Hesiod’s Theogony :: Hesiod’s Theogony

Hesiod’s Theogony Hesiod writes his Theogony within the context of the nascent polis, which informs his conception of the Greek pantheon. The generations of gods that he portrays begin with the elements of nature and move steadily toward fully anthropomorphic figures, which represent elements corresponding to the experience of the city-state. In Hesiod’s time, the polis was led by a king, or kings, and the rule of Zeus that Hesiod portrays serves as an example of royal rule for them. Toward the end of the Theogony Zeus is urged by the other gods to be king, to rule the other immortals, and to follow the advice of Gaia. And so he apportions honors among them (881-5). Hesiod suggests that royal power results from the assent of the ruled, that it entails the right to rule, but that that rule must be tempered by recognition of the significance of nature, earth, which provides society’s livelihood. Zeus swallows the goddess Metis (890), just as a king must gain intelligence. Then he marries Themis, right, who bears good rule (Eunomia), justice (Dike) and peace (Eirene) (901-2), all necessary elements for a prosperous city-state. Eurynome (straight law) bears him the Graces (Charites), which are necessary elements for trade and social interaction. Zeus’ marriages to Demeter, Leto and Hera yield the gods and goddeses familiar to the Greek world, Persephone, Apollo, Artemis, Hebe, Ares and Eileithyia, and he himself eventually bears Athena (912-24). These are not elements of good rule, but simply the gods of the Greek polis. Demeter and Persephone are worshipped for agriculture, Apollo for his oracular shrine, Artemis for the wilderness and young women, Ares for war. Poseidon as sea god is apart from the polis, but he sires the fearsome Triton (931). Likewise, Ares’ children Phobos and Deimos, two aspects of fear, delineate realms beyond the proper bounds of the polis. Maia bears for Zeus Hermes (938-9), who as herald of the gods moves between realms, between one polis and another. The story of succession that arrives at the rule of Zeus moves from the undifferentiated Sky (Ouranos), through Kronos to Zeus, who himself must withstand the challenges of both Prometheus and Typhoeus.

Argument Against Gun Control Essay

Final Paper: Argument Against Gun Control The argument on firearm regulation has been a heated discussion for many years. On one side of the debate, we have people in favor placing restrictions on guns, while, on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have people fighting the regulation of guns. People in favor gun restrictions believe gun control can reduce crime ,while, the people against gun control believe having the right to bear arms is an effective crime deterrent. I believe that every law abiding citizen should be able to carry a gun and defend themselves against people who intend to harm them.Gun control laws are simply ineffective and they have an adverse effect on crime. Instead of reducing crime, gun control laws just simply take guns out the hands of good people and puts the guns into the hands of the bad guys. Gun control laws do not deter criminals from possessing firearms. Whether or not there’s a law restricting gun use, criminal will always find a way to get a gun because criminals are less likely to obey laws. That’s why they are called â€Å"criminals†. Also there’s no law that can stop the supply and demand of the illegal arms trade. If there’s money to be made in the black market, someone will profit from it. Criminals can easily obtain a gun through the black market. An unnamed felon was quoted, â€Å"There’s guns everywhere. If you got the money you, can get a gun.† If a criminal wanted to get a gun,they are not likely to walk into a store to buy one. Therefore, they could care less whether they had a background check or not. No law can stop criminals from arming themselves to protect themselves. Most criminals have lots of enemies and they rather get caught with a gun than get caught without one. (Stossel). The more gun control rules and regulations there are, the happier the criminals will be, for they know the more gun laws there are the less chance they have of having a crime victim defend themselves with a lawfully-owned  firearm. In many right to carry states, crime statistics are lower than the states with gun laws. The reason why is because guns are used more defensively than criminally. Criminals are usually rolling the dice when they are targeting law abiding citizens in right to carry states. (Polsby) Criminals do not fear the police or other authorities. What they fear most is the citizens who might be potentially armed. It makes it harder for criminals because they do not know what to expect from them if they’re planning to rob them. They’re either fortunate to have an unarmed victim or they become a victim with a citizen that is ready to shoot and defend their families. (Stossel). Gun control laws only affect the citizens who follow the law. The law does not apply to the criminals. Regardless if theres a gun ban or not, criminals will find a way to obtain guns. The gun laws have no way in curtailing the illegal arms trade. In Chicago, handguns are not for sale legally. Only shotguns, rifles and ammunition can be bought with people with a Firearm Owners Identification Card. The Chicago area is one of the most difficult places to legally obtain a gun. In order to get a gun license, people have to go through a background check and wait up to a month to legally carry a weapon.(Polsby). While it is difficult to legally possess a gun, it is way more easier to illegally carry a gun in Chicago. There are thousands of unregistered firearms in the streets with thousands more coming in every month. Banning the sale handguns in Chicago makes no difference as well too. People can go elsewhere to buy a gun. They can go out of town or even out of state to buy a gun with Indiana and Wisconsin in close proximity.(Moorhouse and Warner). Another example why gun control law are ineffective is the staggering increase in crime in England since they imposed a ban on guns. In 1997, England passed a ban on all guns, which makes it illegal for all citizens to carry guns. England’s gun sanctions made it one of the most strictest law in the world. The new law only created an illusion of the country being more safer. Instead of reducing crime, the law put it’s citizens at the mercy of criminals who are well assured that their would be victims are unarmed and defenseless. In the two years after the law was enacted, gun related crimes  increased to 40% and armed robberies rose to 53%. From 1997 to 2001, violent crimes more than doubled. People are six times more likely to be robbed at gunpoint in London compared to New York. In the United States, the occurrence of home burglaries is 13% because the majority of burglars fear armed homeowners more than they fear the law. England’s burglary statistics are 5 t imes higher compared to the United States at 55%. England’s gun ban created the unintended consequences of lawlessness in the streets, as well as, it did not stop criminals from possessing guns and committing crimes. (Malcolm) Even in the United states where states and cities that passed strict gun laws have found them to be ineffective. The places where gun control laws are the most strictest are places that have the most crimes are committed with firearms.(Piquero). Of the 15 states that have the highest homicide rates, 10 have very restrictive gun laws. New York, for example, has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation has 20 percent of the nations total of armed robberies. Another example, Washington D.C., since guns were banned in 1976 the murder rate has risen 200 percent. In Chicago, the city consistently had one of the highest homicide rates in the nation since they enacted a ban on gun in 1982. In May 2010, a month before the Supreme Court overturned the ban, Chicago already had 113 homicides for the year.(Piquero). Since gun restriction laws were repealed by the Supreme court in 2010, Chicago and Washington D.C. received significantly lower crime rates. The murder rate in Chicago in the first six months of 2011 is 14% lower than the first six months of 2010. This is the first significant drop in the murder rate since gun sanctions were first passed in 1982. In 2008, the Supreme Court lifted the gun ban in D.C. in the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller. Since the gun ban was repealed, the murder rate in D.C. has dropped 35% from 2008-2010. The rate of assault with weapons decreased by 37% and armed robberies fell as well too by 25% (Lott). These statistics further prove how ineffective gun control laws are. Not only they do not work in reducing crime they create adverse effects on crime. Instead, they make the problems worst. I believe that the right to bear arms is an unalienable right and I don’t believe that government have that right to take it away. I feel that all citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families. Gun laws restricting the use of guns does not help law abiding citizens. These laws only take away the ability of each citizens to defend themselves and makes us helpless against criminals. Gun control only creates an illusion that a society is safer and it does not solve the root cause crime. One cannot solve the crime problem by just simply taking away guns. The crime problem goes way deeper than just guns. Criminals will find a way to get guns regardless if theres a strict law or not . Most criminals are opportunist and having a strict gun law only gives them the opportunity to commit more crime with less worry about that person being armed. I believe that there is other ways to fight crime, however, I don’t believe gun control is the answer to making our world a safer place.

The Deep State Theory, Defined and Explained

The seed for many tantalizing conspiracy theories, the term â€Å"deep state† in the United States implies the existence of a premeditated effort by certain federal government employees or other persons to secretly manipulate or control the government without regard for the policies of Congress or the President of the United States. Origin and History of the Deep State The concept of a deep state — also called a â€Å"state within a state† or a â€Å"shadow government† – was first used in reference to political conditions in countries like Turkey and post-Soviet Russia. During the 1950s, an influential anti-democratic coalition within the Turkish political system called the â€Å"derin devlet† – literally the â€Å"deep state† — allegedly dedicated itself to ousting communists from the new Turkish Republic founded by Mustafa Ataturk after World War I. Made up of elements within the Turkish military, security, and judiciary branches, the derin devlet worked to turn the Turkish people against its enemies by staging â€Å"false flag† attacks and planned riots. Ultimately, the derin devlet was blamed for the deaths of thousands of people. In the 1970s, former high-ranking officials of the Soviet Union, after defecting to the West, publically stated that the Soviet political police – the KGB – had operated as a deep state secretly attempting to control the Communist Party and ultimately, the Soviet government. In a 2006 symposium, Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former general in the Communist Romania secret police who defected to the United States in 1978, stated, In the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within a state.† Pacepa went on to claim, â€Å"Now former KGB officers are running the state. They have custody of the country’s 6,000 nuclear weapons, entrusted to the KGB in the 1950s, and they now also manage the strategic oil industry renationalized by Putin.† The Deep State Theory in the United States In 2014, former congressional aide Mike Lofgren alleged the existence of a different type of deep state operating within the United States government in his essay titled â€Å"Anatomy of the Deep State.† Instead of a group comprised exclusively of government entities, Lofgren calls the deep state in the United States â€Å"a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.† The Deep State, wrote Lofgren, is not â€Å"a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. It is not a tight-knit group and has no clear objective. Rather, it is a sprawling network, stretching across the government and into the private sector.† In some ways, Lofgren’s description of a deep state in the United States echoes parts of President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address, in which he warned future presidents to â€Å"guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.† President Trump Alleges a Deep State Opposes Him Following the tumultuous 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump and his supporters suggested that certain unnamed executive branch officials and intelligence officers were secretly operating as a deep state to block his policies and legislative agenda by leaking information considered critical of him. President Trump, White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, along with ultra-conservative news outlets like Breitbart News claimed that Former President Obama was orchestrating a deep state attack against the Trump administration. The allegation apparently grew out of Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that Obama had ordered the wiretapping of his telephone during the 2016 election campaign. Current and former intelligence officials remain divided on the question of the existence of a deep state secretly working to derail the Trump administration.   In a June 5, 2017 article published in The Hill Magazine, retired veteran CIA field operations agent Gene Coyle stated that while he doubted the existence of â€Å"hordes of government officials† operating as an anti-Trump deep state, he did believe the Trump administration was justified in complaining about the number of leaks being reported by news organizations. â€Å"If you are that appalled at the actions of an administration, you should quit, hold a press conference and publicly state your objections,† said Coyle. â€Å"You can’t run an executive branch if more and more people think, ‘I don’t like the policies of this president, therefore I will leak information to make him look bad.’† Other intelligence experts argued that individuals or small groups of individuals leaking information critical of a presidential administration lack the organizational coordination and depth of deep states such as those that existed in Turkey or the former Soviet Union. The Arrest of Reality Winner   On June 3, 2017, a third-party contractor working for the National Security Agency (NSA) was arrested on charges of violating the Espionage Act by leaking a top-secret document related to the possible involvement of the Russian government in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to an unnamed news organization. When questioned by the FBI on June 10, 2017, the woman, 25-year-old Reality Leigh Winner, â€Å"admitted intentionally identifying and printing the classified intelligence reporting at issue despite not having a ‘need to know,’ and with the knowledge that the intelligence report was classified,† according to the FBI affidavit. According to the Justice Department, Winner â€Å"further acknowledged that she was aware of the contents of the intelligence reporting and that she knew the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation.† The arrest of Winner represented the first confirmed case of an attempt by a current government employee to discredit the Trump administration. As a result, many conservatives have been quick to use the case to bolster their arguments of a so-called deep state within the United States government. While its true that Winner had publicly expressed anti-Trump sentiments both to co-workers and on social media, her actions in no way prove the existence of an organized deep state effort to discredit the Trump administration.