The Struggle Between Presidential And Congressional Powers

The Struggle Between Presidential And Congressional Powers The process of passing legislation in the United States starts at with Congress and has to ultimately be approved by the president unless bypassed by with a two-thirds veto. The ability of an administration to pass or prevent legislation is one of the things that form the basis for an evaluation of a terms efficiency. However, what must be considered when evaluating a presidents efficiency is the ability to influence Congress, the makeup of Congress itself, and the issue at hand. Another responsibility that both Congress and the Presidency both share is the making of foreign policy. A president dealing with having to pass legislation and dealing with war demonstrates how a president deals with a pressurized situation. These aspects of the government and the ongoing conflicts that occurred will be analyzed in this paper. Analyzing the influence that the president has over Congress gives more information on how the president has to push past the limitations of his office in order to push a political agenda. The role of presidency and Congress regarding to the making of foreign policy illustrates whether the President or Congress truly has authority to act during times of conflict. Gaining a better understanding of these issues gives insight into which office better contemplates the long term welfare of our country, which has more understanding of the power of the U.S. military, and the statement it sends around the world when the military engages in conflict. I was personally interested in this topic because of my own interest and lack of understanding of foreign policy procedure. This research project provided me with an opportunity to understand the authority and the history in foreign policy making. In this paper, I hope to gain the knowledge I desire in this topic to ensure issues of war or foreign policy will be much clearer to me in the next presidential election. Literature Review Separation of Powers: According to American Government: Power and Purpose, the colonies needed to create a government in opposition to the tyrannical rule of King George after declaring their independence. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were the first written American Constitution as well as the weakest. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no executive branch or judicial branch and Congress was the entire basis for central government. Congress at this time was given the power to declare war, make peace, treaties, alliances, and appoint the senior officers of the U.S Army, but the execution of those powers were diminished by the fact that the appointed army officers had no army they were in direct command of because the military was made up of state militias. With each state being in charge of their territory, this made the process of collective action that much harder (Lowi, 2002). To strengthen the central government, and in turn strengthen the United States, the delegates met to initially reform the Articles of Confederation, but this would latter convene in Philadelphia in May 1787 to create a more efficient and effective government. The convention eventually led to the creation of the current U.S. constitution. Under this U.S Constitution, the government would utilize a constitutional principle known as the separation of powers to divide the government into three branches in an effort to ensure that the new government wouldnt infringe the rights of the people, The judicial branch was created to guard against infringement of the rights of the people, legislative to make the laws that the people abide by, and the executive branch was created to counter the impasse formed by the other constitutional principles used to prevent excessive democracy (Lowi, 2002) Unlike the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was made up of two chambers; the House of Representatives to be directly responsible for the people and the Senate to check the House and make it easier for the House not to completely conform to popular preferences (Lowi, 2002). Article I Section 8 of the U.S Constitution list the expressed powers of Congress, such as declaring war and maintaining military services (Lowi, 2002). Article II of the U.S Constitution states that the Executive Branchs power resides in the president. It also states that the president is indirectly elected, and how he is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S Army and Navy (Lowi, 2002). The separation of powers was established to ensure that three branches would be equal, but the struggle is most apparent between Congress and the Presidency (Lowi, 2002). Out of all the powers the president has, his job as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S Armed Services is one of the most important, yet the president is not solely responsible for the military in times of conflict. This power of military authority is a similar power to that of Congress to maintain military services and to declare war. It is these military powers that cause foreign policy to fluctuate and impacts how the executive branch influences congress to get their way. Presidents Influence On Congress A common misconception with the relationship between Congress and the Executive branch is that the president and Congress deal with each other directly on a constant basis, when in actuality, the president getting personally involved only occurs as a last resort (Collier, 1997). The center of Congress and President relations in the White House is the White House Office of Legislative Affairs whose role is to send administration lobbyist to Congress to gain information about legislation, persuading the reluctant, and to relay the information theyve gathered back to the executive branch (Collier, 1997). The role of the executive office in regards to Congressional influence is demonstrated by both the George H.W. Bush and Clinton Administration. As a former congressman, President George H.W. Bush understood the need for working with Congress to pass legislation and choose a staff with good congressional experience and welcomed members of Congress like friends and family. Bush said that he planned to Reagans legislative strategy, but lacked in that regard because of his friendliness towards them (Collier, 1997). He was often criticized for not going over the heads of his friends and by the end of his administration Bush was frustrating to both parties because of his interest in foreign policy which wasnt shared by the people or lawmakers. He lacked both a strong domestic agenda and the Republican majority, yet he still chooses to focus on foreign policy (Collier, 1997). This would ultimately drive home the point of his lack of connection to the public and caused both the lost of public respect and his lack of respect of authority by Congress. Rather than being authoritative, Bush relied merely on the friendships he establishe d versus his position as president. President Bushs biggest foreign policy dilemma stemmed from the Persian Gulf War which compelled Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait (Peterson, 1994) which would ultimately lead to a victory. President Bill Clinton was willing to associate with Congress, but after personally rallying bargaining for votes on his stimulus package, he had to learn how to not get too involved so as to nor appear desperate. The presidents communications skills in his 1996 state of the Union Address allowed him to convey his position and place the Republican congressman at a disadvantage (Collier, 1997). As the Republicans tried to implement their own plan to fix the economy, they underestimated Clinton and ultimately made it easier for him to implement his version of the plan to fix the economy. Regarding foreign policy, Clinton had to deal with the interest group campaign against the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which Congress disagreed with until the President implemented clauses that would protect American Jobs. Another foreign policy issue that would not be further evaluated until the terrorist attacks on September 11 was the threat of terrorism Osama Bin Laden that Clinton faced during his administration. During August 7, 1998, Bin Ladens forces struck the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; this would cause Clinton to respond with seventy nine missile strikes on Bin Ladens outposts. Clinton would also send a letter to Congress stating that his actions were justified by his authority in U.S. foreign relations and as the Commander-in-Chief (Hendrickson, 2002). Rather than simply ignoring Congress altogether, he started to pull them into the decision making process more which ultimately helped him to not only gain support from the majority of Congressman, but cause Newt Gingrich to help garner support through his Republican allies. It was President Clintons decision to include Congress in the decision making that gained the trust of Congress, who in turn allowed President Clinton some leeway in making military decisions (Hendrickson, 2002). After the terrorist attacks of September 11, President George W. Bush declared war on terror and was regarded as an American response when compared to the European perception that the attacks were matters of law enforcement (Ball, 2007). This assertion in the war on terror served to prove what both Bush and Dick Cheney believed; the powers of the U.S. President are limitless in the war on terror. This would also be reinforced by Congress passing a joint resolution drafted by the White House which allowed Bush to battle any nation, organization, or person he determined to have been involved in 9/11. This would also lead Congress passing the Iraq Joint Resolution which falsely claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that they were in possession of weapons of mass destruction (Ball, 2007). Foreign Policy Powers The foreign Policy Powers of the United States stem from the U.S. Constitution. Although the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S military, the Constitution was set up to prevent the president from being the sole authority on U.S foreign policy issues (Peterson, 1994). The president only has the exclusive power to receive ambassadors, execute the laws that Congress passes, and to grant pardons (Lowi, 2002). The title of Commander-in-Chief doesnt actually grant any specific powers. The expressed powers of foreign policy that lie with Congress are the authority to raise an army, prepare for the common defense, and to declare war. Aside from the control already established, Congress has the ability to hinder the presidents power by their control over the budget which is referred to as the power of the purse. One of the things included in the budget is the military funding; meaning the president needs both the approval of Congress to go to war and the proper budget to go to war (Lowi, 2002). Even though it would appear that most if the control in foreign policy making is given to Congress, Congress rarely exercises these powers. The norm seems to be for Congress to just conform to the demands of the President. This is especially apparent when examining the legislation that was passed under the George W. Bush Administration. The President also has its ways of circumventing Congress in terms of foreign policy by executive agreements. Of the two chambers of Congress, The Senate has the authority of forming treaties and alliances and if the President wishes to implement a treaty he must have it approved by Senate with a two-thirds majority vote, but executive agreements allow the president to make an agreement with another country that has the same effectiveness as a treaty, but doesnt need the Senates approval. Statement of Research There are multitudes of ways in which Congress and the Executive branch can override each other and are forced to compromise. Making foreign policy is the issue that theses two branches seem to struggle with the most. The powers they have give them the potential to outrank each other in that regard. The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. and because of the broadness of this title, has no expressed powers he is bound to. Congress has the expressed power and the authority to raise an army, prepare for the common defense, and to declare war. In times of crisis such as 9/11 and the Iraq war, the power of the U.S President tends to increase as Congress conforms to the Presidents agenda in an effort to make a stance for the country. This time of unity between the two branches of government appears to be at its best when regarding the war on terror. The inquiry addresses the following: How has the evolution of presidential influence correlated to the making of foreign policy during the Bush-Clinton Era? How has the war on terror correlated to the foreign policy power balance between the Presidency and Congress? These two questions are significant because they address the issues of divided government and the making of foreign policy. These two elements of our government are the most crucial aspects that can either encourage or strain relations between the White House and Capitol Hill. The two questions not only provide insight into the foreign policy, but an analysis of the events that led up to the Iraq invasion and the war on terror. Research Findings Inquiry Question #1 The making of foreign policy is one of the main subjects in which Capitol Hill and the White House struggle to reach middle ground. As presidential administrations have passed, the executive branchs influence seems to fluctuate depending on the type of president and the different political parties that the president is a part of and whether or not Congress is of the same party. This fact leads back to the question of how the evolution of presidential influence correlated to the making of foreign policy during the Bush-Clinton Era. In order to find out how the evolution of presidential influence correlated to the making of foreign policy during the Bush-Clinton Era, the answer must come from an analysis of the three presidencies in question; George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. President George H.W. Bush, who could have directly launched an attack on Iraq to deal with the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, went to Congress for authorization to use military force against Iraq (Tushnet, 2005). This political behavior was contrary to the quiet, behind the scenes approach to leading Congress which was ultimately was done not by the President himself, who as a former Congressman was very friendly in Congress, but by the staff (Collier, 1997). The Iraq war that President George W. Bush declared in 2002 stemmed from the basis of the congressional authorization of the Gulf War in 1991 (Peterson, 1994). The Gulf War finds similarities to the military actions of President Clinton in his use of the War Powers Resolution in Somalia Bosnia. The first foreign policy challenge under the Clinton administration came at the hands of the incident that was arising in Somalia with the chaos caused by wide-scale dissatisfaction with the leadership of Siad Barre and the clan violence that was increasing under men like Mohammed Aideed (Hendrickson, 2002). President Clinton and Congress supported Operation Restore Hope to use American forces abroad to restore order to the Somalia which Clinton did with both congressional approval and the U.N.s approval as well. The situation in Haiti came from the oppressive rule of Lt. General Raoul Cedras who came into power by staging a coup against Catholic priest Jean Bertrand Aristide (Hendrickson, 2002). President responded by arguing that the instability that was occurring in Haiti was a direct threat to the national security interest of the U.S. This led to the U.N. authorizing the U.S. to end the dictatorship occurring in Haiti, but was initiated by President Clinton who made an effort to inform congress of the developing situation (Hendrickson, 2002). President George W. Bush faced no greater foreign policy in his administration than he did after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the face of the attacks by Al-Qaeda, President Bush announced a war on terrorism that sought not only to bring those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks to justice, but demonstrated a very broad government action that would allow Bush to pass and enforce questionable legislation such as the Iraq Joint Resolution and The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which gave President Bush the authority to fight anyone he thought was involved in the terrorists attacks of 9/11 (Ball, 2007). After review this information, the only answer that can be concluded is that the presidents influence on Congress has greatly affected the making of foreign policy as well as the tendency of Congress to give power to the president during the Bush-Clinton Era, even when the presidents claims of threats of national security do not pan out, such as the example with the Iraq Joint Resolution which would later be very unnecessary and even a blatant case of mistaken identity regarding those who were involved with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Whenever there is an issue regarding foreign policy involving military action, the president is given the power to do what he wishes within reason. However, this does not apply when the country has to make a stance on a subject such as terrorism. Inquiry Question #2 Whenever the U.S. has to deal with acts of terrorism that threaten our safety as citizens, the presidents and Congress have been known to work together and pass legislation that at times of peace would take a much longer time to process and contemplate. Legislation like the Iraq Joint Resolution and AUMF would not have been passed in a time of peace. This one incident questions not only what America is willing to do bring terrorist organizations to justice, but how the war on terror correlated to the foreign policy power balance between the Presidency and Congress. This can only be analyzed by an in-depth look in the events that lead to the war on terror, but what was done after the war on terror was declared. The problem with terrorism finds their beginnings in the George W. Bush administration, but the what lead to that were the terrorist attacks of 9/11 which were spearheaded by the leader of Al-Qaeda; Osama Bin Laden. President Clinton dealt with the terrorist attacks of Osama Bin Laden when they struck the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. President Clinton would then strike Bin Ladens outpost with missiles and would work to gain more intelligence on Bin Ladens actions as well as authorizing the CIA to apprehend and interrogate Bin Laden or to kill him if capture was impossible (Hendrickson, 2002). Congress supported his ideas in all instances in his efforts to stop Bin Laden and was especially supportive of him when he justified his initial actions as the commander-and-chief of the United States, yet still chose to include Congress in their decisions regarding him. Of course at the time, Osama Bin Laden and terrorism in general, was not regarded as one of the central threats to the U.S. (Hendrickson, 2002). President George W. Bush responded to the 9/11 terrorists attacks with the declaration of the War on terror. The broad term would be followed by the AUMF which gave the president free reign to make any attack on anyone he perceived to be connected to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (Ball, 2007). This idea of terrorist striking at anytime also allowed him to do things that could only be done with court approval like intercepting international calls and emails between people who were allegedly connected to Al-Qaeda, which is unconstitutional without a court order (Ball, 2007). Congress initially agreed to majority of the bills that Bush wanted to sign into law to combat the terrorist threat. However, when this began to conflict with some of the rights of the people, both Congress tried to step in only to be usurped by Vice-President Cheney, who was the 1st president to use his ability to expand theory of presidential authority by saying that Congress cannot limit the power the president has over the military nor can they pass laws that give government officials of the executive branch the power to act independently of the president (Ball, 2007). Upon reviewing the information presented, it can only be concluded that the war on terror has shifted the power of foreign policy to the president. President George W. Bush used the war on terror to not only attack all those who were allegedly involved with 9/11 but to expand it into a war that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The same power was also experience by President Clinton when he used his title as commander-and-chief to his advantage and tried his best to eliminate the threat that Osama Bin Laden posed towards the U.S.

Characterization of Mr. Jack Stapleton in Doyle’s Hound of the Baskervilles

Authors use the four methods of Characterization to develop and describe characters in their story by using the narration and the thoughts of other participants to show how the character looks, behaves, and sounds. In The Hound of the Baskervilles, author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle utilizes Characterization to bring to life the antagonist of the story, Mr. Jack Stapleton. Normally, an author uses physical appearance to intimate the personality of the character. In Doyle's book, the narrator describes Mr. Jack Stapleton’s physical appearance: â€Å"He was a small, slim, clean-shaven, prim-faced man, flaxen-haired, and lean-jawed, between thirty and forty years of age, dressed in a gray suit, and wearing a straw hat. A tin box for botanical specimens hung over his shoulder and he carried a green butterfly-net in one of his hands. † (Doyle 89) While reading this it is impossible to detect the evil in Mr. Stapleton. Doyle uses the calm facade of Mr. Stapleton to trick the read er into thinking that there is nothing odd or malevolent about him yet he is a scheming manipulative villain.One cannot judge simply by outward appearance, for his looks deceive the reader which is why other methods are used to determine a character. A character's speech, thoughts and actions can reveal more about who they are and their personality. For example in Doyle’s book, Mr. Stapleton’s actions and words show his personality more explicitly, ‘† But, dear me what’s this? Somebody hurt? Not—don’t tell me that it is our friend Sir Henry! ’ He hurried past me and stooped over the dead man.I heard intake of his breath and the cigar fell from his fingers. ‘Who—who is this? ’ he stammered ‘It is Seldon, the man who escaped from Princetown. ’ Stapleton turned a ghastly face upon us, but by a supreme effort he had overcome his amazement and his disappointment. † (187) This makes Stapleton†™s character more understandable by giving an inking of his greatest desire, the want for Sir Henry Baskerville dead. It is possible to note this because Doyle shows that Stapleton is obviously disappointed to find out that the dead man is not Sir Henry.Actions demonstrate a lot about the characters identity. But more tools are needed to ascertain full knowledge of a persona. The third method of Characterization is using the thoughts or comments of other figures in the book to tell more about the character. In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Mrs. Stapleton describes him, ‘â€Å"†¦ Oh this villain! See how he has treated me! ‘ She shot out her arms out from her sleeves, and we saw with horror that they were all mottled with bruises. â€Å" (216-217) The statement of Mrs. Stapleton describing Mr. Stapleton as being a villain for hurting her is an obvious sign of malevolence and clearly shows his disposition This is not the last method of Characterization for all fo ur are needed to completely identify a character.The last method of Characterization is given by the narrator through a firsthand comment on the person To finalize the identification of Mr. Stapleton Sir Arthur Conan Doyle provides this statement from the narrator's point of view, â€Å"But there was no sign within it of that desperate and defiant villain whom we expected to see† (215) this final example dictates that Mr. Stapleton was indeed a desperate and defiant villain and verifies the way that Mr. Stapleton perceived as a foul and wicked man. Many methods are used by authors to give life to their extraordinary characters. Showing great skill in the area of Characterization, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle brings forth intriguing and thought provoking personas that make his tale, The Hound of the Baskervilles so unique to readers everywhere.

Reviewing Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection Essay

Starting with a critical outline of the global patterns and designs in communication, Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing’s seminal work Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection attempts at a critical examination of the widespread principle of worldwide associations lingering almost everywhere. While Tsing explicates that her work â€Å"is not a history of philosophy but rather an ethnography of global connection (Tsing, 2004, p. 1)†, she also unravels a tight regard for the seemingly presented connections among the various sections of the society. Apparently, one of the book’s main concerns is to obtain the movement patterns wherein various types of knowledge and culture collide against or with each other. This, perhaps, is the logical and obvious contention behind the book.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The initial section of Friction probes into the notion of ‘richness’ or prosperity through an examination of the numerous sides of capitalism. The first part also seeks an exploration of the events that lead to capitalism and its corresponding effects from a bigger viewpoint. While putting down into understanding the significant concepts needed to have a better comprehension of the foundations and modern expressions of capitalism, the first part also brings into light quite a few matters surrounding the delicate and complicated ties from all over the globe. This section introduces the part where the Tsing will subsequently interlock the discussion about the worldwide political environment which encompasses the Indonesian society including the local communities.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Tsing’s seminal work also makes the plain observation that the population increase or boom has equally led to a rapid disproportion in the environment as resources would then have to be consumed or used in a larger scale or degree. Because capitalism is one of the book’s primary concerns, it attempts to showcase the definitive function of capitalism in this imbalance which is largely amplified by the increase in population in the modern years. Tsing further observes that proliferation is also a crucial principle that indicates the expansion or spread of capitalism (Tsing, 2004, p. 27). This results to the presumption that the population expansion—with the combination of capitalist expansion—is a measure of proliferation. In return, the proliferation generates the setting of frontiers which are not mere edges but more importantly specific forms of edges â€Å"where the expansive nature of extraction comes into its own (Tsing, 2004, p. 27).†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Generally, the opening parts of the book, including the first chapter, are initially segmented into two sections: the first section deals with the concept of frontier and the resources which consist it founded on the ethnographic observations during the middle parts of the 1990s; the second section probes the consequences of the predicaments during 1997 when â€Å"frontier-making spiraled out of control (Tsing, 2004, p. 28).†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The second main section of Friction explores the concept of Natural Universals with respect to the various contexts in the whole world. Friction inevitably draws the parallels between universality of a supreme being which is God and the universality of nature through the environment for generating the link between Nature and God. While the chapter probes into the â€Å"universality of capital-N Nature† which is the â€Å"awe-inspiring, lawlike systematicity of the cosmos of and of life on earth† (Tsing, 2004, p. 88), the book also inevitably draws the essential link between Nature and the rest of the world.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Friction also notes the presumption that generalizations are where â€Å"small details support great visions and the universal is discovered in particularities (Tsing, 2004, p. 89)†. This presupposes the notion that â€Å"generalization to the universal requires a large space of compatibility among disparate particular facts and observations (Tsing, 2004, p. 89).† It also translates into the idea that â€Å"tentative and contingent collaborations† among incongruent seekers of knowledge as well as their incongruent â€Å"forms of knowledge† can create compatible facts and observations from incongruent ones (Tsing, 2004, p. 89). These observations discussed in the book brings us face to face with the core of what the author is presupposing: the idea that mere generalizations are just as they are without getting hold of the particulars that comprise them. If put altogether like a single unit, these very particularities will compose the bigger picture where the rest of Nature and of the world function as a unified force. The second chapter further tries to ascertain the supposition that one can start to take action on the idea of ‘thinking globally’ through the awareness of a present generalization among things. That is, the realization of the commonality among the various elements and entities in the world through their predominant generalities helps us overcome the barriers that hinder us from thinking on a large scale and attain the end of global connections.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The author steadfastly formulates this position by affirming that â€Å"as long as facts are apples and oranges, one cannot generalize across them; one must first see them as ‘fruit’ to make general claims (Tsing, 2004, p. 89).† This makes the book even more mind rousing as it nears its middle part. As Friction exposes certain critical observations such as the inability or failure of individuals to realize the common general thread which holds people together as one, it also brings into consciousness the possible means of surmounting the test of realizing the more general claims.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In addition, Friction reiterates the idea that â€Å"cultural analysis thrives on the description of specificity† given that it is the paramount scheme for us to get hold of â€Å"a critical distance from the common-sense platitudes and everyday assumptions of our lives† and â€Å"the powerful ideologies that keep us in their thrall† (Tsing, 2004, p. 122). Friction reasserts the position that omitting the comprehension about the particulars disarms one with the capacity to approach and comprehend the more evident actuality in the rear of our common-sense perception of the globe.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Nature Loving† further makes manifest as well as supports the belief that the assorted interactions concerning different categories of knowledge and culture are unyielding factors in investigating universal claims. Using the Indonesian rainforest as an example, the book reiterates the belief that people have always been in contact with nature. One example to this is the fact that there are ‘nature lovers’ who are â€Å"devoted to outdoor activities such as camping, mountain climbing, rafting, and scuba diving (Tsing, 2004, p. 122)†. These individuals merely consist of a little fraction of the bigger populace whose daily lives involve contact with Nature such as the Indonesians.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Friction penetrates deep into the analysis by putting side by side the observations of the poet Kristiandi Tanumihardja with the observations of individuals from the scientific community to the masses. The cornerstone of these observations from the book relates the idea that nature has its own way of communication which is evidently unique in its own mysterious ways. As Friction talks about the human endeavors to disclose the mysteries behind the way Nature communicates not only by the scientific community but also by the world of literature, it also hopes that â€Å"even with such limited understanding† the attempts â€Å"might bring us closer to knowing how to live in a multispecies world† (Tsing, 2004, p. 172). Friction further concretizes an observation in the chapter â€Å"A History of Weediness† where the author explores â€Å"the interdependence of species† by reflecting on â€Å"the beasts and flowers, not just as symbols and resources, but as co-residents and collaborators† (Tsing, 2004, p. 172). This corresponds to the presumption that there should be ‘respect’ in the manner which human beings deal with the environment. The book reveals the outlines upon which the societies have significantly transformed—and, to a certain extent, revolutionized—across generations which largely contributed to the major changes in Nature. More importantly, Friction tries to reveal the assessment that Nature and the cultural processes have been normally delegated with various disjunctions and differences as well as with the heterogeneous factors which intertwine along the way—it is the part in which people ordinarily refer to as the concept of ‘globalization’.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The final chapter â€Å"Freedom† in Friction commences with the belief that â€Å"travel changes the way we imagine our home places (Tsing, 2004, p. 213)† which leads us towards the idea that ‘movement’ should be present for us to acquire a consistent and unyielding comprehension and appreciation of Nature and the global environment. It is only through this movement can a broader understanding of the global connections existing take place. More importantly, these movements are paramount or equivalent to the different social movements and upheavals in more recent times. These include the various social movements among the community of civilians consistently engaging with the environment.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Friction’s final chapter further broadens the kinds of collaborations where â€Å"political gains and compromises† can be assessed â€Å"through constant attention to these kinds of collaborations and their effects† (Tsing, 2004, p. 268). While aggregating the general contentions of Friction in studying global interconnections and the many particularities involved in comprising the larger whole, the book also places a special emphasis on Indonesia’s environmental status. Friction reports facts about the principal subject matters in investigating the ethnography of global connections and the findings by earlier generations as well as the contemporary ones which ascertain what people comprehend as signs of globalization. References Indonesia: Environmental Issues. (2004).  Ã‚   Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indoe.html Tsing, A. L. (2004). Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Yarrow, T. (2006). Book Review: riction: An Ethnography of Global Connection By Anna Lowenhaupt  Ã‚   Tsing. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 29(2), 291-296.

The Interwar Period - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1272 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/10/10 Did you like this example? Question 1 The interwar period should be recalled only as a time of deep political instability, economic change and unsettling social, constantly overshadowed by the prospect of another war. During World War I, most of the European countries were predominantly comprised of the world war powers. It is important to note that most of these countries were under the influence of Germany in the West and Russia in the East.   Undeniably, Scandinavian countries had so far suffered a lot under the rule of the Soviet Union. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Interwar Period" essay for you Create order Under the rule of Stalin, these countries did not have neither economic nor political freedom. Evidently, such countries like Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would experience one of the most difficult periods regarding political dictatorship. Based on the political and economic challenges or problems they had faced, it was long overdue to cooperate in their foreign affairs on a ten-year deal. Through fascism, every country was in a bid to protect its people. Democracy was also practiced to a small extent during the years. Poland in particular formed a democratic government in 1922. Unfortunately, dictatorship would attack the new formed democratic under the rule of Joseph Pilsudski by 1926. As much as efforts were made to revert to the previous democratic government, they proved unfruitful when immense powers were constitutionally given to the president by 1934. Another country that visibly experienced political turmoil was Hungary. Before the war, Hungary and Austria were intertwined under Hapsburg Emperor of Austria. After Hungary had broken off from Austria to form an independent, this was not to last long whereby the new National Council was overthrown by the power hungry communists. After the ongoing political uncertainties, the case was resolved by installing a monarchy form of government only for it to end being a bloody dictatorship. During this period, Hungary experienced quite a considerable level of economic hardship with land cessation a common phenomenon. After the onset of World War I, the global population oversaw one of the most economically difficult periods. The great depression set in causing the economy to experience a nosedive. Deaths were to the tunes of millions leading to a significant loss of labor force. As a result, industrialization was at its lowest. On the same note, so much property and land were destructed making Europe an economic desert so to say. Furthermore, the period was characterized by high levels of poverty on the part of the ordinary citizenry. The quality of life took a heavy dip, and living conditions were very wanting. Agricultural production levels hit a historical low with Austria experiencing almost a 53% decline. The economic implications of the war would be felt immediately after the war when the world experienced one of the worst recorded recessions and inflation.. These strikes were geared towards achieving better working conditions and better remuneration. The role of women cannot be understated during the interwar period. It is at this period that most women were better educated. There were therefore more job opportunities for them. Some jobs came up which were considered ‘women’s work’. After World War 1, women came out to fight for their rights as workers in various industrial sectors especially new light industries. After the disqualification of the sex act, many women entered into professions and got more job openings. The onset of world war two was stimulated by a couple of factors. One of the causes of the war before it even started was the Italian fascism of the late 1920s and more so the political takeover of Germany in 1933 by Adolf Hitler. It should be noted that he had an aggressive foreign policy. Different ideologies were developed during the interwar period. Tensions arose due to these ideologies and some governments were dissatisfied by them. The League of Nations was also a failure on its part since it failed to protect Abyssinia from attack by Italy. The policies of appeasement were ineffective and feeble. The immediate cause was when the Nazi tried to solve the Polish corridor. Question 2 It is true that the failures of the requirements of the Versailles treaty were not the only reasons which contributed to the start of the Second World War as there are many other factors which led to this. The signing of the Versailles treaty contributed to the ending of the First World War and this happened in 28th June 1919. This is the treaty that led to the creation of the League of Nations in the year 1919 and this was to prevent any further wars in the future then. Germany was not allowed to be a member of this treaty until the year 1926- seven years later. It was written between allies who stood for the same ideology of living peacefully and it was formulated in Paris France. The treaty also spelt the new boundaries of Germany, identifying Germany as the key contributor to the First World War there before. Some part of Germany was given to Belgium, some to Poland, Alsace Lorraine was given back to its native owner France and a number of districts in the eastern part of Germany was given to Poland. Many financial obligations were imposed on Germany and she agreed to bow down to these allegations although the Germans signed the treaty with a lot of protesting while the US government didn’t take many responsibilities for most of the treaty’s provisions. However, in the year 1939, Adolf Hitler breached the provisions of the treaty by attacking Poland which was a neutral country. This sparked the beginning of the Second World War in the year 1939 which lasted till the year 1945. Among the other causes of the Second World War was the Japanese invasions of China in the 1930s which brought division and created a stress line by creating allies to either sides. The other cause of the war was the Italian fascism whose origin can be traced back to the 1920s and the man behind this was an Italian dictator by the name Mussolini. The other cause of the Second World War was the political takeover of Germany which took place in the year 1933 putting a very ambitious leader in power who was Adolf Hitler. He wanted to concur the world and attain the fame and glory that Germany had one time. This was majorly supported by his Nazi party and also the aggressive policy on foreign issues. Adolf Hitler felt that his country had been unfairly treated by the Versailles treaty and this dissatisfaction made him mobilize fellow Germans to spark off the Second World War. Another key cause of the Second World War was the militarism which made many countries have strong military powers due to the science inventions in the field of military such as the invention of the machine gun and development of military cars. This sparked aggression between countries since they felt they had a military back up to rise against their enemies. The Spanish civil war also was a key contributor and it led to support of Germans and Italians on the nationalists while the Soviet Union supported the government. The issue of allies led to war since enemies took different sides and fought against each other indirectly. Italian invasion of Albania also contributed to the war in 1939. One of the most immediate causes of the Second World War was the invasion of Poland by Germany and it should be noted that Poland was a neutral state that did not support either the Germany or the Soviet fronts. This sparked conflict since Britain entered into the issue by supporting Poland. Therefore, the failure of the Versailles treaty is not the only reason for the occurrence of the Second World War.