloved grandmother, but her grandmother insisted upon staying behind. Sophie moved to Chicago where she acquired a job as a waitress in a city restaurannt. A devout Christian, Sophie began attending church as soon as she could and met a friendly woman named Janet Ring. Janet's brother, Alec Riley had recently become a widower when his young wife, Venessa, died in a tragic car accident. She suggested to him that he employ a housekeeper. After having met Sophie, Janet recommended the quiet, hard-working young woman to Alec. Alec, after some hesitation and tought, interviewed Sophie and hired her. Sophie lived in a small apartment over Riley's garage and cooked and cleaned for Alec and his three children, Rita (age 17), Craig (age 13), and Tory ( age10). Sophie and the children ended up becoming very close. At first, the children looked down on her with her accent, but when they eventurally learned that Sophie had mastered five other languages and had worked as a translator in her native land, they changed their opinion. Life was not without hardship for Sophie. She desperately missed her beloved grandmother and she also faced problems with Vanessa's mother, who seemed to resent the fact that someone had come to do the same duties her daughter had done. As she and the Riley children grew closer, Sophie began to notice their handsome father, Alec. At first, she didn't admit to herself that she was interested in him, but when Alec began to show an interest in her, Sophie began to seriously look at him. At first, she was concerned that she would be merely a replacement for Vanessa, but as she and Alec grew closer, he made it very clear to her that he loved her for who she was.

An Analysis of Miltons On His Having Arrived At the Age of Twenty-Thre

An Analysis of Milton's On His Having Arrived At the Age of Twenty-Three John Milton is one of the most famous poets of the English language. Even though his works are not many, he is considered the greatest writer in English literature. In John Milton' s works we can see the problems of the English society and his own too. Such a poem is " On His Having Arrived At the Age of Twenty-Three" because it shows the concerns that Milton had about his career when he was young and still hadn't chosen his own way in life. In this famous work of his we don't see a celebration of a birthday but a problem that the young gentleman faces as time passes by. The author uses many metaphors and symbols in order to give a more vivid image of his problem, and at the end he gives a solution to this problem. The structure of " On His Having Arrived At the Age of Twenty-Three" is typical for John Milton. This is a fourteen-line lyric poem also called Italian sonnet. T is called Italian because it was invented in Italy in the thirteenth century and later English writers began using it. The Italian sonnet consists of an eight-line octave and a six-line sestet. In the first eight lines the author introduces a problem and in the sestet he gives a solution to the problem. The poem has a rhyme scheme typical for the Italian sonnet. The octave has a rhyme ABBAABBA and the sestet's rhyme scheme is CDECDE. " On His Having Arrived At the Age of Twenty-Three" is a poem whose lines are all with ten syllables and with five beats per line. In this poem John Milton has not used techniques such as parallelism, assonance, and alliteration but even despite of this fact this is considered a great work of his. ... ...thor his fate is in the hands of God, and it is Him that chooses the way Milton has to follow. The author has no other choice except to become a poet. He must not worry about the other poets who till now have produced many works, and the only thing he has to do is to follow God. In the poem " On His Having Arrived At the Age of Twenty-Three" John Milton introduces a problem and gives a solution to this same problem. In fact, this problem is relevant even today, when young people have to decide on a career. Also as time goes by people ask them more often what they have done in their life. The figurative language that the author uses contributes a lot for the building of the image of the problem in the poem. The metaphors and the symbol of time make the poem a really good piece of literature, which discuses problems that we have even today.

Benefits of prison Essay

There are a variety of crimes committed in the United States daily. Felonies and misdemeanors are examples of crimes committed. â€Å"Felonies, such as murder and armed robbery, are punishable by death or prison terms longer than one year. Misdemeanors are lesser offenses, such as too many unpaid parking tickets, and are punishable by fines, jail terms of less than a year, and/or community service† (Blue/Naden, 2001, p. 13). When people commit crimes, they are labeled criminals. If caught committing a crime, the criminal is placed in prison. The length of time the criminal spends in prison depends on the type of crime committed and the severity of the crime. The debate over the number of prisons, the length of prison terms and even the need for prison has become a hot topic in the past few years. Yet, no matter the issues facing prisons and prisoners today, placing criminals in prison benefits society as a whole. Placing criminals in prison teaches personal responsibility. Each person is responsible for any actions committed on their part. Individuals who commit crimes and then pay for those crimes learn that there is a price to pay for not following the rules set by society. â€Å"†¦the whole governmental structure of force and threat – police, judges, and prisons – is a key means by which society restrains aggression and crime† (Bender/ Leone, 1995, p. 71). Society laws are in place for the protection of all people living in that society. Paying for crimes committed by going to prison leads to a personal realization that no one is above the law. Of course, most people are born with personal responsibility. â€Å"†¦it is the internal inhibition that society builds into each person’s character, the inner voice (call it reason, conscience, superego, what you will) that makes the social contract an integral part of our deepest selves†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Bender/Leone, 1995, p. 71). When individuals lose that internal inhibition is when places, like prison, become necessary. Some critics have called prison â€Å"government sanctioned oppression† (Bender/Leone, 1995 p. 69). Prisons are used against those who exercise their rights as members of a democratic society. They are used to punish the less desirable members of society, teaching individuals who do not conform to regret decisions based on the freedoms of this country. In other words, people should be able to do whatever they want to whomever they choose with no consequences. When personal responsibility is not present the result is anarchy. A democratic society cannot exist without some balance and some laws to govern behavior. â€Å"Crime is always a challenge to the prevailing normative order and a test of the values and commitments of law-abiding people† (Blue/Naden, 2001, p. 8) Placing criminals in prison benefits society by making communities safer. Depending on the community, the amount and type of crime differs. Poor areas experience more crimes, statistically, but no community is safe from criminals. No matter where the crime occurs the people living in that community are affected. To know that where you live and raise your children is not safe, affects every part of daily living. Victims of crimes are affected emotionally and in some cases physically. Knowing that the criminal is behind bars makes the victims, families, friends and the community feel safer. They can walk through their neighborhoods and sleep in their homes without fear of some stranger attacking them. A safer community equals overall peace and tranquility. The only way communities can stay safe is to put criminals behind bars. It has been proven that prisons make a difference for one importance reason: while in prison, criminals are not committing crimes. â€Å"The best way to reduce crime is to identify, prosecute, and incarcerate hard-core criminals. Study after study shows that a relatively small portion of the population is responsible for the lion’s share of criminal violence in this country. For example, one California study found that 3. 8 percent of a group of more than 236,000 men born in 1956 were responsible for 55. 5 percent of all serious felonies committed by the study group† (Bender/Leone, 1995, p. 100). Incarceration or prison is the answer to safer communities and a safer country. It has been argued that criminals are born in poor and violent communities. People commit crimes because they have no other viable choices. They break laws to feed themselves and their families; they break laws because they have been taught that they are worthless. Criminals have argued that they had no choice. This argument is not rational. The number of law abiding citizens living in poor and violent communities outweigh those who commit crimes. Criminals use their environment as an excuse to do what they want to do when they want to do it. Individuals blame society for their crimes and/or the victim so they can indulge their whims and seek further opportunities to commit crimes (Bender/Leone, 1995, p. 44). There is no excuse for breaking the law. Criminals choose to break the law and choose to blame their situations on others because of their choices. Another benefit of prison is the prison work programs. The prison work program gives jobs to prisoners and supports the economy. Prisons can help pay for their upkeep through their work programs, thus removing some of the burden of prison cost from taxpayers (Wagner, 2001, p. 28). Working will give prisoners something industrious to do and will influence good behavior. There must be a concentrated effort on the part of prisons and those outside prison walls to make prison work programs more effective. The effort will result in productive prisoners and more manageable prisoners who gain skills necessary for life after prison (Wagner, 2001, p. 29). Prison work programs have not been effectively established because of the negative images of prisoners. Prisoners are criminals who have committed crimes and are not fit to live in society. People outside prison walls do want to use prison made products and/or don’t believe prisoners deserve to create items for mass use. Yet, the cost to run prisons is increasing and the number of prisons being built around the United States is increasing yearly. In order to meet the need and make prisons productive, work programs are a practical option. â€Å"If one in four prisoners could be put to work for private enterprise†¦taxpayer costs would fall by $2. 4 billon per year† (Wagner, 2001, p. 28). The economy and citizens would benefit from a prison system that has limited self-support. The prison rehabilitation program is another benefit of placing criminals behind bars. Unfortunately, there is always going to be someone who feels they can live outside the limits of the law. For this reason, prisons will always be in use. The rehabilitation program teaches prisoners skills and gives them other options instead of crime. â€Å"People in the United States were optimistic that rehabilitation would be the answer to the rising crime rate. Work programs, in-jail therapy sessions, indeterminate sentences and halfway houses eased the return to a law-abiding life† (Blue/Naden, 2001, p. 20). Once released from prison, the criminal has an opportunity to become a productive member of society and find a job. The ability to support self and family will instill a sense of self-worth. The goal of prison rehabilitation is to promote a change in prisoners and instill a desire to become a productive member of society. Since a crime-free society is a thing of dreams, reality must involve solutions to the crime problem. Critics of rehabilitation programs have caused the support of such programs to decrease but it has been proven that rehabilitation works (Blue/Naden, 2001, p. 39). Every criminal is different, their personal history and situation is different and the circumstance surrounding their crime is different but with the right incentive, the right support and the right rehabilitation, success is possible. The most important benefit of placing criminals in prison is justice for the victim. When a person is a victim of a crime, they are violated. It doesn’t matter if the crime falls into the category of a felony or a misdemeanor, victims have been dishonored. Once justice has been served, victims are vindicated. They know that the criminal is paying a price for the harm done to them and that has been set right. Victims deserve to have their case heard and then hear a verdict that is fair and right, giving them a chance to rise above what has been done to them. Justice does not erase the crime but it makes living with the results a lot easier. Prisons are necessary and beneficial to the U. S. Prisons are needed in a society where crime is rising and thoughtless acts of violence are becoming second nature. Individuals who commit crimes cannot continue to live in society, running amuck and destroying lives of law-abiding citizens. Prisons benefit society as a whole by instilling personal responsibility in criminals, making communities safe, impacting the economy favorably, creating a work ethic through the prison work and rehabilitation programs and providing justice for the victims. Prison were created to house law breakers but in turn, criminals can learn to better themselves, change their lives for the better and make a lasting difference for themselves and their families while society is protected. Prisons are here to the advantage of law-abiding citizens and law breakers. Overall, both sides benefit in a win-win situation. REFERENCES Bender, David and Leone, Bruno, Editors. (1995). Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. California: Greenhaven Press, Inc. Blue, Rose and Naden, Corrine J. (2001). Punishment and Rehabilitation. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers. Wagner, Michele, Editor. (2001). How Should Prisons Treat Inmates. California: Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Smoking Ban

The Smoking Ban Brandon Samuel January 24, 2013 The Smoking Ban Smoking is a popular pass time. At the same time, it also threatens the lives of millions of people, smoker and non-smokers alike. Smoking kills more people each year than any other disease. Smoking kills 2 out 10 people each year in developed countries. (PAHO, 2007) Secondhand smoke puts non-smokers at similar risk to that of smokers. Retrospectively non-smokers feel their rights are being violated. Smokers want to have a choice to smoke where they want.Smokers claim smoking is a legal act so why ban it? Forty Six million smokers make their own health decisions to smoke. However, the Environmental Protection agency drafted a report, in May of 1992, stating that second hand smoke is a carcinogen. Every state in America should address this problem on a national level and local level. Smoking should be banned from all public facilities. Several states have passed smoking laws making it illegal to smoke in any public facili ty. In California, it's illegal to smoke in a car with children under the age of 18 aboard.Other states such as Maine, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and Arkansas have similar car smoking laws- with different ages that apply. Many variations of policies have been set locally to support a nationwide movement to have smoke free laws in every state. Among these states Michigan is also among these states jumping on board for smoke free environments. The clean air act was established to protect citizens against harmful effects of smoking or second hand smoke. There are currently 13 states that have no statewide ban and simply rely on the clean air act to restrict smoking.These laws of the clean air act are very broad and may restrict per county but it is up to the state to apply specifics to their area. As Smoking has been a habit of choice for many Americans, laws and policies are set in place to protect those who wish not to be affected by second hand smoke. Michigan has been among many state s adapting to the change. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill on December 18, 2009 which was put into place on May 1, 2010 where all public areas including workplaces, restaurants, and bars ill be smoke free. The policy also states, unlike California and other states that you may not smoke on any patio of these establishments as well. Opinions of others feel that this is quite harsh as people feel they should be able to smoke outside on a patio at the establishment. The bill defines and explains all appropriate measures which must be taken in order to uphold the law. The sections describe actions for company owners to prohibit smoking in these areas and to also post signs around the establishment. (Mulder, 2010)There are two exceptions to the smoking ban which includes cigar bars and tobacco specialty stores. Both of these businesses must file an affidavit with the department and await approval. The bill is very specific about what is allowed and what not allowed for these establishment s is. For example, you may not smoke cigarettes in the cigar bar, only cigars. The second exception to the policy is casinos. If the casino was established before the bill was called into action then patrons may smoke in the facility. However, casinos that are established after May, 1, 2010 must be smoke free.Penalties of this bill are determined to be no more than 100 for the first offense and no more than 500 for the second offense. Food establishments that do not permit smoking as according to the law may not discriminate against employees who do smoke. (Mulder, 2010) Below are a list of state and local laws that pertain to the United States and the participation of this policy. †¢ Across the United States, 21,884 municipalities are covered by a 100% smoke free provision in non-hospitality workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, territorial, or local law, representing 79. % of the US population. †¢ 39 states and the District of Colu mbia have local laws in effect that requires non-hospitality workplaces and/or restaurants and/or bars to be 100% smoke free. There are 2,140 states, commonwealths, territories, cities, and counties with a law that restricts smoking in one or more outdoor areas, including 1,056 that restrict smoking near entrances, windows, and ventilation systems of enclosed places; 1,497 that restrict smoking in public outdoor places such as parks and beaches; 253 that prohibit smoking in all outdoor stadiums and other sports and entertainment enues, and 361 that restrict smoking in some areas within outdoor stadiums and other sports and entertainment venues. (ANRF, 2012) †¢ Smoking is a habit that many people engage in throughout America. It can also be thought of as a social activity, and many people who do not smoke normally will smoke especially when they go to bars, restaurants, and casinos. At the same time, smoking is a great health risk, which endangers not only the user, but also eve ryone who is in the same area as the user.In this context, this paper will examine the pros and cons of banning smoking in bars and restaurants and will provide an ethical solution to this debatable issue. Looking at ethical solutions to this problem depends on how you view the issue at hand. Quit smoking in enclosed spaces or continue the way we have always done things. What about giving people the choice not to be engulfed by SHS? Does the smoker’s right to smoke trump the right to not smoke or be affected by SHS? If no, then set rules and regulations. Those who don’t follow will have consequences.Clarks article states that an amazing 88% of Americans feel that smoking is annoying. Too much surprise, most smokers support a smoking ban as well. We could cater to the 88% and develop solutions to these problems such as; make it illegal to smoke in any public facility. Another solution would be to install advanced air filtering systems to enable smokers to continue to sm oke indoors as long – as the filtering systems prove to be efficient. This may be the key to help the smokers, less likely to feel isolated and attacked.Another possible solution would be to spend money on outdoor areas (patios) where customers may eat or socialize outside together. This would actually draw non-smokers and smokers together in an environment where they could mingle together without feeling like they are being harmed physically or emotionally. If your business was located in a cold area, the owners could also install outdoors heaters to allow year round patios. To clarify misconceptions even further, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, written by Michael L.Marlow, reports that the best evidence reported that smoking bans put into place does not pose an economical threat to the any business. (Marlow, 2009) In addition to public smoking remedies, there should be a smoking ban in any vehicle that transports a child under the age of 18 years old. By ma king the age 18, there is no question of rights that are infringed. You have to be 18 to buy and smoke cigarettes, so lets keep it consistent and simple. Given scientific information on the effects of smoking a non-objectivist would agree that sometimes simplicity is the key. Waller, 2008, p. 175) As stated previously smoking is a greater cause of death and disability than any single disease, says the World Health Organization. According to their figures, it is responsible for approximately 3. 5 million deaths worldwide every year – or about 7% of all deaths. (BBC News: Smoking) Moreover, the World Health Organization says that by 2020 17. 7 percent of all deaths in developed countries will be the result of smoking (BBC News: Smoking). This means that out of every 10 people who die roughly two people die because of smoking.The WHO is currently working on a global level to achieve 100 % smoke free environment in any enclosed space. This is to include airlines, schools, workpla ce, health facilities, bars, restaurants, and all public facilities. This global organization recognizes the dangers that come from smoking and also would like to help educate our youth on the effects of smoking. This type of action would focus on preventative measures to lower the percentages of smokers in the years to come. WHO, 1999) There was also a recent study done by the United States Societies actuary and it reported that a combination of direct and indirect medical costs estimated about 10 billion dollars in health care costs associated with smoking. To sup port this estimate, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration reported that a clean air act would save US employers 15 billion dollars annually and the workforce productivity would raise about 3. 5 %. (PAHO, 2007) To begin, the argument for allowing smoking in bars and restaurants is that many people go to bars and restaurants to relax and socialize.Historically, smoking has been a part of these activities, espec ially drinking and socializing in bars, pubs and nightclubs. Charles Clark writes in his article about the desperate attempts to cut down smoking in public facilities. Politicians, administrators, and supervisors are looking for policies that they can move forward with- in order to â€Å"crackdown on smoking†. Clark notes that since the smoking ban issue has been pushed so heavily and been in the forefront of everyone’s minds, smokers have been feeling publicly humiliated, vilified, and ridiculed. Clark, 1992) The ban of smoking could, in this context, jeopardize businesses by forcing businesses to ban activities in which their customers engage. This economic factor is potentially problematic, since it is often a good thing for businesses to further profits by catering to the wishes and desires of the customer. Secondly, bars are places where everyone knows that people smoke and so they enter into this environment of their own free will. Thus, smoking in this case is n ot a malicious activity, since everyone freely chooses to visit a place that allows smoking.Thirdly, it is potentially problematic to dissuade what is often considered a social activity in a social environment. In the context of the pros to banning smoking in bars and restaurant, these cons to banning smoking in a bars and restaurants hold up different viewpoints. First of all, smoking is a serious health risk both to all customers and the people who serve them. Studies have also proven that the smoking bans have not affected the businesses that are on board. In fact, it has increased business and people are generally supporting the change. PAHO, 2007) This also brings up another issue of whether or not to ban smoking in every workplace establishment and vehicles with children as well. Overall, according to the World Health Organization, smoking kills and disables more people worldwide than any other disease. This means that smoking, which is a chosen habit, kills more people than s erious worldwide disease such as AIDS. Tynan’s article reports that the American Nonsmokers ‘ Rights Foundation estimated 33% of US residents live in areas where smoking bans have already been set in place. Tynan, Babb,  , 2008,  May). When looking at the smoking ban we can include the smoking ban to incorporate all public facilities, transportation (airplanes, trains, buses), and also vehicles with children aboard. Right now children are suffering from second hand smoke. In many states it is still legal to smoke in your car with children. But what isn’t exploited is that the World Health Organization reports that 700 million children are exposed to second hand smoke. SHS exposure causes upper respiratory infections and increases the chance of asthma. PAHO, 2007) Shouldn’t America fight for protecting adult non-smokers, but also the children too? In regards to SHS in the workplace The Employee Relations Law Journal (2006) Tomkowicz and Lessack make cla ims that workers who smoke, take longer and more frequent breaks. In addition, to longer breaks there is a rise in the cost of health care, which is more expensive for everyone because of smoking and its many effects. The World Health organization supports this claim as well, adding that economically the businesses are at higher risk for fire, more expensive cleaning fees, and higher insurance premiums. PAHO, 2007) Non-smokers feel the smoking ban has a positive impact on the health of everyone, so let’s continue the progression and move forward with a nationwide ban. These reasons alone should show that public establishments and society should support a clean air act. A habit, which kills and injures so many people worldwide and in the US, is hard to embrace. In a larger respect, one could argue that, considering these facts, it is the duty of our United States government to protect people when they go to public places from the awful effects of smoking.The biggest reason, mo reover, that smoking should be banned from restaurants, bars, public places, and transportation is that we need to find a way to protect the rights of individuals asking for a choice to stay healthy. Why should smokers infringe their choice on others? It would be safe to say that the opposing views of the smoking bans derive from a universal ethical egoism viewpoint where as Bruce Waller’s text Consider Ethics (2008) describes ethical egoism as everybody does what benefits them, not considering others views or values. Waller, 2008, p. 87) Although ethical egoism deserves consideration society should also consider utilitarianism as another ethical viewpoint. Although these negative myths about the smoking ban can be refuted, and smokers understand consequences of smoking tot heir own health, smokers have to also calculate the consequences to non-smokers as well. Assuming the United States Government fights these battles locally, nationally, and statewide, many of the Americans will continue to decline in health and continue to die each year from tobacco and SHS.If society looks at second hand smoke in an ethical manner they could see that SHS is detrimental to ones health and we have a moral obligation to our fellow humans to not impose serious health risks upon others. Another aspect to point out is that most of America does not smoke. There are more non smoker s that there are smokers. Also smokers generally want to quit but still smoke because of nicotine addition. A lot of smokers support a clean air act. There are several myths that are brought about from the tobacco industry.Cleary looking at the difference between right and wrong is this case is key. People should have the right NOT to smoke, even passively. Simply, have rules and regulations on where smokers can and cannot smoke. Based on scientific knowledge, many Americans and organizations that support the smoking ban has begun to campaign against second hand smoke. If the smoking ban does not progress, we may see backlash of an angry population. We could also see US studies providing that second hand smoke increases the number of people with lung cancer and heart disease.People who are addicted to smoking should be treated with compassion in order to help their habit. However, they should not be permitted to harm others by chemical means. If America cannot agree to enforce public smoking laws, then we will continue to see declines in smoker’s health including cancer and fatal deaths resulting from a carcinogenic agent, such as cigarette smoke. In regards to smoking in the workforce, employees who are continually and routinely exposed to a lot of second-hand smoke may end up walking away from their jobs, due to the health risks.In this respect, non-smokers can be subjected to the same ailments and risks that smokers are subject to. This fact in itself makes it plainly evident that smokers endanger others by smoking, and that in view of public health, the governmen t must pass laws which protect its citizens from health hazards, especially ones which kill more people so violently. Conclusion To conclude, the arguments for allowing smoking in bars and restaurants rest on the assumptions of the past, that smoking is a social activity and should be allowed in public places.But since that time in the early 20th century when smoking was much more prevalent among adults, medicine has discovered absolutely that smoking greatly jeopardizes the life and quality of life of millions of people, smokers and non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke alike. M. Tynan says that the 2006 Surgeons General’s Report concluded that SHS causes premature death and disease in young children and nonsmoking adults. This means that the government must enact changes in the law to reflect this scientific knowledge.Overall, however, when weighing both the pros and cons, it becomes very evident that smoking is too harmful to people’s health and must be publicly c ensured as much as possible. Given all these factors of smoking the US government should provide a universal ban for smoking in public facilities. With the exception of those establishments who provide an area, which is sealed off, and the air current is ventilated away from the general public. Only then would a bar or restaurant owner be able to allow smoking in this space.Millions of Americans chooses not to smoke. However, they are not given the chance to get away from second hand smoke. In most states it is still legal to smoke in restaurants, bars, casinos, and public facilities. Why is the law taking their right away to be healthy, but yet not taking the right away from smokers all the while letting them blow smoke in their way? What is more important the right to smoke or your right to good health? References ANRF. (2012, January 02). Overview list – how many smoke free laws?.Retrieved from http://www. no-smoke. org/pdf/mediaordlist. pdf Clark, Charles. (1992). Are ban s on tobacco use unfair to smokers? Crackdown on smoking, 2(45), Retrieved from http://library. cqpress. com. ezproxy. falcon. edu/cqresearcher/document. php? id=cqresrre1992120400=hitlist=0 doi: cqresrre1992120400 Marlow, Michael L. (Summer 2009). Epidemiologic and economic research, and the question of smoking bans. (Essay). Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons  14. 2  :  58(3). Health Reference Center Academic.Gale. Baker College. 23 Oct. 2009   . Gale Document Number:A201551415 Mulder, M. (2010, February 04). Michigan smoking ban exemptions and enforcement. Retrieved from http://www. michiganpolicy. com/index. php? option=com_content=article=693:michigan-smoking-ban-exemptions-and-enforcement=43:health-care-policy-briefs=159 Pan American Health Organization, PAHO (2007, May 23). Smoke free inside. Retrieved from http://www. paho. org/english/ad/sde/ra/Engbrochure. pdf Slovak, Lila E. (Fall 2007).Smoke screens: why state laws making it a crime to smoke in cars cont aining children are a bad idea. Family Law Quarterly  41. 3  :  601(21). Health Reference Center Academic. Gale. Baker College. 23 Oct. 2009   . Gale Document Number:A175284505 Tomkowicz, Sandra M. ,  and  Susan K. Lessack. (Winter 2006). Where there's smoke: employer policies on smoking. Employee Relations Law Journal  32. 3:  48(18). Health Reference Center Academic. Gale. Baker College. 23 Oct. 2009 Gale Document Number:A156054991. Tynan,  M. ,  Babb,  S. ,  &  MacNeil,  A.. (2008,  May).State Smoking Restrictions for Private-Sector Worksites, Restaurants, and Bars – United States, 2004 and 2007. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,  57(20),  549-552. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source. (Document ID:  1500262111). Waller, N. B. (2008). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues (2nd ed. ). Pearson Education, Inc. World Health Organization, WHO, (1999, August 6). Action plan on tobacco or health. Retrieved from http://www. wpro. who. int/NR/rdonlyres/1167BB28-E2D2-4C61-A5CB-234BD303C3BC/0/RC5011. pdf

Thomas Paine, Father of the American Revolution

Thomas Paine: The Father of the American Revolution When we look at the struggle for American Independence, most of us think of the war that the original patriots fought and won against the British. We look at some of the most historical figures in American history such as George Washington along with John Adams and credit them with independence of our nation. What many of us oversee is the man who inspired our weary, undermanned, unmotivated and ill equipped nation; Thomas Paine. Paine was a man who was not even born in the American Colonies.He was born in Norfolk, England and immigrated to the British colonies amidst the revolution in 1774. Amongst his stay in the American Colonies, Thomas Paine quickly realized the desperate situation the colonies were in. Using his skills as a political activist/author, he created a book called â€Å"Common Sense† which lit the fire in the hearts of many of the colonial Patriots; it gave them the inspiration they needed to wage a war that would forever change the course of history. His influence was so desirable and effective that â€Å"without the pen of Thomas, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain† (John Adams, The Sharpened Quill).Originally titled, â€Å"The Plain Truth† he was urged to retitle it to â€Å"Common Sense† because it provided American Patriots exactly what they needed to have them open up their eyes to what was in front of them. Paine’s arguments of how it was the right time to claim independence definitely puts him up for the running as the father of the American Revolution. Being from England, Paine was more than suspected to the ways of the Monarchy. He understood the necessity of a government within a population of people.His sense of brilliancy comes from his logical view of a government. He tries his best to come up with a way that invoked the colonists into a way of thinking that would both negate the government in a bad sense, but would also shin e light upon the idea of a leading group of people. With this, he speculated the argument that â€Å"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government† (Paine, Common Sense, 4).One of the reasons Thomas was successful in being a political activist, he had obviously appealed to those who had a sour taste of a tyrannical government, and he also took it into his own hands to redefine what a government was and its role to its people. England’s constitutional monarchy gave Thomas a decent sense of what not to do in terms of leadership. During his time in America, he saw that a majority of the Patriots were already displeased with the current system and he also saw that they were susceptible to return to the old ways because of the low morale to take things into their own hands.One of the things Paine wanted to do w as sway the American people out of the idea that a king is necessary. He goes along doing this by formulating an argument that â€Å"In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion† (Paine, 9). His argument against the crown then made sense to people because they then knew that having a king would lead to all sorts of complications with history repeating itself.Thomas did not see the point in exalting one man and making him better than others. He validated his points by using the ultimate weapon in political history: religion. Using evidence of the â€Å"scriptures† he articulates a dictation using, â€Å"As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon an d the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings† (Paine, 11).There are many instances that Paine brings religion to his argument, but I feel like this is where he excelled at it the most due to his hatred toward a government that is a monarchy or any type of government that exalts one man and exempts him from the rights of an individual. As far as being politically motivated, he also formulated a list from a military aspect that gave the Americans a rough number on what they would need to protect their seas and borders. He also made it clear that the American colonies were not going to win a war in numbers, but in unity.The colonies themselves were small enough to unite a single front and take on the British. No war would come without money you say? Paine suggested that to gain help from foreign powers, we would incur a ton of debt to help fund professional armies. What was his solution? The west had unclaimed land that we could use to pay off this debt. Giv ing the United States a Foreign presence, this would boom trade and inevitably open the country to expansions that they would never see before.Of course he knew that with the opening of new trade routes we would need to protect them. â€Å"No country on the globe is so happily situated, so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing† (Paine, 20). Paine formulates how much money it would cost the British to focus a war with America, drawing troops from other theatres of war in the world.Showing the revengeful Americans that they would inflict a huge blow to British pride as well as create a hole in their wallets, enticed them to band together and get building. They didn’t need to rely on any foreign help to amass their own navy. He also foretold of a peace with the British because the British needed the Americans for their raw resources and valuable materials. He created an ideol ogy that â€Å"the mercantile and reasonable part in England, will be still with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it† (Paine, 23)In conclusion, Thomas Paine will always be one of the original American Hero. For being someone not of â€Å"American† descent, he came from the homeland of the British Isles and incited a revolution that brought forth one of the most powerful nations in the world. With a sense of honor and dignity, Paine did the unimaginable; started a revolution amongst people who should not have won. He gave them the â€Å"common sense† that was needed in order to be successful. â€Å"On these grounds I rest the matter.Instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissention. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and of the FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA† (Paine, Conclusion). Thomas Paine, Father of the American Revolution Thomas Paine: The Father of the American Revolution When we look at the struggle for American Independence, most of us think of the war that the original patriots fought and won against the British. We look at some of the most historical figures in American history such as George Washington along with John Adams and credit them with independence of our nation. What many of us oversee is the man who inspired our weary, undermanned, unmotivated and ill equipped nation; Thomas Paine. Paine was a man who was not even born in the American Colonies.He was born in Norfolk, England and immigrated to the British colonies amidst the revolution in 1774. Amongst his stay in the American Colonies, Thomas Paine quickly realized the desperate situation the colonies were in. Using his skills as a political activist/author, he created a book called â€Å"Common Sense† which lit the fire in the hearts of many of the colonial Patriots; it gave them the inspiration they needed to wage a war that would forever change the course of history. His influence was so desirable and effective that â€Å"without the pen of Thomas, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain† (John Adams, The Sharpened Quill).Originally titled, â€Å"The Plain Truth† he was urged to retitle it to â€Å"Common Sense† because it provided American Patriots exactly what they needed to have them open up their eyes to what was in front of them. Paine’s arguments of how it was the right time to claim independence definitely puts him up for the running as the father of the American Revolution. Being from England, Paine was more than suspected to the ways of the Monarchy. He understood the necessity of a government within a population of people.His sense of brilliancy comes from his logical view of a government. He tries his best to come up with a way that invoked the colonists into a way of thinking that would both negate the government in a bad sense, but would also shin e light upon the idea of a leading group of people. With this, he speculated the argument that â€Å"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government† (Paine, Common Sense, 4).One of the reasons Thomas was successful in being a political activist, he had obviously appealed to those who had a sour taste of a tyrannical government, and he also took it into his own hands to redefine what a government was and its role to its people. England’s constitutional monarchy gave Thomas a decent sense of what not to do in terms of leadership. During his time in America, he saw that a majority of the Patriots were already displeased with the current system and he also saw that they were susceptible to return to the old ways because of the low morale to take things into their own hands.One of the things Paine wanted to do w as sway the American people out of the idea that a king is necessary. He goes along doing this by formulating an argument that â€Å"In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion† (Paine, 9). His argument against the crown then made sense to people because they then knew that having a king would lead to all sorts of complications with history repeating itself.Thomas did not see the point in exalting one man and making him better than others. He validated his points by using the ultimate weapon in political history: religion. Using evidence of the â€Å"scriptures† he articulates a dictation using, â€Å"As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon an d the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings† (Paine, 11).There are many instances that Paine brings religion to his argument, but I feel like this is where he excelled at it the most due to his hatred toward a government that is a monarchy or any type of government that exalts one man and exempts him from the rights of an individual. As far as being politically motivated, he also formulated a list from a military aspect that gave the Americans a rough number on what they would need to protect their seas and borders. He also made it clear that the American colonies were not going to win a war in numbers, but in unity.The colonies themselves were small enough to unite a single front and take on the British. No war would come without money you say? Paine suggested that to gain help from foreign powers, we would incur a ton of debt to help fund professional armies. What was his solution? The west had unclaimed land that we could use to pay off this debt. Giv ing the United States a Foreign presence, this would boom trade and inevitably open the country to expansions that they would never see before.Of course he knew that with the opening of new trade routes we would need to protect them. â€Å"No country on the globe is so happily situated, so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing† (Paine, 20). Paine formulates how much money it would cost the British to focus a war with America, drawing troops from other theatres of war in the world.Showing the revengeful Americans that they would inflict a huge blow to British pride as well as create a hole in their wallets, enticed them to band together and get building. They didn’t need to rely on any foreign help to amass their own navy. He also foretold of a peace with the British because the British needed the Americans for their raw resources and valuable materials. He created an ideol ogy that â€Å"the mercantile and reasonable part in England, will be still with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it† (Paine, 23)In conclusion, Thomas Paine will always be one of the original American Hero. For being someone not of â€Å"American† descent, he came from the homeland of the British Isles and incited a revolution that brought forth one of the most powerful nations in the world. With a sense of honor and dignity, Paine did the unimaginable; started a revolution amongst people who should not have won. He gave them the â€Å"common sense† that was needed in order to be successful. â€Å"On these grounds I rest the matter.Instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissention. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and of the FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA† (Paine, Conclusion).

Dystopian Society Present in 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 Essay

The idea of a dystopian society is that of complete control, either through the use of a police state that has ultimate control over humanity and or the idea of man abusing technology to further gain control of its subjects. These ideas are very present in both novels. In 1984, the totalitarian state is technically and urbanely engineered to spy on and see people’s very thoughts. In Fahrenheit 451 a similar idea is used in the outlawing of literature and the use of denunciations to capture and punish those deemed to have broken the law. This essay is going to explore the idea of Man’s struggle against the society which seeks to break him, erasing the individual, resulting in the mindless slaves to society, the very idea that the authors warn against. In 1984, the constant barrage of information regarding the greatness of the state and Big Brother’s supremacy over the common man forces everyone to consent and believe in the totalitarian state. The party justifies itself by eliminating the individual, giving power to everyone as being part of the collective power of the party as O’Brien mentions  «if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the party so that he is the party, then he is all-powerful and immortal  » the party’s belief that they control everything even human reality portrays how far a totalitarian government can go in achieving complete control of humanity. This can be clearly seen in 1984, where O’Brien tortures Winston to the point where he is capable of relinquishing all humanity, all common sense until the point where O’Brien tells Winston that two and two make five. Winston loses all sense of individuality to the point where conforms to the party and denounces his true love Julia. Through the use of fear and crushing oppression, the idea of love apart from love for big brother and the party is all that remains. Therefore the Party succeed in their aims, obedience through the use of force and fear. The central conflict of the novel is Man-vs. Society, as with Fahrenheit 451. Winston constantly struggled for individuality in a society were there is no â€Å"I† there is only ‘we†, individuality and freedom of expression is forbidden, punishable by death. The party wishes to control all of humanity, eradicating the â€Å"sex instinct†, O’Brien says  « we will abolish the orgasm  »  « there will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the party. There will be no love, except the love of big brother†¦ there will be no art, no literature, no science  », in this, the party’s aims are clear. They seek to destroy what it is to be human, to create a population of hollow men, loyal to none but the party, un-thinking, un-loving slaves of the party, tools. As in 1984, the state in Fahrenheit wish to crush creative thinking, eradicating humanity in the process. The burning of books, similar to the book burnings of Nazi Germany show the totalitarian, dystopian need to control the thoughts of the masses. By doing this, they control the past, and therefore the future. They are able to rewrite history to justify their acts, indoctrinating the youth to believe in their cause, just as the Nazis did. In Fahrenheit 451, as in 1984, symbolism and reversible meanings are present which can also be seen as conflicting emotions in the protagonist and the struggle to find a place in society. In 451, the contrasting ideas of fire and water are very interesting. The firemen are not as tradition tells, protectors of the people, putting out fires and saving lives, but using fire to burn and destroy literature. Their role is to destroy, to burn human creativeness. Captain Beatty, chief of the fire department, believes that â€Å"fire is bright and fire is clean. † This idea contradicts the norm of fire is destructive and evil. This represents the twisted ideas of authority, reversing the meaning of words, rewriting them to justify their aims of total control over humanity. The masses fail to see the true meaning of these words, or perhaps they have forgotten. This shows how far the totalitarian government has succeeded in indoctrinating people into believing what ever they wish them to. However, the protagonists in both novels are depicted as being marginalised because they do not share the same ideas, due to morals and ideals that they can only express in their minds, far from the reach of the state, a lonely free island in a sea of relentless waves. The idea of water by Bradbury is used to cleanse montag’s soul. The water saves Montag, cleansing him of the scent of society, he is thus reborn. In addition, when Montag is trying to escape the helicopters and the mechanical hound, the tools of the totalitarian government, the stream hides and saves him until it is safe to return to land. Montag indulges himself in the water and â€Å"there was only the cold river and Montag floating in a sudden peacefulness, away from the city and the lights and the chase, away from everything† in this the water saves him, purifies him, the opposite of the dystopian symbol, fire. Water is portrayed as the flow of humanity. In 1984, the party uses contrasting ideas in their party slogans such as  « War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength  » these contrasting ideas represent perfectly the party’s ideals. The individual and the freedom that comes with it actually results in slavery in the dystopian society, ignorance of the truth of what the party is really about protects you from persecution of the thought police. The use of these contradicting words and the lack of opposition, mean that the party have succeeded in their indoctrination of the masses as no one has the ability to see past the words to see their true sense, even Winston and Julia remain troubled by it. In a dystopian society, the state exerts complete control over its population through oppression, terror and the constant use of propaganda. This is apparent in both novels. Both novels are predictions of a future controlled by totalitarian states. The thoughtpolice in 1984 use brainwashing, spies and denunciations to control the party however the proles are generally untouched. This is similar to Nazi Germany in that only those who rebelled or were undesirables in society were quashed, the general population remained untouched. By comparing Nazi Germany and the era in which this novel was written, we can see the blatant warning against future governments similar to the National Socialists led by Hitler and the state of terror and oppression and ethic cleansing which was deemed for the greater good. O’Brien says to Winston â€Å"perhaps you have returned to your old idea that the proletarians or the slaves will arise and overthrow us. Put it out of your mind. They are helpless, like the animals. Humanity is the party. † This shows the view that the totalitarian government controls all that is humanity and the lower classes remain irrelevant because they have neither the knowledge nor the power to overthrow those who control reality. They control the laws of nature, the past, the present and the future. However, Fahrenheit 451 does not elaborate on the political aims of the ruling party apart from their desire to quash human creativity and the ideas of individuality. Yet it remains a typical part of dystopian ideology to desire to control every aspect of the masses and even humanity itself. The use of the  « telescreen  » is an interesting concept that is abundant in both texts. The use of the telescreen in Fahrenheit 451 is that this became the populace’s way of interacting with others without physically interacting with them, as people became detached from literature, from freedom. The people on these televisions were your â€Å"family†, who would keep you company and be your â€Å"friend†, spurting propaganda and essentially keeping people in check. The telescreen in 1984, shared the same idea but consisted of other more sinister uses such as spying on those suspected of thoughtcrime, revolutionary thoughts against the party, overhearing conversations and playing militaristic key speeches and propaganda techniques seen in Nazi Germany with the peoples radio. However this form of propaganda could never be switched off. This shows the ingsoc party’s ability to penetrate every single aspect of humanity and society, the idea that  « big brother is watching you  « is very well demonstrated. This of course being the reason why Winston and Julia were captured and tortured by the state. The use of the Telescreen can be noted in Winston and Julia’s struggle in that they are constantly bombarded by party propaganda, possibly overheard by the party through speakers hidden in the screen. This creates pressure to conform for fear of being found out and sent to the ministry of love for reconditioning. The underlying fear of the unknown bound them to neither conform nor rebel. They are lost in a society which they cannot escape and do not wish to be a part of, yet they have no choice. I believe that under this amount of pressure, anyone would fall and conform to whatever the Party demands, as the individual is no match for the collective power of the Party. Winston is not just a character in the story, but an idea. Winston is an anachronism. His mind and personality are not defined by the Party slogans, by the Party’s ideas of what he should be. From his own point of view he is an individual; from the Party’s point of view he is a flaw in the reality it is creating. The story follows Winston and his struggle for individualism and his overpowering feelings of humanity, the very feelings that the party try to destroy, which they eventually do through horrific torture spread over months. O’Brien says to him whilst trying to brainwash him  « you are the last man†¦you are the guardian of the human spirit.  » Winston then looks into the mirror and sees the frail creature that he had become. O’Brien does this to show the extent to which his party can destroy humanity and rebuild it to their designs. He then goes on to say  « Do you see that thing facing you? That is the last man. If you are human, that is humanity.  » Convincing Winston that his struggle in futile, the control of the party is infinite, they create the law around them to meet their ends of controlling everything, and everyone. Winston is eventually brainwashed and ends up loving bigbrother, thus the aims of the party complete. In conclusion, the extent to which 1984 refers to a dystopian society compared to Fahrenheit 451 is at once different yet similar. The ideas of the party relate to those of the Nazis and soviet Russia; the lies, the oppression, the propaganda, the removal of civil liberties and the crushing of humanity. However 1984 is an extreme version of this prediction of the future. Fahrenheit explores more the emotional changes in Montag that convinces him to relinquish his part in destroying freedom of expression enforced by the fireman and the state and to embrace his curiosity and his humanity. 984 ends with the destruction of Winston, finally loving bigbrother, his love for Julia destroyed, his individuality crushed they had both failed themselves and each other and lost to power of â€Å"Big Brother. † Orwell was a firm believer in Marxism and the need for the proletarian to rise up and equalise society. These two tales are a warning of the dangers of dystopian societies, the need f or humanity to shed this society that has become so desensitised and to be aware of the reliance on technology, before it is too late.