All papers are on this page, in order, via the list below.
Just double space 'em and print away.

(most with footnotes!)
"Cut here" designates the end of each paper.
Each paper is about 5 pages long when double spaced. Personally We disagree with the views of
most of these papers, but the current College Professor, being a total fool, probably believes this crap.

Paper Title Class Grade
Economic Development in ECON 337 85%

Keaton, Director FILM 3051 81%

Critiquing Churchland PHIL 3211 90%

Critiquing Bradley PHIL 3211 90%

Blacks, Prison, and BLST 2200 87%
Institutional Racism

Revealing Marx PSCI 4004 92%

Time for Reform? PSCI 4011 98%
Considering the Failures
of the Electoral College

The Just War Doctrine PSC 421 82%
and the Gulf Conflict

Jean Paul Sartre and PHIL 102 100%
The Fundamental Project


Description: Pretty much self explanatory. This paper discusses the economic
development in the country if Zimbabwe detailing the countries economic
successes and reasons for them.

Economic Development in Zimbabwe

The country of Zimbabwe is one of the most economically developed on the African continent . A fairly young political entity, Zimbabwe has only enjoyed recognized autonomy since 1980, the year in which the United Kingdom repealed its imperialistic claims to the African nation . Despite its youth the country has achieved a level of economic development uncharacteristic of sub-Saharan African nations. Second only to South Africa in economic development, Zimbabwe's economic system is one indicative of a transitional country, a country making the transition from dependency underdevelopment to self-reliant industrialization. The purpose of this essay is to make a cursory but adequate examination of Zimbabwean socio-economic and political system, as means to analyzing the countries economic development. The ultimate purpose of this study is to provide a model of the structure necessary to achieve economic development where none previously existed. Zimbabwe is an appropriate model because the dynamics of underdevelopment to development in this country are readily apparent. This model can be useful in understanding underdevelopment in other so called "third-world" countries and in determining what is necessary for these countries to make the transition to industrialization.

Zimbabwe is a landlocked country in the southern, sub-Saharan area of the African continent bordered by South Africa to the South, Botswana to the West, Mozambique to the East and Zambia to the North. With an area of 391,090 km2 Zimbabwe is only slightly larger than the state of Colorado. Harare is Zimbabwe's capital and largest city with a population of 1,100,000. Containing vast amounts of rare mineralogical resources and possessing a favorable growing climate Zimbabwe's economy is drawn almost equally between the mining of minerals ($2.2 billion) and the production of staples and cash crops ($2.1 billion) .

Zimbabweans are comprised of two primary ethnic groups, the Shona, comprising 74% of the population and the Ndebele comprising 20%. Other ethnic black groups and Asians make up 4% of the population while whites make up just over 1% of the population. Zimbabwe has a population of 10.35 million people with a population density of 24 persons per km2. 1992 census figures estimate Zimbabwe's growth at 3.0% with 90% of this growth rate within the Shona group. This 3.0% growth is quite rapid given its relation to the countries declining annual growth rate of -15% .

Zimbabwe's history dates back to the 9th century A.D., the believed period in which many great buildings were built, buildings clearly indicative of an early and great civilization. Of the many sites the most impressive is the Great Stone House or Great Zimbabwe the source of the countries name. Despite the impressive nature of the Great Zimbabwe and the other building sites, it is believed that the civilization that created them did not survive to see the new millennium .

Some 900 years after the construction of the Great Zimbabwe many other sights were built as Zimbabwe became the object of British colonialism in 1888. It was in this year that John Cecil Rhodes obtained mineral rights for the British throne and began the process of bringing Zimbabwe home to Great Britain. Pleased with his accomplishment the throne honored Rhodes by lending his name to the area, now calling it Rhodesia. Headed by Rhodes the British South Africa Company (BSA) was chartered in 1889 with the responsibility of colonizing the areas of Northern and Southern Rhodesia and bringing back to the Kingdom the vast mineralogical resources Rhodesia had to offer .

Although a colony, throughout the existence of its charter Rhodesia enjoyed self-governing and perceived autonomy. The United Kingdom reserved the right to intervene in the policies of Rhodesia at any prompting, but this right was rarely employed leaving Rhodesia's autonomy all but assumed. The perceived autonomy the nation enjoyed allowed for the emergence of factions interested in developing Rhodesia's mineralogical and agricultural potential for the purpose of stimulating domestic growth only. Although growth would benefit the country as a whole, it would benefit whites specifically by design. An apartheid-type land apportionment act passed in 1934 allotted key resource rich areas to whites only. The perceived autonomy and racists nature of Rhodesia would have great implications late in the countries political future.

By 1960 Rhodesia was a country of two factions: the ruling white minority who wanted complete independence from the United Kingdom and the indigenous African majority who wanted greater control of their country and an end to institutional racism. On November 11, 1965 in a step to hasten along political change white progressives announced the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) thereby declaring their independence from Great Britain . The British government was not hostile to the UDI but did insist that the Rhodesian government demonstrate its intention to move toward free and democratic majority rule. Considering the majority of Rhodesia was African the ruling whites were diametrically opposed to any such form of majority rule government and refused to meet Great Britain's conditions of independence.

On December 16, 1966 Rhodesia made history by being the first country subject to United Nations economic sanctions, suffering a complete embargo on key exports and imports . With a dilapidating economy and African discontent with the white ruling minority Rhodesia fell into a period of economic and political turmoil breeding uncertainty and general political instability.

In 1974 Rhodesia's two primary black nationalists parties combined to form a front against Rhodesia's governing policy. Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU) united together to form a "Patriotic Front" against the segregationist regime of Prime Minister Ian Smith . In 1976, under great political, economic, and social pressure Smith ceded to foreign and domestic demands and agreed to majority rule in principle. Through diplomatic channels and under British auspices Rhodesia made the transition to majority rule and on December 21, 1979 political reforms were unofficially agreed upon. As a condition of this agreement Rhodesia was granted independence from the Commonwealth, and all U.N. sanctions were lifted with a decree that Rhodesia was to be internationally recognized as a political state .

In late February, 1980 free democratic election were held in Rhodesia for the first time with Mugabe's ZANU(PF) achieving an absolute majority. Upon the victory of his party Mugabe was asked to form the first government of the country of Zimbabwe. On April 18, 1980 the British Government formally granted independence to the former Rhodesia and four months later Zimbabwe was indoctrinated as a member of the United Nations .

Zimbabwe's political system exists to this day as democratic and majoritarian all implemented through a parliamentary system. Robert Mugabe remains as President and utilizes a foreign policy of non-alignment. Despite this Zimbabwe is a member of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and performs primary trade with its neighboring African state South Africa. It is the period from 1980 to the present that is most fundamental in understanding Zimbabwe's economic system because it is in this period that Zimbabwe's economic structure best reveals itself.

Zimbabwe's economic structure is one of great potential. In the years prior to its independence Zimbabwe put great emphasis in developing its mining industry and as a result it is one of the most developed in Africa. The mining of such minerals as copper, nickel, gold, and metallurgical-grade ferrochromite is responsible for nearly half the countries $4.9 billion Gross Domestic Product (GDP) . The other half of Zimbabwe's GDP is generated primarily in the agricultural sector with the majority of this produced at subsistence levels by most of the population.

Zimbabwe clearly has the potential to generate agriculture beyond the subsistence level and thereby eliminate any degree of shortage. In any event subsistence would be sufficient to eliminate shortage if not for recent devastating droughts.

Zimbabwe's mineral export industry is key to the nations developmental success. Although small, the countries mining industry is modernized and strategically developed toward exports. Many paved roads link mines and other industries together that complement mining such as heavy machinery. Also, the areas within the vicinity of the mines are highly developed and urbanized to ensure an adequate and able workforce. Finally, Zimbabwe participates in non-aligned trade for non-strategic products such as textiles. This greatly reduces the countries chance of becoming dependent on a trade partner.

In many ways Zimbabwe is a model for third-world economic development. Although not yet fully developed Zimbabwe clearly has the potential to be a full fledged developed nation. Beyond its vast resources Zimbabwe is structured in a way to promote development. This fact in and of itself distinguishes Zimbabwe from most other Lesser Developed Countries (LDC). Zimbabwe's economic structure is one in which they are essentially self-sufficient and trade only for profit or for consumer goods. Also they perform trade with many partners with no single partner comprising garnering more than 15% of import or export goods. By structuring the Zimbabwe's economic system in a way that keeps its partners diversified and its imports non-strategic, Mugabe has successfully led his nation to the path of development. The barriers left to full development are quite minimal compared to the ones already dominated, The structure of Zimbabwe's economic system is truly a model of economic development.

---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here


Description: The topic of this paper is the actor and director Buster
Keaton. This paper discusses Buster Keaton's contributions to silent film,
addressing specifically his use of pragamatism as a tool of comedy.

Keaton, Director
Buster Keaton was arguably the greatest comic ever to direct in the silent era of film. Though the silent area of film was marked with many great comic directors, few possessed the ingenuity to create humor at the level attained by Keaton. Keaton was rare in that he recognized the humor that could be involved in problem solving. For Keaton it was simple: create a problem and, no matter how massive, solve it in the most practical manner possible. This method of pragmatic approaches to massive, conventional problems made for brilliant, and intelligent humor- some of the funniest ever to grace the silver screen. This was Buster Keaton's style of film making. And coupled with the subtle facial expressions he maintained in his acting, no matter what the situation (he acted in his own pictures), Buster Keaton, at his height was one of the most successful directors in the silent era of American cinema1 .

Buster Keaton began his career in 1898 at age three as part of a successful family Vaudeville act. The act, carried out by father Joe, mother Mary, and baby Buster, invariably depicted the comedic situations of a dysfunctional family headed by an abusive, alcoholic father. Oddly enough this was no act. This was in fact the true state of the Keaton family. The alcoholism in the Keaton family would plague Buster later in life, but as a child Buster was a natural entertainer. Even as a child Buster was known for is great "stone face." This played extremely well with the audience as they watched Buster dawn only subtle facial expressions as he was tossed about by his ruthless, inebriated father. The act was one of Vaudevilles most successful and it was the start of the career of one of America's greatest film comics2 .

Keaton's film career began in 1916 when he ran into an overweight comic named "Fatty" Arbuckle. Arbuckle was a mildly successful film comic working for a producer named Joe Schenck. Arbuckle envisioned he and Keaton as an acting duo, doing feature length film comedies. Arbuckle convinced Keaton to leave Vaudeville and Keaton's film career was begun. Keaton's association with Arbuckle proved short lived due to "Fatty's" some what perverse lifestyle (he allegedly raped and killed a film actress with a bottle). Despite this, the relationship did last long enough for Arbuckle to teach Keaton about the camera. Once the seed for camera work had been planted, Buster took off. Under his producer Joe Schenck, Keaton directed and acted in a slew of 1 and 2 reel shorts. The success of these prompted Schenck to fund a production company just for Keaton films, and in 1919 Schenck founded Buster Keaton Productions of which Buster Keaton was head director of all films and held complete, creative control. The following year, 1920, to 1928, the period when Keaton held complete creative control over all his films, was undeniable the period of Keaton Masterpieces3 . Such films as One Week (1920), Cops (1920), Day Dreams (1922), Sherlock, Jr. (1924), the first full featured film he had complete control over, and The General (1927) were arguably some of the greatest films of the silent era, comic or otherwise. In fact, some have gone as far to call The General one of the greatest films ever made, sound or otherwise4.

It was in these films that Keaton's genius shone, and the whole world laughed at one of films greatest. And laugh they did, both at him and with him. At him, because Buster's pragmatic film persona made for a level of humor well above sight gags and slapstick. Buster was forever the guy just minding his business, forced to deal with the conventional objects the mad, mad world put in his path.5 As problem after problem abounded upon Keaton, the audience laughed hysterically at the only subtle facial expression Keaton dawned in the face of these obstacles. The howl of laughter continued on as Buster devised the most unlikely, yet most practical solutions to deal with these problems. Take for example the rug laying scene of One Week. In this scene Buster nails the rug down over his jacket. The solution? Cut the rug away from around his jacket, put on the jacket, and the scrap piece of cut out rug makes a nice welcome mat. All this executed with a straight face made for incomparable humor.

Beside laughing at Keaton the audience laughed with him as well. They laughed with Keaton because every laugh was the product of a well calculated plan. Keaton never employed a hit-em-with-a-gag-and-hope-they-laugh method humor. Keaton's style was much more involving and planned. Keaton made the audience a part of the gag, adding reflexivity to the film6 . The bathtub scene in One Week is a grand example. In this film Buster's screen wife played by ______________ drops the soap out of the bathtub while taking a bath. Here we see the inevitable Keatonesque problem, being grand in nature (nudity was forbidden in American silent film after all). And the solution? Keatonesque as well: orthodox pragmatism. If the camera man cannot film nudity then the most practical solution is for the camera man to cover the camera lens with his hand while the nudity is present. The audience is not laughing at Keaton in this scene but they are very much laughing with him in the calculated comedic situation he created7.

Beyond employing pragmatism to create comedy, Keaton often utilized stunts and special effects to invent humor. Keaton was an extremely agile and athletic man, and he often used these attributes to pull off feats of skill which in and of the fact that he was actually doing them created a type of exhilaration produced humor. In other words, the humor was a product of the fact that Keaton was actually, really performing these dangerous, daring stunts8. Although this form of inverted reflexivity was probably not intended, it was none the less very effective at humoring the audience. Beyond physical prowess, Keaton had a keen mind for the concept of film and what it could mean. For Keaton what it meant was that time, space, and environment in general on film was malleable and could be manipulated with the greatest of ease9 . This of course was mind held theory; to visually convey a theory of this sort to a viewing audience required a well planned film with concise and exacting special effects. All of this played itself out brilliantly in Keaton's first feature length film, Sherlock, Jr. (1924). Sherlock, Jr. was a film about a man (Buster) who was accused of a crime, falls a asleep and dreams himself into a film to clear his name of the crime he was accused of in reality. This film inside of a film concept was the perfect vehicle to convey Keaton's malleability of film environment theory. Keaton employed effective special effects to show himself walking into the secondary film from the primary but the most impressive effects were the "in the camera" special effects to show the transition from reality (the primary film) to unreality (the secondary film)10. In these scenes, Keaton pursues an action, and before the action is completed the scene is changed. Example: Keaton jumping into the ocean and the entire scene changes from ocean to snow while Keaton's in mid-flight. What Keaton is showing is he, the real, making the transition to film, the fake. The implication is that during the transition, Keaton is inanimate while the film world around him is in a state of dynamics. Keaton stands still, while the world around him changes, instantly. This is the malleability of film and Keaton conveys this too the audience with great effectiveness. The transition scene(s) of Sherlock, Jr. are by far the most revealing of Keaton's genius11.

Keaton's success lasted well into the late 1920's when in 1928 he ran into marital problems and lost his wife and monetary fortune in divorce. The devastation of these events caused his alcoholism, a trait he inherited from his father, to sky rocket out of control12. As a result, Keaton lost creative control of his films and was only hired onto films as a side-man, returning him to the same status he held when he first started films just a decade earlier. Despite the tragic end to his directing career Keaton's legacy remained; his pragmatism based humor, along with his daring, almost exaggerated stunts, and his strange fixation with trains and planes (as in straight lines) had their influence, especially on a future Warner Bros. cartoonist named Tex Avery13. Keaton died in mediocrity but despite this he remains undeniably one of film's Best Ever.

---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here


Description: This paper is a logical critique of Paul Churchland's argument
on introspection. This paper supports Churchland's argument by use of
standard logical processes of proof, validation, and soundness. Adressed
also in this paper is Nagel's writing 'What is it like to be a Bat.'

Critiquing Churchland
In his writing, Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of the Brain, Paul M. Churchland uses eliminative materialism to effectively (I must reluctantly admit) attack dualism and the claim that the mind cannot be viewed by physicalist methods. The eliminative materialistic method of attack is one in which older theories about an issue are revised with new and reduced ones. This intertheorectical reduction occurs specifically in the revised theory. The point in doing this according to Churchland is to provide a new theory that "parallels, to a relevant degree" the old one, while at the same time encompasses a more comprehensive basis. By doing this the problems of introspection which plague the dualists are eliminated and physicalist method of introspection is upheld. This may all seem somewhat unintelligible, but in context it carries itself quite well. With that in mind I will proceed immediately with Churchland's attack on the dualists.

For the dualists the mind is different from the body. The mind for dualists is composed entirely of mental properties, while the body, including the brain, is restricted to the realm of the physical. As a result of being divergent properties one cannot explain the other. The significant implications are as such: I could see red and describe it in a physical sense, but the sense that it is viewed in my mind is entirely mental, and indescribable. Processes of the mind can only be viewed through introspection which is itself a mental process and cannot leave that realm. The physical and mental are divergent enough that there is no way I can describe in the physical realm what I view in the mental. In attacking this theory Churchland formulates one his own using the process of eliminative materialism. The eliminative materialist view is that beliefs about the mind are the product of "learned systems of beliefs;" and the dualists view of mind is the product of a learned system of beliefs categorized as "folk psychology." This folk psychology for the eliminative materialist employs simple common sense wisdom about the mind. The most requisite example is that you cannot explain the mind with the body because they are two divergent properties. Churchland proposes this: what if we employed a far more comprehensive theory about the mind and its properties. This theory has a scheme about it though; it is not a direct attack on the dualists, in fact it is a derived, reduced theory that parallels the dualist theory. Its purpose is to disprove dualists theory by their own game. The crux of Churchland's argument is that we can know something physically with the sameness that we know something phenomologically. That which is observed in the "common-sense conceptual framework" can be observed with the exact sameness in an intertheoretically reduced physicalist framework. The following quote contains examples Churchland wants us to consider.

[In a reduced framework] a sound is identical with being an oscillation in air pressure at 440hz; being red is identical with having a certain triplet of electromagnetic reflectance efficiencies; being warm is identical with having a certain mean level of microscopically energies, and so forth.

What the above examples entail is this: If we consider these things, sound, red, warmth, in the reduced framework (FN) then do we not open the pathway to explanation of those things which lie in the mental realm? For Churchland of course we do. A simple revision in our processes of sensation makes description of the mental possible through physical capacities. And Churchland argues, it is readily possible to make this revision. He asks us to consider this: Can we learn to feel what about 70° is? Yes certainly we can. Now consider a revised theory of what 70° degrees is, something more comprehensive than the common-sense notion which would state that we cannot describe how 70° feels to us. The eliminative materialistic view of 70° is the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at about 6.2 x 10-21 joules. Can we learn to identify the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at about 6.2 x 10-21 joules? Yes, just as readily as we can learn to identify 70°. What is accomplished? The barriers which the subjectiveness of phenomena pose are eliminated thereby re-classifying the subjective as objective. What once could not be viewed because its realm was unreachable, is now easily accessed. It might be argued that describing 70° as the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at about 6.2 x 10-21 joules is nothing more than doing the same thing two different ways. That, of course, is exactly what it is, but this poses a problem for the dualists, especially Nagel, because by their rules we could not feel the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at about 6.2 x 10-21 joules unless it was incongruent to 70°, which it is not. The following attack on Nagel serves as a clarified explanation.

Churchland attacks Nagel's writing What is it Like to Be a Bat. Specifically Churchland attacks Nagel's view that in reduction, physicalist eliminate the phenomenal features of a substance. The basis for this argument is that in reduction the subjective phenomena or experience of something is lost. Churchland denies this. In fact Churchland implies that the objective description of that which is thought to be subjective, is all that retains something's phenomenological properties. Take for instance the red of an Apple. The apples redness can be explained as a "certain wavelength triplet of electromagnetic reflectance efficiencies." By Nagel's claim this explanation loses the phenomena or red. For Nagel then red redness. By this alone you should the shortcomings of Nagel. If not let us then return to our example about temperature. By Nagel's rules something is lost when the experience of heat is described as the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at 6.2 x 10-21 joules.

For Nagel then 70° the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at 6.2 x 10-21 joules. Nagel would of course be wrong since the above is in fact true. What this proves is that their is in fact a necessary congruency between the objective (physical) and the subjective (phenomenological). If there were not then the subjective (what 70° feels like) would not be equal to the objective (what the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at 6.2 x 10-21 joules feels like.) They obviously are the same so a congruency between the objective and the subjective must exist. The objective and the subjective could, in fact be the same thing. If so then dualist theory is quite literally, wiped from the map. Though an intriguing notion it is not one which will be discussed here. It will suffice to say that Churchland has made a valid enough argument to cast a shadow on the soundness of Nagel's argument.

At this point we will consider the soundness of Churchland's article. Churchland has presented a very good, and convincing argument, although I agree with it only in part. What I agree with is that their is an error with at least apart of Nagel's argument. This is disturbing to me because despite the successful attack on Nagel I remain in support of his theory. I do not believe that the mind and the brain are one in the same. This is of course an irrational conclusion motivated by passion. I do not believe that my introspective horizons are expanded by a cognitive process which allows me to explain the unexplainable. This is a less irrational bit of sentiment, but irrational all the same because it denies the soundness of Churchland. Passion aside I must admit that Churchland's argument seems solid. There appears to be an irrefutable congruency between the objective and the subjective which then leaves open the possibility that the mind and the brain are one in the same. If I was irrational enough I suppose I might argue that red redness or that 70° is not equal to the mean kinetic energy (KE) of air molecules at 6.2 x 10-21 joules and therefore the congruency between the subjective and the objective does not exist. I am not so irrational. The soundness of Churchland article quite clearly prevails over that of Nagel's.

---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here


Description: This paper critiques Bradley's arguments in his writing 'The
Unreality of Space and Time.' This paper argues against Bradley's position
using all logical methods necessary.

Critiquing Bradley
In his article, The Unreality of Space and Time, F. H. Bradley argues that space and time, as they exhibit themselves, are unreal. For Bradley space and time are unreal because they both possess necessary, yet contradictory characteristics. At this time we will depart from directly addressing the issue of time and restrict ourselves to dealing solely with the issue of space, but note that the conclusion and key premises are uniform to both issues.

For Bradley the problem with space is that it is necessarily both ending and endless. Essential to its being space must continue to an end which it cannot possess. Though unexplained, the contradiction is revealed. Space, either how it is exhibited or how it is perceived is self-contradictory and therefore unreal. In explanation Bradley presents the following argument: Space is a relation. That is to say space is an association- a connection between things. This associative nature of space derives from that which constitutes space. For Bradley space consists of parts of space in relation to each other. To grasp this premise you might consider any amount of space and imagine that space divide in half. These two halves of space exist in relation to each other. Either or both of these halves could further be divided endlessly into oblivion. The picture one then should have is innumerable parts of space in relation to each other continuing to no final limit. These infinite relational parts of space constitute the relation that is space, the assumption being that space is, what it is constituted of. A problem arises out of this because if space is a relation it is required that it be relative to something other than itself. It is not difficult to understand the logic behind this. Imagine having a conversation speaking associatively about yourself. Such statements as "compared to myself I am relatively tall" or "relative to myself I am very smart" would surely classify you as a fool. A relation requires an association between two or more things. And so a problem occurs. The continuity of space is hindered by a necessary discreteness. Space as a whole must have a separateness to it. It must have something to reference itself with, and space itself must be referencable. By virtue of this condition space fails to be spatial. Space becomes a substantive, qualitative thing, with boundaries. No longer can space continue endlessly as it appears to, instead a necessary end exists, this end being where the associative link between space and its reference begins. Bradley states that the beginning of this reference is as illusory as spaces end. Both pass beyond themselves, never endingly, while an end is essential to their being. With out this end where space meets its reference space is not space, but with this end space is unreal. Without a reference space fails to be a relation or fails to be space but with an end it becomes a thing, a solid, qualitative and non-spatial. An so the contradiction is revealed- space necessarily is what it necessarily cannot be and is therefore unreal. To aid in considering the validity and soundness of this argument it is re-presented in standard logical form below.

1. Space is constituted of never ending parts of space in relation to each other.
2. If space is to be space it must be the same as its constituents.
3. Space is space.
C1. Space is never-ending and space is a relation.
4. If space is a relation then it must be relative to something.
5. If space is relative to something then space must have a boundary.
6. If space has a boundary then space must have an end.
7. If space has an end then space cannot be never-ending without being self-contradictory.
8. Space both has an end and is never-ending.
C2. Space is self-contradictory.
9. If space is a self-contradictory then space is unreal.
C. Space is unreal.

This is a valid argument. The form is chain argument and implication which are both valid forms. All support links are in place and so the argument is logistically valid. Although valid I do not find this argument to be sound. Though Bradley makes a solid case, it appears as though the crux of Bradley's problem derives from a fallible assumption. Bradley assumption is that space is a relation because that which constitutes space is a relation. By condition of being a relation space must be in relation to something and by condition of that space fails to be endless or, in other words fails to be what it must be. The assumption that initiates this great strife is that a whole cannot extend beyond its parts; that is, space cannot be anything but a relation because its parts are but relation. I find this assumption questionable at best. Little that we know of is but that of its parts. What constitutes water is not water, what constitutes water is 1 part Hydrogen and 2 parts Oxygen. What constitutes air is not air, what constitutes air is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and lesser amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, neon, etc. And even these elements can be reduced to their atomic constituents. Admittedly authorities on atomism consider the atom to be an irreducible structure; This shows that there may be some things that are nothing more than the whole of their parts. Despite this it is obvious that things can extend beyond their constituents. This is sufficient to discredit Bradley's argument. Although it is possible that space is nothing more than the relation that are its constituents, it is as well possible that space is something beyond its constituents just as with air and water. Space may in fact be endless because of the relational aspects of its constituents. Most who would argue would attack the merit of my opposing argument at the preceding point. Although it is possible that space could be something beyond its constituents it is highly unlikely that it could be the antithesis of its constituents. That is to say that it is doubtful that from x alone -x is achievable, or accurate to this case, from relation alone, non-relation is achievable. This is certainly a formidable challenge and one not easily addressed. In an attempt to address it I propose this simple experiment. Place a small statuette on a desk. Turn on a flashlight and aim it at the statuette. Change your position adjacent to the statuette while still keeping the light aimed at it. Watch as the shadow moves as you do. Are you not creating darkness out of light? Certainly the dynamics prove you are in control, for the shadow moves as you do. That which is light is creating dark. The antithesis is achieved. I must admit this is not the solid example requisite to a discussion such as this. After all the statuette is factor beyond light alone and so light alone is not creating darkness. In any event Bradley never offers an explanation of the nature of space and in his failure to do so does not present what other factors may or may not be in place. In his introduction he states that space may in fact be "the product of non-spatial elements." Though he does not pursue the notion in farther than this, this single sentence is sufficient enough to show that Bradley believes some factors exist beyond what he presents in the relevant writing. All considered then, factors un-presented by Bradley may exist which would allow space to be the antithesis of its constituents.
And so my opposition to Bradley stands as is. My point of attack is little more than obscure and it falls far short from proving that space is not a relation. All my microcosmic argument shows is that space need not be the relation that Bradley argues it is. Space could be something other than the relations that comprise it. If so then problem does not exist. After all if space is not a relation then it need not be in relation to anything, and so the possibility to be never-ending remains intact. In all fairness to Bradley he may have a sound argument for why he feels space is as its constituents are. Unfortunately he does not present that argument here and as a result his conclusion that space is unreal is left questionable.

---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here


Description: The title pretty much says it all in this one. This paper
addresses the issue of blacks in prison and explores the socio-economic
causes and solutions. This paper uses many govermentally commissioned

Blacks, Prison, and Institutional Racism

Criminal justice and security is one of the largest industries in the United States. Such a statistic is (and rightly so) of great concern to Afro-Americans because a disproportionate percentage of individuals under the control of the US Criminal Justice System are from the Black community. This paper will look at the alarming statistics and attempt to trace the roots of the disparity. It will then consider the affects and explore possible solutions to the expanding problem.

The Imprisoned Black Youth
Black communities throughout the U.S. are witnessing the institutionalization of their youth. Of course institutionalization is nothing new to Afro-Americans, it is something Blacks have faced since their existence in this country. In the beginning Blacks were forced into the institution of slavery. After the abolition of slavery Blacks faced institutional racism, that is, racism legitimated by the whole of society directed against the few of society. As a facet of that institutional racism Blacks are now forced to persevere the increasing trend of control by the US Criminal Justice System. Control by the USCJS includes the probation, parole, imprisonment, and death of Blacks. A study conducted by the Sentencing Project in 1989 found tat more than one-fourth of all Blacks between the age of 20 and 29 are under the control of the USCJS . This alarming figure becomes more so when you consider their are more Blacks in prison in this age group than their are all Blacks in college . This clearly reveals what is meant by the institutionalization of our Black youth. Black communities are being legally robbed of their youth by a system that locks up those who pose a threat to the status quo of institutional racism. The consequences of this are detrimental indeed. The children are the future, but what future does a community have whose children are all locked up. By virtue of robbing the Black community of their youth, the USCJS robs Black communities of their future leaders and role models . With such a condition at hand entire communities are lost and the ills of the urban ghettos are augmented. To help explain why Blacks are being locked up, and what part of imprisonment plays in institutional racism it would be helpful to first look at the roots of institutional racism.

Institutional Racism And It's Roots
Institutional racism was a term first coined by Stokley Carmichael in his book Black Power. Concerning racism, Carmichael and co-author Charles V. Hamilton made the following observation:

Racism is both overt and covert. It takes two, closely related forms; individual Whites acting against individual Blacks, and acts by the total of White community against the Black community. We call these individual racism and institutional racism.

The authors go on to state that it is the covertness of the second type, the institutional racism, that makes it so dangerous. Because institutional racism is less obvious and it is less apparent were it is emanating from (and it is emanating from everywhere) creeps up on you and overwhelms you when you are not looking . Institutional racism, though coined by Carmichael, existed long before it was conceived of in Black Power. As I have stated it has existed since Blacks were first brought to this country. The leaders of early America sought intentionally to oppress Blacks and do so legally. Of course back then they did not bother with probation, parole or even long prison sentences. Back then Blacks who went against the grain and objected to his treatment in even the slightest was simply killed. Public lynching were a crowd drawer and a crowd pleaser in the early American South. Blacks were not imprisoned as much because they were seen as either useful our useless. A good "field hands" or "house niggers" tended to their chores, did as they were told, and never caused a problem, and were therefore worth their weight in gold. An "uppity nigger" was no good to anyone and was either beaten into submission or put to death . This reveals a very important aspect about the imprisonment of Blacks today. During the period of slavery in the US Blacks were needed as workers and were therefore used as so . What are Blacks needed for now? Despite the many accomplishments of such great inventors as Granville T. Woods and Benjamin Bannicker, it would seem that White society would have no use for Blacks. During the period of slavery Blacks deemed useless were killed. In today's society Blacks are less often killed, but are very often imprisoned. And by virtue of doing so Blacks are again used. As I stated in the beginning criminal justice and security is one of the largest industries in the US. The prison system is a multi-billion dollar industry and it is rapidly increasing. So in an attempt to isolate and control the pariah, the poor Black, an economic niche was filled. There is almost an incentive to lock up Blacks because in doing so two birds are killed with one stone; the threat to status quo and its members is contained and a buck is made in the process. It seems the US has matriculated very little from the barbarism of the early 19th century. Again White society is using Blacks for economic gain, again the system is legitimated and legalized by the US Government, and again the burden on Blacks is severely great.

The Value Of Black Life
Slavery in the 90's? A scary, but none the less real condition. But what about when Blacks go beyond their usefulness. What about when the threat that Blacks pose is a greater consideration than the economic prosperity they bring? Just as in the period of slavery Blacks are killed. A study conducted by the United States General Accounting Office (USGAO) found that the death of Whites was the single greatest determinant in imposing capital punishment . In other words, you are more likely to be legally killed, if you murder a White man than if you kill a Black man. It would seem then that the value of a White life is diametrically greater than that of a Black life. To fully understand this you must look at it from all vantage points. If you kill a White you are worth more dead; if you kill a Black you are worth more alive. Another way to view the perceived greater wealth of a White life is this: a White man who kills a Black man has a greater chance of living. A Black man who kills a White man has a greater chance of dying. From every vantage point the value of White life is greater than that of Black life. This is the single most fundamental aspect of institutional racism. The belief that White life is greater than Black life is the source of the problem. So much effort is put into maintaining this status quo that Blacks find themselves time and time again put in the position of subjection they are in today, and have been in since they first arrived in the United States 400 years ago.

Looking For Solution
Solutions to the problem of the institutionalization of Black youth will not come easy. To plea for White society to stop imprisoning our future leaders would likely fall on deaf ears. Most leaders do not look past their term of government so they take the time to consider the long term implications of their legislation. In other words, leaders do not consider the results of having the future leaders of the Black communities imprisoned.
Also most do not care. In the sentencing project it was pointed out that the "get tough" approach to crime in which there was an increase of arrests, convictions and lengthy sentences has decreased victimization rates less than 5% since 1973 . Despite the statistics the "get tough" trend, which is disproportionately aimed against Blacks, has continued. What I feel the only solution is, degrading as it may be, is for Blacks to prove their worth. Blacks must prove that they are worth something to White society beyond the economic niche they help fill in prison. Blacks must prove that they are a benefit which Whites cannot do without. Once We have established ourselves as benefactors then We can begin to break down the walls of institutional racism, stop the digression of our communities, and truly advance.

---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here


Description: This paper discusses Marx's argument on "estranged labour."
This is a rather microcosmic topic but it is important because estranged
labour is the basis for all of Marx's writing, most importantly, 'The
Communist Manifesto.'

Revealing Marx
In Karl Marx's early writing on "estranged labour" there is a clear and prevailing focus on the plight of the labourer. Marx's writing on estranged labour is and attempt to draw a stark distinction between property owners and workers. In the writing Marx argues that the worker becomes estranged from his labour because he is not the recipient of the product he creates. As a result labour is objectified, that is labour becomes the object of mans existence. As labour is objectified man becomes disillusioned and enslaved. Marx argues that man becomes to be viewed as a commodity worth only the labour he creates and man is further reduced to a subsisting animal void of any capacity of freedom except the will to labour. For Marx this all leads to the emergence of private property, the enemy of the proletariat. In fact Marx's writing on estranged labour is a repudiation of private property- a warning of how private property enslaves the worker. This writing on estranged labour is an obvious point of basis for Marx's Communist Manifesto.

The purpose of this paper is to view Marx's concept of alienation (estranged labour) and how it limits freedom. For Marx man's freedom is relinquished or in fact wrested from his true nature once he becomes a labourer. This process is thoroughly explained throughout Estranged Labour. This study will reveal this process and argue it's validity. Appendant to this study on alienation there will be a micro-study which will attempt to ascertain Marx's view of freedom (i.e. positive or negative). The study on alienation in conjunction with the micro-study on Marx's view of freedom will help not only reveal why Marx feels labour limits mans freedom, but it will also identify exactly what kind of freedom is being limited.
Estranged Labour

Karl Marx identifies estranged labour as labour alien to man. Marx explains the condition of estranged labour as the result of man participating in an institution alien to his nature. It is my interpretation that man is alienated from his labour because he is not the reaper of what he sows. Because he is never the recipient of his efforts the labourer lacks identity with what he creates. For Marx then labour is "alien to the worker...[and]...does not belong to his essential being." Marx identifies two explanations of why mans lack of identity with labour leads him to be estranged from labour. (1) "[The labourer] does not develop freely his physical and mental energy, but instead mortifies his mind." In other words labour fails to nurture mans physical and mental capacities and instead drains them. Because the worker is denied any nurturing in his work no intimacy between the worker and his work develops. Lacking an intimate relation with what he creates man is summarily estranged from his labour. (2) Labour estranges man from himself. Marx argues that the labour the worker produces does not belong to him, but to someone else. Given this condition the labourer belongs to someone else and is therefore enslaved. As a result of being enslaved the worker is reduced to a "subsisting animal", a condition alien to him. As an end result man is estranged from himself and is entirely mortified. Marx points to these to situations as the reason man is essentially estranged from his labour. The incongruency between the world of things the worker creates and the world the worker lives in is the estrangement.

Marx argues that the worker first realizes he is estranged from his labour when it is apparent he cannot attain what he appropriates. As a result of this realization the objectification of labour occurs. For the worker the labour becomes an object, something shapeless and unidentifiable. Because labour is objectified, the labourer begins to identify the product of labour as labour. In other words all the worker can identify as a product of his labour, given the condition of what he produces as a shapeless, unidentifiable object, is labour. The worker is then left with only labour as the end product of his efforts. The emerging condition is that he works to create more work. For Marx the monotonous redundancy of this condition is highly detrimental because the worker loses himself in his efforts. He argues that this situation is analogous to a man and his religion. Marx writes, "The more man puts into God the less he retains in himself....The worker puts his life into the object, but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object." The result of the worker belonging to the object is that he is enslaved. The worker belongs to something else and his actions are dictated by that thing. For Marx, labour turns man into a means. Workers become nothing more than the capital necessary to produce a product. Labour for Marx reduces man to a means of production. As a means of production man is diminished to a subsisting enslaved creature void of his true nature. In this condition he is reduced to the most detrimental state of man: one in which he is estranged from himself. To help expand on this theme it is useful to look at Marx's allegory of man's life-activity.

Life-activity and the Nature of Man
Of the variety of reasons Marx argues man is estranged from his labour, probably the most significant is his belief that labour estranges man from himself. Marx argues that the labour the worker produces does not belong to the worker so in essence the worker does not belong to the worker. By virtue of this condition Marx argues the worker is enslaved. Enslavement for Marx is a condition alien to man and he becomes estranged from himself. For Marx, man estranged from himself is stripped of his very nature. Not only because he is enslaved but because his life-activity has been displaced. For Marx mans character is free, conscious activity, and mans pursuit of his character is his life-activity. Mans life-activity is then the object of his life. So by nature, mans own life is the object of his existence. This is mans condition before labour. After labour mans life-activity, that is, his free conscious, activity, or his very nature, is displaced. In a pre-labour condition mans life was the object of his condition; in a labour condition man exists to labour and his life-activity is reduced to a means of his existence so he can labour. In effect labour necessitates itself in man by supplanting mans true nature with an artificial one that re-prioritizes mans goals. Man's goal then is not to pursue his life but to labour. He becomes linked to his labour and is viewed in no other way. Man is reduced to chattel, a commodity, the private property of another individual.

For Marx labour limits the freedom of man. Labour becomes the object of man's existence and he therefore becomes enslaved by it. In considering the validity of Marx's argument I feel Marx is correct that man's freedom is limited by the fact that he is a labourer. But in opposition to Marx I believe that man's freedom is no more limited as a labourer than as a farmer. Agrarian worker or labourer man's freedom is limited. Whether he is identified by the product he creates in a factory or in a wheat field in either case he is tied to his work and is not viewed beyond it. In either instance the product is objectified because in either instance the worker works only to create more work. Just as the labourer must continue to work without end to subsist, so must the agrarian worker. The implication then is that alienation is not the culprit that limits mans freedom, it is work itself. Do not mistake this as an advocation for laziness. Instead consider the implications of not working. If one did not work at all he or she would live a life of poverty and would be far less free than if he did work. Working, either as a labourer or a farmer, offers greater financial means and with greater financial means comes greater freedom. This point of the argument stands up of course only if you believe money can by freedom. I argue it can. Surely my freedom to buy something is limited if I do not have the financial means. On the other hand if I have greater financial means I have more freedom to buy things. So although labour limits freedom to the extent that the worker becomes tied to his work, labour also offers a far greater freedom than that of indigence. Labouring is no less acceptable than agrarian work because the implications of partaking in either are uniform to both and alienation holds no relevancy.

Appendage 1.
Marx on Freedom
Marx's view of freedom would seem a rather broad topic, and I'm sure it is. For our purposes it is convenient to have just an idea of what type of freedom Marx favors. For the sake of ease the scope of this study will be limited to two (2) classifications of freedom: prescribed (positive) freedom and negative liberties. Prescribed freedom would be guided freedoms, or freedoms to do certain things. Negative liberties would be freedom to do all but what is forbidden. In Marx's writing On The Jewish Question he identifies (but does not necessarily advocates) liberty as "...the right to do everything which does not harm others." In further argument Marx's states that "liberty as a right of man is not founded upon the relationship between man and man; but rather upon the separation of man from man." By this definition liberty is negative liberty, and for Marx it is monistic and solitary. Marx then argues that private property is the practical application of this negative liberty. He states "...[private] property is...the right to enjoy ones fortune and dispose of it as one will; without regard for other men and independently of society." Private property for Marx is the mechanism by which man can be separate from other men and pursue his (negative) liberty. Marx's writings on estranged labour and in The Communist Manifesto are a clear repudiation of private property. What can be deduced then is that Marx does not favor negative liberties. Negative liberties require private property to exist and private property is for Marx the enslaver of the proletariat.

Negative freedom eliminated from the discussion we are left with Positive or prescribed freedoms. Positive freedom, as was identified above, is the freedom to pursue specified options. That is, freedom to do certain things. Man is not necessarily given a choice of what these options are, he is simply free to pursue them whatever they may be. Posistive freedoms then are the freedoms Marx likley wishes to uphold by denouncing estarnged labour.

1Marx, Karl, The Early Marx, (reserve packet)

2Marx, Karl and Engles, Freidrich, The Communist Manifesto, London, England, 1888

---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here


Description: This paper discusses the many shortcomings of the Electoral
College, and posits possible alternative electoral processes which likely be
more democratic.

Time for Reform?
Considering the failures of the Electoral College

A common misconception among American is that when they vote they elect the President. The truth is not nearly this simple. What in fact happens when a person votes is that there vote goes for an Elector. This Elector (who is selected by the respective state in which a vote is cast) casts ballots for two individuals, the President and the Vice-President. Each state has the same number of electors as there are Senate and House of Representative members for that State. When the voting has stopped the candidate who receives the majority of the Electoral votes for a state receives all the electoral votes for that state. All the votes are transmitted to Washington, D.C. for tallying, and the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes wins the presidency. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the responsibility of selecting the next President falls upon the House of Representatives. This elaborate system of Presidential selection is thought by many to be an 18th century anachronism (Hoxie p. 717), what it is in fact is the product of a 200 year old debate over who should select the President and why.

In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to respect the principles of both Federalists and States Righters (republicans) (Hoxie p. 717). Summarily a compromise was struck between those who felt Congress should select the President and those who felt the states should have a say. In 1788 the Electoral College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College was to allow people a say in who lead them, but was also to protect against the general public's ignorance of politics. Why the fear of the peoples ignorance of politics? It was argued that the people, left to their own devices could be swayed by a few designing men to elect a king or demagogue (McManus p. 19). With the Electoral College in place the people could make a screened decision about who the highest authority in the land was to be (Bailey & Shafritz (p. 60); at the same time the fear of the newly formed nation being destroyed by a demagogue could be put to rest because wiser men had the final say.

200 years later the system is still designed to safeguard against the ignorant capacities of the people. The Electoral College has remained relatively unchanged in form and function since 1787, the year of its formulation. This in itself poses a problem because in 200 years the stakes have changed yet the College has remained the same. A safeguard against a demagogue may still be relevant, but the College as this safeguard has proved flawed in other capacities. These flaws have shed light on the many paths to undemocratic election. The question then is what shall the priorities be? Shall the flaws be addressed or are they acceptable foibles of a system that has effectively prevented the rise of a king for 200 years? To answer this question we must first consider a number of events past and possible that have or could have occurred as a result of the flaws Electoral College.

The Unfaithful Elector
Under the current processes of the Electoral College, when a member of the general electorate casts a vote for a candidate he is in fact casting a vote for an Electoral College member who is an elector for that candidate. Bound only by tradition this College member is expected to remain faithful to the candidate he has initially agreed to elect. This has not always happened. In past instances Electoral College member have proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful elector ignores the will of the general electorate and instead selects candidate other than the one he was expected to elect (McGaughey, p. 81). This unfaithfulness summarily subjugates all the votes for a candidate in a particular district. In all fairness it is important to note that instances of unfaithful electors are few and far between, and in fact 26 states have laws preventing against unfaithful electors (McGauhey, p.81). Despite this the fact remains that the possibility of an unfaithful elector does exist and it exists because the system is designed to circumvent around direct popular election of the President.
The Numbers Flaw
The unfaithful elector is an example of how the popular will can be purposely ignored. The Numbers Flaw reveals how the will of the people can be passed over unintentionally due to flaw of design (McNown, Lecture Notes, 2/20/93).

(a)6/b(4) | (a)6/b(6) Candidate a: 18
| Candidate b: 22
| Electoral Votes
(a)6/b(4) | (a)0/b(10) Candidate a: 3
| Candidate b: 1

In this theoretical example candidate (a) receives a minority of the popular votes with 18, but a majority of the electoral votes with three. Candidate (b) receives a majority of the popular votes with 22, but receives only one electoral vote. Under the winner-take-all system, the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes not only wins the state but also receives all the electoral votes for that state. In this hypothetical situation candidate (a) receiving a minority of the popular votes wins the state and takes all the electoral votes. The acceptability of this denial of the popular will, unintentional or otherwise, is questionable to say the least.

Tie Game
The problem posed by no one person receiving a majority of the electoral votes (a tie) first came to head in the 1800 elections. The success of political parties served to turn Electoral College members into agents of the parties Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). This so galvanized the 1800 elections that the Republican electors cast their two votes for the two Republican candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr respectively. It was assumed that Jefferson would be President and Burr the Vice-President. Unfortunately their was no constitutional doctrine to affirm this assumption. As a result the ever audacious Aaron Burr challenged Jefferson election as President and the issue had to be sent to the House for resolution (Bailey & Shafritz, p. 61). Any debating on the issue was only incidental; when all was said and done the issue was decided by one man, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, and the Federalists were in control of the House when the decision was to be made. Hamilton, who disagreed with Jefferson but overwhelmingly distrusted Burr, orchestrated a blank ballot initiative among the Federalists which allowed the Republicans to select Jefferson as President (Bailey & Shafritz, p. 61). Though this entire incident was significant the most noteworthy aspect was the fact that the President was essentially chosen by one man. The final decision was taken entirely out of the hands of the people and was left to the mercy of the biases of a single individual. In all fairness it should be noted that the 12th amendment was formulated out of the Jefferson-Burr to forever lay to rest the question of who is President and Vice-President in a tie. The 12th amendment stipulates that electors are to cast separate votes for the President and Vice President, and summarily an event such as the Jefferson-Burr incident cannot happen again. (Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). In effect the 12th prevents the issue of a tie from going to the House under a very narrow scope of conditions. This is far less of a solution than one which would have prevented this issue from going to the House at all because when the issue of who would be President went to the House in 1800, the issue of democracy was left to compromise. This all serves to reveal yet another flaw of the Electoral College process. Congressional selection of the President can lead to democratic compromise. This would seem an area of concern. Though some would argue we have had 200 years to distance ourselves from such maladies as the elections of 1800, the following reveals how close to home the flaws 200 year old institution can hit.
The Wallace Debacle

In 1968 a three-way tie nearly brought to head the same undemocratic modes of presidential selections that emerged 200 years earlier with the Jefferson-Burr incident. The 1968 elections race was extremely close. Richard Nixon barley received a majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency. Had Nixon failed to get a majority a number of bizarre scenarios might have emerged. The candidates in the race were Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace respectively. Had Nixon failed to win a majority Wallace would have been in a position to control who the next President would be (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65). Though he could not have won himself Wallace could have used his votes as swing votes to give Nixon a majority, or give Humphrey enough to prevent Nixon from getting a majority (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65). In the latter instance the issue would have, as in 1800, been sent to the House for rectification. In either instance Wallace would have had a great deal to gain, and the temptation to wheel and deal (at the compromise of democracy) would have been great indeed. It is possible Wallace could have used his influence with Southern House members to get Humphrey elected. In the process he would have likely `garnered great political clout for himself. Wallace could have bargained with Nixon for an administration position in Nixon's cabinet in return for Wallace's electoral votes. The possible scenarios are endless, and for the most part irrelevant. What is relevant is that the processes of the Electoral College again paved a path for democratic compromise, just as it did in 1800. If time is the mechanism for change then apparently not enough time has passed.

The shortcomings of the Electoral College presented above are only a few of many flaws. Others flaws include the bias toward small and large states, which gives these states a disproportionate advantage; The bias toward those who live in urban areas and therefore enjoy a stronger vote than those living in sparsely populated areas (Bailey & Shafritz p. 63). The list of flaws is extensive. The question that still remains is whether or not the flaws are extensive enough to warrant change? The Electoral College has successfully provided the U.S. with its Presidents for 200 years and has done so without allowing the ascension of a demagogue. But in the process of 200 years of electing the College has allowed the will of the people to be compromised. Granted at the time of the 1800 elections the College was young and its shortcomings were not entirely clear. 200 years later the flaws have revealed themselves or have been revealed in various fashion. The question remains then are flaws acceptable considering the duty the College performs? If the purpose of the College is to provide democracy but prevent demagoguery then its success seems uncertain. The U.S. has seen no demagogue but has seen compromise of democracy. The evidence shows that the flaws of the Electoral College are responsible for democratic compromise. It would seem then that the flaws of the college are self-defeating to the purpose of the college. If this is then it is definitely time for reform.

1 Bailey, Harry A. Jr., Shafritz, Jay M. The American Presidency, (California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1988) Chapter III

2 McGauhey, Elizabeth P., "Democracy at Risk," Policy Review, Winter 1993: 79-81

3 R. Gordon Hoxie, "Alexander Hamilton and the Electoral System Revisited," Presidential Studies Quarterly, v. 18 n. 4 p. 717-720

4 John F. McManus, "Let the Constitution Work," The New American, v. 8 n. 14 p. 19

5 William P. Hoar, "The Electoral College: How The Republic Chooses its President," New American, v. 8 n. 16 p. 23-28

---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here


Description: This paper discusses the tenets of the Just War Doctrine and
considers whether US involvement in the Gulf War upheld these tenets and to
what degree.

Just War Doctrine and the Gulf Conflict
In evaluating US involvement in the Iraq conflict in terms of the Just War Doctrine - jus ad bellum and jus in bello - it is my opinion that the US adhered to the Doctrine in its entirety. The US acted justly both in its entering into the Gulf conflict (jus ad bellum) and in its conduct while in the conflict (jus in bello). To support this opinion I will individually address the co-parts that constitute the Just War Doctrine and show how US participation in the Iraq war abstained from violating the tenets of either co-part.

Jus Ad Bellum
Jus Ad Bellum, the justness of entering into conflict consists of six primary tenets: legitimate authority, just cause, proportionality, right intention, chance of success, and last resort.
1. Legitimate Authority - Only those of legitimate authority may justly lead its country into war. This tenet disqualify revolutionaries, radicals and/or subversives who seek to justly initiate war. War is to be the decisions of the head of state and is to be subject to their guidance.
2. Just Cause - A just conflict may not be initiated void of just cause. This tenet disallows justifying war for the purpose of economic gain, land acquisition, or strategic position. If war is to be justly initiated just cause, usually humanitarian, must first exist.
3. Right Intention - This relates to the tenet of just cause. Just cause must be followed by right intention. It would be unjust seek a goal devoid of the just cause.
4. Proportionality - Also in relation to just cause is the tenet of proportionality. Proportionality must exist between the cause and the decision to go to war. For country (a) to initiate a total war with country (b) because of a minor violation that country (b) was responsible for would be unproportional and unjust. There is not cause enough to warrant country (b) being subjected to a total war.
5. Chance of Success - War must be initiated with a chance of success. It would be unjust to lead people into a war they have no chance of winning. It would more just to bow to superiority and fight another day than to commit to a policy of suicide.

6. Last Resort - This is probably the most important of the jus ad bellum tenets. War should be the last resort. Every diplomatic effort should be made to achieve a just cause without conflict. Only after all non-conflictory options have been exhausted should war be committed to.

As to the question of whether or not the US adhered to the tenet of jus ad bellum the reply is a resounding yes. The US, under legitimate authority undertook the just cause of alleviating the plight of a coalition partner. Saddam Husseins invasion of Kuwait was unjust, or at least in violation of the Just War Doctrine, and the US sought to reconcile matters. The goal, the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, was a just one and was pursued proportionally. For nearly six months the US and other UN/coalition partners made every diplomatic effort to resolve the conflict peacefully. Secretary General of UN Security Council Junio Perez de Cuellar made several attempts to hash out a peaceful plan with Saddam Hussein directly and during this time the US abstained from any military action. In conjunction with efforts of Perez de Cuellar, US Secretary of State James Baker spent countless hours negotiating directly with the Iraqi Foreign Minister in an attempt to bring about a non-violent end to the crisis. When all efforts failed to bring an end to the conflict by peaceful means the UN Security Council drafted Resolution 678 which authorized "all means necessary" to dislodge Iraqi forces from Kuwait. In one last effort US President George Bush sent a direct communiqué to Saddam Hussein asking the Iraqi President to leave peacefully or face an international conflict. In the communiqué the President Bush wrote:

Mr. President:

We Stand at the brink of war between Iraq and the world. This is a war that began with your invasion of Kuwait; this is a war that can be ended only by Iraq's full and unconditional compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 678....The international community is united in its call for Iraq to leave all of Kuwait without condition and without further delay....We prefer a peaceful outcome. However, anything less than full compliance...is unacceptable.

Only after Saddam Hussein failed to comply with Resolution 678, the eighteenth resolution drawn in response to Iraqs invasion of Kuwait, was the decision made to forcefully remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and launch Operation Desert Storm.
Jus In Bello
The second co-part of the two co-parts that constitute the Just War Doctrine is jus in bello or justices in war. Jus in bello mandates that the following tenets must be adhered to for justice in war to exist: proportionality, moral means, purposeful deprivation of life.

1. Proportionality - This tenet of proportionality eliminates overkill as a just means in war. Allegorically speaking, this tenet says its unjust to use an H-bomb where a bayonet will suffice.

2. Moral Means - The moral means tenet of jus in bello bars the use of indiscriminate weapons and/or weapons that cause needless pain and suffering. Again, atomic weapons are an apt example; nuclear weapons would be considered unjust because they indiscriminate and capable of causing needless pain and suffering.

3. No Deprivation of Life Without Cause - Under jus in bello it is unjust to kill when it can be avoided. Deprivation of life without purpose is immoral and contradictory to the Just War Doctrine.

When analyzing the justness of US conduct in the Gulf Crisis, it is important to keep two points in mind: 1. The just cause was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait; anything more and the Doctrine might be violated. 2. UN Resolution 678 authorized the use of "all means necessary" to dislodge Iraqi forces from Kuwait. This quite literally opened the door to Doctrine violation. Any adherence to the Just War Doctrine would be by choice and not by fear of consequence.

It was in fact the choice the US to adhere to the Just War Doctrine and their conduct in the conflict proves of this. The US goal was to remove Iraqi Forces from Kuwait and prevent the possibility of any immediate reoccupation. This goal was pursued and achieved, and done so in the most just manner possible. Though the US possessed immense destructive capabilities they employed only that necessary to get the job done. The most effective aspect of the coalition forces was their air assault. The various jet-fueled fighters and bombers the US employed were more than capable of turning Iraq quite literally into a parking lot. They did not. Instead bombing occurred only where enemy forces or enemy armament was suspected to be stored. Civilian areas were not fired upon unless a threat, such as an anti-aircraft gun, was placed in a civilian area, and in these instances pin-point missiles were used to eliminate the threat with as little destruction to the surrounding area as possible. This adheres to the moral means doctrine which finds indiscriminate weapons unjust. Though the US was authorized to use any and all means they employed nothing more than what was necessary to complete the job adequately.

As I stated above UN Resolution 678 left the door wide open to possible violations of International Law. Despite this US went beyond the call of duty to assure that its role in the Gulf conflict was just. Risking their own well being, US pilots often gave opposition forces a chance. In some instances such as when mobile SCUD launcher or mobile anti-aircraft weapon was the target, fighter pilots allowed enough of a margin between target lock and fire to allow the occupants of the target to escape. This more than fulfills the tenet of none but purposeful killing. Had they fired immediately they would have been with in there rights and not in contradiction jus in bello.. Despite this, they did wait and allowed the enemy the opportunity to disassociate themselves from their weapon. What could be more just?

As to the question of proportionality of means, Senator Patrick Moynihan NY-D lost an 11 to 1 on a vote to consider the use of limited nuclear weapons. Though it was argued that these weapons would leave no atomic residue and would have a limited blast radius consideration of their use was voted down because they were unproportional to the threat.

US conduct in the Gulf Crisis clearly supports my opinion that the US abided by International Law. The Just War Doctrine which could have easily and without consequence been tread on was instead upheld and morality remained prevalent in the hell we call war. Hopefully others will follow the example the US set so well.

---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here


Description: This paper discusses Sartre's 'fundamental project' as
described in his writing 'No Exit.' This paper is a critique of 'No Exit'
written to identify pre-notioned themes of Sartre, in Sartre's writing.
Addressed also is the ideology of Sophism.

Jean Paul Sartre and the Fundamental Project

In this paper I am addressing Jean Paul Sartre premise of the fundamental project. In my presentation I will first give a brief over view of Sartre's existentialism. Next Sartre's a notions of the spontaneous and reflective phases of consciousness will be my focus Upon discussing the reflective phase I will go into depth about the fundamental project, and why it is pursued, and I will give examples from No Exit. I will conclude by making a brief contrast and comparisson between Garcin, a character from No Exit, and myself.

Of all the philosophers we have studied in our forum, I find I am most intrigued by the opinions of Jean Paul Sartre. Jean Paul Sartre is accredited with articulating the premise that "existence precedes essence." Sartre believes that man one day happened, occurred, or arrived on the scene, or in his words, man was one day "dehissed from the hole" and after this anomalous event his life took meaning. I think Sartre is bold in positing this notion which is in stark contrast of widely accepted belief. It is well regarded that life has a meaning that far transcends our short and insignificant lives. For many cultures life is and whether we ever come to terms with life is irrelevant because life will continue regardless of our of whether or not we understand it to any extent. Sartre believes quite the opposite. He believes that life could have no meaning unless we gave meaning to it. I think anyone pondering this notion to any depth would agree. How could life possibly have any meaning if we do not give any meaning to it. For some life has no meaning and they committed horrible atrocities in strict accordance to their belief. For others life has too much meaning and they spend their lives trying to reassure themselves that they have grasped this meaning. I would like to take a moment to inspect this further.

There are those in our history who have established a religion. Why? As I have posited, this could well have been done in an attempt to reassure oneself that that he had come to terms with the meaning of life. I think Sartre would believe as I that this act of reassurance is nothing more than what he calls a fundamental project. Sartre believes that when we become anguished by the affairs of life we pursue a fundamental project in an attempt to flee this anguish. Sartre says that we try to make ourselves Gods in hopes that others would see us as divine, and hold us in high or higher regard. To pursue a fundamental project according to Sartre is to act in bad faith. And to act in bad faith Sartre says is to manifest our freedom inauthentically. I will address these premises a little later in the text; before I do I first I would like to present some requisite background Sartreian philosophy in an attempt to convey a full understanding of why one sometimes feels compelled to pursue a fundamental project.

Sartre believes that, man experiences two primary phases of consciousness in his life, the spontaneous phase and the reflective phase. In the spontaneous phase of his life, man does nothing more that pursue a particular task, and does not acknowledge his status in life or that there are those who would give him a degree of status. In this phase of life man is in a shallow mode of being. He is not concerned with society and acts accordingly (i.e. all statements are rhetoric, all questions are rhetorical). In the reflective phase of consciousness, a significant event occurs. Man one day realizes that he is not alone in this world. This realization is not without consequences. When man acknowledges that there are others that makeup the society in which he exist, the man in effect discovers that he has identity. People know who he is and what he does. Subsequently man discovers that he is "a being in the world for others" (notes 7/2/92). This realization cannot not be taken lightly, because it has the effect of sending man down one of two very disparate paths.

If man can acknowledge and accept his facticity situation, that is, if he can acknowledge an accept that he is a being (thing) with a biological and social past, and he can transcend beyond that to no thingness, the realm of the être pour soi then he is according to Sartre acting clear headed, and in good faith. That is man is acknowledging his facticity, that he come from athe thing, but he knows that he is more than just a thing. Because he comes to this logical conclusion he is acting in good faith; he is not pursuing a fundamental project in an attempt to circumvent the possibility of angst (anguish). The outcome of the path of good faith is that man manifests his freedom authentically and therefore his freedom is real.

Those who do not act clear headed, and fail to make a balance between facticity and transcendence will inevitably fall into angst. Angst (German for anguish) is what is felt by those who cannot accept that they come from the realm of the être en soi (realm of the being in it self) and make attempts to deny there past. In an attempt to flee their past and the anguish that can accompany it Sartre says some will pursue a fundamental project. This project entails attempting to make ourselves a virtuoso or a God that is constrained by neither the realm of the être en soi nor the realm of the être pour soi (realm of the being for itself). Sartre considers this "forsaking the whole for the sake of the part" because society meaning to the fundamental pursuer is forgone to address the fears of this individual. Sartre says to do this is to act in bad faith.

In the introductory section of this text I spoke of those who compelled others to follow them to the answer of the meaning of life. In my opinion these people were acting in bad faith. It is my belief that the Sophists for example pursued a fundamental project in an attempt to flee the anguish that accompanied the realization that their philosophies of life may in fact be incorrect. A sophistry is defined as being a fallacious argument; this fact in itself is think is evidence that Sophist tenet was not highly regarded. Socrates often urged those in the Callipolis to ignore the Sophists and find the meaning the meaning of life themselves. The Sophists responded in kind by travelling throughout Athens spreading their "knowledge" and attempting to garner support and gain new followers. This to me is a clear example of a fundamental project. The Sophists, anguished by there situation took to lend credence to the incredulous instead of admitting that there opinions were but one possible interpretation of life. Admittedly I am no expert of Sophism, and therefore those more scholarly than I may well consider all I have said of Sophism a sophistry. This being a likely possibility to I will limit myself to referring to only that which is quite familiar to me, such as Sartre's No Exit.

In No Exit the character Garcin is a clear cut example of an individual acting in bad faith in an attempt to flee anguish. In the play three person, Estelle, Garcin, and Inez are put in a room together to face hell. The hell for these three is to put up with each other. The character Garcin is in hell after being shot for fleeing France after W.W.II broke out in Europe. Prior to war Garcin was the editor of a pacifist newspaper. When he defied war he was shot. Because of his defiance he chose to think of himself as a hero and a martyr. (It should be noted that all of Garcin's considerations were made postumously.) As the staory plays out the character Inez forces Garcin to admit that he was not a hero and that he in fact acted cowardly. Garcin then pursues a fundamental project to flee the anguish that accompanies being labeled a coward. He tries to convince Estelle that he is not a coward. Garcin feels that if he can convince Estelle that he is not a coward then the words he hears spoken of him down earth will be hushed and he will be the hero he wishes to be. This is exemplary of Sartre's notion that when faced with angst some will not act clear headed and will pursue a project in an attempt to lift themselves above and beyond the reality they are confronted by. It is important at this time to reaffirm Sartre belief that a fundamental project will inevitably fail. There are two reasons failure is inevitable: 1. Sartre believes that "I am not what I am - I am what I am not." What is meant by this is that we can never truly be what we wish to be. This is because we are in this world for others and if we act in bad faith and do no try to legitimately come to terms with this fact, then we will never be anything more than what others wish us to be. This leads us to our next assurance of failure: Sartre says, "we will never be regarded how we wish to be regarded." Sartre reasoning behind this is that we are sentient beings who determine our own reality; we determine our own truths because we perceive them in our own unique way. This being the case the odds are astronomically minute that any two individuals would ever see eye to eye on an issue. Therefore one who wishes to be regarded a certain way could never be he is relying on others for the regard he seeks and the others see him with eyes far different than his.

As events in the play would have it, Garcin's fundamental project does fail. He first attempts to get Estelle to believe that he is not a coward, but is disgruntled to find that Estelle could care less; her only concern is to be around a man, any man. He next attempts to convince Inez but is stalemated. Inez sees Garcin as the coward he is. Garcin feels that if he can convince her then he could cast away the shadow that shades his death. It is at this point that Inez says something quite insightful. "You're a coward, Garcin, because I wish it." (No Exit, Pg 58, ln. 28). This is representative of Sartre's reflective phase of consciouness. As I presented before, Sartre says "we are a being inthe world for others." Prior to Inez making this statement Garcin had been trying to flee the snguish that surrounded it. After the statement was made I think an important revelation comes to light. In the conclusion of the play when Garcin realizes that his fundamental project has failed he and that he must spend the rest of eternity in hell with his tormentors he simply says "...well lets get on with it." (No Exit, Pg. 61, ln. 31) What this says to me is that Garcin is ready to come to terms with his situation with a clear head. What in effect occured was an elongated pursunace of good fait. This makes perfect since if you agree that man has but two choices in life, anguish or transcendence. It would seem that Sartre would have us believe that there is really only one end, but two paths of disparate length that lead to this end. This I think is quite true, especially if you concur with what appears to be Sartre notion that there is an existence after life. It seems time is irrelevant to Sartre and that dead or alive you wil eventually have to yield that peace of mind will only come with the acknowledment that transcendence is the only end. In an attempt to augment the credence of this argument I would like to take a moment to address another facet of Sartre's fundamental project.

Sartre says that any freedom achieved via a fundamental project is inauthentically manifested and there for delete. This so called freedom is nothing more than a facade according to Sartre because the constraints were never addressed and transcendence never occurred. Reflection without transcendence has the unfortunate outcome of constraining the individual to the realm of the being. Confinement to this realm will leave the individual with nothing but angst and angst continue to be the case until the individual makes a legitimate effort to come to terms with facticity and the angst that facticity can bring. I think this adequatley supports my argument that transcendence is the only end. Confinement can not be an end in itself because peace of mind is not achieved. The eyes are never allowed to close as Garcin would wish them to. Sleep can not and will not come until transcendense to the pour soi occurs, and we have acted in good faith and thereby manifested or freedom authentically. With authentic freedom we can have piece of mind and rest.

I find Sartre a great deal appealing because his tenets are down to earth and applicable to life. An in-depth understanding of the universe as a whole is not necessary for Sartre's tenets to be understood, and I think that that is important. I find it quite easy to equate Sartreian thought with contemporary society. I can think of many occasions in which I face a realization I was not prepared for. In many of those occasions I fell into angst, and acted in bad faith in an attempt to try and reconcile the situation. In these events I acted without a clear head, and was worse off for having done so. Little I did was of any consequence and reconciliation never cam while I was in this mode of thinking. In others my "human reality" as Heidegger would call it lacked legitimacy because I had allowed it to do so. I can equate this with the trials and tribulations Garcin persevered. Garcin was truly anguished by his predicament and made poorly contemplated decisions in an attempt to bring peace of mind. Garcin was a coward because Inez wished. The situations that I have been in that I perceived as desparate were only so because others perceived them as desparate. If I had initally used a clear head and made a balance between how the situation was perceived by others and what the situation really meant to me, then I would none of my bad experiences would have come the hinderances upon my life they turned. In the end for both Garcin and myself it became clear that peace of mind would not come until clear headness was employed. Once a clear head is put to use then Sartre's belief that reconciliation and peace of mind will inevitably come is vindicated. In Garcin case we can only assume this. In my instance you can bank on it. Thank you.

---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here---Cut Here