The films Jurassic Park and The Matrix Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

The films Jurassic Park and The Matrix - Essay Example This research is the best example of comparison of the films Jurassic Park and The Matrix. There exist some similarities and dissimilarities between both these films and directors. To be specific, the most important similarity is that both the films represent the same theme, future of human race and development within science, computing and information technology. The basic difference is that both the directors superimpose the same theme in different contexts. One can easily identify that the film Jurassic Park is symbolic of the industrial scope of amusement parks. So, the Jurassic Park which consists of cloned dinosaurs represents the human effort to exploit the scope of amusement parks as an industrial venture. In the film, the spark of greed that can be viewed in the eyes of John Hammond (owner of the park) while inviting the experts to the park (opening scene) prove that industrial interest is the grass root level reason behind the construction of the park, not mere amusement. O n the other side, the film The Matrix deals with the scope of philosophy that can be inculcated to the scenario of cinematography. To be specific, the portrayal of the protagonist (Neo) as a superhuman in a number of fight scenes is interconnected with the philosophical concept of super-humanism put forth by Nietzsche. So, the film Jurassic Park represents the influence of industrialization in the field of amusement and the film The Matrix represents the influence of philosophy in the cinematography. ... Besides, Spielberg’s earlier films like E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (released in 1982) proves that he is utmost interested in creating imaginative creatures and imaginary worlds. On the other side, the Wachowski brothers were deeply influenced by different fields of knowledge, art and entertainment. For instance, the philosophic content of the conversation between Neo and Morpheus proves that Wachowski brothers made use of philosophy in this film. Besides, the film’s theme is symbolic of the influence of literature and spirituality. Themes and narrative techniques The dominant theme in the film Jurassic Park is the danger of manipulating scientific experimentation for entertainment value and harmful effect of human interference into the rules of nature. On the other side, the film The Matrix deals with the same theme because the director provides ample importance to the drawbacks of the development of science and information technology, especially computing. One can easi ly identify that this film portrays the human dependence on machines and its consequences in future. On the other side, the narrative techniques made use by Spielberg and Wachowski brothers is different. For instance, Spielberg makes use of background sound to create terror in the minds of the viewers and to manage the story information. For example, the sounds of the dinosaurs (artificial) played in the opening scene and the close ups in scene 3 leads the viewers towards an imaginative world of dinosaurs. On the other side, the film The Matrix makes use of the theme music (say, not sound) and visual effects like ‘bullet time’ as an innovative narrative technique to mesmerize the viewers. Visuals/stylistic characteristics

Web Communities Essay Example for Free

Web Communities Essay The movie Julie and Julia directed by Nora Ephron and starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams released last year 2009 is the story of Julie Powell (played by Amy Adams), a call canter agent in Lower Manhattan Development Corporations in New York in 2002. Her job is answering phone calls and providing assistance to all the victims of September 11 attacks and other related complaints. This movie made an impact to all people who loves to cook besides having regular work. What makes this movie significant is that it is based on Julie Powell’s blog which has indeed made an impact. Her blog eventually went on to become a book in 2005 titled Julie and Julia: 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen which was later renamed Julie and Julia: My Year of Cooking Dangerously when printed on paperback. Her book, as well as that of American culinary icon Julia Child (played by Meryl Streep), My Life in France, would be the basis of the film’s story. From one dream, the story itself influenced everybody. All the wonderful ideas and dreams to make it happen are really hard to do. But in this movie, the two main characters give their insight on how they make their dreams come true and they believe on it. As Julie takes on the challenge to cook all the recipes in the book of legendary chef Julia Child titled, Mastering the Art of French Cooking which was published in 1961. She plans to cook all of her 500-plus recipes within a year. At the same time, Julie would write a blog to share her cooking progress and she also shares it to everybody through online blogging that her husband Eric taught her how to write a blog. He is a very patient husband who strongly believes in her that she is a good writer and she can accomplish the challenge. At the same time, the scenes from the movie would shift to Julia Child, depicting the early years of her cooking career in Paris (Ephron). On the first day of the challenge, Julie writes all her plans on that day and what kind of recipe she will cook. At first, it seems that everything awkward or strange. She also wonders if there is anybody listening on her while she is writing down her progress. From time to time, whenever she updates her blog, it seems like she is talking to herself. She is also expecting that someone would leave comments for her. One day, while she was in the office, she received the first and only comment from somebody, and she never expected that it would come from Julia Child herself, who commented that Julie must be clueless about what she is doing. Each passing day, she is having difficulty in some of the recipes because of the instruction and it also shows her aversion to eggs but she took it as a challenge to cook and eat it for the first time in her life and realized she loves it. So many days passed for her to complete the challenge, and blogging gives her a lot of devotion until she finally accomplished it. (Ephron) Blogging is made for personal writing about ones person life, writing and updating it with whatever one wants to write, whether it is about a hobby or some other interest one would like to share with others. When people read blogs, it would arouse their interests and from there create a chain reaction as more and more people would write a blog on a similar topic they share and sooner or later, became something worth discussing. Blogging has a way of attracting people who share common interests and the end result is the creation of web communities. Although this is also mirrored by real-life communities, one advantage web communities have is it is more far-reaching and can go beyond borders and touch base with anybody around the world which is virtually connected online. This is one of the wonders of the Internet as it connects people the world over transcending borders and uniting them with a common interest. Works Cited Julie and Julia. Dir. Nora Ephron. Perf. Amy Adams Meryl Streep. 2009.

The Ideology Of The Ruling Party Politics Essay

The Ideology Of The Ruling Party Politics Essay India with a population of around a billion and an electorate of over 700 million is the worlds largest democracy and, for all its faults and flaws, this democratic system stands in marked contrast to the democratic failures of Pakistan and Bangladesh which were part of India until 1947. Unlike the American political system and the British political system which essentially have existed in their current form for centuries, the Indian political system is a much more recent construct dating from Indias independence from Britain in 1947. The current constitution came into force on 26 November 1950 and advocates the trinity of justice, liberty and equality for all citizens. In stark contrast with the current constitution of Japan which has remained unchanged, the constitution of India has been one of the most amended national documents in the world with more than 80 changes. Many of these amendments have resulted from a long-running dispute involving the Parliament and the Supreme Court over the rights of parliamentary sovereignty as they clash with those of judicial review of laws and constitutional amendments. Indias lower house, the Lok Sabha, is modelled on the British House of Commons, but its federal system of government borrows from the experience of the United States, Canada and Australia. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH The head of state in India is the President. This is normally a ceremonial role, originally modelled on the British monarch to advise, encourage and warn the elected government on constitutional matters. The President can return a Parliamentary Bill once for reconsideration and, in times of crisis such as a hung Parliament, the role is pivotal. The President can declare a state of emergency which enables the Lok Sabha to extend its life beyond the normal five-year term. As members of an electoral college, around 4,500 members of the national parliament and state legislators are eligible to vote in the election of the President. The Indian Presidency has recently attracted special attention because for the first time a woman now occupies the role: Pratibha Patil who was formerly governor of the northern Indian state of Rajasthan. There is also the post of Vice-President who is elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of both houses of parliament. The Vice-President chairs the the upper house called the Rajya Sabh. The head of the government is the Prime Minister who is appointed by the President on the nomination of the majority party in the lower house or Lok Sabha. Currently the Prime Minister is Manmohan Singh of the ruling United Progressive Alliance. Key features of the Prime Minister (head of government): Commander in Chief of the military and acts as ultimate military authority. Through the cabinet proposes the bulk of legislation to the House of the People Acts as the head of the Majority party in the House of the people and is installed. No term limit and can be removed through a vote of no confidence. Key Features of the President (head of state) key features: elected to 5 year terms. Ceremonially appoints the Prime Minister Appoints the Cabinet Ministers Can dissolve the Lok Sabha after the Prime minister loses a vote of no confidence. Can declare national state of emergency or Presidential rule of a state. Ministers are then appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and these ministers collectively comprise the Council of Ministers. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH The lower house in the Indian political system is the Lok Sabha or House of the People. As set out in the Constitution, the maximum size of the Lok Sabha is 552 members, made up of up to 530 members representing people from the states of India, up to 20 members representing people from the Union Territories, and two members to represent the Anglo-Indian community if it does not have adequate representation in the house according to the President. Currently the size of the house is 545 made up of 530 elected from the states, 13 elected from the territories, and two nominated from the Anglo-Indian community. By far the largest state representation is that of Uttar Pradesh with 80 members. At the other end of the scale, three states have only one representative each. There are certain constituencies where only candidates from scheduled casts and scheduled tribes are allowed to stand. Each member except the two nominated ones represents a geographical single-member constituency as in the British model for the House of Commons. Each Lok Sabha is formed for a five year term, after which it is automatically dissolved, unless extended by a Proclamation of Emergency which may extend the term in one year increments. This has happened on three occasions: 1962-1968, 1971 and 1975-1977. Elections are a huge and complex affair which nationwide are held in five seperate rounds taking a total of 28 days. Link: Lok Sabha The upper house in the Indian political system is the Rajya Sabha or Council of States. As set out in the Constitution, the Rajya Sabhahas has up to 250 members. 12 of these members are chosen by the President for their expertise in specific fields of art, literature, science, and social services. These members are known as nominated members. The remainder of the house currently comprising 238 members is elected indirectly by the state and territorial legislatures in proportion to the units population. Again, of course, the largest state representation is that of Uttar Pradesh with 31 members. The method of election in the local legislatures is the single transferable vote. Terms of office are for six years, with one third of the members facing re-election every two years. The Rajya Sabha meets in continuous session and, unlike the Lok Sabha, it is not subject to dissolution. Link: Rajya Sabha The two houses share legislative powers, except in the area of supply (money) where the Lok Sabha has overriding powers. In the case of conflicting legislation, a joint sitting of the two houses is held. If there is a conflict which cannot be resolved even by the joint committee of the two houses, it is solved in the joint session of the Parliament, where the will of the Lok Sabha almost always prevails, since the Lok Sabha is more than twice as large as the Rajya Sabha. POLITICAL PARTIES In India, political parties are either a National Party of a State Party. To be considered a National Party, a political party has to be recognised in four or more states and to be either the ruling party or in the opposition in those states. Ever since its formation in 1885, the Indian National Congress (INC) and its successor has been the dominant political party in India. For its first six decades, its focus was on campaigning for Indian independence from Britain. Since independence in 1947, it has sought to be the governing party of the nation with repeated success. As a result, for most of its democratic history, the Lok Sabha has been dominated by the Indian Congress Party which has been in power for a great deal of the time. However, since the Congress Party lost power in 1989, no single party has been able to secure an overal majority in the Lok Sabha, making coalitions inevitable. Also, unlike Japan where the Liberal Democrat Party has been in power almost continuously, Congress has had (usually short) periods out of power, between 1977-1980, 1989-1991 and 1996-2004. The original Congress Party espoused moderate socialism and a planned, mixed economy. However, its spin-off and successor, Congress (I) I in honour of Indira Gandhi now supports deregulation, privatisation and foreign investment. While the Congress Party has historically dominated Indian politics, the leadership of the Congress Party in turn has been dominated by one family: Jawaharlal Nehru, Indias first Prime Minister, served for 17 years; his daughter Indira Gandhi later became Prime Minister; his grandson Rajiv Gandhi was also Prime Minister; currently the widow of Rajiv Gandhi, the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi holds the position as Congress President although she has refused to accept the post of Prime Minister; and her son Rahul Gandhi is a Member of Parliament, while her daughter Priyanka Gandhi is an active political campaigner. The Indian Congress Party is the leading party in the Centre-Left political coalition called the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) which embraces a total of 16 parties. The other major, but more recently-established, political party in India is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Created in 1980, it represents itself as a champion of the socio-religious cultural values of the countrys Hindu majority and advocates conservative social policies and strong national defence. The BJP, in alliance with several other parties, led the government between 1998-2004. The Bharatiya Janata Party is the leading party in the Right-wing political coalition called the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). When it was originally founded in 1998, there were 13 parties in the coalition but currently there are eight. A Third Front is a grouping centred on the Communists. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in civil, criminal and constitutional cases. The court consists of up to 26 judges, including the Chief Justice of India, all of whom are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. They serve until the age of 65. THE STATES India is a huge country both demographically and geographically and consequently it operates a federal system of government. Below the national level, there are 28 States and seven Union Territories. The largest of Indias states is Uttar Pradesh (UP) in the north of the country. With over 175 million inhabitants, UP is the most populous state in India and is also the most populous country subdivision in the world. On its own, if it was an independent nation, this state would be the worlds sixth biggest country. Only China, India itself, the United States, Indonesia and Brazil have a higher population. In Indian general elections, it fills more than one-seventh of the seats in Indias Parliament and, such is the states caste-based and sometimes violent politics that, currently a quarter of UPs MPs face criminal charges. Over the years, India has evolved from a highly centralised state dominated by one political party to an increasingly fragmented nation, more and more influenced by regional parties and more and more governed locally by unstable multi-party alliances. In the General Election of 2009, Congress and the BJP faced each other in only seven of the 28 States; elsewhere, one of the two national parties faced a regional party. CONCLUSION Politics in India is much rougher and much more corrupt that in the democracies of Europe and North America. Political assassination is not uncommon: the revered Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984, and the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 were all killed by assassins. Communal, caste and regional tensions continue to haunt Indian politics, sometimes threatening its long-standing democratic and secular ethos. Recent years have seen the emergence of so-called RTI activists tens of thousands of citizens, often poor, sometimes almost illiterate, frequently highly motivated who use the Right To Information legislation of 2005 to promote transparency and attack corruption in public institutions. In the first five years of the legislation, over a million RTI requests were filed and so threatening to authority have some of the RTI activists become that a number of have been murdered. (B) The ideology of the ruling party Political parties in India love to talk about ideology. Each political party is supposed to have an ideology. So even if a political party does not have any ideology, it will never say so. If you were to ask probing questions about a partys ideology to a staunch loyalist of the party, you would either be bombarded with a short, nebulous and high-sounding label or be told that the ideology is too complex for anyone to understand so quickly and one would need to spend a few years in the party to really understand the ideology of the party. The mystification of ideology goes back in Indian history to Gandhi. From around 1920 to 1947, Gandhi ruled over Indian political scene through the ideological direction that he provided to Congress. Gandhian ideology was supposed to be very simple, based as it was on just two simple principles of truth and non-violence. Yet, it was not so simple. Nobody, during Gandhis time (and even after his death), could claim to have understood Gandhian ideology completely. Followers of Gandhi would claim their degree of understanding of the ideology based on the years they had spent with Gandhi. Ideology of Gandhi consisted of all that he spoke over the years. If there was an internal inconsistency or contradiction in his utterances or actions, it was not for a Gandhian to question it. All that an ordinary mortal could do was to just look with reverence at all that Gandhi did. If Gandhi deviated from what he had said in the past, it was hailed as development of Gandhian thought and was acclaime d as an experiment with truth. On the other hand, if anyone else moved a step beyond literal words of Gandhi, it was condemned. Gandhi was surely a great leader. But his ideology did not live past him. Even his brightest follower, whom he liked most, did not follow his ideology. Nehrus dreams of modern India had nothing Gandhian about them. As long as Gandhi lived, for Congressmen, sole source of ideology was Gandhi. After Gandhis death this position passed on to Nehru. After Nehru, there was a brief interlude when Lal Bahadur Shastri in his position as the sole fountainhead of Congress ideology proclaimed Jai Jawan, Jai Kissan. Soon after the interlude, Indira Gandhi stepped in. Her vision of socialism was a departure from Gandhi, Nehru and Lal Bahadur Shastri. Such departures did not bother Congressmen who, by that time, knew only one ideology Boss is always right. Less than a decade after Indira Gandhis death, a Congress Prime Minister initiated reforms and demolished licence-permit-quota-raj built assiduously by Indira Gandhi and Nehru. The same Congressmen, who had been declaring their unflinching loyalty to Nehru-Indira ideology, now were the champions of economic reforms, liberalization and globalization. Temples of modern India, built as part of Nehrus vision, were to be sold as part of disinvestment and Congress was applauding. The irony is that the author of economic reforms has now become the prime minister of India with support of socialist and communist parties. He continues to talk of reforms in the same breath as reservations for backward classes in private sector. Ideological contradictions have never bothered Congress. The party has evolved through contradictions and probably that is its greatest strength. Irrespective of all that Congress leaders may shout from public platforms, the essential ideology of Congress is pragmatism. Cynics might say that pragmatism is a lofty word for collective unbridled pursuit of self-interest. But that is just another way of looking at Congress, which claims to be a party that knows how to rule. It is a party that knows how to mould itself to suit the circumstances. If it sees wide support for Hindutwa, it will jump to the Hindu bandwagon. One cannot forget that Rajiv Gandhi took the lead in production of TV serials like Ramayan and Mahabharat; and Sardar Patel took the initiative for reconstruction of Somnath temple. On the other hand if Muslim fundamentalism is the flavour of the month, Congress can even get parliament to pass a law that overrules a Supreme Court judgement. Being on the right side of the ideological divide, in line with changing times, is a natural gift of the Congress. The party can be different things to different persons and no one can afford to make a categorical statement about the ideology of Congress. As they say, it is so profound and complex that you will need to devote a lifetime to understand it and may be even then you would still not have understood it. Of course, if you are fortunate enough to become President of All India Congress Committee and Prime Minister of India, every statement you make will be accorded the status of Biblical truth. There are a large number of Indian parties, which are just clones of Congress. Most of them are regional parties. They have failed to become national parties because (a) they are unable to match the brand goodwill that Congress enjoys and (b) they do not have the resources that Congress commands. Many of them are successful in their region because their leaders are able to maintain a closer (compared to Congress and other national parties) contact with local aspirations and are able to better satisfy the collective unbridled pursuit of self-interest of the breed that is known in todays India as political workers. The importance of this breed cannot be overemphasized. Socialist thinkers (Ram Manohar Lohia and others) drew from this breed and created a sub-breed called socialists. This sub-segment is characterized by extreme individualism. For socialists, the pursuit of self-interest is hardly collective. Socialists get together and separate at such a quick pace that one loses track of who is in which party. Their individualism gets a collective tinge in the form of catering to family ties and caste interests. India is probably the only country where all socialist parties are casteist. There are also caste-based parties whose only ideological commitment is catering to the interests of one or more set of castes. Such caste-based parties also often paint themselves with socialist colours. Caste as a reality of Indian politics has not spared even the communists. Yet, it must be admitted that communists remain the only group in Indian political jungle with a fairly well defined ideology. Of course, having an ideology is different from following it. Communism, as propounded by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or Mao Tse Tung, is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Its existence in a free democracy with mixed economy is an anachronism. For the past five decades, Indian communist parties have been trying to come to terms with existence in a democratic society. Till the collapse of Soviet Union, at least one of the Communist parties received indirect financial and moral support from Soviet Union. The fall of Soviet Union was a big blow for Indian communists in more ways than one. To survive, almost all communist parties have turned lobbyists for organized labour. Most public sector units and a few large private sector industries have communist trade unions. These trade unions pro vide the funds for running of communist parties in India. Dictatorship of the proletariat has, hence, turned into pressure tactics and lobbying for more and more benefits for the pampered unproductive workers of unprofitable public sector industries. If providing these benefits makes it necessary to impose higher taxes on the proletariat, the communists do not mind it. According to Marx, industrialization was a necessary perquisite for communism. Indian communists have, however, led to a virtual stoppage of industrialization in the two states of Kerala and West Bengal where they have ruled for a long time. The communist political worker is not much different from the general breed of self-interest driven political workers. A few years back, an erstwhile close friend moved from being a full time worker of a communist trade union to Bharatiya Janata Party via Hindujas (a well-known business family). He was welcomed with open arms by the top brass of BJP. Today, he is part of the topmost echelons of BJP. Most people are surprised by, what they see as, his ideological somersault. The fact is that in the ideology-less world of Indian politics, there is a good demand for expert players who can play this game with aplomb without any pangs of conscience. Till a few years back, BJP did not recruit from the floating pool of such expert players. RSS used to provide BJP with all the manpower that it needed. Even today bulk of BJPs manpower needs are met by supplies from RSS. For past seven decades or so, the organizational structure of RSS with its roots spread across the length and breadth of the country has been inspiring a new and different set of volunteers to step into public life. This set did not come into public life for the gains of power or for amassing wealth. Before BJPs rise to power in some states, they used to endure great hardships. The zeal and commitment of RSS workers was praised by even their adversaries and critics. RSS workers were fired by an ideology, often called as Hindu nationalism, that could best be described as a mix of nationalism and strong religious sentiments. RSS did not invent Hindu nationalism. The ideology is more than a century old. Towards the end of nineteenth century, Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Swami Vivekanand, working independently, built a religious-political movement that in due course became the foundation of Indias freedom struggle. Both of them were bitterly opposed by the orthodox elements of Hinduism at that time. They espoused a version of Hinduism, which was progressive and reformist. This was unacceptable to Shankaracharyas and other authorities of Hindu community. In a way, Dayanand-Vivekanand combine represented one ideology and Shankaracharyas represented quite an opposite ideology. In the initial years, RSS represented the former, but it never spelled its ideology in explicit terms. To an extent, RSS felt that ideological confusion would help it attract all sections of Hindu society, so all ideological debates were forbidden. Its aim to become an omnibus diluted its ideological focus. RSS chose to replace ideology with emotion. Senior leaders of RSS preached that organizations are built on the basis of bonds of heart and not on the basis of intellectual debate. Bonds of heart are useful for building a large voluntary organization, but they are of no use when one has to govern or take key decisions in fields of economic or strategic policy. This explains the floundering of BJP as a party of governance. RSS was built to be a fighting machine. The operating software of this machine does not have the capability to deliberate on profound complicated issues. Action rather than thought is the key focus of RSS as well as BJP. It is hence not surprising that RSS, as well as BJP, lacks clarity on all ideological issues. As an example, let us take the case of Common Civil Code. For more than five decades, RSS and all its offshoots have been demanding a common civil code. In this long period it has never occurred to them to prepare a draft of the proposed common civil code. I have asked senior leaders of Sangh clan about what they want in the common civil code. Their stock reply is that as and when they are in a position to pass such legislation, they will appoint a group to prepare such a draft. In other words they acknowledge that they do not even know what should be the broad contours of the code for which they have been shouting for half a century. Lack of depth marks every single ideological plank that RSS and BJP claim as their essential identity. Of course, I have not spent a lifetime working with the Sangh clan and Sangh loyalists would be quick to shout that I lack the essential qualification to comment on their ideology. Have we heard that before? Yes, Congressmen say the same. In a way, BJP has just become a clone of Congress. What Gandhi is to Congress, Guru Golwalkar and Dr. Hedgewar are to BJP. BJP officially claims to follow the ideology of EKATM MANAVWAD (translated by them as Integrated Humanism), propounded by Deendayal Upadhyay. I have yet to meet a BJP leader who can explain the ideology in some depth. You may, of course, try to work as an apprentice with some BJP leaders and hopefully before the end of your life you would know what integrated humanism is all about. The ideological vacuum in BJP is filled by one universal ideology Boss is always right. So, just as Congressmen look up to Sonia Gandhi as the fountainhead of ideology, BJP cadres look up to Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani. RSS, which claims to be the mother organization of BJP, has lost its moral high ground. RSS still supplies bulk of manpower for BJP. But, for a BJP leader, utterances of Atal-Advani are more important than the noises coming from RSS headquarters at Nagpur. Ideological somersaults committed by Atal-Advani have often confused laymen. Diehard BJP loyalists have, however, been quick to change tacks as and when the bosses jumped. These loyalists have risen in BJP hierarchy and live a life of luxury with all the trappings of power. As BJP leaders have got used to a life of luxury, a major change has come about. Word has gone around that the right channel to get into BJP goes via RSS. As a result, the profile of volunteers entering RSS has undergone a sea change. Emotionally charged, ideologically inspired zeal and commitment are now history. Career-oriented would-be politicians with dreams of power and luxury are entering RSS en route to BJP. They ask no questions and are too willing to jump with every somersault of the leadership. The conversion of BJP into a Congress-clone or a club for collective unbridled pursuit of self-interest signals a national crisis. A decade back, BJP (and Sangh clan) was seen to be the great hope for India. Today, BJP is just another party of petty politicians. India has lost all hopes from her political class, which is intellectually, morally and ideologically bankrupt. A country without hope is in a danger zone. India cannot remain in this zone for long. A new ideology and a new political party, which will be the torchbearer of the new ideology, is the need of the hour. As the new ideology and party take shape, we can either curse our luck for living in this hour of crisis of ideology or we can work for heralding the new sunrise. (C) The strength of opposition The opposition in a democracy plays as important a role as the government. For a strong and sensible government to work in a proper way, according to the will of the people, and equally strong and sensible opposition is a must. Such an opposition is the secret of the success of democracy in England, the oldest democracy of the word. There is mainly one strong political party is opposition. In this lies the strength of democracy in that country. On the other hand, in Indian there are a number of opposition parties constantly quarreling among themselves. This is the greatest weakness of Indian democracy. In India there is no strong, united and healthy opposition. There are various reasons for it. No industrial revolution has taken place in this country. The result is that the working class is not politically conscious and, therefore, it is disunited and weak. The opposition parties do not have any clear cut programmes and policies. Their approach is often communal, sectarian or regional. Their leaders are confused and have no idea of their aims and objectives. They quarrel for power and there are frequent splits. There are often defections on a large scale. People do not have faith in such parties, and so they fail to secure a majority in the elections. In the legislature itself, their leaders indulge in destructive criticism to gain their political ends. They keep party interest above national interest. The role of opposition in a democracy is very important. The opposition accelerates the growth of the county or retards its growth by untimely agitations. For example, the violent agitations in Gujarat, Bihar, Assam and Punjab resulted in great loss of life and propensity and failed entirely to gain their objectives. The Governments policy of State Trading in Food grains was wrongly criticized for political reasons. The result was that procurement targets could not be reached and wheat had to be imported to build up comfortable buffer stock. This was essential to hold the price-line. Such a destructive approach is against the national interest. The role of opposition in a democracy should be healthy. It should criticize the Government policies in the national interest and not for part gains. The opposition parties must come together and merge on the basic of similarity in their ideologies. Universal illiteracy and universal poverty, unhealthy linguist, regionalism, racism and casteism characterize Indian life. They are all obstacles in the way of the growth of a cohesive social and political life in the country. There is a mushroom growth of political parties due to the selfishness and lack of far sightedness of their leaders. Parties can come together on the basis of common ideology. But in India the party alliances are opportunistic, the only common ground between them being their hostility to the Government. Obviously, such alliances are bound to be short lived. For example, the Janta Party was a coalition of a number of political parties. So it, could not rule the nation for any length of time. It was thrown out of power due to the inter-quarreling of the opposition parties. In a democracy the aims of the Government and the opposition should be the same- the good of the people. The opposition should criticize the government to implement its manifesto. It should criticize the government only to make it more efficient and honest. Criticism should be based on sound principles. Opposition parties should keep in mind that they may be called upon by the people to form the Government by any time. They should, therefore, function in a responsible way. Prior to 1967, the opposition was divided into an array of small parties. While the Congress garnered between 45 percent and 48 percent of the vote, no opposition party gained as much as 11 percent, and during the entire period, only two parties won 10 percent. Furthermore, in each election, independent candidates won between 12 percent and 20 percent of the vote. The oppositions first significant attempt to achieve electoral unity occurred during the 1967 elections when opposition party alliances won control of their state governments in Bihar, Kerala, Orissa, Punjab, and West Bengal. In Rajasthan an opposition coalition prevented the Congress from winning a majority in the state legislature and forced it to recruit independents to form a government. The Congress electoral debacle encouraged even more dissidence within the party, and in a matter of weeks after the elections, defections brought down Congress governments in Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. By July 1967, state governments of two-thirds of the country were under opposition rule. However, opposition rule in many cases was short-lived. The aftermath of the 1967 elections initiated a climate of politics by defection in which the Congress, and to a lesser extent the opposition, attempted to overthrow governments by winning over their state legislators with promises of grea ter political power and outright bribes. Needless to say, this period seriously undermined the ability of most parties to discipline their members. The increase in opposition-ruled state governments after 1967 also prompted the Congress to use Presidents Rule to dismiss opposition-led state governments with increasing frequency (see Emergency Provisions and Authoritarian Powers, this ch.). Although the centrist and right-wing opposition formed a grand alliance during the 1971 parliamentary elections, it was not until the general elections of 197

Dream :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When thinking about the video and reflecting on it, I found my reflections very different from those of which I had when I first saw the video. The first time I saw that video was either fourth or fifth grade. I can remember feeling sorry for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. because of the way he was treated and that fact that his life was cut short. As I’ve grown and matured I believe that Dr. King wouldn’t want people to feel sorry for him. I feel that MLK knew and believed that his works and his assassination served a greater purpose. He stated in the video that people who believe in something but don’t fight for it are as good as dead because their soul already is. I feel that Dr. King knew that his life was in constant danger and that if or when he would be assassinated that it would only strengthen the cause he was fighting for. To this day, I’m still thankful for everything that he did because it is very possible that had it not been for his calm and rational ideas on how to make change, we could still have a country that is divided.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"I have a dream† has so many different meanings that it only matters to the person who is stating the quote. My belief is that Dr. King’s dream was a world that was equal and that people were truly judged on what kind of human being they are instead of being judged on what kind of human being they look like. At the same time I think that â€Å"I have a dream† is just that, a dream. No matter how much we teach and try to make our society equal and fair, their will always be some degree of segregation whether it is based on race or not. What is probably most satisfying to MLK is that although we as a society haven’t met his complete dream, we have made significant strides in improving and moving towards his dream.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Dr. King’s key idea in my opinion spawns the rest of his key ideas.

William Stafford and Randall Jarrell

William Stafford and Randall Jarrell There are two poetry writers that have wrote very good pomes and have quite a few that are popular. To compare and contrast two, it would have to be â€Å"Traveling through the Dark† by William Stafford and â€Å"The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner† by Randall Jarrell. These two authors have a different way and style they write there poems, that is why it makes sense to look at these two really close and really see how they write and how they get the message across. Both Stafford’s and Jarrell’s poem is in the book read in class so having read these two works it is somewhat familiar what they are about.But further reading is needed to really understand what these poets are trying to say and what they are writing about. So it is best to read these poems or any poem in general, more than one time. Just so it becomes easier to understand the words and the theme. To compare and contrast these two poems every detail makes a difference because that way the reader understands what is going on in the poem. When a poet begins to write a poem there is always that one message they are trying to get across or a little story they are trying to tell.So as a reader, it is important to read a poem more than once to really understand it. Imagery is a big key that both of these poets use. This is good when writing so that the readers are interested when reading the poem and to really draw mental pictures in the heads of the readers. Metaphor is also a big tool used in poetry, and without that many poems do not make sense. In both of these poems there is metaphor but it is not very clear to see sometimes. A lot of poets just ramble on with words and sometimes is not clear on what they are trying to say.So with these two poems you see how one is easier to read than the other. In William Stafford’s â€Å"Traveling through the Dark† it is very clear on what he is writing about and the theme is simple to u nderstand. But in Randall Jarrell’s â€Å"The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner† it is not that easy to get if you just read the poem once. Randall Jarrell is a type of writer that criticizes a lot of other writings he does not like. He gives a lot of harsh criticism because he is a big fan of literature so by seeing work that is badly written he is not afraid to come out and say something about it.But many other writers say over time he softens up because he is worried about the writer’s extinction. Even though he was really tough on other writers work, Jarrell’s passion for writing shows in his poetry. His poetry is more of the modern plain style which other famous writers use like Robert Frost. Jarrell likes to write about ordinary experiences that connect to the reader’s feelings. Not all of his poetry makes sense like â€Å"The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner† if it is only read once. Jarrell writes in a colloquial voice and mostly all hi s poems have no development in them.He will write about a topic and just go one and one but you do not see what he is really talking about at first. When you read Randall Jarrell’s work there is a lot of critical thinking that is involved and a lot of questions. For example in this poem the title says â€Å"The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner† and by seeing the word â€Å"Gunner† it makes sense to say this poem might be about war or a fighter plane. Jarrell’s other work was a lot about war because that is what he enjoyed to write about, so it only seems right that this poem is about war. But when you read it at first it seems as if he may be writing about an abortion.Because he uses the word mother, it may throw off the reader but he uses a lot of imagery in the poem, so when you think about it, it may connect to an abortion. The â€Å"Gunner† in this case could be the doctor and the Ball Turret could be the mother’s womb. Since he connects a lot of his work to war the Ball Turret could be the sphere like space where the pilot of a jet fighter would be in and the Gunner of course would be the enemy. And when the character in the poem was attacked he went upside down in the turret, little sphere, and looked like a fetus in the womb.But when a reader reads it for the first time it is not as clear, so it is safe to say that Randall Jarrell’s type of writing is not as clear and makes the reader think while reading. Jarrell’s poems were meant to have the reader really think about what they are reading to a point where one might get confused. So now there is the other side where it is much easier to read and comprehend what the author is saying. Stafford’s work is mostly always dealing with the outdoors and that’s mainly because of where Stafford grew up. He is also known for his unique method of composition and soft spoken voice.You can easily tell by reading his work because he does not try to c onfuse the reader and just gets the main point of the poem out there. Unlike Jarrell, Stafford goes into a lot of detail and uses imagery to show the reader what to think about while reading. For example, his poem â€Å"Traveling through the Dark† is taken place along a roadside near the woods. The poem is viewed as a dramatic lyric because Stafford develops the scene just like a playwright. You have the characters (speaker, deer); setting (nighttime on Road) complication (â€Å"swerve might make more dead†); action (â€Å"dragged†) climax (â€Å"pushed deer over the edge†).When you first read the poem it seems simple, that there is a dead deer on the road and the speaker pulls over and pushes the dead deer over the bank into the river. Yes the dead deer is pregnant because the character explains how he could feel the warmth on her belly, and yes he decides to roll it into the bank to prevent accidents. But why does Stafford write about a dead deer on the road. It is to show how a person unexpectedly faces a crisis which tests his or her moral sensitivity in everyday life. And that is what Stafford mostly writes about, everyday life situations.So by looking at these two poets you can see that Randall Jarrell likes to write with so much passion and wants it to be so perfect that sometimes his work is not easily understood. Jarrell wants the reader to think about what they are really reading, but sometimes bores the reader. Now William Stafford also wants the reader to think about the theme but it is much clearer on how he sets up his poems. He uses more and clear imagery so that the reader can see what the main point to the poem is. And these two pieces of work are good examples on how these two poets write their feelings and thoughts down.

Biography of Jan Hus, Religious Reformer and Martyr

Biography of Jan Hus, Religious Reformer and Martyr A century before Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses criticizing the Roman Catholic Church, Czech pastor and church reformer Jan Hus pointed out the same problems. The Church labeled Hus a heretic and burned him at the stake. But Hus complaints would not die with him. Instead, they sparked a wildfire of protest that roared across Europe, changing Christianity forever. Early Life and Career The birth of Jan Hus around 1370 was of little notice in the southern Bohemian town of Husinec. His parents were peasants, and as an adult, he shortened his surname from Husinec to Hus. By 1394, Hus had earned a bachelors degree at the University of Prague. Two years later he added a masters and became an instructor at the university. A struggle at the university pitted the German masters, who opposed church reform, against the Czech masters, who admired the writings of John Wycliffe (1330 - 1384), an English reformer who translated the gospels into English. Wycliffes writings found their way into Prague about 1401, worsening the split between the Germans and Czechs. Hus Discovers Wycliffe Hus found himself agreeing with many of the points Wycliffe had raised. For example, Wycliffe considered Scripture to be the supreme authority, not the pope. He also opposed the sale of indulgences, Church documents which supposedly shortened or terminated a souls stay in purgatory. Wycliffes belief in trusting in Christ alone for salvation, rather than good works or obeying church rules, later became a cornerstone of the Reformation. Hus also agreed with Wycliffes plea for restraining clergy, who had become powerful landowners in Bohemia. Hus denounced the sin of simony, the practice of using a church position to profit from selling pardons or church appointments.   Church and Politics Needless to say, Hus positions were not popular with the local bishops and the pope. In 1403, Johann Hubner, one of the anti-reform German masters at the university, drew up a list of 45 of Wycliffes articles and condemned them as heresy. Besides the upheaval caused by the fledgling reform movement, this was a period of chaos in the Roman Catholic Church. There were two popes, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII, and a later election resulted in a third, Alexander V. Archbishop Zbynek Zajic of Bohemia, initially a supporter of Hus, turned against him and bribed Pope Alexander V to prohibit preaching in private chapels. Hus preached in Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. When Hus refused to follow the popes order, Archbishop Zbynek excommunicated him. Still, Hus continued to preach and teach at the university. Once more, the matter of indulgences came up when Alexanders successor, Pope John XXIII, sold them in Bohemia to raise money. Hus again condemned the practice, but that did not sit well with King Vaclav IV of Bohemia, who received a share from indulgence sales. Without Vaclavs support, Hus was excommunicated by the Roman curia. A church interdict was placed on Prague in 1412, which meant Catholics could not receive sacraments or be buried in church cemeteries. To spare the city, Hus fled to southern Bohemia, where he stayed in exile at the castles of friends. Hus Writes Feverishly In an attempt to answer charges against him, Hus wrote a lengthy book titled The Church (de Ecclesia) in which he asserted that Jesus Christ, not the pope, is the head of the church. Hus stated that Christ is the Rock upon which the church is built, not Peter. While Hus declared Catholics were obligated to obey the church when its laws were based on Scripture, he said they had no duty to obey when humanmade rules could not be supported by the Bible. In his book On Simony, Hus attacked the common practice of simony, rampant in the 15th century. Affluent parents bought high church positions for their sons, most of whom showed little interest in the gospel. That led to a string of lazy, corrupt church leaders. During that period Hus also penned a long series of letters to everyone from personal friends to the people of Prague to cardinals and the pope. Much of what is known about him comes from those documents. His other works explained the Ten Commandments, the Apostles Creed, and the Lords Prayer. Of course, many of Hus positions undercut church authority, a stance that further alienated him from the local archbishop and Rome. Hus was dangerously unaware of just how much he was hated by church officials. Betrayal and Execution In 1414, a naive Jan Hus traveled to a church conference in Constance, Germany, believing he would have the chance to defend himself before a group of church fathers gathered to discuss the situation of three sitting popes. Hus was promised safe passage there and back by King Sigismund of Hungary, Vaclavs half-brother, but when Hus arrived, he was arrested and thrown in prison. Located next to the latrines, Hus unsanitary cell stunk. The reformer grew so ill that treatment by the popes doctor and relocation to another cell were needed to keep Hus alive. When Hus finally appeared before the council, the loathing against him was overwhelming. Sigismund, caving to political pressure, secretly withdrew his vow of protection. The council concocted 30 false articles they said Hus taught, including that he was the fourth person of the Godhead. Every time Hus tried to defend himself, he was shouted down. On July 6, 1415, Hus was dressed in priestly vestments then ceremonially defrocked. He refused to recant his beliefs. Dragged to the place of execution, he was bound to the stake with a chain around his neck. Men piled wood up to his chin. Given one last chance to recant, Hus proclaimed his innocence. As the fire overtook him, Hus could be heard singing, Jesus, son of the living God, have mercy on me. Reformation Legacy Hus impact on later reformers was immense. In 1520, Martin Luther confessed, I have taught and held all the teachings of Jan Hus, but thus far did I not know it . . . In short, we are all Hussites and did not know it. Most mainstays of Protestant theology can be traced to Hus: Christ alone as head of the church, strict adherence to the Bible, all worship readings and sermons in the local language, reception of both wine and bread in communion, daily Bible reading by Christians, and the danger of temptations in culture. As a Catholic priest, Hus never advocated breaking from the church. Instead, he called for change, for reforming the corrupt bureaucracy of the church and returning to the nonpolitical norms of early Christianity. The system called his appeals heresy.   Jan Hus Fast Facts Full Name: Jan Hus  Also Known As: John Huss, Johann Huss  Occupation: Priest, theologian, teacher   Born: Between 1369 and 1372 in Husinec, Czech RepublicDied: July 6, 1415, in Constance, GermanyEducation: University of PraguePublished Works: The Church, On Simony, lettersKey Accomplishments: Inspired church reformers like Martin LutherFamous quote: In life eternal, there is perfect joy and light, without pain or torture, and there is communion with God Himself and His angels. Sources Christian History Institute.  To Build a Fire. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/to-build-a-fire.Reformation 500. Jan Hus. https://reformation500.csl.edu/bio/jan-hus/.C.S. Lewis Institute. The Legacy of John Hus. cslewisinstitute.org/The_Legacy_of_John_Hus_FullArticle.Online Library of Liberty. Jan Huss,  The Church  [1411]. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/huss-the-church.Christianity Today, Christian History. John Huss, Pre-Reformation Reformer. https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/martyrs/john-huss.html.Encyclopedia Britannica. Han Hus, Bohemian Religious Leader. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Hus.The Famous People. 18 Thought-Provoking Quotes By John Huss That Prove Hope Springs Eternal. https://quotes.thefamouspeople.com/john-huss-87.php