Civil Liberties and Terrorist Attacks Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Civil Liberties and Terrorist Attacks - Essay Example Those who favor stringent measures such as suspension of civil liberty argue that it is necessary to keep the people safe and secure the nation from terrorism. It is suggested that citizens need not hide anything from the government agencies. A respectful life can be lived if nothing wrong is done by citizens. Those who favor suspension of civil liberties, arguing that people do not hesitate to unfold their personal information on social media, but feel uneasy when questioned about their personal matters by government agencies. It is also argued that national security interests should be given top priority. 1 President Obama’s remark speaks about the two-mindedness of the approach towards civil liberties: â€Å"You can’t have 100% security and then also have 100% privacy and inconvenience. Those that sacrifice liberty for security will, in the end, have neither, nor deserve neither.† 2 Contrary to what President Obama remarked, it is rightly remarked by Benjamin Franklin that â€Å"When the government has a hold over its people such as the power to strip rights, it is oppressive and a type of tyranny.† 3 The police departments and security agencies are empowered with new legislation in many countries, including America, Britain, and Australia, with the sole aim of getting information from citizens to combat terrorism; policemen detain and interrogate innocent people. The threat from terrorism is actually not a justifiable explanation to enact counterterrorism legislation, as it has increased the degree of risk to the personal security of citizens. A situation has arisen when we are more at risk from counterterrorism than from terrorism. 4 Those who speak in favor of stringent measures in the name of controlling terrorism, leading to an attack on citizens’ civil liberties, offer two related assumptions for their stand.

Myth Analysis Essay Example for Free

Myth Analysis Essay There once was a goddess with a mystical power that made everyone happy; as long as she was happy they were happy. That goddess’ name was Ella. Ella has a twin brother named Evan. Evan has the power of mind-control. Ella lived high in the sky on clouds amongst the other god. Ella and the other gods got along very well especially when she was in a good mood. After living in the clouds for a very long time all the gods got tired of doing regular deeds for themselves. They decided to do something big to create something. They all joined together in a big circle around the largest cloud and spun around three-hundred-and-sixty-five times. As they all came to a halt, they all peered off the edge of Evan’s humongous cloud they noticed a gigantic sphere. The gods got together and decided to call this gigantic sphere Earth. The gods soon learned that they could travel to Earth and that life could survive on Earth by the god James who had the power to make life human and animal. As soon as word broke that life was able to survive on Earth they gods asked James to make them serpents. James was fine with this as long as the other gods let these serpents have some free time also. After James said yes, almost every god had serpents except Ella. Ella has been happy for a while, until one day Gus the god of wind blew her cloud near the sun. Ella demanded Gus blow her cloud back, Gus unfortunately couldn’t. When Ella got to her cloud she realized her feet were extremely hot because the ground of the cloud was hot. Ella wanted a shoe that would not slow her down, a shoe that was light and mystical just like her. Ella soon became very sad because she didn’t know how to make shoes. After Ella became sad, so did all the other gods. Once James got sad he offered her several serpents. Ella got super excited; she accepted the serpents from James. James had taught Ella a trick to get serpents to the clouds, which he taught to all the gods. James to Ella to snap, as soon as she did she was at her house on her cloud; she was impressed. As soon as Ella and the serpents started walking their feet began burning, she told them that burning sensation was what she felt. Ella snapped her fingers again; both her and her serpents were back on Earth. Most of the serpents made shoes of wood. They carved using tools Shiloh the goddess of tools had given them, with their hands. Ella did not want wooden shoes that were far from what she wanted; she looked to her last serpent that had a very strong leaf in his hand. Ella asked this man what he was doing with a leaf, he replied simply â€Å"making you a shoe.† Ella asked â€Å"out of a measly little leaf?† The man was very wise he traded with a serpent of Veronica the goddess of strength and power which can obtain in animals or plants. The man told Ella that the â€Å"measly little leaf† was very strong because of Veronica. Also the man told Ella that the leaf could be used as the bottom part of the shoe. Ella took the leaf from the old man and put it on her foot she realized that there was nothing holding that bottom part of the shoe or leaf to her foot, so she told the serpent. The serpent had an idea. He told Ella that if they poke three holes in the leaf like a triangle, one at the top two on the sides, using stems of flowers also. Ella thought this idea was brilliant. Ella knew she couldn’t do that without help from Veronica again. So Veronica and Ella come together and pair up as a team. Veronica made strong stems of flowers by moving jumping the higher and faster she jumped, the stronger and taller the plant would be. Finally Veronica gave the stems to the serpent and he put the m in the holes and tied knots at the end of each hole. To make sure the knots were as tight as they could be they had to pair up with another god Zack god of wisdom and strength. Zack tied the knots so tight that they could not be loosened. Just to make sure that the knots would not come undone and would stay forever the serpent suggested a collaboration with Fresh. Fresh was the god of fire. After hearing what the serpent had suggested just to be on the safe side Ella, agreed with this collaboration. Ella really didn’t want to have Fresh involved because bad things tend to happen when he is around. When Ella first heard of the words come out of the serpents mouth she threw the shoe. While in the air the shoe did a flip and it hit a tree made a big WHACK, and had a very loud FLOP. Ella liked that sound, she wanted to hear it again so she threw shoe again. Finally Fresh came, to tighten the knots with fire. He rubbed his thumb and middle finger together and a spark of fire appeared. As soon as the spark appeared he put the fire on the knots and then snapped to make the fire go away. As soon as Ella saw the finished product she was amazed. She tried the shoe on it had a strap like a v shape. She remembered when she threw the shoe how it flipped and then made a loud FLOP. She named these shoes flip-flops.

The Aspect of Hypocrisy in the Workplace

The Aspect of Hypocrisy in the Workplace From the previous emotion and writing exercise, several sentences were noted down. These sentences were as a result of the frustrations which I had experienced at my previous workplaces following the hypocrisy which existed. This paper seeks to discuss the problem of hypocrisy as per the previously noted down sentences. The problem of hypocrisy in the workplace has always left me feeling both angry and helpless. As a result, I have often wondered why individuals have to be selfish. At the workplace, I observed that managers were only keen to have their orders followed. Already receiving higher incomes, they still found it easy to step on their juniors who had no choice but to follow their orders. People should not expect others to do things which they are not prepared to do themselves. Every other time, such managers made decisions which were not rational and only because they wanted to profit from the benefits alone. It does not hurt to wish and dream and so many times I have wished I had the power to put a stop to this hypocrisy. If only I was at the helm of that company, I would set an example for everyone else. As a leader willing to serve everyone equally I would be prepared to apply the same for those with whom I share special relations. I do not see why one deserves to be treated differently from others simply because they know the boss. Managers often had their friends receive special treatment with most of them being engaged in various workshops which came with a lot of benefits. Some things should just be prohibited. Hypocrisy not only lowers a companys efficiency but it also brings about unethical tendencies which should not be allowed in workplaces. References Check, J. (2004). I Teach, (I Feel), I Write: The Effects of Emotion on Writing About Schooling The Quarterly, Vol. 26, No.3. Greene, S.S. (1995). An Introduction to the Study of English Grammar, Philadelphia: Cowperthwait Co. Nordquist: R. (2010). Basic Sentence Structures in English About.com, Retrieved on 18 January, 2010 from, http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/basicstructures.htm Wiechert, P. (2007). Exclamative Sentences-a Basic Sentence Type? An Analysis of Exclamative Sentences in English and German, Berlin: Grin Verlag

Physical Punishment :: essays research papers

Physical punishment has been a problem in hitting their children so they can have discipline or not hitting them because it is not right, so what can parents do and what can they not do? Should the parents hit them to learn discipline, or should they not hit them and figure out another way to make them learn what discipline is? Because many parents do not know or are confused in showing their children how to gain discipline they do not know whether to hit them or not to hit them. Many people think that by hitting their children that they are showing them violence but other people say that if you do the children would understand that they did something wrong and would not repeat it and gain discipline. What can parents do? First of all parents feel that the children are theirs, and they can spank them when they misbehave. There are many factors that lead to physical punishment: parents were to young and not ready for children, parents are going trough a divorce and need to take out their anger on something or someone, or parents do not know another way to punish their children. These children grow up to be aggressive and often abusive towards others. Although parents think this is the only way of educating their children there are many other alternatives. There are other alternatives to punishing the children for their bad behavior. Less severe punishments besides spanking. First, they can take away their television privileges, computer use, and playing outside with their friends. Next, they could ground them for the weekend and cancel plans. Last of all parents could take the time to sit and talk to their children about their bad behavior. Physical punishment may cause a child psychological problems. First, if the physical punishment starts at an early age the child will be used to being physically punished, therefore, his or hers self-esteem may severely negative as he or she grows up. Second, it is a life-affecting act to physically punish a child because they will be traumatized. Eventually parents should think twice before they can physically punish their children. What they should think of is what problems they are causing the child in its life. In conclusion every parent must take consideration that the negative affects that spanking may cause a child.

10 Things I Hate About You

Many movies follow the typical â€Å"Hollywood pattern†, that is, they provide no greater meaning, no deeper purpose, than solely to entertain. However, this is not the case, as shown in ’10 Things I Hate About You’, directed by Gil Junger. The movie explores important ideas and themes, such as, the role of women in the 21st century, peoples judgments and the power that Shakespearean symbols hold. The movie breaks down the idea of the liberated woman of the 21st century. This is shown throughout the movie, but one main example is when the script-writer surprises us when we learn Kat’s reason for being an anti-emotional person.Scene 20 portrays the transformation in Kat’s life when her emotional poem reveals her love for Patrick. During the poem Kat surrenders to Patrick by crying in front of the class and admitting that â€Å"†¦mostly I hate the way I don’t hate you†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , shows, through the use of a paradox, that Kat wants to h ate Patrick but can’t. By using the repetition of a strong word like â€Å"hate† throughout the poem to make the once harsh word sound like a polite word used to describe one’s love. The movie also highlights that Patrick can control her. This is shown when Patrick gives Kat a guitar to make up for what he did.Patrick shows us that he knows that he has the power to control her, by saying â€Å"There’s always drums, and bass, and maybe even one day a tambourine†. Junger employs the use of shot/reverse shot editing to show Patrick’s reaction towards Kat when she is reading her poem. During editing Junger purposely makes the last shot in the scene longer to show Patrick and allow the viewers to process and think about what just happened. Another issue that is raised is about the stereotypical role of women in the 21st century is whether a woman needs a man to feel complete.This is suggested because the movie ends with everyone in a relationship . Also Kat says that she is an individual and does not like any males that go to her school. She later starts a relationship with Patrick, who goes to her school. This shows Kat’s transformation. The ending suggests to teenagers that to be â€Å"normal† you need to be in a relationship. The movie has an underlying message about being judgemental. Junger uses the setting of the school because during high school is when we are most judgmental.When we first see Kat, Bianca, Cameron, Patrick, Joey and Michael we are judgmental towards them. We judge them on the way they dress, speak, present themselves and by where they live. We as viewers watch Michael as he shows Cameron all the different groups in the school. We too as viewers of the movie are judgmental of Kat and Bianca. We first view the animated title and credits while girly music is playing, we than go into an establishing shot where we see the upper class suburb, with freshly mowed lawns , people walking their dog s, and flash cars.Bianca and her friends pull up at the pedestrian crossing; they are bouncing along to the music, this symbolises the â€Å"normal† fun-loving teenager. Then Kat comes along, in her beat up car. When the camera goes into a medium shot of her, the music changes into angry girl music, â€Å"I don’t give a dam about my bad reputation†. Bianca waits for the pedestrians to cross before continuing, but Kat drives through without waiting. This juxtaposition immediately makes us judge Bianca and Kat.The juxtaposition continues at school, when Cameron first sees Bianca, Junger uses non-diegetic sound creating moods which affect the viewer; it makes us believe that she is innocent. The use of juxtaposition makes us judge Kat and Bianca to the extreme thinking they’re not related in fact they’re sisters! The use of Shakespearean symbols explores important ideas and themes, showing the deeper purpose of the movie: to deliver a Shakespearean me ssage to teenagers. Throughout the movie there are lots of references to Shakespeare, giving clues on the inspiration of the film.A suggestion that the movie is delivering a Shakespearean message is when the English teacher, Mr Morgan, raps a Shakespearean sonnet. This immediately makes it appealing to teenagers. Another suggestion is the use of words that are stereotypically Shakespearean. One example is when Cameron first sees Bianca and Cameron describes how he feels â€Å"I burn, I pine, I perish†. Using these Shakespearean words gives teenagers a better understanding of what they mean. There are many references throughout the movie to Shakespeare’s life.Included in this is Bianca and Kats’ last name, Stratford, is a reference to Shakespeare’s birthplace, Stratford-Upon-Avon. The school’s Shakespearean architecture castle like design is a visual reference. We are shown the design of the school at the beginning through the use of a crane shot. I n scene 12, when Cameron and Michael advise Patrick to sacrifice his dignity to balance things, Michael uses Shakespearean language. This turns teens off, but when Patrick replies with â€Å"hey, don’t say shit like that, people can hear you†, brings the humour into the Shakespearean message. 10 Things I Hate About You† is not just another teen movie. It is a teen movie with a deeper message, a message about life. It addresses how women were perceived in the 50s, how teens don’t like Shakespearean language and how we are judgemental to people when we first see them. The movie includes posters in the classroom that makes us question out actions in life: â€Å"The first and worst of all frauds is to cheat oneself† and â€Å"What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular! †

International Terrorism and Global Politics Essay

In the 21st century, it would seem that the term â€Å"terrorist† has become an all encompassing description of anyone whom civilized people feel is a threat to innocent civilians, domestic tranquility, and the everyday life that most people take for granted. Government officials declare â€Å"war on terrorism† and the like. Expanding upon, and deviating from the typical definition of a terrorist, Charles W. Kegley’s 2002 edition, The New Global Terrorism: Characteristics, Causes, Controls, contains a chapter entitled â€Å"Is There a Good Terrorist? †, which asserts that one nation’s terrorist may fairly be considered another nation’s patriot. This paper will maintain the argument that no terrorist is a â€Å"good terrorist†, in contrast to the presentation of Kegley in his volume. Defining Terrorism To begin, a valid argument can be made against so-called â€Å"good† terrorists by establishing a baseline definition of terrorism. In some of his other writings, Kegley has maintained that one of the problems in condemning terrorists is that the act of terrorism itself is so hard to define; in other words, as was mentioned previously, a terrorist may not be considered a terrorist by everyone, because ultimately, some group of people or nation is supposedly benefitting from the terror inflicted on another group. However, by fine tuning the definition of a terrorist, it will be possible to reinforce and build upon the argument of this paper- that there is no such thing as a good terrorist. In order to make that assertion solid and tenable, one must realize that the term terrorism should in fact refer to acts of violence, war or sabotage inflicted upon innocent civilian populations by a person or persons not affiliated with an organized army and outside of the scope of declared warfare. Within this context, we are not talking about the soldier who serves his country by defeating enemies in combat, but we are talking about extremists who detonate car bombs near schools and hospitals. In using this definition, it is possible to further bolster the argument. Terrorism is about Targets as Well as Intentions A second assertion that can be made in critique of Kegley’s presentation comes from a discussion of the issue of the targets of terrorism as well as the intentions of terrorists, as earlier defined. For example, a terrorist, for all of his claims that he is trying to free other people from the oppression of another group, change a bad situation, avenge previous wrongs and the like, is violating international law as well as the basic moral codes when the terrorist inflicts casualties among defenseless civilians, such as when terrorists launch attacks on religious centers, public places or even private residential areas, there is a tremendous wrong being done, no matter what noble cause the terrorist claims to support or advance. Simply put, the means do not justify the end. A Fine Line between Patriotism and Vigilantism A key point continues to echo throughout this research- the fine line between defeating enemies and violating the written and unwritten laws of humanity. Indeed, one could make the argument, for example, that the founders of the United States in some ways inflicted terrorism according to our previously stated definition, for many of them were un-uniformed, taking up arms against an organized, sovereign government, no matter how noble the cause was for which they were fighting. However, when looking at terrorists in regard to being those who step over the line of legality and morality for the sake of their causes, again the message returns that there must be at least some level of decency in the world, even among those who adamantly oppose one another, for if opposing groups are allowed to continually launch terror attacks upon each other, all of humanity will soon degrade to chaos and anarchy, serving no one’s interests. Indeed, it is morally, ethically and legally wrong for people to take the law into their own hands; therefore, all potential or actual terrorist acts must be dealt with in the harshest possible terms. Conclusion In this paper, the argument has been made and supported that there is no such thing as a good terrorist, no matter what the intentions, motivations or goals of the terrorist, keeping in mind that there are certain criteria which define what makes a terrorist. Therefore, it must be remembered that patriots are not those who blow up women and children, poison reservoirs or destroy public gathering places, nor are those who wear the uniform of their country and fight in declared wars terrorists. Once that differentiation is made and adhered to, all of humanity will be all the better for it. Conversely, if we allow these grey areas to exist where a potential terrorist thinks they will receive rewards, either in this world or the one to come, the death toll of innocents will continue to swell. Hopefully, this key distinction will be realized by the people of the world before it is too late.

President Barack Obama and Gun Rights

President Barack Obama and Gun Rights In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, many gun owners worried about the consequences of victory for Democrat candidate Barack Obama. Given Obama’s record as an Illinois state senator, where he stated his support for an all-out ban on handguns, among other gun control stances, pro-gun advocates were concerned that gun rights might suffer under an Obama presidential administration.   National Rifle Association Executive Director Wayne LaPierre  said prior to the 2008 election that â€Å"never in NRAs history have we faced a presidential candidate - and hundreds of candidates running for other offices - with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms.†Ã‚   After Obama’s election, gun sales reached a record pace as gun owners snatched up guns, particularly those that had been branded assault weapons under the defunct 1994 assault weapons ban, out of an apparent fear that Obama would crack down on gun ownership. The Obama presidency, however, had limited impact gun rights. Obama’s Gun Record as State Lawmaker When Obama was running for the Illinois state senate in 1996, the Independent Voters of Illinois, a Chicago-based non-profit, issued a questionnaire asking if candidates supported legislation to â€Å"ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns,† to â€Å"ban assault weapons† and to instate â€Å"mandatory waiting periods and background checks† for gun purchases. Obama answered yes on all three accounts. When that survey came to light during his run for the White House in 2008, Obama’s campaign said that a staffer had filled out the survey and that some of the answers did not represent Obama’s views, â€Å"then or now.† Obama also cosponsored legislation to limit handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense and stated his support for the District of Columbia’s handgun ban that was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. He also called it a â€Å"scandal† that President George W. Bush did not authorize a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. During the 2008 campaign, Obama said that he had â€Å"no intention of taking away folks’ guns,† but added that he would support â€Å"reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures† that respected the Second Amendment while also â€Å"cracking down on the various loopholes that exist.† He expressed his intent, as president, to make sure law enforcement was given access to information that would allow them to trace guns used in crimes back to â€Å"unscrupulous gun dealers.† Obama and Assault Weapons Just weeks after Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, attorney general Eric Holder announced at a press conference that the Obama administration would be seeking a renewal of the expired ban on assault weapons. â€Å"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,† Holder said. To gun owners wary of increased pressure on gun rights, the announcement seemed to serve as validation of their pre-election fears. But the Obama administration dismissed Holder’s statements. When asked about a renewal of the assault weapon ban, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said: â€Å"the president believes there are other strategies we can take to enforce the laws that are already on the books.† U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, introduced legislation to renew the ban. However, the legislation did not receive an endorsement from Obama.   Ã¢â‚¬ËœCommon Sense’ Gun Control   In the aftermath of a mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Obama renewed his push for â€Å"common sense† measures to tighten gun regulations and close the so-called gun show loophole.   While not specifically calling for new gun control measures, Obama recommended strengthening the National Instant Background Check system in place for gun purchases and rewarding states supplying the best data that would keep guns out of the hands of those the system is meant to weed out. Later, Obama directed the Department of Justice to begin talks about gun control, involving â€Å"all stakeholders† in the issue. The National Rifle Association declined an invitation to join the talks, with LaPierre saying there is little use in sitting down with people who have â€Å"dedicated their lives† to reducing gun rights. As the summer of 2011 ended, however, those talks had not led to recommendations by the Obama administration for new or tougher gun laws. Strengthened Gun Reporting on the Border One of the Obama administration’s few actions on the subject of guns has been to strengthen a 1975 law that requires gun dealers to report the sale of multiple handguns to the same buyer. The heightened regulation, which took effect in August 2011, requires gun dealers in the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report the sale of multiple assault-style rifles, such as AK-47s and AR-15s.   The NRA filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to block the new regulation from taking effect, calling it a move by the administration to â€Å"pursue their gun control agenda.† Summary of Gun Rights During Obama’s First Term The story through much of his first term in office was a neutral one. Congress did not take up serious consideration of new gun control laws, nor did Obama ask them to. When Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm, chances of far-reaching gun control laws being enacted were essentially squashed. Instead, Obama urged local, state, and federal authorities to stringently enforce existing gun control laws. In fact, the only two major gun-related laws enacted during the Obama administration’s first term actually expand the rights of gun owners. The first of these laws, which took effect in February 2012, allows people to openly carry legally owned guns in national parks. The law replaced a Ronald Reagan era policy that required guns to remain locked in glove compartments or trunks of private vehicles that enter national parks. In addressing this law, Obama surprised his pro-gun right critics when he wrote, â€Å"In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership thats handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.† The other law allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage; a reversal of a measure put in place by President George W. Bush in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Obama’s two nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were considered likely to rule against gun owners on issues involving the Second Amendment. However, the appointees did not shift the balance of power on the court. The new justices replaced David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, two justices who had consistently voted against an expansion of gun rights, including the monumental Heller decision in 2008 and McDonald decision in 2010. Earlier in his first term, Obama had expressed his express support for the Second Amendment. â€Å"If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it away. Alright?† he said. Gun Rights During Obama’s Second Term On January 16, 2013 - just two months after 26 people were killed in a mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut - President Obama kicked off his second term by promising an â€Å"overhaul† of gun laws to end what he called the nation’s â€Å"epidemic† of gun violence However, the legislation to overhaul gun control failed on April 17, 2013, when the Republican-controlled Senate rejected a measure banning assault-style weapons and expanding gun-buyer background checks. In January 2016, President Obama began his final year in office by going around the gridlocked Congress by issuing a set of executive orders intended to reduce gun violence. According to a White House Fact Sheet, the measures aimed to improve background checks on gun buyers, increase community safety, provide additional federal funding for mental health treatment, and advance the development of â€Å"smart gun† technology. Obama’s Gun Rights Legacy During his eight years in office, President Barack Obama had to deal with more mass shootings than any of his predecessors, speaking to the nation on the subject of gun violence at least 14 times. In each address, Obama offered sympathy for the loved ones of the deceased victims and repeated his frustration with the Republican-controlled Congress to pass stronger gun control legislation. After each address, gun sales soared. In the end, however, Obama made little progress in advancing his â€Å"common-sense gun laws† at the federal government level - a fact he would later call one of the biggest regrets of his time as president. In 2015, Obama told the BBC that his inability to pass gun laws had been â€Å"the one area where I feel that Ive been most frustrated and most stymied. Updated by Robert Longley