War On Drugs

War On Drugs This is supposed to be a free country. I don't see that it would harm you or anybody else if someone smokes a few joints a week in moderation. What is the harm done to you? Is this enough to take fathers and mothers away from children? I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw but to say that drug users might abuse the stuff and cause problems for their family or neighbors is not very far from saying that because you have a knife in your kitchen draw that you might choose to use it to cause trouble for you family or neighbors. Please tell me, by what reason should marijuana be illegal and please speak from first hand experience if you can. Isn't twenty years of doing the same thing long enough? Isn't it time to step back, gather accurate information and objectively consider alternatives? Wasn't there an objective once? Distinguish between soft and hard drugs like Holland did and reduce actual drug crime by 75%, actual crime, not just prohibition violations. Treat addiction as a health problem, instead of a crime-just like alcohol is treated-and you reduce HIV infection and decrease the costs to society. I am a very opened minded person and have listened to a lot of opinions and read a lot of articles on this subject. It seems that anything we find that stimulates us or alters our state of mind in some way is a stamped as a drug. How can we take something like cocaine, which is so addictive some people have to go to a hospital to get off it and many people have died from overdoses, and put it in the same catagorize as marijuana, a part of a plant which nobody has ever overdosed from. From my perspective, the government has no reason to make marijuana illegal, except that it acts as a stitch. I will get to that in a minute. If it were legal, I really doubt we would have as much drug dealing and drug deal related deaths and crimes. It could be treated like alcohol, same rules, maybe more, but we could have an age limit and everything. (Its (marijuana) defiantly much safer than alcohol I don't know anybody in the right mind who could argue with that. Alcohol is one of the biggest killers in the world, who do you ever here on the news dying of marijuana use? Sure it may cause long cancer, but you can eat it too. Sure somebody might be too high to drive but make rules against it. Its too bad we couldn't replace alcohol with marijuana. I would much rather see people in my family as well as my parents smoke pot than drink alcohol. I could go on and on with this forever. You probably are getting the impression that I am a pot head but believe me I am not. This subject just irritates me how we can serve alcohol which makes people violent and go home and beat their wives in front of their kids but the government can't sell a part of a plant that makes people at ease. I feel I'm getting off subject so I'm gonna get back to my point. But, if it were legal, a lot of marijuana dealers who base most or all of their business on marijuana would turn to other drugs such as crack to base their business upon. That is what I mean by the stitch. Because we all know how crack changed the inner cities of America. Crack definitely increase the number of street gangs, deaths, and crimes of all kinds in this country and we all know crack is made from cocaine. So what I am saying, is that instead of trying to shoot at all drugs at once, only go after cocaine. Forget marijuana, make it legal, the government sure made a profit from cigarettes and alcohol. Make a profit from marijuana. Use the profits to fight the war on cocaine and heroin. Because you know when the cocaine supply is weakening, so is the crack. Most of the crack sold on our streets is made inside our country by dealers who buy the cocaine that comes from outside the country. But when the cocaine supply is dying down, heroin is going to take over so that's why we have to fight that too. It's the hardcore drugs that ruin our society, not marijuana. Sure there are many other drugs that are addictive, and we need to separate hardcore life destroying drugs from the recreational not so addictive drugs. We need to take things one step at a time. If you're a thief you can't steel everything in the store at once, you gotta take what you want most and work on getting that. (I know that's a terrible example but I think it's a good one to get my point across). There are many drugs that are used for many reasons. We need to sort through the good (at least not so bad), bad, and ugly and make zero tolerance for the bad and ugly, and really reconsider the good (referring to marijuana). I think reconsidering some laws and opening our minds and putting our brains to work a little harder on this whole issue will get us the results a lot quicker and cheaper than what we are doing about the problem right now.

Words: 909

Twelfth Night

Comedic Conflict and Love in Trevor Nunn’s “Twelfth Night” Trevor Nunn's direction of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night takes away some of the confusion present in the reading of the text, which begins with the complicated love interests of the main characters. Having been the artistic director for the world famous Royal Shakespeare Company for eighteen years, Nunn is vastly familiar with adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays. Part of the comedy of this film develops from the first three acts of the play, which allow for a complex circle of interaction to develop within the film. Nunn’s use of the prologue at the beginning of the film presents crucial information in an easy to understand, witty way. The film’s prologue makes clear much of the play’s primary confusion, and establishes the foundation on which the rest of the film may balance upon. Nunn’s adaptation of Twelfth Night begins with the founding relationship in the play, the designs that Orsino expresses for Olivia. It is clear that this first interaction is the basis for others that occur, and it is also clear that both Shakespeare and Nunn utilize this interaction to create the comedic effects that happen because of the subsequent love interests. Orsino is not just an average courtly love, he is the Duke, and has considerable stature and respectability in his community. It is expected that his love for the Countess Olivia will be reciprocated, even in the midst of her grieving the loss of her brother. However, Duke Orsino's attempts at contact are met with disdain, but Olivia's lack of interest does not dissuade Orsino from continuing his pursuit. Duke Orsino is not a skilled romantic. His belief that he can compel Olivia into marriage through the expression of his feelings in messages demonstrates his lack of real passion in the situation and shows that he is of great stature, perhaps to belittle himself with courting. He is not Romeo hiding in the bushes for his Juliet, and this is one of the elements of separation that cause the comedic conflict to occur. If Orsino had taken it upon himself to persuade Olivia personally, instead of sending messengers, the outcome of the film would have been significantly altered. Both Shakespeare and Nunn support the importance of Malvolio's role through the love that he has for himself, as well as his love for Olivia. While Malvolio's love for Olivia creates a sub plot, including the actions manipulated by Maria's deception, this only builds on the comedic effect that is created by the other loves that develop. The comedic conflict is further developed in Malvolio’s “Puritanesque” wardrobe of his suit and shoes. This comedy seen in Malvolio’s wardrobe is extended to the end of the film when Malvolio appears wearing bright yellow tights and cross belts. Malvolio's character is significant because he at first attempts to bring an air of respectability and chastity to the whole film, though his essential flaws and his inability to recognize the reality of people's feelings, including Olivia's, removes him from the position of moral overseer to a simple player in the game of love. Malvolio's error is related to his self-perceptions and his consideration of his own self-importance, rather than his caring and compassion for his mistress Olivia. The other character of significance is Viola, and she is important in the development of the comedic conflict that occurs. She is a noblewoman who disguises herself as a boy, and becomes a servant of Orsino. Orsino uses Viola as a messenger to persuade the steadfast Olivia to hear his pleas of love. The problem with this scenario is that in the process of winning a position with Orsino, Viola falls in love with him, thus her voice as a messenger for Orsino is complicated by her own feelings. The comedic conflict of love occurs primarily within this love triangle of Olivia, Orsino and Viola. Olivia falls in love with a girl pretending to be a boy, as Orsino subsequently falls for a “boy”, who, fortunately for him, is in actuality a girl. Instead of persuading Olivia on Orsino's behalf, Viola, who is called Cesario as a boy, attacks the love of Olivia, complicating the film. Viola does not immediately recognize the affections of Olivia, but when she does she realizes that Olivia loves someone who does not exist. Cesario is a vision, an artificial character, and Olivia attaches her very determined sights on Cesario. This issue of “disguise” is vital to the comedy that occurs since it is the principle in which the comedy stems from. At the same time, Olivia uses Malvolio as a messenger to Viola (Cesario) and this adds to the complexity of these relationships, particularly that of Malvolio and Olivia. It appears that Maria's trickery is directly related to the feelings that Malvolio expresses for Olivia, because it is implied that Maria once had these same feelings for Malvolio, suggesting that her deception is an act of jealousy. Nunn’s adaptation of Viola's character is compelling because it demonstrates that she can feel love on countless levels. Viola is intelligent, resourceful, witty, and charming. These are the qualities that help her to acquire the love of the Duke as well as the immediate love of Olivia. Viola demonstrates courtly love and romantic love for the Duke Orsino, and this fosters the complications that continue to mount. At the same time, Viola is also capable of feeling compassionate, brotherly love for Olivia, even after recognizing that Olivia loves her as Cesario. Viola deserves to be content with love since she is the only one who really knows what love is. She is the only one who experiences and suffers the true pain of unrequited love, rather than the distorted apparitions of those who are more fascinated with the torment of love, instead of love in it’s true fashion. Olivia's love for Viola (Cesario) is derived from her need to make an excuse to ward off Orsino, though Viola's characterization of a boy is both compelling and attractive. Olivia is less capable of understanding the compassion of brotherly love and more compelled to express romance as a means of escape. Olivia is in love with love, and uses Viola as a means of expressing this love, without accepting the attentions of Orsino. Although these love interests as well as the complicated web of relationships, represent romantic love, Nunn attempts to provide for another type of love within the story. Viola and her brother Sebastian share a familial love that is very powerful. Both Viola and Sebastian are distraught by the thought of the loss of the other, and it is only through their realization that the other might still be living that these two siblings are able to go one with their actions. Furthermore, Viola is capable of expressing brotherly love for Olivia, though Viola recognizes that this type of love is not what Olivia feels for her. Olivia's love for her brother and father are expressed through her continued mourning, as Viola's love for Sebastian is expressed by her long-standing concern for his welfare. Their abilities to share in familial love are elements that these two women share, even in the midst of the comedic conflict. This illustration of brotherly love is also substantial in the relationship between Sebastian and Antonio. Antonio, the man who saved Sebastian, recognizes their commonality and shares in a love of brotherhood that is demonstrated by their concern for each other as well as Antonio's decision to return with Sebastian to Illyria, regardless of the dangerous it poses for himself. Their acts of protection and their concern for one another's welfare represents the magnitude of their brotherly love, correspondingly to the love that Viola expresses for her brother. Nunn’s adaptation of Feste's is persuasive because the fool presents wise insights into the actions that occur and the complicated web of love that all of characters become entwined with. His ability to suggest that love is a game, that lovers often love to love, and that love can be almost blind, are important themes to the attraction and comedy of this performance. It is Feste's recognition of the humor in the conflict that makes the comedy stand out. In other words, Feste's songs are used to enhance the comedic impacts of these ironic situations, allowing the audience to perceive the effects of the conflict, rather than considering the conflict itself. Malvolio is the underlying driving force of the love relationships, and is considerably responsible for the outcome of these affairs. Malvolio has a hidden hope through some mystical action, that Olivia will establish her love for him and protest it to him. However, Maria plots to shake-up Malvolio, and allows him to misinterpret information about Olivia that suggests her love for Malvolio. As a result, Malvolio is stirred into believing that there is an existing love between he and Olivia, even though it is a falsified creation of Maria. Malvolio’s function in this film is to serve as a comedic contrast to the merry-makers, as well as a vital reminder to Feste that life is serious, and not all fun and games. Malvolio expresses the dark side of comedy and love. He emphasizes demureness, yet, when he thinks he has the chance to move forward with Olivia, he abandons all that he stands for and acts like an absolute fool. This action is the first imperative step that leads to the undoing of several characters, primarily Malvolio. It is essentially Malvolio’s ultimate narcissism that allows the other characters to easily plot his demise. This destruction of fortune is the fundamental expression of irony within the film. Feste and Malvolio are essential in understanding the two types of love that are expressed within the film, and the need to delineate these types in order to understand their impact on the comedic conflict that occurs. Feste demonstrates that life creates cruel jokes and that it is the way in which one can understand these situations that determines whether man is a fool or not a fool. At the same time, Malvolio not only shows his love for Olivia, but also his obsessive self-love, and Nunn’s interpretive message throughout the film is that this type of self-importance cannot be the basis for romantic love. The great lovers in this film are those individuals who are able to express love that is unselfish, and without concern for personal intentions. Viola and Sebastian represent the purest of the love demonstrated, with their concern for each other as well as the unselfish nature of their interactions, including Viola's representation of the messages of Orsino to Olivia. Even though Viola is in love with Orsino, she represents the purity of love that conquers all in spite of the comedic conflict. Feste serves an essential role in “Twelfth Night”, since he is the only character who has witnessed and heard more than any of the other characters in the film. Ben Kingsley’s performance of Feste is charismatic and clever. He serves as a device to drive the storyline along, and his “songs” add the comedic aspect of the love relationships. The breakdown of Malvolio in the foyer of Olivia’s home brings to an end, for a brief moment, the comedic conflict that was present throughout the film. The comedy turns to sadness, as Olivia states that Malvolio has been “most notoriously abused”. This sadness turns to anger in Malvolio as he exits and vows, “I’ll be revenged on the whole pack of you”! However, the comedic conflict and love returns quickly, as everyone is paired with someone to love and enjoying their fortunes. Nunn’s addition of the wedding scene provides an ending with closure, something Shakespeare’s play was lacking. Feste closes the film with a song of the various stages of life, putting all of the profound meanings of life into this “comedy”. Bibliography“Twelfth Night”. Directed by Trevor Nunn, Screenplay by Trevor Nunn. Produced by Stephen Evans and David Parfitt. Based on the play by William Shakespeare. First Line Films. BibliographyTwelfth night

Words: 2001

The Truman Show

The Truman show: Is life a Truman show? By saying that life is a Truman show, I’m saying that life is perfectly planned, with a structure and a fixed destiny…it may even be a lie. The Truman show is a movie in which the main character is the protagonist of a show without knowing anything. Truman is being filmed twenty four hours a day, but he doesn’t know it. Everyone he knows, are actors and are with him only because they are paid for doing so. This surely seems very different to our lives; it’s just fiction. But it may be very similar in several aspects if we analyze it little bit. We may seem free to decide, to choose who do we meet, and to do several things, but there is always someone that can prevent us from achieving something that is not convenient for him. Although this may seem to be a truly paranoid ideal, there are several “important” people which have a lot of power and can control our lives as they want to. By this I am not saying that they are planning every ones life, but they can surely manage to take a population to where ever they want, and they do not care if people suffer, or if people die, as long as they can earn money it is all right. What the producer of the show did to Truman, is in a way the same that the governments and the world’s Oligarchy does to us at every moment, through out our whole lifes. The Studio didn’t care of how much could Truman suffer, or how morally bad was what they were broadcasting, as long as people pay, it was all right. In our life the same tings happen, over and over again. No one on a government cared if people died in a war, they may have been their people, but they wouldn’t care. They fought a war for a matter of power, but I have never seen any president fighting in a world war. Another way in which life can be compared to the Truman show is that when Truman tried to escape from his “life”, he was set up with several traps, which made it very hard for him to live, and they even tried to kill him. In Argentina, while the military government was in power, several people tried to change the things, but not one could achieve their goal, and almost all of them disappear. To round up, our life IS in several ways a Truman show, but it only give amusement to a few, and brings pain to several who does not disserve it.

Words: 446


SD 1 The Storm Since the beginning of time, men and women have felt passion for each other. As time has past, many authors have written about the overwhelming feelings that can occur between humans and the power of lust. It is the search for pleasure, for feeling alive, and for feeling like a passionate human being. Kate Chopin describes these emotions in The Storm a story that can be compared with similar themes of today. First, after many years of marriage, couples might lose the feelings of passion they have in the beginning of the relationship. Couples still love each other, but their lust is transformed into a compassionate partnership. In The Storm, Calixta's sexuality is repressed by the constrains of her marriage and society's view of women. The absence of lust makes a person become unaware of her sexuality and instinctive drive. The animalistic drives become dormant, and some might become satisfied living without these feelings. The satisfaction once known may seem to become forgotten and unimportant. An awakening of these feelings can make a person experience a storm within. The storm creates a sense of excitement, and controlling her feelings can be hard. The amount of time that these feelings have been repressed can effect the intensity of the storm. Second, today's impersonal societies have made it easier and more acceptable to be unfaithful while in a relationship. For example, today's media is centered on love triangles. SD2 It is not uncommon for a story today to have a plot, which is focused on unfaithful relationships, in contrast to the fifties when tv and radio portrayed perfect couples and families. During the author's time in the late nineteen-centur, divorce was practically unheard of. Couples who divorced were seen as outcasts of society whose laws were built on Biblical foundations. According to The Bible, divorce should only follow adultery. Today a first marriage is rarely accepted to last. One cause might be the lack of religious commitment; another might be the equal rights laws, which allow women to have social standing. Third, a major factor for infidelity to occur depends on the situation at hand. During colonial times, couples spendt more time together. Very rarely did the husband venture out alone unless he was getting supplies, trading, or out on a hunt. During these events it was the woman's job to take care of the house and the children, and, therefore she stayed at home. In today's society travel is more common. Men and women both partake in long business trips, making their separation more routine. For example, a man going on a business trip might have a mistress in his city of destination, while back at home his wife is taking this time to meet her lover. Another example can be the separation of men and women in social gatherings. A girl might tell her boyfriend that she is going out with her friends while she is actually going out to meet other guys. These examples give meaning to the proverb,When the cat is away, the mice shall play. SD3 With the creation of man came the creation of lust and infidelity that has been with man from the beginning of time and will follow to the end of time. Humans are hedonistic creatures, meaning they seek pleasure. Many people attempt to find pleasure outside a relationship, when in fact the true emotions can be found within BibliographyDS4 Work Cited Chopin, Kate The Storm. Literature: An introduction to Fiction, Poetry and Drama. Ed. Patricia Rossi. New York, New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1999. 272-295.

Words: 570

Status Quo

Status Quo 1776, The American colonies rebelled against their oppressive, imperialistic mother country Great Britain. They challenged the traditions of an ancient mother country to become an independent nation that would eventually lead the free world. Critical review of established laws, attitudes and beliefs are what this country was forged from. The United States exemplifies the idea that it is necessary to challenge practiced policies when they have become obsolete and ineffective. When governments are out of touch with the bodies they govern then they have become ineffective. This holds true for any situation where one group has control over another from the United States Congress, to state and local governments, and even school boards and administrators. Student life is fully regulated by those who are in noway subject to their own rules. Many examples of this are present in the hallways of schools across America. Most of the hypocrisies are not major travesties of justice, but they do lead to a feeling of second class citizenship among the student body. Little things like not being able to drink a cup of coffee in the hallway degrades students by questioning their ability to perform a simple task without causing problems or difficulties. Unbalanced legislation such as this, where there is a double standard, should be replaced to insure that regulations are to protect the welfare of a population. Not merely to oppress it. Another oppression in schools is the use of a permit pass system for movement from room to room. This practice of total documentation of a students movement throughout the school day is not only unnecessary, but also impractical. And can again lead to the feeling in students that they cannot be trusted because they are inferior to their older counterparts. An idea which is not cohesive to a learning environment by installing an attitude of failure before an attempt is even made. This unfair policy should be replaced with an honor system based on the students verbally informing those who are liable where they are going to be. Changes like this are often needed to transform a non-working system of regulation into a constructive guide for coexistence. Administration’s control needs to be changed as well because in most cases it is comprised of professionals with the highest degree in their fields. This in turn means that a great deal of time and with it change has occurred between their actual experience of their first twelve years of education and their present state in life. This change makes for a ruling body which has no first hand experience into the psyche of those it controls. In short high school administration is totally disconnected from the student body because of its lack of experience in the positions students are in. This situation leaves students without their needs for control met because those imposing the restrictions do not understand the circumstances surrounding undesirable behavior. Even the allocation of power must be constantly reviewed. The idea of reviewing the control of those in power and their legislative decisions is where the United States found its beginnings. To follow the doctrine of a ruling body without evaluating its need and its effects is foolish. To simply continue in a set path because it is what has always been done leads to many problems. As time changes so must laws and regulations or they will become obsolete and potentially harmful. Wether it be school rules or the antique practice of imperialism by a nation, policy must undergo constant scrutiny to assure its applicability to those it affects.

Words: 595


Essay for Stanford As the beast ran rampant through the streets, I couldn't help but wonder if my work had been for naught. Trying to salvage any remains, I chased my dog from the room and stared at the havoc left in his wake. The city lay in ruins; the buildings were razed. The prospect of beginning from scratch was ponderous, but I instantly welcomed the challenge. With patience and determination, I began returning the small plastic bricks into their former glory; and then greater glory. Block by block I rebuilt my cities and block by block they built me. From these Legos I learned valuable lessons in versatility, creativity, and tenacity. The sheer vastness of possibilities that Legos present is both intimidating and exhilarating. The colorful blocks lay strewn about in no particular pattern and no particular order. From this chaos virtually anything can be created. As a child I gradually learned not to be intimidated by the endless possibilities but to embrace them, to relish the opportunity to create something from nothing. A preschool teacher recommended holding me back one year. Because I preferred the challenge of Legos to running about with the other children on the playground, she believed that I was socially and psychologically unprepared for school. Little did she realize that the creativity these blocks taught me became a cornerstone for the rest of my life. The seemingly insurmountable challenges gave me confidence and taught me to value cooperation. Watching my Lego edifices grow slowly but surely skyward taught me patience. Watching them fall again taught me the tenacity to continue onwards. Remembering how each task was created piece by piece allowed me to, line by line, memorize the works of history's greatest playwrights. I was able to join MEChA and help lead the Latino community as co-president, arranging events with our two hundred members. My organizational skills were further utilized as the commissioner of elections. Legos also taught me to help others and to ask for their help. I realized that with the creativity another person at my disposal, we could build things we had never even dreamed of on our own. During my senior year of High School I was introduced to crew. I was enthralled by the rhythmic grace of the sport. My dreams soon had me breathing the early morning air nearly flying over the surface of the water. This dream seemed destined to die unfulfilled because I grew up in a part of the country where crew refers to the roadside construction teams, but before the year was out I had convinced one of the Olympic coaches to take me under his wing. This interest is one I would like to develop further. As the years went by, my Lego blocks made way for the blocks of my future. But just like my experiences with Legos, I continue to choose individual blocks from chaos, each one bringing me closer to the life I dream of. The spires lead up to a diploma, the drawbridge leads to a family, and the buttresses support my lofty aspirations.

Words: 515

Something Made A Difference In My Life

There are two things in my life that are extremely important to me. One of these things is sports and the other is helping people. Basketball has been a part of my life for many years. Helping people has always been important but only recently have I been able to combine these two together. Being a Captain on the Varsity Basketball team in my school is very pleasing and puts much joy in my life. I love to be able to lead my team on to the court for big games and show them the right way of doing things. I try to set examples on and off the court. One example off the court is helping out the disabled kids in my school. My team and I put together a special basketball game for the disabled children in my school. This is only one of the great ways of helping out . I believe it is very important to help those who are incapable of playing sports. I can pick up a basketball and play a game at any time I wish. It hurts me to know that some kids can’t that is why I try my best to make them feel special and show them that they can play with us too. At the Jewish Community Center, where I play basketball as well, we have Hanukah parties for the disabled children. We give gifts out, dance with them and play games too. It feels great to play with them and show them that they’re not much different then us, we all just want to have a good time. These events are truly special in my life and I hope it they are special for the disabled kids too. It takes time and patience to help disabled children and I’m glad that my team, the J.C.C., and I were capable of helping out. Hopefully I can do more volunteer work or special events in college. Most people don’t want to be bothered but once you see the smiles on these kids faces you know your doing something for a good cause and you and the kids feel like you can achieve any goals you set your heart on. Bibliographynone

Words: 369


Romanesque - Gothic 50 Minutes/ Rating 9 The difference between Gothic and Romanesque architecture is the spiritual approach. In Romanesque the emphasis was on transcendental and feudalistic systems whereas in the Gothic this approach was humanized and individualized. The Gothic architecture emphasized upward movement towards god, a feeling that cannot be found in a Romanesque basilica although it might have already pointed arches, a key element of gothic architecture. There is just a different feeling in the Gothic architecture gives an overwhelming feeling of mysticism, the dominant spiritual and philosophical movement. The Gothic was mainly about form and function joining together. The supports that held up the structure of the church also developed into the art of the church. Gothic buildings were built through the Renaissance in many of the northern cities until the arrival of the Baroque in the earl seventeenth century. Saints of the East Portal, Chartres, France 50 Minutes/ Rating 8

Words: 155

Raul Leoni

Raúl Leoni nació en Utapa (estado Bolívar), en 1905 y murió en Nueva York en 1972. Raúl Leoni fue abogado y político venezolano, fue electo presidente de la República de Venezuela en 1964 hasta 1969. A los 16 años estuvo preso en la cárcel de Rotunda por participar en la lucha estudiantil. Cursó sus estudios de derecho en la Universidad Central donde alcanzó la presidencia de la Federación de Estudiantes de Venezuela y encabezó las protestas de 1928 contra e régimen de Juan Vicente Gómez, por ésta razón tuvo que irse en 1928 de Venezuela a Colombia para un largo exilio, hasta 1936. Una vez muerto Gómez, regresó Leoni a Venezuela, participando desde su llagada en las actividades de los sectores políticos de izquierda. En 1937 fue expulsado del país junto a otros dirigentes políticos. Se dirigió a Colombia, donde continuó sus estudios hasta graduarse en Derecho y Ciencias Sociales en la Universidad de Bogotá. En Junio de 1939 regresó a Venezuela para incorporarse a la actividad clandestina del Partido Democrático Nacional (PDN). En 1941 participó en la fundación del partido centrista Acción Democrática, liderado por Rómulo Betancourt. Tras la revolución de 1945 que derrocó a Isaías Medina Angarita, a Leoni fue ministro de trabajo durante el gobierno de Rómulo Gallegos desde 1945 hasta 1948. En 1948 tuvo que exiliarse de nuevo por el golpe militar que derrocó a Rómulo Gallegos y no pudo volver hasta que terminó la dictadura de Marcos Pérez Jiménez en 1958. El 1 de Diciembre de ese 1963 fue elegido presidente de la República e inició su mandato en Marzo de 1964, continuando con la política económica y social de su predecesor y maestro Rómulo Betancourt. Durante su gobierno tuvo que hacer frente a la intensificación de la actividad guerrillera del FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional), por lo que firmó con el presidente colombiano Guillermo León Valencia el pacto antiguerrillero de Río Arauca en el año 1966. Al siguiente año en 1967 tuvo que suspender las garantías constitucionales y su partido sufrió una división que dio origen a un nuevo partido llamado MEP (Movimiento Electoral del Pueblo). En las elecciones de 1968, el candidato de su partido, Gonzalo Barrios, fue derrotado. En 1969 Raúl Leoni traspasó su poder al presidente electo Rafael Caldera.

Words: 379

Quest For Fire

Quest for Fire This story happens 80,000 years ago when our ancestors first discovered the power of fire, but did not know how to master it. One day, a peaceful tribe is attacked by apes and wolves. Many die in the fighting and the tribe is forced to leave their territory. They move to a small island, and on their way, they lose their treasure—fire. Fire to them is like the door to a house. Without the door, the house will not collapse. But when a robber comes, the house has no protection. Without fire, men can live, but they lose their most powerful weapon when they are attacked. Thus, the tribe is in a great danger. An attack of wolves or other beasts can easily kill them. Because they don't know how to make fire, they send out three members of the tribe to look for fire. On their way, they save a girl but she runs away later. Then the three men are captured by another more advanced tribe (everyone in the area seems to be evolving at a different rate). In the tribe, they meet the girl who they saved earlier and one of them fell in love with the girl. They also learn how to make fire on their own. The three men and the girl flee one day and return to the small island where their tribe is. The people of their tribe are very excited about their return and they are even more exciting when they learn that they can make fire by themselves. From now on, human’s life is no more depends on God’s favor. They can manage their own life. In spite of causing me nearly to vomit, this movie has some good aspects. It uses excellent sound effects and perfect makeup technique to make this movie very realistic. There is no dialogue throughout the whole movie, but the body language and gestures of men well explain the story. This movie makes you think a lot about our ancestors, where we came from and how we would survive in a world where the secret of how to make fire is as momentous as we would regard the moon landing today . . . This movie also makes me feel grateful that I do not live 80,000 years ago. Their life is brutal and savage. They have no houses, no cars and they have to fight with animals face to face. Compared to them, we are living in a paradise right now. Bibliographya review of movie quest for fire

Words: 419

Pythagorean Theorm

The Pythagorean Theorem is a geometrical expression used often in math and physics. It used to 2 2 2 find the unknown side of a right triangle. The exponential form of this theorem a + b = c . That is the equation you use when you are looking for the unknown side of a right triangle, and it is what I’ll demonstrate on the attached exhibit. The upside down capital L in the bottom of the left hand corner indicates that sides A & B are the legs of the triangle. Since we know side A = 5 inches and B = 3 inches we may fill that in to 2 2 2 or equation for step one. (1) 5 + 3 = c What the theorem will help us find is the c side of this triangle. 2. 25 + 9 = c All we do is distribute 5 to the second power and 3 to the second power as seen is step two. Next, we add these two numbers together to get 34, 25+9=34, in step three. 3. 25+9=34 Then, in step four we find the square root of 34. 4. 34 In step five we see that 5.83 is the unknown side of the right triangle. 5. c= 5.83 We found this answer by using the Pythagorean Theorem as taught in geometrical form. This theorem may also be summed up by saying that the area of the square on the hypotenuse, or opposite side of the right angle, of a right triangle is equal to sum of the areas of the squared on the legs. The Pythagorean Theorem was a studied by many people and groups. One of those people being Euclid. Sometimes the Pythagorean Theorem is also referred to as the 47th Problem of Euclid. It is called this because it is included by Euclid in a book of numbered geometric problems. In the problem Euclid studied he would always use 3, 4, and 5 as the sides of the right triangle. He did this because 5 x 5 = 3 x 3 + 4 x 4. The angle opposite the side of the legs was the right angle, it had a length of 5. The 3:4:5 in the right triangle was known as a Pythagorean triple or a three digits that could be put in a right triangle successfully. These three numbers were also whole numbers and were used in the Egyptian string trick, which I will talk about later. This Pythagorean triple, 3:4:5, are the smallest integer series to have been formed, and the only consecutive numbers in that group that is important. These numbers can be, and often were, studied from a philosophical stand point. The symbolic meanings of the 3:4:5 triple told by modern writers such as Manly P. Hall say 3 stands for spirit, 4 stands for matter, and 5 stands for man. Using Hall’s study the symbolism of this arrangement is as follows: “Matter” (4) lays upon the plane of Earth and “Spirit” (3) reaches up to the Heaven and they are connected by “Man” (5) who takes in both qualities. A process similar to that of Euclid's 47th Problem was the Egyptian string trick. Egyptians were said to have invented the word geometry (geo = earth, metry = measuring.) The Egyptians used the 3:4:5 right triangle to create right triangles when measuring there fields after the Nile floods washed out there old boundary markers. The Egyptians used the same theory of Euclid, 5 x 5 = 3 x 3 + 4 x 4, to get there boundaries marked correctly. Although Euclid and the Ancient Egyptians studied the theorem, the true inventor of it ( or the person most people believed invented it first ) was Pythagoras of Samos and his group the Pythagoreans. Pythagoras was a man born in 580 B.C. on the island of Samos, in the Aegean Sea. It is said Pythagoras was a man that spent his life traveling the world in search of wisdom. This search for wisdom led him to settle in Corona, a Greek colony in southern Italy, in about 530 B.C. Here Pythagoras gained famous status for his group known as the Brotherhood of Pythagoreans. This group devoted there lives to the study of mathematics. The group, as led by Pythagoras, could be described as almost cult-like because that it had symbols, rituals, and prayers. The group was also cult-like because of there odd ways of not writing down any of there discoveries. It was also said that Pythagoras himself sacrificed a hecatomb, or an ancient Greek ritual of 100 oxen, when he discovered the Pythagorean Theorem. The group was also said to have vowed to secrecy. One day the Pythagoreans discovered irrational numbers. They referred to these numbers as “algon” or unutterable. They were so shocked by these numbers they killed a member of the group that mentioned them in public. The group believed in many things had to do with numbers. They said “all things are numbers,” and also “numbers rule the universe,” Pythagoreans believed that numbers were divine. He also thought numbers one through ten, those of a decade, were especially sacred. Pythagoreans also thought that numbers had characteristics: 2 was female, 3 was male, odd numbers were good, and even numbers were evil. This belief by the Pythagoreans led to many discoveries including the Pythagorean Theorem. The Pythagoreans first discovered numbers could be associated with shapes. Numbers six, ten, and fifteen were all triangular numbers because they can be arranged in equilateral triangles. This study of numbers and shapes eventually led to the discovery of many different and important theory having to do with geometry. Although, nobody is really positive who invented the theorem, Pythagoras or the Pythagoreans? This is unknown because of there vow so secrecy and there neglect of writing there discoveries down. So now nobody is even sure if Pythagoras had anything to do with the discovery. The puzzle of who invented the Pythagorean Theorem, Pythagoras or his followers, is so confusing because the group studied such a wide variety of different topics. Studies of the group includes many geometric proofs, astronomy, and music. The Pythagoreans believed that all these things had to do with numbers. If you would ask my opinion on the theorem, I would have to say the original inventors were the Egyptians. They used the theorem, but the Pythagoreans were the first ones to write about and describe it more thoroughly. I think that the theorem was an important discovery for the future . I say this because the theorem was studied by so many great thinkers. The theorem is complex but simple because it is easy to use with right angles after you learn it, but it also has many philosophical meanings and parts to it. In all I think the Pythagorean Theorem is a confusing, but an important part to the past, present, and future of geometry.

Words: 1159

Precocious Pearl

Children are, by nature, incredibly sensitive creatures. They can sense almost any emotion an adult might feel just by observing a particular person’s body language and facial expressions. Such is the case with the youthful Pearl from the novel The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne. As the daughter of the adulteress Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale, the townspeople view Pearl as a demon in an angel’s clothing; as an imp who not only knows exactly what the letter A signifies on the breast of her mother, but as the demon who placed it there as well. ‘Nay, Mother, I have told all I know,’ said Pearl more seriously than she was wont to speak…’ But in good earnest now, Mother dear, what does this scarlet letter mean? -and why dost thou wear it on thy bosom? -and why does the minister keep his hand over his heart?’ She took her mother’s hand in both her own, and gazed into her eyes with an earnestness that was seldom seen in her wild and capricious character This dialogue does not seem to be the words of a demon, but a child who is utterly curious about what the letter on her mother’s bosom means. One must not underestimate Pearl’s intelligence though. In fact, Pearl is not the demon many consider her to be; instead she is intelligent and sensitive towards her surroundings and can thus understand much about the scarlet letter her mother wears. The neighboring townspeople…had given out that poor little Pearl was a demon offspring; such as, ever since old Catholic times, had occasionally been seen on earth, through the agency of their of their mother’s sin, and to promote some foul and wicked purpose. From this statement and many others similar to it throughout the novel, many readers are given the impression that Pearl is a possessed child. Before any type of statement can be made on Pearl’s intelligence or sensitivity, it is imperative for one to understand these references are an attempt on Hawthorne’s part to display to the reader a fragment of Puritanical Society. By no means is Pearl an imp. She is a curious child and, until one separates Hawthorne’s fictitious references towards Pearl’s demonic soul and Pearl’s true intelligent nature, a character analysis of Pearl’s identity cannot be created. Pearl is a living Scarlet A to Hester, as well as the reader, acting as a constant reminder of Hester’s sin They also believe Pearl uses this information against Hester by constantly mentioning the letter in order to make Hester extremely uncomfortable. Pearl, throughout the story, develops into a dynamic individual, as well as an extremely important symbol - one who is constantly changing. Pearl is involved in a complex history, and as a result is viewed as different and is shunned because of her mother’s sin. Pearl is a living Scarlet A to Hester, as well as the reader, acting as a constant reminder of Hester’s sin. Pearl is the living embodiment of the scarlet letter because she forces Hester and Dimmesdale to accept their sins. The Puritan society looks at Pearl as a child of the devil, and a black hearted girl because she is the result of sin. Hester and Dimmesdale are both in the same situation in Pearl’s eyes. Pearl wants Hester to realize that she is not the worst person in the world before she removes the scarlet letter. Pearl wants Dimmesdale to accept his sin, and be part of their life publicly. With the rumor of Pearl’s impish nature dispelled, one can now study her inquisitive and sensitive nature. When Hester Prynne refuses to reveal to Pearl the identity of the young child’s father, Pearl’s burning curiosity quickly ignites and forces her to scream out the following demand. Tell me! Tell me!…It is thou that must tell me!This is not the only time Pearl’s curiosity sparked throughout the novel. In fact, there are many times where Pearl becomes inquisitive over one mystery or another; this next example is one of them. Why, what is this, Mother?…Wherefore have all the people left their work today? Is it a playday for the whole world? In this situation, Pearl is overwhelmed by curiosity, as the entire population of Boston is decked in their finery for a reason that Pearl is not aware of. Instead of keeping silent, as a behaved Puritan child would, Pearl spills out question after question in hopes of understanding something that is an enigma to her. While Pearl’s natural curiosity drives her on the quest of discovering the truth behind the scarlet letter, it is her sensitive and intelligent nature which answers a few of the questions associated with the mystery. An example of this sensitive nature occurs after the custody battle in which Hester fights for the right to remain as the guardian of Pearl. Pearl…stole softly towards him, and taking his hand in the grasp of both her own, laid cheek against it. This seems to be Pearl’s act of gratitude towards the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale. One might wonder why the short-tempered child would behave in such a sweet way towards Dimmesdale. Perhaps she notes her mother’s frantic voice and posture as Hester pleads with the men whose wish it is to take Pearl away and give her a proper Christian upbringing. Pearl might also notice Dimmesdale’s request that the child remain with her mother, and then the softening of Hester’s face as her crisis ends. Without hearing a single word uttered, Pearl can easily see how Dimmesdale saves both her and her mother from a situation neither would enjoy. Thus, the loving gesture Pearl makes towards Dimmesdale is her silent way of saying, Thank you for the gift of youth you have just given me. Using Pearl’s characteristics of curiosity and sensitivity, one can make assumptions about whether or not Pearl understands what the scarlet letter symbolizes. While she is too young to possibly comprehend Puritanical sin and punishment, Pearl can easily understand that the letter is her mother’s chastisement and embarrassment. And, Mother, he has his hand over his heart! Is it because, when the minister wrote his name in the book, the Black Man set his mark in that place? But why does he not wear it outside his bosom, as thou dost, Mother? Through this statement made by Pearl, one may realize Pearl does see a connection between Hester’s letter and Dimmesdale’s habit of covering his heart with his hand, although she does not know what this connection is. Hawthorne uses vivid descriptions to characterize Pearl. She is first described as the infant; “…whose innocent life had sprung, by the inscrutable decree of Providence, a lovely and immortal flower, out of the rank luxuriance of a guilty passion.” From the beginning of her life she is viewed as the product of a sin, as a punishment. Physically, Pearl has a “beauty that became every day more brilliant, and the intelligence that threw its quivering sunshine over the tiny features of this child. Pearl is ravishing, with “beauty that shone with deep and vivid tints’ a bright complexion, eyes possessing intensity both of depth and glow, and hair already of a deep, glossy brown, and which, in after years, would be nearly akin to black.” Combining with her extreme beauty, are the lavish dresses that she wears. The exquisite dresses and her beauty cause her to be viewed as even stranger from the other typical Puritan children, whom aredressed in traditional clothing. As a result, she is accepted by nature and animals, and ostracized by the other Puritan children. “Pearl was a born outcast of the infantile world… the whole peculiarity, in short, of her position in respect to other children.” Pearl was not accepted by the children; her unavoidable seclusion was due to the sin of her mother. On the rare occasion that the children would show interest in Pearl she would “grow positively terrible in her puny wrath, snatching up stones to fling at them…” Pearl plays one of the most crucial roles in The Scarlet Letter. Hawthorne uses Pearl as an effective and dynamic character. When we were first introduced to Pearl, she was immediately drawn to the scarlet A on Hester’s bosom. “But the first object of which Pearl seemed to become aware was the scarlet letter on Hester’s bosom! One day, as her mother stooped over the cradle, the infant’s eyes had been caught by the glimmering of the gold embroidery about the letter’ and, putting up her little hand, she grasped at it, smiling not doubtfully, but with a decided gleam. Beginning at infancy, Pearl served as a reminder of the Scarlet A on her bosom. Hawthorne shows this symbolism various times. In Chapter 7 Pearl and Hester go to the Governor’s house and Pearl’s attire “inevitably reminded the beholder of the token which Hester Prynne was doomed to wear upon her bosom. It was the scarlet letter in another form; the scarlet letter endowed with life!” Pearl is dressed in a scarlet dress with gold fringe exactly resembling the scarlet A on Hester’s bosom. Pearl had a natural inclination to focus on the scarlet letter, which is show in its fullest in Chapter 15. “…Pearl took some eel- grass, and imitated, as best as she could, on her own bosom, the decoration with which she was so familiar on her mother’s. A letter, the letter A, but freshly green, instead of scarlet!” Throughout Pearl’s continuos questions Hester has never denied the significance of the scarlet A on her bosom. However, in this scene Hester eventually has to deny its significance to Pearl after she ceaselessly confronts her mother of its significance. One of the most symbolic scenes in the novel occurs in the forest as Pearl Hester are traveling to meet Dimmesdale. Pearl remarks to Hester that “the sunshine does not love you. It runs away and hides itself, because it is afraid of something on your bosom.” Sunshine, which symbolizes untroubled happiness, the approval of G-d and nature, rejects Hester because of her sin and the “thing on her bosom”. Therefore, Pearl constantly reminds her of her sin and her punishment. In one of the most dramatic scenes in the novel Pearl prevents Hester from escaping her sin and shame. Pearl “bursts into a fit of passion” and will not go to her mother until she puts the scarlet A back on her bosom and places her hair back underneath her cap. In the one moment that Hester attempts to escape her sin, Pearl refuses to recognize and acknowledge her until she returns to the shameful mother that she has always known. Pearl is a guiltless child, with all a child’s freshness and spontaneity, however to Hester is a persistent remembrance to the scarlet A, which she must bare on her bosom. There are many continuous themes in which Pearl and her actions are large contributions to their overall portrayal. The theme of alienation, which is exhibited throughout all of the main characters, is clearly seen in the descriptions of Pearl. Pearl is always unaccepted by the community (which has already been addressed); she is shunned because of her mother’s sin. This can easily be viewed by analyzing the many various ways she is described by Hawthorne, by being weird and eerie, having imaginary friends, and continuously being called “elf-child”. She is ostracized and alienated from the Puritan society and the children of the community, contributing largely to the theme of alienation. Another theme in which she contributes to is the theme of beauty and its portrayal. “So smooth and quiet that it reflected a perfect image of her little figure, with all the brilliant picturesqueness of her beauty, in its adornment of flower and wreathed foliage, but more refined and spiritualized than the reality.” This quote describes the beauty that Pearl has attained while she is playing in the forest and Hester and Dimmesdale talk. Her natural beauty is enhanced as she approaches Hester and Dimmesdale, her mother and father. This beauty brings together the theme of love, that is present between the three, as well as the importance of shame. While Pearl approaches her mother, whom is not wearing the scarlet A and whose hair is down, she refuses to acknowledge her without her A and capped hair. This shows Pearl’s dissent for beauty as a solution to sin, which is expressed in the first few chapter when Hester is lightly punished for her adultery. Pearl is amazing child, and perhaps one of the only many-sided characters in this novel. While the townsfolk and even Pearl’s own mother are afraid of the child, Pearl is, under close examination, a naturally inquisitive and temperamental child. Although some readers of this novel may not care to read between the lines and see beyond the labeling of demon and imp, the true Pearl is completely different from this stereotype. The real Pearl, the inquisitive, intelligent, and beautiful creature she is, becomes the symbol for salvation in this novel. Pearl may be the product of sin and filthiness, yet she possesses traits that make her an amazing child. Indeed, Pearl is the rosebush which grows near the prison door: she is the one bright spot the prisoners of this novel see as they watch from their small windows in the dungeon of their minds.

Words: 2227

Louisiana Purchase

Several great American Statesmen were pivotal in shaping and molding the government of the United States. History has since forgotten some of these founding fathers. The ones remembered throughout history are those we hold up for their accomplishments. Thomas Jefferson is one of the American Statesmen that stands out from the rest as being one of the greatest contributors to our present form of government. Historian Robert Tucker described Jefferson's life as being a paradox. He was a slave holder that was not necessarily in favor of this form of servitude. He also associated himself with the yeoman farmer, yet he traveled in company with a cosmopolitan flair. So it is to this President that we look to as he faced one of his greatest dilemmas. Jefferson, the third President of the United States, remembered primarily for two great accomplishments: he authored the Declaration of Independence and made the greatest land acquisition in our nation's history, the Louisiana Purchase. Both subjects, have been written about extensively, yet one question persists: did Thomas Jefferson exceed his fiduciary duty to the Constitution of the United States when he started the proceedings that led to the Louisiana Purchase? Thomas Jefferson was a pragmatic, articulate, and, at times, capricious leader of a young nation that had recently gained its freedom from the monarchical Great Britain. Jefferson, a Democratic Republican, made his ascension to the presidency at a time when the Federalist Party was in decline. The Louisiana Purchase would bring a great deal of discomfort to the Party. The only opposition to the purchase would consequently be the Federalist Party which, ironically, had always been in favor of a broad construction of the Constitution. The broad constructionist believed that the Constitution held implied powers to the central government. The people who interpreted the Constitution in this fashion backed the notion of strong centralization of power. The strict constructionist, like Jefferson, believed that if something in the Constitution was not described then it was unconstitutional. They also feared the abuse of power obtainable by the central government by a broad interpretation of the Constitution. Since 1493, France and Spain alternately held the Louisiana Territory. Towards the end of the 18th century the jurisdiction of the territory was under Spanish rule. New troubles were brewing on the European continent and the Americans feared that the Louisiana Territory would fall into the hands of the British. This would place the British on three sides of the Americans and they were prepared to go to war to avoid this. The Spaniards, uncertain of their British ally and fearing an insurrection from within the Louisiana Territory, signed the Treaty of San Lorenzo or Pinckney's Treaty with the Americans in 1795. Under terms of the treaty, Americans were allowed to deposit goods for overseas shipment at the port of New Orleans free of duty. The Spanish also ceded control of the Ohio River Valley to the Americans. This pleased the majority of Americans who were in favor of westward expansion, many of who were by now settling illegally in the Louisiana Territory. Securing the Mississippi River for commercial purposes was of the greatest importance to most Americans at the time. The desired peace of the country to be protected from outside interference was also the goal of those in favor of expansion. In 1799 Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew the French government and assumed control of France and her colonies. Bonaparte was anxious to build a western empire, perhaps to make up for his previous losses in Egypt. Bonaparte saw the conquest of the Caribbean island of Santo Domingo as his first step in his western expansion efforts. From Santo Domingo the French could support troops that they intended to post in New Orleans. By early 1801 American whites made up more than half of the population in upper Louisiana. In 1802 the first migration of Americans west of the Mississippi River begun and by now the Americans looked to wrest the Louisiana Territory away from the Spanish. To this dream of conquest of the Spaniards by Americans is to what Jefferson responded. He was not alone in his supposition of the need for expansion. Indeed, the one area that Jefferson and his long time nemesis, and staunch Federalist, Alexander Hamilton agreed upon was territorial expansion. In 1798, Hamilton informed a fellow Federalist, Timothy Pickering, of the necessity of acquiring the Louisiana territory. Hamilton suggested to negotiate, and endeavor to purchase; and if this fails, to go to war in order to procure the desideratum. With Hamilton's desire to maintain a strong militia one perhaps, could draw the conclusion, that Hamilton would have preferred the latter, to go to war. Jefferson sought to obtain the desired territory through diplomatic channels. Although Jefferson was not beyond using the threat of war or developing an alliance with Great Britain in order to achieve his objectives, he preferred a peaceful means to gain the desired territory. After the signing of the United States Constitution in 1787, Jefferson entered the federal government by virtue of his appointment by George Washington to the position of Secretary of State. Under this aegis, Jefferson's duties included diplomatic relations with France. During this time, Jefferson maintained an affinity with France and believed that the two countries shared a common foe in Great Britain. This changed after the ascension of Napoleon Bonaparte to Head Consul, at which time America's relations with France began to cool. America and France terminated their alliance during President John Adams' administration. Since 1798 French vessels had captured American ships and imprisoned the crews. The so called Quasi War with France ended when the Franco-American Convention of 1800 concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Morfontaine. The treaty, designed to protect America's right of neutrality, allowed for free shipping of American goods, and a restricted contraband list. For France the treaty ended hostilities with America and put American claims of indemnity for spoliation against the French on hold for the seizing of American vessels. The Treaty of Morfontaine was ratified by the United States Senate shortly after Jefferson's inauguration as President . One day after signing the Treaty of Morfontaine French diplomats requested the Spanish government to cede the Louisiana Territory to France. In the second Treaty of San Ildefonso Spain ceded the Louisiana Territory to France under French threats of garrisoning an army in Spain with the pretext of invading Portugal. Although Jefferson had always viewed Great Britain as being America's greatest threat, as the newly elected president, he was now confronted with a powerful belligerent nation poised to move into the Louisiana Territory. Jefferson, after hearing the news of the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory by France, simply refused to recognize the transfer of the territory. When Jefferson addressed the Seventh Congress in 1802, it was apparent that France had indeed acquired Louisiana, and Jefferson was forced to acknowledge the Treaty of San Ildefonso. Fearing the establishment of a French empire on the western shores of the Mississippi River, American diplomats were dispatched in an attempt to procure the Floridas and New Orleans from the French. On January 11, 1803 Jefferson requested the Senate to name James Monroe as 'minister extraordinary' to France and Spain. Secretary of State James Madison then instructed Robert R. Livingston, United States Minister to France, to try to persuade the French into transferring the Floridas to the United States. If Livingston found that the Spanish still held claim to the Floridas he was instructed to work in concert with United States Diplomat to Spain, Charles Pinckney. Because the United States was not sure which country had dominion over Louisiana and the Floridas, it sent diplomats to both countries in order to achieve their objectives. At the time neither Jefferson nor Madison realized that they had placed in motion the vehicle that would lead to the Louisiana Purchase. While the Americans pondered the prospect of having the French moving into the area across the Mississippi River, the French were embroiled in a violent struggle on the island of Santo Domingo. The conquest of Santo Domingo was to be the first step in building France's western empire. The determined resistance of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo made them an unwitting ally of the Americans. The decimation of Napoleon's troops in this unfriendly environment would be the pivotal point of capitulation for the French Emperor. Napoleon had wasted supplies and man power in the futile attempt to take the Caribbean Island which ended in the defeat of the French. Coinciding with the calamity on Santo Domingo new aggressions were building on the European continent between France and England. Jefferson was not beyond threatening an alliance with the English as a way to force Napoleon into relinquishing his control over the Louisiana Territory. Little did Jefferson know that such an alliance was unnecessary, for at the same time that he was attempting to force Napoleon's hand, the Emperor was determined to keep Louisiana away from the English. In April of 1803, James Monroe was dispatched to Paris under the pretext of assisting in the negotiations started by Livingston. Monroe was unaware of the fact that Napoleon had already become determined to release Louisiana to the Americans. On April 10, 1803, seeking favor with the Americans, Napoleon carried on the following discourse with his minister, Barbe Marbois. Napoleon was not one for procrastinating. On the morning of April 11, 1803, Livingston was quickly summoned to the French Court. French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand- Perigord offered up the entire Louisiana Territory. At first Livingston balked, suggesting that the Americans were only interested in New Orleans and Florida. On the next day Monroe reached Paris. Livingston in an attempt to achieve the fait accompli prior to Monroe's knowledge of the treaty, tried to persuade Talleyrand into repeating the offer. This effort on the part of Livingston met with Talleyrand's silence. Although Monroe had reached Paris prepared to take up the negotiations for the Louisiana Territory, the agreement was made in large part by Livingston. Livingston quickly brought Monroe up to speed over the nature of the negotiations. While at dinner on the evening of April 12, 1803, they encountered the French diplomat Marbois. Monroe, weary from his journey to Paris, retired in short order and Livingston carried on the conversation with Marbois. Later that evening the two diplomates effectually secured the bargain. The only remaining difficulty was the settlement of the price before Napoleon had a chance to change his mind. The Americans and Napoleon agreed to a price which amounted to roughly fifteen million dollars, to be procured through the sale of bonds. The stipulation that called for the immediate incorporation into the Union would be the subject of future debate in the United States. The lack of specific boundaries of the Louisiana Territory would also be a topic for future discussion with the French and Americans. Hence, Livingston and Monroe were able to report from Paris on 13 May 1803, that the purchase had been completed, minus the desired region of Florida, which remained under the dominion of Spain. Negotiations with the Spanish continued over this area and in 1819 the Americans would receive all of Florida from Spain in the Treaty of Adams-Obis. In early July 1803, the news of the Louisiana Purchase reached American shores via the New England Federalist, Rufus King. Once in Boston, King wasted no time in relaying the information to long time friend George Cabot. Cabot believed the sale to be advantageous to the French. Cabot believed that the French were simply giving up territory that they were incapable of defending and looking to better their relations with America. Cabot, unaware of Napoleon's discussion with Marbois, had correctly ascertained Napoleon's motivation. The harshest criticism of the purchase came from Jefferson's arch rival, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton believed that it was through pure serendipity that Monroe and Livingston walked away with the treaty rather then any skill on their part. Hamilton viewed the western territories as only being beneficial to Spain and that we could possibly use the territory as barter to obtain the Floridas. Henry Adams suggested that it was only due to the desperate courage of five hundred thousand Haitian negroes who would not be enslaved that enabled the United States to procure the Louisiana Territory. The probability exists that had Napoleon's armies successfully conquered the island of Santo Domingo, they would have had a base of operations in the western hemisphere. From there they could have easily made their way to the port of New Orleans and successfully closed the mouth of the Mississippi River to American commerce. Jefferson's party greeted the news with jubilation. Accolades poured into the Federal Capital at Washington from Jefferson's constituents. Future President Andrew Jackson sent his congratulations to Jefferson. John Adams would eventually make public his views on the matter several years after the fact. In a letter to one of his constituents, Benjamin Rush, Adams was pleased with the purchase of Louisiana, because, without it, we could never have secured and commanded the navigation of the Mississippi. Hence, one venerable old Federalist broke party lines and sided with the Jeffersonians. In a July 17, 1803 letter to his friend Daniel Clarke, Jefferson describes his attitude of the purchase. The cession of Louisiana by France to the United States, a cession which will give as much satisfaction to the inhabitants of that province as it does to us. Jefferson also used this device to convey his intention of convening the Eighth Congress of the United States as early as October 17, 1803 in order to consider ratification of the treaty, which occurred on November 25, 1803. The constitutional debates that followed would bring great concern to President Jefferson. For sometime, he believed the Constitution had been violated, by making the purchase. This has been an area of debate because the Constitution does not specify how the United States can gain territory. It only covers provisions of territory already in the domain of the United States at the time of its signing. To some, the ambiguous nature of the Constitution appeared to be intentional on the part of the writers. Subsequent to ratification of the treaty by Congress, Henry W. Livingston petitioned Gouverneur Morris, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Federal convention, in an attempt to ascertain the intention of the framers of the constitution on this point. This paper restriction that Morris so casually referred to would bring many uneasy hours to Jefferson. If Jefferson were to maintain his strict constructionist view of the Constitution, he would have to stick to every word of it. As we have seen, no where in the Constitution does it delegate how the United States is to procure new territory. Yet, one must consider that the constitution was but sixteen years old at the time, and that the old Articles of Confederation were still fresh in the minds of American politicians. Contained in Article eleven of the Articles of Confederation was the passage that, Canada was to be admitted to the United States and also to be entitled to all the advantages of the Union. So to the majority of politicians the United States should simply absorb the Louisiana Territory into the Nation. While Congress prepared to convene on October 17, 1803, Jefferson considered his options. He could either ask congress to amend the Constitution to allow the new territory into the Union, or quietly submit the treaty for ratification. Attorney General Levi Lincoln suggested that Jefferson boldly announce and defend the constitutionality of the purchase in his message to Congress. Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, was quick to discount this suggestion with his own opinion on the subject. Gallatin noted that if it was unlawful for the United States Government to acquire territory then it would be just as unlawful for individual states to do so. Gallatin went on to advise Jefferson that the United States as a nation has the right to acquire territory and that when the territory was gained by way of treaty the same constituted authorities in whom the treaty making power is vested have a constitutional right to sanction the acquisition, and once a territory has been acquired Congress has the power of either of admitting into the Union as a new state, or of annexing to a State with the consent of that state, or of making regulations for the government of such territory. This interpretation of the Constitution was perhaps as liberal and broad as the Federalists themselves might have made. Gallatin was not alone in his interpretation of the Constitution. Thomas Paine took the occasion to voice his opinion on the matter in a letter to Jefferson. Paine's letter, along with the position that Gallatin held, slowly worked to change Jefferson's mind on the constitutional issue. He still held to the idea that an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary to incorporate the Louisiana Territory into the Union. This was due to Jefferson's strict constructionist views towards the constitution. Accordingly, Jefferson drafted two amendments to the Constitution, but finally on advice of his constituents never submitted either of them to Congress for debate. Jefferson was not alone in his assumption that a constitutional amendment was required to absorb the new territory into the Union. Massachusetts Senator John Quincy Adams also drafted an amendment to the Constitution. Adams believed that the consent of the people of both the United States and those in the Louisiana territory was necessary to allow the latter into the Union. Adams invited Secretary of State James Madison and fellow Senate member Timothy Pickering to review the proposed amendment. Neither Madison or Pickering approved of the amendment yet both agreed on the correctness of the principle. Madison considered that the words of the amendment should simply read, Louisiana is admitted as a part of the Union. The simplicity of Madison's suggestion is admirable during a time of seeming confusion. Jefferson, beyond all else, insisted on preserving the integrity of the Constitution. He said that when an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. Jefferson realized at the time that future generations would look to his actions as an example and he certainly did not want to make the constitution a blank paper by construction. Jefferson believed it the duty of the government is to set an example against broad construction, by appealing for new power to the people. Wilson Cary Nichols urged the President not to convey his opinion of the constitutionality of the treaty. Nichols suggested that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Jefferson chose the later suggestion and apparently now put aside his strict constructionist views and recognized a broad construction of the Constitution. Jefferson now decided the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. When Jefferson addressed the Eighth Congress, he praised the purchase of Louisiana but said nothing about its constitutionality. In this manner Jefferson was leaving the constitutional question up to the members of the House and Senate . The Republicans outnumbered the Federalist in both houses of Congress, ensuring ratification of the treaty. Ratification was not easy. Republican John Randolph, chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, submitted a resolution to pass the treaty of cession. Federalist Congressman, Gaylord Griswold requested documentation from the President to prove that the French indeed held the territory and were in a position to sell. Randolph denounced the request as useless, dangerous, & an encroachment on the prerogatives of the Executive. This tactic worked for the Republicans, and Griswold was defeated by the slim margin of fifty-nine to fifty-seven. Although the Republicans had managed to thwart the Federalists on this account, there was indeed some concern of France's right to sell the territory. Secretary of State James Madison had previously received a communiqué from the Spanish envoy, Marques de Casa Yrujo, claiming that the French had never carried out the provisions of the treaty of San Ildefonso. Whether the French had actually held up their end of the bargain with Spain was not the American's concern. What did concern the Americans was whether the French had ever received the transfer of ownership of the territory from Spain. Madison was reassured on the matter when Louis Andre Pichon, French charge d'affaires, delivered the order signed on October 15, 1802 by the Spanish King, Charles IV, that ceded the Louisiana territory to France. The following day Griswold again led the debate for the Federalists. Griswold implied that the framers of the Constitution, carried their ideas to the time when there might be an extended population; but they did not carry them to the time when an addition might be made to the Union of a territory equal to the whole United States, which additional territory might overbalance the existing territory, and thereby the rights of the present citizens of the United States be swallowed up and lost. Randolph again responded to Griswold's complaint, reasoning that the Constitution could not restrict the country to particular limits because at the time of the framing of the Constitution the boundary was unsettled on the northeastern, northwestern, and southern frontiers. This was a complete about race for Randolph who, like Jefferson, had previously been in favor of a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. It seems that broad construction fever had settled upon the vast majority of the Republicans. Federalist Roger Griswold of Connecticut next took up the debate and rebuked Gaylord Griswold's assertions. Roger Griswold argued that a new territory may undoubtedly be obtained by conquest and by purchase; but neither the conquest nor the purchase can incorporate them into the Union. Griswold suggested that the new territory should be retained in the form of colonies and governed as such, but that the President and Senate could not admit a foreign people in the Union as a State. Joseph H. Nicholson, Republican Congressman from Maryland, took up the debate and argued that the United States as a sovereign nation had a right to acquire new territory. Nicholson asserted that under the terms of the Constitution, the right to declare war was given to congress; the right to make treaties, to the President and Senate. This basically supported the position that Griswold had held. The point that Nicholson was trying to make was that the United States government alone had the power to make treaties. Advocates of States' rights issues shuddered at such a centralizing of power assertion as this. Republican Congressman Caesar A. Rodney of Delaware next took up the attack. Rodney cited the necessary and proper clause and many strict constructionist viewed this clause as being the most dangerous medium of a centralized government. Rodney stated Have we not also vested in us every power necessary for carrying such a treaty into effect...? This virtually ended the debate in the House of Representatives. After only one day of discussion on the floor, the treaty had been ratified. In the vote, ninety Republicans supported Randolph with their votes, and twenty-five Federalists alone protested. In so doing, the Republicans had now in fact taken up the position formerly held by the Federalist. The centralizing of power placed in the hands of the Federal government would have made many of the Republicans consider seceding from the Union only a few years earlier. Now that such ideas supported their needs they embraced this notion as if they had conceived it on their own. On November 2, 1803, debates started in the Senate over the treaty. Senator Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts led the debate for the Federalists. Pickering agreed with the suggestion that the United States had the right to purchase or conquer new territories. He also believed that the government had the right to govern new territories but he ascertained that neither the President nor Congress could incorporate this territory in the Union, nor could the incorporation lawfully be effected even by an ordinary amendment to the Constitution. Pickering also said that he believes the assent of each individual State to be necessary for the admission of a foreign country as an associate in the Union. The point Pickering was arguing was the states' rights issue. The reason the Federalists had taken up this side of the argument was an attempt to protect their rights. The Federalist party had long since been losing ground to the Republicans and they feared being squeezed out of policy making procedures all together. The debate over states' rights was pushed on by Republican Senator John Taylor from Caroline, Virginia. Taylor also voiced his objection to the increased powers of the central government. He believed that the United States government...had bought a foreign people without their consent and without consulting the States, and pledged itself to incorporate this people in the Union. Taylor consequently agreed that the government could make treaties, but should appeal to the public for a broadening of its powers. Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut followed Taylor and perhaps put forth the best argument of all the Federalists. Tracy said I have no doubt but we can obtain territory either by conquest or compact,....but to admit the inhabitants into the Union , to make citizens of them, and States, by treaty, we cannot constitutionally do. Thus the portion of the treaty that required the inhabitants of the Louisiana territory to become admitted to the Union became the greatest point of dissension between the two parties. John Breckenridge from Kentucky answered Tracy's argument. Breckenridge asserted that the admission by treaty of a foreign State was less dangerous, and therefore more constitutional, than such ownership of foreign territory. Breckenridge maintained the position that if the Union were to accept Tracy's argument that America could incorporate ten millions of inhabitants,and thereby destroy our government. Then certainly the thing would be possible if Congress would do it and the people consent to it....The true construction must depend on the manifest import of the instrument and the good sense of the community. The Senate, after two days of debate, ratified the treaty by a vote of twenty-four to seven. The dissenters were the New England Federalists including Hamilton's long time friend Timothy Pickering. The Federalists feared that the enormity of the area purchased would consequently reduce their power in the government as the acquisition would upset the balance of power between the New England States and the Western States. The general consensus at the time of a lasting peace with foreign powers and control of the Mississippi River over rode the constitutional issue. The inhabitants of the Louisiana Territory would be treated as nationals of the United States. The western territory would eventually become the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Oklahoma and much of Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. Jefferson stated his views of the purchase perhaps best in a letter to Doctor Joseph Priestly. I look to this duplication of area for the extending a government so free and economical as ours, as a great achievement to the mass of happiness which is to ensue. The government had done just that, retained the freedom of the existing States, while at the same time liberating the Louisiana territory from the despotism of European powers. For Napoleon, the sale of the Louisiana Territory set a precedent in his loss of national appeal. No true Frenchman could forgive the emperor for trading away such a vast empire for so paltry a sum. Napoleon blamed the loss of the North American territory on the affair of Santo Domingo and called it his Louisianicide. The Republicans, in order to ratify the treaty of cession, took on the broad construction views that had been held by the Federalist party. At the same time the majority of the Federalists attempted to adhere to a stricter interpretation of the Const itution. This change of views occured in order to meet their respective agendas. The Republicans wanted the territory and considered an alliance with England in necessary. The Federalists knew that as the country continued to grow ever westward that the New England States would lose the power that they held with the rest of the Nation. The Federalist party was by now in decline on a national level and the Louisiana Purchase added to their decline. The Federalists had lost so much favor in the new Nation that they never regained the presidency. Rufus King from New York in 1816 was the last presidential candidate put forth by the Federalist party. Jefferson redefined the nature of the executive office during his presidency. The Louisiana Purchase effectively broadened presidential power and put more authority into the hands of the central government. The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the existing United States and set a precedent for expansion. It has been viewed as the progenitor of the Monroe Doctrine. Under provisions of the Doctorine, the American continents are not to be considered as subjects for future colonization. The constitutional issue, decided oddly enough by a man that Jefferson despised as much as he did Hamilton. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, viewed by Jefferson with a repugnance tinged by a shade of some deeper feeling, almost akin to fear. Marshall believed that by Jefferson weakening the office of President it would increase his personal power. In 1828 under the direction of Chief Justice John Marshall the Supreme Court found that the Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of the Union the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently, that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or treaty. Thus the issue was finally put to rest after twenty-five years of uncertainty. Bibliography1. Bergh, Albert Ellery, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907. 2. Ferguson, E. James, ed. Selected Writings of Albert Gallatin. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1967. 3. .Foner, Philip S., ed. The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: The Citadel Press, 1969. 3. Koch, Adrienne & Peden, William, ed. The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946. 4. Morris, Anne Cary., ed., The Diary And Letters of Gouverneur Morris, vol. II. New York: Trow's Printing and Bookbinding Company, 1889. 5. Adams, Henry. History of the United States during the Administration of Thomas Jefferson. Nine volumes. New York: Albert & Charles Boni, 1930.

Words: 5111

Lock Picking By Shoedog

Lock Picking Lock picking is an art in its entirety. It takes lots of hard work, practice, and patience to pick a lock. Being able to sit in one place for a long time doing something that at first seems hopeless is the key to learning how to pick a lock. In the world of locks there are probably 1000's of different locks. The most common type of lock is the pin tumbler lock. Since this type of lock is the most commonly used lock, this is what I will use to teach the basics of lock picking. To start things off you must first learn how a lock works. The most basic of locks as stated above is the pin tumbler lock. A tumbler lock has a plug and shell with usually five pins with spring tension. Each pin has two parts, a top pin and a bottom pin. Both of which are held in a groove by a spring. As a key is inserted, the two pin parts are aliened to what is called the shear line. When the key is fully inserted into the key way all of the pins aliened to the shear line. Thus this turns the key freely between the plug and the shell along the shear line. Before you begin to pick a lock you need some basic tools. I might suggest for a beginner to start out with simply a safety pin and a very tiny Philips head screwdriver or a paper clip. First open up your safety pin to about a 60 degree angle. Then bend the very tip of the safety pin to approximately a 55 degree angle. This will be your pick. Next bend the tip of the screwdriver to an 85 degree angle or do the same with a paper clip. This will be your tension wrench. Now that you have your tools you a ready to pick your first lock! The mechanics of lock picking all lie in a very tiny error in nearly all locks. As tension is applied in usually a clock word direction the pin binds. This makes it possible to pick a lock one pin at a time. Another way to bind a pin is by applying sheer force. In which you push the plug into the shell with a slight direct pressure as you torque the plug clockwise with a tension wrench. As a pin is pushed up with the pick the top pin slides over the plug while the bottom pin drops below the sheer line into the plug. Thus by this action each pin is set one at a time. Now that you understand the physics of lock picking the rest will be easy. Your first step in picking a lock all lies on the tension wrench. I could never emphasize the importance of how you handle this tool so pay extra special attention to what I have to say. Your first step is to place the wrench into the bottom part of the key way. Gently put a clockwise torque to the wrench. If you are right handed do this with your left hand. Next take you safety pin or pick and insert it all of the way to the back of the key way. Now at this point there are two things you can do. The first of which is to push up each individual pin as you use torque on the wrench. As you do this be very sure to put equal tension on the torque as the tension on the springs have on your pick. Secondly and my personal favorite method is to slide the pick across the pins in a scrubbing motion. Try to combine both these picking styles as you pick. When the top of the key pin reaches the sheer line you will feel the plug give slightly. This is called a set pin. The way you know when a pin is set is when it shakes loosely without the pressure of the spring. It will also make a jiggling sound when shaken. Try to be relaxed as possible and over use your sense of hearing and touch. This all may take awhile, but it all comes with a lot of patience and lots of practice. Warning This short paper on how to pick a lock is for personal satisfaction and enjoyment only. It is illegal to pick or tamper with any lock that is not of personal property anywhere in the US If the owner of the lock is not present and you are caught expect some jail time. It is breaking and entering. Another thing to keep in mind is not to show off. This will only mess you up and you will not be able to pick the lock!

Words: 800

Letter Of Recommendation

Letter of Recommendation for Raj Rishi Chatterjee I should like to write a few words in support of Mr. Raj Rishi Chatterjee's application for graduate admission in your department. He is interested in pursuing his graduate work in the broad area of Computer Science. I have known Raj Rishi for two years. For two semesters, he was a student in my Computer Systems and Organization Class and laboratory course. In all the two semesters, he was one of my top students. I found him hard working and diligent to do the work assigned. More importantly, he is able to plan and organize his work efficiently. During the oral examinations, I found that he was perceptive and able to think logically. He also is enthusiastic and showed the initiative to understand and solve problems. Like most Indian students he has studied Electronics Engineering for 4 years and his fundamentals are quite sound now. Though he was admitted to Electronics and Communication discipline, he has pursued Computer Science and Engineering as an additional area of expertise. While being good in Electronics related subjects, he has shown immense interest and potential in the subjects of Computer Science. Out of his own personal interest, he has gone through the topics of Data Structures, Algorithms, Object Oriented Programming and Operating Systems, etc. He has also studied programming concepts and is proficient in Visual C++, Visual Basic, Oracle and Web Programming using Active X and Java. As a result of this, he was to develop the following innovative shareware software:- a) Multilingual Word Processor (supporting English, Hindi, Bengali, and Marathi, four major regional languages of India), b) Personal Reminder Program (an automated appointment diary) and c) 8085 Simulator. Raj Rishi has demonstrated his leadership and teamwork qualities being an active participant in the events organized by I.E.E.E. (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and has been a key organizer for Debates, Symposiums and Programming Competitions in the institute. Although I have not had sufficient opportunity to judge his writing skill, his oral communication skills in English are very good. From what I have seen of him I think he holds promise in the field of research. I have taught several hundreds of students and in my opinion he belongs to first ten students I strongly liked to suggest to go for advanced research for the benefit of Computer Science. In short I have no reservations in recommending his admission at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Yours faithfully, mr

Words: 416

Legality Of Same Sex Marriages!

INTRODUCTION The proposed legalization of same sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. Presently, it is one of the most vigorously advocated reforms discussed in law reviews, one of the most provocative issues. It could be one of the most revolutionary policy decisions in the history of American family law. The potential consequences, positive or negative, for children, parents, same-sex couples, families, social, structure public health, and the status of women are enormous. Given the importance of the issue, the value of comprehensive debate may be obvious. Marriage is much more than a commitment to love one another. Aside from societal and religious conventions, marriage entails legally imposed financial responsibility and legally authorized financial benefits. Marriage instantly provides a automatic legal succession of a deceased spouse's property, as well as pension and law, as well as promise in the eyes of the Lord, and their as well as to enjoy its benefits, should the law prohibit their request merely because they are of the same gender? I intend to prove that because of Article IV of the United States Constitution. there is no reason why the federal government nor any state government should restrict marriage to a predefined homosexual relationship? Marriage laws have changed throughout the years. In Western law, wives are now equal rather than subordinate partners; interracial marriage is now widely accepted, both in the statue and in society; and marital failure itself, rather than the fault of one partner, may be grounds in some states for a divorce. Societal changes have been felt in marriages over the past twenty-five years as divorce rates have increased. Proposals to legalize same-sex marriages or to enact broad domestic partnership laws are currently being promoted by gay and lesbian activists, especially in Europe and North America. The trend in western European nations during the past decade has been to some same-sex couples. For example, with in the past six years, three Scandinavian countries have enacted domestic partnership laws allowing same-sex couples in which at least one partner is a citizen of the specified country. Therefore allowing that homosexual marriages are given. In the Netherlands, the Parliament is considered domestic partnership status for same-sex couples, all the major political parties favor recognizing same-sex relations, and more than a dozen towns have already done so. Finland provides governmental social benefits to same-sex partners. Belgium allows gay prisoners the right to have a conjugal visits from same-sex partners. An overwhelming majority of European nations have granted partial legal status to homosexual relationships. In the United States, efforts to legalize same-sex domestic partnership have had some, limited success. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. reported that by mid- 1995, thirty-six municipalities, eight countries, three states, five state agencies, and two federal agencies extended some benefits to, or registered for official purposes, same-sex partnerships. In 1994, the California legislature passed a domestic partnership bill that provided official state registration of same-sex couples and provided limited marital rights and privileges relating to hospital visitation, willis and estates, and powers of attorney. While California's Governor Wilson eventually vetoed the bill, its passage by the legislature represented a notable political achievement for advocates of the same-sex marriage have won a major judicial victory that could lead to the judicial legalization of the same-sex marriage or to legislation authorizing same-sex domestic partnership in that state. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court, in Baehr vs. Lewin, vacated a state circuit court judgment dismissing same-sex discrimination under the state constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Equal Rights Amendment. The above case began in 1991 when three same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the Hawaii Department of Health brought suit in state court against the director of the department. Hawaii law required couples wishing to marry to obtain a marriage license. While the marriage license law did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage at the time, it used terms of gender that the Hawaii marriage license law is unconstitutional, as it prohibits same-sex marriage and allows state officials to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples in account of the heterosexuality requirement. Baehr and her attorney sought their objectives entirely through state law, not only by filing in state rather than federal court, but also by alleging exclusively violations of state law--the Hawaii Constitution. the state moved for judgment on the pleadings and for dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim; the state's motion was granted in October, 1991. thus, the circuit court up held the homosexuality marriage requirement as a matter of law and dismissed the plaintiffs' challenges to it. Yet recently the Circuit Court of Hawaii decided that Hawaii had violated Baehr and her parent's constitutional rights be the fourteenth amendment and that they could be recognized as a marriage. The court found that the state if Hawaii's constitution expressly discriminated against homosexuals and that because of Hawaii's anti-discrimination law they must revaluate the situation. After the ruling the state immediately asked for a stay of judgment, until the appeal had been convened, therefore putting off any marriage between Baehr and her partner for at least a year. By far Baehr is the most positive step toward actual marriage tights for gay and lesbian people. Judges do not need the popularity of the people on the Federal or circuit court level to make new precedent, there is no clear majority (in the general public) that homosexuals should have marriage rights. And still the courts voted for Baehr. The judiciary has its own mind on how to interpret the constitution, which is obviously very different than most of American popular beliefs. This is the principal reason that these judges are not elected by the people, so they do not have to bow to people pressure. The constitutional rights argument for same-sex marriage affirms that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marry, or a broader right of privacy or of intimate association of consenting adults who want to share their lives and commitment with each other and that same-sex couples have just as much intimacy and need for marital privacy as heterosexual couples; and that laws allowing heterosexual, but not same-sex, couples to marry infringe upon and discriminate against this fundamental right. The Supreme court compelled states to allow interracial marriage by recognizing the claimed right as part of the fundamental constitutional right to marry, of privacy and of intimate association. So should states be compelled now to recognize the fundamental right of homosexuals to do the same? If Baehr ultimately leads to the legalization of same-sex marriage or broad, marriage like domestic partnership in Hawaii, the impact of that legalization will be felt widely. Marriage recognition principals derived from choice -of -law and full-faith-and-credit rules probably would be invoked to recognize same-sex Hawaiian marriages as valid in other states. The impact of Hawaii's decision will immediately impact marriage laws of the United States. The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution provides that full faith and credit shall be given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Marriage qualifies for recognition under each section: 1) Creation of marriage is public act because it occurs pursuant to a statuary scheme and is performed by a legal designated official, and because a marriage is an act by the state; 2) A marriage certificate is a record with a outlined legal effect, a showing that a marriage has been validly contracted , that the spouses meet the qualifications of the marriage statues, and they have duly entered matrimony. Public records of lesser consequence, such as birth certificates and automobile full faith and credit; 3) Celebrating a marriage is a judicial proceeding where judges, court clerks, or justices of the peace perform the act of marriage. It would seem evident that if heterosexual couples use Article IV as a safety net and guarantee for their wedlock then that same right should be given to homosexual couples. This Article has often been cited as a reference point for interracial marriages in the south when those states do not want to recognize the legitimacy of that union by another state . As this is used for that lifestyle, there is no logical reason it should be denied to perhaps millions of homosexual couples in the name of the normal people who actively seek to define their definition of all. It is these normal people who create the definition of surplus repression and social domination. Yet as they cling to the Constitution for their freedoms they deny those same freedoms to not normal people because they would lose their social domination. Therefore it would seem they are afraid to change because of all the hype about homosexuals. People do not except that the world does change. Excuses were seldom used to get a divorce by using the full faith and credit clause. Both partners in the marriage do not agree in the reality of there marriage. He then goes to Reno, Nevada, buys a house and gets a job for six weeks. After that six weeks when he can declare himself a legal resident he applies for a singular marriage void and because of Nevada law allows one side to void their marriage if they, are a resident of Nevada their marriage is now void. The man now moves back to his home state, and upon doing so this state must now recognize the legitimacy that Nevada has voided out of the marriage. Even if the wife does not consent, the new state cannot do anything about its Legislation enacted by President Clinton from Senator Don Nickles of Nevada called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has allowed individual states to react differently to any intrusion of marriage that they feel is not proper. DOMA states marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Supports of DOOM also claim clear constitutional warrant, and that congress is exercising its own authority under Article IV to proscribe the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every state, shall be proven. However it could seem that by allowing individual states to alter and change what the meaning of marriage is, it could create a disaster if heterosexuals want to wed. The underlying principle in DOMA is that states now have the right to redefine what they feel is or is not appropriate behavior and shall be considered legal or illegal in their state. It is also apparent that the signing of DOMA by President Clinton was more of a presidential campaign gesture then an actual change in policy. While he has considerably shifted from his platform in 1992. This move was specifically designed to change his image among more conservative voters. It is also was apparent that this move was because a majority of conservative Americans still voted for Bob Dole in the 1996 Presidential election. Clinton thought that if he had changed his mind then maybe he could get some more votes from the conservatives, who he thought would vote for him with the new signing of the DOMA. Clinton, now that he has been reelected, partially under the front of a more moderate administration. Clinton should rethink on the policy of the social change and whether he wants to go out as the President that denied hundreds of thousands of homosexuals the opportunity for equal rights. In 1967 the Supreme Court announced that marriage is one of the most basic civil rights of man....essential to the pursuit of happiness. having the highest court on the land make such a profound statement about something which current politicians think they can regulate like phone or TV's as something short of appalling. For who is to say what happiness can be created form wed lock but the people that are in the act itself, per couple, household and gender. The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act proclaim that All marriages contracted....outside this State that were valid at the time of the contract or subsequently validated by the laws of the place in which they were contracted....are valid in this State. This Act has been enacted in seventeen states and could be the foundation for full faith and credit if homosexual marriages were to take place in other states. However as much as the right wing conservatives wish to pursue an aggressive anti-gay lifestyle agenda the DOMA act has been widely criticized as intensely unconstitutional. It is bias and discriminatory toward homosexuals and therefore against the United States Constitution and once again the fourteenth amendment proclaiming all citizens equal. Fearing that the state may have to recognize same-sex marriages from Hawaii and Alaska, because of the controversy over DOMA the state legislatures of Arizona, South Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, and Georgia, have made preemptive strikes and enacted state legislation which bars recognition of same-sex marriages. Several other state legislatures, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, have attempted to enact similar legislation, but failed. After Hawaiian marriages are brought to these states for enforcement, these laws will lead each state into a potential separate constitutional challenge of its same-sex marriage ban. Those cases should be the new foundation for a sweeping change in popular American politics and thought and will perhaps pave the road for increased awareness of this human rights issue. Leaving aside, as government should, objections that may be held by particular religions, the cases that are with same-sex marriages are not good for people because they are not use to hearing about it, and don't want to hear about it. At the same time, it is an argument for legalizing homosexual marriages through politics as in Denmark, rather than by court order, as may happen in Hawaii.

Words: 2307