Catholic!

I have converted to Catholicism. I was once in the darkness now I am in the light!

Compare Samurai code of Bushido with the European Knights code of Chivalry

Topic: Compare and contrast between the Japanese samurai’s warrior code and the European knight’s warrior code.

There are many similarities between the codes of honor of the Japanese samurai and the European knight and some distinct differences.

 The Japanese samurai lived by a code of honor called bushido or the way of the warrior (Text 395). The ideals of bushido came from blending the principles of Chan Buddhism (also known as Zen Buddhism in Japan) with martial virtues. A Zen Buddhist practitioner is taught to look within themselves, through a highly disciplined from of meditation called zazen, to achieve a mental state of fearlessness and spontaneous action called no-mind (Personal experience). The result of blending Zen Buddhism with martial virtues “was the highest expression of political leadership and personal conduct during the time of the Samurai (Sources 414). There are seven principles to bushido that the Samurai would hold close to his heart: 1) Honor, 2) Courage 3) Loyalty, 4) Wisdom, 5) Benevolence, 6) Honesty and 7) Respect . These seven principles are evident in Shiba Yosimasa “Advice to a Young Samurai”. For example, in the opening lines Yosimasa gives advice on the principle of honor, “[A Samurai] should behave in a manner considerate not only of their own honor, but also the honor of their descendents” (Sources 415). The Samurai principles of loyalty and courage are clear in the teachings of Yosimasa; he suggests that a Samurai would be expected to give up his life “for the sake of a sole sovereign, or serving under military command in time of need” (Sources 415).  On the principle of wisdom, Yosimasa advises, “Warriors should never be thoughtless or absentminded but handle all things with forethought” (Sources 414).  Imagawa Ryoshun, a Buddhist military commander, in a letter that was later used for instruction for young Samurai, Ryoshun directly teaches on the Samurai principle of respect, “You ought to show the utmost respect to Buddhist monks and priests…” (Sources 416). Yosimasa also advises that a Samurai should show respect to his parents by suggesting that a Samurai, “should emulate a bad parent rather than a good stranger” (Sources 415). On the principles of honesty and benevolence Yosimasa teaches that “neither deities nor buddhas will disregard a person who’s mind is honest and compassionate” (Sources 415).    

The European knight lived by a code of honor that is called chivalry. Many knights looked at the life and death of the biblical character Jesus Christ as the highest form of honor and manly virtue (Class). For example, When Jesus was being questioned by Pontius Pilate, Jesus could have denied his faith and possibly avoided death at the hand of the Romans; however, when asked “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus boldly and defiantly replied “Yes, it is as you say” (Mark 15:2). Furthermore, in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, he teaches “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Sources 224). European knights also learned from Jesus’ teachings on peace and loving-kindness. Such as, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus teaches, “Blessed are the pure of heart…Blessed are the merciful…Blessed are the peace keepers for they will be called sons of God” (Sources 224). Tales of honorable knights personifying the teachings of Jesus Christ is evident in the tale of King Arthur and his knights of the round table (Class). One of King Arthur’s knights, Lancelot, is known for his honor, courage, loyalty and selflessness. In the tale of King Arthur and Guinevere, Lancelot displays the highest of chivalric values by going on a quest to save Guinevere from the evil the black knight. Lancelot was extremely loyal to King Arthur and willing to risk life and limb in order to appease his king. This lesson of loyalty was not lost on the European knight, they swore allegiance and pledged military service to greater lords or kings (Text 436).  Stories of King Arthur and Lancelot were told to many young knights and became a code of conduct for the European knight (Class).

There is one key difference between the Japanese samurai and the European knight. If a samurai lost or betrayed his honor by not upholding the principles of bushido a samurai could redeem his honor by performing the act of seppuku (ritual suicide) (Sources 414). However, a European knight, coming from a Christian or Catholic background, would have found the idea of ritual suicide appalling (Ecclesiastes 7:17). To my understanding, there is no advice for the European knight if he loses his honor on how he can regain it. I would think that he simply had to live in disgrace until an opportunity presented itself to redeem his honor by a heroic or selfless act.

     Chivalry is the flower of humanity (unknown). By living by codes of honor, warriors of the past strived to be more than simply killers for hire. These principles were not only good for ancient times; but men and woman, old and young, would benefit by applying them today. 

Unethical Behavior in the US Armed Forces

I Research

Why do some U.S. military personnel take part in unethical behavior when they hail from a Christian nation that imposes strict taboos on such behavior? Why did American troops take part in what became known as the Massacre of My Lai, which occurred on March 16, 1968 in the region of Quang Ngai province, during the United States involvement in the Vietnam War? What was the reason that army personnel humiliated and tortured prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq in 2003? While many people believe that being raised in a Christian nation will inoculate American military personnel from taking part in unethical behavior there are many factors that will cause Americans in the armed forces to rationalize immoral behavior.

The overwhelming majority of people in the United States consider themselves Christian. Prior to 1990, the percentage of Christians in the United States was at 87 percent. In 2008, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Christian had fell to 76 percent (Robinson, 2004). 76 percent of Americans claim that they follow the Christian bible and adhere to Christian standard. For example, the “Golden Rule”, which reads, “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12) Why is this principle so readily ignored by some American military personnel?

Soldiers form a deep loyalty for each other, through shared sacrifice and hardship, a member in the United States military knows that he/she can count on the soldier next to him/her in life threatening situations. However, if loyalty is misguided it can lead to murder. On March 16, 1968 the men of Charlie Company, 11^th Brigade, Americal Division, led by Lt. William L. “Rusty” Calley marched into the hamlet of My Lai in Quang Ngai province and killed 450-500 men, woman and children (Hersh, 1970). The people that were killed were not combat troops. In fact, the soldiers under Lt. Calley did not receive any enemy gunfire before or during the massacre. United States Army personnel, like rifleman Paul D. Meadlo, a soldier who was giving children candy the day before the massacre, gathered up everyone in the village, old men and young girls alike, woman with infants in their arms and ordered them into one of three large ditches and methodically shot them to death (Zinn, 2001). On two previous missions, Charlie Company was hit from behind and lost personnel due to booby traps. On one mission Charlie Company lost 15 men, and on the next mission Charlie Company lost 28 men without seeing any Viet Cong. The men of Charlie Company were angry and frustrated at the invisible enemy (Hersh, 1970). The United States soldiers in Vietnam must have been confused and disorientated, due to the guerrilla tactics used in the war, unable to tell friend from foe (Bilton, 1993). Anyone who ran away once the killings began, were gunned down because they were suspected Viet Cong. Anyone who stayed was considered to be a possible enemy and killed. Lt. William L. Calley was charged and convicted of 109 counts of murder of civilian Vietnamese people. Lt. William Calley served three years of house arrest at Fort Benning for his crimes (Bilton, 1993). Ted Nelson wrote “A Battle Hymn of Lt. Calley” in his honor.

            Many people will obey authority or an authority figure even if one thinks that the authority figure is wrong. As was observed in the Milgram experiment, participants were willing to administer an electric shock to another person if the other person gave a wrong answer to a question. In Milgram’s experiment, the more questions that the actor answered incorrectly, the higher the voltage was administered. The actor, who was in another room, would make sounds of discomfort and eventually pain. If the subject began to question if they should continue, the authority figure would encourage the subject to continue on. Amazingly, 26 of the 40  subjects gave the highest, voltage of electrical shock to the actor, even though the switch had signs on them that said “danger: severe shock (Milgrim, 1963). Spec. 4 Max Hudson of the 2^nd Platoon testified that the night before the massacre at My Lai, orders had come down from Captain “Mad Dog” Medina. “He (Capt. Medina) stated that My Lai was suspected a VC stronghold. With this he ordered to kill everyone in that village” (Hersh, 1970). Obedience to authority is a very strong mechanism of persuasion especially if the authority figure, or origination, is perceived to be of a respectful source or if the person feels that they can pass on the responsibility to someone else (Milgram, 1963).

Some may argue that the American soldiers now, in our current time, are too evolved to take part in barbaric behavior as torture, humiliation, or prisoner abuse. Sadly one only has to point to the acts of United States military personnel in 2003 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.  Photos emerged of United States military personnel posing for photos while torturing and humiliating their prisoners. Lynndie England was famously photographed humiliating Iraqi prisoners while giving the thumbs-up gesture that made her infamous. According to Bageant, the low education standards in rural America, where some of the military personnel who were working at Abu Ghraib were from, was a contributing factor for the dishonorable acts that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison. Bageant suggest that if one had a better education they would be less likely to commit such acts of unethical behavior. Bageant continues on to suggest that the non-stop violence in American culture (e.g. TV, media, movies, videogames), has had a direct effect on the minds of American children, and can be a contributing factor for the lack of moral integrity demonstrated by some of the American military personnel at Abu Ghraib prison. “From the time I could walk I played games in which I pretended to kill Japanese, Indians, Germans, Koreans, Zulus….with plastic army men we tortured with flame, firecracker…We went to bed dreaming of the screams of the evil brutes we smitten that day… enemies of democracy and our way of life” (Bageant, 2007).

To choose conformity over common sense is a sad fact of human behavior. “Group pressure to conform despite individual misgivings” is the definition of “groupthink” (Brym & Lie 2007). In the Asch experiment, actors purposefully chose the wrong answer when asked which lines that were drawn on two different cards matched in length. The subject would 75 percent of the time give the same answer of the group even when they knew that the answer they were giving was incorrect. The Asch experiment famously demonstrated how group pressure can make someone choose the wrong answer or do something against one’s convictions just to be part of the group and not be “the odd man out” (Asch, 1955). Giving in to group pressure, or conforming to “majority rules”, can be the cause of acts as small as teasing a classmate that can lead to bullying or to large acts of unethical behavior. Lynndie England had a strong sense of wanting to belong, and was very eager to please. These traits that Lynndie England demonstrated prevented her from trying to stop the “bad things” that she said were going on at Abu Ghraib (Bageant, 2007).

The Jenness experiment again demonstrates how the desire to conform to the majority can be very powerful. In the Jenness experiment, Jenness put a glass bottle of beans on a table and asked participants to guess how many beans were in the bottle. Jenness interviewed participants individually and then again after the subjects talked with the group. The result was that the majority of the participants wanted to change their answers after consulting with the group (Jenness, 1932).

            It is easier to commit inhumane acts to fellow humans if you dehumanize them.

If one thinks that one is hurting a fellow human who has a family, or the person is someone’s mother, wife, or father one will be less willing to treat the person with humiliation, torture or inhumanely. But if the perceived enemy is dehumanized, viewed as less than human, and not deserving to be treated justly, fairly, or with respect, then it is easier for one to hunt and  kill the enemy or extract information by means of an enhanced interrogation processes (Maiese, 2003). If one attaches a disparaging label (e.g. “Slant-eyed”, “Gook”, “Towel-head”) to the perceived enemy then that label will further dehumanize them and make them susceptible to acts of cruelty. International law demands that all humans be treated with respect and dignity. The idea of meeting the basic needs of others is lost to a perceived enemy that has been dehumanized. Dehumanization can lead to intense hatred that can eventually lead to killing or genocide (Maiese, 2003).

The majority of American military personnel conduct themselves in an honorable fashion; however, it is the dishonorable acts that the media exploits for both good and bad reasons. The world has heard of the horrific acts committed at the village of My Lai and at Abu Ghraib prison-this fact hurts America’s reputation and casts an air of distrust on the American military. “The U.S. intervention in Iraq is troubled, to say the least, and now our own forces have handed our enemies a propaganda coup that trumps their best efforts” (Bowden, 2004). By learning about how and why these actions took place, Americans can learn how to avoid them in the future. 

           

II Personal

I have long wondered about why the massacre at My Lai happened. Last year, I worked at the airport. A handful of my coworkers were Vietnam veterans and I would, in a respectful manner, ask them about My Lai. The answers I always received were either “I don’t want to talk about it” or “I would just like to forget about that whole incident”. When I learned about Abu Ghraib, I was still active duty and hearing what happened at that prison made me angry. I thought, “No way, this is my generation and we don’t do those kinds of things. How the heck was that allowed to happen?” In class and by doing research for this paper I feel I have finally gotten the answers I have been long looking for.       

            Dehumanization of the enemy is a huge reason why unethical behavior is occasionally tolerated in the military; however, the reason it is taught, as far as I know from my military experience, is because when a soldier is given an order, that soldier is expected to follow it, period no questions asked. If the one giving the orders is acting out of rage or fear, and the soldier receiving the order is already viewing the enemy as not worthy of respect, then once the principles of groupthink are added we have a recipe for disaster.

 I joined the Marines after September 11, because I wanted to do something to help my country and to protect those who can not protect themselves. I wanted to do something that might help prevent something like the terror attacks of September 11^th from happening again. I would hear people saying, “We should just drop the bomb over there and turn the whole place into a sheet of glass”. I didn’t understand why people would say something so mean and heartless…now I realize that they were just scared, angry, and participating in groupthink.   

References

Asche, S. E. (1955) Opinions and social pressures. Scientific American (Vol 193 p.31-35) San Francisco, CA.: W.H. Freeman and Company

Bageant, J. (2007). Deer hunting with Jesus: dispatches from America’s class war. (1^st ed., p. 288). New York, NY: Crown.

Bilton, M. (1993). Four hours in my lai. (p. 448). Westminster, London: Penguin

Bowden, M (2004)  Lessons of Abu Graib. The Atlantic Monthly (Vol 293 p.33-36). Washington D.C.

Hersh, S. (1970). my lai 4: A report on the massacre and its aftermath. (1^st ed., p. 305). New York, NY : Random House Inc

Jenness, A (1932) The role of discussion in changing opinion regarding a matter of fact. The journal of abnormal and social psychology (Vol 27 p 279-296)

Maiese , M. (2003, July). Dehumanization. Retrieved from  http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/

McKinley, T. (2009, May 19). A soldier’s tale: lynndie england. Marie Claire, Retrieved from http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/lynndie-england-1

Milgram, S (1963 Oct.) Behavioral study of obedience. the journal of abnormal and social psychology. (Vol 67 p.371-378)

Robinson, B. (2004, Nov 14). Religious identification in the u.s. Retrieved from http://www.religioustolerance.org

Zinn, H (2001). A people’s history of the united states: 1492 to presen. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Does God Exist?

Wayne T. Mulei                                      

4 December, 2011

Does God exist?

Since the beginning of time man has looked up at the heavens and asked the question, “Is there a God? Who made this planet? Where did it all come from? Who made the original humans? Did the universe come about in a huge big bang? Or did it come about by a Divine Mover?” Everyone seems to have an opinion about the existence of God, be they a pastor at a church or your average Joe walking down the street. If one listens carefully, one will be able to pick out one of five different arguments for the existence of God. If the person arguing for the existence of God is skilled at debate, they will interweave their arguments. However, once one is able to identify the different arguments for the existence of God, through critical thinking, one will quickly come to the conclusion by using reason and logic that there is no substantial proof for the existence of a God.

            The ontological argument, by far the most common argument, is the first argument that most people will put forth. However, even though the ontological argument is the most popular it is the most ridiculous. The ontological argument says that God’s existence is imposed by the definition or concept of God (Oppy), or more plainly, that God exists because we as humans give characteristics to God. It is because of these characteristics that God exists. For example, God is powerful, all knowing and omnipotent so therefore He exists. One of the main problems with this argument is the argument is based on unsubstantiated information; it is not really an argument because the ontological argument is basing truth on nothing. Another problem with the ontological argument is the argument uses testimony or an “open declaration or profession of evidence in support of a fact” (Oppy); however, that fact is nothing more than personal belief. Some people will hold a book and point to it and say, God exists because this book says that He exists, and it is because the book says that God exists therefore He exists (Anselm). Here it is very easy to recognize the circularity of the ontological argument. What usually follows the ontological argument is a statement of damnation or if anyone does not believe the way I believe then they are a fool. Amy Kimoto in her essay, “Should I Believe in God”, points out that when arguing against the existence of God, one will be received with “utter closed-mindedness” (Kimoto).

            The cosmological argument is another common argument that comes up when discussing the existence of God. The cosmological argument differs from the ontological in that instead of hearsay or unsubstantiated information, the cosmological argument looks for proof for the existence of God. The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God by affirming that the universe and its parts can be neither accidental nor self-caused and must ultimately have been brought into existence by God (Reichenbach). Or, the universe exists, and it must have been created by someone. That someone is God or a “Prime Mover” (Reichenbach). Those that believe in the cosmological argument will argue that because people exist and nature exists, God must also exist. The refutation of this argument comes in the form of infinite regression. When arguing against the cosmological argument, one only needs to ask, “Who created God?” The answer will either be in the form of the ontological argument. For example God “just is,” however, one can counter “if God ‘just is’ why cannot the universe ‘just be’.” Or one will receive the answer that God’s father created God. Then when asked, “Who created God’s father?” the answer may be, “Grandfather God.”  This is an example of infinite regression. Infinite regression is illogical because something cannot come from nothing.

            The third argument is the most compelling, for it attempts to answer the question of purpose. The teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God based on the idea that the universe and its parts give evidence of purpose and/or design and therefore require a “Divine designer” (Ratzsch). The teleological argument attempts to answer the question of what and who gave plants and trees and ecosystems a purpose. When one looks at nature it is easy to see that everything is interconnected, everything exists for a purpose (Ratzsch).  Someone who is making a teleological argument may assert “If birds, dogs, and humans have a purpose, and everything in the world has a purpose,” then there must be a Divine designer to initiate purpose. This is a great argument and hard to refute; however, using critical thinking to assess the teleological argument, the flaw in this argument becomes clear. One may try to figure out what is the purpose for plants, animals, and humans, and may come up with a number of different ideas or solutions. For example, some may say, plants and trees exist for the purpose of producing food and oxygen that life is dependant on for survival. Animals might exist, for nutrition, clothing, tools, and a means of transportation for humans. The meaning of life and purpose for humans has been debated since the dawn of man, and a score of philosophers have come up with a number of solutions. However, a very large leap is being made from the beginning part of the argument of purpose of existence to, “there must be a Divine designer.” The teleological argument consists of a conditional statement. Or more plainly, the “if” and “then” part of the statement must be true, or the statement does not work; if everything has a purpose, then there must be a Divine designer (Ratzch). The teleological argument suggests that something tangible be can created by something intangible, and that is absolutely absurd.       

            The moral argument is the fourth argument that is common when trying to prove the existence of God.  The moral argument maintains that morality must come from and be guaranteed by a “Supreme being” or God (Byrne). Some people may state that there is “goodness” in the world and people can be good. God is good, God is perfect; therefore, God exists. The moral argument is vey similar to the ontological, in which humans give a human characteristic to God, in the case of the moral argument the human characteristic is “goodness”. The moral argument, like the ontological argument uses testimony and unsubstantiated information, therefore attempts to base truth on nothing. 

            The last argument for the existence of God is usually made when the one who is attempting to prove God’s existence has run out of ideas. Balise Pascal, a 16^th century philosopher, argued that belief in the existence of God is simply the “best bet”. “A rational person should wager as though God exists. Because living accordingly [living with the belief that God exists] one has everything to gain and nothing to lose” (Hajek).  This became known as Pascal’s Wager. However, a ratiocinative person will quickly dismiss Pascal’s Wager due to the unsophisticated approach Pascal takes towards faith and belief. Believing that something exists just because belief serves ones self interest does not mean that that thing exists (Hajek).

 By understanding and by being able to identify the different arguments for and against the existence of God, one will not be easily swayed or deceived by someone who is merely a good orator. One will be able to look objectively at all the different arguments and be able to make an educated decision through critical thinking. Nevertheless, one will quickly realize that there is no substantial proof for the existence of God. God’s existence has to be taken purely on faith. However, one cannot argue against faith with reason and logic, because what is faith if not belief absent of proof, or believing in something with no proof of existence. Foolish people will say that faith is a beautiful thing; however, putting faith in a fictitious and angry God has been the cause of countless wars and death.

When reading this one may come to the conclusion that I do not believe that God exist. That is not the point I was attempting to make. The point that I want to make is that through education one will not be deceived by a good speaker who is trying to make one of these arguments. 

  

Works Cited

Adams, W. Royce., ed. Viewpoints. New York: Wadsworth, 2010. Print.

Byrne, Peter, "Moral Arguments for the Existence of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Hajek, Alan, "Pascal's Wager", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Kimoto, Amy. “Should I Believe in God?” Adams 268-269.

Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Ratzsch, Del, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Reichenbach, Bruce, "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

The Best Friggin' Slice in Town

Wayne T. Mulei

09-23-2011

Eng. 98r

Restaurant Review

The Best Friggin’ Slice in Town

As soon as you step into the door of Nu Yalk Pizza you get the feeling that you have stepped into another dimension, into another time and place, Little Italy in New York City circa 1980 perhaps. This pizza joint come recommended by locals and viewed with suspicion by out- of –towners. From the old Broadway sign to the gruff looking staff, you know that you are in for a treat. Nu Yalk Pizza is truly unique to Reno.

Where did Nu Yalk Pizza come from? The first thing that you will notice when you drive into the driveway, located on the corner of Moana and Kietzke, is the large sign on the front of the building. In block lettering the sign reads Nu Yalk Pizza. You laugh a little because of the obvious gimmick of the owner trying to spell out New York Pizza in a New York accent. You learn later, after questioning the cook, that this pizza parlor was originally called New York Pizza but after an apparent epiphany, by the owner Rick Crocitto, realized that there are hundreds of pizza parlors nation-wide with the same name New York Pizza. Rick wanted his pizza parlor to be unique so Nu Yalk Pizza was born.

Ordering and paying your food is an experience all in itself. As you walk into the door you are greeted with a “How you doin?” (voice infection dependent on the gender of the customer) by one of the cooks. Your order is taken by a longhaired fellow named Matt, he tells you that he has been working here since the late 90’s, you can’t help but notice the two pizza tattoos that he has on his elbows, and think to yourself, “what the heck?” He goes on to tell you that 85% of the customers who come in here are from New York or had lived there. Matt, like the rest of the staff has a rugged look about him and one wonders about that sanitariness of the establishment.“Whadalya have?” he asks you. You look to the menu and notice the moderate prices, one slice of cheese cost $2.16 with an additional $0.58 for a topping. “Two slices of pepperoni” you reply, Matt instantly scribbles “2P” on a receipt and slaps it into your hand as he simultaneously yells over his shoulder, “Two pep!” to the other cook . The cook takes a large cheese pie from the cooling rack, he cuts out two slices and carelessly throws some pepperoni on them, he then grabs a well-used pizza peel, black with soot, and scoops up the slices and slips them into the large oven behind him. As you walk over to the cash-register, you look up at the drink menu. They offer half a dozen of different draft beers, wine (straight from the box), and a self-serve soda station. Some of the sodas that they offer here you do not find vary often in other pizza parlors around town, such as, Hire’s Root-Beer, RC Cola and Sunkist to name a few. As you reach for your wallet to pay you notice the cashier eyeing the large tip jar in front of the register, you wonder if he is trying to use some Jedi mind trick to get you to put money into the jar, well it works, you put in a dollar to the instant joy of the cashier.

It’s not just about the food, it’s about the place. You take a seat, at a table with a stainless steel top, and you look around. The ceiling has an industrial theme to it with pipes running though. “What the hell are ya doin!” someone yells at the large T.V. at the front of the restaurant that has the ball game on with a slice in his hand. On the brick wall at the back of the restaurant hangs an old subway map with graffiti on it. “Two slices of pepperoni at the bar.” is called over the loud speaker, you go and retrieve you food from the bar. On a dented metal plate with wax paper sits your two slices so large that they barely fit on the plate. You think of getting a fork but remember the ridicule that comedian Jon Stewart gave Donald Trump when Trump was pictured eating a slice with a fork “ la forcella di satana!” (Italian meaning “the fork of Satan) and think better of it. You pick up your large thin slice and fold it in half, as is the custom when eating New York style pizza, you are instantly hit with an over powering strong flavor of oregano and garlic. “Food of the Gods” you think to yourself as you eagerly devour your slices.

There is no pizza joint quite like Nu Yalk pizza here in Reno. If you are looking for a slice and a little taste of New York, “with Big-Apple style dinning in the Biggest Little city of the World” head over to NuYalk pizza.

Testimony+Quantity = Knowledge?

 How much testimony (open declaration) is needed for that testimony to become knowledge? The problem here lies in the question. If someone studies or is told the same thing continually that person will become narrow minded and ignorant. It is not how much or quantity of the study that one needs to be concerned with but the quality and variety of that information. If a seeker takes a variety of different information, then one can make an educated decision. Then that becomes knowledge.  Also one need to be able to ask the right questions. One knows that he is asking the right questions with experience. In order to get experience one needs to ask a whole bunch of wrong questions. Never stop asking questions and seeking knowledge.

Direct Democracy

Wayne Mulei

Sept. 15, 2011

SOC 101

Response Paper 1

America’s Static Government

According to Webster’s Dictionary, Ethnocentrism is the belief in the superiority of the nation, culture, or group to which one belongs. It is believed that the United States’ form of government, representative democracy, is the best form of government. A representative democracy, as defined in Am Gov 2011 by Losco and Baker, is a form of government that restricts popular decision, or the will of the people, by making the general public elect officials who create public policy. In my opinion, this form of government is outdated. A direct democracy is a form of government that extends the political decision-making to every citizen, as opposed to a few elected individuals.

Ancient Greece practiced direct democracy; free citizens would make their opinions known in open-air assemblies. With today’s population, having every citizen give their opinion in an open-air assembly is somewhat impractical. However, with modern technology we can have a synthetic form of an open-air assembly through the internet. For every large issue, such as, going to war, we should authorize a national vote. Citizens would log into a secure web site, with all the safety and incorruptible measures that online banking web sites utilize, enter their social security number, and cast their vote on whether or not to start or participate in an ongoing war. We have the technology, to allow every citizen to make his or her voice heard. The national education level is at a point where the average citizen can make an educated vote on any number of important topics. The House of Representatives, where representatives are elected by the direct vote of the people, would need to stay in place to take care of the mundane business of running a country; however, changes would need to be made.

Each state should have equal vote in the House regardless of state population. We are “one country, indivisible” (Pledge of Allegiance 1892). If each state has equal representation in the House of Representatives and each citizen has a direct voice, through the power of voting, along with the government the nation would uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence; therefore, having a direct democracy would be a practical and effective form of government.

Many people today feel that their vote does not matter so they do not vote. When the 2000 presidential is analyzed, it is hard to disagree with people who are discouraged about voting. In a direct democracy, an electoral college is not necessary. We have made large advances also in the way of communications; using this technology could avoid the debacle of the 2000, Bush vs. Gore election. According to the 2000 election results, Al Gore received 543,895 more general election votes than George W. Bush did. However, George W. Bush won the presidency because he had won more of the electoral votes.  How different would the world look today if in the January 2002 State of the Union address President Bush did not label Iraq as part of the “Axis of evil”? Would of the United States invade Iraq, against the wishes of the United Nations, if Al Gore were in office? Would Al Gore have looked at the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 as an act that required a response to invade Afghanistan, followed by Iraq, followed by Pakistan, or as an act of 19 people who wanted to do something really big and pay for it with their own lives? These questions are now left to speculation.

 The reason that direct democracy is not practiced in the United States today is because a representative democracy had already been established before we had developed the advances in technology that we currently enjoy. President Obama said in his September 8, 2011 Presidential address to Congress, “Americans are a strong, rugged, independent people.” I feel we do not need to be held back by tradition in a dynamic world. Americans should have a direct voice in American government. We are the people who have to fight the wars when there is a call to arms. Before me, and Americans like me, are sent half way around the world to kill someone that we do not even know, I want a say in the matter- a direct democracy would allow us to have that say.