American Studies at the University of Tehran

Split-Ticket Voting in the United States

2008-04-06T03:21:00.000-07:00

In the United States of America elections for the Congress and the Presidency coincide every four years. Traditionally the party which was successful in the presidential elections would also be successful to some degree in the congressional elections. In recent decades however a phenomenon has taken hold called Split-Ticketing in which voters elect one party for the presidency and another party for the Congress. This is in contrast to straight ticketing where voters vote for the same party in both elections. Increase in split ticketing has led to a ‘Divided Government’ in which one party controls the Congress and another party controls the executive branch.

Political scientists have put forth various reasons for split ticket behavior by the electorate however there is no consensus on its exact reason. One can argue that it is due to non partisan voting basically meaning that voters are electing the candidates based on their personalities and their policies towards various issues rather than voting for a specific party. This is seen as a symptom of a decline in partisan attachment by the American public (Wattenberg 1998; King 1997). This theory holds especially well with regards to elections which are overshadowed by an important issue. Another reason which can be added is the fact that many voters expect different things from the legislative branch and the executive branch. For example while Americans might hold the president the primary person responsible for the security of the nation they might see the Congress as the primary source responsible for initiating laws in regards to abortion and gun control. This translates into different voting approaches in elections appointing state representatives to the congress compared to presidential elections which elects the national leader (Jacobson 1990).

Another major cause cited by scientists is an intentional act of ‘Balancing’. In this regard voters elect two different parties to the Congress and White House so that the two parties balance each other out and a more even and centrist approach is taken in the governing of the country (Erikson 1988; Fiorina 1996; Mebane 2000). According to this theory split ticket voters believe in a more even handed approach to issues concerning the country and believe that they can achieve this with a balanced government. This view however is challenged by other scientists like Jacobson who believes that even if split ticketing results in a balance government it was not achieved with the purposeful intention of the voters.

There are also voters that do not agree with a single party on major issues. Since there are only two main parties in the United States, many voters cannot identify their political, economical and social views with a single party. Dr Edward G. Carmines and Dr Michael J. Ensley of Indiana University after thorough research are the primary individuals behind this theory which explains split ticketing especially in the past decade. According to this claim voters with heterodox policy preferences are much more likely to split ticket. They claim that certain categories of society fit this definition, first are the populists who have liberal views with regards to political and economic issues which match with the policies of the Democratic Party but conservative views on social and cultural issues which match with the policies of the Republican Party. Second are the libertarians who have a liberal position on cultural issues while having a conservative position on economic and social welfare issues. Thus they are drawn to the Democratic Party on cultural issues and to the Republican Party on economic issues. The third group are individuals with a moderate and centrist position on issues. Thus they are drawn to one party on certain issues and to another on other issues. These categories of voters are the main bulk of the electorate with split tickets in the past decade. For example in the 2004 elections the probability that a libertarian would cast a split ticket is 32 percent and the probabilities for the populist and moderate voters are 25 percent and 31 percent, respectively. However, the comparable probabilities for the liberal and conservative are only 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively (Carmines and Ensley 2004).

In conclusion it can be stated that there are several main theories behind the causes of split ticket voting in the United States, the main of which were stated above. It should be noted however that there is no consensus among scientist as to which theory is more correct in describing the root cause of this behavior. It seems that split ticket voting is due in part to all of the stated factors in this article. Depending on the time period and background of a specific election the importance of each causal factor is different, thus where as ‘Intentional Balancing’ can be prescribed as the predominant reason behind split ticket voting in the 80s and early 90s, research has shown that ‘Heterodox Policy Preferences’ by voters which was coined by Carmines and Ensley of Indiana University has played a more substantial role in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

References:
Carmines, Edward G., Michael J. Ensley. 2004. “Policy Preferences, Party Ideologies and
Split- Ticket Voting in the United States”, American Political Science Association.

Erikson, Robert C. 1988. “The Puzzle of Midterm Loss.” Journal of Politics 50(4): 1011-1029.

Fiorina, Morris. 1996. Divided Government. (2nd Edition) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Jacobson, Gary. 1990. The Electoral Origin of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

King, David C. 1997. “The Polarization of American Parties and the Mistrust of Government,” in Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Philip D. Zelikow, and David C. King (Eds.), Why People Don’t Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mebane, Walter R., Jr. 2000. “Coordination, Moderation, and Institutional Balancing in American Presidential and House Elections.” American Political Science Review 94(1): 37-57.

Wattenberg, Martin P. 1998. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

An Analysis of the 2004 US Presidential Elections

2008-04-03T23:00:00.001-07:00

On November 2nd 2004 the 55th US presidential elections took place in which George W. Bush was reelected as the US president over John Kerry the democratic candidate. Bush won 31 states resulting in 286 delegates over Kerry’s 19 states + Washington DC resulting in 251 delegates. The popular vote was very close however with Bush winning 50.7% over Kerry’s 48.3% making it the smallest wining margin by a victorious president in American History [1]. Turnout for the 2004 presidential election was placed at 60.7% placing it well above the average turnout for US presidential election which is placed at 55%. The contest was also fought hard by the two dominating parties in US politics with Bush’s camp spending an estimated $367 million dollars compared to Kerry’s $326 million [2].

Social scientists who have studied US presidential elections over the years come to two different conclusions when trying to explain voting behavior in the US. One camp argues that most voters decide who to vote for based on their allegiance to a specific party which has remained constant over the years. The second camp while still stressing party affiliations believes that in the past century there have been important elections in which specific issues and the particular appeal of a candidate have caused voters to deviate from their normal identification from a particular party. These voting events are called periods of realignment by political scientists.

The 2004 election was an election that specific issues namely the war in Iraq and America’s security played a significant role. While other issues like abortion, gun control, affirmative action, health care, etc played an important part in the election however these two issues were something new on the America’s political scene where as other the other issues have been around on the political scene for a very long time. In the US presidential elections where the competition is usually very close a new issue which can create realignments or higher turnout is crucial for the wining candidate.

The War in Iraq which started in March 2003 and caused a major upheaval for Bush’s approval rating (bringing it as high as 66% according to polls done by Gallup in May 2003 when the War was perceived to be going very well) by the time of elections in November 2004 had gone sour with no end in sight. During the presidential campaign the war in Iraq was a major issue in debates and advertisements with both candidates trying to present themselves as the better suited person to handle the war. In fact one of the major controversies in the campaign was allegations by the democrats that Bush had failed to fulfill his military service requirements at the Texas National Air Guard while at the same stressing Kerry’s distinguished service as a soldier in the Vietnam War.

With the memories of 9/11 still fresh among many Americans security also played largely in the 2004 presidential election with voters concerned in choosing a president that can ‘Protect’ America. Needless to say security was also a major source of debate and concern in the 2004 elections with Bush claiming that Kerry would be "uncertain in the face of danger" while Americans could trust him to be tough on terrorism.

While initial thoughts regarding the 2004 election might point to a realignment election since two new issues were introduced causing a change in the usual party affiliation of voters that is common in American politics however closer inspection shows otherwise. By inspecting the data of the 2004 US presidential elections one finds it similar to the preceding 2000 elections. Between the 2000 election and the 2004 one finds that only 3 states moved from one party to the other in the Electoral College [3]. From the first election to the second Bush’s popularity among conservatives had increased while it had decreased among moderates and liberals [4].

This data can be analyzed by the fact that Christian conservatives especially the large and influential Evangelical population was overwhelming in support of the Iraq war [5]. Polls conducted prior to the 2004 election showed that 3/4 of Bush supporters wrongly believed that Iraq was “providing substantial support to al-Qaeda” [6]. In effect the Iraq War strengthened Bush’s position among the conservative voters who are the central support base for the Republican Party.

With regards to security, on October 29th 2004 just four days prior to the election the first video of Osama Bin Laden was aired in over two years. Many analysts believed that it sealed the presidential elections in Bush’s favor since after all Bush’s cornerstone in his campaign was his ability to defend America. One of the most widely distributed campaign advertisement for Bush was the “Ashley’s story” during which a teenage girl who had lost her mother in the 9/11 attacks was shown to be comforted by the president and an emotional girl who says that “he’s the most powerful man in the world and all he wants to do is make sure I’m safe, that I’m OK” [7].

In reality while the two issues of the War in Iraq and Security were dominating in the 2004 presidential elections not only did they not cause realignments but rather they strengthened the support base of each of the two candidates. Bush was strengthened with the help of the two issues among conservatives namely religious Christian voters who believed in the Iraq campaign and sought a heavy handed security strategy while Kerry’s support base was strengthened among democratic liberals who strongly opposed the war and opposed the impediments to freedom and privacy that Bush’s security strategy had brought.

References:
1- Official Federal Election Commission Report, Retrieved February 20th <http://www.fec.gov/>

2- FEC, Retrieved February 20th
<http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml>

3- Lanning, Kevin. “The Social Psychology of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election”, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005, pp. 145-152

4- Newport, F., & Moore, D. W. “Key insights from election: 2004 election shows similar patterns as last election”. Gallup News Service, November 8 2004. retrieved July 22, 2005.

5- Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism, 2005

6- Kull, S., Ramsay, C., Subias, S., Weber, S., & Lewis, E. (2004). “Poll: Americans and Iraq on the eve of the presidential election”. The PIPA/Knowledge networks. retrieved July 22, 2005.

7- Progress for AmericaVoter Fund. “Ashley’s story”. 2004. Retrieved July 22, 2005.

Middle East Peace Process

2008-04-03T22:29:00.000-07:00

Maloclm X

2008-02-24T03:00:00.001-08:00

"The price of freedom is death."

Malcolm X together with Martin Luther King were the leaders of the African-American movement in the 50s and 60s to reclaim their rightful rights after decades of struggles. Malcolm rose from his background of criminality to one of the most powerful and persuasive black leader in 20th century America. He fought hard for a race that had been marginalized and oppressed for hundreds of years by the white American majority. Malcolm believed that the black people should acquire their rights with “Any means necessary” stressing the importance of fighting for the oppressed in Islam’s teachings.

Roots
Malcolm Little was born in 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska, to Earl Little and Louise Helen He was the forth among seven children. His father, Earl, was a black activist that was under constant threat from white racist. Three of Malcolm’s uncles were killed by white racists. His father was also killed in 1931 and the killers were never brought to justice. This arguably left a permanent scar on Malcolm view towards the “white people” [1].

Although Malcolm was very bright and graduated at the top of his class from high school however all his hopes in becoming a lawyer in the future were dashed when his teacher gave him a dose of reality by telling him that this was “no realistic goal for a nigger”. After being sent to several foster homes he was eventually led to Boston’s underground criminal ring at the age of 17. In the following years Malcolm was arrested several times on charges of involvement in drug trafficking, burglary, gambling and prostitution rings. When he reached the age of 21 he was arrested for burglary and possession of fire arms and was sentenced to seven to ten years in prison.

In prison Malcolm used his extra time to study various texts. While in prison he had several visits from his brother Reginald who along with another brother of Malcolm named Philbert had joined the religious sect ‘Nation of Islam’. It is reported that initially Malcolm was not interested in joining but changed his mind latter on. After converting he feverishly studied in the prison’s library. During this period he was also in continual contact with Elijah Mohammad who was the leader of Nation of Islam. Mohammad would visit Malcolm in the prison and through these visits Malcolm claimed that he was saved from life of corruption and immoral acts [2].

Malcolm the Minister
By 1952 Malcolm had been released from prison and had formally joined the Nation of Islam, changing his family name to X like many other members of the sect. In fact Malcolm welcomed the change claiming that this was a rejection of the slave names that were given to them by white masters. By 1954 Malcolm had been appointed the minister of Nation of Islam’s temple number seven which was located in Harlem, New York. From the start he started to attract people from all walks of life through his fiery speeches. Malcolm rank quickly rose in the Nation of Islam becoming second only to Elijah Mohammad. By 1963 the sect claimed more than 30 thousand members mostly thanks to Malcolm. Malcolm was also credited with inspiring famous boxer Cassius Clay (who later changed his name to Muhammad Ali) to join the Nation of Islam.

Transformation
By 1963 however there were rising tensions between Malcolm and his idol Elijah Mohammad. Initially Mohammad was dismayed by the huge popularity and fame that Malcolm had gained which even surpassed his popularity as the Nations leader. Malcolm was also deeply troubled by the alleged rumors that Mohammad had been having extramarital affairs with several female staff of the movement. After doing some secret research Malcolm came to the conclusion that these allegations were true and that Mohammad had even had children with these women. Malcolm was deeply upset with these revelations and thus formally left the Nation of Islam in March 1964. Later on he converted to main stream Islam, realizing that some of the teachings of the Nation were not at all rooted in Islamic teachings. The following month Malcolm made a pilgrimage to Mecca which he later claimed as life transforming.

Malcolm’s beliefs and consequently his speeches became totally different after his trip to Mecca. Prior to the pilgrimage Malcolm was in fact racist towards the white race. Having seen all the ill the white man had caused on African Americans he came to view them as evil. He publicly claimed the black race to be superior and that one day black people would regain their place as the superior race. In fact Malcolm rejected many calls by white activists who wanted to join his movement for black salvation. These beliefs were also in part due to the teachings of the Nation of Islam which had saved Malcolm from his troubled past. After leaving the Nation and going on the Hajj pilgrimage Malcolm’s view became utterly different. He later professed that during the pilgrimage he came to see Muslims of many different races as equals. He said that during his trip he had met "blonde-haired, blued-eyed men I could call my brothers." This was a serious break from the past. When he returned from Hajj he decided to address people from all races and classes of American society. He had exchanged many ideas with people of different cultures during his trip to Mecca and had found the message of Islam as transcending all races [3].

Assassination:
After Malcolm’s departure from the Nation of Islam, his relation with the movement became much worse. Malcolm claimed that he and his family were constantly threatened by Nation of Islam members. These threats came to reality when Malcolm’s home was burned to the ground on February 14th 1965. Fortunately Malcolm and his family were able to escape the assassination attempt without any injury. A week later while delivering a speech at Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom Malcolm was shot 16 times and killed by assassins. Three people were arrested as Malcolm’s killer with two of them being Nation of Islam members. These two individuals however maintained that they were innocent even after they were released years later. Thus a lot of controversy came to surround the murder. Some people alleged the CIA and the FBI for masterminding the killing. Although these allegations were never proven however it later became fact that the FBI had been closely monitoring Malcolm’s every move even eavesdropping all his telephone conversations. Even if the FBI did not carry out the killing, it was indirectly responsible by “letting it slip” meaning that even though they knew that Malcolm’s life was going to be threatened they did absolutely nothing to prevent it. It was also later reveled that one of Malcolm’s principle enemies in the Nation of Islam, John Ali who was the national minister of the movement was in fact an FBI agent. There are allegations that Ali had Malcolm’s assassins the night before the attack [4] [5].

References:

1- The Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 2.

2- Malcolm X: A Research Site, Chronology of the Life and Activities of Malcolm X.

3- Frederick D. Harper, "The Influence of Malcolm X on Black Militancy", Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Jun., 1971), pp. 387-402.

4- BBC News Malcolm X killer heads mosque, March 31 1998.

5-New York The Man Who Didn’t Shoot Malcolm X, October 1 2007.

The Gilded Age and the changing face of America

2008-02-01T22:20:00.000-08:00

The Civil War in which the Northern States came out victorious is crucial in understanding the shift in America. Northern States were more industrial and urban oriented were as the south was more rural and agrarian. The victory of the North and as a result the major shift of power from South to North in effect decided the future path of America to economic development based on industrial capitalism.

A comic showing John D. Rockefeller's excessive
influence and power in Washington.

During the second half of the 19th century especially the period after the civil period of 18650 to 1900 the American economy witnessed dramatic change. The driving force behind this change was the advancement of transportation in the US, specifically the rise of the railroad which helped transform the American economy from an agrarian, regional market economy to an industrial, national market economy. By the 1900 America had over 193 thousand miles of railroad track which was more than the railroad of Europe and Russia combined. During this period America witnessed the emergence of ‘Big Business’ namely large corporations. In fact the railroad was America’s first big business.

In this new economic environment the government no longer took center stage to the economy, rather it was motivated and highly smart businessman like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J. P. Morgan who created the gigantic Oil, Steel and Banking business of America. The enormous wealth they accumulated brought them great power which helped them influence decision making policy in Washington. This power was so great that several Senators were on the official pay role of Standard Oil which oddly enough was not illegal at the time. Although there was some pressure on these tycoons to prevent them from monopolizing the American industry in effect the tycoons were in large successful in having their way and expanding their businesses.

This period also known as the ‘Gilded Age’ from Mark Twain’s bestselling novel in 1873 with the same name also changed the culture and mentality of Americans in an irreversible way. The life of agricultural work in small villages was long gone for many Americans. Due to the rising economy, urbanism and industrialism which in turn lead to work positions at factories and also the rise of the Corporation which lead to many ‘White Collar’ jobs brought about a new class of American people known as the ‘Middle Class’.

Carnegie Steel in 1910
Due to the advancement in technology and machinery many goods that were affordable only by the elite just a decade ago were now available to the middle class which had also seen a rise in its income, giving them more money to spend. The mass consumer society we see today started during the Gilded Age. The mass spending on goods mainly by the middle class during this period boasted the economy even further. If this culture of spending did not shape at this period then America’s economy would definitely be much worse off. Mass consumerism during the Gilded Age shaped the economy in a way that even though production levels were all time high, most of the goods manufactured in the US were consumed by the American population. This remains true to this day and has helped America become the main player in global economy.

The social change which took place during the Gilded Age should also be noted. During this time many people especially young people moved from rural America to the cities. The cities became much larger and with the advancement of technology the new city lifestyle became a source of wonder and of awe for many people. The enormous number visitors to awe inspiring fairs like the 1876 ‘Centennial Exposition’ of Philadelphia and the 1893 ‘World’s Columbian Exposition’ of Chicago bears witness to this fact. Manu people during this period were obsessed with get-rich-quick schemes. Interestingly enough Mark Twain who called the Gilded Age an “era of incredible rottenness” himself fell prey to these schemes and faced bankruptcy.

In conclusion it should be noted that during this period the American economy flourished and gradually took the place of Britain as the leading nation in industrial output. According to Morris the US accounted for 7 percent of world industrial output and Great Britain accounted for 20 percent; by 1913 the US had a share of 32 percent while Great Britain’s had dropped to 14 percent. America’s rising economy which gave it an upper hand among other nations at the beginning of the twentieth century is a key point in understanding the rise of America as a major power during this time and eventually as a super power by the end of the Second World War.

The American Constitution and its critics

2008-01-21T21:51:00.000-08:00

The American constitution ratified in 1789 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is one of the most successful constitutions in the world since it has remained almost unchanged to this day while at the same time remaining a major source of authority in the United States . However there has been some serious criticism of it over the years. This article will outline and address the main criticisms made to the American constitution by its critics [1].

The strongest criticism made to the American Constitution is that it is an undemocratic constitution. Critics point to the fact that the Federalist movement was explicitly anti-democratic at the time of the drafting and ratification of the American constitution. The Federalists were initially not an official party in the early days of the republic but later on became one of the main two parties in the initial years of American independence. The Federalists believed that absolute democracy leads to the abuse of power and tyranny. Critics argue the constitution places a lot of limits on democracy like the indirect election of the president, undemocratic election of senators (later fixed by the 17th amendment) and many checks and balances on the powers of the different branches of government. They point out that the founding fathers of the constitution believed in the principles of a “Republican Government” which in reality is a sort of elite democracy. Although the critics are correct with regards to the worries of the founding fathers in establishing absolute democracy they tend to confuse the actual text of the constitution which should be the main area of concentration with the interpretations of it in the early days of the republic. Incorrect interpretations of the constitution are a completely separate matter and should be addressed in a different context. The actual text of the constitution places no major limit on elections and democracy [2].

The founding fathers like many other scholars in the world at the time believed that giving absolute democracy to the people will lead into chaos and eventually to tyranny. However their concern did not result in an undemocratic constitution. The fact that they placed many checks and balances on different branches of the government like how the president can veto legislation from congress does not necessarily mean that it is undemocratic. In fact proponents argue that this approach is in tune with the real spirit of democracy in which a portion of the population cannot force its will on the entire population. Also with regards to the indirect election of the president it should be pointed out that at the early days of the republic, States enjoyed a lot of independence and power. This was natural since they had just been united and looked with suspicion and rivalry at other states. The indirect election of the president was a way to keep the power in the states and at the same time make sure that no single state took control of the country.

Another major criticism made to the American Constitution is that it places too many restrictions on the government. Critics point out that compared to the constitution of other countries, ‘technically’ much more restrictions are place on the American government by the constitution especially with regards to the executive branch. As an example critics point to the fact that the president needs permission for major decisions like declaring war and the signing of major treaties. As pointed earlier state rights were a main point of concern at the time and these restrictions were mainly placed by the founding fathers in order to preserve the power and rights of the states and thus prevent the Federal government by overrunning the power of the states. Also looking from another perspective this can be seen as an advantage rather than a disadvantage in the sense that the president cannot act alone and even though elected he or she still needs the approval of the people through their representative in congress for major decisions.

Critics also point to the fact that the constitution does not have clear boundaries between the power and authority of the main institutions and also regarding the power of the state and federal government. They argue that this has led to many confusions and also confrontation regarding the authority of institutions like the congress and the executive branch and also with regards to the power of the states and the federal government. Some scholars and analysts however see this as a one of the key reasons the constitution has been successful over the years. They believe that the very survival of the constitution has been due to the substantial room it has left for interpretation. These scholars believe that being vague on controversial issues was the reason the constitution was ratified in the first place at a time when difference of opinion was very strong among the founding fathers. They point out that the reason a document drafted over two hundred years ago is still in use today is the fact that it has been drafted in a way that can be interpreted differently based on the time period and the circumstances otherwise it would have become gradually obsolete. To prevent misinterpretation and drastic changes in the path of the country the Supreme Court was given the exclusive task of interpreting the constitution.

In conclusion the US constitution remains one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. At the time of its ratification it was truly revolutionary in terms of providing equality and liberty for all its citizens. Even though there are has been some criticism to it in the past century most scholars agree that the US constitution with all its strengths and weaknesses is one of the most successful constitutions when compared to the constitution of other countries. The fact that it has remained almost unchanged to when it was ratified bears witness to its success.

References:

1- Kelly, Alfred and Herman Belz, ‘The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development’, Volume II, 1991

2- Dahl, Robert A., ‘How Democratic is the American Constitution?’, Second Edition, 2003

Film Review: Dead Man

2008-01-11T23:54:00.000-08:00

Director and Writer: Jim Jarmusch
Country: USA
Genre: Western/Drama
Starring: Johnny Depp, Gary Farmer, Lance Henriksen, Michael Wincott, Eugene Byrd, Mili Avital, Iggy Pop, Crispin Glover, Billy Bob Thornton, Gabrial Byrne, John Hurt
Music: Neil Young
MPAA Rating: R
Running Time: 121 minutes
U.S. Box Office: $1,053,518

The film ‘Dead Man’ written and directed by Jim Jarmusch and staring Johnny Depp, Gary Farmer and Crispin Glover was released in May 1996 and distributed by ‘Miramax Films’ in the United States. The film is in the western genre and is about an accountant called William Blake who travels America’s western frontiers during the mid 19th century. Even though the film has some interesting observations about the American way of life in the west during the ninetieth century, it was not well received by audiences and grossed a disappointing $1.05 million which is well below what Hollywood studios are used to.

The film starts with Johnny Depp playing William Blake traveling in a train from Cleveland to the Wild West in order to fill out an accountant position at a firm which offered him the position. When he arrives he finds out that the position has already been filled and before he knows it he finds himself in a heap of trouble when he kills the son of the wealthy businessman who sought to hire him. He hastily runs away to the wilderness where he is helped by an Indian who calls himself ‘Nobody’. During the remainder of the film Blake and his new Indian friend go through the wilderness of the Wild West hunted by the three ruthless hired assassins.
During the course of the journey Blake transforms into the villain everyone perceives him to be by killing ‘white people’ along his route. Killing for him keeps getting easier so as near the end of the movie he is totally unmoved by the value of human life. This behavior is encouraged by his Indian friend who bizarrely believes that he is the spirit of the famous poet ‘William Blake’ who has come back to kill the ‘white people’.

The film which is shot in black and white has some of the same dreamlike like qualities as ‘Apocalypse Now’ which was made by Francis Ford Capolla about the Vietnam conflict. Jarmusch’s film however has a humorous and even sarcastic look at the Wild West to a point where the audience feels the movie is a fantasized story used only to deliver the directors critical opinion on the American way of like in the Wild West. The downside to this is that half way through the film the audience does not care about the characters anymore, knowing the thin humorous story is only an attempt to convey some other important and serious facts.

Jarmusch points to the savagery and moral bankruptcy of the Wild West in the ‘Dead Man’. In one of the opening scenes the main character walks through the filthy streets of a western city where he sees coffins being made (an indication to the sheer number of people who get killed) and animal skulls being sold for decoration in a dark and depressing environment. People are so pre-occupied with violence and killing that even the main character which did not know how to shoot just a couple of days ago turns into a killer. The only thing people seem to care about in Jarmusch’s illustration of the Wild West is tobacco so much that the phrase “Do you have any tobacco?” gets repeated countless of times in the movie.

As the movie progresses and William Blake the main character gets closer and closer to death, he gets more lost in his search for his identity and his goals to the extent where near the end of the movie he does not seem to care about anything even dying anymore. One might point that this the directors way of illustrating the emptiness of the American society at the time and also the uncertainty of human existence. The director also takes subtle shots at organized religion throughout the film especially more so in a scene where a very religious salesperson is presented as a zealot and racist.

A criticism which can be made to Jarmusch’s film is the rather slow pace of the movie. With a runtime of 2 hours, some scenes are slow and even boring to some extent. This could have been fixed with better editing. The music of the film by Neil Young's is a blend of acoustic and electric guitar. It suits the atmosphere of the film pretty well however after a while it gets a bit repetitive and even irritating at times. Credit can be given to the cast for an inspiring performance especially to Johnny Depp who masterfully plays the transformation of the main character in a convincing manner and to Gary Farmer who portrays the mysterious Indian called ‘Nobody’.

In conclusion the ‘Dead Man’ written and directed by Jim Jarmusch and staring Johnny Depp is a rather quirky black and white film with some interesting observations about life in 19th century Wild West America. Even though the film is a bit puzzling and slow paced at times it will definitely be worth while for people interested in the history and culture of America. However if you are looking for a movie to watch with your family on a Saturday night with your take out food then this movie is not for you. What this movie is sure to accomplish is thought and discussion and hopefully new insights on the nature and tendencies of 19th century Americans living in the west and even to some extent on the contemporary American culture.

American Studies Program

2008-01-11T22:36:00.000-08:00

American Studies is a multidisciplinary program involving the study of different aspects of the United States of America. It is multidisciplinary because it consists of studying the economy, culture, history, politics, foreign policy, literature, art and many other topics regarding America.

When I first started the program at Tehran University my idea of what the program consisted of was a program with mostly a political orientation towards the study of America. I thought that it would focus on American politics, foreign policy and the relationship between Iran and the US. Not only did I expect the program to be this way but also I thought that this is the correct way to understand America. My reasoning was that since the US is the only super power of the world then politics and foreign policy would be the main pillars for understanding it.

The reality of the American Studies program at Tehran University was fortunately different than my expectations. It was more multidimensional than I anticipated with courses on American culture, art and cinema among other things. Currently contrary to before I think that understanding a country requires far more than political understanding even if politics is a major issue in that country like the US. The interesting fact is that even to understand the politics of a specific country you need to have a good understanding of the culture of that country. In a country like the US political participation and behavior has deep historic and cultural roots and ignoring this would make one’s understanding of the US very superficial.

Another aspect of the program at Tehran University which was different than my anticipation is the fact that most of the professors approach different topics of the United States with an un-biased and detached view. When I first enrolled in the program I thought that many of the professors would have a strong anti American bias due to long and deep row between the two countries. This was not the case.

My main disappointed with my MA studies is the unavailability of major recourses (mainly books) needed to conduct research. Although I should add that this is mainly not related to the North American and European Studies Institute or even Tehran University for that matter but rather the unavailability of academic resources in Iran as a country. Even Canada’s Carleton University library with over 2 million books didn’t have most of the books I sought for research, however one always had the opportunity to order a book from ‘Amazon’.

Presidential Primaries in the United States of America

2008-01-11T11:49:00.000-08:00

Primaries are the initial steps of selecting the presidential candidate of each party in the United States. Each party announces their candidate at their national convention which is usually the summer before the presidential elections. At the national convention the ultimate candidate of the party for the election is chosen by the delegates present at the convention. The rules for the appointments of delegates to the convention vary from party to party and also from state to state. Most of the delegates are chosen using primaries and caucuses however both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have provisions for so called Super-delegates which are chosen outside the primary and caucus system. The caucus system is very similar to closed primaries but in ways more restricted for party members and party influence.

Here is a short movie on Barack Obama and the presidential primary race:

There are two major types of primaries called Closed Primaries and Open Primaries which are explained below:

1- Open Primaries: In this kind of primary any registered voter can vote regardless of their party affiliation. Voters are not required to publicly choose one party or the other. Rather, they enter the voting booth and choose the party ballot on which they will vote in secret. Hence, one does not need to be a member of a particular party in order to vote in a party's primary. Also a member of one party can vote in the primary of another party. However, one can vote in only one primary. The advantages of open primaries are that they increase voter participation. Also it allows independent voters to participate which might help with the election of a candidate that might have a better chance to get elected in the general elections. One major disadvantage of this kind of primary is that the opponent party might organize its voters to take part in the others party primary and vote for the weakest candidate.

2- Closed Primaries: Voters may vote in a party's primary only if they are registered members of that party. Independents cannot participate. The closed primary serves to encourage party unity and prevent members of other parties from infiltrating and voting to nominate weak candidates. There are also semi-closed primaries. The advantages of these kinds of primary are that it encourages people to join a party and thus be more political. The main disadvantage is that registered party members will probably vote politically and will not be a good representation of the general public thus they might chose a candidate with a low likelihood of getting elected.

Recently the presidential race in the US was officially started with the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary with Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa cuacus and Hillary Clinton and John MacCain winning the New Hampshire primary. An interesting article with regards to the democratic nomination can be read at the New York Times. Although Iowa and New Hampshire are only two states among the fifty states however since they are the first states where the party nominations take place it is monumental for candidates to win them. The reason for this is that 'early states' build momentum for the candidates and effect the elections in the next states.

Religious Identity in the United States

2007-12-31T10:02:00.000-08:00

Among the developed nations of the world the United States of America is one of the most religious. In fact recent studies show that the US is the only developed nation where a majority of its people claimed that religion played a very important role in their lives. Religion in the US has played a tremendous role in shaping the culture of the country. Many of the early settlers in the United States were very religious people who escaped religious prosecution in England so that they could practice their religion freely in the ‘New World’. In fact many of these settlers called themselves ‘Pilgrims’ because they thought that they were chosen by God to go on a divine mission to practice and spread God’s word or to put in the words of John Winthrop to be “A city upon a hill”.[1]

The belief in religious superiority indicated above has played a central role in shaping American Exceptionalism. . This belief was especially preached and advocated in times of War. To this day many Americans believe that one of the reasons for their nation’s success has been the blessing of God. This mentality can be observed in many instances. For example the phrase “In God We Trust” was first seen on U.S. coins in 1864. In 1956 the United States Congress declared it the national motto and since 1957 it has been on all coins and paper bills. [2]

Religion in the United States of America which is a multicultural society with different ethnicities is very diverse. Most of the population in the United States is Christian (78%) [3] however most major religions of the world have followers in the United States. This includes Judaism (1.4%) [3], Islam (0.6% [3] - 2% [4]), Buddhism (0.5% [3] - 2% [5]) and Hinduism (0.4% [3] - 0.9% [6]). While 15% of Americans claim to have ‘no religious affiliation’ [3] with a portion of them claiming to be atheist, this percentage is still relative low compared to other developed countries like Britain and Sweden were 44% and 69% have no religious affiliation. [7]

As indicated above the United States is among the most religious countries among developed countries. However it should also be stated that since the 1960s and 1970s religious identity in the United States has been on the decline. This has clearly been shown by scholarly work and is generally accepted among most researchers. To cite one source researchers point to a survey by the Gallup institute which shows that church membership in the US has fallen from 75% in the 1950 to less than 65% in 2004. Another important aspect is the number of people who have no religious affiliation which currently stands at 16% much higher than the one digit numbers of previous decades. With regards to the period after the 1960s researchers hold different opinions. One position researchers take, Dr Sid Groeneman among them, is that the declining religious effect of that period was so strong that still to this day religious belief and identity in the US has not recovered. A second position sees these changes as temporary and believes that religion revival is gradually taking place. They point out to the growth in evangelical and charismatic churches and a more conservative atmosphere in the US compared with the 1960s and 1970s. A third position that some researchers like professor Wade Clark Roof take is that religious awakening has taken place but it has not lead to a return to the conventional organized religious identity of the 1950s but rather to a more spiritual but less orthodox religious identity. [8]

Regardless of the different view indicated above religion has always played an important role in Americans identity. Considerable evidence documents the influence of religious belief with behavior. Religion causes American people to participate in different religious events and gatherings, increased altruistic behavior like donation to charities [9] and also political participation with specific motives in mind. For example conservative and evangelical Christians tend to support the Republican Party where as religious minorities and secular voters tend to support the Democratic Party. In fact in the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections George W. Bush was very successful in mobilizing the conservative Christian vote behind him. These voters are more conservative on hot issues like abortion, gun control and gay marriage and find the Republican Party more in tune with their views. [10]

Religious Identity in the United States has deep historic roots with the puritan immigration to the ‘New World’ in the 17th century and to this day it holds an important and influential role in shaping the identity of Americans, making America one of the most religious nations among developed countries. Religious identity in the US plays an important role in the social and political behavior of the people and politicians have sometimes used religious beliefs to rally support for their respective parties. Even though religious identity in the US began to decline in the 1960s and 1970s however most researchers believer that there has been a gradual upheaval in recent decades even though they differ on the nature of this religious revival.

References:

1- Roark, James L, Michael P. Johnson, Patricia Cline Cohen, and Sarah Stage, ‘The American Promise: A History of the United States’, 2004, Bedford publishing
2- Deisher, Beth and William Gibbs, ‘Coin World Almanac’, 2000, Sidney, Ohio: Amos Press
3- Kosmin, Mayer & Keysar, ‘American Identification Survey’, 2001, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York
4- http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_islam_usa.html
5- http://vipassanafoundation.com/Buddhists.html
6- http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=26416
7- Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns ", 2005, chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK
8- Groeneman, Sid and Garry Tobin, ‘The Decline of Religious Identity in the United States’, 2004, Institute for Jewish and Community Research, San Francisco
9- Smith, Tom W., “Altruism in Contemporary America: A Report from the National Altruism
Study”, 2003, the Fetzer Institute
10- Mckay, David, ‘American Politics and Society’, 2005, Wiley and Blackwell publishing

2007-12-22T12:21:00.000-08:00

The ‘White House’ has been the official home and primary work office of the United States President since it was first built in 1800. The white house was burned in 1814 by the British as part of the ‘War of 1812’. It was immediately rebuilt and today it holds an iconic nature as the symbol of the American government. The White House has an official website.

There is a short clip on the official White House website with the current president of the United States, George W. Bush, explaining the oval office. Some interesting observations can be made after viewing the clip. The first point is Bush’s comment regarding the American flag woven into the room’s carpet saying that “you need enough stars to keep the peace”. This is in fact a pretty honest comment by the American president which has clearly shown in his administration that he does not hesitate to protect American interests overseas.

Another interesting observation which can be made from the clip is George W. Bush’s immense admiration for Abraham Lincoln who was the famous American president responsible for abolishing slavery and thus igniting the American Civil war in 1960. What most people do not know is that Lincoln strongly believed in a very powerful presidency. He himself proved this by putting aside the widely admired American constitution during the war years and by not hesitating to use force against southern states in what he called an effort to keep the Union together and to do “what is best for the nation”. The advantages and disadvantages of a strong presidency is debated among political scientists with most of them agreeing that the presidential powers in the United States has been increased since the early days of the constitution where the Congress held most of the powers. Bush is a strong believer in a strong presidency and has shown his unwavering belief by using presidential powers to the limits in his two terms in office especially with regards to the “War on Terror” in general and the war in Iraq in particular.

Bush also points his admirations for Winston Churchill and Eisenhower as steady and strong leaders especially with regards to the former who he believed showed great resilience and toughness as a war leader. Another important thing to note is with regard to the painting he has chosen to hang in his office with one in particular showing a horseman charging a steep hill which Bush points to the Christian roots of this. George W. Bush being a very devout Christian believes in some respects that he is on a god given mission in which he has to lead the American nation towards a steep hill.

Book Review

2007-12-09T01:55:00.001-08:00

Me and Miss Parshang Khakpour have written a book review for "American Judaism: A History" by Jonathan D. Sarna. Please read the review and give me your comments:

American Judaism: A History
By Jonathan D. Sarna. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. xx, 490 pp. $35.00, ISBN 0-300-10197-X.)

In ‘American Judaism: A History’, Brandeis University’s well known historian Jonathan D. Sarna gives an account of 350 years of American Judaism history in a straight forward and readable manner. With an optimistic view towards the history and also the future of Judaism in America, Sarna describes the developments in the American Jews belief in God, their religious practices, religious traditions and organizations and also concepts like intermarriage which was and still is a serious threat to the survival of the Jewish faith in America with vivid detail. The book has won many awards including the 2004 National Jewish book Award.

This book is about the history of the Jewish religion in America, it is not about the history of Jews in America. Even though the life and actions of Jews in America are discussed in certain parts of the book however they all serve the aim of telling the history of the Jewish faith in America.

Jonathan Sarna is a Professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University, and chairs the Academic Board of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives. He is the author of more than twenty books on American Jewish history and life including his upcoming book titled ‘Illustrated American Judaism' which will be published in October 2008. He is also the chief historian of the National Museum of American Jewish History and of the 350th commemoration of Jewish life in America.

In 1654 when over 20 Jews came to New Amsterdam (today’s New York) the first group migration of Jews to North American took place and what ensued was a large migration of Jews to America making Jews the second largest religious group in the United States after Christians. According to Sarna Jewish practice in the United States has not been in the frame works of a clearly defined framework or boundary but rather Judaism in the US has constantly been reinvented according to the time and place were it was being practiced. This has been one of the core reasons why Judaism has survived until today.

According to Sarna one of the major challenges faced by Jews in America was how to maintain and uphold Jewish practices like observing Sabbath, synagogue attendance and not eating forbidden meat. Unlike Jews in Europe who saw discipline and sometimes punishment as the key to upholding Jewish law, Jews in America after an initial short period of unsuccessful attempts in forced upholding of Jewish practices in a very diverse Jewish community instead chose to bring the maintenance of Judaism and its core values to the center of their concern. This approach is apparent for example in 1757 New York when some members of the congregate where initially punished and expelled from the community due to non-observance of Jewish laws but later forgiven and readmitted citing Isaiah’s call to “open the gates for a nation that keeps faith” (Isaiah 26:2). This was done in order to keep unity among the Jews and keep up high participation in the congregate. Making Jewish laws more ‘lax’ was a means of survival for Judaism in America.

Another important topic the book touches upon is the concept of Denomination which emerged in eighteen century America that meant no particular church was the dominant church and also all were equal according to the law. This greatly influenced movements for reinventing Judaism in different ways in the US. Although it is important to note that these movements in Judaism were not as strong as the denomination which took place in Protestantism and created many different sects. The movements within the Jewish faith in the United States are essential in where Judaism stands today. Sarna is highly successful in describing the roots of these movements and their influence on the development of Judaism.

Sarna also believes that the common place fear of assimilation and gradual disappearance of Judaism in America was well founded since anti-Semitism, persecution and pressure from the majority Christian population to convert minorities to Christianity was a reality in 17th and 18th century America. Also there were periods in American history were religious practice among Jews had declined and also a relatively large number of Jews intermarried with people of a different faith. At each period people with a pessimistic view would see this as the end of Judaism in America, however after each period there was a revitalization of faith among the Jews and even though these downfalls are apparent in Judaism’s history in the United States they are usually accompanied by periods of ‘Awakening’. This is why Sarna sees this whole process as a regenerative cycle that is not destructive. Sarna has an optimistic and positive view towards the history of Judaism in America and this is apparent throughout the book.

Sarna does not see the periods of religious downfall and intermarriage with other religious groups as the first steps of assimilation and ultimately as means for the extinction of Judaism in the United States. Sarna however fails to specify why Judaism survived these circumstances when other faiths disappeared altogether from the United States. Sarna himself indicates: “between 1890 and 1906, fully 13.8 percent of the groups listed in the US Census of Religious Bodies went out of existence; between 1912 and 1926 that rate jumped to 15.3 percent” however he fails to explain in the book why these religions vanished and Judaism survived even though many of these religions reformed and reinvented themselves and also what were the distinct characteristics of Judaism that helped it survive in 350 years of American history. Another criticism which can be made of Sarna is that he does not explain the influence of Zionism on the Jewish faith in America with depth or detail. Sarna himself points out on page 203 of the book: “For years, no issue in Jewish life proved as divisive as Zionism” however there are merely a few pages on this subject in Sarna’s book. Assigning a chapter of the book to discuss this critical subject would have made the book a more complete history of Judaism in America.

Compared to other books on the subject like ‘American Judaism' by Nathan Glazer and ‘Judaism in America' by Marc Lee Raphael, Sarna’s book is more focused on the history of Judaism in America rather than on the history of the Jews in America and in this respect it remains faithful to its title. This is one of the advantages of the book and Sarna’s works in general in that Sarna focuses on the subject without unnecessary deviation to other topics and subjects which has proved very tempting for many writers. Also some writers like Harvard professor Alan M. Dershowitz in his book 'The vanishing American Jew' totally disagree with Sarna’s positive stance towards the development and survival of Judaism in America and believe that unless Judaism is seriously revitalized it is doomed to gradual disappearance in America.

In Conclusion “American Judaism: A History” by Jonathan D. Sarna is an invaluable and relatively balanced piece of work on the 350 years development of the Jewish faith in America. The book describes what American Jews believed as God, their religious practices, traditions, religious customs, religious organizations, Synagogues and finally reform movements in the Jewish faith with great detail. Throughout the book Sarna has a positive view towards the history of Judaism in America seeing periods of religious downfall as natural events within a bigger cycle of religious reinvention and reform. Sarna is successful to a high extent in covering this vast and important topic in a reasonable size and readable writing style.

Immigration Debate

2007-12-08T22:42:00.000-08:00

One of the major topics of debate and controversy in contemporary American politics has been the issue of immigration. A recent public debate among democratic presidential contenders left the public mostly confused regarding the position of each candidate regarding immigration. The details of their discussion can be seen here. This was mainly due to the restrained and diplomatic tone each presidential hopeful used to describe their views regarding the immigration issue which was mainly due to the reluctance of the democratic contenders to get involved in the controversy surrounding this issue.

According to the Pew Hispanic centre there are 11.5 to 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. This figure is taken to be correct by analysts with them estimating that Hispanics coming from Mexico and other Central American countries consisting of more than 80% of this population. Most of these illegal immigrants come to the US using the vast Mexico-US border. Although a lot of effort has been made to exert more control over this border it still is very vulnerable to unauthorized crossing. [1]

The effects of illegal immigration to the Economy of the United States are debated. However most economists agree that the wealthy class of American society benefits from the illegal immigration while the lower class suffer due to more competition in job finding and lower wages because of this competition. Paul Samuelson who is a professor of economy at MIT and a Nobel Prize winner concurs with this analysis. [2]

One of the major issues of debate in American politics regarding this matter has been the idea of building a fence on the Mexico-US border. A report conducted by Rasmussen Reports concluded that 56 percents of Americans favor building a fence along the Mexican border. The poll found that the views of the public were cut along party lines to some extent. The report show that 75% of surveyed Republicans supported the fence and the subject was more important to them. [3]

References:

1- Passel, Jeffrey. "Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population" (, Pew Hispanic Center, 2005-03-21.

2- Elstrom, Peter , "Fresh Ideas for the Immigration Debate", BusinessWeekOnline: 6-6, (2/27/2007),

3- Joe Murray, "Poll: Americans Frustrated With Immigration Crisis," [Philadelphia] "Evening Bulletin, August 21, 2007

Put tougher sanctions on Iran: US, EU-3‎

2007-12-07T00:11:00.000-08:00

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/070713/9/w1k.html

Here are some excerpts from the news article:

"The United States and three key European allies said on Thursday Iran had not done enough to win trust in its atomic work and the United Nations should now consider tougher sanctions."

A wait-and-see approach is not an option. Britain, France and Germany told governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after its chief said Iran appeared on course to clearing up questions about its nuclear history by the end of the year."

"Mohamed ElBaradei had also reiterated that the IAEA's knowledge of current Iranian activity was shrinking due to strict Iranian curbs on UN inspector movements, and Iran was expanding uranium enrichment, despite UN calls for a halt."

"The statement by the "EU-3" said both matters were "unacceptable ... We are interested at least as much in the present and future (of Iran 's program) as the past."

In a policy aimed at preventing further sanctions, Iran has increased its cooperation with the IAEA in recent months. This policy coupled with the unwillingness of Russia and China to endorse further sanctions on Iran have been the preventive force which have stalled Washington’s efforts in pursuing a third set of sanctions on Iran.

In recent weeks however Washington has intensified its campaign for a third set of sanctions on Iran . On Sarkozi’s recent visit to Washington this matter was one of the main issues of discussion. Reports of the closed door meetings indicate that Sarkozi strongly supported Washington ’s campaign. Also Washington has been successful in wining the support of Britain and Germany for further sanctions.

ElBaradei’s recent report sent mixed signals. On the one hand it said that progress had been made however on the other hand it stated that IAEA's knowledge of current Iranian activity was shrinking. This led the EU to make a statement saying "We recognise Iran has taken some steps in the right direction, but we are disappointed that cooperation is of a partial and reactive nature," the EU-3 said. "So, all in all, the results are not encouraging."

Saeed Jalili was appointed as IranChief Nuclear Negotiator

in Oct 2007 Iran ’s has made a new

move in efforts to prevent further sanctions. Iran ’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili has said that he will put forward a new proposal for solving the nuclear issue when he meets Javier Solana on November 30. The contents of the proposal and whether it will help solve the crisis or at least put off further sanctions for the time being needs to be seen.

USA Today Article: "Poll: Americans split on Iran"

2007-12-06T23:48:00.000-08:00

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11-05-iran-poll_N.htm?csp=34

A poll conducted by USA Today and Gallup on November 2nd-4th indicates that almost half of Americans think that the US should take military action to shut down Iran's nuclear program. Of the people surveyed in the poll 46% believe that the US should take Military action either now or if diplomacy and economic sanctions fail

Although approval ratings of George W Bush are currently among the lowest in US history and even in this specific poll 50% of those polled strongly disapprove of the president however this poll shows that the current neo-conservative government has been successful to a good extent in portraying Iran as a major threat to the American people.

Before September 11th most Americans were not interested in large scale military actions overseas even in special circumstances. However after september 11th which was the largest scale military action against the US on American soil since pearl harbor, the White House has been successful in winning the public's support for pre-emptive military actions on foreign threats in order to protect americans. In the specific case of Iran's nuclear issue the white house has gradually raised its tone and in each step has carefully orchestrated creating consent among ordinary Americans that iran is a major threat to the US that should be 'taken care' of one way or the other.

These polls are probably going to have minimal effect on Iran's nuclear policy however, since the current government of president Ahmadinejad believes that Iran should take a hard stance regarding this matter since the US is under no circumstances to take military action on Iran. Ahmadinejad's team believe that the US is stretched too thin militarily and is in deep trouble in Iraq and also that president Bush's rating are so low due to the Iraq war that under no circumstances will it risk undermining support for the Republican's party next presidential election candidate by attacking another country.

Whether the analysis of president Ahmadinejad's inner circle are correct regarding this very serious matter needs to be seen. However one can note that incase of miscalculations by either side on the future actions of the other is going to have serious repracautions for both nations.