Justifications for Terrorism as Activism

First we must define terrorism. First, I must stress the fact that there is no international agreed upon definition for acts of terrorism. The best definition is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." With that definition, many organizations can be considered terrorist organizations. For example, the Ku Klux Klan, the United States Air Force, Mossad and many other organizations that we consider to not be terrorist related fit the definition.

Terrorism can be justified as a means of political activism, when all else fails and that the group advocating acts of terrorism are being withheld their natural rights. It could often be looked at as a natural response when Conventional Political Participation, and Civil Disobedience fails, and as history has shown, these two methods periodically fail. Political Participation only works if the group that feels oppressed has influence whether it is economical, political, strategic, or in rare cases empathetic. If a group has no power to influence through conventional political participation then they will resort to either civil disobedience or acts of terrorism. Civil Disobedience only works in societies that protect individual rights and if governments ure unable to cope with the disruptions caused by the civil disobedience. However in many scenarios where political rights are ignored, or the current conditions that are being protested are ignored then violent activities often erupt. So, when all else fails terrorism offers a channel in which the voices of the oppressed can be heard. Terrorism forces governments to deal with certain issues, for better or worse.

New Media

The New Media, with its most notable figure YouTube, has along with the launch of the internet triggered a new Golden Age of Information. Here, on the internet, information is often debated, checked, examined, re-examined, and then concluded upon by all of those who read it. It directly counters the old media outlets such as News Television, Radio, and Newspapers. With access to the internet, there is an equal opportunity for all information to be viewed.

However, does it really do much. I mean a person can just as easily, if not more likely, reassure themselves of their old biases with the new media that were originally reinforced with the old media outlet that they commonly used. Also propaganda can infiltrate any news medium. There are many videos on our generation's beloved YouTube that aren't intended to provide for a logical argument but try to engage in emotional and heated rhetoric. Also there are many sources of disinformation out on the web. For instance there are still sites that advocate that Obama is a Muslim of all things. Also, the web might have started off as being free and open to everyone, but that is slowly changing. Now this new media is being threatened by censorship and scrutiny. Also net neutrality might also end with corporate takeover of the internet. Also, this new source of media is now being shifted to represent the old media obsesses: focusing more on entertainment.

However, this isn't the result of technology but rather a result of the culture in which we live in. So if there will ever be any progress with the media, then people must alter demand.

Springfield, symbolic of two party norm

While at Springfield and seeing both the Senate, and House Floors I have realized that two parties are the norm in America. Both places were divided between Republicans and Democrats by a center aisle, Liberals vs. Conservatives. I also noticed that there were no third party candidates currently elected to the state congress. I can see potential problems with this setup and some could be linked to the current day problems of funding and budgeting in Illinois. Due to increasing polarization between the parties it becomes even harder to find a middle ground and to settle issues. Below is a link to a possible third party option that is being currently advocated but never been implemented.

http://www.americanreform.org/ARP-State-Affiliates/illinois.html

Electoral College and our Two Parties

It was interesting to read that our electoral college directly contributes to the increasingly disappointing Two-Party system that we see in the States. The more I think about it the more it makes sense. Our electoral college is based on requiring a majority rule with over a certain amount of electoral votes, so having more than three major parties would offset that. This totally eliminates any probable chance of winning the executive. Also since elections tend to be dominated by the national elections in visibility and therefore smaller candidates ride the coat tails of national candidates. Also winner takes all rules increasingly disenfranchises minor third parties.

Its also interesting to know that many other former British Colonies are increasingly the same way. However, these countries are more commonly referred to as Two-Party plus systems. Minor parties still play a role, and definitely a more important role then they do in the United States. This all can be contributed to the electoral college making third parties less common. Every other former colony has adopted the parliamentary system in some way, shape, or form. When Nader came to our campus during the Spring, he made a good point about the system and how it affects independents and third parties.

The Lesson of Israel

I find the country of Israel incredibly complex. It's parliamentary system is very representative of its people, and its multi-party system is something of envy. It complements Israels extreme diversity among ideological, cultural, and ethnic lines. The United States is as much, if not more so, diverse as Israel, yet it only has two political parties that appeal little to the moderates in the middle. Some could argue that the Knesset is fractious governing body based on unstable coalitions, but unfortunately we can hardly criticize. Our government is incredibly divided between only the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, and so this congress has accomplished very little. But in measures of representation, the Knesset is much more representative then the US Congress. Congressmen tend to vote on party lines, and with only two parties to choose from, there are many American's that can't find a candidate that can fully represent their beliefs and ideas.

Israel also has a much more efficient voting system. It is simple, straightforward and not very tedious where as ours, according to the literature, is the complete opposite. Our system results in low voter turnout, and somewhat meaningless, or less meaningful elections.

Elected Judges: Extremely Bad Idea

I just got done reading The Appeal by John Grisham. I hate to spoil it but it brings up a great point about our state judicial system. In the book, a corporation gets sued for basically dumping in a river harmful waste that causes a cancer epidemic. They get sued and loose, but they then appeal, and when elections come along they rig it to get a judge elected that will hand the court case over to corporation. The novel shows that with elected judges (combined with an endless appeal system) courts can be corrupted by the people and loose its ability to be impartial and independent.

With elected judges, they now have to bend to the will of people or reflect the opinions of their constituents which destroys objectivity in the courtroom. This practice is still being used today in some form in 39 states. It is especially prevalent in rural areas. I strongly argue for Federalist 78. Right now records are being broken in money spent on judicial elections. This is especially becoming more prevalent in a 2002 Supreme Court decision allowing judges to speak more freely about their beliefs. There is even correlation between Jim Crow and prejudice being the norm in courts, and elected Judges. I would like to point to another John Grisham book, A Time to Kill. In that book the Judge is influenced by an ambitious district attorney into giving him the upper hand in the court case, in order to give a quasi innocent Black father no chance in a capital murder case.

I know I use Grisham a little to much in establishing a point, but he isn't a best selling author for nothing.

Traditions of Rule

It is interesting on how cultural traditions of rule seem to correlate with present day governments, especially in executive branches and the power that they hold. Latin America for instance has a tradition of rule by caudillos who are powerful individual rulers, and this correlates with governments in the region in adopting policies that could allow a president to expand his influence and power. Japan had a long history of central ruling, and therefore we see a strong central government, not a federalist government like the one seen in America. The arabic world has a saying that states, "better to live in tyranny then to live in anarchy" enabling them to accept the tradition of dictatorship, and royal monarchies as seen in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Qatar, Oman, ect. History it seams continually shapes and affects government, but it effects the executive much more. Legislative government is comparatively a newer form of government.