Athenian Government essays

Athenian Government essays In the beginning and even before the seventh century Athens rule was chaotic. One dictator that did not speak for the people usually oversaw what little government that existed. All this began to change over the years to come; great leaders and lawmakers began to reform society. People such as Draco and Solon tried to institute new ideas of law. Cleisthenes brought a plan of political organization after the last tyrant rule of Peisistratus. Finally Ephialtes leads us past the fifth century into the future. In the centuries before democracy most governmentally issues were overseen by the aristocratic classes. It was not really anyones choice to be ruled by these people, but oligarchy was inevitable. It was easy for those with no money to turn the power over to those that had money, because well the poor depended on the rich. Soon though this dependence became halting to the growth of the overall economy. Slowly this lead to a unification of the small villages. Synoikism of these small rural communities formed these little societies called poleis, which developed into cities such as Athens and Sparta. In 620 BC Draco the Lawmaker tried to reform old ways and bring the power away from the people and to a more organized condition. This first big shift of power away from family and to the state was a large one. He also called for an equalization of laws, so that each was enforced equally to each class of persons. This lead into the beginning of the ever-growing development of democracy. During the sixth century in Athens there were many problems within the society; the existence of slavery and the power still beginning held with the rich. In 594 BC Solon the Lawmaker came into power. He instituted what was called, shaking off of the burdens which abolished slavery. He tried to redistribute political power with reform of the government jobs and whom they were offered to. Thi ...

U.S Intervention Essays - Moiss Giroldi, Panama, Noriega

U.S Intervention Essays - Moiss Giroldi, Panama, Noriega U.S Intervention U.S Intervention As early as the 1500s, the idea of constructing a ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans occurred to navigators and explorers, as the geographical form of the Central American Isthmus was becoming known. Many Isthmus surveys were made over the years. Opinion remained divided between a route through Panama and a longer route through Nicaragua. This divided opinion continued until the building of the Panama Canal was begun by the U.S. in 1904. By the end of the century the U.S. government would find themselves in an unnerving situation; concerned with the Panama Canal and other economic interests would unfortunately demonstrate unequaled force and damage to an innocent people with their focus on something other than what was in the sights of their rifles. Panama was originally created by the US in 1903 so that they could build a canal between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean. Noriega, Panamas defacto leader, was in league with the US, the CIA, and the Drug Enforcement Agency until 1986. In June 1987 violent popular demonstrations erupted in the streets, due to reports of election fraud and Noriegas involvement in major human rights abuses. In February 1988, Noriega was charged by the US courts with aiding in the trafficking of drugs between Columbia and the US. The president of Panama subsequently fired Noriega from commander of the Panamanian Defense Force. The National Assembly replaced the president with a supporter of Noriega. Noriega himself although still sustained most of the power within the Panama Defense Force. The U.S. refused to recognize the new president and placed massive economic pressure on Panama by cutting off U.S. aid, freezing all Panamanian corporations. Noriega was a corrupt dictator heading an efficient narco-militaristic regime in Panama. He was involved in drug trafficking, arms smuggling, money laundering, and the ruthless oppression of his people. He also systematically violated the American-Panamanian Canal treaties and harassed U.S. forces and institutions in Panama. The problems the U.S. recognized in Noriega began in 1985 as an internal Panamanian affair. Between 1985 and the 1989 U.S. invasion, it went through a series of five mini-crises. These included the murder of Hugo Spadaraora, a physician but also a revolutionary, a guerrilla fighter, and a political activist. The Herrara confessions were brought forth by Colonel Roberto Herrera who was to replace Noriega after he was to retire in 1987. After Noriega announced he would remain in control Herrera in retaliation publicly revealed details about Noriegas crimes as well as accused him of orchestrating the murder of Spadafora. A turning point occurred in February 1988, wh en the United States declared drugs to be the major threat to American society at the same time that Noriega was indicted in Florida for drug trafficking and money laundering. The Reagan and Bush administrations hoped for and peferred a Panamanian solution, like a coup, an election that would end Noriegas rule, or a popular uprising similar to that of the uprising that dumped Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. On October 1st 1989, the wife of Moises Giroldi, a member of Noriegas inner circle who had crushed the 1988 Macias coup attempt, informed Southcom officers that her husband was planning a nonviolent coup against Noriega and that he wanted limited U.S. help. Giroldis coup took place on October 3rd 1989. Mrs. Giroldi and her children were given shelter, the U.S. forces blocked the requested roads and for a few hours Noriega was a prisoner in the hands of Giroldi, who tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to retire. Supposedly several rebel leaders, but not Giroldi, were then prepared to turn Noriega over to U.S. authorities, but in some way Noriega was able to contact his special unit, Battalion 2000. The Battalion crushed the rebellion using other Noriega loyalists. Giroldi was later severely tortured and killed as were several other coup leaders. The two administrations used covert operations to help start popular uprisings and coups and also assisted the opposition in the 1989 Panamanian elections. None of these efforts were successful, and the United States decided to use other measures to remove Noriega such as negotiations, economic and diplomatic sanctions, and military threats. These attempts also failed, partly due to mixed messages, operational restrictions, and incompetent

Relationship between Sound and Space in I am Seating in a Room by Essay

Relationship between Sound and Space in I am Seating in a Room by Alvin Lucier - Essay Example Instead, the artists who firmly occupy one discipline – composers who compose music, artists who create visual art, and architects who fashion functional space – find themselves more readily embraced by critics and audiences. Artists whose work combines all of these disciplines however often encounter a chilly, if not confused, critical and audience response. Susan Philipsz, who won the Turner Prize in 2010, has been called the â€Å"first artist working with sound to have won the prize,† and some sound artists view this development as a positive harbinger for the discipline as a whole (Searle n.p.) Searle describes Philipsz as â€Å"just a singer, with the sort of voice you might feel lucky to come across at a folk club. But there is much more to Philipsz than a good voice. All singers, of course, are aware of the space their voice occupies, of the difference between one hall and another...But the way Philipsz sites recordings of her voice is as much to do with place as with sound† (Searle n.p.). True, Philipsz’s use of sound is extraordinary. However, Philipsz is still â€Å"singing† in the traditional sense of the word. ... Sound artists define the term polymath; they straddle multiple disciplines, including art, music, performance art, and architecture, and become masters in each. However, the critical community has not caught up to the speed at which these artists process the physical world. Aside from the occasional Burning Man performance, for the most part sound artists remain in obscurity. This reality exists because sound art by nature occupies a fractious, shadowy space between two critical perspectives that harbor two powerful biases: the visual bias of the so-called â€Å"visual† art school of criticism, and the â€Å"music† bias of the music school of criticism. Both biases persist and effectively hamstring critics to discuss one or the other, but never both. Is it art, or is it music? Is it sound, or is it art? As Cox argues, â€Å"the broader field of sound art has been ignored by musicologists, art historians, and aesthetic theorists. The open-ended sonic forms and often sit e-specific location of sound installations thwart artists musicological analysis, which remains oriented to the formal examination of discrete sound structures and performances, while the purely visual purview of art history allows its practitioners not only to disregard sound art but also to gloss over the sonic strategies of Postminimalism and Conceptualism† (Cox 146). Never mind that music itself is a form of sound – in fact, all noise that the human ear processes can be conceived of as such – yet the polarizing critical perspectives persist, to the detriment of scholars and audiences alike. As Cox explains, â€Å"sound art remains so profoundly undertheorized, and†¦has failed to generate a rich and compelling critical literature†¦because the prevailing theoretical models are inadequate to it.