Democrats and Republicans on Foreign Policy;Middle East Issue

In the 21st century at the time that globalization has become the dominant issue, the United States of America keep trying to remain the world single greatest power as it has used to be since World War II. But this century is more complex and uncertain than 20th century because of all the evidences that happened in aftermath the 9/11 terrorist attacks especially U.S declaration of war against Iraq, Thus there will be a significant agenda in respect of all the troubles in Middle East that should not be ignored by the next president of the United States of America.

Obama, Clinton and McCain in Middle East:

Barak Hussein Obama:
Barack Obama, the youngest candidate among all the 16 republican and democratic candidates, is not going to follow Bush’s policies in the world of complexity and uncertainty. He doesn’t believe in Bush’s ideology that overrides all the realities. Obama tries to be like a dove especially in respect of the Middle Eastern issues. He tends to have both-ways in his foreign policy toward the Middle East; at the same time he thinks about U.S withdrawing from Iraq but he also thinks about keep some military troops there. He talks about negotiation with Iran but also he doesn’t disagree with bombing Iran. Obama also employs this both-ways policy toward the Israel-Palestine issue.
This paper will focus more on the issue of Iraq and make comparison between among all the three candidates because of the importance and all the controversies behind the issue of Iraq war for George W, Bush and the next president of U.S.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama doesn’t support the Congress’s decision in 2002 for war on Iraq. He is an anti-war candidate who believes that Shiites and Sunnis prefer to settle their differences in a free country without the shadow of America as the dominant power over their country but on the other hand he opposes to take all the American troops away from Iraq while he tries to convince public that they are not going to remain in Iraq for ever. He says “We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.”(www.middleeast.about.com)
Actually Obama cleverly has taken a unique two-ways policy to be accepted by all different ideas about Iraq war.
Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Regarding the Middle East issue, Hillary Rodham Clinton has the reputation of hawk in her foreign policy. She has supported Bush’s foreign policy toward Middle East especially in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Also she supports the idea of bombing Iran if Iran tries to have access to WMD. Clinton believes in working with international institutions like the United Nation.
As I mentioned above Hillary Clinton doesn’t oppose the Congress’s decision in 2002 on Iraq war. Although she is pro Iraq war but still she has promised that she will withdraw all the American military troops from Iraq within the first 60 days of her administration and to find the peaceful solution for the region if she will be elected.
John McCain:
The 71-year-old John McCain is the republican candidate that will be the oldest president in U.S history if elected in 2008 presidential election.
Although he believes that it is necessary for U.S to know more about the Arab, Persian and Asian cultures and languages and also to have military in top, his policies are not like Bush’s foreign policy toward the region of Middle East. He tries to find solutions to settle wars in Iraq peacefully, to continue the policy of war on terror with less difficulties and to solve the problems between Israel and Palestine while he follow the forceful and militant foreign policy.
In the case of Iraq war it should be mentioned that McCain was one of the 76 senators who voted for Iraq war in 2002; consequently he disagrees with taking U.S military back to home from Iraq. He also supported Bush’s 2007 “surge” and building up military forces in Iraq. He believes in continuation of war until he will see what will happen later. He says:”so long as we can succeed in Iraq – and I believe we can- we must succeed.” (www.middleeast.about.com)

Author Analysis:
I personally believe that the next president of America will take U.S presidency in so uncertain and complex environment especially in the case of Middle East issues and Iraq war. I think that the doctrine of “ New World Order “ will be again on top of the U.S foreign policy no matter who will be the next president of the United States of America but I believe that neither Clinton nor McCain will be the good choice to take the position of U.S presidency.
The “New World Order” doctrine established by republicans to pave the way for America to remain as the world supper power has become one of the most important issues in respect of foreign relations among politicians in 21st century.
If America prefer to have a young, creative and educated president; if hey are tired of war and republicans and if America has been considered to be the most sexist country rather than racist in the world , I think that Obama have more chance to be the next president of the United States of America by following the doctrine of “ New World Order”.



References:
1. Tristam, Pierre. Barack Obama’s Middle East policy http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/me071202a.htm
2. Tristam, Pierre. Hillary Clinton’s Middle East policy http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/p/me071111.htm
3. Tristam, Pierre. John McCain’s Middle East policy http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/me071122.htm

Eleanor Roosevelt

Eleanor Roosevelt

Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in her autobiography that "It seems to me that America's objective today should be to try to make herself the best possible mirror of democracy that she can. The people of the world can see what happens here. They watch us to see what we are going to do and how well we can do it. We are giving them the only possible picture of democracy that we can: the picture as it works in actual practice. This is the only way other peoples can see for themselves how it works; and can determine for them selves whether this thing is good in itself, whether it is better than they have, better than what other political and economic systems offer them." cited in www.gwu.edu

Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the 32nd president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was born on the 11th of October, 1884 in New York City. She gradually grew into the one of the most active first ladies from a very shy and awkward child.

She was a daughter of Elliott Roosevelt, younger brother of Theodore Roosevelt, and Anne Hall, both came from the prestigious New York families. Eleanor was happy with her family till destiny separated her from her mother when she was only 8 years old; her father also died 2 years later left Eleanor and other children alone to live with their grand mother Hall. At the age of 15, she got an opportunity to go to England for studying in Allenswood Academy in London, to develop her self-confidence.

Initially Eleanor Roosevelt known as a diplomat, a journalist and a social and political activist, was thought by private tutors at home. After leaving U.S, she was supported by her school headmistress, Marie Souvestre in England where Eleanor found Marie as a model of an independent woman sensitive to social issues; the reality is that Souvestre was a first person who encouraged Eleanor to express her ideas made her to be one of the most famous American first ladies in the mind of the United States social and political history.

Being interested in social work young Eleanor backed to New York for making her first social debut where she fell in love with her fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although Theodore's mother was against their marriage and believed that they were too young but they married eventually on 17 March 1905, under the shadow of Sara (her mother-in-law) who even imposed her idea about the decoration of their house and hiring the servants. The result of their marriage was 6 children (one died in infancy) all were born within the first 11 years of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt’s marriage life.

Eleanor spent early years of her new life in the family estate in Hyde Park before moving to Albany where her husband Franklin D. Roosevelt selected as a Senator in the New York State Senate in 1911.
After playing her role as a mother for 10 years, Eleanor found this opportunity to get involved herself with the social and political works besides working inside the house. At a time of being in Washington during the World War I and presidential period of Woodrow Wilson, Eleanor Roosevelt who had settled there for the sake of her husband's job, the assistant secretary of navy, started her activity for Red Cross, Navy League and other volunteer organizations in Washington D.C where Eleanor tried her best to save wounded soldiers many of them were kept in a hospital for the mental illnesses.

During the time of war which was a time of crisis for the world Eleanor Roosevelt faced with another crisis, this time in her private life when she discovered a love-letter that showed the secret relation between Franklin D. Roosevelt and her social secretary, Lucy Mercer. Although it was so hard for Eleanor to live with her husband but they reconciled in order to save the political reputation of her husband, but the reality is that Eleanor and Franklin's marriage intimacy destroyed for ever.

Her activity didn’t stop when she left Washington and returned to New York but continued and changed its direction to the social movements especially movements for woman equal rights with the hope of making their working condition better.

At a time that every thing seemed to be perfect in the eyes of the Eleanor Roosevelt, the social reformer, one event changed her role as a first lady. In the year of 1921, Franklin D. Roosevelt became permanently paralyzed by the disease of poliomyelitis. So to support her husband who was stricken a very hopeless condition physically and mentally and also to save his link with the American national and international policy, she very soon learned public speaking and became familiar with the system of political organizations. All theses events gave Eleanor confidence and courage to campaign for Democratic candidates in her hometown, New York in opposition with her Republican cousin, Theodore Roosevelt Jr. As a result of all her activities Eleanor became more famous than Franklin D. Roosevelt, her husband, who had quitted his political activities for 8 years. During that period Eleanor became a leader of the Women Voters League, the League of National Consumers and the Women's Division of the New York State Democratic Committee. She also helped Women's Democratic News as a writer and editor. Also Eleanor helped her friend, Dckerman to buy Todhunter. Todhunter was a private school exclusively for girls and a place Eleanor used to go there 3 times in a week to teach the students her modern beliefs about women and their rights.

After all 8 years being absent in the history of American policy, eventually Franklin D. Roosevelt came back to society by making himself candidate as a New York's governor with the help of his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt who became Franklin's ears and eyes for the rest of his political life. After being selected as a New York governor, Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to be a 32nd president of the United States, the dream which came true for him and made Eleanor Roosevelt also the American 32nd first lady.

At the time of entering to the White House, Eleanor Roosevelt showed her differences from all her predecessors identified the role of the first lady as a more socially active role. She herself during Roosevelt presidential period traveled to the most part of the country gave lectures on the behalf of women's right and wrote her opinion in the Syndicate newspaper in the May Day column.

After the presidential election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, he asked his wife, Eleanor, to work for him as a personal secretary and assistant what gave her an opportunity to play her most influential roles in U.S policy compared to all her predecessors. She was a person who brought the cause of the minority groups to Franklin's attention.

During the first days after the presidential election, Eleanor held her first news conference informed public that she would held meetings every week also she was so eager to hear about the problems and needs of women in her monthly magazine column. In the case of African American and Appalachian farmers, Eleanor as the American first lady helped them to reclaim their land and making African American sure to be supported by New Deal Programs.

Eleanor Roosevelt continued her social and political activity even after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 12, 1945. She was appointed by President Harry S. Truman, the 33rd president of the United States, to the first meeting of United Nations held in London as a chairperson of the Human Rights Commission.
Also during the presidential period of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Eleanor remained in her position at the United Nation started arguing for Civil Rights both inside and outside of the United States.
Eventually on November 7, 1962 Anne Eleanor Roosevelt, a powerful voice of democrats died in New York City.

Eleanor Roosevelt's selected books:
v Hunting Big Game in the Eighties: The Letters of Elliott Roosevelt, Sportsman. New York: Scribners, 1932.
v When You Grow Up to Vote. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1932.
v This Is My Story. New York: Harper, 1937.
v My Days. New York: Dodge, 1938.
v The Lady of the White House. London: Hutchinson, 1938. (British edition of This Is My Story.).
v This Is America. New York: Putnam's, 1942 (with Frances Cooke Macgregor).
v This I Remember. New York: Harper, 1949.
v Ladies of Courage. New York: Putnam's, 1954 (with Lorena Hickok)
v The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt. New York: Harper, 1961.
Eleanor Roosevelt's selected Articles:

v "Common Sense versus Party Regularity." News Bulletin (League of Women Voters of New York State) (16 Sept. 1921).
v "Why I Am a Democrat." Junior League Bulletin 10 (Nov. 1923): 18-19.
v "How to Interest Women in Voting." Women's Democratic Campaign Manual, 1924. Washington: Democratic Party, National Committee 1924-1928, 1924. 102-3.
v "What I Want Most Out of Life." Success Magazine 11 (May 1927): 16-17, 70.
v "What Is a Wife's Job Today?" Good Housekeeping (August 1930): 34-35, 166, and 169-73.
v "Women in Politics." Women's City Club of New York Quarterly (Jan. 1930): 5-"What Are the Movies Doing to Us?" Modern Screen 4 (Nov. 1932): 26-27, 102.
v "Israel Will Become a Great Nation: The Mission of Israel. Ed. Jacob Baal-Teshuva. New York: Speller, 1963. 32.

References:
http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/abouteleanor/er-quotes
http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/abouteleanor/erarticles.cfm
http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/abouteleanor/erbooks.cfm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/ar32.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577012/Eleanor_Roosevelt.html
http://www.nndb.com/people/467/000022401/
http://www.edwardsly.com/rooseve.htm

America in the eyes of Iranian young generation

24 years ago: Iran is under the attack of Iraqi troops. The sounds of crying and moaning can be heard from every where. People are running, children are looking to the sky wondering what are that big black birds above their heads, they are trying to understand what is going on to the world of eldest. They have many questions to ask; "Mom, where is my father?! Why I should hurry to go to downstairs while I am playing with my dole?! We are escaping from what? Why those men I have seen in the television hate us?!... .

The early life of my generation intermingled with the hatred of the ex-leader of Iraq government, Saddam Hussein, who invaded to Iran in 29 September, 1980 and killed many of my people.
It was odd to us that why other countries especially the United States of America that always talked about the democracy not only stopped Saddam Hussein from invasion but also equipped his troops with war equipments even put the sanction on Iran during the war and in aftermath. It is good to know that During the 1980s, when Iraq was in a war with Iran, Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, our enemy, and maintained cordial relations with him as a bulwark against Iran.
On July 3, 1988 actually towards the end of the war between Iraq and Iran the United States military ship shot a civilian aircraft with 275 passengers and 15 crews and killed all of them with out any excuse. Although America tried to make the world believe that they had shot the civilian airline by mistake instead of F-14 Tomcat fighter but Iranian government and Iranian people never believed their justification. The United States of America never apologized for killing all those innocent Iranian people.
For what the America did against Iranian people (and it is still doing), my generation have no clear impression about this country.
But I should be honest here and mention that there are many Iranians who live in America and I have heard from most of my compatriots, that they have many good American friends. Most of them believe that Americans like their families, they are against war, they don’t tolerate death of innocent people and they believe in God and morality like Iranians.
But there is a difference between Iranians and Americans, we distinct the American people from the American politicians so we respect them as we rspect all the people in the world while the American people either haven’t heard about our ancient civilization at all or they have a serious misunderstanding ,especially after 9/11 incidents, about Iranians. They mistaken us as Iraqi people accepted that Iranians are terrorists through all wrong images and news they have been bombarded by their own mass media.
American people hate us with no reason; we have freedom, rich culture, and ancient civilization in Iran. Iranians are kind, pacifist and so intelligent.
So the American studies are a scientific way help the people of these two countries to know each other impartially. Through this field I and my friend as MA students of American Studies will know the America and its people and will introduce the true and real image of our ancient civilization to Americans.

2004 election

The Election 2004: Public Voting Behavior

In the United States presidential election of 2004, the contest was more between George W. Bush, the president of the United States and the candidate from the Republican Party and the Democratic candidate, John Kerry.
The 2004 election was actually the case of referendum on the performances of the last president George W. Bush. Although John Kerry tried hard through his campaign activities to criticize the presidential performances but George W. Bush could defend all his activities he had done during his presidency defeated John Kerry vigorously.
During the time of election both the candidates differed in personal characteristics and public policy issues used different campaign strategies to influence public minds in their own benefits.

Public Voting Behavior:

To explain the public voting behavior in the United States it is crucial to go through three different models of voting:
1. The Party Identification Model
2. The Issue Voting Model
3. Non-voting Model

Nowadays the American people are not considered as voters following the first model. The party identification model some how has been expired since 1960s. Before that time people were very strong party identifiers. Most of the people developed their party identification when they were teenager not willing to change their voting behavior for their lives. So as the most two important parties were the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, they were mostly divided in two groups, republican advocates or Democratic advocates.
For those who follow the party identification model, it was not an important matter either their party performed badly in government, adopts policy against the advocates’ benefits or even if they disagreed with the party’s representatives in his/her national policies; they just wanted to support their parties (although recently we see public behavior based on this model rarely but we can not say that there are no people who have the strong party affiliation).
“In the 1992 presidential election, for example, only about 29 percent strongly identified with the Republicans or Democrats, whereas 38 percent did in 1964, a drop of 9 percent” (McKay,et.,2002,p.35)

During the years after 1960s it seems that voters have become more ideologically and politically complicated. So they have mostly followed the issue voting model rather than the party identification model as a result of emerging new issues such as civil rights, Vietnam and the growth of mass media. For the new generation of voters the importance of the issues and the characteristics of the candidates are the matter not the attachment to the parties, so they vote on the issues prospectively and retrospectively.
In the prospective way the voters are supposed to be knowledgeable about the main issues of the time. They concentrate on the parties’ policies on the main issues then they compare those policies with each other and then they select the candidate whose policies are compatible to their benefits.
But for voters who tend to vote retrospectively it is not crucial to gather information about the issues; if the last government have done its performances good especially on the ground of economy, it would be hopeful to reelect again.

To explain the third model it is necessary to answer the question that why in the United States, the country proud of its democracy, the number of people who are eligible to participate in election is so low.
The fact is that the American people do not bother themselves to go through the process of election which required them to get information about the candidates, their policies on issues, the differences between them and the compatibility between the position of issues and their preferences. In general speaking people in the United States have been drawn in their every day lives and they look at the world by the glasses of money. If they live in a good economic condition it is no matter for them to have Mr. X as a president or Mr. Y.

The Public Behavior: The 2004 Election

The 2004 election was the period not concentrating on party affiliation but on the candidates’ characteristics, their position on major issues and the influence of some psychological factors such as morality and terror.
Security was the matter for American people in the year 2004, they had experienced the great fear aftermath the terrorist attacks in September 2001. They believed that they were secure and no one can destroy their calmness in their beloved and exceptional country but being attacked in their homeland broke the image of the United States as the country with a high security in their minds.
As a result they mostly relied on their president George W. Bush, a warlike person, to save them against an unknown enemy. So the only benefits of those terrorist attacks was changing the presidential position of George W. Bush as the candidate with”the perfect bloodlines [who come] to office amid charges that his was a bastard presidency, sired not by the voters but by the courts [in the 2000 election]” (Silberstein, 2002, p.40) to an American hero.
Therefore, although moderate people in America criticized Bush for his war policy but the public mostly preferred to live in peace in their own country with a powerful president so they did what the party affiliations had done in the past by some changes, they supported the peace party that tried to brought calmness for their people by killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you fear from unknown enemy what do you prefer to do?
You will pray and ask God to help and save you. Most of the American people did so; therefore they attracted to the candidate who was more religious and talks about morality; what was ignored in Kerry’s campaign.

If we put aside those American people who were indifferent for their country’s destiny based on the third model, the security with different perception was the matter in the 2004 election.


References:
1. Silberstein, Sandra, War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11, Routledge,
Taylor & Francis group, 2002.
2. McKay, David, et al., Controversies in American Politics and Society. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
3. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2005.00060.x?cookieSet=1

book review:War of Words

War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11
Sandra Silberstein

· Book Details:

Author: Sandra Silberstein
Paperback: xvii+197
Publisher: Routledge, Taylor & Francis group
City of publication: London
Year of publication: 2002
Language: English
ASIN: B000OT8284
Price: USD $22.95

· About the author:

Sandra Silberstein is a professor of English at the University of Washington, Seattle. So far she has concentrated on women and language, choice reading, and technology and resources in teaching reading on the majority of her books.

· Book analysis:

The book "War of Words" is 197 pages long, divided into 8 chapters. The introduction attached to the first section of the book is a comprehensive one also summarizing whole the book in three pages.
This book can be recommended to all whose interests are on linguistics, even to those who are not expert in this matter.
Sandra Silberstein focuses on the creation of the national transformations including changes in American identity and national beliefs in post-9/11 by illustrating some examples which reveal U.S's situation within the time of crises after 9/11 events.
Although the author doesn't go deeply into details regarding the field of linguistics and also she doesn't explain apparently how linguistics can be applied to the many phrases she has quoted; but those phrases and examples persuade readers to continue his/her reading to the end.
Sandra Silberstein in her book "War of Words: Language , Politics and 9/11" cites the speeches of George W. Bush in post-9/11 just for the sake of linguistic analysis ,so it is difficult to determine her political slant. She tries to focus more on the words created national transformations and new American identity in post-9/11 than the events themselves ; As a result Silberstein concentrates on rendering the terrorist attacks in presidential speeches , media texts and eyewitness accounts ,
The most interesting part of the book in my opinion is its cover, carrying many important meanings and messages. For example, a sentence in Persian above the picture of two Afghans implies that Iran is a terrorist advocator.

"It is essential to examine the diction surrounding the particular sentiments of the aftermath , as Sandra Silberstein did in her book War of Words: language , politics and 9/11 ( Routledge , 2002 ) . The initial rhetoric surrounding 9/11 was rightfully comforting, allowing Americans to heal. President Bush's calming speeches were compared by Silberstein to President Roosevelt's words after attach on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The perception they both try to create is one of necessity and urgency. For instance, Bush said of the war on terrorism: "These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. "He was, in effect, holding a war rally, similar to what Roosevelt said in 1941: "… I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. I believe I interpret the … will of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again. "(Dunkin, Journalism after 9/11 Review)

"This is vital reading today. At a time when hysteria is bubbling below the surface, Sandra Silberstein is cool, analytical, highly readable – and sane"
The Guardian, UK

· Summary:
The book's introduction is an imaginary window drawn by Silberstein, through which she as an applied linguist illustrates that how "words helped many things happen."(xiii) And also "how language can be employed to render national policy…."(xiii)
From the introduction it can be interpreted that the writer feels a duty on her shoulder, as a person born in New York, to explain about the events happened on September 11, 2001 not only attacked to the twin towers and pentagon but also affected American national identity.

In the first chapter Sandra Silberstein tries to discuss in details that how a nation can be constructed at war. To obtain her goal the writer in chapter second concentrates on all speeches and statements made by President George W Bush at those first moments after terrorist attacks that changed his Presidential position as " the candidate with the perfect bloodlines [who came] to office amid charges that his was a bastard presidency, sired not by the voters but by the courts"(p.40) to an American hero. Also the writer compares Bush's speeches to the statements of President Roosevelt in the story of Pearl Harbor.
In chapter 3 which is the most linguistic part of the book Silberstein focuses on the eyewitness accounts, tries to "examine the role of television in creating September 11 narratives and in constructing social identities." (p.61) by borrowing two linguistic tools: "the methodological analysis of news discourse by Ron Scollon, to question the norms of TV news coverage; and the oral narrative structure by William Labov , to observe the eyewitness narratives as a process of manufacturing the news into entertainment ."(Xuelin he, 2003)
Also she emphasizes on the journalists' skills on framing the events which had been unfolded around ground zero. For example in one of the interviews, a journalist asked a single eyewitness the following questions:" Was there screaming? Was there violence? Was it eerie? Were you terrified? Did you see people bleeding?"(Pp.79-80).
The book in chapter 4 also reveals that how New York transformed to be America(n) and Rudy Giuliani to be an "America's mayor" by exploring the rhetorical reconstruction within American culture in post-9/11.
Trough chapter 5 "Selling America" and chapter 6 "The New McCarthyism", patriotism turns to be a matter. In the former chapter Silberstein analyzes advertisements in relation with the current terrorist attacks, revealing that American people in post-9/11 supported the government and showed their patriotism by shopping as the way to mourn for their lost countrymen.
In the latter one, the writer criticizes the emergence of new McCarthyism which let to overdoing patriotism in post-9/11. According to her opinion, the ACTA took the "cultural wars" to a new level transformed a "war of words" to the "war on words" by publishing 100 examples of disagreeable voices of the American campuses .
The next chapter is a comparative study on ABC documentary, " Minefield: The United States and the Muslim Word,"by Peter Jennings and CNN documentary on Islam by Christiane Amanpour. Although in a former documentary Islam is a worldwide problem, the latter one tries to avoid the clashes between two kinds of civilizations. "For the vast majority of Muslims, the terrorist attacks against the United States were an offence against the teachings of Islam."(p.155)
"Despite the militants' claims, nothing in the Koran, the Islamic holy book, justifies this kind of crime against humanity. … In fact, the Koran forbids suicide."(p.155)
And the last chapter, chapter 8, deals with the new set of rhetorical transformations from the second anniversary and beyond follows the march of civic discourse from New York to Baghdad. In this part of the book the writer also covers the war in Iraq and accusation of US president and the former heroes for their mendacity.

References:
1. Xuelin, He. "National Research Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics".15 May.2003.
http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-14-473.html

2. Dunkin, Andria. "The Newark Metro." review essays: Journalism after 9/11.2006.
http://www.newarkmetro.rutgers.edu/essays/

3. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/
4. Laversuch, I.M."Springlink."Book review. 2006
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b205757752363020/

Gun-Control Issue

Gun-Control Issue: American policy

To foreigners who travel to America either for business or sight seeing, it is always a question that how Americans can bear guns with themselves and they express their amazement when they become aware that the American Constitution itself, has guaranteed the right to bear arms in second amendment that says" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”, but for Americans who immigrated to the Wild Land many years ago , it was not odd to carry guns in order to secure themselves and their families in confrontation with Indians who had come and settled there many years before whites arrived at the boarder of New World . In fact the concept of gun has transformed to be the part of the American culture through the history, praised by many American people even nowadays.

But looking at the other side of debate reveals that recently the right to bear arms has been overdone led to the sever problems. For example, all of us can recall the assassination of John F. Kennedy, failed assassination of Ronald Reagan and unfortunately most recently the deaths of some American students who had killed by their friends who had brought gun to their schools.

So as a result of all these incidents the debate over gun control turned to be the "hot button" issue in American politics. Some arguments are for guns and against control and some of them are against guns and for control. For example, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is one of the powerful lobbies which oppose gun control legislation supports the American Constitution, second amendment that has granted the right of carrying arms to American people.

Pro-gun, NRA lobby was founded in 1870s, "as a body which offered training and instruction in how to use firearms-specifically as a response to the poor marksmanship of Union soldiers in the Civil War- and later represented the interests of those using guns in sports and hunting."(McKay, ET, al.2002.p.95)
However as the pro-gun lobbies , most powerful of them NRA, focus more on fighting against legislation that would limit the citizens' right to access to gun, the anti-gun lobbies also take more attempts to grow in strength. The incident which led to the call for reform of gun legislation in congress was the failed Ronald Reagan assassination in which Reagan survived but his press secretary, James Brady, was wounded badly. So as a result James Brady's wife, Sarah Brady, who was extremely against gun legislations, took hard attempts in opposing with the gun legislations in congress" although it took many years to achieve, congress finally passed the Brady Bill in 1993. The bill required a five-day waiting period and background checks on the purchase of a handgun."(McKay, ET, al.2002, p.95)
Also in the year 1994 congress passed some legislation against Gun-bearing which was supported by United States' President, Bill Clinton including anti-crime legislation, the violent crime control, and Law Enforcement Act.

But regarding to all these attempts, pro-gun lobbies are still more powerful and more organized than anti-gun lobbies, interestingly supported by majority of American people. Although most of the Americans insist on their right to own and bear arms but there are also many American people who support the Brady Bill and some sort of gun control. For instance, Gallop poll conducted in January 2001 revealed that 54 percent of Americans wanted to make gun-laws stricter and only 14 percent favored weakening the existing laws.

To answer the question that how gun lobby can prevail on the policy-making process, one should focus on the majority of Americans who support any form of anti-gun legislations but in a passive mode with no well established organization.

So as a result of the gun-control advocator passivity, Charlton Heston, the president of the National Rifle Association, can claim that "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."(McKay, ET, al.2002, p.96)
He as one of the pro-gun advocators argues about the necessity of owing and bearing arms to the American way of life, outlining the major reasons to justify this necessity.

According to Heston, the Founding Fathers who were concerned about the central powerful government, took hard attempts to add Bill of Rights in particular Second Amendment to the American Constitution in order to guarantee the right of citizens to arm them against Washington DC if it was needed." The beauty of the Constitution can be found in the way it takes human nature into consideration. We are not a docile species capable of coexisting within a perfect society under everlasting benevolent rule. We are what we are. Egotistical, corruptible, vengeful, sometimes even a bit power-mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual."(McKay, ET, al.2002.p.97)
Also he believes that the Second Amendment is more important than the First Amendment because without arms one can not defend his/her speeches.

But for anti-gun advocators who hate guns as they kill people, the story runs differently. Those advocators demand Americans to recall all the Wars in which America was involved and the numbers of Americans killed in those wars such as revolutionary war against England, Civil War, First and Second World Wars, etc. Also they emphasize on all gun-related deaths in recent years.

Anti-gun advocators also criticize the American National Policy by raising a question that why it is so easy for a person to get a handgun license in America than it is to get a driving license.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

To answer how a specific issue such as gun control prevails on the decision making process, it is necessary to become familiar with the following factors presented in the process of decision making in Congress:
Information gathering, constituency interests, expert opinion, political ramifications and personal judgments.

To run this process, Congress Members play an important role. They are responsible to vote and decide on a variety of bills, motions, amendments and all the contemporary issues such as abortion rights, school safety, gun control, etc.

Before expressing the final decisions, members provided with the materials on both sides of any issue including letters, emails and phone calls all of them expressing different and controversial opinions. However, in reality there are many members who vote not based on the truth but on the benefit of interest groups and political parties.

To be honest it is really hard to stand indifferently and firmly against all influences which attack the members' decision.

As mentioned above information gathering is the first step in the process of decision making regarding the contemporary issues such as gun control issue that provides congress members with the main arguments on both sides of the debate.

Members can use the Congressional Research Service, Committee reports, newspaper articles and even information provided by advocacy organizations or groups who are against the issue, in this regard gun control issue, as a material helped them to make their major decisions. Members are required to explain why they have decided so, those explanations are based on the resources that members have cited them.

The second step is a constituency interest which focuses on the Congress members' responsibility to reflect the viewpoints of the majority of constituents, in members' own area, who take the issue seriously. Members have to follow this step if they want to be elected for the next election.

The third step, as mentioned above, is the expert opinion. Although Congress members are responsible to work on the particular issue by analyzing many different debates to make their own final decisions, however some issues are such a complex ones that members need to consult with experts in this particular matter and take a benefit of the experts' advices into the process of decision making.

Political ramification is the fourth step and more influential one in the process of decision making. It is necessary for the Congress members to understand the political ramification of a vote that means members should fully understand the political parties which are for or against the issue. In regard to the major issue it is common to see that two different parties stand on too different positions when they are required to vote for that issue. Also it is common to see that some of the senior members encouraged their colleagues to vote for one side of the issue which preferable to the particular interest groups or political parties, also the influence of the President is a point that shouldn’t be ignored in regard to the process of decision making.

And finally the fifth step is the personal judgment that refers to the Congress member's ideological viewpoint on the particular issue. In fact their beliefs may be based on the religious, ethnical or political trends.




Resources:
1. McKay, David, et al., Controversies in American Politics and Society. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.http://congress.indiana.edu/learn_about/index.php

The White House

THE WHITE HOUSE HISTORY

The White House in the United States of America is not only the official home but also a workplace for the American presidents. In 1792, the commissioners of the Federal City decided to design a permanent home for the presidents.
George Washington, the first president of the United States, was the only president who lived his presidential period out of the white house.
The white house which had been occupied by John Adams and his wife Abigail for the first time in November 1800 was built during the years between 1792 and 1800 in Washington D.C.
The architect of the white house was James Hoban who designed the house in the Georgian style and received a $500 gold medal and a plot of land as a prize from Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson was the president who ordered the building outward expansion. During the presidential period of James Polk, between the years 1845-1849, gas was piped in the white house and it was in the presidency of Benjamin Harrison that this official house felt the power of electric lighting.
The white house has been always a safe executive residence for all American presidents; but the year 1814 was the exception in the American history. On August 24, 1814 the British troops had been ordered to burn and destroy Washington D.C. and the white house. As a result whole parts of the house burnt and only exterior walls remained.
Today there are 132 rooms in the white house all of them have been the eyewitness of the formation of the United States’ history.

In this article I am going to introduce some of the white house’s room such as the “Blue Room”, “Vermeil Room”, “Red Room”, “Green Room” and the “East Room”.

The Blue Room:
This room has been located above the Diplomatic Reception Room. This room has always been used as a reception room but there is an exception during the presidency of John Adams as he used it as a south entrance hall. President Madison asked architect Benjamin Latrobe to design the Blue Room but most of the furniture burnt and destroyed in the fire of 1814.
President Monroe was a person who redecorated the room after reconstruction by the French style which has been remained until now.
The house was decorated in blue color during the presidency of Martin Van Buren in 1837, so the new decoration changed the Oval Room to the Blue Room.
The Green Room:
This room has been served different purposes as a “Lodging Room” and a green “Dining Room” for Thomas Jefferson, as a “Sitting Room” for James Madison and as a “Card Room” for Monroe.
This room was decorated in different styles by different presidents until the time of Theodore Roosevelt, when it was decorated by the 19th century American Furniture. Then Coolidge refurnished the Green Room by authentic Federal-period furniture.
The Red Room:
Red Room has been decorated by different style of furniture. Most of the United States’ presidents have used this room as “Sitting Room”; but the Red Room served as “Yellow Drawing Room “for Madison.
In 1803, Benjamin Latrobe indicated that this room is suitable to serve as “the President’s Antechamber” for the Cabinet Room or the President’s Library. Recently presidents have used this room for small dinner parties.
The Vermeil Room:
The Vermeil Room or the Gold Room has been used as a Display Room or a Ladies Sitting Room for formal occasions. The room has been decorated in green background and gold silk highlights and furnished by a table in the Empire style, the gold walls also covered by the seven First Ladies’ portraits.
The East Room:
This room has been used for different purposes such as dances, award presentations, weddings, funerals, bill-signing ceremonies, press conferences and generally for large gathering.
The East Room was designed by James Hoban as the “Public Audience Room”. The room’s wall has been covered by the portrait of George Washington, one of the few work pieces which remained after the fire of 1814, painted by Gilbert Stuart.
At the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, the East Room witnessed many activities during Civil War; Even Union Troops occupied the room for some days.

References:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/whtour 1.
http://www.geocities.com/stu_hill/whouse.htm 2.