Khashoggi: Bots feed Saudi support after disappearance By Chris Bell and Alistair Coleman

Suspected bot accounts are attempting to shape the social media narrative following the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Arabic hashtags expressing support for de facto Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, condemning news organisation Al Jazeera and urging users to "unfollow enemies of the nation" were among those amplified by the involvement of bot networks alongside genuine users.

Twitter has suspended a number of bot accounts.

Mr Khashoggi is missing, presumed dead, after he was seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October.

Turkish officials allege the journalist, who had been critical of the Saudi regime, was killed there.

On 14 October, the Arabic hashtag translating as "we all have trust in Mohammed Bin Salman" was among the top global trends, featuring in 250,000 tweets. Additionally, "We have to stand by our leader" was used more than 60,000 times.

On Wednesday, a hashtag translating as "unfollow enemies of the nation" was also highly used, while in the past 24 hours the term "campaign to close Al Jazeera, the channel of deception" has gained traction, used close to 100,000 times on the social network.

Bot networks were used by both sides in an effort to control the conversation on social media during the crisis.

Ben Nimmo, Information Defence Fellow at the Atlantic Council, analysed one of the Arabic-language hashtags with bot involvement.

"Unfollow enemies of the nation" was used in excess of 100,000 times. The vast majority of that came through retweets, which can be a signal of bot activity.

Accounts which had been dormant for a long time were suddenly tweeting again, posting identical or near-identical material to other suspicious accounts.

Others were newly-created or exhibited other characteristics typical of bot accounts.

Attempts to control and manipulate social media conversations have become an increasingly prominent global issue.

On Wednesday, Twitter published more than 10 million tweets from suspected state-backed Russian and Iranian "troll farms".

While US national security chiefs have warned of "a pervasive messaging campaign by Russia to weaken and divide the US".

Eddie Mabo

Eddie Mabo was an Australian man who played a crucial role in the recognition of the right of the indigenous people to own the land in the country. He was born in the Torres Strait Islands in 1936 and it was one of his fundamental beliefs that the land upon which he was born belonged to him and his people. An indigenous Australian, he displayed an astute knowledge of the fact that the land upon which he was born was rightfully indigenous, and that the laws that had been instituted by the colonial settlers and their government did the indigenous people a great injustice. For almost a decade, this man fought for the rights of his people by taking a case to court with the intention of having it overturn the terra nullius land system in Australia which alienated the indigenous people from their land. The sheer determination of this man, against all odds, ensured that he had one of the greatest wins in Australian history for an indigenous person, because the ruling made, overturning the terra nullius system, ensured that over three hundred years of injustice had almost come to an end. The overturning of this system further granted the indigenous people the confidence of identifying themselves with the land of their ancestors and ensured that their right to it was recognized beyond doubt. Eddie Mabo was a man who rose from humble origins as a gardener to becoming one of the national icons of Australia because of the fact that he was deeply involved in fighting for the rights of his people.

While he was born in the Torres Strait Islands, Mabo spent most of his life in Queensland, and was in fact not a well known figure in his home island until after he took his case on indigenous land rights to court. It was only after his death from cancer as well as the court victory over the land issue five months later that his fellow indigenous people on the island welcomed his as one of their own. His victory did not only affect the people of his home island but also all the indigenous people of Australia and this is the reason why Mabo has become one of the most respected men among them. The idea that an indigenous person could almost singlehandedly challenge the Australian status quo and gain a great victory from it was one of those instances which were unheard of in the history of this country. The indigenous people had long been suppressed by the colonial government, and later by the white settlers who dominated and continue to dominate almost every aspect of life in Australia. Mabo’s posthumous court victory ensured that the indigenous people were recognized as a legitimate part of the Australian population with the same rights as those who dominated the society. Furthermore, it may have played a role in the recognition of indigenous people as reasoning human beings who had, throughout the history of the colonization of Australia had been treated unfairly; the court case was therefore the first step in correcting the injustice done to them.

The overturning of the terra nullius policy can be said to be, in reality, a policy of inclusion whose purpose is to ensure that all the Australian people have an equal chance to compete in making their dreams and aspirations come true. Previously, indigenous groups were completely excluded from the majority of economic activities in Australia except for those which were considered to be labor intensive. Moreover these groups were rarely ever accepted in the mainstream Australian life, therefore, Mabo’s court victory can be said to have been a step towards the inclusion of the indigenous people into the center of Australian society. From the very beginning of the Mabo’s case in court, there has been opposition towards it with those against it stating that it is giving an unfair advantage to minority groups over other people in Australia. Those who are opposed to the overturning of the terra nullius system further state that this action went against the proper way of Australian life because of the belief that did not treat all people equally, and instead it gives unfair privileges to those people who would otherwise not have deserved them. These arguments are not very logical considering the injustices which were committed against the indigenous Australian groups in the past. The white population in Australia has been, for a long time, dominant, and Mabo’s court victory was a direct challenge to this status. This may help to explain why Mabo’s grave was vandalized and racist terms painted all over it. This vandalism forced the exhumation of his body and its reburial in his ancestral home in the Torres Strait; a place for whose people he had fought for and won the right to own the land upon which they had lived from time immemorial.

Mabo’s court victory has over the last two decades come to have a significant impact on the people of the islands where he was born. Among the most significant aspects of this has been the recognition that the indigenous people were greatly marginalized in matters concerning health when compared to the mainstream Australian population. This has led to the improvement of the healthcare facilities which are available for them, ensuring a higher life expectancy than in previous years. The declining child death rates has led to a decline in the birth rates, because parents are now more secure because they know that there are enough resources available today to ensure that their children survive. Another reason for this is the fact that the economic conditions prevalent in the indigenous Australian society today do not allow parents to have more than a few children at a time because they cannot afford to have more even if they wanted to. This results in not only fewer children, but it also means that there are fewer ties to the extended family and this in turn means that in subsequent generations, there will be fewer uncles, aunts and cousins, on whom to rely, than in previous generations.

The life expectation of native Australians between the years 1991 and 1996 was projected to be fifty six and sixty one years for men and women in that order. This was found to be considerably lower than that of the mainstream population which was estimated to be between 75 and 91 years for men and women respectively. Furthermore, it was found that the death rate among many indigenous people was at a much higher rate than those of the mainstream Australian population. In fact, the death rate was so high that that they exceeded the general Australian population in every age group that was analyzed. Most of the people from indigenous populations died before reaching the age of fifty, and this was attributed to the lack of the proper healthcare facilities that other Australians have access to. The indigenous population has been completely marginalized in all matters concerning health and this has contributed a great deal in the high mortality rates among them, just when they are at their prime. It has been found that one of the leading causes of death among this population are cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, and these made up 75% of all the deaths that were reported within this population. The rates of hospitalization was much higher among the indigenous people than that of the general Australian public, with these being much higher in all the age groups that were assessed.

While Mabo’s court victory may have been the first step towards the improvement of the lives of the indigenous people, there is still a lot to be done to achieve this objective. Racism is still as prevalent as it was before the ruling, as seen when Mabo’s grave was vandalized just one day after his funeral with racist terms being painted all over his headstone. In addition, the health status of indigenous people, for whom Mabo fought, while it has improved somewhat, still has a long way to go before it can reach the status that the other Australians enjoy. Life expectancy is still low, with many indigenous people not living to be more than fifty years old, an occurrence which is a great tragedy in a country which prides itself in being one of the most developed in the world. The fact that an indigenous person had to go to court in order to get basic land rights for its people shows just how ironic Australian democracy is because it favors those people of Caucasian descent more than the natives of the land. This has created a situation where the latter are dominated completely and they have little say in their own destiny. It is to either bow to the status quo or risk the continued marginalization of their society. This is something which should not be accepted, not only by the indigenous people themselves, but also by the government because the latter should be at the forefront of protecting the rights of the indigenous people. The indigenous people should also fight for their own rights because not to do so would mean that their situation will not be recognized, hence a solution will not be attained. It such a thing was to happen, then the legacy of such indigenous men as Eddie Mabo would be forever tarnished.

Raging Bull (1980)

Among the greatest films of the drama genre is 1980’s Raging Bull, which starred Robert De Niro as the boxer Jake La Motta and all the evidence from the film suggests that De Niro paid a lot of attention to the details concerning La Motta’s life so as to be as close to the historical record as possible. The making of Raging Bull seems to pay a lot of attention to the issues concerning realism, history and artistic truth, which are the main ingredients in the making of successful dramas. The way through which the actor perceives his role on screen allows him to make an accurate depiction of the emotions that a real life individual, such a Jake La Motta, experienced. The heart of Raging Bull is based on the ability of De Niro to recreate the life of La Motta in particular moments of his life since this enable his to portray the truth concerning La Motta’s daily reality. In the making of the film, De Niro had to immerse himself into the various aspects of La Motta’s life during the different periods of his life, from when he was at his peak to when he was at his worst, and this was with the aim of ensuring that he understood the realities of the role that he was playing. De Niro seems to have take to heart not only the emotional depictions of La Motta but also his physical ones since he worked towards achieving a physique that was as close to La Motta’s as possible. These attributes enabled De Niro to become a living representation of the life of La Motta on film and it allowed Raging Bull to become a critically acclaimed success for many years.

The immersion of De Niro into the life of La Motta is evident in the film as seen through the way he portrays La Motta’s life from the peak of his success as a boxing champion, to his marriage, the jealousy that he has over his wife’s affairs, his estrangement from his brother, and his eventual fall from grace as he has bad encounters with the law. In addition, De Niro took up a training regimen to ensure that he had the body and the making of a boxer and this can be attested to in all the fight scenes in the film. According to La Motta’s own account, De Niro trained with him on a daily basis for over a year in order to achieve the required physical form for the film. The film attempts to recreate all the major fights that La Motta had ever fought in his career in a way that is as realistic as possible and this allows it not only to bring La Motta closer to the audience, but also serves the purpose of showing the level of dedication that De Niro had in preparation for filming. It is evidence for the dedication needed for the filming of drama such as Raging Bull, from the actors who have to completely change their lifestyle so that they can achieve both the physical and emotional form that it needed for the accurate depiction of the various themes involved in the film. The result of such dedication is often the realistic depiction of the film which enables it to be able to connect with its potential audiences at a personal and empathetic level that is as close as possible to their daily real life problems.

Among the biggest concerns of actors who have been selected to portray characters in drama films is whether they can be able to be convincing to the audience. The same thing happened to De Niro and this is the reason why he sought to gain some experience in the boxing ring in preparation for the filming. In addition, De Niro accurately depicts La Motta’s obsession with weight throughout the film and he does this through gaining and losing weight in real life so that he can also adequately depict the emotional dilemma that La Motta had concerning his weight. In the film, De Niro attempts to recapture the specific gestures that La Motta made during his fights as a way of ensuring accuracy and these are used to underline the actor’s naturalistic and historically informed depiction of his role in Raging Bull. Each of the scenes in the film, even the fight scenes, is highly emotional affairs which enable the audience to become directly involved with La Motta, understanding his motivations as well as the circumstances behind the successes and failures that he experienced in his life. This film, however, works towards the clearing of some of the negative images of La Motta during his public and private life as a professional boxer. It attempts to show that, like any other person, La Motta was also human, with all faults and failings that are associated with the race. The image of La Motta that is brought about by the film is that of a person with many complexities. It partially burnishes the common public image of La Motta as being a ruthless boxer who would stop at nothing, nor hesitate in the ring in order to achieve victory. It shows that although his actions seemed to be ruthless on the outside, La Motta still had a conscience, and he often reflected on these actions. Another image of La Motta that comes forth in the film is that of being a player in significant historical events, which ended up being disastrous for him in a personal manner since he ended up losing almost everything that was important to him. La Motta shows some regret for some of the actions he took in his belief that he was doing his best to ensure that he was not only successful professionally, but that his family was also maintained. Despite this, La Motta not repentant, and it is quite possible that the regret he displays is the closest thing to an apology that he is going to make to his fans and admirers for his actions. The film gives a rare glimpse at a man who was both enormously respected and admired by many.

This is an emotional film to watch because it does not have any action but it instead deals with the emotional aspects of the people within it. It has a powerful plot which curiously creates an environment that displays the day to day lives of the characters. When one watches this film, one comes to the conclusion that life is a journey which has its ups and downs and that the best way to handle this transition should not be resistance, but acceptance. In addition, the self-destructive acts that leads to the end of La Motta’s professional career, something which he depends on to earn a living, is highly symbolic. The film itself is not boring because of the heavy drama which is involved in every scene. The camera work is done so well that this film can be considered to be a rare phenomenon in the American film industry of the 1970s. In conclusion, it can be said that this film is highly revelatory of the life and times of Jake La Motta. 

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary directed by Michael Moore in a bid to create awareness concerning the events leading to the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath. It is specifically intended for the American public especially when one considers that it was released during an election year. The audience of this documentary is treated to massive revelations concerning the manner through which the Bush administration has been compromised through the President’s looking after his personal interests instead of those of the American people. This documentary was intended to steer public anger against president Bush to such an extent that he was not reelected but this turned out not to be the case since he won the elections.

This documentary was developed for the purpose of ensuring that the American public as well as the rest of the world was made aware of events leading to the 9/11 attacks as well as its having occurred because of the connections between the Bush, Saud and Bin Laden families. This can be considered to be a political documentary whose main reason was to ensure the President Bush was not reelected for another term as president of the United States. The main message that this film attempts to get to its audience is that the Bush administration had lost all credibility to lead the nation and had to be voted out of office. Furthermore, the documentary attempts to show that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy developed to ensure that an environment of fear was developed in the country to such an extent that the Bush administration was able to pursue its political agenda in the global arena. The war on terror is presented as a cover for a sinister plot between the Bush family and its allies to ensure that they have control over resources in the Middle East at the cost of the lives of numerous American servicemen and women.

I knew nothing concerning the subject of the documentary prior to viewing it and what I found out was quite interesting. The issue of the 9/11 attacks having been a conspiracy was the farthest thing from my mind because of my constant belief that they were merely terrorist attacks perpetrated by the al Qaeda network. When I first went to see the documentary, I expected it to elaborate on the events leading to the 9/11 attacks as well as a background of the perpetrators. Furthermore, I expected it to document the progress made by the government in the war on terror and how it was gathering information concerning the eventual capture of Osama bin Laden. However, once I saw the documentary, I was surprised at the different subject matter that it covered and it brought to the fore many questions among which was whether the people of the United States are as free as they believe they are. Furthermore, my curiosity concerning the controversies surrounding the 9/11 attacks was aroused because I came to view them from a very different perspective from what I had gotten used to.

The main subject of Fahrenheit 9/11 are the 9/11 attacks and the events which took place prior, during, and after they happened. This documentary show that the Bush, Bin Laden, and Saud families had a long business relationship spanning decades and because of this, they had developed fast friendships. There is an implication that these three families were responsible for staging the 9/11 attacks to create an excuse for the American military machine to be used in attaining their political and economic interests in the Middle East. The documentary makes a display of the realities of the war on terror and how recruiters are used by military to bring in individuals from poor backgrounds to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moore shows that despite its being widely touted as a war on terror, the main intention of this war is to ensure that there are further limitations to the freedoms of American people while at the same time working for the economic interests of a limited number of people. The documentary is filmed in the United States while there is footage from other parts of the world in an attempt to put flesh on its subject matter.

Moore makes constructive uses of sound effects in order to make the audience feel the sinister nature of the documentary’s subject. When he describes the manner through which a conspiracy is hatched to deprive Americans of their freedoms, the sound effects in the background enhance this and make the audience fear for their freedoms. In cases where interviews are being conducted, the lighting is quite sharp and this is used as a means of showing the audience the seriousness of what the interviewees are saying. However, when sinister connections between individuals are displayed, the images are darkened and this evokes an eerie feeling within the person watching the documentary. Important images throughout the documentary are brought into sharp focus especially where Moore is attempting to display such instances as where he is denied access to certain places. The interviews are quite interesting because Moore deals with individuals in a more or less informal manner, making them more comfortable and resulting in their saying more than they normally would have.

The part which I liked the most was that which showed President Bush at a classroom in an elementary school after being told that the World Trade Center had been hit by a plane. The moments that he sat still without taking any action seem to suggest that he may have been party to the attacks taking place. In addition, the documentary provides very important lessons one of which is that there is no need for certain legislation, such as the Patriot Act to be passed out of fear rather than being though through carefully. One of the issues which surprised me in the documentary was the association between the Bush and Bin Laden families which had spanned decades; a fact which I did not know before watching Fahrenheit 9/11. However, a drawback occurs where individuals such as President Bush, who are its subjects, are not interviewed in order to give their side of the story and this creates a situation where the documentary can be considered to be one-sided. Despite this, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary which I would be glad to recommend from my friends because it is one which will open their eyes to the workings of the world and show them that not everything is what it seems.

The Influence of the Myth of Napoleon and the Napoleonic years on the Development of Romanticism

The myth of Napoleon has been found to have played a significant role in the development of the second wave of French romantic poetry. Such poets as Hugo and Musset were greatly influenced by the events that were considered to have been irrevocably tied to Napoleon, and it is to these myths that some of their greatest works can be attributed. While this may be the fact, the outside world seems to know very little concerning this remarkable man who is often considered to have been the villain in the stories concerning him outside of France itself. In Britain, for example, the fact that Napoleon was considered an enemy of the British civilisation has continued to be the view in the current world and this has affected the way that they view the French ruler. It is said that he was short in stature and that because of his height; he felt that everyone looked down on him, making him want to achieve greatness in compensation. Despite the stereotypes that have developed concerning Napoleon in some countries, the fact remains that he was the greatest ruler that France had ever had since Charlemagne.

One myth that has often been propagated concerning Napoleon was his height, which many stated that was quite short. This myth has turned out not to be true and this has been mainly because of the fact that he was 5’7”, which was about the average height of a Frenchman in the nineteenth century. In addition, Napoleon was a genuine believer in a united Europe which united all the European peoples under one state, despite their nationalities and ethnicities, so that there could be lasting peace between them. During this period, it was the British, not Napoleon, who did not want a peaceful settlement to the dispute concerning the dominion of the French empire over Europe, because the French empire was believed to be a potential threat to the prosperity of British trade and security both on land and at sea. An example of the reluctance of the British to reach a peaceful settlement with Napoleon was seen through the British breaking the treaty of Amiens, which resulted in war. In the resultant war, Napoleon only went to war because he wanted to retain his crown and not because he was in any way antagonistic towards the British. It is a fact that unlike other rulers in Europe who after defeat could still simply remains in power, this was not the case with Napoleon and this was because he was considered by the other rulers in Europe to be an upstart, who had taken the crown that legitimately belonged to the Bourbons. Thus, Napoleon could not afford to lose a fight because if he did, then all would be lost for him, an example of this being when in 1812, rumours spread that he had been killed in the Russian campaign, the British worked towards the restoration of the Bourbons, overlooking Napoleon’s son’s claim to the throne.

The romantic poets garnered their inspiration from Napoleon, whom they praised considerably in their works while comparing him to his less liked nephew, Napoleon III, who was the French emperor at the time. The image of Napoleon as a hero was not reflected in countries outside France, especially Britain, where the government worked tirelessly to ensure that the reputation of Napoleon was damaged beyond repair. There was the use of widespread propaganda which included the distribution of pamphlets and newspaper articles which stated that Napoleon was a usurper to the French throne who had murdered the rightful monarchs of other European states. In addition, it was stated that Napoleon was an invader of free nations whose aim was to ensure that Britain was brought under his control. The British population was of the belief that their country was about to be invaded by Napoleon worked in the increasing of the negative public opinion of him. However, the dread of Napoleon’s invasion of Britain was not apparent, especially when one considers the fact that during the peace of Amiens, he allowed tourists from Britain to flock to France. These tourists showed a grudging admiration and fascination for the achievements of Napoleon in France, which were quite considerable when compared to his contemporaries. Even after his defeat at Waterloo, when Napoleon was shipped to British waters, it is stated that a large number of small vessels approached the ship in which he was being held so that they could catch a glance of the man who many feared yet admired in equal measure. Napoleon was so popular that people travelled from far in Britain to see him, and this was a cause for panic for the British government, which feared that Napoleon’s popularity would influence a popular uprising within Britain itself. This is the reason why he was exiled on St. Helena Island, far from Britain, because he was considered a direct threat if he were to step on British soil.

The charisma of Napoleon is one of the factors which have contributed to the development of the Napoleonic myth. He is probably the only ruler in modern world history who, after being ousted from power and sent into exile, returned to his throne without a single shot being fired. When news of his returned reached the French, they immediately accepted it and their soldiers flocked to his banners in a show of support. The people cheered his return, looking upon it as a return to the peace and prosperity that they had enjoyed under his rule. The fact that the Bourbon king was quickly forgotten with the return of Napoleon is a testament of his charisma as well as the popularity that he enjoyed among the French people. The ability of Napoleon to move the masses can only be considered to be remarkable, because it showed just how much he was favoured by them. The return of Napoleon to Paris and his throne captivated the political and academic elites all over Europe because such an event had never happened before, thus totally unexpected.

During the period of the romantic poets, the fascination over Napoleon and his legacy was still at its peak, with the man’s achievements being so diverse that they created a wide array of myths that bred confusion concerning him. Romantic poets like Hugo, for example, were extremely influenced by the Napoleonic myth especially when one considers that he was born in the period under Napoleon’s rule. In addition, Hugo’s father was a general under Napoleon and he taught his son to have immense reverence and admiration for Napoleon; an admiration which Hugo carried all his life and which he often compared to that of Napoleon III, whom he considered to be a pale shadow of his glorious uncle. Among the most enduring aspects of the Napoleonic legacy were the wars which he fought in order to achieve a united Europe under French dominion. Where Louis XIV had failed, Napoleon succeeded because he managed to bring most of Europe under French rule and to spread the seed of the revolution over the borders of France to other European nations. Because of his achievements, the period under Napoleon’s rule was considered by the romantic poets to be the greatest in French history since he had led the country not only to greatness but also to almost uninterrupted peace and prosperity. The leadership ability of Napoleon was often praised in French romantic poetry and this also played a role in the further development of the Napoleonic myth to what it is in the current age. The myth of Napoleon’s political genius was often stated through his actions after he decided to get directly involved in the government of France. He made popular political marriage to one of the most famous women in France at the time, Josephine de Beauharnais, which further enhanced Napoleon’s image as the national hero. A few years after this, Napoleon was able to gain power in France, in the period which came to be known as the consulate. His political genius then came into play as he had the constitution revised, making him the most powerful man in the country, and with this new power, he was able to have the authority to appoint all the people who were to occupy strategic positions. With Napoleon’s rise to power, it can be said that while the French Revolution officially came to an end, his actions showed that he was indeed a child of the revolution. He swiftly reformed all the crucial sectors in the government, making them more efficient than they had ever been before. Reforms were carried out in such sectors as the economy, the judicial system, as well as the education system.

Napoleon’s greatness was further seen when he restored those basic freedoms which the French people had been denied. One of these freedoms was the freedom of religion, which Napoleon reinstated by inviting the Catholic Church back to France, but while this was the case, however, he did not give the Church the absolute authority it once had, and instead, its activities were placed under the supervision of the state. Very few people in the history of France during the age of the romantic poets had received the approval and admiration of the French people like had Napoleon. The fact that he was extremely popular with the French public, especially after the restoration of the empire under Napoleon III, the romantic writers wrote a great deal, not only because they admired him themselves, but also because of the fact that they were writing for an audience that was fairly pro-Napoleon and was nostalgic for the days of greatness that he had made possible for them. Even during the romantic age, there had been written many books and accounts concerning Napoleon and these were read widely by the learned elites in French society. The accounts of the life of Napoleon may have played a significant role in the characterisation of this man in the poems influenced by romanticism. The myths surrounding the life and achievements of Napoleon had a great deal of influence on the poetry that was written during the age of romanticism and this is because of the fact that they inspired the works of the romantic writers, who wrote all that was positive concerning the life of this man. In most of the works of the romantic writers, one will find that there is heavy criticism of the rulers that came after Napoleon and these were often compared unfavourably with him; this being in part a further development concerning the Napoleonic myth.

Napoleon was among the people who were most admired during the age of romanticism, not only as a leader of men, but also as a man devoted to his family. This admiration does not just stem from the fact that he is one of the greatest men to have ever lived in France, but it also came from the way he conducted himself throughout his life. For many French people, Napoleon was a unique man, who rose from extremely humble origins and became the emperor of France at its most powerful in history. His life was the subject of numerous literatures, with some writers supporting his deeds while others have condemned them. Despite these disagreements about Napoleon, one thing, which all writers agreed upon, was that he was indeed an extraordinary man. Most romantic poets considered Napoleon to have been one of the foremost, military general in world history. Within a few years after becoming the French emperor, he had brought most of continental Europe under his rule. Furthermore, he had created a unique system of government, the like of which had never been seen in Europe. To the romantic poets, the achievements of this man were far superior to those of his successors, none of whom proved to be as capable as he had been. It can therefore be said that the Napoleonic myth influenced romantic poets because it also included the sense of nostalgia for the time of Napoleon, which was the greatest in French history.

Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the people who I admire the most in the world, not only as a leader of men, but also as a man devoted to his family. This admiration does not just stem from the fact that he is one of the greatest men to have ever lived in the Western world, but it also comes from the way he conducted himself throughout his life. Napoleon was indeed a unique man, who rose from extremely humble origins and became the emperor of the most powerful nation in Europe at the time. His life has been the subject of numerous literatures, with some writers supporting his deeds while others have condemned them. Despite these disagreements about Napoleon, one thing, which all writers agree upon, is that he was indeed an extraordinary man. Most historians consider Napoleon to have been one of, if not the foremost, military general in world history. Within a few years after becoming the French emperor, he had brought most of continental Europe under his rule. Furthermore, he had created a unique system of government, the like of which had never been seen in Europe. For the first time in the years after the French Revolution, the Catholic Church returned to France under his guidance. In addition, Napoleon was a man unique in his time because of the immense love he had for his family. He was also a man who was not afraid to take any path to satisfy his ambitions. It is because of all these distinctiveness and a lot more, which make him the person I have a high regard for.

Napoleon was born in the town of Ajaccio in Corsica, in 1769, to a local Corsican minor nobleman, and his birth coincided with the time when the French were trying to enforce their rule on Corsica, an island which had recently been ceded to them by an Italian ruler. Napoleon was born just a year after the French had acquired Corsica, and this occurrence ensured that he was born a French national. This ensured that while he was growing up, he did not share the same resentment as older Corsicans did towards what was locally termed as a French occupation. Instead, napoleon grew up with a great admiration for the French, something which would eventually guide him towards the path of becoming their ruler. Because his father had collaborated with the French from the early days of the occupation, he was given a particularly powerful position in the government of Ajaccio. This ensured that his family remained well off, and because of the influence his office carried, two of his sons, Joseph and Napoleon, were sent to the prestigious College d’Autun in France, where they were to be educated. It is thus that Napoleon came to France for the first time; little knowing that he would one day come to rule this country. His father passed away while he was still at a military college, and he was forced to act as the head of his family, despite his being a younger son. This was because his older brother, Joseph, was exceedingly incompetent and tended not to take his responsibilities seriously. This is one of the characteristics displayed by Napoleon that are most admirable. He was not afraid to take up responsibility, no matter how hard they seemed to be at first.

It was soon after he left the military college that he and his family permanently relocated to France, where Napoleon’s career would begin in earnest. For a person so young, he showed his ambitions early by joining a political group soon after relocating to France. Furthermore, he took up military service in the French army which was based in Nice. The tumultuous events, which were taking place in France during this time, gave Napoleon the opportunity to satisfy his ambitions. He got his first successful break when he saved the government of the time from a coup attempt by a rival group. This act ensured that he got the attention of the committee which ruled France at the time, who promoted him to the position of commander in the army. His new found influence earned him the command of the French army in Italy; a position, which he had coveted. This is where his martial ability came to be exhibited for the first time. When he was given command, he found the men to be disgruntled and underfed. His charismatic nature and organizational and military brilliance soon changed that as this became the best wing of the French military. Not only was there a complete turnaround in the men’s morale, Napoleon managed to gain victories over the Austrians which were crucial to the French cause. These actions vastly enhanced his image in France, and when he returned, he was a national hero. With his return to France, Napoleon truly started his political career.

This man’s political genius can be seen through his actions after his return to France from the war in Italy. He made what one could term a political marriage to one of the most famous women in France at the time, Josephine de Beauharnais. This turned out to be a tremendously popular marriage in the country, and it further enhanced Napoleon’s image as the national hero. Within a few years, Napoleon came to gain power in France, as one of the three men who ruled the country. His political genius then came into play as he had the constitution revised, making him the most powerful man in the country. This new power enabled him to have the authority to appoint all the people who were to occupy strategic positions. With Napoleon’s rise to power, it can be said that the French Revolution officially came to an end. His actions show that he was indeed a child of the revolution, as he used to say. He swiftly reformed all the crucial sectors in the government, making them more efficient than they had ever been before. Reforms were carried out in such sectors as the economy, the judicial system, as well as the education system. Napoleon’s greatness can further be seen when he restored those basic freedoms which the French people had been denied. One of these freedoms was the freedom of religion, which Napoleon reinstated by inviting the Catholic Church back to France. However, he did not give the Church the absolute authority it once had, and instead, its activities were placed under the supervision of the state. This ensured that the Church did not abuse its powers as it had done previously.

One of the most admirable things about Napoleon is his dedication to his family. When he rose to greatness, he made sure that members of his family also shared in it. He was exceedingly generous to them, often giving his siblings powerful positions in his empire. In fact, all of his siblings, except one, became monarchs of various parts of the continent during his rule. Even Joseph, the brother who had abandoned his responsibility as the oldest son, was made a king of Spain. This just shows the true nature of Napoleon; he was a loving man who did not hold grudges. Napoleon had one known illegitimate son, Alexandre Walewski, whose mother was a Polish noblewoman. While many men in that period tended to ignore their illegitimate children, Napoleon recognized his son and took responsibility for him. This can be said to be an example of his loving and caring nature. Despite the many wars which took place under his rule, the French people did surprisingly well. Their government was for the first time highly efficient, and the bureaucracy whom Napoleon had put in place worked far better than previous governments. It is because of all these achievements, made by a man from such humble origins, that I consider Napoleon to be one of the greatest and most admirable, men in history.

The Political Career of Margaret Thatcher

The political career of the formidable Margaret Thatcher began in the voting of the year 1950 and 1951, when she ran for a parliamentary seat on a Conservative ticket. During these elections, she was not only the only female candidate in the race, but she was also the youngest, at twenty five. Although she lost in both elections to the Labour party candidate, she managed to significantly reduce their majority in this constituency. Despite not being able to participate in the 1955 general elections, Thatcher, in the same year ran for the Orpington seat in a by-election in which she was also defeated, but in this case, the margin of defeat was quite narrow. This brought a realization that she could only win in a constituency where the Conservative party was downright dominant. To realize her ambition, she went looking for one such constituency, and as a consequence, was selected to run as the Conservative candidate for Finchley, where she was elected Member of Parliament in the 1959 general elections.

She made her first speech when she defended her bill, which required members of the local authorities to hold their council meetings in public. She displayed her strong will and character by going against the official position of her party by voting for the restoration of birching, which was a form of corporal punishment using a birch rod. From the outset of her career in politics, she declared herself a friend of the Jewish community. She was not only a founding affiliate of a pro Jewish group in her constituency, but she was also a member of the pro-Jewish association of the conservative party. Despite this friendship, however, she was of the opinion that Israel had to give up some of the land it had occupied in order to bring peace in Palestine. Moreover, she considered some of the actions of the Israeli government, such as the bombing of Osirak, as a severe abuse of international law.

In 1961, Thatcher was given an endorsement to the front bench by the Macmillan government of the time, and in this new capacity, she served as the Parliamentary Undersecretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. However, when the Conservatives failed to win the elections in the voting of 1964, she developed into the spokesperson for Housing and Land. Here, she showed her strong support for her party’s stand on allowing those tenants living in council houses to be allowed to buy their residences. In 1966, she was selected into the shadow treasury lineup where she was strongly in opposition to the policy of the Labour party which set compulsory price and income management, she stated that such policies would not help the economy and that they would, in fact, damage the economy. At a party conference in 1966, Thatcher criticized the high taxation policies of the Labour government, stating that they were going against the established order of British society and turning towards socialism, and perhaps they would later turn towards communism. Her main argument for this position was that low taxes encouraged people to work harder to earn an income.

She was among the small number of Conservative MPs to hold up the bill whose purpose was to decriminalize homosexuality in men. Moreover, she was also among those who voted in agreement of a bill to decriminalize abortion. She further gave her support for the maintaining of the death penalty but voted against the easing of the laws concerning divorce. These stances serve to show that while she was progressive in some of her views, she was extremely conservative in others. Edward Heath led the Conservative party to triumph in the 1970 general elections, and this proved to be an opportunity for her, as she was appointed Secretary for Education and Science. In her new position, she came to draw much public attention through her promotion of cutting spending in the education system. One of the most controversial moves during her first few months was the abolition of milk for school children at no cost. Because of this move, she encountered a lot of disapproval not only from the ranks of the Labour party, but also from the media.

The Conservative government, during its term, experienced a lot of difficulties resulting from the oil crisis of 1973 to the demands, by trade unions, for the increase of wages for workers. These difficulties led to the slender Conservative thrashing by the Labour party in the 1974 elections. This loss considerably weakened Heath’s leadership of the party, and Thatcher took this opportunity to challenge him for the leadership. Heath was forced to resign his position in the party after she trounced him, in the first vote, and William Whitelaw, the former’s preferred heir, in the second party vote, to become the new party head in 1975. To maintain the backing of the entire party behind her leadership, she appointed Whitelaw as her deputy. Because of the influence of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Thatcher was utterly opposed to the type of welfare state which then existed in Britain, believing that such a system was weakening the country. This institute was a firm proponent of the need for a reduction in the size of government, low tax, and more freedoms to allow businesses and consumers to run their activities without interference from the government. It is most probable that these ideas came to profoundly influence the policies of Thatcher, once she took the reigns of government.

In a 1976 speech, she made an attack on the Soviet Union’s aim to dominate the world, stating that while it did not care about what its people thought and put guns before everything, those who opposed them put everything before guns. These comments provoked a response from a soviet newspaper, which referred to her as the Iron Lady, a reference which stuck. In 1978, despite the economic improvement and the high ratings on the opinion polls in favor of the Labour party, the prime minister at the time, James Callaghan, chose to postpone the elections to 1979. The Labour party lost its popularity due to a series of events, such as strikes which occurred during that winter. The Conservative party took the opportunity to attack the Labour government, and this eventually led to its losing a motion of no confidence in parliament. This led to elections in 1979, with the Conservative party winning a comfortable majority in parliament, and its leader, Margaret Thatcher becoming the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Thatcher’s stand on domestic policy, as in all other issues was clear from the start of her administration. During her term as Leader of Opposition as well as prime minister, there was an increasing racial tension within Britain. When asked about it, she stated that the minorities in Britain added a wide variety and richness and that when these minorities became influential, then the local people became frightened. She further stated that Britain had done so much to bring democracy to other parts of the world and that because of this, it was only natural for the British to feel threatened by those coming into the country, not knowing what influences they would bring. The Conservative party, under her leadership, managed to take away the majority of the support of the far right National Front, almost leading to the latter’s collapse. Thatcher, in her duties as prime minister, was required to meet every week with the Queen to confer about matters of government. This led to a lot of speculation concerning their relationship, with some media stating that they did not agree on many issues, and that, in fact, they could not stand each other. Such speculation gave rise to rumors that a constitutional crisis was at hand, but this was headed off when the palace issued a statement that the media stories had no basis on fact. During Thatcher’s term, she practiced immense thriftiness in Downing Street, which included her insistence on paying for some of the things she used.

Thatcher’s economic policy was based on the belief that the government needed to be in control of all the money in circulation. To achieve this, her government came up with policies that ensured the lowering of direct taxes, especially on income, and the increase of indirect taxes. Moreover, the interest rates were increased so that the money supply in the economy would be reduced, and as a consequence, there would be a lowering of inflation. Thatcher not only established limits on the cash that was used on public spending, but also on social services. Because of her cuts on the government expenditure on tertiary learning, she became the first Oxford educated, prime minister, after the Second World War, to be denied an honorary doctorate. Despite the expression of doubt concerning her policies among some members of her party, Thatcher declared that although they might want her to turn away from them, she would not do so. This expressed her will not to abandon her guiding principles because of her belief that what she was doing was right. Her economic policies came under a lot of criticism from the public, especially during the recession in the beginning of the 1980s, which saw her popularity drop. To counter this recession, she ignored the advice of the leading economists, and instead increased taxes.

By 1982, there were indications of economic mending because of the lowering of inflation, but this was shadowed by the fact that there was a high unemployment rate. In this period, the unemployment rate was so high, the like of which had not been seen since the 1930s. By 1983, however, due to her economic policies, the economy was much stronger with low mortgage rates as well as less inflation. Because of the falling unemployment rates as well as a strong, stable economy, the opinion polls in 1987 showed the Conservatives in the lead. This prompted Thatcher to call for elections a year early, taking advantage of the situation as it was at the time. This must have been an attempt to avoid the same mistake which the Labour government had made in failing to call for an election in 1978.

The 1987 elections saw Thatcher elected for a third term, a sign that her move to call for elections early was exceedingly wise for her and the Conservatives. In the 1980s, a ninety percent tax was imposed on the extraction of oil from the North Sea, and the Thatcher government used the revenue derived to balance the economy as well as to cater for the expenditure of reform. She brought reform to the local government by putting a poll tax in place of the domestic rates. The latter was a tax based on the ostensible rental value of a home, while the former was to be charged to every adult occupant. The imposition of this new tax proved to be one of the most unpopular moves that her government had ever made, and this led to a large demonstration in London, which ended up becoming riots against the poll taxes. These taxes were s unpopular that when her successor came to office, he had them abolished.

Thatcher was determined to ensure that the power of the trade unions was reduced because of her belief that they undermined parliamentary democracy as well as the performance of the economy through their right to go on strike. Her government introduced legislation aimed at reducing the influence of trade unions, and despite going on strike in response, the resistance of the trade unions crumbled. During the elections of 1983, an unexpectedly low number of trade union members (some thirty nine percent) voted for the Labour party. Some have stated that Thatcher singlehandedly destroyed the power of the trade unions in the United Kingdom for a whole generation. Notable among the confrontations between Thatcher and the trade organizations was during the 1984 – 1985 miners’ downing of tools. This was due to the proposal by the National Coal Board to cut several thousand jobs as well as close over a hundred state owned mines. The National Union of Mine Workers, was at the forefront of two thirds of the miners in the kingdom to protest the actions taken by the Thatcher government. In response, Thatcher rejected their demands, comparing the confrontation to the Falklands war, stating that the unions were more difficult to fight, making them a dangerous threat to liberty. The strike went on for a whole year, during which Thatcher refused to back down, and because of this, the trade union had to concede.

The strike gave the economy enormous losses and these were further added when the government went ahead with plans to close more mines, even those that were profitable. As a consequence, thousands of jobs were lost and this led to the devastation of whole communities whose livelihood depended on them. Thatcher had noted that miners had had a hand in the bringing down of the Heath government, and she was determined that they would not do the same to her own. She gained victory through ensuring that there were adequate fuel stocks, and that she had appointed a leader for the National Coal Board who was tough on trade unions. Finally, she ensured that the police had received adequate training and were well equipped to counter any riots. Due to the strong policies which Thatcher initiated against them, the trade unions in Britain came to lose a lot of their power, and with this came a decline in membership. Throughout Thatcher’s government, the trade union membership dropped steadily to number less than ten million.

One of the most fundamental policies of the Thatcher government was privatization and this was accelerated especially after the elections of 1983. More than £47 billion was collected from the privatization of government owned business as well as the auction of council houses. The preparation of state owned industries for privatization ensured that there was a marked improvement in the performance of these industries. Moreover, since most of the privatized industries were monopolies, their privatization did not significantly affect their activities since there was no significant competition. While the privatization of government owned industries benefitted consumers in many ways, there were also some negative consequences, such as job cuts. It can, therefore, be said that the results of these actions were neither good nor bad. The sector which Thatcher considered to be most exempt from privatization was the rail industry. She believed that doing so would be disastrous to the government. The selling of state owned enterprises was accompanied by the easing of the regulations on the financial sector to hearten the expansion of the economy. In 1979, the monetary management of the United Kingdom was abolished, and this allowed the investment of an increased amount of capital in foreign markets. The Thatcher administration promoted the development of the fiscal and service segments to make up for the decline in the mechanized industry of the United Kingdom.

Among the issues which were of significant concern to the conservative government was that of Northern Ireland. The earliest of these was when the prisoners in the Maze Prison held a hunger strike in an attempt to regain their former status as political prisoners. For the duration of the hunger strikes, there was an increase in violence in Northern Ireland in support of the detainees’ actions. Thatcher, as was characteristic of her, did not accept these demands, and declared so in public. However, her government privately negotiated with the Irish republican principals to bring their influence to bear so that the starvation strikes would come to an end. After the deaths of some of the prisoners, however, some of their rights were restored, but the Thatcher government refused to concede to reinstating their former status. In 1984, Thatcher had gone for a party conference in Brighton, where she barely escaped being assassinated by the IRA, in an attempt which left five people dead. Despite this incident, she led the Conservative party in a conference the next day, showing that she would not be cowed by the attempt on her life. This action increased her fame with the public, who derived confidence from her action.

Thatcher saw the need to involve the Republic of Ireland in the governing progression of Northern Ireland as a way of fostering harmony in the troubled area. To achieve this, alongside the Irish prime minister, Garret FitzGerald, she created Irish Inter-Governmental Council in the year 1981. The meetings of this council resulted in the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, which made available to the Irish republic an advisory task in matters concerning the administration of Northern Ireland.  This move provoked a protest in Northern Ireland and prompted Ian Gow, a Minister of State, to resign his post in protest. Gow was opposed to any form of compromise with the Republic of Ireland, believing that Britain had to take a tough stance on issues related to Northern Ireland.

In 1989, the earliest confrontation Thatcher received to her position as leader of the Conservative party came from Anthony Meyer. While she managed to defeat the little known MP from the backbench, his challenge showed the growing discontent with her leadership within her party. Her supporters within the party played down these allegations, stating that her landslide win showed that the majority of the party members still backed her. Although Thatcher received poor approval ratings in opinion polls, Thatcher declared that she did not care about what they said, often citing her unbeaten record since she first got elected. Instead, she chose to stick to her way of thinking without having to change to please anyone. The growing discontent with her leadership within the Conservative party continued to increase, and by 1990, poll results showed that the party had been trailing behind the Labour party for months. Thatcher’s aggressive personality as well as her tendency to overrule the opinions of her associates further led to the dissatisfaction within the party.

It was Thatcher’s willingness to overrule her contemporaries which contributed to her demise. Her decision not to be in agreement to a schedule for the United Kingdom to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism made her second-in-command, Geoffrey Howe, to resign from the cabinet. This resignation prompted her leadership of the party to be challenged and although she won the first round, she did not do so decisively. As a result, a second ballot was called, and despite the fact that she wanted to fight on, her cabinet advised her to withdraw. She resigned her position and was substituted by John Major as party head as well as in the premiership. The latter managed to bring back the party fortunes and in the 1992 general elections, the Conservatives were victorious. Thatcher remained in the backbenches as a representative for her constituency until 1992, when she chose to resign from the House of Commons.

In conclusion, it can be said that Margaret Thatcher was one of the most formidable politicians and prime ministers in the history of Britain. Not only was she firm in her beliefs, she stuck to them no matter what those around her thought of it. The policies of her government were directed at making Britain an environment which was free of government interference, especially when it came to economic matters. Her confidence in her convictions are what kept her going since she was first elected to the time of her ouster from leadership of her party. While this may have been her strength, it also proved her undoing because her unwillingness to compromise led to her losing the support of members of her party.

On Dependence on Communication Technology

Communication technology is one of the most important things in the world today, with most people using it in one form or the other. It enables use to transmit important information quickly and efficiently than was done previously. This technology had developed very quickly over the last few decades with new communication technologies and devices coming into the market everyday. Despite the numerous advantages that communication technology has to offer us, there have developed several related problems and the most significant of these is overdependence on this technology. In this paper, we shall discuss some of the aspects of dependence on communication technology and how they affect companies.

Many companies, especially the large ones, have become completely dependent on communication technology to do their day to day business. This technology has enabled them to be able to reach both their regular customers as well as potential customers. Furthermore, communication technology has enabled these companies to cheaply relay their information to a larger audience using all means of communication available to people across their market including social networks, mobile phones, and the internet, among others. The communication technologies being developed today are becoming more and cheaper as new means of communication and devices are being created. Companies are increasingly becoming dependent on communication technology because this technology is becoming more affordable and available to people who make up the potential market, something which was not possible only a few years ago, when technology was more expensive. This has the potential of encouraging these companies not to go out to the potential market to study it for more tangible information about their customers’ needs and may in the process lead to their production of products which are not viable in the market.

Another issue which can come up due to the dependence on communication technology is its vulnerability to sabotage for malicious purposes. The current communication technology is very open for attacks from hackers, rival companies, among others, whose aim is to either use the communication network to gain information on the company’s customers or to sabotage the operations of the company. It is therefore advisable for companies to not only choose communication technology which is cheaper but to also consider its security. Such companies should do their best to ensure that all their communication systems are secure and that regular checks are made to detect whether there have been any breaches in such systems. The modern communication systems are highly dependent on electrical power and any interruption of power supply would mean that no communication can be made. Furthermore, the dependence on communication technology should be minimized and only be used sparingly to ensure the security of their communication systems. More traditional ways of communicating with potential customers should be put in place so that these companies can better get to know exactly what their customers want as well as keep themselves secure from any breakdown of their communication network.

In conclusion, we have seen how cheap communication technology has not only helped companies to market their products widely, but has also led to the reduction of the quality of their products due to their not being able to directly make an assessment of their customers’ needs. Moreover, we have seen how communication technology can be vulnerable to attacks and sabotage from people with malicious intentions and why it is best to continue to use the more traditional methods of communication. It is therefore best for companies to carefully select their communication technologies to ensure efficiency.

Claes Oldenburg

Claes Oldenburg was born on January 28, 1929 in Stockholm, Sweden to a Swedish diplomat who was based in New York and he attended the Latin School of Chicago and afterwards went to Yale University where from 1946 to 1950, he studied literature and art history. He then returned to Chicago where he took classes at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago later, after moving to New York, he met and was influenced by such artists as Jim Dine, Red Grooms, and Allan Kaprow. Starting 1969 to 1977, Oldenburg was in a relationship with the artist and sculptor, Hannah Wilke with whom he shared several studios and travelled together with and in 1977, he married Coosje Van Bruggen. Oldenburg’s first show was at the Judson Gallery of New York in 1959 and it included metaphorical drawings and papier - mache sculptures and in 1966, he was credited with an exhibition of his work at the Moderna Museet; in 1969 at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, among several others. Oldenburg won the Wolf Prize in Arts in 1989, in 2000, he was awarded the National medal of Arts and he has also received honorary degrees from several universities in the United States and in Europe. His sculpture, named the Typewriter sculpted in 1976, and was one among an edition of three was sold was sold for $2.2 million at Christie’s New York in 2009. Oldenburg’s creativity can be traced to his childhood when he was often left to entertain himself with his father’s office machinery. He has always been fascinated by scale, and during the 1960s, he began enlarging everyday items, often imagining them the size of public monuments.

Oldenburg’s art reflects the popular culture of the 1960s when he and his associates began to use images associated with popular culture in their work.  In the early 1960s, Oldenburg helped to usher in the Pop Art revolution by using materials like burlap and canvas to create sandwiches and ice cream cones the size of furniture and everywhere he traveled, he replaced existing monuments with those of his own design. His non-heroic subjects challenged traditional concepts of public sculpture and the artist has envisioned a huge pair of scissors on the site of the Washington Monument, a giant fan to replace the Statue of Liberty, and two enormous toilet-tank floats installed on a river in the city of London. His work has concentrated more on environmental awareness and conservation. Oldenburg's installation The Street, exhibited twice in Greenwich Village in 1960, used banal, trash like materials to depict pedestrians, cars, street signs, and other elements of a New York City streetscape and as it turns out, the food sculptures are autobiographical. "The key to my work is that it's about my experience," said Mr. Oldenburg, 83, in an interview in Vienna some years ago, "If I ate BLTs, which I did, I would sooner or later want to create them".