Origin of surnames

Origins of Surnames
In todays society we all want to know who we are and where our names originated from. Our names are what give each of us our own style and individuality, the importance of style and individuality can be related back to our original surnames. Our surnames have come from all areas of the world, each with specific meanings to our family. Surnames or last names have an important meaning to all of us, they give us identity through our familys history. Looking back into history our names have changed drastically, keeping some people from knowing how their surnames really originated. Surnames originated early in history and did so for many reasons.

The first knowledge of surnames was in the biblical times, they used names that went by geography, for example Corey of Carlisle. The actual use of surnames originated in Europe, and in some Scandinavian areas, in the eleventh and fifteenth century by small villages. The reason that no surnames were used before this time was the fact that most people were illiterate, living in small villages in a country atmosphere. Living out in the country these people had no reason to learn to read or write, because their lives were lived off the land. They did not need surnames to signify who they were or what they did. In these small villages they went by their first names, people all had different first names, so they did not need surnames to tell people apart. But when the population of the villages grew, it became important to have surnames to identify two people with the same name. The use of surnames showed social class, culture, tradition and, the jobs they worked.
The forming of surnames first came from other names by which someone was called. The name Johnson originated from the son of John, and the same goes with my last name Richardson. In some countries they would use their mothers first name for a surname, such as Paige. Jimmy Paige, from the band Led Zeppelin, could say his surname originated this way. Other origins of surnames came from places and geographical names. The surname England or Penn show this quality. Obviously England is a country and Penn is shortened from Pennsylvania. Surnames like Smith ( as in blacksmith ) and Carpenter ( one who works with wood ) come from the jobs that these people held. Surnames are also known to originate from description of a particular family. The surname Stern would mean that they family was strong. People with descriptive surnames wanted others to know what family standards they had. Nature and social status also played a major role in surnames. Surnames like Byrd, Foxx, Winters and, Spring are names commonly found in nature. And surnames like Bachelor, Knight or, Squire are based on a persons social standing. The changing of these original surnames, cause many problems for people in todays society.

Our current society is often unaware of their true original surnames. In the search for freedom our ancestors decided to come to America. By coming to America our ancestors surnames changed, the clerks at Ellis Island either misspelled or shortened their names. Almost all names changed for these people entering America. Bauch became Baugh, Siminowicz became Simmons. In some cases our ancestors themselves changed the family name, so they could have the full feeling of being Americanized. In this case their names generally became shorter or totally different names. Some of the names that changed were; Mlynar became Miller, and Shwarz became Black. Mlynar changed but also kept a similar background, but Shwarz changed to Black making it easier for pronunciation. The origin of surnames have kept our minds wondering who we are or where our ancestors came from.

Curious about where my surname, Richardson, originated, I began to research it. I started out on the Internet and then I headed to the library. I found many things that did not pertain to my current search, but I kept on plugging away to find what I wanted. I found that my surname was from an old Cheshire family traced from a Norman origin before the year 1100 AD. The surname had belonged to nobles, castles, estates and manors. The Richardson surname spread throughout Europe, by the way of offspring, in the eleventh and twelfth century. The first settlers to the states by this name settled in New England in 1637 and then the name branched off towards Virginia in 1640. The research of my surname helped me to identify my past and what significance my surname has.

It is important for us to know what our surnames are so we can identify our past. Our past is something, just like surnames, which explains what we represent and what significance
we have. Many of us will find that particular surnames have cultural importance. Presidents or people with high social standing and their surnames are remembered because these people changed our society. Remembering what our surnames are is not as easy. The spellings of our
surname, and the pronunciation of them has changed over centuries. In many cases the change occurred so long ago that people in todays society are not aware of what it used to be. For our own specific reasons, the origin of our surnames and the importance of it means a great deal.
Surnames give each of us our own style and individuality, and this is all important to us in todays society.

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE

Napoleon was one of the most important figures in European history. As one of the greatest military leaders, Napoleon did many things to modernize the European nations he ruled.

In 1769, Napoleon Bonaparte was born in Ajaccio, Corsica. His middle class family was of Italian descent. After completing his education, Napoleon went to France to become a solider.
In Napoleon’s first battle as leader of an army, he became famous. By pointing artillery at the British, Napoleon drove them out of Toulon. The Directory then sent him to Italy to attack an army of Austrians. After this victory, Napoleon gained more fame and was known as a hero.

Along with his brother and soldiers, Napoleon carried out a Coup D’etat. Coup D’etat is an illegal take over of the government by the military. Napoleon then gained the title First Council, or dictator of France.

During his dictatorship, Napoleon developed a system of laws called the Napoleonic Code. Under these laws, all citizens were considered equal, were granted freedom of religion, and were ensured jobs according to their ability. The laws also helped to establish the bank of France. Paper money was provided for the first time, and citizens were required to pay taxes. Napoleon also enforced laws of the revolution. Aside from the development of the Napoleonic Code, Napoleon developed a Lycees’. This was the beginning of the public school system.
In 1805, Napoleon was involved in a series of wars. The first was the Battle of Trafalgar. In this war, Napoleon was defeated by the British navy. This defeat ensured Britain’s control of the seas. Next was the Battle of Austerluz. Napoleon defeated an Austrian Army three times the size of his. This was considered his masterpiece victory.

After these two battles, Napoleon crowned himself emperor of the First Empire of France. It was then that he adopted the name Napoleon I. As the emperor, Napoleon developed the Continental System. This system forced all countries controlled by France to close their ports and forbade trade with England. This was done because England was Napoleon’s mortal enemy.

In 1808, Napoleon began his conquest of Spain. The Guerilla war led to an uprising by the entire population. French troops, were raided and killed by the Spanish. The French retaliated the attack with executions.
Two years later in 1810, Nationalism became an issue in Germany. Small German states began two rise against the French. They had a deep sense of pride in their culture, and did not want Napoleon to destroy it.
After battling with Britain, Spain, and Germany, Napoleon invaded Russia. The purpose of this invasion was to enforce the Continental System. In 1812, a Russian winter and the Russian strategy of Scorched Earth defeated Napoleon and his army of 500,000 men. This was Napoleon’s worst defeat. It has been said, “it was the beginning of the end.”
This defeat forced Napoleon to give up his crown and go into exile to Elba. Louie XVIII was brought back to France to restore the Monarchy. In 1815, Napoleon returned from his exile. His return was known as Hundred Days.

During his second reign, two armies attacked France simultaneously. Napoleon attacked the Duke of Wellington’s British troops first. This was known as the Battle of Waterloo, the most decisive battle in history.

On June 15, 1815, Napoleon was defeated by the British. He then gave up his throne for the last time. He again went into exile, only this time he went to St. Helena. He remained there until 1821 when he died of stomach cancer.

The legacy of Napoleon is an important part of history. He gave birth to European Nationalism and wrote the basis of today’s French laws. As you can see, Napoleon truly was a hero to France.

Panasync

Vinny Testaverde ne Vincent Frank Testaverde, etais ne le 13 Novembre
1963. Il est mainteant 65 et il pese 235 lbs et jou qaurt arriere pout les Jets
de New York. Il etais ne au Elmont et vie ici maintent. Quand Vinny etais
enfants il voulais joue au football mais car
son pere etais un pilote ils devis demanager beacoup. Vinny alais au Fork
Union Military Academy pout quel ques anne. Apres ce la il et alle au
Miami. En Miami Vinny a gange le Heisman Trophy, All American
Selection, et Davey Obrian Award et a terminer lecole avec le plus de pass
dans lishtoire de lecole avec 6, 058 verges. Dans son dernier anne il a
Commance evec un record de 11 victories et 0 defets. En 1987 il etais chois
Premierment dans la draft par Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Dans so premier anne
dans le LNF il a eu le record pour le plus de verges dans un juex avec 369,
ce record stais plus tard batu par Dru Bledso. En 1987 Vinny a aussi gange
All Rookie Selection. En 1988 Il a terminer lanne avec 4,079 verges total. Il
A de nouveau gage le record pour le plus de verges dans un jeux avec 469 et
Jusqo date ce reste son record personnele. En 1990 Vinny avais le plus de
Verges moyen par pass avevc 9.8 verges. Il a aussi eu un Touche en courant
48 verges, ce la et encors un record pour lequipe. En 1991 Il ce blesse
Deux fois le premiere au aorty el le deuxieme au doit.
Words
/ Pages : 262 / 24

The Death Penalty: To Be or Not to Be…

For the past several months Americans have regularly listed crime and
violence as the number – one problem facing the nation, far surpassing worries
over the economy or health care.

Despite the many government and community initiatives launched during
recent years to reduce crime, most Americans see no improvement. In a 1993
survey asking respondents if they felt crime was increasing or decreasing in
their areas, only 5 % felt that it was decreasing, a full 93 % felt that crime
was either increasing or staying the same. And it is not just statistics: I
consider myself along with those 93 %. Because while Guiliani administration is
talking about crime rates in the New York City going down, all I see and hear
in the media are reports about horrible crimes committed by New Yorkers.

As George Pettinico states in his article ” Crime and punishment:
America changes it’s mind “: The media’s extensive coverage of crime, especially
the most brutal and horrific cases have heightened the public’s fear and anger
over this issue to a near frenzy. When asked in January of this year, ” How
often do you see reports of violent crime on television ? ” 68 % replied “
almost every day “.

Although the media have played an important role in raising the public’s
awareness of lawlessness, crime in America is far from a media – created
phenomenon. Government statistics support the image of a nation which has
overwhelmingly lost the war against crime. For instance, in 1960 there were 161
reported violent crimes per 100,000 people By 1992, the figure had jumped to 758
per 100,000 — a rise of over 350 %.

More and more people today are starting to think that something is
terribly wrong when a modern, civilized nation must confront statistics like
these. The American public is demanding an end to this violence, and surveys
show that they believe swift and harsh punishment is the most appropriate and
effective means to these ends.

The death penalty, or as it is sometimes being called ” capital
punishment ” is the hardest punishment that could be received when a person is
convicted of a capital offense. Until recently it did not exist in New York
State but after new governor, George Pataki was elected he managed to bring it
back. Since September 1, 1994 the death penalty law was in effect. And even
though, as far as I know, there is no strong statistical evidence that the death
penalty lowers the murder rate, many people were very happy with that decision.

What they probably though was” some people would not commit a murder, rape
or another violent crime if they would know that they could get on a death row
for that “.

However, my personal opinion is that death penalty has to be justified
on its own goodness, rather than by some pragmatic result it brings about. The
governor and legislature of New York State evidently agree with this contention,
for they enacted a death penalty law in the face of falling rates for murder and
other serious crimes.

Currently there are two opinions about the death penalty law. First
opinion is that the existence of such a law helps keeping the crime rates down.

The opposite one is about a fact that killing people should not be done by
anybody, including state and federal law enforcement system. Let us take a
closer look on both of those opinions.

Bringing the death penalty law back to life was a part of Gov. George
Pataki’s election program. As we have seen learned from the media and from the
results of numerous surveys, a quite large number of people who supported George
Pataki, were doing that mainly because of this part of his program.

But does having a death penalty law actually help keeping the crime
rates down? The answer is in the statistics: it turns out that the violent crime
rates in New York State did not go down for the past year since the death
penalty law was in effect. Another thing that would surprise those who support
death penalty is it’s price. The fact is: each death penalty case costs about
2.3 million dollars. That is three times more than a price for keeping a person
in a prison for the rest of his life. Here is what Mr. C.Hoppe states in his
article ” Executions Cost Texas Millions “: For the states which employ the
death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case
costs taxpayers an average of $ 2.3 million, about three times the cost of
imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40
years.” A lot of articles were published in the newspapers and magazines
concerning the question of a death penalty law.

One of those articles lists many arguments against the death penalty.

Here is what David Dunlap writes about the death penalty:
” Opposition to the death penalty does not arise from misplaced sympathy for
convicted murderers. On the contrary, murder demonstrates a lack of respect for
human life. For this very reason, murder is abhorrent, and any policy of state –
authorized killings is immoral.


Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is
arbitrary and irrevocable. It forever deprives an individual of benefits of new
evidence or new law that might warrant the reversal of a conviction or the
setting aside of a death sentence.

The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal
protection of the laws. It is applied randomly at best and discriminatorily at
worst. It is imposed disproportionately up on those whose victims are white, on
offenders who are people of color, and on those who are themselves poor and
uneducated.

The defects in death – penalty laws, conceded by the Supreme Court in
the early 1970s, have not been appreciably altered by the shift from unfettered
discretion to ” guided discretion. ” These changes in death sentencing have
proved to be largely cosmetic. They merely mask the impermissible arbitrariness
of a process that results in an execution.

Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no
longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is
legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns.

Reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and
distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its
control. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of
crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-
crime measures that will really work.

Capital punishment wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of
courts, prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel, juries, and courtroom and
correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it
is therefore counterproductive as an instrument for society’s control of violent
crime. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to
violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems. “
As we can see, from these points of view, death penalty in it’s every
aspect is a thing that American society must get rid of .

But, as in every issue that involves the life of the human being, there
are different kinds of opinions regarding the death – penalty law. Some people
actually believe in effectiveness and usefulness of a death penalty. Even though
those opinions are not backed up by any facts or statistics, there still is a
very large number of people of all races, ages and genders who support the
death – penalty law. Lawrence Altman is a part of the group of people who
support the capital punishment. Here is what he thinks are the main arguments
for having a death penalty : ” Is it described in a Holy Bible that a death
penalty is required for a wide variety of crimes, such as murder, rape, etc.

Another reason why the death penalty should be in effect is that many
people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice
and / or vengeance.

Deterrence is another fact that speaks for the capital punishment: many
people feel that the death penalty will deter criminals from killing. However,
there are no known reliable statistics that support this belief.

Also capital punishment reduces the costs that are required for
imprisonment: once a convicted murder is executed and buried, there are no
further costs. “
My personal opinion regarding this article is that listed above
arguments for the death penalty are very wrongful and could be easily turned
down by the results of numerous surveys and different statistics.

Even the fact about the Holy Bible is wrong because, The Holy Bible
speaks positively against any killing of a human being whatsoever. But that is
exactly what capital punishment is – a killing of a human being that is
authorized by law.

The statement about criminals being deterred by the presence of a death
penalty is wrong also. According to statistics, the violent crime rate in New
York State did not go down since the death – penalty law became effective.

Another fact from statistics is that numbers of committed violent crimes
in the states that do have a death penalty law and numbers of committed violent
crimes in the states that do not have that law are approximately the same.

Another false opinion about the death penalty is that it killing the
convicted murderer actually reduces the costs. As we learn from the Mr. Hoppe’s
article, ” Executions cost Texas millions “, the cost of executing a convicted
prisoner costs three times more than keeping him in the cell for 40 years. As we
can see, the above opinion does not have any sense.

The only true fact about the usefulness of a death penalty is the fact
that many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need
for justice and / or vengeance. The only bad thing about it is : executing a
criminal does not bring his victim back to life. Even though some people fell
relieved when the murderer is executed, there is no way to reverse the crime(s)
that he has committed.

Even though almost everything and everybody speak against the capital
punishment, I think that people who committed violent crimes should be punished
to the fullest extend of law, which capital punishment basically is.

As well as no human being deserves to be executed, no human being
deserves to have his or her life taken away by the criminal. The laws of living
say: ” Sooner or later you will be responsible for everything you do in your
life, whether you like it or not, and whether you regret it or not “.


Category: English

Lord of the flies theme analys

Theme Analysis on the book, “Lord of the Flies”
The theme of Lord of the Flies has been questioned and speculated about for decades. Golding, the author, said that the theme was to trace the problems of society back to the sinful nature of man. He wrote the book to show how political systems cannot govern society effectively without first taking into consideration the defects of human nature.


The defects of human nature are exemplified in Golding’s novel through the characters of Jack and his hunters. Here, Golding shows that men are inherently evil; if left alone to fend for themselves, they will revert back to the savage roots of their ancestors. This is seen in the novel near the end, when the tribe is hunting Ralph. Matters had become quite out of hand by this time. Even the naval officer who saves the boys knows their society has become savage.
Yet Golding’s last comment in his press release criticizes not only the boys on the island but also the society of adults in which the officer lives. Golding asks— while the ship saves the boys from killing each other, who will save the ship from killing other ships or being killed? In this way the society of the outside world mirrors the island society on a larger level. Remember that the novel takes place during World War II. Golding got the idea for the book because of his experiences in the war, where he served in the Navy and learned the inherent sinfulness of man. It’s interesting that the war is mentioned indirectly at the beginning and end of the novel but nowhere in between. This is a remarkable literary device of Golding.


After reading any significant portion of this site, it will become obvious that Piggy and Jack symbolize two opposite extremes of human behavior while Ralph is pulled between these philosophies. Piggy demands adherence to the rules of his auntie while Jack subscribes to the philosophy, “If it’s fun, do it.” Ralph empathizes with parts of both sides; that is why he walks the tight rope. Eventually he seems to side with Piggy, but actually Ralph never changes his philosophy— it is Jack and the rest of the boys who become more extreme in theirs (hunting humans, forming their own tribe, etc.). In this way Ralph portrays the role of government in any modern society. While he wants to satisfy the wishes of the public, he must also realize that certain rules of behavior must be followed in order to prevent anarchy.


Unfortunately anarchy defeats order. This is the outcome because Golding believed that government is an ineffective way to keep people together. No matter how logical or reasonable, government will eventually have to give in to the anarchical demands of the public.

Turn of the screw

“Henry James was born at two Washington Place in New York City on April 15,1843. He was the second son to Henry James, Sr., an independently wealthy intellectual, and Mary Robertson James. From 1843 to 1845, James took his first trip to Europe. He lived in New York City with his family at 58 West 14th Street. James was educated privately by governess and tutors in New York and Albany. In 1855, he traveled to Europe with his family and attended schools in Switzerland and France.

In 1860, with the outbreak of the Civil War, The James family moved back to the United States and settled in Newport. James was unable to enlist in the Union army with his two younger brothers due to a back injury he received when putting out a fire. In 1863, James and his older brother William attended Harvard. James did not complete his studies to pursue his writing career. William graduated from Harvard and became one of the most prominent American philosophers and psychologists of his time.

James began his professional writing career with book reviews for the North American Review. His first short story, “The Story of the Year,” appeared in Atlantic Monthly in 1865. In 1866, the James family moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts. James had his first novel, Watch and Ward serialized in Atlantic Monthly in 1871. In 1877, James wrote The American, while visiting Paris and Rome. In 1878, The Watch and Ward appeared in book form, and James wrote French Poets and Novelists (criticism), and The Europeans (novel). While visiting Paris and Italy in 1879, he wrote Daisy Miller (novella), An International Episode; the critical biography, Hawthorne; and The Madonna of the Future and Other Tales. The following year, he wrote the novel, Confidence, while traveling in Italy. In 1881, James wrote the novels, Washington Square and The Portrait of a Lady. He traveled back to the United States due to his mother’s weakening health. James’s mother died in February of 1882. His father died shortly after in December of the same year. He returned to the United States for a short period to settle family matters before leaving to establish permanent residence in England.

In 1883, James published his first collected edition of novels and tales in fourteen volumes in The Siege of London (tales) and Portraits of Places (travel). In 1886, James published the novels The Bostonians and The Princess Casamassima. In the same year, he leased a flat in Kensington, England. In 1887, James traveled around Switzerland and Italy in the company of Constance Fenimore Woolson, a novelist, and grandniece to James Fenimore Cooper. In 1888, he published Partial Portraits (criticism), The Aspern Papers (tales), and The Reverbrator (novel). James published A London Life (tales) in 1889 and the following year published The Tragic Muse (novel). James wrote two unproduced plays called Theatricals. In 1898, James’s The Turn of the Screw was serialized in Collier’s Weekly January through April and was also published in book form.

Between the years of 1899 and 1910, James published The Awkward Age (1899 novel), The Soft Side (1900 tales), The Sacred Front (1901 supernatural novel), The Wings of the Dove (1902 novel), The Ambassadors (1903 novel), William Wetmore and his Friends (1903 biography), The Better Sort (1903 tales), The Golden Bowl (1904 novel), The English Hours (1905 travel), The American Scene (1907 travel), The High Bid (1908 drama), Views and Reviews (1908 criticism), Julia Bride (1909 novella), Italian hours (1909 travel), and The Finer Grain (1910 tales).

In 1904, James visited the United States for the first time since 1883. He suffered from a nervous disease in 1909. In 1911, James received an honorary degree from Harvard and returned to England. The following year, he earned one from Oxford University. In 1913, James wrote his autobiography entitled A Small Boy and Others. The following year, he wrote Notes on Novelists with Some Other Notes (criticism) and another autobiography entitled Notes of a Son and Brother.

Deeply disturbed by World War I, as James was with all wars, James did refugee and hospital work during the war. In 1915, James became a citizen of Great Britain. On December 2nd of the same year, James suffered from a stroke. After receiving the Order of Merit from King George V, the following year, James died in Chelsea on the 28th of February. His ashes are buried with his family’s in Cambridge Massachusetts. In 1917, an unfinished autobiography was published entitled, The Middle Years.” (Heller)
The Turn of the Screw is a story related by a young governess, who describes the haunting events that took place while she was caring for two children in an English country house during the 1840s. The Turn of the Screw can be divided into main parts: “a short prologue by an unnamed narrator and an autobiographical narrative by an unnamed governess.” (Heller p.8) In the prologue, a group gathered for Christmas is telling stories. One of the people tells a ghost story about the experiences of his sister’s governess. He was a friend of the governess, and she had given him her written documentation about the events, which he read to the group.

“The governess’s story concerns her first job. When she is about twenty, she accepts the position of governess to a pair of orphans, ten-year-old Miles and eight-year-old Flora.”(Heller p.9) Their uncle gives the governess specific instructions never to bother him, no matter how big the problem might be. At first his unusual wish makes her doubtful about taking the position, but becomes infatuated with him and accepts in an effort to please him. While the first impression of the housekeeper, Mrs. Grose; the house; and the children are all delightful, she eventually, discovers that two ghosts are haunting the children. From the governess’s descriptions of the apparitions, Mrs. Grose identifies them as two deceased employees, Miss Jessel, the former nanny; and Peter Quint, the valet of the children’s uncle. Mrs. Grose suspects that they had been lovers and that the “children were in some undefined ways participants in this illicit relationship” (Heller p. 9) The governess believes that the spirits have returned to haunt and posses the children in order to continue their wicked deeds. “For the love of all evil that, in those dreadful days, the pair put into them the children. And to ply them with that evil still, to keep up the work of demons, is that what brings the others back.” (James p. 47)
The governess tries to protect her charges, but it is difficult to find a way to discuss the situation with them, because she suspects the children are willingly receptive to the ghosts. “Furthermore, despite much circumstantial and inferential evidence, she is never perfectly sure that the children communicate with the ghosts. She loves Miles and Flora dearly and is unwilling to introduce them to thoughts of evil if she is mistaken in her interpretation of what she has seen.”
Finally convinced that the children see the apparitions, the governess confronts each child. She feels that if the children confess, it will free them from the ghosts’ influence. Both children deny ever seeing the ghosts. Flora becomes feverish and the governess sends her away with Mrs. Grose. She remains with Miles, and will not let him leave her until he confesses that he sees the ghosts also. The governess forced Miles to admit that he saw Quint in the window and he died suddenly and mysteriously. It is left to the reader to decide whether the governess scared Miles to death, or if he was overtaken by the evil ways of the ghosts.


There are two different interpretations of The Turn of the Screw. One interprets the novel as a legitimate and very literary ghost story. The other theory says that James meant to create a psychological thriller, and that the governess was insane, the apparitions being only figments of her imagination.

Krishna Baldev Vaid is one of the critics who believe that James wrote The Turn of the Screw, as a great ghost story, and that the governess is a truthful and reliable narrator. Vaid notes that “James’s narrators, as a rule, are endowed with a fine intuitive awareness” He also notes that “James repeatedly employs the intuitions of the governess to maintain suspense and to deepen the mystery.”
Other critics believe that the governess is mentally disturbed, which causes her to see the ghosts. For Edmund Wilson “there is never any evidence that anybody but the governess sees the ghosts. She believes that the children see them but there is never any proof that they do. The housekeeper insists that she does not see them; it is apparently the governess who frightens her. The children, too, become hysterical; but this is evidently the governess’s doing too.” Wilson concluded that “the young governess who tells the story is a neurotic case of sex repression, and the ghost are not real ghosts at all but merely hallucinations of the governess.” The ghost are also thought of as imagined evils on the part of the governess whose inappropriate sexual attraction for her employer is repressed, and who requires some melodramatic situation which will allow her to act out a heroic service to him. (Tompkins p.66)
The theory that states that James intended The Turn of the Screw to be a great ghost story seems to be the most reasonable. When the governess described the ghosts to Mrs. Grose, she recognized the immediately. How else would the governess have known what they looked like if she hadn’t really seen them? Both of them had been dead one year before the governess’s arrival.

The theme of the novel, as well as the meaning of its title, depends on its interpretation. As a ghost story, its pessimistic and tragic theme focuses on the battle of good intentions versus evil forces (Vaid p.118), with evil evidently triumphing, since the governess is unable to save either of the children. (Vaid p.121) As the governess gradually recognizes the depth and intent of the evil forces surrounding the children and struggles to protect them, every event in the novel becomes another turn of the screw in the intensifying horror.

If read as a psychological analysis, The Turn of the Screw has a social theme. According to Goddard, “The reaction upon a sensitive and romantic nature of the narrowness of English middle-class life in the last century: that from the social angle, is the theme of the story. The sudden change of scene, the sudden immense responsibility placed on unaccustomed shoulders, the shock of unrequited affection— all of these together— were too much. The brain gives way. And what follows is a masterly tracing of the effects of repressed love and thwarted material affection.” (Tompkins p.85) Each stage of the governess’s lapse into hysteria or insanity becomes another turn of the psychological screw.

The governess, who is the main narrator of the story, is an easy character with whom to identify. She is described very positively by the first narrator, Douglas, in the prologue of the novel as “a most charming person the most agreeable person I’ve ever known in her position; she’d have been worthy of any whatever.” (James p.2) James give the reader a sympathetic understanding of the governess’s background and current situation, when Douglas describes her further as “the youngest of several daughters of a poor country parson at the age of twenty taking service for the first time in the schoolroom.” (James p.4) In this way, James presents the governess as a person of good character, although young and inexperienced. The reader does not resist empathizing and identifying with the governess while she tells her story throughout the remainder of the novel.

The Turn of the Screw is a gothic thriller, which has inspired different levels of interpretation. It would be interesting to read various works by Edgar Allan Poe as well as Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, and compare the authors’ techniques, style, and possible social and psychological themes.

The most memorable part of the story was the conversation between the governess and the housekeeper, Mrs. Grose, in which they first discuss the first ghost, which the governess has seen. The governess gives a detailed description of the stranger she had seen outside the window. “He has red hair, very red close-curling, and a pale face with straight good features and rather queer whiskers that are as red as his hair His eyes are rather sharp, strange— awfully” “My companion’s face blanched as I went on; her round eyes started and her mild mouth gaped” The housekeeper identified the apparition as Peter Quint, the deceased valet of the children’s uncle. (James p.23)
“And became of him?’
She hung fire so long that I was still more mystified. He went too’ she brought out at last.

Went where?’
Her expression, at this, became extraordinary. God knows where! He died.’
Died?’ I almost shrieked.

She seemed fairly to square herself, plant herself more firmly to express the wonder of it. Yes. Mr. Quint’s dead.'”
The Turn of the Screw is enjoyable and highly recommendable reading because of the author’s ability to build suspense through scenes like the one above, and through his effective use of irony in contrasting apparent goodness with actual evil. The governess’s first impression of the children made her later discovery of their deception and evil especially shocking. Flora seemed “the most beautiful child I had ever seen a beautific radiant angelic beauty” (James p.7) When she met Miles, she felt she “had seen him on the instant, without and within, in the great gloss of freshness, the same positive fragrance of purity, in which I had from the first moment seen his little sister everything but a sort of passion of tenderness for him was swept away by his presence. What I had then and there took him to heart for was something divine his indescribable little air of knowing nothing in the world but love.” James p.13)
Gradually, she accepts the fact that evil forces have corrupted the children. She realizes that “their more than earthly beauty, their absolutely unnatural goodness” is only “a game a policy and a fraud.” (James p.47) As Vaid points out “the contrast between the apparent innocence and the real contamination of the children is the keynote of the terror produced by The Turn of the Screw.”

Anheuser-Busch And France

Anheuser-Busch and France
Introduction
Anheuser-Busch has been the nation’s largest brewer for more than 40 years. In the mid-1800’s Adolphus Busch became familiar with the beers of a small Bohemian town called Budweis. After immigrating into the United States he married into the Anheuser brewing family. In the 1870’s Adolphus Busch registered Budweiser as a trademark in the U.S. Adolphus Busch dubbed his company Budweiser, “the king of beers.” Budweiser is a registered trademark of the St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch, One Busch Place, St. Louis, Missouri 63118-1852, which is the world’s largest brewing company. Budweis is a small brewing town in the Czech republic. The town has a 700-year-old history of beer brewing. The brewing company Budvar of Budejovice registered Budweiser as a trademark in Europe in 1895. Budvar’s Budweiser is considered by beer experts to be a greater beer than the American Budweiser. Czechs are very proud of the Budvar brewery and considers its beer to be a national treasure. In the days before a global marketplace, the American Budweiser and the Czech Budweiser have never really competed with each other. However, in the 1990’s with increased global competition in the beer market, this dispute over who actually owns the Budweiser name takes on increased importance. According to a 1958 agreement signed by the Czech government, brand names that denote geographic origin are protected. So the Czech government which owns Budweiser believes that they should be the only ones allowed to carry that name in Europe. However the United States did not sign that treaty in 1958, so they do not agree with this. They have decided that it was no longer necessary for them to have a trademark settlement to develop the American Budweiser business in Europe.
In recent years Anheuser-Busch has faced increased competition in the U.S. market. As a result of this increased competition the company has been looking overseas for growth and increased profits. The American market is a relatively stagnant market for Anheuser-Busch. There is very little growth in America and 94% of Anheuser-Busch’s sales occur inside America (Anheuser-Busch, 1999). Anheuser-Busch also has the resources to compete with any European brew in the European market. In many countries in Europe, Anheuser-Busch has begun to gain some market share and turn some profits. The American market is a relatively stagnant market for Anheuser-Busch. There is very little growth in America and 94% of Anheuser-Busch’s sales occur inside America (Anheuser-Busch, 1999). Imports like Amstel and Heineken have made inroads in the American beer market. To increase sales and profits, Anheuser-Busch must look for business in foreign markets. In order to compete with theses imports they created brands like Budlite, Michelob, Busch, and Budweiser. Their dominance of the US beer market has a 100-year-old history.
Budweiser Corporate Analysis
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. continually seeks opportunities to maximize shareholder value and increase efficiency. The company has control of over 47% of the global market share (Anheuser-Busch 1999). In the process of doing this, Anheuser-Busch has become one of the most recognizable trademarks. Because of their world-renowned recognition Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc is always looking to maximize their shareholder value and increase efficiency. As noted in the Annual Report for 1999, Anheuser-Busch remains focused on three major objectives to enhance shareholder value: Increasing per barrel profitability which, when combined with continued market share growth, will provide solid long-term earnings per share growth (Anheuser-Busch, 1999). Profitable expansion of international beer operations by building the Budweiser brand worldwide and making selected investments in leading brewers in key international beer growth markets (Anheuser-Busch). The company has made significant marketing investments to build Budweiser brand recognition outside the United States and operates overseas breweries in Canada, China, United Kingdom, Ireland, Mexico, Spain, Japan, Italy and Argentina; and services beer to twenty-eight countries worldwide (Budweiser).
Packaging operations provide significant efficiencies, cost savings and quality assurance for domestic beer operations, while entertainment operations enhance the company’s corporate image by showcasing it’s heritage, values and commitment to quality and social responsibility to 19 million visitors to the brewery annually, as well as adding their profit contribution (Budweiser). The company’s strong commitment to achieve these objectives benefits all firms and individuals that maintain a vested interest in their corporation. Competitive With an estimated 47.5% of the total market share for 1999, Anheuser-Busch continues to widen the gap separating them from their nearest competitors (Anheuser-Busch 1999). Budweiser and Bud Light are the No.1 and No. 2 best-selling beers in the world. Miller, their closest rival maintains 22.1% of the market share (Anheuser-Busch 1999 ). In 1999, they achieved record sales and earnings, selling over 100 million barrels of beer worldwide for the first time in history (Anheuser-Busch 1999).
In Anheuser’s effort to broaden their boundaries, the company has made significant marketing investments to build Budweiser brand recognition outside the United States and operates overseas breweries in Canada, China, United Kingdom, Ireland, Mexico, Spain, Japan, Italy and Argentina; and services beer to twenty-eight countries worldwide (Budweiser). France is just one of the many countries that Budweiser operates in despite the European attitude against American Budweiser beer.
French Economy—overview:
One of the four West European trillion-dollar economies, France matches a growing services sector with a diversified industrial base and substantial agricultural resources. Industry generates one-quarter of GDP and more than 80% of export earnings (French Economy). The government retains considerable influence over key segments of each sector, with majority ownership of railway, electricity, aircraft, and telecommunication firms. It has been gradually relaxing its control over these sectors since the early 1990s. The government is slowly selling off its holdings in France Telecom, in Air France, and in the insurance, banking, and defense industries. Meanwhile, large tracts of fertile land, the application of modern technology, and subsidies have combined to make France the leading agricultural producer in Western Europe. A major exporter of wheat and dairy products, France is practically self-sufficient in agriculture. The economy expanded by 3% in 1998, following a 2.3% gain in 1997 (French Economy). Persistently high unemployment still poses a major problem for the government. France has shied away from cutting exceptionally generous social welfare benefits or the enormous state bureaucracy, preferring to pare defense spending and raise taxes to keep the deficit down. The JOSPIN administration is preparing to both lower unemployment and trim spending, pinning its hopes for new jobs on economic growth and on legislation to gradually reduce the workweek from 39 to 35 hours by 2002 (French Economy).
Manufacturing
In the early 1990s, manufacturing employed between 20% and 25% of the labor force (Country Reports). The principal industrial concentrations are around Paris, in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Lorraine coalfields, in the Lyon and Saint-tienne complex of the Rhne valley, and in the new industrial centers that have emerged in the English Channel ports of Dunkerque and the Mediterranean industrial complex at Fos because of the use of imported raw materials. Many French business enterprises are small to moderate in size, although the competitive business climate created by membership in the EC has forced many companies to be restructured and combined to form powerful corporations (Martinique).

The leading manufacturing industries are metallurgy, mechanical and electrical engineering, chemicals, and textiles. In 1986, France ranked third in Europe in steel production with an output of 14.8 million metric tons and second in aluminum output (Martinique). These and imported metals are fabricated into a wide range of mechanical and electrical equipment marketed throughout the world. French locomotives, turbines, electronics equipment, nuclear power plants and submarines, and television systems are famous for their innovative design, as are French automobiles, such as Citroen, Peugeot, Simca, and Renault, and French aircraft, such as Mirage, Concorde, and Airbus. A wide range of chemicals, including perfumes, pharmaceuticals, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, and fertilizers, are also produced. The French textile and garment industry has long been known for its high fashion, although in recent years the industry has lost many former markets to lower-priced imports from countries with lower labor costs. (Martinique).

Mining
Less than 1% of the labor force is engaged in mining (Country Reports). In 1988 coal production was 14.5 million metric tons (16.9 million U.S. tons), most of it from two principal coalfields — the Lorraine coalfield near Metz, which is an extension into France of the Saar coalfield; and the Nord-Pas de Calais coalfield around Lille, which is an extension into France of Belgium’s Sambre-Meuse coalfields and is similarly thin-seamed, faulted, and difficult to work (Country Reports). Since the 1950s many inefficient mines in the north and in the Massif Central have been closed, and coal output has declined by about 75% (?). Large bauxite deposits (from which aluminum is produced) are mined in the south; France is one of Europe’s leading producers of bauxite. Potash deposits, used in the chemical industry, are extensive in the vicinity of Mulhouse. Natural gas deposits have been worked since 1951(Country Reports). Small amounts of petroleum are produced at the Parentis oilfield in the southwest, and the search for petroleum deposits continues off the coast of Brittany and in the Bay of Biscay (Country Reports).

Power
France’s fuel resources are inadequate. The country has to import three-quarters of the fuel, mainly petroleum, needed to meet its requirements. However, production of electrical energy is significant. In 1988 output reached 372 billion kW h, with nuclear energy representing 70% of the total (Martinique). France is the world’s second-largest supplier of nuclear power after the United States (Martinique). Hydroelectric plants operate on the Isre, Durance, Rhine, Rhne, and Dordogne rivers. A tidal power plant is located on the Rance River in Brittany (Martinique).
Agriculture and Fishing
France is the leading agricultural nation in Europe and about 7% of the labor force are engaged in agriculture, forestry, and fishing (Country Reports). Three-fifths of the land area is used for farming; about 31% are cultivated, 3% is in vineyards and orchards, and 24% is used as meadow and pasture (Country Reports).
In 1988, 47.6% of France’s farm income came from livestock raising (Country Reports). Cattle are raised mainly in the north and west; sheep and goats are raised primarily in the drier, more mountainous south and east, and pigs and chickens are raised throughout the country. France is Europe’s leading producer of beef, veal, poultry, and cheese and a leading producer of milk and eggs (Martinique).

Crops contribute about 52% of farm income, with cereals and sugar beets the most important products (Country Reports). Wheat is widely grown in the Paris Basin, and France ranks fifth in world wheat production (Martinique). Other grains grown are barley, corn, and oats, which, with sugar beet factory residues, are used primarily for livestock feed; some rice is grown under irrigation in the Rhne delta. Wine is a major crop throughout the country, both the vin ordinaire, everyday wine, of the region and the appellation controle, or quality-controlled, wines of such regions as Burgundy, Champagne, Bordeaux, and Alsace. Flowers are grown for perfume at Grasse, and a wide variety of fruits and vegetables are raised in the warm Mediterranean region for shipment to northern and central Europe. (Martinique).

Fishing, unlike agriculture, occupies only a modest place in the economy, but France ranks 20th among the nations of the world in total fish production (Martinique). Fishing is locally important in the coastal areas of Normandy and Brittany, the Southern Atlantic coast, and the Mediterranean. Concarneau, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Lorient, and La Rochelle are leading fishing ports (Martinique).

Trade and Tourism
France is the fourth largest exporter and the fifth-largest importer on the foreign trade market. The two principal ports are Marseille and its annexes on the Mediterranean, and Le Havre at the mouth of the Seine on the English Channel. In 1989 major imports broke down as follows: machinery (26.6%); chemicals and chemical products (15.7%); agricultural products (11.6%); automobiles (5.8%); petroleum and petroleum products (4.5%); other fuels (4.3%) (Country Reports). Major exports were machinery (27.7%); agricultural products (17.5%); chemicals (15.1%); and transportation equipment (12.7%) (Country Reports). Most trade is conducted with other members of the EC. In 1997 more than 67 million tourists visited France, which ranked third among the nations of the world in number of tourists (Country Reports).

Conclusion
Anheuser-Busch has achieved excellence around the world as the leader in the beer industry. While the company ran into problems with its home town counterpart, Budvar’s Budweiser, it eventually gained respect and stature among the beer drinkers community around the world. Although many Europeans dismissed the beer at first it has made a place in each European country. France is known for it’s wines and gourmet food but the people have grown to love and enjoy our American tradition Budweiser from Anheuser-Busch.


Economics

Cartesian Doubt

In his first meditation, Descartes sets out with amazing clarity and persistence to clear
himself of every false idea that he has acquired previous to this, and determine what he truly knows.
To rid him of these “rotten apples” he has developed a method of doubt with a goal to construct
a set of beliefs on foundations which are indubitable.
On these foundations, Descartes applies three levels of skepticism, which in turn, generate three
levels at which our thoughts may be deceived by error.Descartes states quite explicitly in the
synopsis, that we can doubt all things which are material as long as “we have no foundations for the
sciences other than those which we have had up till now”(synopsis:12). This skepticism also implies
that doubt can free us from prejudices, enabling the mind to escape the deception of the senses, and
possibly discover a truth which is beyond doubt.
The first and main deception in Descartes opinion has evolved from sense perception
“What ever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through
the sense. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust
completely those who have deceived us even once”(1:1813).
At the root of our beliefs, Descartes argues, lie the experiences we gain from our senses,
because these are sometimes mistaken, as in the case of mirages or objects which appear small in the distance,
and because of this he will now forfeit all of his most reliable information . More importantly it may be to
follow in the steps of Plato and require knowledge that is certain and absolute ( Prado 1992 ).
This argument consists of four main premises:
1. All that he has accepted as true up to this point, he has acquired by the senses or Cartesian Doubt3
2. but on occasion these senses have been deceptive.

3. It is wise not to trust anything that has been deceiving in the past
4. Therefore, it is possible to be mistaken about everything.

In premise one his beliefs are derived from the senses, such as he sees that he has a paper in his hand and concludes that it is a paper,
and what is meant by through the senses, is that his beliefs may have been based on others sense experience. All Descartes requires
for the second premise is the possibility that he may have been deceived, for if he cannot decide which is wrong, than he must not have
any knowledge. This leads to the third premise where it seems at least reasonable to assume, that if one has been deceived previously, there is no
absolute assurance that it is presently correct. Therefore, there is a chance of being deceived about everything.
But many critics will argue that several of these false percepts can be corrected by means of alternative senses, such as
he bent stick in water example. Although our sight may be tricked into thinking that the mirage exists, by using the sense of touch we can correct
this falseness, and uncover what truly exists. Descartes does retreat, and assess the damage from his first level by saying, “there are many other
beliefs about which doubt is quite impossible, even though they are derived from the senses-for example, that I am here, sitting by the fire, wearing a winter
dressing gown..” (1:1812). Here even he objects to the validity of his argument, even if he could be deceived about anything he perceives, this does not mean
that he is deceived about everything. Just because his senses are unreliable at times is not proof enough that everything in the world is false (Williams 1991).

In addition to being delusional, Descartes believes we can be tricked by madness or insanity. Since those who are insane may interpret things detached
from reality by means of their senses, ” how could it be denied that these hands or this whole body are mine? Unless perhaps I were to liken myself to madmen,
the persistent vapours of melancholia” (1:19 13), they in fact believe these percepts to be true. Though Descartes does go on to say “such people are insane, and
I would be thought equally mad if I took anything from them as a model for myself”, and continues by likening the dreams he has to the experiences a madman faces when awake.

From here Descartes makes a stronger argument for calling into question his common sense beliefs, the possibility that he might be dreaming, that every emotion and
every sense perception appears to him only in a dream. Since there is always a possibility that we may in fact be dreaming, this hypothesis is done to provoke his faith in reality
and the senses, to get the absolute certainty of how things may appear or feel (Prado 1992). His view on this is taken from the fact that when dreaming,
the same types of mental states and feelings are present as when we are awake, “How often, asleep at night , I am convinced of just such a familiar event-that
I am here in my dressing-gown, sitting by the fire- when in fact I am lying undressed in bed” (1:1913). Since there is no absolute way in determining the waking state from the
dreaming state, when it comes to sense experience, we are no better off awake than asleep. Therefore our judgment must be suspended even when we are sure that our state is that of waking because “we
clearly have no reason to believe that effects resemble their causes in the waking state, since they clearly do not in the dreaming state” (Prado, 1992).
The only way we can avoid the suspension of judgement is only if we have a standard to determine where the truth exists (Williams 1986).
To use the conflict of the stick being bent in
water, what sense is it that we should believe, when we have no tool to decipher the truth? Thus, the suspension of truth works for the doubt of
he senses as well. The reason why doubting the senses is not enough to base an entirely new set of ideas, is due to the fact that it does not call into question all of ones common sense beliefs, for the representations found in dreams are derived from real objects, although possibly arranged in a different way.

The thoughts and feelings of a dream are real, they are the same thoughts and feelings that occur every day in the waking state. To be afraid during a dream is the same feeling experienced if . It is due to the similarities in feelings and thought between dreaming and waking, that Descartes is able to find ground for doubt, “there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep” (1:1913). This than leads to the eternal skeptical question : “How can I tell whether at this moment I am awake or asleep?” (Malcolm, 1967).If we take any series of thoughts, emotions or feelings, it is possible that the same series can occur while dreaming or awake. Thus, we can never be absolutely clear on whether what we are experiencing at that exact moment in time is a dream, or that of a waking state. Though Prado (1992) insists that Descartes states in the sixth meditation, that temporal coherence allows us to decipher between the waking and dreaming states. The aim here then would be to prove that there is nothing in the waking state to confirm the accuracy of sense
experience. The fact that at any given moment our current state could change drastically and render the previous state an illusion, may be enough to support his skeptical nature on thus, his
second level of doubt (Williams 1991).
As long as Descartes second level of doubt is accepted, we are able to continue on to his
third level of doubt, or what is known as hyperbolical doubt. Descartes considers our beliefs within dreams when he says that some beliefs remain indubitable while others are swept away
by imagination. Such things as the laws of physics can be broken within dreams, where other concepts such as arithmetic or geometry remain unchanged:
physics, astronomy, medicine and all other disciplines which depend on the study ofcomposite things, are doubtful; while arithmetic, geometry ans other subjects of this kind,which deal only with the simplest and most general things, regardless of whether they reallyexist in nature or not, contain something certain and indubitable. (1:2014)
He decides that certain things which are accepted universally, such as mathematics, are irrefutable. The dream hypothesis is not enough to doubt such things as mathematics, as we may be dreaming that there appears a square in front of us, but we cannot doubt our reason, such that
it has four sides, or that there is only one square that we see and not two or three.

He moves on to discuss the origins of our beliefs, and the role of an omnipotent God.
He believes that there is a God, due to the fact that this idea of God is “firmly rooted” in his mind, and he also believes that this omnipotent God would not deceive him since he is “supremely good”. He examines the assumption that God is perfect and omnipotent, and therefore the source for all of our thoughts and ideas. Since Descartes is abandoning all of his
old beliefs, this would suggest that God tried to deceive him. He wonders why such a perfect God would deceive him, and figures it must be doubtful.
Cartesian Doubt7
Now Descartes imagines that God is not the one who is deceiving him, but none other
than a malevolent demon, who with deceitful power, implants false beliefs, ” I will suppose
therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious
demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me” (1:2215). When determining what is open to doubt, Descartes’ evil demon hypothesis conveniently creates a being who is omnipotent and who uses the power solely to deceive.
What Descartes achieves is making problematic a host of ideas he entertains as products of reason , opposed to products of the senses, which the dream hypothesis takes care of (Prado 1992). Although L.G. Miller (1992) suggests that the propositions of mathematics survive the perception and dream arguments, but only to be unsettled by the deceiver God hypothesis, “Could not an all-powerful demon make me believe those propositions are true when, as a matter of fact, they are not?” The deceiver God does not succeed if the person accepts that the reality he lives in is true. However, with the rise of skepticism and questioning the veracity of whether the world we live in is accurate or not, perhaps the demon has won after all.

Descartes then leaves the first meditation in a state of confusion. He knows at least how things seem to appear to him, even if he has no idea how they really are “I am like a prisoner who is enjoying an imaginary freedom while asleep, he dreads being woken up, and goes along with the pleasant as long as he can”(1:2315).
Descartes clearly refocused metaphysical thinking into the physical world, by turning it toward the natural world. His basic structure has four uses of doubt, firstly to free us from preconceived opinions or prejudice, the second is to lead the mind away from the senses, the
third use of doubt makes it impossible to have any further doubts about those things which alter such an “extensive doubt” and are discovered to be true, while the fourth is to provide us with an
understanding of what certainty is.
Descartes methodological doubt can be defined as foundationalism, which is the belief that knowledge is formed on different levels, much like an inverted pyramid. Such that, complex beliefs come first, then beneath that are simpler beliefs and beneath them are the simplest beliefs. Foundationalism requires not only this hierarchy effect, but also that nothing is accepted as knowledge until we know upon what it is based (Prado 1992).

In summary of what the three main arguments undermine, the argument from the illusion or deceptiveness of the senses undermines ordinary sense perception. Undermining ordinary sense perception and scientific observation as well as the more theoretical parts of the physical sciences and hence these sciences as a whole is the dream hypothesis, while the deceiver God hypothesis undermines the pure mathematical sciences such as arithmetic and geometry.

Descartes’ metaphysical doubt emphasizes purging the old falsehoods and buildings up again from the bedrock of the indubitable of our existence as thinkers. Whether or not the extensiveness of such skepticism used by Descartes is necessary, remains open for doubt. But for one to gain any knowledge what so ever, they must be capable of doubting at some point or another, rather than accepting all that they may hear. It would be extremely credulous and naive to never doubt or question it is only natural to doubt and challenge that which one does not believe, and to a certain extent, being the natural extent, it is useful and necessary, “When Descartes begins to doubt in an epistemological mode, he cannot stop short of doubting whether
he himself exists as a doubter” (Prado 1992).
. Perhaps, when the poet Charles Bukowski said “the more crap you believe, the better off
you are,” he realized that such an extensive doubt can be harmful to the majority of people, because they are in fact “better off” believing in their senses, their God, and their ability to determine whether they are sleeping or awake. It is possible that it may be beneficial to live and die being deceived, and be ignorant to that deception, than to live and die searching for truth where truth may not be found, for the true determinant to whether such an extensive skepticism is beneficial or necessary depends on the individual. Neither Descartes nor Bukowski can speak for anyone other than themselves.

In his first meditation, Descartes sets out with amazing clarity and persistence to clear himself of every false idea that he has acquired previous to this, and determine what he truly knows. To rid him of these “rotten apples” he has developed a method of doubt with a goal to construct a set of beliefs on foundations which are indubitable. On these foundations, Descartes applies three levels of skepticism, which in turn, generate three levels at which our thoughts may be deceived by error.Descartes states quite explicitly in the synopsis, that we can doubt all things which are material as long as “we have no foundations for the sciences other than those which we have had up till now”(synopsis:12). This skepticism also implies that doubt can free us from prejudices, enabling the mind to escape the deception of the senses, and possibly discover a truth which is beyond doubt.
The first and main deception in Descartes opinion has evolved from sense perception”What ever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the sense. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”(1:1813).At the root of our beliefs, Descartes argues, lie the experiences we gain from our senses,
because these are sometimes mistaken, as in the case of mirages or objects which appear small in the distance, and because of this he will now forfeit all of his most reliable information . More importantly it may be to follow in the steps of Plato and require knowledge that is certain and absolute ( Prado 1992 ). This argument consists of four main premises:
1. All that he has accepted as true up to this point, he has acquired by the senses or Cartesian Doubt3
through the senses;
2. but on occasion these senses have been deceptive.

3. It is wise not to trust anything that has been deceiving in the past
4. Therefore, it is possible to be mistaken about everything.

In premise one his beliefs are derived from the senses, such as he sees that he has a paper in his hand and concludes that it is a paper, and what is meant by through the senses, is that his beliefs may have been based on others sense experience. All Descartes requires for the second premise is the possibility that he may have been deceived, for if he cannot decide which is wrong, than he must not have any knowledge. This leads to the third premise where it seems at least reasonable to assume, that if one has been deceived previously, there is no absolute assurance that it is presently correct. Therefore, there is a chance of being deceived about everything.
But many critics will argue that several of these false percepts can be corrected by means of alternative senses, such as he bent stick in water example. Although our sight may be tricked into thinking that the mirage exists, by using the sense of touch we can correct this falseness, and uncover what truly exists. Descartes does retreat, and assess the damage from his first level by saying, “there are many other beliefs about which doubt is quite impossible, even though they are derived from the senses-for example, that I am here, sitting by the fire, wearing a winter dressing gown..” (1:1812). Here even he objects to the validity of his argument, even if he could be deceived about anything he perceives, this does not mean that he is deceived about everything. Just because his senses are unreliable at times is not proof enough that everything in the world is false (Williams 1991).

In addition to being delusional, Descartes believes we can be tricked by madness or insanity. Since those who are insane may interpret things detached from reality by means of their
senses, ” how could it be denied that these hands or this whole body are mine? Unless perhaps I were to liken myself to madmen, whose brains are so damaged by the persistent vapours of melancholia” (1:19 13), they in fact believe these percepts to be true. Though Descartes does go on to say “such people are insane, and I would be thought equally mad if I took anything from them as a model for myself”, and continues by likening the dreams he has to the experiences a madman faces when awake.

From here Descartes makes a stronger argument for calling into question his common sense beliefs, the possibility that he might be dreaming, that every emotion and every sense perception appears to him only in a dream. Since there is always a possibility that we may in fact be dreaming, this hypothesis is done to provoke his faith in reality and the senses, to get the absolute certainty of how things may appear or feel (Prado 1992). His view on this is taken from the fact that when dreaming, the same types of mental states and feelings are present as when we are awake, “How often, asleep at night , I am convinced of just such a familiar event-that I am here in my dressing-gown, sitting by the fire- when in fact I am lying undressed in bed” (1:1913). Since there is no absolute way in determining the waking state from the dreaming state, when it comes to sense experience, we are no better off awake than asleep. Therefore our judgment must be suspended even when we are sure that our state is that of waking because “we
clearly have no reason to believe that effects resemble their causes in the waking state, since they clearly do not in the dreaming state” (Prado, 1992).
The only way we can avoid the suspension of judgement is only if we have a standard to determine where the truth exists (Williams 1986).To use the conflict of the stick being bent in
water, what sense is it that we should believe, when we have no tool to decipher the truth? Thus, the suspension of truth works for the doubt of the senses as well. The reason why doubting the senses is not enough to base an entirely new set of ideas, is due to the fact that it does not call into question all of ones common sense beliefs, for the representations found in dreams are derived from real objects, although possibly arranged in a different way.

The thoughts and feelings of a dream are real, they are the same thoughts and feelings that occur every day in the waking state. To be afraid during a dream is the same feeling experienced if . It is due to the similarities in feelings and thought between dreaming and waking, that Descartes is able to find ground for doubt, “there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep” (1:1913). This than leads to the eternal skeptical question : “How can I tell whether at this moment I am awake or asleep?” (Malcolm, 1967).If we take any series of thoughts, emotions or feelings, it is possible that the same series can occur while dreaming or awake. Thus, we can never be absolutely clear on whether what we are experiencing at that exact moment in time is a dream, or that of a waking state. Though Prado (1992) insists that Descartes states in the sixth meditation, that temporal coherence allows us to decipher between the waking and dreaming states. The aim here then would be to prove that there is nothing in the waking state to confirm the accuracy of sense
experience. The fact that at any given moment our current state could change drastically and render the previous state an illusion, may be enough to support his skeptical nature on thus, his
second level of doubt (Williams 1991).
As long as Descartes second level of doubt is accepted, we are able to continue on to his
third level of doubt, or what is known as hyperbolical doubt. Descartes considers our beliefs within dreams when he says that some beliefs remain indubitable while others are swept away
by imagination. Such things as the laws of physics can be broken within dreams, where other concepts such as arithmetic or geometry remain unchanged:
physics, astronomy, medicine and all other disciplines which depend on the study ofcomposite things, are doubtful; while arithmetic, geometry ans other subjects of this kind,which deal only with the simplest and most general things, regardless of whether they reallyexist in nature or not, contain something certain and indubitable. (1:2014)
He decides that certain things which are accepted universally, such as mathematics, are irrefutable. The dream hypothesis is not enough to doubt such things as mathematics, as we may be dreaming that there appears a square in front of us, but we cannot doubt our reason, such that
it has four sides, or that there is only one square that we see and not two or three.

He moves on to discuss the origins of our beliefs, and the role of an omnipotent God.
He believes that there is a God, due to the fact that this idea of God is “firmly rooted” in his mind, and he also believes that this omnipotent God would not deceive him since he is “supremely good”. He examines the assumption that God is perfect and omnipotent, and therefore the source for all of our thoughts and ideas. Since Descartes is abandoning all of his
old beliefs, this would suggest that God tried to deceive him. He wonders why such a perfect God would deceive him, and figures it must be doubtful.
Cartesian Doubt7
Now Descartes imagines that God is not the one who is deceiving him, but none other
than a malevolent demon, who with deceitful power, implants false beliefs, ” I will suppose
therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious
demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me” (1:2215). When determining what is open to doubt, Descartes’ evil demon hypothesis conveniently creates a being who is omnipotent and who uses the power solely to deceive.
What Descartes achieves is making problematic a host of ideas he entertains as products of reason , opposed to products of the senses, which the dream hypothesis takes care of (Prado 1992). Although L.G. Miller (1992) suggests that the propositions of mathematics survive the perception and dream arguments, but only to be unsettled by the deceiver God hypothesis, “Could not an all-powerful demon make me believe those propositions are true when, as a matter of fact, they are not?” The deceiver God does not succeed if the person accepts that the reality he lives in is true. However, with the rise of skepticism and questioning the veracity of whether the world we live in is accurate or not, perhaps the demon has won after all.

Descartes then leaves the first meditation in a state of confusion. He knows at least how things seem to appear to him, even if he has no idea how they really are “I am like a prisoner who is enjoying an imaginary freedom while asleep, he dreads being woken up, and goes along with the pleasant as long as he can”(1:2315).
Descartes clearly refocused metaphysical thinking into the physical world, by turning it toward the natural world. His basic structure has four uses of doubt, firstly to free us from preconceived opinions or prejudice, the second is to lead the mind away from the senses, the
third use of doubt makes it impossible to have any further doubts about those things which alter such an “extensive doubt” and are discovered to be true, while the fourth is to provide us with an
understanding of what certainty is.
Descartes methodological doubt can be defined as foundationalism, which is the belief that knowledge is formed on different levels, much like an inverted pyramid. Such that, complex beliefs come first, then beneath that are simpler beliefs and beneath them are the simplest beliefs. Foundationalism requires not only this hierarchy effect, but also that nothing is accepted as knowledge until we know upon what it is based (Prado 1992).

In summary of what the three main arguments undermine, the argument from the illusion or deceptiveness of the senses undermines ordinary sense perception. Undermining ordinary sense perception and scientific observation as well as the more theoretical parts of the physical sciences and hence these sciences as a whole is the dream hypothesis, while the deceiver God hypothesis undermines the pure mathematical sciences such as arithmetic and geometry.

Descartes’ metaphysical doubt emphasizes purging the old falsehoods and buildings up again from the bedrock of the indubitable of our existence as thinkers. Whether or not the extensiveness of such skepticism used by Descartes is necessary, remains open for doubt. But for one to gain any knowledge what so ever, they must be capable of doubting at some point or another, rather than accepting all that they may hear. It would be extremely credulous and naive to never doubt or question it is only natural to doubt and challenge that which one does not believe, and to a certain extent, being the natural extent, it is useful and necessary, “When Descartes begins to doubt in an epistemological mode, he cannot stop short of doubting whether
he himself exists as a doubter” (Prado 1992).
. Perhaps, when the poet Charles Bukowski said “the more crap you believe, the better off
you are,” he realized that such an extensive doubt can be harmful to the majority of people, because they are in fact “better off” believing in their senses, their God, and their ability to determine whether they are sleeping or awake. It is possible that it may be beneficial to live and die being deceived, and be ignorant to that deception, than to live and die searching for truth where truth may not be found, for the true determinant to whether such an extensive skepticism is beneficial or necessary depends on the individual. Neither Descartes nor Bukowski can speak for anyone other than themselves.


Bibliography:

Proclamation Act Of 1763

Proclamation Act of 1763
The Proclamation Act of 1763 was a major change for both the English and
the French. For the English, they wanted to assimilate the French. This was
necessary for two reasons.

One, the British had, after all, conquered them, and wished to create a
full British Empire. They thought that the only way to do this was to
assimilate all other cultures (except the Natives) into their culture.

Two, the French were still a threat, and Quebec was the foothold in the
New World for France. The mother country, France, could send armies to New
France and attack the British.

The main purpose of the Proclamation Act was simple, assimilate the
French.

The British needed to ensure that their culture was enforced in Quebec,
The Act also tried to encourage British settlers to come to New France, but,
unfortunately, the settlers did not want to come. This was because the settlers
would rather move to a mostly British society, instead of a mostly French.

Some other aims of this Act were: Limit the size of Quebec, cutting
Montreal from the Fur Trade, and also to reassure the Natives that their hunting
grounds, and fur trade would be protected and remain intact.

Some of the terms of the Proclamation Act were as follows: settlement in
the Ohio and Mississippi was forbidden, and trappers, traders and settlers were
allowed in only with a license given from the crown, stating there reasons for
being in those two areas. The French language was also allowed to continue.

This may seem very strange, but I will explain it in a minute. Also the French
religion (Roman Catholicism) was allowed to continue. Britain also made it very
discouraging to have this culture, disallowing anyone who had anything to do
with these political and official status. The Protestant religion was also
promoted.

The main reason that the Quebec act was created was because the
Proclamation Act was not working. Quebec was rebelling and people were very
unhappy about it. So Britain decided to create the Quebec act. Other reasons
were that the 13 colonies, who had rebelled themselves and become the Americans,
were going to attack. The British people needed an ally, and quickly. They
also wished to increase trade, relations, and unite the French and English under
one Nation.

Some aims that the creation of the Quebec Act was suppose to achieve
were, combining French and English into one Nation, not culture, by keeping
biculturalism.

The French were allowed to continue all aspects of their culture, with
no penalty to status whatsoever. The government for Quebec, however, was to
stay the same, still ruled by a governor and an executive council. The civil
law was French, but the criminal law was changed to British.

Yes, I definetely think so. This worked right after the Act was passed,
as evidenced by the responses, very few people were unhappy. The most obvious
and substantial piece of evidence is today, which proves that the Act worked,
by showing that today we have a bicultural nation.

Polarization In The Political System

Polarization in the Political System
On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as
the years biggest non-event, the federal government shut down all
“non-essential” services due to what was, for all intents and
purposes, a game of national “chicken” between the House Speaker and
the President. And, at an estimated cost of 200 million dollars a day,
this dubious battle of dueling egos did not come cheap (Bradsher,
1995, p.16). Why do politicians find it almost congenitally
impossible to cooperate? What is it about politics and power that seem
to always put them at odds with good government? Indeed, is an
effective, well run government even possible given the current
adversarial relationship between our two main political parties? It
would seem that the exercise of power for its own sake, and a
competitive situation in which one side must always oppose the other
on any issue, is incompatible with the cooperation and compromise
necessary for the government to function. As the United States becomes
more extreme in its beliefs in general, group polarization and
competition, which requires a mutual exclusivity of goal attainment,
will lead to more “showdown” situations in which the goal of good
government gives way to political posturing and power-mongering.


In this paper I will analyze recent political behavior in terms of two
factors: Group behavior with an emphasis on polarization, and
competition. However, one should keep in mind that these two factors
are interrelated. Group polarization tends to exacerbate inter-group
competition by driving any two groups who initially disagree farther
apart in their respective views. In turn, a competitive situation in
which one side must lose in order for the other to win (and
political situations are nearly always competitive), will codify the
differences between groups – leading to further extremism by those
seeking power within the group – and thus, to further group
polarization.


In the above example, the two main combatants, Bill Clinton
and Newt Gingrich, were virtually forced to take uncompromising,
disparate views because of the very nature of authority within their
respective political groups. Group polarization refers to the tendency
of groups to gravitate to the extreme of whatever opinion the group
shares (Baron & Graziano, 1991, p.498-99). Therefore, if the extreme
is seen as a desirable characteristic, individuals who exhibit extreme
beliefs will gain authority through referent power. In other words,
they will have characteristics that other group members admire and
seek to emulate (p. 434). Unfortunately, this circle of polarization
and authority can lead to a bizarre form of “one-upsmanship” in which
each group member seeks to gain power and approval by being more
extreme than the others. The end result is extremism in the pursuit of
authority without any regard to the practicality or “reasonableness”
of the beliefs in question. Since the direction of polarization is
currently in opposite directions in our two party system, it is almost
impossible to find a common ground between them. In addition, the
competitive nature of the two party system many times eliminates even
the possibility of compromise since failure usually leads to a
devastating loss of power.
If both victory and extremism are necessary to retain power
within the group, and if, as Alfie Kohn (1986) stated in his book No
Contest: The Case Against Competition, competition is “mutually
exclusive goal attainment” (one side must lose in order for the other
to win), then compromise and cooperation are impossible (p. 136). This
is especially so if the opponents are dedicated to retaining power “at
all costs.” That power is an end in itself is made clear by the recent
shutdown of the government. It served no logical purpose. Beyond
costing a lot of money, it had no discernible effect except as a power
struggle between two political heavyweights. According to David Kipnis
(1976, cited in Baron & Graziano, 1991), one of the negative effects
of power is, in fact, the tendency to regard it as its own end, and to
ignore the possibility of disastrous results from the reckless use of
power (p. 433). Therefore, it would seem that (at least in this case)
government policy is created and implemented, not with regard to its
effectiveness as government policy, but only with regard to its value
as a tool for accumulating and maintaining power.
Another of Kipnis’s negative effects of power is the tendency to
use it for selfish purposes (p.433). In politics this can be seen as
the predilection towards making statements for short term political
gain that are either nonsensical or contradictory to past positions
held by the candidates themselves. While this may not be the use of
actual power, it is an attempt to gain political office (and therefore
power) without regard for the real worth or implications of a policy
for “good” government.


A prime example of this behavior can be seen in the widely
divergent political ezces taken by Governor Pete Wilson of
California. At this point I should qualify my own political position.
While I do tend to lean towards the Democratic side of the political
spectrum (this is undoubtedly what brought Pete Wilson to my attention
in the first place), I examine Governor Wilson because he is such a
prime example of both polarization and pandering in the competitive
pursuit of power. Accordingly, I will try to hold my political biases
in check.
In any case, selfish, power seeking behavior is reflected in
Wilson’s recently abandoned campaign for President. Although he
consistently ruled out running for President during his second
gubernatorial campaign, immediately after he was re-elected he
announced that he was forming a committee to explore the possibility.
And, in fact, he did make an abortive run for the Republican
nomination. In both cases (presidential and gubernatorial elections),
he justified his seemingly contradictory positions in terms of his
“duty to the people”(No Author 1995). This begs the question; was it
the duty that was contradictory, or was it Wilson’s political
aspirations. In either case it seems clear that his decision was
hardly based on principles of good government. Even if Wilson
thought he had a greater duty to the nation as a whole (and I’m being
charitable here), he might have considered that before he ran for
governor a second time. It would appear much more likely that the
greater power inherent in the presidency was the determining force
behind Wilson’s decision. Ironically, Wilson’s lust for potential
power may cause him to lose the power he actually has. Since his
decision to run for President was resoundingly unpopular with
Californians, and since he may be perceived as unable to compete in
national politics due to his withdrawal from the presidential race,
his political power may be fatally impaired. This behavior shows not
only a disregard for “good” government, but also a strange inability
to defer gratification. There is no reason that Pete Wilson couldn’t
have run for President after his second term as Governor had expired.
His selfish pursuit of power for its own sake was so absolute that it
inhibited him from seeing the very….. political realities that gave him
power in the first place.


In his attempt to gain power, Wilson managed to change his
ezce on virtually every issue he had ever encountered. From
immigration to affirmative action – from tax cuts to abortion rights,
he has swung 180 degrees (Thurm, 1995). The point here is not his
inconsistency, but rather the fact that it is improbable that
considerations of effective government would allow these kinds of
swings. And, while people may dismiss this behavior as merely the
political “game playing” that all candidates engage in, it is the
pervasiveness of this behavior – to the exclusion of any governmental
considerations – that make it distressing as well as intriguing.


Polarization is also apparent in this example. Since Pete Wilson
showed no inherent loyalty toward a particular ideology, it is
entirely likely that had the Republican party been drifting towards a
centrist position rather than an extreme right-wing position, Wilson
would have accordingly been more moderate in his political
pronouncements. The polarization towards an extreme is what caused him
to make such radical changes in his beliefs. It is, of course,
difficult to tell to what extent political intransigence is a
conscious strategy, or an unconscious motivation toward power, but the
end result is the same – political leadership that is not conducive
(or even relevant) to good government.


The role of competition in our political system is an inherently
contradictory one. We accept the fact that politicians must compete
ruthlessly to gain office using whatever tactics are necessary to win.
We then, somehow, expect them to completely change their behavior once
they are elected.At that point we expect cooperation, compromise,
and a statesmanlike attitude. Alfie Kohn (1986) points out that this
expectation is entirely unrealistic (p. 135). He also states that,
“Depriving adversaries of personalities, of faces , of their
subjectivity, is a strategy we automatically adopt in order to win”
(p.139). In other words, the very nature of competition requires that
we treat people as hostile objects rather than as human beings. It is,
therefore, unlikely, once an election is over and the process of
government is supposed to begin, that politicians will be able to
“forgive and forget” in order to carry on with the business at hand.


Once again, in the recent government shutdown we can see this
same sort of difficulty. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose
competitive political relationship with Bill Clinton has been
rancorous at best, blamed his own (Gingrich’s) handling of the budget
negotiations that resulted in the shutdown, on his poor treatment
during an airplane flight that he and the President were on (Turque &
Thomas, 1995, p. 28). One can look at this issue from both sides. On
the one hand, shabby treatment on an airplane flight is hardly a
reason to close the U.S. government. On the other hand, if the shabby
treatment occurred, was it a wise thing for the President to do in
light of the delicate negotiations that were going on at the time? In
both cases, it seems that all concerned were, in effect, blinded by
their competitive hostility.
They both presumably desired to run the government well (we
assume that’s why they ran for office in the first place), but
they couldn’t overcome their hostility long enough to run it at all.
If the Speaker is to be believed (although he has since tried to
retract his statements), the entire episode resulted not from a
legitimate disagreement about how to govern well, but from the
competitive desire to dominate government. Indeed, when one examines
the eventual compromise that was reached, there seems to be no
significant difference in the positions of the two parties. If this is
so, why was it necessary to waste millions of dollars shutting down
the government and then starting it up again a few days later? What’s
more, this entire useless episode will be reenacted in mid-December.
One can only hope that Clinton and Gingrich avoid traveling together
until an agreement is reached. Although people incessantly complain
about government and about the ineffectiveness of politicians, they
rarely examine the causes of these problems. While there is a lot of
attention paid to campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, PAC
reform, and the peddling of influence, we never seem to realize
that, most of the time, politicians are merely giving us what they
think we want. If they are weak and dominated by polls, aren’t they
really trying to find out “the will of the people” in order to comply
with it? If they are extremist and uncompromising in their political
ezces, aren’t they simply reflecting the extremism prevalent in our
country today? If politicians compromise, we call them weak, and if
they don’t we call them extremist. If we are unhappy with our
government, perhaps it is because we expect the people who run it to
do the impossible. They must reflect the will of a large, disparate
electorate, and yet be 100 percent consistent in their ideology.
However, if we look at political behavior in terms of our own
polarized, partisan attitudes, and if we can find a way to either
reduce the competitive nature of campaigns, or reconcile pre-election
hostility with post-election statesmanship, then we may find a way to
elect politicians on the basis of how they will govern rather than how
they run. It may be tempting to dismiss all this as merely “the way
politics is” or say that “competition is human nature”, or perhaps
think that these behaviors are essentially harmless. But consider
these two examples. It has been speculated that President Lyndon B.
Johnson was unwilling to get out of the Vietnam war because he didn’t
want to be remembered as the first American President to lose a war.
If this is true, it means that thousands of people, both American and
Vietnamese, died in order to protect one man’s status. In Oklahoma
City, a federal building was bombed in 1994, killing hundreds of men,
women, and children. The alleged perpetrators were a group of extreme,
right wing, “constitutionalists” who were apparently trying to turn
frustration with the federal government into open revolution.
I do not think these examples are aberrations or flukes, but are,
instead, indicative of structural defects in our political system. If
we are not aware of the dangers of extremism and competition, we may,
in the end, be destroyed by them.



References
Baron, B.M., & Graziano, W.G. (1991). Social Psychology. Fort Worth,
TX. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.


Bradsher, K. (1995, November 18). Country may be losing money with
government closed. The New York Times, pp.16
Kohn, A. (1986). No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Boston,
Houghton Mifflin.


No Author. (1995, March 24). internet What Wilson has said about
entering race. San Jose Mercury News Online.
Address:http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil324s.htm
Thurm, S. (1995, August 29). internet Wilson’s ‘announcement’ more
of an ad: California governor kicks off drive for GOP presidential
nomination. San Jose Mercury News Online.


Address:http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil829.htm
Turgue, B., ; Thomas, E. (1995, November 27). Missing the moment.
Newsweek, pp.26-29.