God In Government Essays - American Culture, American Nationalism

God in the Government Every time money is used it is seen. When in a courtroom it is seen or heard. When reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, it is said. What is it? It is God. The word God is apart of Americans lives. It is seen, heard, or said on a daily basis. Removing it would throw off Americans? lifestyles. On a poll recently conducted by MSNBC, only 19 percent of citizens want God removed from the government. The other 81 percent feel the word should remain. Beliefs about God in the government range from America not being a Christian based nation, to America being founded by those of religious basis and to God being the foundation of this thriving nation. For many, the removal of God from things like currency and the Pledge would be a good and helpful decision. America is not solely a Christian nation. God was not regularly apart of the American lives until 1954 when ?under God? was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. ?In God We Trust? was not added until 1956 meaning that God has not been the base or ?overseer? of America?s entire existence. God being apart of the government also violates the separation of church and state. This means that the government and legislature can not chose one specific religion or church for the entire nation to follow. The word also violates others religious beliefs. Some religions, such as Buddhism and Muslim, believe in other ?Gods? or do not believe in any whatsoever. To those people, the word God is rude and offensive, thus meaning that the word should be abolished from all items. On the other hand, other people would like God to stay in the picture. Many feel that removing God from the nation would be wrong and harmful. America has been its own country for 200 plus years and every one of those years God has been apart of. The whole idea of adding ?In God We Trust? originated in the 1800?s. A man wrote a letter to the Secretary of Treasury requesting that the idea be considered. The Secretary of Treasury at the time agreed to have it printed on the two cent coins and later gold and silver coins. Also, including God in courtrooms, the Pledge and on currency honors America?s history and historical background. It also honors the ?religious heritage? and those whom thought of the phrase. The people who formed America and thought out the rules did so on a biblical basis, thus meaning the nation?s values and morals are biblically based. ?In God We Trust? is America?s national motto. Removing the motto changes the very principals this country was founded on. The potential removal of God from the society can cause violent acts of rebelli on such as riots and protests. Therefore, the removal of God would be a poor decision. In a personal opinion, it would be an inadequate decision to eliminate God from the government. The religious beliefs of America go back several hundred years to the early 1600?s when pilgrims settled here in America. America was founded by men whom had a religious background and leaned on God in times of hardship. God is also not there to cause offense to anyone person. It is there as guidance. It is there so that the public can be thankful for what they have and know they are being protected. Saying ?In God We Trust? or one nation under God is, also, not geared towards one religion in general. ?God? could represent any God depending on personal religious beliefs. Also, if it was such an issue to have God as apart of America, then how come He is mentioned more than once in the Star Spangled Banner, the national anthem? Francis Scott Key included God for a reason: God is the strong point, heart and soul of this growing nation. Without him America can and will self-destruct. This desc ribed self destruction has already become visible. People care less about others and their opinions. Americans are becoming destructive and violent and this is more than likely because the society is slowly beginning to pull God out of things in greater quantities. Without his power and guidance, people fall

Gattaca - Perfection essays

Gattaca - Perfection essays The Film Gattaca Presents a World Destroyed by the pursuit of our perfection. Discuss. Andrew Niccols film Gattaca does present a world where the world has been destroyed by humans pursuit of perfection. It is the characters in the movie which show this, Vincent, Jerome s film shows us a world that has been destroyed by the human pursuit of perfection. Vincent is considered an invalid in the world of Gattaca, because he wasnt created the valid way. The valid way is done through altering the genetic code of a person, a person engineered to be perfect. Vincent however is anything but perfect; he has a 99% of Heart Failure and is presumed to die at the age of 30. The world of Gattaca is one based solely on perfection, this is shown by the selection criteria of the Gattaca program, in which only the perfect enter, valids. This shows the audience on how intent the world of Gattaca is on being perfect, with the creation of a perfect civilization. The world is destroyed; there is a new underclass that is discriminated upon and not given a chance to succeed in the world. One scene in particular which shows this is when the Investigator has all the Invalids lined up for testing, we see darkness which shows the audience that these invalids live a dark life. It is this new underclass which shows us the destruction of the world in Gattaca al l for the pursuit of our own perfection. On the other Hand we have Jerome Morrow who is an valid. Jerome has the perfect helix so to speak, with an off the scale IQ and a heart of an ox. Jerome is an example of how the worlds people are with their pursuit to perfection. Jerome lives under the burden of perfection which is a burden which many in the Gattaca world would be und ...

A better a Life by Chris Weitz Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

A better a Life by Chris Weitz - Essay Example Carlos is in such a situation and he reveals his fears to his employer, Blasco who wants to return to Mexico after making enough money. Undocumented workers have no guarantee that they will be hired to work without licensing and insurance as Carlos is unsure if he will get any employment after Blasco leaves for Mexico and has to take the risk of purchasing Blasco’s truck to be his own employer and take on Blasco’s business. The only choice that is available for undocumented workers in the United States is to work as a hired hand and ensure they are invisible if they are to survive the debilitating conditions as undocumented workers.  There is no certainty in the lives of undocumented workers as to the presence of work compared to documented workers who have access to monthly jobs and pension schemes, as well as health insurance. This is well illustrated when Blasco drops Carlos after a day’s work and informs him that there will be no work the next day. The othe r episode that exposes this sad reality in the lives of undocumented workers is where workers congregate to be picked up for work and some immigrate may not have the chance of getting work as depicted by Santiago an Carlos at the end of the day. The other portrayal of undocumented workers is that they have to play certain roles in the community that are despised including lawn mowing as done by Carlos, park cars, washing dishes, and man tables in hotels.     Undocumented workers are faced with financial challenges and have to work even on Sundays to make ends meet.

Watch a movie and write about it "The Milagro Beanfield War" Essay

Watch a movie and write about it "The Milagro Beanfield War" - Essay Example It is important for the audience to understand the motives and influences that make the characters do what they do and considering their backgrounds as well. In this case, the small village is denied water for reasons that they cannot understand. Powerful people in the society probably picked such a small village since most of its inhabitants are very poor and are likely to offer very little protest if any at all. The residents are not given any explanations and they also do not do anything about it until Joe Mondragon in a fit of anger unplugs the water into his bean fields. The developers are known to change any piece of land that they come across as resorts and golf clubs that are used by the rich people. It is clear that the poor people are not of any importance such that even heir source of livelihoods are manipulated in order to create space for the rich people in the society. The poor do not have anyone to stand for them and it takes the action of Joe Milagros who was angered by the fact that he could no longer farm to help the residents get back their source of livelihoods. However, this does not happen without major confrontations as people unite against the said developers. There are some villagers who are against it while majority of the other villagers prefer not to get involved in the issues. The reluctance to get involved shows how meek the villagers are and it also shows that they believe that nothing can be done to help them in their situation and would rather suffer in silence. They may also fear for even their lives as the developers ar e rather powerful people who could do anything they wished. The movie shows the plight of the poor against the rich in that the rich most of the time can do anything that they wish with minimal consequences. While there are people who are willing to fight for their rights, most people just believe that they should let things be as they are even if they are suffering.

Drug Use in the American Army in the Vietnam War

Drug Use in the American Army in the Vietnam War In 1898 the United States gained control of the Philippines. Shortly after acquiring the islands, they began a bloody struggle to suppress the guerrilla uprising that was looming. Soon after their arrival in the Philippines, the troops that were stationed in the Philippines were taught how to smoke opium. Even though this practice was very common among the troops, the current U.S. Opium Commissioner Hamilton Wright decided to deny all claims of them participating in this act. He stated in 1909 that among the personnel of our Army and Navy [in the Philippines] there is not the slightest evidence that the use of opium or its derivatives has been introduced (Brush, n.d.). This use of opium in the Philippines was defiantly not the last time that the U.S. military would use drugs such as opium during the fight to combat guerilla forces. The next time that this practice was used was in the United States involvement in the Vietnam War between the years 1965-1975. Since the beginning of the 20th century the United States had taken upon itself to start controlling drugs by forming different policies to regulate drugs and protect the people of their country. One of the leading fronts of the regulation of drugs was the president of the Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger. During the decade of the 1950s, the bureau first established different posts in Southern Asia in hopes to curve the source of where different drugs were coming into the United States from (Kuzmarov, 2008). Then later in 1962, the Kennedy Administration provided Mexico with $500,00 worth of helicopters, light planes, jeeps, and rifles through the Agency of International Development for special narcotic destruction campaign targeting marijuana and opium growers (Kuzmarov, 2008). This would set a precedent for the near future. The Vietnam War followed the First Indochina War and was fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. North Vietnam was supported by communist forces and South Vietnam was supported by anti-communist countries such as the United States. A few years before in 1945, President Truman stated, I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way (Yancey, 2001). The Unites States saw that the support of the Southern Vietnamese people as a way to combat their idea of containment (Yancey, 2001). Many soldiers in the enacted during the Vietnam War did not want to make the Army a career. They were generally uneducated individuals who lacked in the experience that the higher ranking officials did. These GIs lack of interest, education, and experience in wars may have been one of the many reasons that morale for the Vietnam War faded so quickly. In 1971, President Nixon announced the formation of the Special Action for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) that was in charge of coordinating and reporting on the growing drug problems of the Vietnam War. Some of their findings included that about 40% of the voluntary enlistees of the troops were school dropouts and many of them enlisted in the military before the appropriate age because of how many little opportunities that they had concerning aspects of their lives such as jobs. They also had much more drug experiences than that of the draftees later on in the war (Korsmeyer and Kranzler, 2009). In the later years of the war, the drafte es were chosen by a lottery designed to make a selection less susceptible to social class biases (Korsmeyer and Kranzler, 2009). Their top priority in this strange land was survival and many turned to drugs as a way to escape (Yancy, 2001). In this paper I will discuss the role alcohol, marijuana, opium, and amphetamine had on the Vietnam War. In the early stages of the Vietnam War, alcohol abuse was the most common drug used. Many of the men partook in daily drinking in order to pass the long days and nights in Vietnam. This alcohol abuse did not cause much controversy in exception of those who were underage. The high ranking officers who partook in daily alcohol abuse were nicknamed the juicers, and the lower ranking draftees of the war were nicknamed the heads due to their indulgence in illicit drugs such as marijuana (Kutler, 1996). Drinking alcohol was significantly encouraged by the Army men. The drinking did everything to encourage their stereotype of the tough and hearty men that they tried to portray. Bars around the bases were given special licenses in order to dispense beer and other alcohols to the troops, even in the bunkers (Kutler, 1996). As the war continued, many could not ignore the fact that marijuana use was steadily increasing. As the Armys combat role in the Vietnam War wound down, illicit drugs conti nued to be a problem. With the decreasing support from the home front, the U.S. forces decided to turn to the Nixon Doctrine. Through the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and the Vietnamization program, soldiers were required to spend countless lonely months behind bunkers in isolation (Sanders, 1973). The men endured many lonely nights in a world that was completely new and foreign to them. They were thrown into a world that was so unfamiliar to them and their families and friends that were dear to them were halfway around the world. This negative attitude on the war and the home front caused the Vietnam War to lose its support and much of its legitimacy which fueled an exceptional environment for drug use and abuse (Kutler, 1996). The most commonly abused of the drugs being marijuana. Marijuana is one of those unique drugs that can have a very different effect on different people. In one hand, it can act like a stimulant but at the same time act as a depressant (Iversen, 2008). The United States has been trying to regulate the distribution and sales of marijuana since the 1930s after the Marijuana Tax Stamp. In 1954 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics began to investigate the trafficking of opium from Laos. The terrain of Laos is mostly mountainous with many hills and plateaus. This provided the perfect landscape for smuggling narcotics such as opium with little suspicions from the government and other prying eyes (Kuzmarov, 2008). As the soldiers came pouring in from the United States during the war, this caused worry about the illicit drugs being smuggled through the terrain and what this meant for the U.S. Military. Many of the farmers around of the area sold and packaged marijuana as a means of additional income. Marijuana is a very easy plant to grow because it i s a weed. It does not need very fertile soils or even a large amount of water, making it the perfect crop for these poor farmers (Iversen, 2008). It was also a result of the little enforcement of Drug Laws that were not well defined and of little importance in the eyes of the Vietnamese criminal justice system. There was no government control or enforcement agency over marijuana (Brush, n.d.). The farmers would often pack their marijuana in different brands of cigarettes and other smoking tobacco for distribution. The very potent marijuana was sold for a $1.50 in US currency, which was very cheap when compared to the price in America. U.S. News and World Report quoted that Marijuana in Vietnam is cheap, easy to find and potent. All a person has to do to get it is say the work Khan Sa (Zinberg, 1975). Even though this drug was readily available many men only smoked it casually to calm down after a battle or to escape the death and destruction that they were seeing every day. In a study done at the Long Binh Jail, psychiatrist Roger A. Roffman concluded that only 28.9% of GIs stationed in the Southern Corps had tried marijuana at least once. After later publishing their study, the mass media inflated their findings and were reporting that as high as 90% of American troops in Vietnam were on drugs (Kuzmarov, 2008). Only a small percentage of American troops reported heavily smoking marijuana. Media attention to the use of drugs in Vietnam was greatly construed to what was actually going on. They did not distinguish for the masses between the drug use and the drug abuse (Zinberg, 1975). In constant concern over the ever increasing addiction problem amongst the GIs, in 1969, a campaign for the destruction of marijuana was launched by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the Vietnamese special police. Some speculate that this was also an alternative agenda to the Vietnamese to force out any guerillas and force other villagers into government ran camps. The aftermath of this mission included 504,795 marijuana plants being destroyed. These farmers were paid a small amount of money, less than one U.S. cent for every crop that was destroyed on their land (Kuzmarov, 2008). Journalist Richard Boyle commented, The United States is now waging two wars in Vietnam; one against the Vietcong and the other against Mary Jane (Sanders, 1973). With the constant pressure from the military to cut down marijuana smoking in Vietnam, many of the GIs found the risk of smoking marijuana much too great to continue their use. Because of this crackdown, soldiers found a different means of getting high in this foreign world, and its name was heroin. The heroin of the area was so readily available and pure that the men could discreetly hide the heroin in their cigarettes and smoke it with no discriminating odor of any kind, allowing it to be easily hidden (Kutler, 1996). As the 1970s slowly came, heroin addiction rapidly increased throughout all ranks of the military in Vietnam. An estimated 450,000 U.S. military forces in Vietnam were reportedly currently using or had tried for the first time heroin. Because of the strict enforcement of marijuana, it literally knocked out all of the competition that heroin had. Heroin was more readily available that marijuana had ever been. In The Senate Staff Report on Drug Abuse in the Military it stated, The upshot was the GIs who had been smoking grass turned to heroin, which was initially passed off to them as a nonaddicting cocaine. They reasoned that the substance itself, heroin, and the smoking of it were more easily concealed from prying eyes and noses than marijuana (Kutler, 1996). The inexpensive and highly pure heroin estimated at about 94-96% led to frequent use by the U.S. military in Vietnam. Few men injected it and intravenous use was rare (Morgan and Puder, 1989). In a way to deal with the growing problem of drug use, the U.S. military was also trying to encourage their troops to seek help with the heroin, marijuana, and other addictions by offering a sort of amnesty and treatment for any of the GIs who chose to seek help with their problems. Before this idea of seeking treatment, soldiers who were caught participating in drug activity were subject to court marshal and the possibility of dishonorable discharge (Korsmeyer and Kranzler, 2009). As this new idea was being set out, more and more troops were being sent back to the United States. The downside to more troops being sent home was the fact that many of these men were regularly using illicit drugs such as marijuana and heroin on a daily bases. The men were bringing back their drug habits into the United States with them. As the impeding fear of drug addiction on the home front became clearer and clearer, Nixon proposed a plan in 1971 to conduct urine testing for GIs returning home. If the men did not pass the drug test, then they could not return. This new policy was dubbed Operation Golden Flow. These fears of heroin addiction reaching United States soil did not occur at the level that was expected. An estimation of more than two-thirds of the returning GIs from Vietnam never even touch heroin once they returned home (Morgan and Puder, 1989). Although the media attention on this new policy focused mainly on the dreaded heroin, the goal was to detect as many different drugs the troops may have been using while in Vietnam. As to be recognized, the methods used for this testing was in its very primitive state, causing some discrepancies to the testing methods. The 1971 program was confined to testing for residue and/or metabolites of opiates, barbiturates, and amphetamine (Morgan and Puder, 1989). Amphetamines were another drug used during the Vietnam War. Even though marijuana and heroin were more plentiful during this time, some amphetamines were also used. They were used mainly in part because the military would dispense these drugs in order to keep their men awake. The pills were commonly called go pills which allowed the soldiers to stay alert awake during special assigned missions (Korsmeyer and Kranzler, 2009). GIs could also purchase vials of liquid amphetamines on the black market and use them for staying alert during patrol duties or even for parties in rear areas. Some veterans remarked that when asked how coming off the drug was, they replied that it made them edgy and extremely irritable. One soldier even stated that coming off of the drug made the fell like shooting children in the streets. It could be assumed that for reasons like this, marijuana was often the drug of choice for the soldiers over in Vietnam (Tucker, 1998). Drug use has been a staple in wars throughout history with the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II just to name a few (Sanders, 1973). The Vietnam War was no different than these other wars. In Vietnam the most common drugs used were alcohol, marijuana, heroin, and some amphetamines. These GIs in the Vietnam War were sent to a land in isolation that was foreign to them. Many leaned towards drugs in order to combat the loneliness and horror they saw on the battlefront and many just out of boredom during their stint in Vietnam. At first drugs were used in moderation, but as the war continued on some drug problems among the soldiers became clearer. Statistics concerning exactly how many men were using different forms of illicit drugs tend to be unclear, but the one fact that is clear is that they were in constant supply and utilized in the American Army during the Vietnam War.

Benedict Arnold Essay -- essays research papers fc

Benedict Arnold was born in Norwich, Connecticut. Arnold received his schooling at Canterbury. While away at school, a few of Arnold’s siblings passed away from Yellow Fever. Arnold was a troublesome kid that would try just about anything. As a 14-year-old boy, he ran away from home to fight in the French and Indian War. Later, Benedict Arnold left and returned home through the wilderness alone to work with his cousins. The army had excused him without penalty because of his young age. In 1762, when Benedict was just twenty-one years old, he went to New Haven, Connecticut where he managed a book and drug store and carried on trade with the West Indies. (B Arnold) In 1767, he married Margaret Mansfield, a daughter of a sheriff of New Haven County. They had three sons together. When the Revolutionary War was just beginning to break out, Benedict Arnold became a prosperous ship owner, merchant, and trader. Within days, Arnold became very interested in the war once again and joine d the American Army. All of the battles Arnold commanded over showed immense courage and bravery, but he was soon known as America’s greatest traitor due to his betrayal of the American’s. As the Revolutionary War broke out, Benedict Arnold decided to volunteer to head over 1,000 men up to Maine. He asked for additional men from his companies to join the army. Arnold then became a captain in the Connecticut Militia. General George Washington had his favorites, which Arnold was among the very few. So, Benedict Arnold was sent on an infernal 500 mile march to Maine by Washington, also known as "The Rock". (Macks 72) Benedict Arnold and only about fifty percent of his original soldiers made it to the St. Lawrence River where they met up with General Montgomery. Their plan was to attack the British Army by surprise in Quebec City, Canada. Both Montgomery and Arnold arranged to start on the lofty mountainsides of Quebec. Arnold and his soldiers found themselves tr apped by the British. A member of the British Army shot a musket ball directly towards Arnold’s leg. His leg was badly broken and he had to be taken to a hospital bed almost a mile away from the attack. The attack had lasted fifty days and the secret journey resulted in a catastrophe for the volunteer soldiers who marched away. The conditions were terrible. It was said that almost fifty percent of the men froze, starved... ... and the other three were from his first marriage to Margaret. His four sons then became members of the British military. America now has their first despicable traitor! Bibliography Works Cited Benedict Arnold on Lake Champlain. The Battle of Valcour Island. Online. Internet. 7 March 2000. Available: http://www.heroswelcome.com/Arnold.htm Connecticut SAR. The Connecticut Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. Online. Internet. 28 Feb. 2000. Available: http://www.ctssar.org/ Flynn, J. Michael. Benedict Arnold: The Traitor Who Saved America. Online. Internet. 18 March 2000. Available: http://www.magweb.com/sample/scry/sch23ben.htm Historic Valley Forge. Benedict Arnold. Online. Internet. 19 March 2000. Available: http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/arnold.html Kenneth, Dave C. "Say You Want a Revolution." Don’t Know Much About History. U.S.A: Avon Books, 1995. Liberty. Chronicle of the Revolution. Benedict Arnold’s Leg. Online. Internet. 7 March 2000. Available: http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle/ben.arnold.leg.html Mack, Stan. "Redcoats and Guerrillas." Real Life American Revolution. USA: Avon Books, 1994.

Creative Spark Talk Analysis Essay

Creativity is a subject that is very disputable amongst psychologists. Psychologists have argued on a definition for the word creativity for many years now. Regardless of what most psychologists chose to think now, most believe that it is a creative act no matter big or small that is unusual and most likely become very useful to society. The video I watched was by John Bohannon and dancers from the Black Label Movement. The name of the video is tilted â€Å"Dance vs. PowerPoint†, a modest proposal and was filmed at TEDxBrussels, which was also posted in November 2011. John explains in this video how one of his friends tried to tell him about a science experiment and just simply couldn’t. His friend finally explains what the experiment was about to John, and then he tells his friend that â€Å"Maybe next time if you had dancers to try to better explain it will be much easier. He then tells his friend that numerous scientists have started using dancers to describe many d ifferent scientific things simply because it is more sufficient. Dancing PHD is the group of scientists that have started using dancers to explain various things. He starts to explains why it would be more productive to use dancers and instead of PowerPoint presentations. John then gives an explanation on how it is a waste of cash, eventually getting rid of PowerPoint and replacing them with dancers. John even expresses that by using this method even the government could better explain things, therefore making it more understandable to our fellow Americans. Such as things like why are we invading other countries? The talk that Mr. John Bohannon describes does prove a valid point and it does throw a light on some of the stages of creativity. He has done his proper research and makes it very clear on why his solution to PowerPoint could be very productive. John showing more creativity thinking beyond the box, he even has some dancers performing while he is talking so that he quickly proves his point. Curiosity and imagination were used to determine a resolution because dancers would’ve seemed incredible before seeing the actual presentation. Mr. Bohannon was obviously eager to know and see how dancers worked and once seeing it all in motion he ha d a better interpretation towards it. Without his imagination, and thoughts of how dancers and different situations could be put together John would’ve never come up with something as this genius idea. He definitely had to put in a lot of effort, plenty of time and eventually will have to put his ideas on paper to see it active. Sometimes the mind can be very tricky which can make it very hard to put thoughts onto something concrete but once has it will be all worth it. Sharing with the world a different view of things benefits everyone and there will be many key facts from it. From my personal experience PowerPoint’s are easy but can definitely end up being very boring. Even when I was in the military I have had to sit through plenty of them and that got old very fast. Now attending College I also had to put them together and present them. Personally I think the dancers could work better to describe a certain subject or topic but not all the time. Don’t get me wrong some topics should just be left as power points but using dancers on some matters or discussions may be easier to explain. Using dancers could truly benefit in society as a unit then kids in elementary co uld learn easier and this would allow them to use their curiosity and imagination more often. Without having creative minds surrounding us continuously thinking, we would not be the society we are today. We might even live in a different country or the country we do live would’nt have developed the way it did. Numerous people minimize their thinking skills and say no to thinking more than they claim they need too. Each and every person is one of a kind and if they share their thoughts and ideas they could potentially benefit our society as a unit. Doing the least just to get by and not continuously thinking of better and simple ideas only hurts yourself and you are minimized to what you can accomplish. Reference Bohannon, J. (2011, November). Dance Vs. Powerpoint, a modest proposal. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/playlists/11/the_creative_spark