New Book Theorizes Emergence, Effect of Third Major Political Party
New Book Theorizes Emergence, Effect of Third Major Political Party
Fredericksburg, VA (Vocus/PRWEB) January 26, 2011
If a third political party were bent on buying back the United States as a gift to American citizens, would it be trusted?
In her third book The Pinnacle Seven, author Jackie Richards explores the idea, tying together mystery, murder and political corruption to bring readers a thought-provoking, revealing read. When television journalist Cassie Danforth’s father is dying, his final words lead to unpredictable changes in her life and she soon finds herself immersed in a murder investigation and a mysterious third political party financed by patriots.
“It’s a woven tapestry of mystery and romance, and at the same time touches on our country’s problems,” says Richards.
Addressing current issues of political corruption and the loss of “middle America,” The Pinnacle Seven weaves together political fact and philosophy to ultimately demonstrate the overall effect of power.
Capitalizing on timeliness as modern Americans voice their desire for a party that will effectively govern and bring back a strong middle class, The Pinnacle Seven illustrates one group’s plans to buy back America, ridding it of corporate corruption and reinstating the power of the people.
“I am not convinced that either of the present parties have the welfare of American citizens at the top of their agendas,” says Richards. “Power and greed are two sources of our country’s present catastrophic condition.”
For more information, visit http://www.jackierichardsauthor.com/.
About the author
Now retired, Jackie Richards has worked as a government employee, community activist, corporate secretary and treasurer, and award-winning photojournalist. Richards has given various seminars, including one at the Virginia Education Media Association. The former co-director of the Chesapeake Writer’s Conference, Richards is a member of the National Press Women’s Association, Virginia Press Women’s Association and the National Association of Active and Retired Federal Employees.
Richards has four children, nine grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. She resides with her family in Virginia.
# # #
©Copyright 1997-
, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Related Corruption Press Releases
Who Really Runs the New World Order Exposed: Part 2 of “Is Glenn Beck for Real?”
http://www.infowars.com/?p=43182
See Also: Part 1: Is Glenn Beck for real?
Despite what figures like Beck have portrayed, this global system is not run by Marxist ideologues or Communist revolutionaries; those groups and others are controlled by a psychopathic, offshore, corporate elite cabal who have sophisticated control over most of the world’s resources, peoples and territories.
Alex Jones extends his remarks on Glenn Beck, the co-opting of the Tea Party movement and who really runs the New World Order in a follow-up video address to “Is Glenn Beck for Real?”
Duration : 0:14:51
Charles Falco: The Tyranny of the Lens
Tyranny of the Lens
Charles Falco
Lecture
Minneapolis Institute of Arts
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The phrase tyranny of the lens comes from correspondence between painter David Hockney and physicist Charles Falco, who together uncovered visual evidence for the use of optics by artists such as Jan van Eyck, Hans Holbein, and Caravaggio. Tyranny describes the influence optics has had, and continues to have, in the production, interpretation, and distribution of images since the early 15th century. Falco shares findings on how optics reveals new insights into the creative process of visual artists and demonstrates that artists, not scientists, were among the first to employ it.
A renowned physicist, Charles Falco has written bestselling books on art and optics with artist David Hockney. He is the chair of Condensed Matter Physics at the University of Arizona, where he has been a professor of optical sciences and research professor in the Surface Science Division of the universitys Arizona Research Laboratories since 1982.
Presented in conjunction with the MIAs monthly Third Thursday event.
Duration : 1:15:7
Corrupt Vba Project Error While Converting and Access Database to 2002
Under some circumstances, Access users need to convert a database from one file version to another. It is a very useful option, provided by Microsoft Access. But sometimes, when you attempt to convert Access 97 MDB file to Access 2002, the process may fail and you may get the following error message:
“An error occurred while loading Form_FormName. Do you want to continue?”
Followed by the second error message:
“The Visual Basic for Applications project in the database is corrupt.”
Because of these error messages, the conversion fails and your database becomes completely inaccessible.
Grounds of the issue
You get above error messages if the Access database that you are attempting to convert from one file version to another is not in the compiled state, or the database was damaged before you have tried to convert it.
Whatever the cause of this problem is, the ultimate result would be the incomplete conversion of the data and corruption in MDB file. It is never accepted due to the importance of stored data and thus you need to have required actions to get your database repaired.
Resolution
To fix this problem, you can use any of the below given methods:
? Use Compact and Repair to get the database repaired and then restart conversion.
? In spite of converting the database, import database from Access 97 into 2002.
? Delete references to Utility.mdb and then reattempt conversion.
Though, these methods work in some cases and can fix the problem, but if you are having problem due to corrupted MDB file, you need to use some advanced methods for Access recovery.
Access recovery is best possible using the third party Access recovery software. These software are very powerful and carry out excellent Access repair in almost all possible cases of MDB corruption. Without having any sound and prior technical knowledge, you can use these software very easily for perfect Access recovery.
Stellar Phoenix Access Recovery is the best suitable Access repair software for having trouble-free, quick and absolute Access recovery. Having cool looking and intuitive user interface, this Access repair software is extremely easy to use. You can use this advanced Access recovery software for all file versions of Microsoft Access including Access 97, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2007.
Simpson Raid
http://www.articlesbase.com/data-recovery-articles/corrupt-vba-project-error-while-converting-and-access-database-to-2002-687271.html
Inconsistency Assertions 3624 or Error Message 7987 in Sql Server
SQL Server errors are not hostages of only the complex operations, but while the normal and usual operations like SELECT and UPDATE are attempted; several error messages may also be seen. The error messages, as mentioned below, indicate that the SQL database is suffering from some sort of inconsistencies, but, at the ultimate resort, can make you feel need of SQL repair. However, there are few assertion error messages, which may indicate inconsistencies in the database, such as:
Msg 3624
Location: recbase.cpp:SQLServerVersion
Expression: m_offBeginVar < m_SizeRec SPID: ProcessID
Process ID: SQLServerEXEProcessID
Msg 3624
Location: p:sqlntdbmsstorengdrsincluderecord.inl:SQLServerVersion
Expression: m_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <= MAXDATAROW SPID: ProcessID
Process ID: SQLServerEXEProcessID
Research shows that when the SQL Server application tries to read data from the data page, the mentioned assertions may be observed, during which an error log file is created which records the corresponding information. Now, as there were no clear indicatives about what has caused the error to occur, SQL 2000 Service Pack 4 has changed the scene in which the problematic assertions appeared. Now, these problems come in the form of the following error message:
Error: 7987, Severity: 22, State: 1 A possible database consistency problem has been detected on database ‘<dbname>’. DBCC CHECKDB and DBCC CHECKCATALOG should be run on database ‘<dbname>’.
Thus, as the stated error messages are occurring and some inconsistencies exist in the database, you need to have MDF repair by running the DBCC CHECKDB command and resolving the reported issues. However, if you come at the stage, when removal of errors is being hard and you have no database access due to the corruption, use third party SQL recovery applications and correct the issue.
MDF recovery software is a tool to scan, repair and restore the corrupted SQL database in the original view and content. They offer a definite SQL repair help in all the database corruption scenarios. For best cure, choose best help.
Stellar Phoenix SQL Recovery uses the most powerful scanning algorithms and repairs them effectively. With Phoenix SQL recovery treatment, you would find an interactive interface to work with and a consistent MDF repair mechanism. This MDF recovery application is found to be compatible with SQL Server 2000 and 2005.
Simpson Raid
http://www.articlesbase.com/data-recovery-articles/inconsistency-assertions-3624-or-error-message-7987-in-sql-server-711739.html
Travel to Indonesia – A Country of Thousands of Beautiful and Exotic Islands
Indonesia, a Country of thousands of beautiful and exotic Islands, that spark off your imagination with thoughts of fine sandy beaches, huge temple complexes, great diving and the giant dragons of Komodo. The islands of Indonesia are spread over a vast expanse of ocean and technically speaking is divided by two Continents.
Some parts of the Country can be as different from each other as black is from white. The hustle and bustle of the modern capital Jakarta is like another planet when compared to the traditional Papuan tribes of the Baliem Valley. Jakarta – Not only is it the largest City in the Country, Jakarta is also the heartbeat. Indonesian’s from all over the archipelago come to the City to try and find their fortune or just to survive. The face of the City is constantly changing due to the construction of new skyscrapers, shopping malls and hotels.
Jakarta is mainly a business and political City and not really a tourist destination, but the older colonial parts of the City are very interesting and the museums have a lot of fascinating exhibits.
Jakarta, like you would expect, is the most expensive place in Indonesia, as well as the most polluted and most congested. It can be very hard to cope with all of the hustle, dirt, crime and cost, but if you can you will find an exciting City with plenty to offer.
Kota – This is the old Town of Batavia, which was the capital of the Dutch East Indies and the best example of the colonial era in Indonesia. Though much of the old town has been destroyed or demolished over the years, some of the old Colonial buildings are still in active use, and the area has a definite Dutch feel to it.
The centre of the old Town is the pebble stone square known as Taman Fatahillah and this is the key to being able to orientate yourself around the sights of the old Town. The canal of Kali Besar is one block to the west of the square and runs alongside the Ciliwung River.
This was a very prosperous area and on the west bank are some of the high class homes that date from the eighteenth Century.
The Chicken market bridge is the last remaining drawbridge from the Dutch era, it is at the north end of the Kali Besar. Buses always come by on their routes and the city train also has a stop here.
Jakarta History Museum – This museum is housed in the old town hall of Batavia, which is on the south side of Taman Fatahillah. It is a well built building, which was originally constructed in 1627 and added to in the early 1700s. It was from here that the Dutch administered their colony, and the cities law courts were also here as well as their main prison compound.
It contains plenty of heavy, carved furniture from the colonial, as well as other memorabilia from the Dutch period. Open, 9am till 3pm, Tuesday to Sunday. Admission: 1,000Rp Wayang Museum – This museum is also on the Taman Fatahillah, and has a great assortment of Wayang puppets. It also has examples of puppets from other Countries like Cambodia, China and India.
This building was formerly the museum of old Batavia and was built in 1912 on the site of the former Dutch church which was demolished in 1808 as the
Dutchman “Daendels” plan to rid the City of its unhealthy areas. In the downstairs courtyard, there are memorials to previous governors who were buried on site. Open, 9am till 3pm, Tuesday to Sunday. Admission: 1,000Rp
Fine Arts Museum – Built in the 1860s, the palace of Justice building is now the Fine arts museum. It has a nice collection of contemporary paintings from prominent artists. They also have some ceramics on show from Chinese items to Majapahit offerings. Open, 9am till 3pm, Tuesday to Sunday. Admission: 1,000Rp
Gereja Sion – This church was built in 1695, and is the oldest Church in Jakarta. It is on Jl Pangeran Jayakarta near the Kota train station. The exterior of the Church is actually pretty plain but inside copper chandeliers, the original organ and the baroque pulpit makes it very appealing. Though thousands of people have been buried here there are very few tombs left remaining.
Sunda Kelapa – Just a 10 minute walk from the Taman Fatahillah, the old City port of Sunda Kelapa is full of wonderful Macassar schooners and the brightly coloured sails of these boats make for great viewing. The ships are still a vital means of transporting goods to outlying Islands.
Guides hang around the docks and for a few thousand rupiah will show you around and tell you some insightful stories. You can also take a ride out to the offshore fish market for around 5,000Rp. Admission, 250Rp to the dock area.
Maritime Museum – This is an old VOC warehouse that was built in 1645 and is by the entrance to the Sunda Kelapa. It has examples of Indonesian crafts from around the ages and has photos of the voyages from Europe to Jakarta. The building itself is well worth the visit and the lookout posts are part of the old City wall.
Just before the entrance to the museum proper, is the old watchtower that was built in 1839, it has brilliant views over the harbour. Opening hours are hit and miss, so try to find the caretaker.
National Museum – This museum, constructed in 1862, is considered the paramount museum in Indonesia, and one of the finest in South East Asia. It has a huge ethnic and relief maps of Indonesia on which you can track your travels. The museum has a variety of different cultural displays that show a diverse collection of clothing, instruments, model houses and religious items. In addition the museum has a fine collection of Chinese ceramics that even date back to the Han dynasty of the third Century.
The museum is sometimes known as the Elephant house due to the giant bronze elephant that was a gift from the King of Thailand, and that now stands outside. Open, 8.30am till 2.30pm, Tuesday to Sunday. Admission: 750Rp. Guides are around who can conduct tours in various different languages.
National Monument – This 130 metres high monument stands over Merdeka square and is Jakartas chief landmark. The construction was started in 1961 but was not finished until 1975, when it was officially opened by President Soeharto. At the base is the National History Museum which tells the story of the Indonesian struggle for independence. On national holidays and at the weekends the queues can be long. Open, 9am till 5pm, daily. Admission: 600Rp or 3,100Rp which includes a ride to the top.
Lapangan Banteng – Just east of Merdeka square is this nineteenth century colonial square. It has some of the best examples of Dutch colonial architecture in the whole of Jakarta. The Catholic Cathedral was built at the turn of the twentieth Century, and is opposite the principal place of worship for Jakartas Muslim community, the Istiqlal Mosque. To the east of the square is the Supreme Court that was built, along with the Ministry of finance, in 1809 by that man “Daendel” to replace those buildings torn down.
Martin Kleis
http://www.articlesbase.com/travel-articles/travel-to-indonesia-a-country-of-thousands-of-beautiful-and-exotic-islands-72013.html
World War II Names Still In Our Vocabulary – Part Three – The Blitz
This is the third of a series of articles that document some of the names, places, catch words, and other items that are now lodged permanently in our vocabulary, History was made some 68 years ago. We dare not forget.
From July to February, the name of the game is football. It starts with the exhibition season and ends with the Super Bowl extravaganza. Out of World War II has come a term about which which we all know. It is called The Blitz.
The blitz is a team defensive move in which the defense sends more players than the offense can block. When the defense is running the blitz, it sends linebackers or even defensive safeties in order to try to tackle the quarterback or disrupt his pass drop. If it works, the quarterback is sacked behind the line of scrimmage for a huge loss. If the quarterback can “read” the defensive signals and pick up the blitz, it means a touchdown. The defensive team is risking its pass defense in order to get to the quarterback. One commentator picked up a verse from the Bible. You either live by the blitz or else die by the blitz.
By nature, blitzes are risky endeavors for the defense. Since the defense is taking away coverage defenders to rush the QB, there necessarily are holes in pass coverage. The defense does not and cannot cover all offensive players, but rather through the blitz, is proactively involved in rattling the QB, sacking the QB, disrupting QB timing, or forcing him to make an error such as an interception or fumble.
The blitz gets its name from the Blitzkrieg, a German strategy of the “Lightning War” during World War II. In World War One, most of the battles were fought in trenches. Both sides fortified their trenches heavily, and ended up taking heavy casualties while gaining little ground. Ironically after World War One, the British devised a new strategy. The strategy was first put forward by Colonel John Fuller, the chief of staff of the British Tank Corps. Fuller was disappointed with the way tanks were used during the First World War and afterwards produced Plan 1919. This included a call for long-range mass tank attacks with strong air, motorized infantry, and artillery support. These ideas were developed in more detail in his books, Reformation of War (1923) and Foundation of the Science of War (1926).
The British Army ignored Fuller’s ideas. However, leaders of the rebuilding German Army studied Fuller’s ideas in detail. They asked the government to commission the production of new tanks that would enable them to use Blitzkrieg tactics in any future conflicts The Germans called the Fuller plan Blitzkreig or Lightning War.
After Adolf Hitler obtained power in 1933, the German government was open about its tank production. In the spring of 1934 the German Army began developing the Panzer tank. Over the next few years the Panzer I, Panzer II, Panzer III and Panzer IV were produced.
During the invasion of Poland in September, 1939, it became clear that the outstanding performer was the Panzer IV as it had the perfect combination of speed, agility, firepower and reliability. Over the next few years it became the backbone of Blitzkrieg and over 9,000 of these tanks were produced.
The success of the Blitzkreig was overwhelming. The Germans finished off Poland in six weeks. It was now France’s turn. On May 10, the blitzkrieg rolled through the Ardennes. In three weeks, the British had to evacuate their entire army at Dunquerque. By mid-June, France had surrendered. The Germans held a victory parade through the Arc De Triumph, something that the French still remember to this day in 2007.
Sir Winston Churchill made a speech. “The Battle of France is over. The Battle of Britain has begun.” The German aerial attacks over England would now be simply called, “The Blitz.” Beginning in August 1940, German bombers visited England every day. By September, the Blitz had failed. The Royal Air Force (RAF) proved it could win over the Luftwaffe.
The Blitz went into night attacks. From September until June 1941, the Luftwaffe visited London from sundown to sunup with incendiary bombs and high explosive weapons. By July 1941, the Blitz had ended. The Luftwaffe was needed to go fight the Soviets. It would now be up to the Soviets to stop the Blitzkreig. However, the Blitz did return to England when the momentum of World War II was on the side of the Allies. It came in the form of the buzz bomb.
In June 1944 the first flying bombs fell on London. They were usually called ‘buzz-bombs’ or ‘doodle-bugs’. At first only one or two fell, but soon it became obvious that a regular bombardment was under way.
The most noticeable aspect of the doodlebugs was their sound, which was quite unlike any ordinary plane. It had a strange tearing and rasping sound, more like a two-stroke motor-cycle.. South London was on their regular flight path, and many of them fell nearby, causing damage and loss of life.
The RAF brought the first jet fighters into operation to try to catch them as they were much faster than piston-engined fighters. They would fly alongside them and flip their wing to spill them harmlessly into the open fields below. Some of them failed to explode and one was put on display at a store in Canterbury.
There is no doubt that these things did a great deal of damage in London within the space of a few weeks. The allied armies were advancing on the launching sites in Northern France and Belgium, and there was concern that they would not get there in time to prevent more damage and loss of life.
Soon, however, the buzz bombs were replaced by the far more frightening V2 weapons. These were rockets proper, much larger and more destructive which gave no notice at all of their arrival. They continued to fall on London at intervals during the last winter of the war, 1944-45. The V-2 ballistic missile (known to its designers as the A4) was the world’s first operational liquid fuel rocket. It represented an enormous quantum leap in technology, financed by Nazi Germany in a huge development program that cost at least $ 2 billion in 1944 dollars. Despite the scale of this effort, the inaccurate missile did not change the course of the war and proved to be an enormous waste of resources.
After the war, personnel and technology from the V-2 program formed the starting point for post-war rocketry development in America, Russia, and France. The Allies seized tons of documents, hundreds of experts, and dozens of V-2 missiles. Emerging from World War II was Dr. Wernher Von Braun
Before the Allied capture of the V-2 rocket complex, Dr. von Braun engineered the surrender of 500 of his top rocket scientists, along with plans and test vehicles, to the Americans. For fifteen years after World War II, Dr. von Braun would work with the United States army in the development of ballistic missiles. As part of a military operation called Project Paperclip, he and his “rocket team” were scooped up from defeated Germany and sent to America where they were installed at Fort Bliss, Texas. There they worked on rockets for the United States army, launching them at White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico. In 1950 von Braun’s team moved to the Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama, where they built the Army’s Jupiter ballistic missile.
In 1960, his rocket development center transferred from the army to the newly established NASA and received a mandate to build the giant Saturn rockets. Accordingly, von Braun became director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would propel Americans to the Moon.
Dr. Von Braun also became one of the most prominent spokesmen of space exploration in the United States during the 1950s. In 1970, NASA leadership asked von Braun to move to Washington, DC, to head up the strategic planning effort for the agency. He left his home in Huntsville, Alabama, but after about two years he decided to retire from NASA and to go to work for Fairchild Industries of Germantown, Maryland. He died in Alexandria, Virginia, on 16 June 1977.
And so, the Blitz came peacefully to an end. It is probable that while living in the DC Metro Area, Dr. Von Braun could have watched the Dallas Cowboys run the blitz against the Washington Redskins. Quarterbacks such as Jurgensen, Bradshaw, Namath, Elway, and Manning will know the Blitz in the same way as we all do, every Sunday. Let it stay that way, forever more.
Bob Carper
http://www.articlesbase.com/sports-and-fitness-articles/world-war-ii-names-still-in-our-vocabulary-part-three-the-blitz-122843.html
Information Store Inconsistency and Corruption Problems in Exchange Server
You may encounter inconsistency problem or corruption in Microsoft Exchange Server 2000 Information Store Service in Jet database. The problem is indicated by the event ID 448. At this point of time, the database will become inaccessible and you may see the following entries in Application Event Log:
Date: Date
Source: ESE
Time: Time
Category: Database Corruption
Type: Error
Event ID: 448
User: N/A
Computer: Server Name
Description: Information Store (2412) Data inconsistency detected in table Msg of database E:Program
Filesexchsrvrmdbdatapriv4.edb (0, 524957). For more information, click http://search.support.microsoft.com/search/?adv=1
.Event ID 448 shows that there is an inconsistency or corruption problem in a table of the Jet database.
After this error, when the Exchange Server starts, all the services related to Exchange 2000 might start, but the mailbox stores would not be mounted. Thus, the users will not be able to access data from the database and will face the nightmare of data loss.
After coming across this problem, when you bear out the integrity of EDB file by running Eseutil /g command, it will be unsuccessful attempt and you will get the further error message stating:
“The Database is corrupted.”
Such problems might take place if the hard drive of your Exchange Server is defective or the hard drive is having any defective controller. It could also occur due to incomplete or corrupted restore operation or due to virus attack.
Regardless of the cause of EDB corruption, the main thing is your data and which is at stack of loss. It becomes mandatory here to search for a powerful Exchange Server recovery solution.
Exchange Server recovery is best possible with the application of third party software known as Exchange Server repair software. These software are very powerful to scan the damaged EDB file and end up at perfect EDB recovery.
Stellar Phoenix Mailbox Exchange Recovery is the ultimate solution of all your EDB repair related worries. Having a great scanning capability, this Exchange Server recovery is the best for perfect Exchange Server repair. This EDB recovery software can be used to recover all of the Exchange Server objects from Exchange Server 5.5, 2000, and 2003.
shally spears
http://www.articlesbase.com/data-recovery-articles/information-store-inconsistency-and-corruption-problems-in-exchange-server-680947.html
Social Work and the Law
NOTE: THE ARTICLE APPEARING BELOW WAS COPIED ON 22 JUNE 2009 BY http://www.cityadministrator.org/?p=397 WITHOUT MY PERMISSION AND WITHOUT CITING THIS AUTHOR. The blog is hosted by GoDaddy and registrant
Registrant Name:Joseph R Smith
Registrant Organization:FloridaView Media LLC
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight,
488 U.S. 1301 (1988)
A three month old infant was admitted for treatment in a hospital. It became apparent that the mother, Jackie Bouknight may have maltreated the infant. Consequently, the Department of Social Services (DSS) petitioned the Court to declare the child as a “child in need of assistance” and grant it the power to put the child under foster care (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). The Court granted relief and it was agreed upon by the parties that Bouknight shall have the custody of the child subject to the conditions of supervised parenting and an undertaking of non-infliction of bodily harm and punishment on the child. At first, Bouknight complied with the conditions but later on she became uncooperative and refused to produce her son to the DSS.
The DSS in fear for the safety and well being of the child filed a case before the Court to compel Bouknight to produce her son. She failed to appear before the Court but was later on arrested. On her refusal to disclose the whereabouts of her son, she was found guilty of contempt and was ordered to be incarcerated until compliance with the order [In re Maurice, No. 50 (Dec. 19, 1988). 314 Md. 391, 550 A.2d 1135].
On certiorari, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled that the incarceration of Bouknight was an infringement of her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. According to the Court, the production of the son is testimonial in nature because by doing so, it only proves Bouknight’s “continuing control” over her son which may be utilized in a criminal proceeding. It ruled that there are acts of production deemed to have testimonial value citing the case of U.S. vs. Doe (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the stay of DSS pending the filing of the requisite petition for certiorari. The grant of stay was based on the fact that even assuming that the act of production of the child is testimonial in character, many line of decisions of the Court are clear that as between the public need vis-à-vis a single claim of an individual on constitutional privilege, the former is upheld. In this particular case, the safety and interests of the abused child must be upheld over Bouknight’s assertion considering that, in the hierarchy of values, the safety and welfare of the child takes precedence over other concerns (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). Moreover, the information sought which is the whereabouts of the child is for the contempt charge and therefore civil in nature (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The Fifth Amendment: Right against Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment originated from England and derived from the Latin maxim “nemo tenetur seipsum accusare” meaning “no man is bound to accuse himself” (Levy, 1968). It was used in both the accusatorial and inquisitorial legal systems of England (Levy, 1968).
In the U.S., after the revolution the states ratified the Constitution with the inclusion of the privilege in the bill of rights. The original version of Madison was amended by the House to include “in any criminal case” (Schwartz, 1971). Thus, as it now stands, the Fifth Amendment provides, “. . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .” (U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights). The primary purpose of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is “to protect the innocent and to further the search for truth” [Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)]. However, in subsequent line of decisions, the Court ruled that other privileges stated in the bill of Rights are more in the nature of adjuncts to the determination of truth such as the right to counsel or the safeguards afforded by the Fourth Amendment while the privilege against self-incrimination is primarily for “the preservation of the accusatorial system of criminal justice” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. This maintains the integrity of the judicial system and protects the privacy of the individuals from government intrusion [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. The privilege is a guarantee against compulsion for testimonial evidence which consequently will result in the imposition of criminal penalty on such person making testimony.
The Court laid down the requirements necessary before a party can successfully invoke the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. In the cases of U.S. v. Doe, (465 U.S. 605) and Doe v. U.S. [487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988)], the Court enumerated the three (3) requisites that should be present for the Fifth Amendment to apply, namely: a) “that the statement be testimonial; b) incriminating; and, c) compelled.” According to the court, ‘testimonial’ refers to all communications whether express or implied which “relate to a factual assertion or disclose information” (Ashby, J., 2006 citing Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201). The statements or communications made whether verbally or in writing fall within the privilege (Ashby, J., 2006) and is not limited by the forum where it was elicited, i.e. before the court, administrative proceedings or before the law enforcement office [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]. The second requirement, ‘incriminating’ refers to statements that can be used as a basis for a finding of criminal liability under a penal law or “provides a link to the chain of evidence for prosecution under a criminal statute” [United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)]. The third requisite is the compulsion to give a statement. The Court explained that this requisite refers to “circumstances that deny the individual a free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer” (Ashby, J., 2006). Additionally, the Court ruled in the case of Fisher v. United States that these three requisites should all concur and be present so that the privilege can be successfully invoked [425 U.S. 391(1976)].
Legal and Ethical Issues and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The main legal issue in the case of Baltimore is whether the circumstances surrounding it would fall within the ambit of the privilege against self incrimination and consequently, Bouknight may successfully invoke it and prevent her from being compelled to produce or furnish the whereabouts of her son lest be incarcerated for contempt.
The Supreme Court allowed the stay of the decision of the appellate court for overturning the ruling of the juvenile court and in finding that the compulsion for Bouknight to produce her son squarely fell within the privilege and therefore ordered her release (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). The appellate court found that the act of production is testimonial and therefore its compulsion, is a violation of the privilege. Furthermore, the interest of the government in the safety of the son cannot outweigh the observance and respect for the privilege against self incrimination as provided in the Bill of Rights (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). In other words, the three requisites concurred, i.e. the act of production or of furnishing information as to the whereabouts of her son are incriminating and testimonial in character; and, there was also compulsion because if she failed to disclose information sought she would be incarcerated for contempt as what had happened.
The Supreme Court through Chief Justice Rehnquist predicated his discussion on three major points, namely: a) The Court of Appeals passed upon a controversy concerning the federal Constitution which logically can be properly resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court (California v. Riegler, 449 U.S. 1319); b) The act of production does not fall within the ambit of the privilege citing the cases of U.S. v. Doe, Fisher v. U.S. and Schmerber v. California. In these cases, the court ruled that the act of production of the documents is not ‘testimonial’ and therefore does not infringe upon the privilege considering that their existence and location are already known to the Government. In fact, responding to a subpoena have been considered legal and acceptable even if compulsion is present [Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)]. Moreover, when an accused is required to furnish his handwriting sample, this had been held not to violate the privilege because it is not ‘testimonial’ but merely evidentiary United States v. Flanagan, 34 F.3d 949 [10th Cir. 1994]). The third point c) is by using the balancing of interests test or balancing the public need vis-à-vis ensuring the individual’s constitutional civil liberties, public need prevailed considering that the disclosure of information was non-criminal and not directed at a particular group as was held in the case of California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) where the validity of a law requiring disclosure of the name and address at the scene of a vehicular accident. Similarly in the case of New York v. Quarles where the Fifth Amendment rights have to give way to a public safety exception and therefore in the case of Bouknight, “the public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment was justified because its interest was in protecting children like Maurice, not in prosecuting” (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992).
In sum, the privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right. Albeit the civil liberties accorded under the Bill of Rights safeguards undue government intervention and restraint to its power, there are instances when these rights would have to give way to compelling interests of the society that would warrant Government intervention and intrusion such in the case of protecting and ensuring the safety of infants or children from physical abuse. Once it has been established that a child is abused, it becomes the duty of the State to take over and protect.
The judicial pronouncement in the case of Bouknight has a pervading and far reaching implication on social work practice. This gives the social workers a great burden and responsibility to follow up sharply abused children in foster care or those released under an order of protective supervision. Admittedly, there is an apparent lack of strict protocols in the present system of child welfare agencies (Parks, 2005). A set of guidelines must be crafted to govern exigencies of missing children from foster care like supervised visits and court orders in cases of abduction like what have occurred in Maryland with “Ariel” who had been abducted by his mother Teresa B (Parks, 2005). Guidelines should also be drawn to address the coordinated efforts both with the law enforcement and child welfare personnel.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California,
17 Cal.3d 425
A graduate student from India, Prosenjit Poddar went to the University of California Berkeley to study naval architecture. It was there that he met Tatiana Tarasoff. A few kisses made him believe that they have a special relationship until Tarasoff bragged about her many relationships with other men. Poddar suffered depression until he sought professional help from Dr. Moore, a psychologist of the University Health Service. He confided to the doctor that he intended to secure a gun and to kill Tarasoff. On the strength of a letter request of Dr. Moore, Poddar was taken by the campus police, however upon assurance that Poddar was reasonable he was released. Upon the return of the University Health psychiatrist from his vacation, he ordered the destruction of Dr. Moore’s letter and did not recommend any further action on Poddar’s case.
When Tarasoff returned from her vacation, she was stabbed and killed by Poddar who at that time moved in with her brother already. The parents of Tarasoff sued the Regents of the University, its health personnel namely, Gold, Moore, Powelson, Yandell and the campus police namely, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel for “failing to warn their daughter of an impending danger” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425). At the lower court, the complaint was dismissed because there was no cause of action. According to the lower court, the defendants only had the duty to the patient and not to a third party.
The dismissal was appealed to the Appeals Court but which only sustained the dismissal. Thus, it was elevated to the Supreme Court of California. The appealed decision in so far as the university police officers, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel finding them not liable to the plaintiffs was affirmed. However, in so far as the therapists and the Regents of the university, the appealed decision was overturned for reception of evidence in accordance with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
In fine, the complainants averred four (4) causes of action, namely: a) “Failure to detain a dangerous patient; b) failure to warn on a dangerous patient; c) abandonment of a dangerous patient; and, d) breach of primary duty to patient and the public” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the first and fourth causes of action, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants cannot be held liable because of a specific provision of the Government Code or Section 856 thereof which grants immunity to public employees from any resultant damage or injury from deciding whether or not to confine a person with mental ailment. This provision is also applicable to the therapists because the law also refers to those who are capable of recommending confinement. As regards the third cause of action, the government immunity includes the “award of exemplary damages resulting from a wrongful death” and therefore, defendants cannot be held liable (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the second cause of action, the Supreme Court found defendants therapists and Regents of the University to have failed to comply with their duty to warn Tarasoff of the peril to her life. Albeit, the therapists had no direct relations with Tarasoff, they could have reasonably foreseen the danger and threat to her life as confided by their patient, Poddar. This is the point where the law establishes the duty of care on their part to warn Tarasoff. Their failure to warn her may reasonably concluded as a proximate cause of her death. The duty of confidentiality between patient and psychotherapist and the right to privacy of the patient cannot prevail over public interest or public safety. Moreover, there are clear provisions of laws, i.e. Section 1024 of the Evidence Code and Section 9 of the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association which allows the physician to divulge matters confided to him in confidence when it is necessary for public welfare (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Confidentiality
The effective therapeutic relationship between physician/psychiatrist and patient rests largely on trust that matters confided by the patient during the treatment are kept in strictest confidence by the physician/psychiatrist. It is the ethical duty of the physician to observe privacy and confidentiality of his patients (Corbin, 2007). While it is also of public interest to ensure that treatment of those who are mentally ill by maintaining an atmosphere whereby they can have an open dialogue with their therapist and of safeguarding its confidential character; the same public interest calls for an imperative recognition of instances whereby disclosure of the confidential communications be revealed and be made to safeguard public safety and avert the threatened peril. In the instances, where the public safety is at risk, the therapist must disclose confidential information discreetly with due regard to protecting the privacy of his patient (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
The parameters of confidentiality are defined by law and by the ethical code of conduct for practitioners in the territorial jurisdiction. In the case of Tarasoff, the Evidence Code and the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association provided specific and limited exceptions under which the confidentiality privilege can be breached, i.e. “if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger; unless he is required to do so by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the welfare of the individual or of the community” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
It would be wise for the practitioners to familiarize themselves of the limits of confidentiality as provided under the laws considering that it may differ from state to state. The Tarasoff case provided a basis to guide a practitioner in his professional dealings relative to the duty to warn others in cases of a specific threat of harm by his patient against others/another. Subsequent cases followed the consistent pattern of the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case of David v. Lhim (1983), the plaintiff-administrator of the estate sued the psychiatrist who treated the son who killed his mother after he was released from the hospital. There was failure on the part of the psychiatrist who treated the son to warn the mother of the potential danger after her son confided his intentions of killing her (Corbin, 2007). In another case, Chrite v. U.S. (2003), the Veterans Administration was held liable for having failed to warn the intended victim of a patient of a threatened harm. Subsequent rulings of the court clarified and defined what constituted ‘threat’ as “imminent threat of serious danger to a readily identifiable victim” and “specific” (Corbin, 2007).
When there are no specific provisions of the law, Dickson (1998) proposes that the therapist/practitioner may be protected against lawsuits if he would consult and keenly document the case of the patient or comply with the “mandated reporting guidelines” required by some states. Reamer (2003) on the other hand, suggests that the therapist must have evidence that the patient is a threat to the safety of another; evidence of that the threat can be foreseen; threat is imminent and that the potential victim is identifiable.
Legal and Ethical Implications and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The duty of reasonable care to assist others in danger is a legal duty as well as a moral duty. However, American negligence law only recognizes it as a moral duty except when there exists a relationship between parties. In the case of Tarasoff, no special relationship existed between the therapist and Tarasoff; however the court has made an exception to this general rule (Bickel, 2001). It declared that the therapist has the duty to care and to warn Tarasoff of the imminent harm on her life. This also includes the duty to control the conduct of his patient, Poddar. In the same breath, a doctor has the duty to warn his patient if he has a contagious disease (Saltzman and Furman, 1999).
There is an affirmative duty for the therapist to advise and warn Tarasoff of the threat to her life although this meant breach of confidentiality with his patient Poddar. This finds basis both legally and ethically considering that the law and the code of ethics for doctors have recognized and provided specifically that doctors are bound to disclose relevant facts to others even if this violates confidentiality with their patients provided they are required by law or if it is required for public safety (Saltzman and Furman, 1999). This legal duty to warn applies when the threat is specific and imminent and where the victim is “readily identifiable” (Bickel, 2001). The courts also have recognized the difficulty in assessing and predicting circumstances that may lead to harm or violence and consequently, adhered to the ‘professional judgment rule’ whereby the therapist is not held liable for errors of judgments. Liability attaches only upon showing that the conduct of the therapist was not in accordance with the “accepted professional standards” (Bickel, 2001).
There is an ambivalence that was created by the Tarasoff protective disclosure ruling with the practitioners (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). Analogous cases and protective disclosure statutes in the different states were analyzed and it was discovered that there are no clear defined parameters of these duties. The therapist is required to a certain way betray his patient by disclosing matters which are protected by confidentiality. Considering the uncertainty brought about by the legal doctrine and court decisions, the undesirable consequence of which was deterrence for therapists to accept “treatment potentially violent patients” (Merton, 1982). Moreover, therapists are more inclined to have their patients committed in an institution so that threats to the safety of potential victims can be averted.
The Tarasoff protective disclosure was even extended recently to include even “communications made from a patient’s family member” as pronounced by the Court in the case of Ewing v. Goldstein (May and Ohlschlager, 2008). The dubious jurisprudential precedents by the courts in interpreting the protective disclosure statutes or its resort to common law instead of interpreting the statute left a vacuum in the definition of the duty to protect (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). As a result, “clinicians must continue to rely on their clinical and ethical judgment, rather than statutory guidance, when considering potential protective disclosures or future drafts of protective disclosure statutes” (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004).
References
Alderman, E. and Kennedy, C. (1992). In our defense: the bill of rights in action. First Avon
Books edition.
Ashby, J. (February 2006). Note declining to state a name in consideration of the fifth amendment’s self-incrimination clause and law enforcement databases after Hiibel. Michigan Law Review, No. 4, Vol. 104:779.
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
Bickel, R. Revisiting Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California: the scope of the psychotherapist’s duty to control dangerous students. Presented before the 22nd Annual Law and higher Education conference in Clearwater, Florida on 18-20 February 2001.
California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971).
Corbin, J. (Fall 2007). Confidentiality and the duty to warn: Ethical and legal implications for the therapeutic relationship. The New Social Worker, Vol. 14, No. 4.
Dickson, D. T. (1998). Confidentiality and privacy in social work. New York: The Free Press
Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988).
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
Kachigian, C. and Felthous, A. (September 2004). Court responses to Tarasoff statutes. Journal
of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Online, Vol. 23:263-273.
Levy, L. (1968). Origins of the fifth amendment: The right against self-incrimination.
May, S. and Ohlschlager, J. (2008). California alert! Tarasoff ruling expanded for clients who ‘go off.’ ECounseling. American Association of Christian Counselors.
Merton, V. (1982). Confidentiality and the dangerous patient: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and lawyers. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 31:265.
New York v. Quarles, 476 U.S. 649 (1984).
Parks, A. (2008). Unless the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, MD children may not be. Daily Record The Baltimore.
Reamer, F. (2003). Social work malpractice and liability. New York: Columbia University Press, 2nd ed.
Saltzman, A. and Furman, D. (1999). Law in social work practice. Brooks Cole, 2nd edition.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
Schwartz, B (December 1971). The bill of rights: A documentary history. Chelsea House Publishers with McGraw-Hill Education.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425.
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956).
U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605.
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).
E.Writers
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/social-work-and-the-law-756045.html
Churchill’s During World War II and Its Aftermath
The growing rapacity of German gluttony forced Hitler to take over Austria in 1938 and threaten Czechoslovakia. In Britain this produced a national crisis which resulted in Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s meeting Hitler in September 1938 at Berchtesgaden. Chamberlain returned from the meeting announcing ‘peace in our time’ which was abruptly smashed when Hitler invaded Prague in March 1939. Soon after given Western weakness and hesitation to work with the Soviet Union Stalin formed a pact with the Nazi’s guaranteeing Russian security and the partitioning of Eastern Europe between the Bear and the Hun. There was nothing to stop Hitler from destroying Poland and then turning his malevolence towards the West.
Public anger which had exploded after the subjugation of Prague had forced Chamberlain to give the improvident pledge to guarantee Poland’s security. Militarily and rationally this was an impossibility. The British did not possess a large enough standing army to lend help to Poland to stem a German advance and the logistics of transferring military relief to Poland was never calculated. Only the Navy was possessed war making power and there was little the Navy could do to defend Poland. She was invaded on the first of September and the Second World War began. Churchill was immediately recalled into power as First Lord of the Admiralty – the very same post he had assumed control of 25 years previous on the eve of the First World War.
From day one of the war Churchill was the true Leader of Britain. Chamberlain was defeatist and broken hearted remarking bitterly how his life’s work was now tragically sundered. He did not have the capability to rouse a nation and persevere to the bitter end. Winston as Naval War Lord was not only attacking the enemy on the seas but combating defeatist elements at home and trying to prod the blind neutral nations into action. Only Churchill could utter with true conviction and spirit, “Now we have begun; now we are going on; now with the help of God, and with the conviction that we are the defenders of Civilisation and Freedom, we are going on, and we are going on to the end.”
The Royal Navy was the only strong force that Britain possessed and from the opening bell the naval squads were on the offensive. Churchill worked at least an 18 hour day. Plans were drawn for a blockade of the German coast, convoy arrangements were made; mine-sweeping was instituted, enemy raiders harassed and submarines sunk. By the end of 1939 the Royal Navy had sunk half of all German submarines. However the war was only in its infancy. Great battles loomed.
On May 10 1940 the Germans began their vicious assault on the West. The Hun streamed into Holland and Belgium. That night the King of England sent for Churchill and asked him to form a government. Thus began the creation of the Churchill legend and his enshrinement into history. The story of the British war effort under Churchill falls into two distinct categories – the struggle to survive and the establishment of the alliance with the USA and Russia and the ultimate destruction of Germany and Japan.
The battle to survive covers the twelve or so months that Britain fought Germany completely alone in 1940-1. This period covered the dazzlingly quick disappearance of France under the heel of the Gestapo in June of 1940 to the German attack on Russia in June of 1941. This grim year brought horrible highlights; the partition of France, the formation of the pro-Nazi French Vichy government, the battle of Britain, the blitz on London, the beginning of the North African desert war, the defeat of Greece, and the British Commando raids along the Norwegian and French coasts.
It was during this sombre episodic current of ruin that Churchill became the most inspirational Leader of the Western world in the 20th century. He portrayed the towering, implacable fierceness of a proud nation, and of liberty, and expressed every free man’s tenacity to fight in words that no other could have summoned forth. Winston’s knowledge of military matters and his close operational vigilance over all affair animated and excited the British war effort with a boldness that astonished. British prestige in this desperate hour reached its highest ever pitch. The world over prayed for its salvation and success.
The immense energy and illimitable skill that throbbed and turned in his heart and mind was at last released from its bondage and given full scope of use. Churchill no longer knew the frustration of ideas that could not be brought alive, vitality that could not be expended, or ingenious approaches that could not be tested. The supreme challenge was met by a man of supreme stature. The Government was turned upside down. Routine was destroyed. Twenty four activity the rule with Churchill as the master organiser. All knew their place and role. Churchill immediately established a small War Cabinet to make effective and quick decisions. At first the membership was four which grew during the war to seven. This tiny all powerful directing force was supported by sixty or seventy other ministers of all parties who formed the core membership of the Coalition government but responsible only for their own departments. As Churchill pointed out, it was only the members of the War Cabinet, “who had the right to have their heads cut off on Tower Hill if we did not win.”
Never before in modern history did one man have so much power. Churchill was everywhere. He not only controlled the government but the operational side of the conflict as well. He was not only the King’s First Minister but Leader of the House of Commons and, even more important Minister of Defence also. The military Chiefs of Staff instead of reporting to their own ministries reported instead directly to Churchill. The Joint Planning Committee – a body of professional staff officers of all three services – worked under Churchill as part of the Ministry of Defence rather than under the Chiefs of Staff. Thus by permission of the War Cabinet and Parliament Churchill became the penultimate democratic Leader.
No one can study Churchill’s part in the war without being staggered by the colossal output of interests, dictation’s, orders, speeches, broadcasts, plans, promotions and prunings. In military matters he covered an almost incomprehensible range of activity. When Britain stood alone and the nation was bracing itself for the storm of invasion Churchill was racing about the government demanding attack plans, offensive action and targets of British incursions. He demanded the end of the passive war. Thus the commando raids were born. He participated during the war in every operational plan and strategy demanding full technical elaboration’s and missives to be sent to his attention. “During the war,” the American General Eisenhower later testified, “Churchill maintained such close contact with all operations as to make him a virtual member of the British Chiefs of Staff; I cannot remember any major discussion with them in which he did not participate.”
Churchill’s power was dependent upon the War Cabinet. It is a tribute to his skill of persuasion that unlike Roosevelt or Stalin, who were by their constitutions absolute military leaders of their nation, Churchill exercised his authority only by the permission of the War Cabinet who were willing to grant this authority only so long as Winston commanded the confidence of Parliament. Much of Parliament’s confidence was bolstered by Churchill’s impassioned, humanised and soaring orations. No man or women in the British Commonwealth who heard on June 4 1940 that France was being devoured by the German beast, will forget the tingling of emotion and courage when Churchill uttered in a strange, hoarse voice: “We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever he cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle until in God’s good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
Another Leader may have uttered, “We will do what is necessary to win this war and persevere in its struggle until it is won. This government believes in the ultimate ability of our nation to come through to victory.” Or something to that effect. Very few would have evinced the crescendo of emotional “We shall’s” in a peroration. Churchill gave the roar to the British lion and heart to the British public. Romance, history, philosophy and leadership all running in the cloud-burst of Churchill’s speeches and leadership of the war effort. But though he carried his role with pride, prompt execution and relish in no way implies a cold heart or an acceptance of war’s carnage. The suffering that he saw, and he saw a lot with his own eyes as he inspected damage through Britain, on more than one occasion pushed him into tears. When Churchill saw a small shop in ruins and wondered out loud to his private secretary the anguish that the owner must feel to have his whole life exploded and ruptured so completely, he became so visibly upset that he resolved at that moment to compensate all damaged property with state payments. Thus the policy of war damage for private assets came into effect. If Churchill enjoyed the waging of war he certainly suffered from the anguish it induced and endeavoured to share its destruction with the common man and woman.
The second phase of the war lasted from the infamous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7 1941 until the end of the war. Until 1944 the British and Russian armies bore the brunt of the struggle against the demented German race. From early 1944 onwards the Americans assumed a greater share and responsibility of the war effort and began to relegate the British to a supporting role in the drive to victory. Roosevelt and Churchill met nine times during the war establishing a strong if short lived friendship. The Americans including Roosevelt were incorrectly convinced that Churchill and the British wanted to expand their Empire.
This calamitous suspicion allowed the Russians more freedom in Eastern Europe than the British would ever have tolerated. As early as 1943 with victory a matter of time and logistics Churchill implored the American leadership not to let Soviet ambition run unimpeded in Eastern Europe. The American reply was incredibly purblind and vague. It appears in scouring the documents and American communiqués that they trusted the Soviets to behave themselves more than their close allies the British ! Eisenhower and many of his chiefs remarked in letters and in meetings that they could not understand why the British constantly mixed politics and military affairs.
To the British this represented reality and the best hope to avoid another world war with the Soviets after the defeat of Germany. Churchill and his advisors even preached that upon the war’s closing everything necessary should be attempted to revive Germany as a bulwark against the pending Soviet menace. The Americans felt that such targets as Prague, Berlin and Vienna were unnecessary military ventures that would endanger the lives of their men. If the Soviets wanted to shed more life in attacking these seemingly remote locations than the Americans were content to let them. The British just shook their heads in dismay unable to impress the Americans with their superior logic. Victory was attained but it set the stage for the Cold War.
The fact that the British survived the early years of the war when Germany swept all before it and that the British evaded a complete national disaster at Dunkirk and defeated the Nazi’s in the air during the Battle of Britain, issued during the remainder of the war and for a short period after it, an inflated sense of self destiny and strength and even an isolationist mentality. The collective suffering and emotional agony endured by the entire British nation also gave express an imbued spirit of egalitarianism. The depth of this communal desire was the most profound in British history and exercised a new faith in social planning and cohesion. During Churchill’s premiership in the war the most celebrated social reconstruction document of the period was the report by William Beveridge which outlined a radical scheme of comprehensive social security, financed from central taxation. This new state aided social plan included maternity benefits, child allowances, universal health and unemployment insurance, old age pension and death benefits – an entire cradle to grave policy. From 1940-45 Britain moved more rapidly to the left than at any time in history a move marked by the important positions Labour ministers occupied in the war government.
At the end of World War II in 1945, Britain was still one of the Big 3 powers, indeed it was ranked as a great power, an illusion that held until about 1963. The British still had their empire in 1945 and in the ensuing years they could still produce great artists and Nobel prize winners, but much to the chagrin of Churchill and the leadership class British glory was long past. The rapid decolonisation of most of its empire — India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka — and parts of Africa shedded from British finance much unneeded expense and worry, and solidified Britain’s secondary role in world affairs subordinate to the USA and Russia.
Success in conflict notwithstanding the British electorate in the 1945 general election shockingly kicked Churchill and the Conservatives from office by an overwhelming share. For the third time the Labour party was called forth to govern. Churchill after leading the democracies to attain the supreme glories and garlands of success instantly found himself shorn of privilege and casted into opposition. It was a role he obviously did not appreciate. For Churchill defeat was only explained by the plain fact that people believed his government to be a war council, unprepared for the extended restructuring of society that peace demanded. Labour presented a sharper and more intelligent platform and catalogue of change. The Conservatives were quite content to rest upon Churchill’s name and ignore the organisation and deliverance of a viable alternative to the Labour programme.
Whilst Churchill harried the Labour government and began the rebuilding of the Conservative party to respond to public and peace-time pressure he began the personal memoirs of the great struggle and in the absence of anything else offered by the other leaders – Stalin, Roosevelt, Truman, or Hitler – Churchill was able to dictate on the best terms and in the most convincing language possible, his and Britannia’s exalted position in the struggle against evil. It was an incomparable success, ensuring that in times forward, historians would favourably compare the works of Thucydides and those of Churchill. Both men represented and recorded their times and events on an unparalleled scale.
What Churchill was able to offer the reader was a glimpse into the details of history’s most horrible man-made disaster. The wicked folly of the conflict was evident at the war’s end. Whole nations lay in ruins. Towns, cities, industrial plants and transportation facilities were erased. Food and life essentials were unavailable to great migratory populations. Cynicism and disillusionment in Europe and elsewhere bred the shift to the political left. Marxism replaced Fascism as an acceptable form of social order. Communism erupting from poverty, spread like an open wound across Asia and Europe. With the complete eradication of Nagasaki and Hiroshima the nuclear age dawned. Moral questionings loudly divided those in the West over the usage of weapons of such finality – especially against a prostrate Japan. Dropping two bombs three days apart on a nation that was in the process of trying to negotiate an exit from the war seemed to many morally reprehensible. It was an inauspicious beginning to the scientific era.
The United States and Russia emerged from the rubble of the war as opponents. Russia was mauled and mutilated by the war with over 20 million dead and whole sections of her country raped. The USA stood at war’s end possessing a massive ego and the greatest economic supremacy in history. The big two were joined by the little third – Great Britain – and the three during the war and after drove the discussions regarding the build up of the United Nations. Most vexing to the Allies in the construction of the United Nations Assembly was whether members were obliged to surrender part or all of their own independence to the new body in order to maintain peace. How would it be possible to invest such a supranational body with enough force to enforce decisions ? How would the large powers relate to the smaller in the decision making of such a forum ? At Moscow in 1943 the Big Three resolved many of these issues and in Washington in 1944, joined by China, hammered out the shape of the new international body. At the Yalta conference in 1945, the Big Three came to terms on the matter of securing for each of the major powers the right to veto decisions of the new international body. This allowed the creation of the UNO charter at San Francisco in April 1945 which clearly identified the principles and responsibilities of the new organisation. Fifty one founding nations signed the document and in September 1945 the UNO opened its headquarters in New York.
Comprising the UNO were principally the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. Most power resided in the Security Council which was given the task of maintaining the peace. Five permanent members sit in the council; the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, China and France and six other nations are elected for two year terms as non-permanent members. The permanent members retained veto power with all resolutions needing the consent of the five permanent nations before passing.
In contrast to the Security Council the UNO General Assembly was shaped by all the member states each wielding one nation one vote rights. International problems are to be solved in an open forum and mandates need to be passed by majority vote. This effectively gives the smaller nations more voice in international affairs. The Secretariat acting as the permanent secretary of the UNO concerned itself with internal operations with its Secretary General the highest profiled member of the UNO, exerting wide diplomatic powers emanating from the prestige of the office.
Thus the founding of the UNO was an expression of hope by the survivors of the Second World War. Quickly this vision was marred and jaded by political ineptitude and quivering resolve by the UNO in major affairs. There was little effective work during the Cold War that could be resoundingly accomplished. This war which was contested by two sides that viewed the other as monolithic or controlling inimical forces, could never have been settled via diplomatic channels. The mental straitjackets of both sides; with the Soviet Union believing that the capitalist West controlled by a few monied financiers who desired the destruction of communism and especially the Soviet Union and which would never grant the Russians fair credit in defeating Hitler; and the West believing that Russia controlled the communistic movement world-wide and that communism and especially Russia wanted to overthrow the better functioning liberal states, could only end with the breakdown of one of the combatants. The demise of Marxism gave spring to the hope of a liberal-democratic world.
The major events since 1945 can be summarised in a short list;
- The Collapse of Communism
- The Triumph of Capitalism
- The beginning of the High Tech Era
- The Decline of the USA and the re-emergence of Europe, Japan and China
- The Fragmentation of parts of the world into tribes
- Ecological dislocation
- Growing disparity between the have and have-not nations
- Emerging militant Islamism
- Questioning over the role of the UNO
The most momentous and important event however has been the spread of globalism. Economically, morally, and spiritually people are viewing themselves regardless of race, kin, geography or circumstance as belonging to the entire human race and not a limited defined tribe. Though tribalism in some areas of the world is taking hold even within these identified units a greater consciousness is emanating out to the rest of the globe that though distinct there resides a desire and need to be integrated into a global framework. Economics, peace and ecological salvation commonsensically dictate this. So do the various images from space capturing a small blue ball in the surroundings of space. Somehow this humbles even the largest of egos. So even as, in some parts of the world, balkanisation is shattering mature states, the pieces will still be forced to bond not only together but somehow they will need to align themselves to the greater puzzle that resides outside their narrow borders. It is only by collective effort that the solutioning of poverty, ecological rapine, and the stoppage of war can be peacefully effected.
Churchill died just after the Cuban missile crisis during a bitter period of Cold War strife, which almost pushed the world into a nuclear confrontation. Though he felt certain of liberal-democracy’s triumph he did not see the maturity of his concept. And though he sustained an undying faith in the ability of man to overcome his worst problems we can be sure that without using the leadership skills presented through his example we will have a very difficult time indeed.
C. Read
http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/churchills-during-world-war-ii-and-its-aftermath-700338.html