Iranian Jewish Identity


Identities according to Barker" are wholly social constructions and can not exist outside of cultural representation."

Iran is a country of several ethnicities, languages, local cultures, religions which have lived peacefully during a long period. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism, are the main religions in Iran.

Despite the fact that the majority in Iran are Muslims, Jews as a religious minority, are considered as "people of Book", who have been legally benefited by the Constitution. Iran has the largest population of Jews of all the Muslim countries.

Although after the revolution in Iran some of them immigrated to U.S and Israel, those Jews who remained have the full citizenship. They exercise freely their religious practices and festivals. They can participate in political elections and have a seat in Parliament.

With an anti Zionism approach among Iranian administration and people, Jews community in Iran has not been mixed with Zionists or Israelis, only they have been considered as Jewish Iranians.

It seems that Jewish identity in Iran, formed by their nationality and their religion, is very different from the Jewish identity in other parts of the world. They do not consider themselves, as the only chosen nation by God, but as the followers of Moses.

Iranian culture has influenced Iranian Jews and shaped the most part of their identity. The Jewish culture has been adjusted to the Iranian culture so that, apart from the religious attitudes, they don’t separate themselves from other Iranian citizens. But at the same time they represent themselves as a different community and try to pass Jewish values through generations in family unit and educational system.

Types of Primaries


Primary elections, as means for for political parties to nominate candidates for general election, are held on behalf of the parties.The electoral college is a particular American institution.When Americans vote for Presidents and vice_presidents, they do not acctually vote fore those people , but for electors.These electors meet in their state capitals after the general election and cast votes for President and vice_President.Though electors are pledged to the candidates of their party, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring them to so vote.
There are four main types of primaries:
*Closed
*Open
*Blanket
*Run_off

Closed:
In this direct primary, those voters who are registered members of a party, may vote in that party's primary.So the important case, here is declaring party affiliation and independents can not vote.It may strengthen party unity and doesn't let other party's members to vote to nominate weak candidate for their own party's benefit.
In Semi_closed primary, even unaffiliated voters can participate in voting.Here, independents , based on the states , can privatelychoose party primary inside the voting booth or publicaly by registering withany party on Election Day.

Open:
Here, registered's party affiliation is not so important.Voters can vote in any party primary.They enter the voting booth and choose the party ballot on which they will vote in secret.This system, sometimes, let voters of opposing party, to participate and vote for the weakest candidate of the other side to increase their own party the chance of having more votes for it's candidates.This practice is known as "raiding".Each person can vote in only one primary.
Semi_open primary, is different with open primary in public announcement which the voters must declare their primary before the entering the voting booth.They request a ballot and electional officials record their choice and provid them parties access to information.

Blanket:
Voters can vote, according to this system, for one candidate.Their membership in a special party is not important.Through this syste, political party candidates can be selected.The candidates who have taken the majority of votes by party can continue to the general election.Although in open primary voters may vote for candidates, regardless of their own party registration, they must stick to one party's candidate.
In comparison with the other primaries, this system makes the voters less limited, because it doesn't limit them to select from just one party's candidates.There are some critics, however,that say it is aweakness for the system, because it reduces party loyalty.

Run_off
The ballots in this primary are not limited to one party and the top two candidates advance to general election, regardless of party affiliation.If no candidate gain the majority of votes, all candidates, except the the two with the most votes, are eliminated and a second round of voting happens.

Climate Stewardship and Innovative Act of 2007
Democrats on the Issue


IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released an assessment that holds human actions responsible for the up growing air pollution and warming of climate. This has led the democrats to feel the emergency of legislations on the issue. The republicans, however, except for senator McCain, the candidate of 2008 elections, have rejected the importance of the issue and the mandating condition.

Any provision for the issue requires the coping of the legal frameworks in US with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In introducing one of the issues in the Congress, that is the climate change and the necessary legal provisions for it, this paper would also look very briefly at the ideas of major democrats in senate, who have also been candidates for 2008 presidential election. The reason of not including the republicans is that they have generally ignored the issue, except for senator McCain.

The legal setting that is waiting to be passed by the House of Representatives is the most recent bill of Climate Stewardship and Innovative Act of 2007.

More than any other democrat candidate, Senator Joseph Biden has been active in promoting the issue of legislation in the area of climate change. The Clean Power Act of 2005, was a bill introduced by him in that year that never became a law.

Senator Hillary Clinton, the 2008 election major delegate, is a strong proponent of the legislation on the issue of climate change. She is also a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Pubic Works. She has sponsored the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. This act would have cut the amount of green gases by 30% by 2050 having passed. The other act she is the sponsor of is the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act.

Senator Chris Dodd was another democrat candidate who sponsored the Clean Power Act of 2005 along with Biden.

Senator John Edwards is the first to announce that for the bilateral purpose of reducing green house gases and the economic provision regarding fuel, the completely carbon neutral fuel should be utilized.

And the last but not the least, Senator Barak Obama, the other 2008 election delegate, has sponsored the Climate Stewardship and Innovative Act of 2007, along with Hillary Clinton. This is a bill that has not been passed yet, but alive.

ON THE SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES


One of the important issues in the history of the United states is SLAVERY, that even resulted to the American Civil War(1861_1865).It has a long and considereable history in the America till it can be said that even after the Civil War it remained still one of the crucial issues.

The speed of the spreading slavery through the colonies was so fast that it can be said that just during about a century all of the colonies became slaveholders and their economic was based on it.

First the European indentured servents were the labor force in the agricultural colonies.But there was a problem there. After their time was over, they became free. So the colonists needed to a kind of labor forcewith little wage and everlasting period of time to serve on the farms.

Labor system became more important on southern agricultural regions.On other parts it was mostly for serving at homes or something like this.So it was not vital as the fundumental base of economy.

The slave population of the United States increased after that the law put an end to slaveryand it was mostly because of natural increase.

Different locations and size to crops grown and methods of slaveholding made different anteballums.Living on larg cotton plantations in south withlarg numbers of slaves needed more watchful eyes of overseers than northern parts where the masters themseleves supervised their servents.

Slaves were both human property for their masters and individuals with their own lives.Slavery in south was not just the reltionship between masters and the slaves but it made a new way of life that represented the new civilization.

Although, masters tried to have a complete control over the slaves they were not successful. Slaves lived as they could with their own traditional values, customs and family relationships.They were slaves but they tried to resist against their masters.So they were not just controlleable objects, and this resistance shaped their in dividual and social behavior.

Slavery shaped a different society in south in which the life of the whites was something different from the other Americans in other parts of the country, because their society was a slave one and based on slavery. Southern economy was based on slavery so that it's growth rate between 1840 and 1860 was even more than of the North. This difference was so huge that ended to the Civil War between South and the North.

The Northerner believed that western territories should be setteled just by the fre whites, while the Southerners didn't accept any expantions on the slavery issue.

Abraham Lincoln with Northern idea was elected in 1860, when the controvertial issue on the slavery had increased. So that some states in the south were separated and foremed the Confederate State of America.Civil War between slavery south and free north led to the end of slavery. Here, the important matter was not slaves but the UNION.

Slavery was over but the problems for the slaves remained in other ways. Civil War was necessary for the United States, otherwise it can be named "separated states" .

White House Facts
For two hundred years, the White House has stood as a symbol of the Presidency, the United States government, and the American people. Its history, and the history of the nation’s capital, began when President George Washington signed an Act of Congress in December of 1790 declaring that the federal government would reside in a district "not exceeding ten miles square…on the river Potomac." President Washington, together with city planner Pierre L’Enfant, chose the site for the new residence, which is now 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As preparations began for the new federal city, a competition was held to find a builder of the "President’s House." Nine proposals were submitted, and Irish-born architect James Hoban won a gold medal for his practical and handsome design.
Construction began when the first cornerstone was laid in October of 1792. Although President Washington oversaw the construction of the house, he never lived in it. It was not until 1800, when the White House was nearly completed, that its first residents, President John Adams and his wife, Abigail, moved in. Since that time, each President has made his own changes and additions. The White House is, after all, the President’s private home. It is also the only private residence of a head of state that is open to the public, free of charge.
The White House has a unique and fascinating history. It survived a fire at the hands of the British in 1814 (during the war of 1812) and another fire in the West Wing in 1929, while Herbert Hoover was President. Throughout much of Harry S. Truman’s presidency, the interior of the house, with the exception of the third floor, was completely gutted and renovated while the Trumans lived at Blair House, right across Pennsylvania Avenue. Nonetheless, the exterior stone walls are those first put in place when the White House was constructed two centuries ago.
Presidents can express their individual style in how they decorate some parts of the house and in how they receive the public during their stay. Thomas Jefferson held the first Inaugural open house in 1805. Many of those who attended the swearing-in ceremony at the U.S. Capitol simply followed him home, where he greeted them in the Blue Room. President Jefferson also opened the house for public tours, and it has remained open, except during wartime, ever since. In addition, he welcomed visitors to annual receptions on New Year’s Day and on the Fourth of July. In 1829, a horde of 20,000 Inaugural callers forced President Andrew Jackson to flee to the safety of a hotel while, on the lawn, aides filled washtubs with orange juice and whiskey to lure the mob out of the mud-tracked White House.
After Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, Inaugural crowds became far too large for the White House to accommodate them comfortably. However, not until Grover Cleveland’s first presidency did this unsafe practice change. He held a presidential review of the troops from a flag-draped grandstand built in front of the White House. This procession evolved into the official Inaugural parade we know today. Receptions on New Year’s Day and the Fourth of July continued to be held until the early 1930s.
There are 132 rooms, 35 bathrooms, and 6 levels in the Residence. There are also 412 doors, 147 windows, 28 fireplaces, 8 staircases, and 3 elevators.
At various times in history, the White House has been known as the "President's Palace," the "President's House," and the "Executive Mansion." President Theodore Roosevelt officially gave the White House its current name in 1901.
Presidential Firsts while in office... President James Polk (1845-49) was the first President to have his photograph taken... President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09) was not only the first President to ride in an automobile, but also the first President to travel outside the country when he visited Panama... President Franklin Roosevelt (1933-45) was the first President to ride in an airplane.
With five full-time chefs, the White House kitchen is able to serve dinner to as many as 140 guests and hors d'oeuvres to more than 1,000.
The White House requires 570 gallons of paint to cover its outside surface.
For recreation, the White House has a variety of facilities available to its residents, including a tennis court, jogging track, swimming pool, movie theater, and bowling lane.

BIPARTISAN SYSTEM IN THE US

The government in the United States consists of different parts and it is a very complicated system, as the result. Looking at the political-philosophical background of the American government may be helpful in explaining this novel and unique complexity. the philosophical bases, minded by the Founding Fathers when shaping the government in 1787 after the Revolution and composing the Constitution has been multifold, but mainly focusing on theories of Montesquieu (divided government), Thomas Hobbes (democracy), and John Lock (liberal democracy). These three weave tightly together to shape what we see now in the government of the United States. what this paper is going to search back in the historical philosophy, however, is analyzing not why the American government is ruled and maintained by the two party system, but to find out why it is divided almost always between the two parties (that is, why at least two main parties take control of parts of government, such that they make a balance in the control of power. As the word "divided" may suggest, the situation takes its roots from Montesquieu. That is, as Montesquieu argues, the control of power should be spread in different parts of an entity, i.e. government, so that the possibility of abuse of power is reduced to the least. Of course this is in line with other American basic political philosophies, democracy and liberal democracy, because it conforms to the principles of democracy that is against the power of the minority, or oligarchy. The divided government is now known in the American political terminology as the total system of "checks and balances". The system maintains the embodiment of the division of government in the form of binaries and/or vertical-horizontal divisions of power. It can be seen in federal, states and municipal governments. The other division of power is done vertically by cutting the federal government into three branches: executive (the President), legislative (Congress), and judicial (the courts). This way, each branch of power has a certain authority over the others.
going back to the main question "why does the government always consist of the two parties and not just one?", first it should be noted that two branches of executive and legislative are included in this regard _the judicial branch is excluded, because it is the President that chooses and appoints the judges for life, not the people. On the other hand, the President and members of the Congress are elected somehow directly by the people (not perfectly, due to the liberal democratic tradition in avoiding the minority dictatorship).
There are two main ideas for explaining this popular behavior in having the two branches each is in the hand of one party. The first says it is the Constitution-consciousness of the people that leads them to choose consciously to have two branches under the control of two parties. That is to say, it is an American mind to fear the oligarchy. In fact, if the affiliates of a party is powerful and multiple in number that it can decide to force one party into the White House, then the same amount of members exist for forcing the same party into the Congress. What makes voters not to do that is the mentioned fear of oligarchy, in spite of the fact that they may have accepted the principles of that party.
On the other hand, the second idea speaks of the situation as an accidental one. It proposes that the historical devotion of power of each branch to each of the two parties isn't something to be done consciously, but accidentally. For example, the affiliates of the party chosen for the executive branch are not so many to provide force to fill the Congress vocations as well.
The historical fact that during several elections of each branch held in the nation's history, the strange and interesting division has survived, although it has not been set as a rule in the Constitution, suggests the first idea as logical and acceptable.

HUMAN RIGHTS IN US

Among the industrial nations the United States is unique in many ways. The capitalist economics of the United States that promotes free trade, private ownership, laissez faire, consumerism, individualism and claims for welfare is the source of paradoxes. It is long that commentators are criticizing the condition on the health care. The last of them is the American documentary director, Michael Moore with his fabulous "Sicko". In it he analyzes like a physician the ill health care of his country.
Pharmaceutical products are a large part of a nation's health care. Health Care, respectively, is a major component in promoting the justice, as a Human Rights credo in a society. One of the realms in which the US should manage to make reformation, thus, is the health care provisions and policies.
Health Care in US
The present feather on the US cap regarding health care are the two programs of Medicare and Medicaid which are in their own turns under criticism.
The public health care debates began somewhere around the beginning of the 20th century. During the century of efforts that would ultimately determine the fate of the condition, all American presidents were assumed to be advocates of national health care. But, as the present conditions reveal, each time there was an obstacle in the way. FDR, for example, left it high and dry lest the Social Security plan be blocked and doomed. The advent of the cold war disreputated it as the "socialized medicine". However 40s and 50s were the summits of the movement of the public health care as a more serious program. A system then, unique among industrial nations, America, in the 1950s had a health care system that was tied with employment. Of course, there were inefficiencies in such a system to those suffering low income, women, and the agrarians and workers in the remote areas.
Kennedy and Johnson, also, were advocates of the program but they were limited by the votes of the republican congress. Finally, when the congress turned to democrats, the Medicare and Medicaid programs were passed. And most disastrous was the Watergate which abandoned the promised national health care by President Nixon for another run. Then, "instead of producing medical care and related services itself, the government chose- as it usually did in America- to rely on the market. ... Government production of medical care diminished as government funding increased and health care was outsourced to private providers."(ibid: 261) Thus began the story of the private American health care.
"From 1972, to 1994, the Medical population increased from 18 to 35 million. In the same years, the costs of the program soared from $8 billion to &144 billion... and by 1980s, Medicaid often was the largest program in state budgets, and by the 1990s it cost governors six times as much as AFDC."(ibid: 262) naturally, from this point cost cutting began. Under President Reagan, the Prospective payment system decreased the radius of the umbrella. "As in the familiar master narrative of policy reform, policy makers judged their success by the lower numbers and paid little attention to the consequences for patients or clients."(ibid: 264) this led to the 20 percent decrease of Medicare during 80s. At this very historical point, the business interests began exploiting the profitable health care as a new industry. Katz says that in the 80s, the number of investors in health services was one forth of the totals.
The New Deal of President Clinton, The President Health Security Plan, was a final attempt to rescue the health care, but it failed. He observed that almost 37 employers worked without the usual employer's coverage, because they worked for small employers who didn't carry insurance. Those with insurance worried about their situation in the case of losing their jobs. The policy of the Clinton committee on the reform was not to follow the excellent model of other industrialized nations, but to create a distinguished one for the sake of uniqueness. This is known as the managing competition which is considered as the reason for the defeat of the reform.
Intellectual Property
IP, Intellectual Property, is a kind of patent regulated as the legal protection of the technological products for the companies or individuals that are the investors and inventors of it.
The issue that is the concern of this paper is the influence of such laws, and specifically, this law on the welfare consumers, people, in the United States. Data released in 2004 by the Census Bureau show that "the number of uninsured Americans stood at 45.8 million in 2004, an increase of 800,000 people over the number uninsured in 2003 (45.0 million). The percentage of people without health insurance has been 15.7 percent in 2004.
The current stated United States policy on intellectual property, whose main focus is on preserving its unparalleled strength in economic, political and military affairs, therefore raises particular concerns. That is "the United States policy, by focusing exclusively on the rights of its export industries, may lead to very restrictive interpretations of the flexibilities contained in the international agreements, to the detriment of public health needs."(Musungu & Oh: 83) On the other hand, the domestic implications of the acts and the policy should not be ignored.
Conclusion
Pharmaceutical products, is the component of the broader concern, i.e. health care system, that is vulnerable to the implementations of IP. Obviously, those poor within the range of the aforementioned middle class are the victims of such financial patents which restrict the volume, availability and therefore the price of the products. Obviously, suffering the absence of insurance, public and private, on the other hand confronting a killing expensive drug market, is afflicting the members of the middle class. Specially when regarding adding the exertion of mafia and black markets of drug appreciated by high prices and low availability. Moore show the dramatic side of the story by presenting different cases of suffering deprivation, especially the deprivation of the 9/11 fire fighters from any kind of health care coverage.