Piety and Impiety Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Piety and Impiety - Essay Example This meant he was more likely to face the consequences of his actions as those against him yielded the power to prosecute him. According to Plato’s (Socrates close friend) account, Socrates prosecution was masterminded by Anytus, a leading democrat. In the years before Socrates trial, the Tyrants had taken over Athens, these were lead by Critias, a former pupil of Socrates (Brickhouse and Smith 26). Many of the Athenians who supported the democrats and the democrats who were overthrown by the tyrants viewed Criatias actions as emanating from Socrates teachings. The fact that Critias made it clear that he had cast aside the follies of his youth, such as education, did not change the Athenians view of Socrates role in the growth of the tyrants. Soon after, the Tyrants were replaced by the democrats. As a sign of reconciliation and a means of healing the wounds of the civil war Socrates perceived role was sidestepped. However, Anytus who was a leading voice among the democrats wa s not as forgiving. His actions were not only a result of the civil war but were mostly personal as his son was a keen follower of Socrates teachings. ... The first of these charges was impiety. Under impiety, Socrates was accused of believing in multiple gods of which the state never believed in. In extension, he failed to seek divine explanations and instead sought natural explanation for natural phenomenon. The second charge was that he corrupted the young, as part of the charge Socrates was accused of invoking a spirit of criticism among the youth (Fagan and John 121). As part of his regular teachings Socrates received great audience from the youth across all social groups in Athens, he critically evaluated prominent individuals in the marketplace. In his cross-examination of prominent people such as poets, artisans, and statesmen Socrates often dismissed them as lacking in knowledge and believing to know more than they actually did (Brickhouse and Smith 26). It is his ability to criticize those in power that he struck a code with the young and this had a profound effect among them. As stated, Socrates trial was a result of witch h unting and a bulk of what Socrates was accused of was a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of his engagements in Athens. According to the Athenians, piety was a representation of several engagements. Key among these was respect for the gods, the dead and the ancestors. They believed that any impious person was only attracting the wrath of the gods and the entire society would suffer in return, mainly through plague and sterility. Impiety charge was thus a serious charge among the Athenians. Because Socrates was a critique of existent practice it is possible that any of his words or actions would have translated to an impiety charge. A keen follower of moral instructions, Socrates may have failed to take part in significant religious festivals. Further, he attracted

Theology of Death Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Theology of Death - Essay Example Still, whatever we may think, death is with us virtually every day - in news reports, in films, books, and, sadly, sometimes right around us when somebody whom we have known passes away. That is why everyone is instigated by circumstances to form a peculiar vision of death, which could be called ones own theology of death. Personally, I try to base my theology of death not only on some banal reasoning but on ideas advanced by theologians and philosophers as well. For example, an interesting and thought provoking opposition of views on death can be found in the account of a symposium "Extended Life, Eternal Life". There, one speaker, a terminally ill Diogenes Allen, voiced his view of the fundamental inferiority of human life, which, if indefinitely extended, at some point would no longer be able to satisfy us because of its repetitious nature. This, as Allen reasons, turns death into a kind of blessing, as it finally opens the way for Gods perfect love, the tempting essence of which one may anticipate already during our earthly being. In his turn, another speaker Neil Gillman sees no redemptive function in death as he proclaims it to be mans enemy.

An Analysis Relations Between The Us And Israel Politics Essay

An Analysis Relations Between The Us And Israel Politics Essay During more than four decades of state-building, Israelis have looked to the United States for inspiration, financial and military assistance, and diplomatic support. Americans, in turn, have viewed Israel with a special appreciation for its successful effort to follow the Western democratic tradition, its remarkable economic development, and its determined struggle against its uncompromising enemies. in this Paper will indicate the beginning of US-Israeli relations, the US policy towards Israel , then the public opinion about Israel, the role of Israeli lobby in USA, the timeline of US -Israeli relations , then US Criticism to Israel ,the current relations. -Research problem: Why does it seem that Israels relationship with the United States beyond the barriers of political and ideological? -Research Questions: 1-what are roots of US -Israeli relations? 2- Is Israel exploiting America? 3- What are the interests between them? 4-Does US criticizes Israeli Policy? 5- Dose US Foreign Policy towards are affected by Israeli policy? The Hypothesis: The relations between Israeli and United States through politics and history. My approach will be Conflict Management Approach. Introduction: Since the creation of the Jewish state on May 14, 1948, the United States and Israel have maintained very strong ties. Israel owes it very existence in large part to the efforts of the United States. Traditionally, Israel has been looked upon as a solid friend and ally in a very tumultuous region of the world. A tremendous amount of aid, especially military and economic, has been given to the country. American support for Israel has been accepted as the right thing to do. Israel currently receives about $3 billion per year in economic and military grants, refugee settlement assistance, and other aid. Congress has monitored the aid issue closely along with other issues in bilateral relations, and its concerns have affected Administrations policies. the beginning of US relations began U. S.-Israeli relations have evolved from an initial American policy of sympathy and support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in 1948 to an unusual partnership that links a small but militarily powerful Israel, dependent on the United States for its economic and military strength, with the U. S. superpower trying to balance competing interests in the region. American support for the age-old aspirations of the Jewish people to return to their homeland dates from the Colonial period when John Adams wrote: I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation for, as I believe, the most enlightened men of it have participated in the amelioration of the philosophy of the age. In 1917, Lord Balfour sent a letter to Lord Rothschild, president of the British Zionist Federation, stating that the British Government would facilitate the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. President Wilson expressed his support for the Balfour Declaration when he stated on March 3, 1919. Congress was no less sympathetic to the Zionist objective. One can look back to the joint Congressional resolutions of 1922 and 1944 that unanimously passed an endorsement of the Balfour Declaration. The House Foreign Affairs Committee stated in 1922, Legislatures in 33 states, representing 85 percent of the population, also adopted resolutions favoring the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Governors of 37 states, 54 United States senators, and 250 congressmen signed petitions to the President.  [1]  23 History of the American-Israeli relations can be divided into during the previous phase to four major periods: 1-Phase ONE from 1948 to 1973: During the first phase of this period was characterized by the development of strategic relations between the two sides slowly with the declaration of the State of Israel and the recognition by the United States, and the Suez Crisis of 1956, which resulted from the introduction of Israels strategic vision of America in the region, from the premise that Israels moderate is not a burden, and then revealed years following the crisis until the 1967 war on the frequency of strategic cooperation between the two countries and access for the second phase 1967, 1973, marked by the rise of fast at the site of Israel for several reasons the most important failure of the regimes that are hostile to the United States within the region, and the failure of the prestige and the role of the Soviet Union in the region, particularly since the American perspective Israel deems capable of striking the Arab partys pro-Soviet, so that Arabs understand in the end futility of a military solution, and accept a diplomatic solution. 2-Phase TWO from 1973 to 1981:this phase called Recovery of the strategic role of Israel after the war of 73, which lasted until 81: since the outbreak of the 1973 war and military consequences that resulted from the day after the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace in 1979, it moved the position of Israel in U.S. policy from a maximum unreasonable to a minimum is expected to return without a rise gradually to arrive at the end of the decade to its original level, where this war resulted in the destabilization of Israels strategic position during 1973 or 1976. Showed the dependence of America, which shook the foundations of U.S. strategy toward the region based on preventing a major Arab-Israeli war and attract the Middle East between the great powers. Or link between the conflict in the region and the oil war confirmed that the future of the Israeli state force of arms, the document warns of pessimism and crossed Kissinger policy step by step for this new vision of the situation o f the region. 3-Phase THREE from 1981 to 1992: it called Strategic Alliance This represents the period one of the most important stages of the evolution of American-Israeli relations and the most complicated, as had not gone a single line, In the first phase of 1981 1988 which continued the presidency of Ronald Reagan saw relations return to the doctrine of strategic stock that means has the supporters of this doctrine vision implicitly to the peace of services attributed to Israel, starting from below and up to the most important, from the geographical location, which serves the U.S. presence in region, infrastructure and logistical capabilities that distinguish Israel from other U.S. allies in region, in addition to the defense capacity that supports U.S. interests by protecting the stability of the region, and possibilities of research and development and intelligence .which strengthen over the following years 1983 1989 and despite the intermittent differences and confusion and misunderstanding has continued to emphasize the view Israel as a strategic asset and help the regional and international developments, especially the collapse of the Shah in Iran and the failure of the policy of detente and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the pressures of lobbies and interest groups, and the disunity Arab, where the combined these factors to prevent a crisis in US-Israeli relations as a result of the invasion of the recent Lebanon in 1982, but emphasis was placed on strategic cooperation in the framework of that resolution was adopted Directive 111 and evolved forms of cooperation in 1983 in 1989 under what was called the Cold War following convergence of the Syrian USSR, and despite a change of the general context of relations under the Bush administration 1988 1992 end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the outbreak of the Second Gulf War and the launch of Arab-Israeli negotiations, that did not affect the total general formulation of the relati onship even though it had become clear that Israel is a burden on the interests of America, and it is the opposite of what it is rumored as a set for the regions conflicts and the safety valve to counter the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. 4-Phase Four: from 1990 to 2001 this phase called correspondence of interests that is the phase which began with the arrival candidate Democratic Bill Clinton to the White House, and its continuance in which, for two periods for two successive represent this period Summit in relations between the two parties, which witnessed the first period return of the second formulation, the mouthpiece of the depth of strategic cooperation, which has taken aspects to many of the development of weapons to contribute to projects conquest of space, but in parallel with the revival version of this and raised the strategic relations between the two sides to unprecedented levels, has emerged the principle of burden-sharing in crisis management following the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, According to this principle no longer willing to shoulder alone the burdens and costs of managing crises, and that Figure that you see in this case is the distribution of these burdens on the coalit ion or a consortium of parties with an interest in the management of a crisis, and for reasons that have resulted from the end of the Cold War and international conflict, and also of the reluctance of public opinion to bear such burdens and pressures to direct spending on overseas programs within the country, as well as an emerging divide within the elite influencing the political decision for the position of foreign policy and burdens. The answer of Why does it seem that Israels relationship with the United States beyond the barriers of political and ideological? This interpretation depends on the use of the United States to support the interests of Israel in the first such, it does not explain why America supports Israel, even in cases in which Israel is a burden on the interests of America . This is based on outer interpretation of the influence enjoyed by the pro-Israel Lobby in the United States, which has a special ability to influence, through having contact with the administ ration and the Senate and the House and possession of a database and the potential to influence the election campaign, and through funding. Also has a lobby, a knack for organizing and directing the Jewish vote during the elections, which is characterized by American Jews that they are so politicized and more than 90% of them participate in elections while than there were 3% of the total population at the same time, more than half the American people are not interested in participating in the electoral process. This maximizes the relative importance of Jewish groups, which in turn are concentrated in cities of the weight of an election as important as California and New York. Lobby based in its role of several factors such as the status of the State of Israel and the role of great power by the U.S. today and ideology of American cultural reference, which is reflected in the relationship with the Jewish community of American society based on inclusion, adoption and special relationsh ip with the State of Israel.  [4]  5 The timeline of US -Israeli relations was beginning 1917 Belfour Declaration by the British Government which controlled Palestine, details English support for a Jewish home setting the groundwork for the ultimate creation of the state of Israel. 1948 War/Israels Birth Israel wins the first war against its Arab neighbors leading to the establishment of the state of Israel. The United States is the first country to recognize Israel in the United Nations. 1956 Suez Crisis Israel, France, and Britain attack Egypt in October of 1956 after the Suez crisis but the US comes out against the war forcing United Nations intervention and an end to hostilities. 1967 Six-Day War Israel fights its third war in the region against the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and emerges victorious and in control of the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Syrias Golan Heights, and Egypts Sinai Peninsula. 1973October/Yom Kippur War Egypt and Syria attack Israel in October of 1973 in an attempt to reclaim lands lost in the Six-Day War. Israel initially suffers major losses until the United States arranged a massive airlift of weapons which helped Israel in its counteroffensive. 1978Camp David Accords President Jimmy Carter mediates negotiations between Egypts Anwar Sadat and Israels Menachem Begin leading to the Camp David Accords, the prerequisite to the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. 1982 War of Lebanon Israel gets explicitly involved in the Lebanese Civil War, attacking Syrian and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) forces. The United States mediates an agreement with the PLO to withdrawal which leads to American troop deployment in Lebanon. 1991-Current The Peace Process The United States plays a mediating role between Israel and its neighboring Arab countries, leading to the Madrid Conference (1991), Oslo Process/Accords (1993), the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty (1994), and most recently the Roadmap For Peace. 2006 War with Lebanon Israel attacks Lebanon in retaliation for the Hezbollah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Questions arose about whether or not Israel used American supplied weapons during the conflict.  [6]   The answer of Question Is Israel exploiting America is that Nature of the relationship between the United States with its ally Israel, being related to common interests, of course, all these things are the basis of the relationship between the two parties, but that Israel could exploit the penetration of the Zionist lobby in the joints of the American state to the implementation of stealing technology and espionage and exploitation American figures are important to implement its goals and ambitions Pure unchecked, restriction or fear of cracking the alliance with the United States or taking into account the interests of the U.S., it is something worthy of wonder and a source of uncertainty in what looked like to say that successive U.S. administrations is satisfied with the repeated violations caused by Israel, despite the danger to security U.S. national.  [7]   American Researcher says. Hal Turner Hal Turner on his Web site, we have to consider whether Israel really an ally of the United States, or that Israel would exploit the Last Jews in all joints sensitive America for the implementation of their own, which may be subversive and dangerous to the security of the United States secrets and strategy, and it must be asked, is that the US-Israeli relations cost too much for the United States? Why this insistence blind without restriction or condition on the protection of Israeli interests, despite the recent lack of keenness on the interests of the sponsor? If we want to know that we have to look at the evidence the following: where should not ally that the acts contrary to the nature of the alliance as Israel did, spied on the United States, and sold the secrets the U.S. military to the enemies and rivals, America, and is stealing U.S. technology and are used without a license, and produce and storage of weapons of mass destruction, and atta cking a U.S. warship (RL) on international waters and destroy, Israel had done a lot of this and are still continuing it. The United States has been Israels closest ally throughout its history; nevertheless, the U.S. has acted against the Jewish States wishes many times. Ever since the war began in 1948, the U.S. was unwilling to insist on projects for the resettlement of Arab refugees. The United States was also reluctant to challenge violations of the Arab Charter of the United Nations and its resolutions. Thus, for example, allowed the Arabs to escape from the siege of the Suez Canal, and to impose a boycott on Israel to commit acts of terrorism. In fact, the United States has taken positions against Israel at the United Nations in more often, and do not use the veto in the Security Council to block the anti-Israel resolution until 1972. Perhaps the most dramatic example of American policy different from that Israel came during the Suez War, President Eisenhower when he took a strong stand against Britain, France and Israel. After the war, U.S. pressure, and forcing Israel to withdraw from the territ ories it occupied. David Ben-Gurion adopted on American guarantees dubious that planted the seeds of conflict in 1967. In 1991, President George W. Bush at a press conference to ask about the delay in the consideration of Israels request for loan guarantees to help absorb Soviet Jews and Ethiopia because of disagreement with Israels settlement policy. In the interest and prestige in this delay, mild language Bush used that inflame sentiments and have raised concern in the Jewish community that raised anti-Semitism. Though often described as the main pro-Israel more in history, as Bill Clinton was critical of Israel on several occasions. Has shown the administration of President George W. Bush also do not hesitate to criticize Israels actions appear to be incompatible with the interests of the United States, but not generally more conservative in public statements. During the first year of the war Palestine, the United States imposed an embargo on spare parts for helicopters due to a nger over the use of U.S. helicopters in targeted killings. The Bush administrations also punish Israel to agree to sell military equipment to China in 2005.  [8]   Current Relations: Two contentious issues have brought the close relationship of the United States and Israel under scrutiny and have contributed to some tension in the relationship. One is Israels continued building of settlements on Palestinian land, despite the illegality under international law and the objection of U.S. politicians. Another issue has been the Israeli lobby in the US which has been criticized for advocating Israels interests within the American political system, even if they are contrary or might harm U.S. national interests.  [9]  

What September 11, 2001 Has Meant To Me :: September 11 Terrorism Essays

On September 11, 2001 our Nation sat and watched in fear and horror as unknown assailants attacked the American people on our own soil, a feat that has not been seen since World War II. The atrocities of this day have evoked an abundance of overwhelming emotions that have spread throughout the world like wild fire. The diversity of my emotions is still pulling me in several different directions, making it difficult for me to place a meaning to September 11, 2001. I like the rest of America watch as countries throughout the world lend support and aid to our country. I watch these events unfold with great pride and relief as foreign nations bond together and aid us in order to fight a common foe. If nothing else good comes out of this atrocity at least we have proved that the majority of this world can come together and work as one. My pride at watching this world come together is not totally felt as I observe our home front. I have spent my entire life traveling this world and for the past ten years have continued that travel as a member of the U.S. Navy. My one regret is the fact that at times I am embarrassed to call myself an American, for in no other country does it take over four thousand deaths and mass destruction for a people to find pride in their Nation. I am disgusted with our Nations sudden patriotic values and ashamed. What have we been teaching our children for the past twenty years? As with so many others my strongest emotion is fear. Fear for what we are getting into and fear that our â€Å"newly found Americans† will prove history right. This is a war to the likes that no one has ever seen and I don’t think Americans, to no fault of their own, realize the true extent of what we are dealing with. I have learned and experienced so many things as a member of the Armed forces. It is this knowledge that every sailor and soldier alike has that allows me to see just how horrific this war could be.

Restructuring the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC): Philippine Prospects for Regional Collective Defense and Stronger Military Relations Essay

Economic development through greater regional cooperation was the primary aim of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) when it was formed on August 8, 1967 by the founding countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Although one of the motivations at that time of forming the association was the common fear of communist expansion (especially in Vietnam) and insurgency within their respective borders, the ASEAN has not ventured into creating a military alliance to promote â€Å"regional peace and stability†. Hence, the ASEAN is formally recognized as an economic organization with no military obligations tying member nations. But with the recent rise of security tensions, primarily caused by the aggressive actions taken by China against the Philippines and co-claimant ASEAN nations over territories located at the South China Sea; the prospect of creating an ASEAN military alliance to solve the â€Å"Chinese security problem†, has become very tempting. The researcher believes that indeed, stronger military relations between ASEAN nations will not only help address the security threat posed by China but also assist in resolving the territorial disputes between co-member  nations. Thus, this paper proposes a restructuring of the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) such that it will allow the establishment and creation of the following: (1) A regional military alliance that will promote collective defense (2) the ASEAN peacekeeping force and (3) the ASEAN Security Council. The paper also examines the imperative role of the United States and Japan in the resolution of the security issues in the region; the feasibility of the proposal in the context of the status quo, and the possible problems that will face the military alliance once it is forged. 1. INTRODUCTION During the 1970s until the 1990s, security issues began assailing the stability of the Southeast Asian (SEA) region as territorial disputes erupted between fellow ASEAN nations and China. The said disputes were mainly about the disagreement on maritime boundaries and territorial claims made on islands on the South China Sea (or the West Philippine Sea). The situation did not improve upon entering the 21st century as the conflicts seemed to worsen. In 2005, Chinese ships allegedly fired upon two Vietnamese fishing boats from Thanh Hoa province which killed 9 people.1 If there was something common with all the incidents of skirmishes and standoffs in the much contested area since the 1980s, it was the constant involvement of the Chinese navy. China was dubbed as the rising bully of the South China Sea. With a formidable military strength and an aggressive foreign policy in dealing with territorial disputes, China was becoming a great security menace to not only the Philippines and the SEA region but to the rest of the world. The stability of the SEA region is a paramount concern of Philippine national security, one of the three pillars of Philippine foreign policy. 2 Moreover, Philippine defense officials and security experts view Chinese expansionist aspirations in the South China Sea as the main longterm security threat to the Philippines. 3 The renewed tensions between the Philippines and China last April 8, 2012 at the Scarborough Shoal has led to speculations of a Philippine-China war and its implications to the Philippine-US mutual  defense treaty. International relations experts though, doubt the commitment of the US to come in the Philippines defense once it is attacked by China as it has not confirmed whether the scope of the treaty covers contested territories in the South China Sea.4 1 â€Å"Chinese ships ‘shot to kill’ Vietnamese fishermen; survivor†. Vietnam Seaports Association. 17 January 2005. â€Å"Philippine Foreign Policy†. The Official Website of the Republic of the Philippines – Department of Foreign Affairs. 11 August 2009. 3 Sokolsky, R., Rabasa A., & Neu, C. R. 2001, p. 33 4 â€Å"Stirring up the South China Sea (II): Regional Responses†. Inernational Crisis Group. 24 July 2012. 2 With that in mind, it is apparent then that relying on the US for military assistance in the event of a Chinese attack is useless. What the Philippines need is a military alliance of committed nations who have more or less the same stake in the South China Sea territorial dispute. That being said, the most logical choice would be creating an alliance with our fellow ASEAN claimant nations. 2. REGIONAL COLLECTIVE DEFENSE: ATTEMPT AND FAILURE The idea of creating an international organization for collective defense in the SEA region to offset growing Chinese influence is not new to international politics. In fact it was once tried with the signing of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty or Manila Pact, in Manila, Philippines which created the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). The organization was then formally established on February 19, 1955 at a meeting of treaty partners in Bangkok, Thailand.5 One of the rationales for the creation of SEATO was to counteract communist influence in Southeast Asia, especially that of Communist China, through an anti-communist collective defense alliance.6 The organization though is generally considered a failure because internal conflict and dispute hindered general use of the SEATO military. Also, SEATO was inefficient in promoting regional stability (failing to prevent the escalation of the Vietnam War) as only two SEA nations joined the organization, namely the Philippines and Thailand. Majority of the members were located outside the region. After a final exercise on 20 February 1976, SEATO was formally dissolved on June 30, 1977.7 3. RESTRUCTURING THE ASEAN POLITICAL-SECURITY COMMUNITY (APSC) Former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, in response to the growing threat of terrorism in the region, called for a collective security system within the ASEAN in 2004.8 But 5 Leifer 2005 Franklin 2006, p. 1 7 Encyclopaedia Britannica (India) 2000, p. 60 6 under the original ASEAN charter, a multilateral approach on military and security issues is disallowed. Furthermore, the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) in its blueprint has vowed to rely exclusively on peaceful processes in resolving intra-regional and extra-regional differences. Since the status quo hinders any step towards regional collective defense, a major overhaul would be required for the proposal to push through.9 This paper proposes a revision on the original ASEAN charter in a way that will allow the transformation of the APSC into an authoritative military body. Such transition will be facilitated by the creation of the ASEAN Security Council which will serve as the overseeing organ of the APSC and will assist  in the forging of a collective defense alliance and a peacekeeping force under the ASEAN. The fundamental concept of each proposal is discussed briefly below. 3.1 ASEAN Security Council The proposed body will serve as the highest authoritative body of the APSC and will be composed by the member states of the ASEAN and represented by a delegate from each nation. Its tasks will include (but will not be limited to) supervision, policy formulation and implementation, and decision-making regarding regional security issues under the APSC. 3.2 ASEAN Collective Defense Alliance The forging of this alliance must be legitimized under the ASEAN charter through the necessary amendments and should not in any way violate existing international laws. Under the proposed framework, every ASEAN nations must pledge to defend each other in the event of an extra-regional attack. In dealing with intra-regional disputes though, collective defense cannot be invoked. Any incidence of intra-regional conflicts will be subject to investigation of the ASEAN Security Council and will be decided on accordingly. 8 9 â€Å"ASEAN and collective security system†. The Jakarta Post. 7 December 2004 See The ASEAN Charter, pp. 23-28 and ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint, pp. 8-14 3.3 ASEAN Peacekeeping Force During times of regional unrest caused by military conflict between member nations, the formation of a peacekeeping force maybe ordered by the ASEAN Security Council. The peacekeeping force will be composed of military personnel contributed by the non-involved states and will serve a specific term or until the conflict is resolved. Duties of the ASEAN peacekeeping force will include protecting civilians, assisting in post-war disarmament, escorting of important diplomats and peace negotiators, demobilization and  reintegration of former combatants. 4. POLITICAL-SECURITY IMPACT ANALYSIS The evocations of an ASEAN military pact will have a strong bearing on China’s future foreign policy. Perhaps a positive effect (if the recommendation is pursued) will be the taming down of the aggressiveness of China in dealing with the South China Sea issue. With a population of over 600 million people, a steady and growing economy, and tightening diplomatic relations with the U.S. and Japan; the military potential of the ASEAN cannot be simply overlooked. Both the U.S. and Japan, with their political and economic stakes in Southeast Asia and shared apprehension of the growing Chinese power, are likely to support a militarily united ASEAN to secure their interests in the region. Furthermore, a militarily integrated ASEAN eases the burden of the U.S. in playing the role of regional balancer and provides both countries with a strong political leverage in dealing with Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea. That being said, it is only logical to count on both technical and moral support from the two extraregional powers should the ASEAN decide to pursue the endeavor. Another possible positive outcome will be the proficient resolution of intra-regional conflicts. Under the proposed APSC framework, existing and future intra-regional disputes will be settled through the ASEAN Security Council instead of state-to-state negotiations. A collective defense alliance also serves as deterrence to any thought of aggression towards a comember and strengthens solidarity through a common sense of military identity. But other considerations like the reactions of Chinese allies or even those of neutral observers to the region will also matter. A negative feedback by the international community can have a bad implication to the future of the proposed collective defense organization. China’s reaction itself is also an important consideration. Although it is more likely that China will become more restrained in dealing with a militarily united ASEAN in the South China Sea, one cannot absolutely ascertain such outcome. An opposite course of what is expected, however unlikely, is still possible. Another point to ponder upon is the role the Philippines will play in the pursuance of an ASEAN military pact. Do we play the regional leader role and take on the initiative? Or become a regional-subsystem collaborator and let another ASEAN nation assume the central role? Whatever it may be, it is a necessity for the Philippines to pick an active role if it is to protect its interest in the matter. 5. CONLUSION Establishing a collective defense system within the ASEAN will not be an easy job. There will be many obstacles towards the path: socio-cultural divisions, lingering tensions over unresolved territorial feuds, and differing levels of threat perceptions dims the prospects of turning the organization into a formal military pact.10 But as highlighted earlier, the pressing need of military cooperation in the light of the Chinese threat can override the said obstacles. The support of extra-regional powers like Japan and the US will be vital to the success of the proposal. The U.S. who is trying to preserve its hegemony and Japan who is currently involved in a territorial dispute with China over the Senkaku islands, will likely support the advancement of the ASEAN into a collective defense organization considering the political advantage they will be able to reap from it. International feedback will also play a significant role in the success or failure of proposal. The approval (or disapproval) of the international community will greatly affect the progress and future of an ASEAN collective defense system. But what matters most is the 10 Sokolsky, R., Rabasa A., & Neu, C. R. 2001, pp. 45-47 reaction of China and its allies. A strong negative response from the aforementioned can easily plunge the region into a state of cold war— a possible outcome that is extremely contrary to the aims of the proposal. (Word count: 1679) Bilbliography: Books: ï‚ · Franklin, John K. (2006). The Hollow Pact: Pacific Security and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. ProQuest. ISBN 978-0-542-91563-5. ï‚ · Leifer, Michael (2005). Chin Kin Wah, Leo Suryadinata. ed. Michael Leifer: Selected Works on Southeast Asia. ISBN 978-981-230-270-0. ï‚ · Sokolsky, R., Rabasa A. & Neu, C. R. (2001) The Role of Southeast Asia in U.S. Strategy Toward China. ISBN/EAN 0-8330-2893-6. Encylopedias: ï‚ · Encyclopaedia Britannica (India) (2000). Students’ Britannica India, Volume Five. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-0-85229-760-5. Journals: ï‚ · Holsti, K. J. (1970). National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 233-309 Websites: ï‚ · Inernational Crisis Group (July 24, 2012). Stirring up the South China Sea (II): Regional Responses. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/china/229-stirring-up-thesouth-china-sea-ii-regional-responses.aspx ï‚ · The Official Website of the Republic of the Philippines – Department of Foreign Affairs. Philippine Foreign Policy. 11 August 2009. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from: http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/about-the-dfa/philippine-foreign-policy

Masculinity in Waiting for Godot

Abstract This paper aims to explore the theme of masculinity in Beckett's Waiting for Godot. The main objective of this paper is to identify the experiences of male characters through which they try to keep their masculinity alive in Beckett's play. It is quite clear that male characters are constantly dominant in the plot structure of the play without any female character. Beckett has politically highlighted masculinity in his play while making the women absent and through other different traits. Although, there are many male characters but the proper hegemonic masculinity is clearly presented by only one male character, Godot. Because, we find that people are waiting for Godot to help them and the depiction of Godot's physical appearance by boy also gives us the hint of Godot's hegemonic masculinity. We also find male characters who are submissive.So, we can say that masculinity is a dominant theme of this play. But there are different kinds of masculinity such as hegemonic masculinity, submissive masculinity, immature masculinity and beside all this lost of masculinity is also cut and clear in Beckett's Waiting for Godot.keywords: Masculinity, hegemonic, submissive, immature, physical appearance, Godot, lost. DISCUSSION Before starting an analysis of this topic, masculinity requires definition. According to OED, masculinity is defined as â€Å"having the quality of being masculine† and OED defines â€Å"masculine† as â€Å"having the qualities or appearance considered to be typical of men.† In the same book, the word â€Å"strong† is used for masculine and according to my point of view this word â€Å"strong† is suitable here for masculinity. Because, I want to explore masculinity in the sense of â€Å"power† as well as â€Å"strongness† in â€Å"Waiting for Godot.† All the characters of Beckett's play are male and they are having the quality of being masculine. So, in this context we can say that there is an obvious theme of masculinity in Beckett's â€Å"Waiting for Godot.† But when we try to analyse Beckett's male characters from the percpective of aforementioned word â€Å"strongness† then we find confusion. Because, we can say that all his characters in â€Å"Waiting for Godot† are masculine but we cannot say that all the male characters are powerful. So, here we find â€Å"masculinity† of this play divided into two traits which are â€Å"hegemonic masculinity† and â€Å"submissive or immature masculinity.† First of all, I would like to discuss â€Å"hegemonic masculinity† in this play while analysing different characters such as Godot and Pozzo in the play, who possess hegemonic masculinity. According to R.W. Connell's gender order theory, hegemonic masculinity is defined as practice that legitimizes men's dominant position in society. (Connell). Godot is a hegemonic masulinity in the play though it is a fact that Godot remains abscent throughout the play but still we can say that he is a powerful male being. As we see that the two characters Vladimir and Estragon constantly wait for the arrival of Godot as he is someone who would help them to come out of their difficulities. Estragon: Let's go.Vladimir: We cannot.Estragon: Why not?Vladimir: We are waiting for Godot. (Beckett, 66-68)These same dialogues are repeated by these two characters time and again. Their wait for Godot and the qualities of Godot gives us the hint of Godot's hegemonic masculinity.Estragon: What do we do now?Vladimir: Wait for Godot. (Beckett, 63) And this is their routine though they know that Godot doesn't come at the end but still they are bound to wait for him. It seems that they are unable to leave without meeting Godot. Estragon and Vladimir wait for Godot daily at a specific place but for the whole day and this thing gives us the sense to precieve Godot as an authoritative figure. Vladimir: Tied?Estragon:Ti-ed.Vladimir: How do you mean tied?Estragon:Down.Vladimir: But to whom. By whom?Estragon:To your man.Vladimir:To Godot? Tied to Godot? What an idea! No question of it. For the moment. (Beckett, 20-22)In Act 2, Beckett has given the description of Godot's physical appearance by the boy. Godot's physical appearance also shows his hegemonic masculinity as we are told that Godot is a character with white beard and this gives us the peculiar essence of an authoritative figure. Vladimir: Has he beard, Mr. Godot? Boy: Yes, sir.Vladimir: Fair or †¦(he hesitates)†¦ or black? Boy: I think it's white, sir. (Beckett, 92)Although, it is a fact that Godot does not arrive in the play and many critiques argued his abscene as a lost masculinity. Jeffers in his article † Lost Masculinity in Waiting for Godot and Endgame† claimed:†Godot's constant absence shows the impossibility of a return of the masculine authoritative tradition.† (Jeffers, 95-96)Although with this fact of Godot's constant absence, we cannot compeletly claim that Godot is not an authoritative figure and still this is a fact that Godot is a hegemonic masculinity.We have another character who tries to show his hegemonic masculinity and to some extent he is successful in presenting himself as a powerful figure. Pozzo is the master of Lucky, he is a landowner and the way he treats his slave shows his power. In this play, it is Pozzo who has things to eat and in the very first act he ate chicken and then threw its bone. When Estragon asked him to have that bone just to lick, Pozzo says that Estragon should ask it to Lucky because it is Lucky's right to have the bones of Pozzo. He is trying to impose himself as God and Pozzo tries to show his superiority in different ways, when lucky refused to have bones, he says:Pozzo: I don't like it. I've never known him refuse a bone before. (Beckett, 27)While talking with Estragon and Vladimir, Pozzo talks about his superiority and according to him he is â€Å"made in God's image†(23). At one place, Pozzo asked them if they want money from him. So, all these traits present him as a hegemonic masculinity or an authoritative figure, he shows a natural sense of authority and he considers everybody his subordinates.† As he comes on stage for the very first time, Pozzo exudes the natural sense of authority that puts all other characters on stage in a subordinate position to him.† (Wright, 18) But as the play moves on, we see Pozzo as a â€Å"blind† character in act 2. With this sudden blindness, he has the sense of authority as we see that even after his blindness he mal-treats Lucky as well as his language with Lucky. Pozzo's sudden blindness also gives us the hint of his immature masculinity.† Though emulating a Godot-like authority, Pozzo's masculinity ultimately fails to maintain a consistent hegemonic status because of the matrix of power that forces all within it beneath Godot in a hierarchy.† (Wright, 1-24) We cannot totally disagree with this statement because what Wright has said is truth. Although, Godot and Pozzo are shown as powerful figure but the unstable power of Godot appears with his constant absence and Pozzo's sudden blindness. I am not completely agreed with the aforementioned statement because even with their defects still they have the aura of authoritative figures which remain throughout the play.As in this part I am discussing hegemonic masculinity in Beckett's â€Å"Waiting for Godot.† So, I would also like to analyse Vladimir and Estragon's character in this context. It is clear that the other characters do not share the sense of proper hegemonic masculinity but still at some places we observe that Estragon and Vladimir control eachother just to get the sense of hegemonic masculinity. Vladimir is a male figure who tries to consolidate his hegemonic masculinity while controling Estragon whereas Estragon can only show his power over the boy. This mutual dependency and to control eachother is just to get the sense of hegemony which gives us to the sense of immature masculinity of the characters. As there is hegemonic masculinity in the play so we also find dominant theme of immature masculinity through different characters in this play. According to Oxford Dictionary dictionary, the word â€Å"immature† suggests â€Å"to behave in a way that is not sensible and is typical of people who are much younger†(Pg 761). Estragon and Vladimir's characters are best examples of this immature masculinity. Their constant wait for saviour in the shape of Godot shows their immature masculinity. Both these characters wait for Godot without any given reason and they do not give up even with Godot's constant absence from the stage. Their inaction and inability to do anything put a stuff to the immature masculinity that they are male or masculine and he is considered the symbol of power but these two characters are powerless and inactive.Vladimir: We are waiting for Godot.Estragon:Ah! what'll we do, what'll we do!Vladimir: There is nothing we can do. (Beckett, 68) They themselves are unable to do anything but they are in vain hope to get help from Godot. Side by side this vain hope for saviour, they are mutually dependent on eachother and they could leave or live alone. Even, these characters themselves do not know why don't they live without eachother. It is their weird attitude which makes them insensible. In the first act, Vladimir says Estragon that he could not defend himself that's why he does not live away from him.Estragon: You see, you feel worse when i'm with you. I feel better alone, too.Vladimir :Then why do you always come crawling back? Estragon: I do not know.According to Wright in his article â€Å"Gender and Power in Waiting for Godot†:†Each character is unable to maintain a dominant power-position, masculinity throughout this play is atrophied and impotent— and thus each character's position within a larger framework of gender and power is consistently unstable.† (Ryan Wright,1-24) To some extent, he is quite right in his statement because the unstable and immature masculinity of some characters is quite clear. Estragon and Vladimir have submissive masculinity with insensibility. One of the critic argued:† As two main characters like Vladimir and Estragon useful purpose in their lives and their conversation to each other is purposeless and their conversation have no positive meaning.† (Bari, Mansoor, Alia, 312-315) Estragon is a male figure who is more submissive than that of Vladimir because it is Estragon who picks up the chicken ones to lick which are thrown by Pozzo and he is even ready to take money from pozzo. Whereas, Vladimir is also submissive as we see that he submits his masculinity infront of Godot's character and remains inactive throughout the play. Their weird attitudes and absurd discussion show their immaturity in the play. Even the boy who was sent by Godot was also submissive in front of Estragon and Vladimir. Lucky is also a clear example of submissive character. When Estragon asked about Lucky's not putting the bag down, Pozzo said:† Has he not the right to? Certainly he has. It follows that he doesn't want to. There is reasoning for you.† (Beckett, 31) The element of homosexuality in the play also throws an ample light on the submissiveness of characters. We can precieve Vladimir as a male character while on the other hand Estragon as an effiminate character. Their relationship seems to be the relationship of husband, wife. Both these characters are almost submissive and dependent on eacother.Immature masculinity at once becomes very clear when both Estragon and Vladimir start playing like children. At one place, Vladimir suggests Estragon to mimic Pozzo and Lucky and all these habits are quite childish of younger persons. The sudden defects of characters show the immaturity of male figures, as Pozzo was blind in second act and Lucky was dumb without any provided reason. The absurd way both the characters talk to eachother as well as we observe throughout the play that Estragon and Vladimir are in the habbit of forgetting things. This habit is more clear in Estragon's character, the uncertainity and delibrate forgetfullness. It seems that Estragon himself doesn't want to remember things as Estragon says time and again † I don't Know†(66).There is some sort of paradox in this play as well. Man who is considered to be a powerful and strong figure, here we see him as a fearful, afraid and coward being. Both Estragon and Vladimir could not live alone without eachother. They are so afraid of living alone that they could not live even they want to. Neither of them actually wishing to be apart from eachother. They are men but they are behaving like little chickenhearted children. Even there are dialogues which give us hint that they try to drift apart but they are actually unable to do so. Vladimir :I am glad to see you back. I thought you were gone forever.Estragon :Me too. (Beckett)Masculinity is also present in the shape of violence and this is the isolation that whenever one tries to go near somebody else, he is violently treated by the other. And this thing is quite clear where Lucky hits Estragon. When Estragon goes near Lucky, it is Lucky who violently push him away.† Here Estragon approaches Lucky and makes to wipe his eyes. Lucky kicks him violently in the shins. Estragon drops the handkerchief, recoils, staggers about the stage howling with pain.† (Beckett) We can associate this submissive masculinity with the life of Beckett. Beckett was an Anglo-Irish and the people had to submit their masculinity infront of the British. Jennifer M. Jeffers wrote in â€Å"Traumatized Masculinity and Beckett's Return† that:†The Ireland that Beckett knew as a boy had vanished and the only return possible was through his writing.† (Jeffers, 10)In this play, Beckett's main male characters are submissive and inactive and the reason behind this is the history which Beckett has tried to present in his play. As the masculine figures of Ireland had to submit their masculinity in the hands of the British. And it was the lost masculinity in Ireland, Beckett who was an Anglo-Irish, presented this hegemonic masculinity, lost masculinity and submissive masculinity in his play â€Å"Waiting for Godot.†Ã¢â‚¬ My argument from chapter to chapter is that Beckett texts are grounded in his personal experience of what was literally erased from â€Å"official† historical record.† (Jeffers, 1-10) Through these arguments it is clear that Beckett has presented different types of masculinity in this play while presenting six male characters without any female character.Many feminist critiques argued that there is politics of beckett behind not presenting female characters. Masculinity is so strong in his play that he even didn't use the word of woman or female for a single time.Conclusion:So, we can say that masculinity is the dominant theme of this play with only male characters. Thus, the aforementioned arguments clearly show us that masculinity is present but in different traits as hegemonic masculinity, submissive masculinity, immature masulinity, lost of masculinity as well as homosexuality in masculinity and all these types of masculinities are shown by six male characters who are in relationship with eachother in different ways. It can be also said that Beckett had tried to present history of Anglo-Irish males who were dominated by the British during colonization.† Beckett's waiting for Godot stage Western masculinity in order to enact the failure of Western patriarchy.† (Jeffers,9). Work CitationBeckett, Samuel. (1956). Waiting for Godot. faber and faber limited. Pp: 9-94.Jeffers, Jennifer M. (2009).â€Å"Traumatized Masculinity and Beckett's Return.† Beckett's Masculinity. St. Martin's Press LLC, New York. Pp: 9-37.Wright, Ryan. (2016).â€Å"Gender and Power in Waiting for Godot.† The Oswald Review: An International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Criticism in the Discipline of English. vol. 18: iss. 1, Article. 3. Pp: 5-28.Khan, Abdul Bari, Hafiza Sana Mansoor,; Huma Alia. (2015).â€Å"The Impact of Absurdism in Waiting for Godot.† International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Modern Education. vol. 1, iss 2. Pp: 312-315.Jeffers, Jennifer M. (2009).â€Å"Embodying Lost Masculinity in Waiting for Godot.† Beckett's Masculinity. St. Martin's Press LLC, New York. Pp: 95-118.Hancock, Mark, Michael Ashby. (2015).Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Oxford University Press. ed. 9. Pp: 1-930.Beckett, Samuel. (1982). Waiting for Godot. Grove Press, New York. print.

The First Reptiles and Their Evolution

The First Reptiles and Their Evolution We all know how the old story goes: Fish evolved into tetrapods, tetrapods evolved into amphibians, and amphibians evolved into reptiles. Its a gross oversimplification, of course- for example, fish, tetrapods, amphibians,  and reptiles all coexisted with each other for tens of millions of years- but itll do for our purposes. And for many fans of prehistoric life, the last link in this chain is the most important, since it was the dinosaurs, pterosaurs and marine reptiles of the Mesozoic Era that all descended from ancestral reptiles. Before we proceed any further, though, we need to define what the word reptile means. As far as biologists are concerned, the single defining characteristic of reptiles is that they lay hard-shelled eggs on dry land (as opposed to amphibians, which are constrained to lay their softer, more permeable eggs in water). Secondarily, compared to amphibians, reptiles have armored or scaly skin (which protects them from dehydration in the open air); larger, more muscular legs; slightly bigger brains; and lung-powered respiration (though no diaphragms, which were a later evolutionary development). Depending on how strictly you define the term, there are two prime candidates for the first-ever reptile. The first is the early Carboniferous (about 350 million years ago) Westlothiana, from Europe, which laid leathery eggs but otherwise had a distinctly amphibian anatomy, especially pertaining to its wrists and skull. The second (and more widely accepted) candidate is Hylonomus, which lived about 35 million years after Westlothiana and resembled the kind of small, skittery lizard you run across all the time in modern pet stores. This is all simple enough, as far as it goes, but once you get past Westlothiana and Hylonomus, the story of reptile evolution gets much more complicated. Three distinct reptilian families appeared during the course of the Carboniferous and Permian periods. Anapsids like Hylonomus had solid skulls, which provided little latitude for the attachment of robust jaw muscles; the skulls of synapsids sported single holes on either side and the skulls of diapsids had two holes on both the left and right sides. These lighter skulls, with their multiple attachment points, proved to be a good template for later evolutionary adaptations. Why is this important? Well, anapsid, synapsid and diapsid reptiles pursued very different paths toward the start of the Mesozoic Era. Today, the only living relatives of the anapsids are turtles and tortoises (though the exact nature of this relationship is hotly disputed by paleontologists). The synapsids spawned one extinct reptilian line, the pelycosaurs (the most famous example of which was Dimetrodon), and another line, the therapsids, evolved into the first mammals of the Triassic period. Finally, the diapsids evolved into the first archosaurs, which then split off into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, crocodiles, and (probably) marine reptiles like plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs. Lifestyles of the First Reptiles But were getting ahead of ourselves; much of this information is discussed in  Before the Dinosaurs - Pelycosaurs, Archosaurs, and Therapsids. What were interested in here is the obscure group of lizard-like reptiles that succeeded Hylonomus and preceded these better-known (and much larger) beasts. Its not that solid evidence is lacking; plenty of obscure reptiles have been discovered in Permian and Carboniferous fossil beds, especially in Europe. Its that most of these reptiles look so similar that it can be an eye-rolling exercise to attempt to distinguish between them. The exact classification of these animals is a matter of continuing debate, but heres our attempt to cut through the froth: Captorhinids, exemplified by Captorhinus and Labidosaurus, are the most basal, or primitive, reptile family yet identified, only recently evolved from amphibian ancestors like Diadectes and Seymouria. As far as paleontologists can tell, these anapsid reptiles went on to spawn both synapsid therapsids and diapsid archosaurs. Procolophonians were plant-eating anapsid reptiles that (as mentioned above) may or may not have been ancestral to modern turtles and tortoises; among the better-known genera are Owenetta and Procolophon. Pareiasaurids were much larger anapsid reptiles that counted among the biggest land animals of the Permian period, the two best-known genera being Pareiasaurus and Scutosaurus. Over the course of their reign, the pareiasaurs evolved elaborate armor, which still didnt prevent them from going extinct 250 million years ago! Millerettids were small, lizardy-looking reptiles that subsisted on insects, and also went extinct at the end of the Permian period. The two most well-known terrestrial milleretids were Eunotosaurus and Milleretta; an ocean-dwelling variant, Mesosaurus, was one of the first reptiles to de-evolve to a marine lifestyle. Finally, no discussion of ancient reptiles would be complete without a shout-out to the flying diapsids, a family of small Triassic reptiles that evolved butterfly-like wings and glided from tree to tree. True one-offs, and well out of the mainstream of diapsid evolution, the likes of Longisquama and Hypuronector must have been a sight to see as they fluttered high overhead. These reptiles were closely related to another obscure diapsid branch, the tiny monkey lizards like Megalancosaurus and Drepanosaurus that also lived high up in trees, but lacked the ability to fly.