The relationship that Heaney writes about between himself and his father Essay Example

The relationship that Heaney writes about between himself and his father Paper I am going to compare two different poems written by Seamus Heaney. The names of these two poems are Digging and Follower. Both of these poems were written when Seamus Heaney had started his career in poetry. Heaney was the eldest of nine children and grew up in poor conditions, as his father was a potato farmer, just as his forefathers. The poems are basically Heaneys autobiography, where he is explaining what happened in his past. Heaney was born when there were Catholic and Protestant riots were occurring and it was a troubled time for him and his family. The two poems are similar because they both describe Heaney at a young age, when he used to be tripping, falling, yapping always. This was meant to prove that Heaney was always behind his father, but the second poem has a real twist to it at the end, which I will describe to you further in to this essay. Heaney is probably writing this poem in his room, and looking out into his old farm which is bringing back his memories of being a child. His room would be dimly lit to show the bluntness in his vocabulary. This also depicts that fact that his language is not flowery, or there is no glorification of any part of his fathers job, but just going straight to the point. He does not in any way denigrate the job either, but just keeps it simply and straight to the point. I think that Heaney wouldve been in his dimly lit room (as explained above) and is picturing his father in a hat, with a grey coat on and his coarse boot nestled on the lug, against the inside knee was levered firmly. Heaneys language here conveys to us the point that he used language that reflects the traditional down-to-earth nature of his ancestors. We will write a custom essay sample on The relationship that Heaney writes about between himself and his father specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The relationship that Heaney writes about between himself and his father specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The relationship that Heaney writes about between himself and his father specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer What I mean here, is that most other writers would glorify these sentences and add extra vocabulary to add to the effect, but Heaneys draws in the readers interest by keeping it simple and concise. The relationship between Heaney and his father is exposed in the second line, The squat pen rests; snug as a gun, and it can be compared to line 4, Then the spade sinks Here, Heaney is trying to force through the point that his fathers profession was a farmer, and his weapon was a spade, whereas, Heaneys profession is a writer and his dangerous weapon is the pen. The pen also had enormous power and when the pen is used incorrectly, it can too cause damage. Heaneys pen gives him the eccentricity and power which he felt he lacked as a child due to the restricted conditions. The pen freed him from his restrictions that he had a child and the pen if offering him dangerous new possibilities. This emphasises the point that Heaney lacked attention and had wished to get it with the power of his pen. Heaney believes that the pen can be as powerful as the spade. This is proven in line 2 The squat pen rests; snug as a gun. This means that when the pen is not in use, it is just a potential threat, but when it is used incorrectly, it can be as dangerous as a gun, and a gun is surely more powerful than a spade. The relationship between him and his father is flowing at times, for example, when enjambment is used between lines five and six. My father digging. I look down Till his straining rump among the flowerbeds. The second stanza ends at the word down and the third stanza begins at the word Till. Enjambment is used to keep the rhythm of the poem continuously flowing and to keep the readers in the frame of the poem. Enjambment is also used to show that the poem is digging further into his memories. Heaney liked harsh and blunt sounds such as lug, coarse, nestled and heaving sods. These words dont have a squeaky sound to them, whereas, the words like nicking and slicing do. What I mean by blunt is that the words arent sharp or high, but easy to say, and uses less effort, meaning that more effort can be used in the work being done. The poem is basically about Heaneys admiration for his father. By god, the old man could handle a spade, Just like his old man My grandfather cut more turf in a day, than any other man in Toners Bog. In these quotes, he is portraying to us how much he admires his forefathers. He is exaggerating the fact that his grandfather cut more turf in a day than any other man in Toners Bog. He is exaggerating it because is substantiates that fact that his grandfather was the greatest potato farmer of all time, and that his speed and skill together was indestructible. He states that his grandfather is not any old potato farmer, but a very unique one indeed. The speed, I have verified above, but the skill of his grandfather-Nicking and slicing neatly. This is also Heaneys use of onomatopoeia nicking, sounds like its meaning; as does slicing. They are both quite gruesome words, but this depicts to us that the job of Heaneys forefather was gruesome and it also portrays the conditions that he wouldve lived in, being the eldest of nine children and being the son of a potato farmer. This exposes to us about Heaneys straight to the point thoughts, no matter how grisly his history may be, he will state it. Once I carried him milk in a bottle Corked sloppily with water. He straightened up to drink it, then fell to it straight away. This illustrates how devoted his forefathers were in their work. No other work could show that dedication, it was unparalleled. This is an example of Heaneys pride for his forefathers, not everyone would write in a poem how inspired they are by their forefathers. I think that Heaney is a bit ashamed of not being able to follow in their footsteps, But Ive no spade to follow like them. What Heaney means here is not that he has no spade, but he has no spade within him to carry on his fathers work, that he was not enough bottle to follow in their footsteps. Between my finger and my thumb, The squat pen rests. Ill dig with it Heaney is trying to convey the message that as his fathers profession was a farmer, he used the spade to dig for potatoes, but Heaney will use a pen to dig with it, meaning that he will continue his profession as a writer. Heaney believes the pen will give him that extra power but never that hardness and toughness that his forefathers had from their profession. I think that Heaney loves and respects his forefathers due to the amount of respect that he has given them in this poem. By God the old man could handle a spade, Just like his old man. This tells us that he admires his forefathers unbelievably, and that he is proud of them. I think that Heaney is not a bit monotonous, because each time he marvels at his forefathers, he is giving us something original, something new and interesting. He does say that he wanted to grow up and follow in his fathers footsteps, I wanted to grow up and plough All I ever did was follow. This shows us that he did want to be a farmer just like his forefathers, but he felt he lacked the physical strength, but he had the mental strength of being a writer. This explains that Heaney always wanted to be a farmer, but he felt he lacked the individuality that he needed and the confidence when he was a child, and he now feels a bit guilty not carrying on the family tradition. I think that Heaney felt inadequate and lost as a child and felt he lacked the attention that a child needed. That is why he felt he lacked the power of being a potato farmer, and that he would rather have had a stronger childhood to be a farmer, not a feeble and astray one as he has experienced. Heaney saw himself as a nuisance in both poems, but more so in the second poem. I stumbled in his hob nailed wake, Fell sometimes on the polished sod. This is a quote from the second poem elucidating the fact that he used to stumble on his fathers hard work. Heaneys language is blunt and matter of fact. Corked sloppily with water. He is just stating the obvious here, meaning that he is down to earth and likes to state what is there, and not exaggerate to give effect, but the structure and the way he has delivered this poem to us speaks for itself. Heaney also uses language that reflects the down-to-earth nature of his ancestors. The cold small of potato mould, the squelch and slap. Here is another example of onomatopoeia. Onomatopoeia is used to emphasise the meaning of the words to the reader, these words are one syllable words. One syllable words are easy to say and they get the meaning of the words of the reader straight away. One syllable words can also be used so that it takes less time to read, and it reflects the level of knowledge and education that his forefathers have in speaking. Another reason why one syllable words are used is because it shows us how little time these farmers have, and that they believe in a little less conversation, a little more action. His shoulders globed like a full sail strung. This is a simile which is used to compare his fathers shoulders with a sail. What he means here is that his shoulders were so muscular that they were comparable with a full sail strung. This also shows his admiration for his forefathers. How wonderful he thought they were; a pity that he was not as capable of doing physical activities as they were. Nar rowed and angled at the ground, Mapping the furrow exactly, this exemplifies to us the Heaneys father worked exactly and that he would calculate all of the angles and get the lifting of the turf exactly right. Heaney felt he was a nuisance following his father around all day, but then also felt proud to have a father whom he could follow around like that, All I ever did was follow, in his broad shadow round the farm. This is when Heaney would be looking up to his father. Heaney is looking up in not only the literal way, but also in character. He may also look up to his father in an idol like way. Comparing this to the last line of follower, it is like the falling of a god, as if the admiration empire for his father is crumbling. But today it is my father who keeps stumbling behind me, and will not go away. I dont think that Heaney is being spiteful, but there is a role reversal here. As, we have seen, in the first poem, Digging, he had great admiration for his forefathers. Towards the end of the second poem, the roles are reversed to show the change in Heaneys mind, Heaney now thinks that he is more powerful than his father due to the age difference. The last line can also be a metaphor. The meaning of this metaphor is that his father may be dead and the metaphorical part of this is that he may be dead, and his thoughts may keep lingering behind him, not his physical body itself. On the other hand, his father may be old and requires care. His father may loiter behind him and question everything he does asking whether he is doing it right or not, getting on his nerves. If he does get on his nerves, then I believe that he was being a bit spiteful, but I think that this is a metaphor and his father is dead, and his memories are lurking behind him. Now I am going to comment on other linguistic features, and the structure of this poem. Rhyme is used to bring out the points further. It helps the reader to enjoy the poem as well as understand the poem. Heaney also used rhythm in this poem. He uses a different rhythm for both Heaney and his father. I was a nuisance, tripping, falling, yapping always. That is the kind of rhythm used for Heaney. This is the rhythm which is used for Heaney because it is a bit rocky, just as his feelings, whereas the rhythm used for Heaneys father is Of reins, the sweating team turned around. The rhythm is much smoother for Heaneys father because his work is smooth and neat, whereas Heaney become s a bit spiteful at the end. Alliteration is also used in both poems. Alliteration is used because it makes the reader work just a bit harder, and it also draws in the readers attention better than other devices. Spade sinks, the alliteration is used here to show the smoothness when the spade sinks into to ground by his father, to depict how good of a farmer he is. Overall, I find Digging more effective than Follower. This is because the first poem is more emotional and he is comparing himself to his father more, and this reflects how he felt as a child. The second poem, Follower, is more technical, and readers prefer poems that are more emotional and describing, not technical and too straight to the point. I think that Heaney is very fond of his past and would like to re-live it; we can extrapolate this from the poems we have read. Both poems reveal that Heaney can remember his past very vividly and that he is a very good writer. He also considered himself as a lesser being most of the tie, I was a nuisance etc. He considered himself to not be as complex of a character of a being but a very simple person indeed. He was very humble in the way he wrote, not bragging on about himself, but showing the great admiration for his forefathers. I think that Heaney did not have a very simple relationship with his father. That was because there was not a lot of conversation between the two characters. Heaney was mainly seen and not heard in the poem, and his thoughts were mainly kept to himself as his father was too busy. The only part which I took into consideration was the change of roles at the end of Follower. That really showed that Heaney had a bit of a relationship with his father. Dead or not, he still remembers him and his memories will remain with Heaney forever.

Econ essays

Econ essays The United States Department of Commerce has issued a statement proclaiming that personal income grew faster in September than in any other month since August 1999. This growth is largely due to the increase in federal farm subsidies which boosted personal income by $61 billion. Private wage and salary disbursements also increased by over $25 billion in September, adding to the total personal income bump up. The Department of Commerce said that the net personal income increased by 1.1% in September while the disposable personal income (adjusted for taxes and inflation) increased by 0.7%. The advance gross domestic product also indicates that consumer spending is still on the rise. It is growing at an annual rate of 4.5%. In recent years, consumer spending has been boosted by the initial increase in personal income, better quality of products, and higher expectations for future wealth. In the last quarter, there has been a dramatic increase in the purchases of durable goods, especially automobiles. The automobile market experiences alternating on and off periods of demand depending on the durability of new cars and the attraction of new technological advances. Investment has also increased in the past quarter. Business investments in equipment and software increased at an annual rate of 8.5 percent. This increase is partially due to the high expectations for future returns in the technology markets. The increase in investment has produced a greater economic capacity, higher productivity and weaker inflationary pressures in the national markets. However, the drastically increasing consumer spending has in the past year out grown the personal income. This means that personal savings has become negative. If placed on an aggregate expenditures vs. aggregate output chart, the consumer spending + investments curve will fall underneath the 45-degree line. The public is spending more than it is earning, effectively dipping into sav...

Biography of Henry Ford, Industrialist and Inventor

Biography of Henry Ford, Industrialist and Inventor Henry Ford was an American  industrialist, the founder of the  Ford Motor Company, and the sponsor of the development of the  assembly line  technique of  mass production. Fast Facts: Henry Ford Known For: American industrialist, founder of the Ford Motor Company.Born: July 30, 1863, Dearborn, Michigan.Parents: Mary Litogot Ahern Ford (1839–1876) and William Ford (1826- 1905) (m. April 21, 1861).Died: April 7, 1947, Dearborn, Michigan.Education: Scotch Settlement School in Dearborn to the 6th grade, apprentice in a machine shop, and general business studies at Bryant Stratton Business University in Detroit.  Published Works: My Life and Work.  Spouse: Clara Jane Bryant (m. 1888–1947).Children: Edsel (November 6, 1893–May 26, 1943). Early Life Henry Ford was born on July 30, 1863, one of eight and the oldest of five that survived to adulthood, of Mary Litogot Ahern and William Ford. William (1826–1905) was an Irish immigrant, born in Clonakilty in County Cork, who fled the Irish potato famine with two borrowed pounds and  a set of carpentry tools. He settled in Detroit where a number of his uncles lived, and quickly accrued land. At three years of age, Mary Litogot Ahern (1839–1876) and her three brothers were orphaned; Mary was adopted by a couple named Margaret and Patrick Ahern. She and William married on April 21, 1861: Marys dowry included 90 acres and after they were married, their sizable farm totaled 250 acres. By the time Henry was born, they were among the most important and wealthy families in Dearborn.   Education Henry was educated in two one-room schoolhouses, the Scottish Settlement School and the Miller School, finishing six grades. The building was eventually moved to Fords Greenfield village and opened to tourists. From his graduation in 1876 Henry worked on his fathers farm but after harvest 1878, he abruptly left, walking off without permission to Detroit where he stayed with his fathers sister Rebecca. He took a job at the streetcar manufacturer Michigan Car Company Works, but was fired after six days and had to return home. In 1879, William got Henry an apprenticeship at the James Flower and Brothers Machine shop in Detroit where he lasted 9 months, leaving for the Detroit Dry Dock Company, pioneers in iron ships and Bessemer steel. Neither job paid him enough to cover his rent, so he took a night job with a jeweler, cleaning and repairing watches.   Henry Ford returned to the farm in 1882, where he operated a small portable steam threshing machine, the Westinghouse Agricultural Engine, for a neighbor. He was very good at it, and over the summers of 1883–1884, he was hired by the company to operate and repair engines made and sold in Michigan and northern Ohio.   Marriage and Future Plans In December of 1885, Ford met Clara Jane Bryant (1866–1950) at a New Years Eve party and they married on April 11, 1888. Ford continued to work the farm- his father gave him an acreage- but his heart was in tinkering and and he clearly had business in mind. Over the winters of 1888-1890, Henry Ford enrolled in Goldsmith, Bryant Stratton Business University in Detroit, where he likely took penmanship, bookkeeping, mechanical drawing, and general business practices. By the early 1890s, Ford was convinced that he could construct a horseless carriage: but he didnt know enough about electricity, so in September 1891, he took a job with the Edison Illuminating Company in Detroit. After his first and only son Edsel was born on November 6, 1893, Ford was promoted to Chief Engineer. By 1896, Edison had built his first working horseless carriage, which he named a quadricyle. He sold it in order to finance work on an improved model- a delivery wagon. On April 17, 1897, Ford applied for a patent for a carburetor, and on August 5, 1899, the Detroit Automobile Company was formed. Ten days later, Ford quit the Edison Illuminating Company.  And on January 12, 1900, the Detroit Automobile Company released the delivery wagon as its first commercial automobile, designed by Henry Ford. Ford Motors Ford incorporated the Ford Motor Company in 1903, proclaiming, I will build a car for the great multitude. In October 1908, he did so, the Model T- Ford numbered his models by the letters of the alphabet, although not all of them made it to manufacture. First priced at $950, over the Model Ts nineteen years of production, its price dipped as low as $280. Nearly 15,000,000 were sold in the United States alone. The Model T heralds the beginning of the Motor Age; Fords innovation was a car evolved from luxury item for the well-to-do to an essential form of transportation for the ordinary man, that that ordinary man could repair and maintain by himself Although contrary to some reports he didnt invent the assembly line, Ford did use it to revolutionize manufacturing processes in the United States. By 1914, his Highland Park, Michigan plant used innovative production techniques to turn out a complete chassis every 93 minutes. This was a stunning improvement over the earlier production time of 728 minutes. Using a constantly-moving assembly line, subdivision of labor, and careful coordination of operations, Ford realized huge gains in productivity, and personal wealth. In 1914, Ford began paying his employees five dollars a day, nearly doubling the wages offered by other manufacturers. He cut the workday from nine to eight hours in order to convert the factory to a three-shift workday. Fords mass-production techniques would eventually allow for the manufacture of a Model T every 24 seconds. His innovations made him an international celebrity. On May 27, 1927, production ended for the Ford Model T. Legacy and Death Ford was a shrewd businessman and very much of a showman, with a fairly thin skin. In 1919 he sued the Chicago Tribune for libel for writing an editorial in which the  Tribune  called him an anarchist and ignorant idealist.  He wrote and rewrote his biography multiple times beginning in 1922, and he sponsored the restoration of an idyllic rural town called Greenfield Village which was built in part to act as a tourist destination celebrating his life and work. Yet, Ford continued to innovate. In 1932, Henry Ford introduced his last engineering triumph: his en block, or one piece, V-8 engine; and on January 13, 1942, he patented a plastic-bodied automobile- a car 30 percent lighter than metal cars. Fords affordable Model T irrevocably altered American society. As more Americans owned cars, urbanization patterns changed. The United States saw the growth of suburbia, the creation of a national highway system, and a population entranced with the possibility of going anywhere anytime. Ford witnessed many of these changes during his lifetime, all the while personally longing for the agrarian lifestyle of his youth. The last few years, Henry Ford visibly slowed down, and on April 7, 1947, he died in his home in Dearborn. Controversy There is unfortunately ample evidence that Ford was a bigot, whose writings include several statements referring to white supremacy. According to a recent article in Quartz, even though he hired black employees and paid them the same as white ones, he was concerned that they and his other workers would be infected by the evil of jazz music, so he suggested that square dancing could be put forward as an alternative place where white people could hang out.   Sources Bryan, Ford R. Clara: Mrs. Henry Ford. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2013.Ford, Henry. My Life and Work. Fords memoir was published several times and with numerous editions, the book was first written, in association with Samuel Crowther, in 1922.Lewis, David L. The Public Image of Henry Ford: An American Folk Hero and His Company. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1976.Pennacchia, Robyn. America’s wholesome square dancing tradition is a tool of white supremacy. Quartz, December 12, 2017.Swigger, Jessica. History Is Bunk: Historical Memories at Henry Fords Greenfield Village. University of Texas, 2008.Wik, Reynold M. Henry Ford and Grass-roots America. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1973.Wood, John Cunningham and Michael C. Wood (eds). Henry Ford: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management, Volume 1. London: Routledge, 2003.

Illustration Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Illustration - Essay Example It is in this role, that graphic designing has gained importance. What once began as the artist's job with hand painting, went over to screen printing and has today reached the desktops of millions of visualizers. Amongst the various elements of graphic design, the art of illustration is interesting and rather challenging. Thus while words need to be read, illustrations can capture a million words in a single expression. This is because they capture and combine photography and art in an appealing and attractive manner. As we pointed out before, illustrations have been with us since the advent of mankind where they took the shape of cave paintings. Woodcut illustrations became popular in the 15th century, followed by lithography in the 18th century. In the early 19th century, journals became popular for mass circulation and illustration gained new meaning. Soon wood engraving was preferred over steel engraving to incorporate illustrations in the pages. However what was a mere painter's mindscape, evolved to touch more people with the advent of advertising. During the 20th century, many graphic designers were also illustrators of high repute and the art was viewed with great reverence, some considering it greater than graphic design. Many illustrators would even sign their work and many enjoyed great fame. Gustavo Dore was a renowned figure in those times. Today the modern illustrator has with him various new software to assist the design process. Most training institutes also encourage that the ill ustrator uses both traditional and modern techniques to recreate the image in his mind on paper. Today there are many associations that bring together illustrators. These include the Association of Illustrators (AOI), Society of Illustrators and Society of Children's book writers and illustrators. Various awards are also handed out every year to support the efforts of these artists. New media Today illustrations benefit from a range of media. From print media like newspapers, greeting cards, books and magazines where these were commonly used, today the scope is much wider. Technologies allow for these to be used in movies, television shows and video games. With the advent of computers and the Internet, illustrations are also highly popular on web sites. Finally advertising has allowed for illustrations to be used on all its media spanning billboards, print advertising, television advertising and the Internet. Great works of great minds Illustration has been a popular form of art and communication with many great works being produced by great names like Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Santiago Martinez Delgado etc. However in the current day scenario, works of two reputed illustrators are illustrated here. 28 year old Vladimir Dubko is one great name to reckon with in this scenario. At a time when many find the world of illustration distressing in the least, he created a niche for himself in fashion illustration, doing what every illustrator could only dream of in Italy. He experimented with diverse disciplines, obtained a grant at Fabrica (Benetton research center for communication) and worked with various young artists from across the world. While most of his work is

Changing the Nature of Higher Education Research Paper

Changing the Nature of Higher Education - Research Paper Example n example, there was an authorized provision for â€Å"College Senate† in one of the institutions, but the bylaws stated that the membership could be drawn wholly from the board of administers and college governors, and not from the faculty. From these, one can assess that the creation and refinement of the structure is a legacy of the colonial colleges which in turn defined and shaped the higher education system in the United States to the present day. However, Thelin (2004) suggests that we do learn many straightforward incidents from Adams about Harvard in 1858. The classes were small and had about one hundred students per class with a total enrollment of about five hundred. Its faculty could enjoy a high local prestige in the society but were not well paid (p.63). This practice in the Harvard was implemented with intent to encourage them for developing the habit of self-criticism and even self-doubt. By the end of the 19th century, various systems in the German higher educ ation such as ideal of advanced scholarship and doctoral programs with graduate students had influences over the United States’ higher education system. The American university in the 1890s typically was the historic college that was internally renovated and enhanced by new programs. It seemed like a smorgasbord for students and a few of them opted for a bachelor’s degree from there. It was the Morril Act of 1862 contributed to the expansion of the state college into the university model of federated units (Thelin, p. 104). However, the faculty’s teaching overload remained the same even with the expansion into new system. Only token allowances were granted for graduate courses and seminars while curricular offerings were for undergraduates. The implementation of new academic systems resulted... From the disc ussion it is clear that  the higher education in the colonial era had been under the administration of queens, kings, and bishops for centuries. The faculty at these institutions faced daily scrutiny from the administrative board and received immoderate approach from the directors who appointed them. In fact, as Thelin states, the academic freedom and the rights of the teacher in respect to the â€Å"hiring and firing† received little consideration from the authorities. At this period, a class president usually reported to the board of administrators rather than the faculty.  This essay stresses that a major factor that influenced the changes in faculty system was the contributions made by Charles Eliot. He gained fame though often referred as notoriety by implementing bold modernizations at Harvard College. He introduced an elective system from which some colleges formulated provisions for electives in student curriculum, while others sustained the same cour se of study. There have been evidences about implementing more provisions for specialized departments. The faculty identification was the factor highly impacted by the provision to conglomerate the colleges.   The states’ silence on issues of higher education campus enhancement in the 1880s was not a result of the governments’ disinterest towards research, applied science or technology. It did not imply that colleges or universities were systems for large-scale government projects.

The Big Bang Theory Essay Example for Free

The Big Bang Theory Essay The beginning of the universe is explained in the big bang theory. It is proved beyond doubt that our universe had a beginning and that its origin was as a singularity about 13 billion years ago. This singularity was infinitely hot, small and dense. It had undergone a series of changes, which includes expansion and cooling to become the present form of universe. This theory is called the big bang theory. According to this theory the process of cooling and expansion is still continuing. There are several evidences as well as arguments supporting this theory as well as opposing it. The main intention of the present paper is to analyze these arguments in search of its validity. History of this theory, its religious interpretations as well as the features of the universe according to this theory also will be discussed in this paper. The big bang theory was proposed by scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre and his called his theory as hypothesis of the primeval atom (Hubble, 1929). The framework for this model was based on the Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. Most of the astronomers today believe in this theory mainly because of the red shift that was observed in the near by galaxies. Scientists believe that the universe is still expending because of the presence of dark energy (Big bang Theory, 2009). There are several features of the universe which support big bang theory. The abundance of light elements such as hydrogen and helium and less occurrence of the heavy elements or heavy metals in universe is actually in support of this theory. This is because it is proved beyond doubt that at such a high temperature that persisted at the time of origin of the universe, the elements of mass numbers more than 5 and their isotopes would have been unstable. This might have resulted in the formation of more light elements at that time. Presence of more matter than antimatter is another feature that supports the theory. Even now the scientists are not able to find a reason for this phenomenon. However, many scientists consider the asymmetry in the decay of some mesons as the reason for this phenomenon. Another feature of the universe is that it is composed of several galaxies and these are separated by cosmic voids. The presence of a radiation in all directions which is quite even or uniform throughout is another factor that supports the theory which explains the origin of universe from a fire ball ( Big bang theory, 2009) One of the argument against big bang theory is that universe had its origin as an explosion. However according to experts it is better to imagine universe as a balloon with an infinitely small size and continuously increasing its size so as to reach the current size. It would be difficult to imagine the universe as a balloon bursting and throwing off its contents. Another argument against this theory is that it universe e originated as a fireball in space. But according to the Einstein’s theory of relativity there could not be anything, space or time or matter or energy before the origin of universe. Thus this argument also has been proved to be baseless (Big Bang Theory An Overview, 2009). There are many arguments or evidences that support this theory. Most of the people believe that universe had an origin. Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies are moving away from us at speeds, which are directly proportional to the distance from us. This provides evidence for the expansion of the universe, which was originally very small. The discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965 provided evidence that universe was initially very very hot as it is explained according to the big bang theory. Another important evidence is the profusion of hydrogen and helium in the observable universe. This also supports the big bang origin of universe. According to the recent research by NASA and ESA, the universe had its origin from the remnants of a universe, which existed previously. This is called loop quantum gravity theory (Zyga, 2008). This theory also supports the origin of the present universe as a singularity as in big bang theory. Still the arguments regarding the models to explain the origin of universe is continuing between great scientists. But one thing that has to be remembered is that whatever might be the arguments, there would always be a philosophical criterion involved and therefore these arguments are never going to end (Gibbs, 1995). Therefore as long as no one is certain about anything that happened at that time, the arguments would continue. An important factor that has to be considered in the big bang theory is its religious interpretations. Origin of Universe is an area where science and theology places opposite views. According to Islam, Allah is the creator and Evolver of every thing in this universe. Of course the development of the universe to the present stage is something that is super natural and therefore there is nothing wrong in believing that there is a super natural force behind all these evolution and that supernatural force is God. The theologians as well as majority of people believe that it is not possible to evolve something from nothingness. Estes (2009) has put it in a different manner. According to him this explanation of origin of universe is as absurd as believing that when there was an explosion in a place all the metal pieces joined in the air to form a car. He further explains that it cannot be believed that the different parts of the oldest computer one day exploded and then joined to form the most advanced computer now. This development took place as a result of long years of research by human beings. In the same way the development of universe to the present form, required the intelligence of someone who is super natural and that is God himself. When we look at the stars, sun, moon and the galaxy as a whole, we see that they are all moving with accurate speed and timings in such a way that they do not collide each other. The earth is having the exact requirements for the life of man on it. All the requirements of the man are met through the other organisms as well as physical and chemical properties of the earth. It is very difficult to explain all these facts based on big bang theory (Estes, 2009). There is another school of thought in the Islam itself in support of the big bang theory (Huda, 2009). The idea of singularity is present in the Quran also, where it is said that heaven and earth existed as a single unit originally. According to the big bang theory, the elements, which constituted the universe, had come together, cooled down and finally formed into the present shape. This is what exactly said in Quran, the only difference is that it was Allah who gave commands to these elements to behave in the way it had behaved. Come together, willingly or unwillingly. They said: We come (together) in willing obedience' (41:11). The concept that Universe is expanding is also there in Quran. The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it (51:47). The fact that the universe is continuing to get expanded has been discovered only recently and it was the answer to the long debates by Muslim scholars on the exact meaning of this verse in the Quran. An argument in Islam against the big bang theory is that in Quran it is written that the creation of the universe was completed in six days. But in Quran itself it is written that one day of Allah could be 50,000 years for man. In another place it is written as 1000 years. Thus the day could be regarded as an era with a fixed length of time. And six days could be six such eras, the length of which no body knows. Thus in this way also Quran is not contradicting the big band theory, which suggests that the origin was 13 billion years ago, and since then the formation of different organisms as well as the shape of the universe were gradual (Huda, 2009). Another aspect where Quran supports big band theory is that the process of evolution or the creation as Islam takes it, is never ending. It is clearly mentioned in Quran that Allah is continuing his creation. This is what we see everyday, as a new child or as a new plant which is quite different from both parents (Huda, 2009). Considering all these facts the Muslims of the modern world believe that big bang theory is genuine and that the universe is ever changing. The only difference is that they believe that all these are happening according to the command of Allah and that everything that happens in the universe reveals the super natural power and majesty of Allah. It is stated that the creations are to be viewed upon, as tremendous power of Allah and His name has to be glorified. Thus it could be seen that the Big Bang theory of the origin of Universe is the most widely accepted theory of cosmic origin. It is based on the Einstein’s theory of relativity. There are several features that the universe exhibits which supports this theory. Most of the arguments against this theory by different scientists have already proved to be baseless. More and more discoveries have been made in the last and present century, which supports this theory. Regarding the religious interpretation of this theory, in Islam, the origin of universe and earth and everything on it is explained in the same manner as the big bang theory. Only difference is that, in Quran it is explained to have happened as per the command of God. It is quite logical to believe that there is a super natural power that is regulating all these happenings in the way it is happening so that we could exist happily and peacefully on this earth. References Big Bang Theory An Overview (2009). [online] Available at: http://www. big-bang-theory. com/default. htm (accessed on 11th June 2009) Big Bang Theory (2009). [online] Available at: http://www. answers. com/topic/big-bang-theory (accessed on 11th June 2009) Estes, Y.. (2009). Big bang. [online] Available at: http://scienceislam. com/bigbang. php (accessed on 11th June 2009) Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Scientific American, October 1995, 273: 55. Hubble, E. (1929). A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebulae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173. Huda (2009). Creation of the Universe Six Days or Long Periods of Time [online] Available at: http://islam. about. com/od/creation/a/creation. htm (accessed on 11th June 2009) Zyga, L. (2008). Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe? [online] Available at: http://www. physorg. com/news126955971. html (accessed on 11th June 2009)

Evolution of the Geeks Essay -- Essays Papers

Evolution of the Geeks In the past 20th century, the word geek has evolved into many different meanings. The term branched off to create a person with low social skills, often with high intelligence, a person highly interested in computer technology, and a person with a devotion to something that places him or her outside of the mainstream. Geek usually has negative connotations within popular culture, where being a geek tends to be an insult. The term can also be a badge of honor among subcultures, such as the know-it-all of Star Trek. Media dictates popular culture. The television sitcoms I’ve watched growing up all displayed who is the stereotype for a geek. Steve Urkel from Family Matters, Screech from Saved By The Bell, Ross from Friends are some examples. All are viewed as highly intelligent and with low social skills. Yet the word is still evolving and currently is accepted as an honor. Examples of cool geeks of the 21st century are hobbits from Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Seth Cohen from The O.C, and Napoleon Dynamite. The consensus of the word geek by the media shapes the society’s minds of what is perceived to be true. The term stereotype is usually referred to be a term of abuse. It gives society a short cut to identify and categorize people. The word also evokes a consensus among all of society. According to the Oxford English Dictionary Online, the word geek was introduced as the lowest of carnival performers, often displaying acts of swallowing live animals. It evolved in the 20th century to represent a person who is highly intelligent yet lacks the ability to socialize. This representation inflicts psychological and social behaviors that often consider geeks as outcasts and victim to abuse from the ... ... taped-up glasses, the 21st century is welcoming the geek to the mainstream. Geeks are adorable, relatable, and provide comic relief. With the following of Harry Potter fans and quirky geek icons such as Napoleon Dynamite, the geek of today is the ultimate cool. Now geeks put the pop in pop culture. Works Cited Lester, Paul M., ed. Images That Injure: Pictorial Stereotypes in the Media. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1996. Long, Tom. â€Å"Great geek portrayals save â€Å"Dynamite† from its clichà ©s.† Rev. of Napoleon Dynamite, by Jared Hess. The Detroit News on the Web 2 July 2004. 20 October 2004 < http://www.detnews.com/2004/screens/0407/07/e01-201089.htm>. Oxford English Dictionary Online. . Soergel, Matt. â€Å"RETURN OF THE NERDS: Geeks are the coolest things in movies this summer.† Florida Times Union 28 Jul. 2004, city ed., c-1.

Session Long Affirmative Action

Gender discrimination has for long been the topic of hot ethical debate. Despite the growing awareness about the social implications and the consequences of discrimination, as well as financial and human costs of discriminative attitudes at workplace, numerous firms and businesses appear unable to change the traditional structure of their business relationships. Even the best and the most ethical organizations are not always willing to eliminate the barriers women face on their way to professional excellence. In case of KBR, diversity and female participation in labor seem to be the two critical elements of organizational culture.Yet, KBR, Inc. has not done everything possible to involve women into all areas of its organizational and business performance. In reality, even at KBR, Inc. – the company well known for its ethical practices – gender remains an issue. Moreover, the majority of the present day American companies are either unwilling or unprepared to tackle gend er discrimination challenges. â€Å"For instance, for every dollar earned by white men in 1998, white women earn 78 cents, African-American women earn 67 cents, and Hispanic women earn 56 cents, according to Catalyst.More than 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies lack even one woman among their five highest earning officers† (Social Funds, 2000). Objectively, KBR, Inc. is not an exception for even despite its growing commitment to diversity at workplace and its desire to eliminate the barriers which women face when trying to become a part of the company staff, the current Board of Directors at KBR does not have a single woman, comprising seven highly professional men (KBR, 2009).Moreover, given the nature and specificity of work at KBR, women find it even more difficult to prove that they possess sufficient engineering and construction skills and are able to successfully fulfill their workplace obligations and tasks. Finally, when it comes to working in hotspots, women face ev en more opposition on the side of their potential employers, who view it as unacceptable for a woman to work in conditions of wartime. From the deontological perspective, gender equality should become a rule KBR will follow at all levels of its organizational performance.Certainly, affirmative action can potentially become a good solution for the majority of gender discrimination problems, but affirmative action is just another form of discrimination aimed at establishing the new quality of gender relationships at workplace. Not gender discrimination, not affirmative action, but professionalism, education, and skills should serve the primary criteria the company will use when considering potential job candidates. Not gender, but individual preparedness to work in dangerous conditions and realization of the tasks and obligations should govern KBR in its job decisions.From the viewpoint of utilitarianism, providing women with equal access to jobs will help resolve several essential is sues. First, the company will improve its social corporate image. Second, it will bring in innovative looks and will substantially improve and speed up its decision-making processes. Third, it will provide women with a chance to realize themselves in professional fields, and finally, the company will avoid and secure itself from financial losses that result of continuous discrimination lawsuits.Discrimination is an increasingly negative social and workplace phenomenon. Moreover, the more â€Å"male† the nature of business seems to be, the less likely women are to become a part of such companies’ staff. That is why for the company to remain competitive, glass ceiling should be eliminated, to give women just another professional and individual try. Conclusion Even the most ethical companies face serious gender discrimination challenges and are not always able to eliminate the so-called â€Å"glass ceiling†.KBR, Inc. is not an exception. From deontological perspect ive, gender equality should become one of the primary company rules; from the utilitarian perspective, giving women a chance for professional self-realization will improve the quality of all decision-making processes and will protect the company from numerous discrimination lawsuits. Whether KBR, Inc. is able to preserve its positive corporate image depends on how well it copes with the challenges of gender discrimination at workplace. References KBR, Inc. (2009). Board of directors. KBR, Inc. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from http://www.kbr.com/corporate/corporate_governance/board_of_directors/index.aspx Social Funds. (2000). Glass ceiling still unshattered. Social Funds. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/345.html

How Effectively an Organization Meets the Wants

Competitiveness How effectively an organization meets the wants and needs of customers relative to others that offer similar goods or services Business compete using MARKETING 1. Identifying consumer wants and/or needs is a basic input in an organization’s decision making process, and central to competitiveness. The idea is to achieve a perfect match between those wants and needs and the organization’s goods and/or services. 2. Price and quality are key factors in consumer buying decisions. It is important to understand the trade-off decision consumers make between price and quality. 3.Advertising and promotion are ways organizations can inform potential customers about features of their products or services, and attract buyers. Business compete using OPERATION 1. Product and service design should reflect joint efforts of many areas of the firm to achieve a match between financial resources, operations capabilities, supply chain capabilities,and consumer wants and needs . Special characteristics or features of a product or service can be a key factor in consumer buying decisions. Other key factors include innovation and the time-to-market for new products and services. 2.Cost of an organization’s output is a key variable that affects pricing decisions and profits. Cost-reduction efforts are generally ongoing in business organizations. Productivity(discussed later in the chapter) is an important determinant of cost. Organizations with higher productivity rates than their competitors have a competitive cost advantage. A company may outsource a portion of its operation to achieve lower costs, higher productivity, or better quality. 3. Location can be important in terms of cost and convenience for customers. Location near inputs can result in lower input costs.Location near markets can result in lower transportation costs and quicker delivery times. Convenient location is particularly important in the retail sector. 4. Quality refers to material s, workmanship, design, and service. Consumers judge quality in terms of how well they think a product or service will satisfy its intended purpose. Customers are generally willing to pay more for a product or service if they perceive the product or service has a higher quality than that of a competitor. 5. Quick response can be a competitive advantage. One way is quickly bringing new or improved products or services to the market.Another is being able to quickly deliver existing products and services to a customer after they are ordered, and still another is quickly handling customer complaints. 6. Flexibility is the ability to respond to changes. Changes might relate to alterations in design features of a product or service, or to the volume demanded by customers, or the mix of products or services offered by an organization. High flexibility can be a competitive advantage in a changeable environment. 7. Inventory management can be a competitive advantage by effectively matching s upplies of goods with demand. . Supply chain management involves coordinating internal and external operations (buyers and suppliers) to achieve timely and cost-effective delivery of goods throughout the system. 9. Service might involve after-sale activities customers perceive as value-added, such as delivery, setup, warranty work, and technical support. Or it might involve extra attention while work is in progress, such as courtesy, keeping the customer informed, and attention to details. Service quality can be a key differentiator; and it is one that is often sustainable.Moreover, businesses rated highly by their customers for service quality tend to be more profitable, and grow faster, than businesses that are not rated highly. 10. Managers and workers are the people at the heart and soul of an organization, and if they are competent and motivated, they can provide a distinct competitive edge by their skills and the ideas they create. One often overlooked skill is answering the t elephone. How complaint calls or requests for information are handled can be a positive or a negative. If a person answering is rude or not helpful, that can produce a negative image.Conversely, if calls are handled promptly and cheerfully, that can produce a positive image and, potentially, a competitive advantage. Key EXTERNAL factor 1. Economic conditions. These include the general health and direction of the economy, inflation and deflation, interest rates, tax laws, and tariffs. 2. Political conditions. These include favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward business, political stability or instability, and wars. 3. Legal environment. This includes antitrust laws, government regulations, trade restrictions, minimum wage laws, product liability laws and recent court experience, labor laws, and patents. . Technology. This can include the rate at which product innovations are occurring, current and future process technology (equipment, materials handling), and design technology. 5 . Competition. This includes the number and strength of competitors, the basis of competition (price, quality, special features), and the ease of market entry. 6. Markets. This includes size, location, brand loyalties, ease of entry, potential for growth, long-term stability, and demographics. Key INTERNAL factors 1. Human resources. These include the skills and abilities of managers and orkers; special talents (creativity, designing, problem solving); loyalty to the organization; expertise; dedication; and experience. 2. Facilities and equipment. Capacities, location, age, and cost to maintain or replace can have a significant impact on operations. 3. Financial resources. Cash flow, access to additional funding, existing debt burden, and cost of capital are important considerations. 4. Customers. Loyalty, existing relationships, and understanding of wants and needs are important. 5. Products and services. These include existing products and services, and the potential for new produ cts and services. . Technology. This includes existing technology, the ability to integrate new technology, and the probable impact of technology on current and future operations. 7. Suppliers. Supplier relationships, dependability of suppliers, quality, flexibility, and service are typical considerations. 8. Other. Other factors include patents, labor relations, company or product image, distribution channels, relationships with distributors, maintenance of facilities and equipment, access to resources, and access to markets. PRODUCTIVITY MEASURE Productivity measures are useful on a number of levels.For an individual department or organization, productivity measures can be used to track performance over time. * This allows managers to judge performance and to decide where improvements are needed. * For example, if productivity has slipped in a certain area, operations staff can examine the factors used to compute productivity to determine what has changed and then devise a means o f improving productivity in subsequent periods. Productivity measures also can be used to judge the performance of an entire industry or the productivity of a country as a whole.These productivity measures are aggregate measures. In essence, productivity measurements serve as scorecards of the effective use of resources. Business leaders are concerned with productivity as it relates to competitiveness: If two firms both have the same level of output but one requires less input because of higher productivity, that one will be able to charge a lower price and consequently increase its share of the market. Or that firm might elect to charge the same price, thereby reaping a greater profit.Government leaders are concerned with national productivity because of the close relationship between productivity and a nation’s standard of living. High levels of productivity are largely responsible for the relatively high standards of living enjoyed by people in industrial nations. Furtherm ore, wage and price increases not accompanied by productivity increases tend to create inflationary pressures on a nation’s economy. Improving Productivity A company or a department can take a number of key steps toward improving productivity: 1.Develop productivity measures for all operations. Measurement is the first step in managing and controlling an operation. 2. Look at the system as a whole in deciding which operations are most critical. It is overall productivity that is important. Managers need to reflect on the value of potential productivity improvements before Okaying improvement efforts. The issue is effectiveness. There are several aspects of this. * One is to make sure the result will be something customers want. * For example, if a company is able to increase its output through roductivity improvements, but then is unable to sell the increased output, the increase in productivity isn’t effective. * Second, it is important to adopt a systems viewpoint: A productivity increase in one part of an operation that doesn’t increase the productivity of the system would not be effective. * For example, suppose a system consists of a sequence of two operations, where the output of the first operation is the input to the second operation, and each operation can complete its part of the process at a rate of 20 units per hour.If the productivity of the first operation is increased, but the productivity of the second operation is not, the output of the system will still be 20 units per hour. 3. Develop methods for achieving productivity improvements, such as soliciting ideas from workers (perhaps organizing teams of workers, engineers, and managers), studying how other firms have increased productivity, and reexamining the way work is done. 4. Establish reasonable goals for improvement. 5. Make it clear that management supports and encourages productivity improvement. Consider incentives to reward workers for contributions. . Measure impr ovements and publicize them. Other factors that affect productivity include the following: * Standardizing processes and procedures wherever possible to reduce variability can have a significant benefit for both productivity and quality. * Quality differences may distort productivity measurements. One way this can happen is when comparisons are made over time, such as comparing the productivity of a factory now with one 30 years ago. Quality is now much higher than it was then, but there is no simple way to incorporate quality improvements into productivity measurements. Use of the Internet can lower costs of a wide range of transactions, thereby increasing, productivity. It is likely that this effect will continue to increase productivity in the foreseeable future. * Computer viruses can have an immense negative impact on productivity. * Searching for lost or misplaced items wastes time, hence negatively affecting productivity. * Scrap rates have an adverse effect on productivity, signaling inefficient use of resources. * New workers tend to have lower productivity than seasoned workers. Thus, growing companies may experience a productivity lag. Safety should be addressed. Accidents can take a toll on productivity. * A shortage of information technology workers and other technical workers hampers the ability of companies to update computing resources, generate and sustain growth, and take advantage of new opportunities. * Layoffs often affect productivity. The effect can be positive and negative. Initially, productivity may increase after a layoff, because the workload remains the same but fewer workers do the work—although they have to work harder and longer to do it.However, as time goes by, the remaining workers may experience an increased risk of burnout, and they may fear additional job cuts. The most capable workers may decide to leave. * Labor turnover has a negative effect on productivity; replacements need time to get up to speed. * Design of the workspace can impact productivity. For example, having tools and other work items within easy reach can positively impact productivity. * Incentive plans that reward productivity increases can boost productivity.

The Chronic Offender of DUI essays

The Chronic Offender of DUI essays There is reason to believe that the most frequent chronic offenders are the ones least likely to be classified as criminals, either by the courts or by the community: drunk drivers. Yet, the number of drivers arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol makes it clear that this is probably the single greatest category of criminal behavior in the nation. As reported on the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Web site, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration noted that approximately 1.4 million drivers were arrested in 2001 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That equaled an arrest rate of one for every 137 licensed drivers in the United States (2003). Moreover, drunk or substance-impaired driving is not likely to be an isolated incident, like the instance of the Honors Society high school student who swipes a CD player on a dare and the like. Rather, drunk and impaired drivers are very likely to be chronic offenders. "About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol are repeat offenders" (Fell, 1995, quoted by MADD, 2004). In addition, in 2001, "about 1,461 fatalities occurred in crashes involving alcohol-impaired or intoxicated drivers who had at least one previous DWI convictionabout 8.4 percent of all alcohol- related traffic fatalities (Runge, 2003, quoted by MADD And yet, increasingly, drunk and substance-intoxicated drivers are being treated not as criminals, even when they have been involved in vehicular manslaughter,' or have killed someone. Increasingly, they are being treated as people who have a chronic disease rather than as people who chronically decide to break the law with often devastating effects. The three strikes and you're out' mentality is only marginally involved in punishment and/or rehabi...

Al Gore - Saving the Constitution Speech at Constitution hall

Al Gore Saving the Constitution Speech at Constitution Hall delivered 16 January 2006, Washington, D.C.Thank you very much. Id like to thank Michael Ostrolenk for that on-the-spot introduction, and Id like to thank Michael and the other leaders of the Liberty Coalition for the wonderful work that they are doing to try to help Americans bridge many gaps that have sometimes unnecessarily divided us. I want to thank them for co-sponsoring this event. I want to thank Lisa Brown for her friendship to me and for her outstanding leadership of the American Constitution Society. Tipper and I have long admired her work, and its a pleasure to work with her. To all of the distinguished guests who are here, Senator Dianne Feinsteinothers who are present [inaudible]. And I want to commiserate with Congressman Bob Barr, who was connected live when we walked out on the stage, but having had similar occurrences with live video feeds before, I know what can happen and what he must be feeling right now. And I want to thank all of you for coming. Id like to start by saying that Congressman Bob Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years. But we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens, Democrats and Republicans alike, to express our shared concern that Americas Constitution is in grave danger. In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power. As we begin this new year, the executive branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress precisely to prevent such abuses. It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored in our country. And that is why many of us have come here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences insofar as it is possible to do so and join with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved. It is appropriate that we make this appeal on the day our nation has set aside to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who challenged America to breathe new life into our oldest values by extending its promise to all of our people. And on this particular Martin Luther King Day it is especially important to recall for that for the last several years of his life Dr. King was illegally wiretapped, one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during that period. The FBI privately labeled King the and I quote the most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country and vowed to again, I quote take him off his pedestal. The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and tried to blackmail him into committing suicide. This campaign continued until Dr. Kings murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted this long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. Kings life was instrumental in helping to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping. And one result was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, often called FISA, which was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there was indeed a sufficient cause for the surveillance. It included ample flexibility and an ability for the executive to move with as much speed as desired. I voted for that law during my first term in Congress. And, for almost 30 years, the system has proven a valuable and workable means of affording a level of protection for American citizens while permitting foreign surveillance to continue whenever it is necessary. And yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that, in spite of this long-settled law, the executive branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on and I quote the report large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages and other Internet traffic inside the United States. The New York Times reported that the president decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program without search warrants or any new laws that would permit domestic intelligence collection. During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the president seemed to go out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place. But, surprisingly, the presidents soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the president confirmed the story was true but in the next breath declared that he has no intention of stopping or bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end. At present, we still have much to learn about the NSAs domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently. A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said, The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men. An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet on Common Sense ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described Americas alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that, in his phrase, the law is king. Vigilant adherence to the rule of law actually strengthens our democracy, of course, and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint under the rule of law. And make no mistake: The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the normal processes of government that are designed to improve policy and avoid error. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents overreaching and checks the accretion to power. A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability helps our country avoid many serious mistakes that we would otherwise make. Recently, for example, we learned from just-declassified documents after almost 40 years that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which authorized the tragic Vietnam War was actually based on false information. And we now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq war 38 years later was also based on false information. Now, the point is that America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. And that is the reason why following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable. The president and I agree on one thing: The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attacks on September 11th and we must be ever vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm. Where we disagree is on the proposition that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government in order to protect Americans from terrorism when, in fact, doing so would make us weaker and more vulnerable. And remember that, once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows, the greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its mistakes and reveal errors, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police its activities. And once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we do become a government of men and not laws. The presidents men have minced words about Americas laws. The attorney general, for example, openly conceded that the kind of surveillance, in his phrase, that we know they have been conducting, does require a court order unless authorized by statue. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act self-evidently does not authorize what the NSA has been doing and no one inside or outside the administration claims that it does. Incredibly, the administration claims instead that the surveillance was implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who attacked us on September 11. But this argument simply does not hold any water. Without getting into the legal intricacies, it faces a number of embarrassing facts. First, another admission by the attorney general: He concedes that the administration knew that the NSA project was prohibited by existing law and that that is why they consulted with some members of Congress about the possibility of changing the statute. Attorney General Gonzales says that they were told by the members of Congress consulted that this would probably not be possible. And so they decided not to make the request. So how can they now argue that the authorization for the use of military force somehow implicitly authorized it all along? Indeed, when the authorization was being debated, the administration did in fact seek to have language inserted in it that would have authorized them to use military force domestically and the Congress refused to agree. Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Jim McGovern, among others, made clear statements during the debate on the floor of the House and Senate, respectively, clearly stating that that authorization did not operate domestically and there is no assertion to the contrary. When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him the power he wanted when this measure was passed, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as Justice Frankfurter once wrote, To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between the president and the Congress. This is precisely the disrespect for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case during the Korean War. It is this same disrespect for Americas Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties. For example, as you know, the president has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that notwithstanding his American citizenship that person in prison has no right to talk with a lawyer, even if he wants to argue that the president or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person. The president claims that he can imprison that American citizen any American citizen he chooses indefinitely, for the rest of his life, without even an arrest warrant, without notifying them of what charges have been filed against them, without even informing their families that they have been imprisoned. No such right exists in the America that you and I know and love. It is foreign to our Constitution. It must be rejected. At the same time, the executive branch has also claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture and have plainly constituted torture in a widespread pattern that has been extensively documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world. Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by executive branch interrogators. Many more have been broken and humiliated. And, in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were completely innocent of any criminal charges whatsoever. This is a shameful exercise of power that overturns a set of principles that youre nation has observed since General George Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War. They have been observed by every president since then until now. They violate the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture and our own laws against torture. The president has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals on the streets of foreign cities and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes and nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture. Some of our traditional allies have been deeply shocked by these new and uncharacteristic patterns on the part of America. For example, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan one of those nations with the worst reputations for torture in its prisons registered a complaint to his home office about the cruelty and senselessness of the new U.S. practice that he witnessed. This material were getting is useless, he wrote. And then he continued with this: We are selling our souls for dross. It is, in fact, positively harmful. Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what cant he do? The dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the executive branchs extravagant claims of these previously unrecognized powers, and I quote Dean Koh, If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution. The fact that our normal American safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is itself deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the executive branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so, and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore a healthy constitutional balance. For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the president declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it. Similarly, the executive branch claimed this it could unilaterally imprison American citizens without giving them access to review by any tribunal. And when the Supreme Court disagreed, the president then engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the court from providing any meaningful content to the rights of the citizens affected. A conservative jurist on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the executive branchs handling of one such case seemed to involve the sudden abandonment of principle and, I quote him, at substantial cost to the governments credibility before the courts. As a result of this unprecedented claim of new unilateral power, the executive branch has now put our constitutional design at grave risk. The stakes for Americas democracy are far higher than has been generally recognized. These claims must be rejected and a healthy balance of power must restored to our republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation. For more than two centuries, Americas freedoms have been preserved in large part by our founders wise decision to separate the aggregate power of our government into three co-equal branches, each of which, as you know, serves to check and balance the power of the other two. On more than a few occasions in our history, the dynamic interaction among all three branches has resulted in collisions and temporary impasses that create what are invariably labeled constitutional crises. These crises have often been dangerous and uncertain times for our republic. But in each such case so far, we have found a resolution of the crisis by renewing our common agreement to live together under the rule of law. The principal alternative to democracy throughout history has, of course, been the consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strong man or small group who exercised that power without the informed consent of the governed. It was in revolt against just such a regime, after all, that America was founded. When Lincoln declared at the time of our greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in the Civil War was, in his memorable phrase, whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure, he was not only saving our union. He was recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they fall, as did Athens and the Roman republic upon whose designs our founders drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another strong- man regime. There have, of course, been other periods in American history when the executive branch claimed new powers later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president, John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents. And when his successor, President Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses, in his first inaugural, he said, The essential principles of our government form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. Should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain that road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety. President Lincoln, of course, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, and some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after World War I, with the notorious red scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II marked a shameful low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, of course, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTEL program was part and parcel of those abuses experienced by Dr. King and so many thousands of others. But in each of these cases throughout American history, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, our nation recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret. But there are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing so that this cycle may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a globe where there are nuclear weapons and Cold War tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever-enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counterintelligence activities and allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. But as Justice Frankfurter wrote in that famous steel seizure case, The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority. A second reason to believe that we may be experiencing something new, outside that historical cycle, is that we are, after all, told by this administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to last, in their phrase, for the rest of our lives. And so we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by other presidents to justify arrogations of power will in this case persist in near perpetuity. Third, we need to be keenly aware of the startling advances in the sophistication of eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to easily sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and then mine it for intelligence. And this adds significant vulnerability to the privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as the potential power of those technologies grows. Those technologies do have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways that are both subtle and profound. Dont misunderstand me. The threat of additional terror strikes is real and the concerted efforts by terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction does indeed create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the executive branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is an in fact an inherent power conferred by the Constitution to any president to take unilateral action when necessary to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat. And it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not. But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for many years and producing a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government. And there is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle. This administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential power is exactly what our Constitution intended. This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which ought to be more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the presidents powers until the contours of the Constitution that the framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the presidents authority when acting as commander in chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary, cannot be checked by Congress. And President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as commander in chief, invoking it as frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, both domestic and foreign. And when added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine. This effort to rework Americas carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all-powerful executive branch, with a subservient Congress and subservient judiciary, is ironically accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework Americas foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish a form of dominance in the world. And the common denominator The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control. The same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the executive branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals and to demand conformity from all executive branch employees. For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases. Ironically, that is exactly what happened to the FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoovers assertion that Martin Luther King was closely connected to communists. The head of the FBIs domestic intelligence division testified that his effort to tell the truth about Dr. Kings innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated within the FBI and pressured. And I quote: It was evident, he said, that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street. The men and I, he continued, discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men, he continued, were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes. They had children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. So they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in. The Constitutions framers, who studied human nature so closely, understood this dilemma quite well. As Alexander Hamilton put it, A power over a mans support is a power over his will. In any case, quite soon there was no more difference of opinion about Dr. King within the FBI, and the false accusation became the unanimous view. And in exactly the same way, George Tenets CIA eventually joined in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between Al Qaida and the government of Iraq. In the words of George Orwell, We are all capable, he said, of believing things which we know to be untrue and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time. The only check on it is that, sooner or later, a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. Two thousand two hundred American soldiers have lost their lives as this false belief bumped into a solid reality. And indeed, whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable, it almost inevitably leads to gross mistakes and abuses. That is part of human nature. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes, dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded. It is human nature, whether for Republicans or Democrats or people of any set of views. Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the administrations eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that, if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers. Tragically, he apparently still does not know that the administration did, in fact, have the names of at least two of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have led to the identification of most of the others. One of them was in the phone book. And yet, because of incompetence, unaccountable incompetence in the handling of the information, it was never used to protect the American people. It is often the case, again, regardless of which party might be in power, that an executive branch beguiled by the pursuit of unchecked power responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it be given still more power. Often the request itself is used to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has. Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. That is why many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this president means that the next will have unchecked power as well. And the next may be someone whose values and beliefs you do not trust. And that is why Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this president has done. If his attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, then our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next president or some future president will be able in the name of national security to restrict our liberties in a way the framers would never have imagined possible. This same instinct to expand power and establish dominance has characterized the relationship between this administration and the courts and the Congress. In a properly functioning system, the judicial branch would serve as the constitutional umpire to ensure that the branches of government observe their proper spheres of authority, observed civil liberties, adhere to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the unilateral executive has tried hard to thwart the ability of the judiciary to call balls and strikes by keeping controversies out of its hands, notably those challenging its ability to detain individuals without legal process by appointing judges who will be deferential to its exercise of power and by its support of assaults on the independence of the third branch. The presidents decision, for example, to ignore the FISA law was a direct assault on the power of the judges who sit on that court. Congress established the FISA Court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap. And yet, to ensure that the court could not function as a check on executive power, the president simply did not take matters to it. And did not even let the court know that it was being bypassed. The presidents judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure the courts will not will not serve as an effective check on executive power. As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a long-time supporter of a powerful executive, a supporter of that so-called unitary executive. Whether you support his confirmation or not and I respect the fact that some of the co-sponsors of this event do; I do not but whatever your view, we must all agreethat he will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. Likewise, Chief Justice Roberts has made plain his deference to the expansion of executive power through his support of judicial deference to executive agency rulemaking. And the administration has also supported the assault on judicial independence that has been conducted largely in Congress. That assault includes a threat by the majority in the Senate to permanently change the rules to eliminate the right of the minority to engage in extended debate of the presidents nominees. The assault has extended to legislative efforts to curtail the jurisdiction of the courts in matters ranging from habeas corpus to the pledge of allegiance. In short, the administration has demonstrated a contempt for the judicial role and sought to evade judicial review of its actions at every turn. But the most serious damage in our constitutional framework has been to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of Congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the executive to attain this massive expansion of its power. I was elected to the Congress in 1976. Served eight years in the House, eight in the Senate, presided over the Senate for eight as vice president. Before that, as a young man, I saw the Congress firsthand as the son of a senator. My father was elected to Congress in 1938 10 years before I was born and left the Senate after I had graduated from college. The Congress we have today is structurally unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished and outstanding senators and congressmen serving today. I am honored to know them and to have worked with them. But the legislative branch of government as a whole, under its current leadership, now operates as if it were entirely subservient to the executive branch. It is astonishing to me and so foreign to what the Congress is supposed to be. Moreover, too many members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of their time not in thoughtful debate on the issues but, instead, raising money to purchase 30-second television commercials. Moreover, there have now been two or three generations of congressmen who dont really know what an oversight hearing is. In the 70s and 80s, the oversight hearings in which my colleagues and I participated held the feet of the executive branch to the fire no matter which party was in power. And, yet, oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today. The role of the authorization committees has declined into insignificance. The 13 annual appropriations bills are hardly ever actually passed as bills anymore. Often, everything is lumped into a familiar single giant measure that sometimes is not even available for members of Congress to even read before they vote on it. Members of the minority party are now routinely excluded from conference committees, and amendments are routinely disallowed during floor consideration of legislation. In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the greatest deliberative body in the world, meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked, Why is this chamber empty? In the House of Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435. And too many incumbents have come to believe that the key to continued access to the money for re-election is to stay on the good side of those who have the money to give. And, in the case of the majority party, the whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization. So the willingness of Congress to challenge the executive branch is further limited when the same party controls both Congress and the administration. The executive branch time and again has co-opted Congress role. And too often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power. Look, for example, at the congressional role in overseeing this massive, four-year eavesdropping campaign that, on its face, seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights. The president says he informed Congress. What he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and, sometimes, the leaders of the House and Senate. This small group, in turn, claims they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to the vice president. And, though I sympathize with the awkward position, the difficult position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking sufficient action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program. Many did. Moreover, in the Congress as a whole, both House and Senate, the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption that some have fallen vulnerable to. The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg threatening the integrity of our legislative branch of government. And it is the pitiful state of our legislative state which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by the executive branch now threatening a radical transformation of the American system. I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the Constitution of our country. But there is yet another player. There is yet another constitutional player whose faults must also be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has accompanied these efforts by the executive branch to dominate our constitutional system. We the people, collectively, are still the key to the survival of Americas democracy. We must examine ourselves. We, as Lincoln put it, even we here must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and hollowing out and degradation of American democracy. Its time to stand up for the American system that we know and love. It is time to breathe new life back into Americas democracy. Thomas Jefferson said, An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will. America is based on the belief that we can govern ourselves and exercise the power of self-government. The American idea proceeded from the bedrock principle that all just power is derived from the consent of the governed. The intricate and finally balanced system, now in such danger, was created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a whole. The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely read newspaper essays. And they represented only one of 24 series of essays that crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia. And when the convention had done its best, it was the people in their various states that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of Rights was made integral to the documents sent forward for ratification. And it is we the people who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution. And here there is cause for both concern and for great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television, a distracting and absorbing medium which seems determined to entertain itself more than it informs and educates. Lincolns memorable call during the Civil War is now applicable in a new way to our present dilemma: We must disenthrall ourselves, he said, and then we shall save our country. Forty years has passed since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source of information. And its dominance has now become so extensive that virtually all significant political communication now takes place within the confines of flickering 30-second advertisements, and theyre not The Federalist Papers. The political economy, supported by these short but expensive television ads, is as different from the vibrant politics of Americas first century as those politics were different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages. The constricted role of ideas in the American political system today has encouraged efforts by the executive branch to believe it can and should control the flow of information as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in the hands of the people. The administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain secrecy in its operations. After all, if the other branches dont know whats happening, they cant be a check or a balance. For example, when the administration was attempting to persuade Congress to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit, many in the House and Senate raised concerns about the cost and design of the program. But rather than engaging in open debate on the basis of factual data, the administration withheld facts and actively prevented the Congress from hearing testimony that it had sought from the principal administration expert who had the information showing in advance of the vote that indeed the true cost estimates were far beyond the numbers given to Congress by the president. And the workings of the program would play out very differently than Congress had been told. Deprived of that information, and believing the false numbers given to it, instead the Congress approved the program and, tragically, the entire initiative is now collapsing all over the country, with the administration making an appeal just this weekend asking major insurance companies to volunteer to bail it out. But the American people, who have a right to believe that its elected representatives will learn the truth and act on the basis of knowledge and utilize the rule of reason, have been let down. To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House with no scientific training whatsoever. Today one of the most distinguished scientific experts in the world on global warming, who works in NASA, has been ordered not to talk to members of the press; ordered to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the executive branch can monitor and control what he shares of his knowledge about global warming. This is a planetary crisis. We owe ourselves a truthful and reasoned discussion. One of the other ways the administration has tried to control the flow of information has been by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. President Eisenhower said this: Any who act as if freedoms defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America. Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote, Men feared witches and burnt women. The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights. Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moments notice to completely annihilate the country? Is America really in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march, when the last generation had to fight and win two world wars simultaneously? It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. And yet they faithfully protected our freedom and now its up to us to do the very same thing. We have a duty as Americans to defend out citizens rights not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the executive branch and the presidents apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law. I endorse the words of Bob Barr when he said, and I quote, The president has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will. A special counsel should be immediately appointed by the attorney general to remedy these obvious conflicts of interest that prevents them from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the president. Weve had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special council with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, has shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the executive branch has violated other laws. Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of this special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by the warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the president. And it should be a political issue in any race, regardless of party, section of the country, house of Congress, or anyone who opposes the appointment of a special counsel under these dangerous circumstances when our Constitution is at risk. Secondly, new whistleblower protection should immediately be established for members of the executive branch who report evidence of wrongdoing, especially where it involves abuse of authority in the sensitive areas of national security. Third, both houses of Congress should, of course, hold comprehensive and not just superficial hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the president. And they should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the executive branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should under no circumstances be granted unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed. Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist the their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion in the privacy of American citizens. Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy. It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it. In closing, I mention that, along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established by the people and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed, I can feel it in this hall. As Dr. King once said, perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us. Thank you very much.