These are some of the many ways the War on Drugs has cut deeply – and threatens to cut deeper still – into Americans’ privacy, eroding what Justice Louis D. Brandeis described as “the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. ” Working hand-in-hand with the political branches, the courts have diminished constitutional restraints on the exercise of law enforcement power. In addition to expanded powers of surveillance, investigation, and prosecution, punishment has been loosed with a vengeance, against enemy and bystander alike.

Punishments have become draconian in part because of permission conferred by Justice William Rehnquist’s 1981 circular dictum: “the question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is not different from the question of what punishments the Legislative Branch intended to be imposed. ”

The penalties have become so extreme, especially since the 1987 enactment of the Uniform Sentencing Guidelines, that many Federal judges have begun to recoil. US. district court Judge J.Lawrence Irving of San Diego, a Reagan appointee, announced his resignation in protest over the excessive mandatory penalties he was required to mete out to low-level offenders, most of them poor young minorities. Complaining of “unconscionable” sentences, the judge said that “Congress has dehumanized the sentencing process. I can’t in good conscience sit on the bench and mete out sentences that are unfair. ”

Judge Harold Greene of the District of Columbia went so far as to refuse to impose the minimum guideline sentence of 17.5 years on a defendant convicted of the street sale of a single Dilaudid tablet, pointing to the “enormous disparity” between the crime and the penalty. In the judge’s view, the minimum was “cruel and unusual” and “barbaric. ” Fourth circuit Judge William W. Wilkins objected to mandatory penalties because “they do not permit consideration of an offender’s possibly limited peripheral role in the offense. ” Agreeing with that thinking, the judicial conferences of the District of Columbia, Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth circuits have adopted resolutions opposing mandatory minimums.

As drug control policymakers came to realize that the drug dealers were, in an economic sense, merely entrepreneurs responding to market opportunities, they learned that attacks on dealers and their supplies never could succeed as long as there was demand for the products. Thus, they would have to focus on consumers as well as on suppliers. Pres. Reagan’s 1986 Executive Order encouraging or requiring widespread urine testing marked a step in that direction. By 1988, Administration policy was being conducted under the rubric of “zero tolerance. ” In that spirit, Attorney General Edwin Meese sent a memorandum to all US.

Attorneys on March 30, 1988, encouraging the selective prosecution of “middle and upper class users” in order to “send the message that there is no such thing as |recreational’ drug use…. ” Because of the volume of more serious trafficking cases, however, it was not remotely realistic, as the Attorney General must have known, to implement such a policy. Indeed, in the offices of many U. S. Attorneys, there were minimum weight or money-volume standards for prosecution, and the possession and small-scale drug cases routinely were shunted off to state authorities.

In fact, in many districts, the crush of drug cases was so great that the adjudication of ordinary civil cases virtually had ceased. The courthouse doors were all but closed to civil litigants. In the name of zero tolerance, Congress purposely began enacting legislation that did not have to meet the constitutional standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings. In 1988, it authorized a system of fines of up to $10,000, imposed administratively under the authority of the Attorney General, without the necessity of a trial, although the individual may request an administrative hearing.

To soften the blow to due process, judicial review of an adverse administrative finding is permitted, but the individual bears the burden of retaining counsel and paying court filing fees. For those unable to finance a court challenge, this system will amount to punishment without trial. Moreover, it has been augmented by a provision in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 that may suspend for one year an offender’s Federal benefits, contracts, grants, student loans, mortgage guarantees, and licenses upon conviction for a first offense. Both sanctions are a form of legal piling on.

The legislative intent is to punish the minor offender more severely than is authorized by the criminal law alone. Thus, the maximum penalty under Federal criminal law for a first offense of simple possession of a controlled substance is one year in prison and a $5,000 fine, with a minimum fine of $1,000. Fines up to $10,000 plus loss of Federal benefits obviously exceed those guidelines. The most recent innovation of this kind is a form of greenmail, a law that cuts off highway funds to states that do not suspend the driver’s licenses of those convicted of possession of illegal drugs.

The potential loss of work for those so punished and the adverse consequences on their families are not considered. The suspension is mandatory. Seizure and forfeiture The War on Drugs not only punishes drug users, it also penalizes those who are innocent and others who are on the periphery of wrongdoing. The most notable example is the widespread and accelerating practice, Federal and state, of seizing and forfeiting cars, planes, boats, houses, money, or property of any other kind carrying even minute amounts of illegal drugs, used to facilitate a transaction in narcotics, or representing the proceeds of drugs.

Forfeiture is authorized, and enforced, without regard to the personal guilt of the owner. It matters not whether a person is tried and acquitted; the owner need not even be arrested. The property nonetheless is forfeitable because of a centuries-old legal fiction that says the property itself is “guilty. ” Relying on it, in March, 1988, the Federal government initiated highly publicized zero tolerance seizures of property that included the following:

* On April 30, 1988, the Coast Guard boarded and seized the motor yacht Ark Royal, valued at $2,500,000, because 10 marijuana seeds and two stems were found on board. Public criticism prompted a return of the boat, but not before payment of $1,600 in fines and fees by the owner. * The 52-foot Mindy was impounded for a week because cocaine dust in a rolled up dollar bill was found on board. * The $80,000,000 oceanographic research ship Atlantis II was seized in San Diego when the Coast Guard found 0.01 ounce of marijuana in a crewman’s shaving kit.

The vessel eventually was returned. * A Michigan couple returning from a Canadian vacation lost a 1987 Mercury Cougar when customs agents found two marijuana cigarettes in one of their pockets. No criminal charges were filed, but the car was kept by the government. * In Key West, Fla. , a shrimp fisherman lost his boat to the Coast Guard, which found three grams of cannabis seeds and stems on board. Under the law, the craft was forfeitable whether or not he had any responsibility for the drugs.

Wiretapping. As a result of the War on Drugs, Americans increasingly are being overheard. Although human monitors are supposed to minimize the interception of calls unrelated to the purpose of their investigation by listening only long enough to determine the relevance of the conversation, wiretaps open all conversations on the wiretapped line to scrutiny. Court-authorized wiretaps doubtless are necessary in some criminal cases. In drug cases, though, they are made necessary because the “crimes” arise from voluntary transactions, in which there are no complainants to assist detection.

The potential is great, therefore, for abuse and illegal overuse. Stopping cars on public highways. It is commonplace for police patrols to stop “suspicious” vehicles on the highway in the hope that interrogation of the driver or passengers will turn up enough to escalate the initial detention into a full-blown search. Because the required “articulable suspicion” rarely can be achieved by observation on the road, police often rely on a minor traffic violation – a burned-out tail-light, a tire touching the white line – to supply a pretext for the initial stop.

In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of roving drug patrols, however, even lawful behavior can be used to justify a stop. The Florida Highway Patrol Drug Courier Profile, for example, cautioned troopers to be suspicious of “scrupulous obedience to traffic laws. ” Another tactic sometimes used is the roadblock. Police set up a barrier, stop every vehicle at a given location, and check each driver’s license and registration. While one checks the paperwork, another walks around the car with a trained drug-detector dog.

The law does not regard the dog’s sniffing as the equivalent of a search on the theory that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in the odor of contraband, an exterior olfactory clue in the public domain. As a result, no right of privacy is invaded by the sniff, so the police do not need a search warrant or even probable cause to use the dog on a citizen. Moreover, if the dog “alerts,” that supplies the cause requirement for further investigation of the driver or vehicle for drugs. Monitoring and stigmatizing.

In the world of anti-drug investigations, a large role is played by rumors, tips, and suspicions. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) keeps computer files on US. Congressmen, entertainers, clergymen, industry leaders, and foreign dignitaries. Many persons named in the computerized Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Information System (NADDIS) are the subject of “unsubstantiated allegations of illegal activity. ” Of the 1,500,000 persons whose names have been added to NADDIS since 1974, less than five percent, or 7,500, are under investigation by DEA as suspected narcotic traffickers.

Nevertheless, NADDIS maintains data from all such informants, surveillance, and intelligence reports compiled by DEA and other agencies. The information on NADDIS is available to Federal drug enforcement officials in other agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Customs Service, and the Internal Revenue Service. State law enforcement officials probably also can gain access on request. Obviously, this method of oversight has troubling implications for privacy and good reputation, especially for the 95% named who are not under active investigation.

Another creative enforcement tactic sought to bring about public embarrassment by publishing a list of people caught bringing small amounts of drugs into the US. The punish-by-publishing list, supplied to news organizations, included only smallscale smugglers who neither were arrested nor prosecuted for their alleged crimes. Military surveillance. Further surveillance of the citizenry comes from the increasing militarization of drug law enforcement. The process began in 1981, when Congress relaxed the Civil War-era restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act on the use of the armed forces as a police agency.

The military “support” role for the Coast Guard, Customs Service, and other anti-drug agencies created by the 1981 amendments expanded throughout the 1980s to the point that the US. Navy was using large military vessels – including, in one case, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier – to interdict suspected drug smuggling ships on the high seas. By 1989, Congress designated the Department of Defense (DOD) as the single lead agency of the Federal government for the detection and monitoring of aerial and maritime smuggling into the U. S.

DOD employs its vast radar network in an attempt to identify drug smugglers among the 300,000,000 people who enter the country each year in 94,000,000 vehicles and 600,000 aircraft. Joint task forces of military and civilian personnel were established and equipped with high-tech computer systems that provide instantaneous communication among all Federal agencies tracking or apprehending drug traffickers. The enlarged anti-drug mission of the military sets a dangerous precedent.

The point of the Posse Comitatus Act was to make clear that the military and police are very different institutions with distinct roles to play. The purpose of the military is to prevent or defend against attack by a foreign power and to wage war where necessary. The Constitution makes the president commander-in-chief, thus centralizing control of all the armed forces in one person. Police, by contrast, are supposed to enforce the law, primarily against domestic threats at the city, county, and state levels.

They thus are subject to local control by the tens of thousands of communities throughout the nation. To the extent that the drug enforcement role of the armed forces is expanded, there is a direct increase in the concentration of political power in the president who commands them and the Congress that authorizes and funds their police activities. This arrangement is a severe injury to the Federal structure of our democratic institutions. Indeed, the deployment of national military forces as domestic police embarrasses the US.

in the international arena by likening it to a Third World country, whose soldiers stand guard in city streets, rifles at the ready, for ordinary security purposes. The dual military/policing role also is a danger to the liberties of all citizens. A likely military approach to the drug problem would be to set up roadblocks, checkpoints, and roving patrols on the highways, railroads, and coastal waters, and to carry out search-and-destroy missions of domestic drug agriculture or laboratory production. What could be more destructive to the peoples sense of personal privacy and mobility than to see such deployments by Big Brother?

As these expanding efforts yielded only marginal results, the war was widened to the general populace. In effect, the government opened up a domestic front in the War on Drugs, invading the privacy of people through the use of investigative techniques such as urine testing, roadblocks, bus boardings, and helicopter overflights. Those are dragnet methods; to catch the guilty, everyone has to be watched and screened. Drug testing in the workplace.

Perhaps the most widespread intrusion on privacy arises from pre- or post-employment drug screening, practiced by 80% of Fortune 500 companies and 43% of firms employing 1,000 people or more. Strictly speaking, drug testing by a private employer does not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects only against government action. Nevertheless, much of the private drug testing has come about through government example and pressure. The 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, for instance, prohibits the award of a Federal grant or contract to an employer who does not take specified steps to provide a drug-free workplace.

As a result of these and other pressures, tens of millions of job applicants and employees are subjected to the indignities of urinating into a bottle, sometimes under the eyes of a monitor watching to ensure that clean urine is not smuggled surreptitiously into the toilet. In the arena of public employment, where Fourth Amendment protections apply, the courts largely have rejected constitutional challenges to drug testing programs.

In two cases to reach the U. S. Supreme Court, the testing programs substantially were upheld despite, as Justice Scalia wrote in dissent in one of them, a complete absence of “real evidence of a real problem that will be solved by urine testing of customs service employees. ” In that case, the Customs Service had implemented a drug testing program to screen all job applicants and employees engaged in drug interdiction activities, carrying firearms, or handling classified material.

The Court held that the testing of such applicants and employees is “reasonable” even without probable cause or individualized suspicion against any particular person, the Fourth Amendment standard. For Scalia, the testing of Customs Service employees was quite different from that of railroad employees involved in train accidents, which had been found constitutional. In that case, there was substantial evidence over the course of many years that the use of alcohol had been implicated in causing railroad accidents, including a 1979 study finding that 23% of the operating personnel were problem drinkers.

Commenting on the Customs case, Scalia maintained that “What is absent in the government’s justifications – notably absent, revealingly absent, and as far as I am concerned dispositively absent – is the recitation of even a single instance in which any of the speculated horribles actually occurred: an instance, that is, in which the cause of bribe-taking, or of poor aim, or of unsympathetic law enforcement, or of compromise of classified information, was drug use. ” Searches and seizures. Other dragnet techniques that invade the privacy of the innocent as well as the guilty have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

In the tug-of-war between the government’s search and seizure powers and the privacy rights of individuals, the Court throughout the 1980s almost always upheld the government’s assertion of the right of drug agents to use the airport drug courier profile to stop, detain, and question people without warrant or probable cause; subject a traveler’s luggage to a sniffing examination by a drug-detecting dog without warrant or probable cause; search without warrant or probable cause the purse of a public school student; and search at will ships in inland waterways.

The right of privacy in the home seriously was curtailed in decisions permitting police to obtain a search warrant of a home based on an anonymous informant’s tip; use illegally seized evidence under a “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule (for searches of a home made pursuant to a defective warrant issued without probable cause); make a trespassory search, without a warrant, in “open fields” surrounded by fences and no trespassing signs and of a barn adjacent to a residence; and conduct a warrantless search of a motor home occupied as a residence, a home on the consent of an occasional visitor lacking legal authority over the premises, and the foreign residence of a person held for trial in the US. The Court also validated warrantless aerial surveillance over private property – by fixed-wing aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 feet and by helicopter at 400 feet.

Similarly, it significantly enlarged the powers of police to stop, question, and detain drivers of vehicles on the highways on suspicion with less than probable cause or with no suspicion at all at fixed checkpoints or roadblocks; make warrantless searches of automobiles and of closed containers therein; and conduct surveillance of suspects by placing transmitters or beepers on vehicles or in containers therein. The foregoing list is by no means comprehensive, but it does indicate the sweeping expansions the Court has permitted in the investigative powers of government. Indeed, from 1982 through the end of the 1991 term, the Supreme Court upheld government search and seizure authority in approximately 90% of the cases. The message is unmistakable – the Fourth Amendment prohibits only “unreasonable” searches and seizures, and what is reasonable in the milieu of a War on Drugs is construed very broadly in favor of local police and Federal drug agents. Surveillance of U. S. mail.

Another casualty of the War on Drugs is the privacy of the mail. With the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Postal Service was given broad law enforcement authority. Using a profile, investigators identify what they deem to be suspicious packages and place them before drug-sniffing dogs. A dog alert is deemed probable cause to apply for a Federal search warrant. If an opened package does not contain drugs, it is resealed and sent to its destination with a copy of the search warrant. Since January, 1990, using this technique, the Postal Service has arrested more than 2,500 persons for sending drugs through the mail. The number of innocent packages opened has not been reported.

During the early 1900’s in America, the average drug store is comprised of three parts: pharmacy, retail sales, and the ‘soda water fountain’. The soda fountain is a dispenser of flavored syrups and carbonated water. Soon enough soda fountains were also used to describe ice-cream parlors, while counters in pharmacies started selling soft drinks (Leonard, R. B. , 1916, p. 322; Soft drinks, 2007). The soda water fountain’s popularity can be credited to the creativeness of American pharmacists.

Already in the business of selling soda water, the American pharmacists later added flavors derived from fruits, nuts, berries, roots, herbs, and other plant sources to the unflavored mineral water. Various ingredients from plants and trees were used such as birch bark, dandelion, sarsaparilla, and other fruit extracts, some of which were purposely chosen for their medicinal value. The other additives were chosen to enhance the appearance of the clear sparkling mineral water. City dwellers as well as small town folks enjoyed drinking soda in these establishments.

However, the fame of soda water fountains started to collapse with the advent of fast foods restaurants, commercialized ice cream, and bottled soft drinks. But this did not mean the collapse of the soft drinks industry. In fact, soft drinks underwent much development through time. There have been many different kinds of carbonated soft drinks formulated throughout history and various companies engaged in its production. Nevertheless, this paper will focus only on the two giants in the industry: Coca-cola and Pepsi Cola. Coca Cola

What is today the big name ‘Coca Cola’ was discovered and established in 1886 by a pharmacist from Atlanta, Georgia named Doctor John Pemberton. By concocting a medication that contained extracts of caffeine-rich kola nuts and of the cocaine-rich coca plant to cure headache and hangover, he produced Coca-Cola (Carbonated Beverage, 2004, p. 8495). Ingredients of the Coca-Cola formula and the how it was manufactured by Doctor John Pemberton is discussed in a book by Mark Pendergrast entitled, ‘For God, Country and Coca-Cola’.

Mr. Pendergrast was given the opportunity to access archival material of Coca-Cola and to interview people within Coca-Cola. This privilege gave him important data from Coca-Cola sources (The Coca-Cola Recipe, 2007). It was established in his research that the production of soft drinks takes quality. For instance, even though the water that is used in its manufacture already comes from a safe and potable source, further purification processes are held in place to ensure the quality of the product.

In manufacturing soft drinks as a whole, measures must be taken to ensure purity and uniformity of the ingredients because any impurity that is not screened would be carried on to the final soft drink product (Soft drink, 2007). John Pemberton constructed a primitive filtering contraption in his house made of sand from a nearby river. It is in this primitive filtering contraption that he pours the flavoring mixture made from his recipe to remove solid particles and whatever impurities the water from the municipal supply and other items in his syrup mixture may still contain (The Coca-Cola Recipe, 2007).

Before John Pemberton died, ownership of Coca-Cola changed hands in 1887. The new owner Asa Candler, an Atlanta pharmacist and businessman, also changed Coca-Cola’s formula. Candler’s intention in doing this was to prohibit imitators from producing soft drinks which are similar to Coca Cola since a bunch of people already knew its original formula at the time Candler purchased the rights to produce it exclusively.

Further, Candler made some additions in the formula such as preservative in the form of glycerin, phosphoric acid as replacement for citric acid, reduction of its caffeine content, and removal of cocaine as an ingredient. In the revised formula of Asa Candler, the ingredients were sugar, caramel, caffeine, phosphoric acid, coca leaf & cola nut extract, lime juice, flavoring mixture, vanilla and glycerin (The Coca-Cola Recipe, 2007).

Individual factors play a significant role in a person’s decision to join gang. For example, research shows that children who have an inability to adopt a future-time perspective or to grasp future consequences of behavior have an increased risk of joining gang or engaging in antisocial activities than other children.

There are also other psychological factors that contribute towards the tendency to join gangs such as the inability to delay gratification; the inability to regulate emotions; the need for stimulation and excitement; low harm avoidance; low frustration tolerance; central nervous system dysfunction; low cortical arousal; a predisposition to aggressive behavior; low general aptitude or intelligence; exposure to violence and abuse (either as victim, or witness); alienation; rebelliousness; association with deviant peers; favorable attitudes toward deviant behavior; peer rejection; alcohol and drug abuse; and early onset of aggression or problem behaviors; which also have a significant impact on an individual child’s decision to engage in antisocial behaviors or to join delinquent peer group.

(Lor, 2003). According to studies by Lawson other psychological factors, such as the need for affiliation, the need for achievement, low self-esteem, lack of positive role models, and boredom, also contribute to a child’s decision to join a gang. For some kids, guns, gangs, and drugs are simply the vehicles through which to satisfy more basic yearnings. Sometimes, young people join gangs as a short and fast route to get money and material goods. The absence of fear of the criminal justice system is what drives many hard-core youths to commit crimes.

Gang members know that juvenile penalties lack real consequences, which draws many youths to do dirty works for older gang members. According to Witkin (1991), adult gang members hire youngsters to run drugs, because penalties are so much weaker if they are caught (Witkin, 1991). Conclusion: Boys and girls join gangs for many reasons. They may feel a need to belong to a peer group or a “substitute family. ” They may need protection from an abusive family, or from other gangs. They may want a feeling of pride in their culture, their language, or their neighborhood. Some people join gangs because they want money and power. Others join because a gang is an outlet for hostility, where crime and fighting are praised. Still others join because they need someone to lead them.

They have a weak sense of identity. Thus, it is true to say that the reasons as to why young people join gangs can be best explained by studying the risk factors in five domains: community, family, school, peer and individual.

Bibliography:

Baccaglini, W. F. 1993. Project Youth Gang-Drug Prevention: A Statewide Research Study. Rensselaer, NY: New York State Division for Youth. Brantley, A. C. , ; DiRosa, A. (1994, May). Gangs: A national perspective. FBI La Enforcement, 1-19 Decker, S. H. , and Van Winkle, B. 1996. Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gangs. Encyclopedia of Psychology (2006). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0004/ai_2699000477/pg_1

New Zealand is a country located at the Southern Hemisphere. Due to its location, it is a remote land. It is south-east of the Pacific Ocean and is just 2000 kilometers from Australia. It is one of the last sizable territories suitable for habitation to be populated and settled (Britannica Online, 2007). Its capital city is Wellington, considered as the southernmost capital city in the world. Basically, it is composed of two main islands and a few smaller ones that are located at the center of the water hemisphere. The North Island is called Te-Ika-a-Maui while the South Island is called Te-Wai-Pounamu in Maori (Infoplease.com).

Its total land area is just 268, 680 square kilometers, a little less than that of Italy (Rosenberg). Among its smaller islands, Stewart Island or the Rakiura and Waiheke Island are the most occupied. New Zealand has one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones in the world. It is a zone, usually 200 nautical miles from the coast, wherein a country has special rights over its use and exploration. Climate The climate all throughout New Zealand is moderate. Usual temperatures do not fall beyond 0o Celsius or hotly rise above 30o Celsius.

However, its climatic situations are amazing varied among its different region. While some of its regions are experiencing wet climatic conditions, some are having semi-parched conditions, and some are having subtropical conditions. Of the main cities in New Zealand, Auckland is the wettest, receiving almost twice of the amount of rainfall than that which Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch receive per year combined (Rosenberg). Geography New Zealand is a fragment of a partly-submerged continent called Zealandia which was originally one with Antarctica and Australia until a tectonic plate shift took place.

There are as many as 18 peaks reaching 3000 meters in this island. However, the North Island has less mountains, and marked by active volcanism. The tallest mountain in North Island is Mount Ruapehu which rises about 2797 meters and is an active cone volcano (Rosenberg). Flora and Fauna New Zealand has a wonderful flora and fauna because of its long and undisturbed isolation from human habitation and its unique geographical location. It is amazing to note that 80% of its flora is endemic. It has two main types of forests and the remaining vegetation types are grasslands (Allan).

Until the habitation of humans, New Zealand was 80% forested. Furthermore, a discovery of bones that belonged to a long-extinct, mouse-sized land bat in the South Island disproved the thought that there were no none-marine native mammals that ever existed. Marine life is gracefully abundant in New Zealand, having a diverse collection of different species of whales, dolphins, and fishes. The world’s rarest dolphin is only found at the depths of New Zealand’s vast waters. Long ago, New Zealand had a diverse population of animal species in its forests.

Most of the endemic species of birds in New Zealand are flightless because there were only few natural predators that coexisted with them. Kiwi, New Zealand’s national symbol, is a flightless bird. Reptiles present in New Zealand include skinks, geckos, and tuatara. There are also four species of primitive frogs that can only be found in New Zealand. It is also amazing to find that there are no snakes in New Zealand and there is only one venomous spider which is restricted only to the country’s coastal regions. Moreover, in the class Insecta, endemic species are also populous in the country.

One of these is the heaviest insect in the world—the “weta” (Allan). The hunting of birds and other animals and bringing of more predators by New Zealand’s early settlers eventually led to extinction and endangerment of its wildlife. Summary Because New Zealand is a relatively small country, just the size of Colorado, it is an excellent test case in the study of environmental history. More so, human impact is very recent and European settlement occurred at a later date that’s why the environmental records of the country are in good order. Consequently, very thorough studies can be done for New Zealand.

It is also important to note that the country has a massive variation in terms of its topology, climate, and biology. Consequently, studies regarding different types of ecologies are possible and much easier to conduct compared to many other countries. Studies about the environment of New Zealand are various and include comparative studies on wind damage and response in its forests, influence of pastoral management on its plant biodiversity, analysis of its vegetation, and its plant germination (Sullivan). In New Zealand, earthquakes are common in the country though rarely severe and damaging.

Environmental issues include deforestation, soil erosion and endangered natural native flora and fauna.

References:

Allan, H. “Indigenous Tracheophyta- Psilopsida, Lycopsida, Filicopsida, Gymnospermae, Dicotelydons. ” Flora of New Zealand I. Botany Division (1982). “New Zealand. ” Encyclop? dia Britannica. 2007. Encyclop? dia Britannica Online. 6 June 2007 <http://www. britannica. com/eb/article-9108762>. Infoplease. com. “New Zealand. ” 2007. Rosenberg, Matt. “Geography: New Zealand. ” 2005. Sullivan, Jon. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. 2007.

There are also some who argue that today’s youth no longer value morality or has a twisted sense of it. But what is morality? Is it absolute? Morality is defined as (1) a code of conduct put forward by a society or (2) a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons (Gert). We can see that these definitions are somewhat contradictory in the sense that in (1) morality would be relative and in (2) it would be absolute.

We can see that the definition of morality itself varies, so, how are we to define a so-called “decline in moral values”? Even if we can define it, I believe that this decline is an effect of a person’s environment, the media, and the culture. So, in a way, this decline is attributable to the abovementioned media violence and “culture of violence”. So, why do kids kill? Among the abovementioned causes, we can see that there isn’t one among them which could account for all, or at least most, of the cases of juvenile violence.

It would be more likely a combination of at least two of the said causes. Media plays a big role in the exposure of children to violence, but not all kids exposed to television or violent video games are violent. Their reactions vary, and may well be influenced by their brain chemistry. Kids may also be influenced by gangs and such. There is no single identifiable cause for kids killing people, but whatever the exact cause is, the effects are similar and they are not good.

Works Cited

“Bad brain chemistry triggers violence – Behavior – vitamin and nutrient therapy – Brief Article. ” BNET Research Center. 2002. Society for the Advancement of Education. 15 Nov. 2007. <http://findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2689_131/ai_92691045>. Dell’Orfano, Richard. “Child Violence-Is Malnutrition the Cause? ” The Weston A. Price Foundation for Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts. 18 Jul. 2002. The Weston A. Price Foundation. 15 Nov. 2007 <http://www. westonaprice. org/ children/childviolence. html>.

Just last month, a 14-year old student from SuccessTech Academy in Cleveland, Ohio shot four people before turning the gun on himself (Leonard). Fortunately, no one other than the gunman died in the incident. Although this would not be the first case of juvenile school shooting in history, it still leaves us with questions about what could prompt a person to exhibit such violence at a young age. One possible cause is violence in television. When a child sees a violent act on television, he would then tend to copy this violent act.

This is called “Observational Learning” and is primarily based on the work of the renowned psychologist Albert Bandura. Bandura performed a series of experiments known as the “Bobo Doll” studies which showed that children ages 3 to 6 changed their behavior simply by watching others (Huitt). The 1999 U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Report supports this as it says that television alone is responsible for 10% of youth violence (qtd. in Violence in the Media). 10% may not seem like a big number but considering that this is only for television alone, it is a percentage worthy of consideration.

Other than television shows, violence in video games is also to be considered. In 2003, around 60% of the American population play video games regularly and more than 80% of the video games in the market contain some form of violence or another (Gale). This shows that a large portion of the American population is exposed to violence in video games and children may well just imitate what they see in these video games. In fact, video games are being used by the U. S. military to aid in the training of soldiers for combat (Gale).

If adult soldiers can be influenced by video games, then most likely, children can be influenced too. As Bandura showed in the “Bobo Doll” studies, children are likely to imitate what they see. Despite the sheer amount of violence in the media, juvenile violence cannot be attributed to that alone. Another factor could be the brain chemistry of a person. In other words, the tendency towards violent behavior may actually be influenced by ones genes and/or diet. William J. Walsh, a scientist, conducted a study that involved 24 pairs of brothers, one average and one violent.

His research showed that there were patterns in the brain chemistry of the violent brother which could not be found in the average brother (Bad brain chemistry). This means that violence could be said to be in the nature of a person. Also, this means that violent tendencies could be influenced by a one’s diet since this the nutrient intake of a person affects his brain chemistry. In fact, in a study conducted at the Aylesbury jail in U. K. , the offenses committed by the prisoners dropped by 37% when they were fed with all the essential vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids (Lawrence).

Other scientific researches show that there is a great correlation between malnutrition and violent behavior in children (Dell’Orfano). Exposure to violence in the media coupled with bad brain chemistry will then certainly increase the risk of a kid committing violent acts including killing. Apart from the two aforementioned causes, another factor that may further encourage violent behavior in children is a so-called “culture of violence” among today’s youth. This culture is exemplified by the existence of gangs wherein violence is advocated. Studies show that the street gangs usually recruit members at around 11-15 years of age.

Activities of gangs include criminal acts of violence, threats, and anti-social behavior (Sandoval). These gangs uplift violence—here, violence is rewarded by, perhaps, a sense of belongingness and power. This can then be related to B. F. Skinner’s reinforcement theory. According to Skinner, behavior is a function of its consequences (Dunn). That is, a person will tend to keep on doing something if he is rewarded for it and will tend to stop if he is punished. In the existence of a “culture of violence” wherein violent acts are rewarded, children will tend to commit acts of violence including killing.

Why is it no good for the young people not to vote? Voting is a system that is used in passing certain policies. It is also a method that is used in selecting a particular item or the right candidate among many especially during the political elections. This involves selecting the person who will be selected for the office. Voting is a democratic process that is used in making decisions and in expressing one’s opinions in most countries it is your right whether to vote or not but in countries like Belgium, Australia and Brazil it is a must to vote.

However, though people are expected to give their opinion not every body is allowed to do this. For example, in America only persons who are over the age of 18 years are allowed to take part in the voting process. My main concern on this essay is to bring to the light why young people should not vote. They are not mature enough. The first reason why persons who are considered as minors or those under the age of eighteen years are not allowed to vote is because they are considered not to be mature enough to make their independent decisions.

(Voting for those under 18 years old. , 2006) These people may easily be influenced by a number of things on the decision that they would make. It is assumed that people who are below the age of 18 years do not understand properly the purpose of voting and how various institutions operate. For this reason they cannot know the right person they should elect instead they would follow what their parents would do. The voting time. Another reason why youngsters should not vote is that majority of them are in schools.

That means if they are allowed to do so then the school program must be interfered and a lot of time would be wasted, as most of them would join the campaign teams. Education requires undivided attention therefore, if politics are allowed to chip in the education sector concentration would cease and school time would be wasted. This is because you cannot serve two masters thus schoolwork would be compromised. It should be known that these people most of them are in colleges and schools which may be far away from their homes and thus are not aware of the most issues that affect their localities.

These people should not be allowed to vote, as they would find it hard to balance schoolwork with politics. They are easily excited and chaotic. Most of those who are considered as minors are in their teen age and this is a period when they are easily excited by anything thus allowing them to take part in the voting process, it would end up being disastrous as any little disagreement that might result can only be solved by fighting.

According to the law these people are not responsible for their actions as they are not yet mature to consent on national political issues. Many of them are still under the care of their parents and therefore it is assumed that their will would be taken care of by their parents. (Voting for those under 18 years old. , 2006) In short, everybody who is considered to be a minor should not be allowed to take part in the electoral process as most of them are undertaking their school courses that demands a great deal of concentration.

These people are also under the care of their parents thus their will is well taken catered for by their parents. Also they are not well aware of the issues affecting their home areas as most of them are in school that are located far away from home. They should be patient and wait for their turn as everybody must pass through that stage.

Reference: Voting for those under 18 years old. , November 2006. Iowa Civic Analysis Network (I- CAN) Accessed on 23rd February 2008. https://uiowa.edu/

The Church Fathers launched a heavy defense on the concept of purgatory when several Christians in the East refused to acknowledge its divine origin. Tertullian for example wrote in The Soul that the “spirits in prison” mentioned in the writing of St. Peter refers to the place of middle state, in short, purgatory, where the souls will undergo the final stage of sanctification. He was arguing that a place exists where Jesus can speak to the “spirits in the prison. ” If the prison refers to Hell, then biblical contradictions would arise.

This would be resolved if we assume that there is the existence of a place of purification. St. Gregory of Nyssa, on his Sermon on the Dead (383 A. D. ) said that after the death of a person, knowledge between vice and virtue are well delineated, of which he/she may share the divine essence only upon exposure to the purifying fire. The implication: in order for the soul to gain eternal life, he must be removed from the effects of sin, possible only through the process of purification. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures in 350 A.

D said that the dead, including the great prophets, patriarchs, men chosen by God are fallen asleep, and that the sacrifices offered to them would benefit their souls, so that perfection may be attained. It was, in essence, the same interpretation of purgatory as with the other Church Fathers. The assumption of many Protestants that the concept of purgatory was invented in the Middle Ages to finance the projects of the Catholic Church is an absurd idea. Purgatory – A Tradition of the Catholic Church

Not only the concept of purgatory relevant in the teachings of the Church Fathers, it was also incorporated to the general teachings of the Catholic Church. In the Council of Lyons (1274), it was declared, “We believe … that the souls, by the purifying compensation are purged after death”; in the Council of Trent (1545-1563), it was also declared,” We constantly hold that purgatory exists, and that the souls of the faithful there detained are helped by the prayers of the faithful” (Flanagan and Schihl 3).

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1031 reads, “The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of cleansing fire. As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.

He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. “ It should be understood that this tradition of the Church was built on the beliefs of the early Christians through the guidance of the Church Fathers. It was not simply a random act of doctrine formation. The Church Fathers were one in their belief that a place for the Elect, where their works will be tested by the purifying fire simply exists.

In anyways, it should be noted that besides the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church also believes in the existence of purgatory, apparently because they share almost the same Christian traditions. Misconceptions of Purgatory – Area of Attack by Protestants Many Protestants and fundamentalist argue that if purgatory existed, this will ran counter to the redemptive act of Jesus Christ in the cross, for if the purgatory was capable of removing sin, then Christ’s death was futile. Note here that Protestants assume that purgatory can actually remove sin.

In the teachings of the Catholic Church as had been mentioned earlier, Christ’s death removed us from the bondage of sin; the purgatory only removed from us the effects or stains of sin so as to attain perfection. Removing the stains of sin is very remote from removing sin. The former infers that sin had already been removed, the other the act of removing the thing itself. This false notion of purgatory has had been the point of attack of Protestants to convert countless Catholics.

Protestants also argued that the concept of purgatory erases the process of sanctification, for the dead can depend on the living for their eventual release in the “third” condition through prayers. This is not an accurate view of purgatory. The purgatory is the final act of sanctification, of which the Christian is made holy. It is true that Christ’s death on the cross accomplished all out salvation for us, but this does not settle the question how this redemption is applied to us (Brom 3).

The Scriptures clearly held that the process of sanctification is a long process, of which the Christian must be made holy, and of which the final stage of sanctification is purgatory. These areas of attack coupled with the Protestants’ desire to erase the concept of purgatory, or more accurately ignored, in the Bible had been matched with evangelical vigilance from Catholic theologians. The arguments presented by these Catholic theologians proved to be costly to Protestants and fundamentalists for the simple reason that they were unable to prove the unauthenticity of the sources.

Works Cited

Brom, Robert Bishop of San Diego. IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827, 2004. atechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1031. 1992. URL http://www. ourcatholicfaith. org/purgatory. html. Retrieved August 9, 2007. Catholic Answers. Purgatory. URL http://www. catholic. com/library/purgatory. asp. Retrieved August 9, 2007 Catholic Encyclopedia. Proofs of Purgatory. URL http://www. newadvent. org/cathen/12575a. htm#III. Retrieved August 9, 2007. Flanagan, Paul and Robert Schihl. Catholic Biblical Apologetics. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1986.

Lamarck and Darwin both believed that giraffes developed long necks because that is what they use to consume the leaves high above trees. Lamarck’s theory is that “because their (giraffes) forebears were continually stretching to reach the higher leaves in trees. The desire to reach higher leaves led to longer necks, and later on, the giraffe’s offspring inherited that physical trait”(Natural History, 2005, p. 46). Darwin disagrees with Lamarck when his theory of natural selection stated that the giraffes with longer necks outlived the ones with shorter necks maybe because the more nutritious leaves were at the higher parts of trees.

However, when Lamarck said that unused organs shrivel until they disappear,(Natural History, 2005, p. 46) Darwin was at a loss since his theory of natural selection cannot explain regressive evolution and he finally succumbed to Lamarck’s use it or lose it principle. Darwin, regardless of how great a scientist he is, is not infallible. Robert Simmons has recently voiced out a contradictory view of both Darwin and Lamarck’s theory of why giraffes have long necks. Simmons believes that competition for mates and not stretching for treetop food is what drove the evolution of necks.

According to his observations, when male giraffes battle for mates, they swing their necks of over 6 feet long and weighs over 200 lbs. The momentum of these swings are often lethal, therefore, it is only natural that the victor is the one who possesses the longest and biggest neck. He goes on to say that if the competition for food is what spurred the elongation, then you would expect giraffes to eat the leaves from tall acacia trees rather than grazing on low shrubs. (Discover, 1997, p. 14)

If Simmons’ theory disproves Lamarck’s conclusion that the stretching of the neck was due to food competition, then it can be said that the principle of “Use it or Lose it” can be disproved. To know if whether this principle is still steadfast, we have to consider both sides of the spectrum. The main proponent of Lamarck’s use it or lose it theory is the neutral-mutation hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, “genes controlling the development of unnecessary structures become effectively neutral.

Once the genes neither enhance nor hinder the organism’s survival, the forces that once maintained those genes in good working order no longer operate. The genes accumulate mutation that impair their function, and so the unnecessary genes degenerate” (Natural History, 2005, p. 47). Careful analysis of the use it or lose it scenario shall lead one to believe that if an organ is not anymore needed, it shall degenerate and sooner or later entirely disappear without any effect on the organism except for the loss of an unnecessary part.

A group of scientists that holds a contrary view believes that the loss of one part is due to regressive evolution and not because it is not used. This group espouses the hypotheses that the loss of one organ enhances other organs, in cave fishes for example – “the loss of eyes somehow enhances the efficiency of neural processing or reshapes the fish’s morphology or physiology to better suit a life of total darkness” (Natural History, 2005, p. 47). The main problem faced by this group of scientists is that they need to account for an advantage for the loss of the organ.

The scientists have come up with an answer to their problem, pleiotropy. Pleiotropic effects are the multiple seemingly unrelated characters caused by a single gene. An example of pleiotropy, and the most documented case at that, is the gene associated with sickle cell diseases. People who have this gene suffer from chronic anemia, extreme pain and organ damage but are more immune to malaria because the parasite that causes malaria cannot thrive in blood cells that carry this gene.

The malaria resistance conferred by the sickle-cell gene is a pleiotropic effect, this gene although harmful persists in African communities where there are high incidences of malaria (Natural History, 2005, p. 47). Pleiotropy is now being used to prove why cave-fish lose their eyes and eventually disprove that if you do not use an organ you will lose it. Scientific evidence is now available that tends to prove that cave-fish lose their eyes not because it is not needed and its loss shall not be advantageous or disadvantageous to the fish but because it is evolving.

Borrowsky and Wilken discovered that a gene that controls metabolic rate is closely related to eye development, such that a genetic mutation to improve metabolism can also harm eye development (Natural History, 2005, p. 48). Another group of scientists that came up with evidence to support pleiotropy discovered that a gene called Hedgehog (Hh) was responsible for the development of the size of the eyes of the fish together with its teeth, tastebuds, anterior part of the brain and other craniofacial structures.

They have determined that the development of the eyes was inversely proportional to the number of taste buds, thus the smaller the eyes the greater the number of taste buds and the better is its sense of taste. Another effect of the eyeless sockets is that the bones of the face fill up the empty spaces causing deformity in the fish’s skull, a closer inspection of this showed that due to this deformity the width of the olfactory pit was increased by 13% which likely results in the fish’s enhanced sense of smell.

Finally, there is also evidence that blind people develop above average abilities in specific tasks related to hearing or to touching which can also be explained by pleiotropy (Natural History, 2005, p. 49). In conclusion, the Use it or Lose it principle seems to have lost its appeal among scientists. Gradually, scientists are now discovering new ways to counter this argument and the results are astounding. Evidence such as those enumerated above have already disproved its application to cave-fish and probably eventually, it shall lose its significance in the field of evolution as well.

It is no wonder then that Catholics pray to Mary. However these arguments presented are not without basis. The fullness of these views is manifested in the Bible itself and the traditions of the Church. They were not invented by the Church to raise money to build cathedrals and abbeys during the Middle Ages. They have bases, and these bases are not just bases of pure logic. They were revealed by God through His Word, Jesus Christ, documented by the saints and Christians of the 1st century A. D. In short, it is found in the Bible and supported by tradition.

Catholics “pray” to Mary because of her status and closeness to Jesus. Lk 1:42:43, it reads, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, the mother of my Lord. ” This suggests that Mary was honored by God as the most blessed of women, the one who will bring His Son to the world. Because the womb is blessed so as the carrier should be blessed. This is basis of the Catholic teaching of Mary as “full of grace. ” Nevertheless, it should be noted that Catholics do not pray to Mary; they are praying to God, through Mary.

Mary is not an equal of God. Mary intercedes for us to pray to God on the behalf of mankind. Catholics are not praying to Mary to grant their requests, rather they are praying to God, through the intercession of Mary, so that their requests be granted. But this does not settle the question of “Is there any Biblical support for the belief of Catholics to call upon Mary to intercede to God on their behalf? ” It should be noted that the Incarnated Word was well pleased to His bodily dwelling (Col. 1:19, 2:9), short the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Mary therefore being the closest creature to Jesus, obtained His favor, manifested in the honors given through her through her acts of fidelity and humble obedience. There is no probability that Jesus will not allow Mary to pray to God for the sake of mankind. Jesus loves Mary more than any son on earth loves his mother. She was “favored by God” (Lk. 1:30) and as such obtained God’s grace to intercede for us. She was no deity except that she was favored by the deity. In Jewish history, the mother of the King is often described as the “queen mother.

” This was instituted during the time of King Solomon. This position of “queen mother” is a highly favored position as indicated in 1 Kgs. 2:19-20. It reads, “… then the king sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, ‘I have one small request to make of you, do not refuse me. ‘ And the king said to her, ‘Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you. ” This was the practice of many kings throughout Jewish history. The “queen mother” was the trusted advisor of the king.

Her requests were often granted by the king, for it signifies the love of the son to his mother. Added to that, the term Mediatrix is also attached to the personality of the Virgin Mother who mediates for the requests made by men to the Most High. To mediate is to utter a petition to God as indicated in the following verses Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55 Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55. Protestants would argue that there is only one mediator between God and Man, Jesus Christ, as indicated in 1 Tim.

2:5, and that the term Mediatrix is a blasphemous word that allows Mary to be a co-redeemer of Christ. Christ is the bridge of man to God, because Jesus Christ is both human and divine. The only channel of man to the Divine is only to a being Who is both human and divine. Jesus Christ fulfilled this mission when He was crucified. By His crucifixion, man is saved from the bondage of sin. The role of the Virgin Mother however is different from the role of Jesus Christ. The Virgin Mother is the mediator of man to Jesus Christ.

“Why not go directly to Jesus?”, a man argued. Well, a Catholic can go to directly to Jesus Christ although by going to the Virgin Mary, the person praying will realize the true meaning of the Virgin’s love to his Son and to humanity (MacDonald, www. davidmacd. com). Being a Mediatrix does not necessarily mean being a co-redeemer of Christ. In the same manner, Jesus Christ, more than any other king on earth, bestowed on Mary the title “queen mother. ” It should be noted that like the queen mother, Mary can make requests to the Lord Jesus Christ, which originate from the believer.

The intercession of Mary to Jesus for the sake of mankind is a clear manifestation of Mary’s status as queen mother. It is not that Catholics should always pray to Jesus through Mary, rather it is an alternative. It is good to pray directly to the Lord Jesus in order for our requests to be granted, but the revelation of the Son’s love to His mother is deeply expressed when prayers to God are interceded by the Virgin Mary. Surely, Catholics pray to Jesus through Mary because of her status and role in the Divine plan.

“Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed” (Lk. 1:47). Mary’s blessedness had swept through many generations, taking the believer on a succession of prayers and resolutions. The miracles that were attributed to the Virgin Mother were indicators that she continues to participate in the Divine plan which in due time will be expressed. It is not true, as argued by Protestants, that praying to Mary will decrease faith in the Holy Trinity, rather it is the reverse. Praying to Jesus through Mary strengthens the faith of the believer.

The rosary for example is not just a set of solitary prayers to the mother for intercession. If history is to be view, the rosary was made to increase faith to God, with Mary as the intercessor (Flanagan and Schihl, 1986). It was not made to glorify Mary; it was made in order for the requests of the faithful be magnified to the Lord Christ through the intercession of Mary. It was made in order to show the extent of God’s love of humanity. Even Marin Luther in his Explanation of the Magnificat (1521) argued that Mary is the honor of God, taking nothing for herself except what God has willed.

She was nothing for herself, but for Christ, Mary wishes that humanity come to God through her.

References

Flanagan, Paul and Robert Schihl. 1986. Catholic Biblical Apologetics. Scriptures taken from the New American Bible Revised New Testament (verses italicized indicated in the paper). Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Mary and the Saints. URL http://www. catholic. com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum. asp. Retrieved August 13, 2007.

If His divinity is validated by the resurrection, this in turn gives credence to anointment of his disciples to preach, convert and forgive sins in the name of Christ. The point that Christ suffered in the cross as a human being could also be construed as a recognition of man as intermediary to the divine. You don’t have to be divine to intercede in behalf of the sinner. Take note that John 20:22, when Jesus said, “receive the Holy Spirit” the implication is that the receiver is freed of sins to be able to forgive sins.

This is the core tenet of the priesthood which is effect an apostleship. The role of the apostle as an ambassador of Christ carried with it a power of discernment, as this passage suggests: John 20:23 – Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained. ” The passage above is the rationale for the priesthood and a priest occupied a unique role in the Catholic conception and that which led to the formation of different religious orders under the Catholic Church.

This belief hinges on the continuity of the Catholic church to the Apostles and such a continuity is accomplished by handling the torch of faith from generation to generation of priesthood. Priesthood remains the core of the Roman Catholic Church whose activities are coordinated by the Vatican. But regardless of the institutional development undergone by the Church, the essential feature is that the absolution of sins is related to “receiving the Holy Spirit” as prerequisite of the power to absolve sins – in being an intermediary between mortals and the divine.

It is accepted that the power of the priests is posited on the assumption that they represent Jesus and this covenant sealed by receiving the Holy Spirit. This leads us to the conception of the Holy Trinity – the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit in the general conception of redemption from sin. To the Catholics, the role of Jesus Christ is generally well defined as gleaned from this passage from 1 Tim. 2:5: 1 Tim. {2:5} For there is one God, and one mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, {2:6} who gave himself as a redemption for all, as a testimony in its proper time.

If the role of Christ is well-defined, the Holy Spirit remains a deep mystery but its role is generally accepted as true as necessary in redemption as this passage from Acts 2:38: Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ” Here, the forgiveness is almost equated with the receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit through baptism and repentance. The nature of sin

The logical relationship of arguments for the authority of the apostles and by implications to anyone who follow the path of apostleship and in the case of the Catholic through priesthood follow a logical order. The nature of sin or acts which is against the covenant with God as for example the ten commandments is not only against the fellow people but acts against the will of God – sinning against God. With such a conception, sinning could be interpreted as turning away from God as this passage from Job 34:27, suggest, “Because they (humankind) turned away from him (God) and heeded none of his ways …

” The turning away of humankind from God is further clarified in many passages in the Bible such as Phil 3:14, clarifies the why follow the path laid through Jesus Christ: {3:14} I pursue the destination, the prize of the heavenly calling of God in Christ Jesus. {3:15} Therefore, as many of us as are being perfected, let us agree about this. And if in anything you disagree, God will reveal this to you also. {3:16} Yet truly, whatever point we reach, let us be of the same mind, and let us remain in the same rule.

In Phil 3:18-19, the foremost nature of sin is tacitly illustrated and subsequently what will be the consequence of sinning against God. {3:18} For many persons, about whom I have often told you (and now tell you, weeping,) are walking as enemies of the cross of Christ. {3:19} Their end is destruction; their god is their belly; and their glory is in their shame: for they are immersed in earthly things. {3:20} But our way of life is in heaven. And from heaven, too, we await the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ…

Immersion in “earthly things” has many connotations to Catholic belief system that which leads to a hierarchy of sins as attested in the Catholic belief of mortal and venial sins as mentioned in 1 John 5:16-17 and Luke 12:47-48. Making such distinction has been the practice of the Catholic Church. It is easy to understand though that accepting the core logic of the continuity of apostleship to the priesthood and accepting the covenant with God, would lead to the distinction between sins and more important, the incorporation of confession to the practice of the Church.

Transfer is an integral and vastly important step in higher education learning. A student can move from one University to another so as to pursue an academic program. The problem is to have the credit earned in the academic distinction in the previous institution applied on the new institution. A varied rationale rolls around the context of this subject contentiously. For one, the reason of transferring for an institution may reflect a variable within the student performance within the institution, meaning, he rates highly but the ranking of the institution is below per and would plummet the final performance and grades in a national exam.

Two, a student is faced by a faculty problem. Most students find themselves pinned between bad choices of course in the institutions they were called to join and what they wanted to pursue in University. This obviously consummates to distaste towards the course being practiced and the interests of the students. On the long term objective, the student finds it not possible to pursue a subject he didn’t seek to pursue hence he seeks to address this problem by transferring from this institution to another that offers the degree or the faculty he wished from the onset to pursue.

Third, facilities and the potential of resources within the institution are detrimental to the performance and academic interests of the student. If an institution has very low quality and outdated facilities and the course and faculties seem not apt to his academic distinction perspectives there is no choice but to transfer to an institution that has high quality ad modern facilities with modern equipments that cater for his distinctive academic objectives and facilitates his knowledge improvement through practical done within the facilities.

Sources

Carolyn N. Hedley, 1995: Thinking and Literacy: The Mind at Work {pg 18}

For one, President Johnson wanted to iron things out right away with the issue in Vietnam. He figured that sending combat forces may turn things around to make them easier and more manageable. Talks were slow and often were not bringing in any good news, in the rare cases that they ever bring any news. Combat will be the answer to a long-debated problem that has burdened both Vietnam and the United States. He figured it was not a perfect decision too late. President Johnson, like other presidents, was trying to be on top of the situation.

He was on the search for the right decision, not the easy ones. Yet the choice to go into war, Logevall (1999) says, would be much influenced by the desire to maintain credibility and avoid defeat. President Johnson believes that loosing the war in Vietnam is a personal loss. Moreover, he felt that his personal loss is a loss for America. There was no way he will be letting this happen. Engaging in war with Vietnam will be the way to help South Vietnam out of the problem, and making the United States and its troops deployed in Vietnam rise above the situation.

Another consideration is that American’s are used to do-it-yourself things. Nixon (1969) claims that this is also true in American foreign policy. American’s, even the officials in the national scale, likes to do first-hand execution of the things that they are confident they know. They prefer this more than teaching another to do it, or finding a person who knows how to do it. Teaching another person or finding a person who can do things in ones behalf is a waste of time and effort. It also breeds uncertainty on how the action will be done.

Silent majority After the war broke out, the American people started raising their voices against the war, screaming for the troops to be pulled out, asking for presidents to choose the humanitarian choices. Yet before the war broke during the events which repeatedly tarnished the already thin shock absorber, the voices were weak. No one vigilantly stopped the war from happening strongly enough. If many did, it would have been possible to have stopped the war. The war and the deaths could have not happened in the first place.

(Logevall, 1999) Yet this cannot be fully accounted to President Johnson and his administration. It should be remembered that engaging into war is not a decision of the president or just any other person only. Big decisions such as it are carefully studied and debated about by advisers and scholars. President Johnson had his share of these experts. In fact, he had three great minds in tow—McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara, and Dean Rusk. The four decided to go to war instead of meet for peace. (Logevall, 1999) Catch 22

If President Johnson chose the war, his political facade and programs will suffer. However, the same thing will happen should he choose not to go on to war. This situation has led President Johnson to choose the option where there is more chance to redeem himself, his administration, the country, and Vietnam. He chose to go to war along with all the complexities packaged with it. He knew pretty well that what happens with this war spells what will happen to him; what happens to him is what will happen to America.

While it is not a formula well accepted by many, it was a subtle conceit process where presidents are personifying themselves with the country they are serving, which leaders enjoy. (Logevall, 1999) This is not a fresh situation. Almost everyone, not only presidents, have been in a situation of choosing the lesser evil, or at least the evil that will be more beneficial. A catch-22 situation will be very hard to manipulate, especially if the subject is saving a country from communism, saving another country from defeat, and saving a president from shame. However it ends, no one wins in the end.