Sanitarium

Story in a nutshell: Future me come to tell me that if I go to school I’ll get into an accident on the way and end up in a coma. Is it really me?

I have come back in time to tell myself to not go to campus for finals; I am told that I will be in a coma for several years due to an accident on the way there. You know, he does kind of look like me; a 5’9” brown dude who looks like he started working out then just got really lazy and stopped, long hair, and a limp due to a football injury sustained sometime between now and whenever I came back from; I could believe it. Let’s put me to the test;
1) What’s my mother maiden name?
2) What are the last four digits of my social security number?
3) What was the name of my first pet?
4) Where was I on the night of March 20th, 2009?
5) What’s my motto? (What’s a motto? Nothing, what the motto with you? Hahaha)
Even though there is a good chance that someone who is not me can answer every question correctly, I honestly do not believe that I’m important enough to have a spy watching my every move. Therefore, if I can answer those five questions (maybe a few more random ones) then I guess I’m me.
Although I would probably go ahead and be more willing to listen to myself if I could answer those questions; they are not my personal criteria for identity. The only way I would be able to tell if I am really me is by hanging out with myself. To get to know myself I would have to spend time with myself to see how I react to situations, my immaturity level, etc. If I have to detail out specific criteria that would tell me if I really am me, I cannot say that I have any. To me, the identity of a person is not his memories or experiences; but rather, how he uses those memories, experiences, and knowledge in how he acts in certain situations or even on a daily basis. The way a person interacts with others and lives his life is based on those prior experiences and memories and that is what goes on to shape his personally; which essentially becomes his identity. But seeing as how I would be leaving in fifteen minutes for my finals, it would be quite difficult to figure out if I am actually am me. I could go with me if I want, but knowing me I would definitely rather watch SportsCenter.
But if I’m me, then would I not already know that there are six different routes to get to UMBC from my house? Since I’m from the future, I’ll just ask myself which way I went in fifteen minutes and depending which route I go, I’ll go a different way. Look at that, a whole new series of events: coma avoided, exams failed taken, and I did not lose everyone I love because I was not laying in a coma for however many years. Oh and just to be safe, I’ll remind myself to take the Volvo SUV instead; considering that it comes standard with safety features from God Himself. Even though I probably would not want to go, I would probably make myself go with me. I’d probably have myself drive since I like to drive; that way just in case the accident does take place, maybe I’ll be okay since I’m in the passenger seat.
If in fact I do turn out to be me, I definitely will not be able to kill myself. Because if I kill me then I disappear, this means that I did not come back in time to kill myself. And since I did not actually kill me, it cannot be called suicide. But if I decide I want to kill myself instead, I guess it would be a form of suicide. But to cover it up/make myself feel better, I could skip my exams, move to Vegas and do whatever the hell I want. Because I will be dead at whatever age I was when I came back; time to enjoy life!
Oh and if I threatened to kill me, I would know that I am not me. Part of my personality is not giving a damn. If I was really me, I would simply relay the message I had come to relay, given myself the choice, and turned on SportsCenter, end of story. Plus, I am too nice of a person to threaten anyone’s life, especially my own. Of course there are a few decisions I wish I made differently, but overall I like my life; good times and good people, what more can I ask for?
Also, the glowing box that was my “time machine” is not actually a time machine. That is just an old lead refrigerator that ILM made shiny. The only way I would believe myself about a time machine is if I was looking at Doc chilling in an ’88 Delorian. Either that or if I saw a giant crater in the ground; but then the first conversation I would have with myself is to go put on some pants, and I should not have to ask twice.
Here is the end of the story:
I call my aunt and tell her that some lunatic is telling me that I’m going to be in an accident that will send me into a coma, so I would like to borrow her Volvo. I would go to her house, get the car and go to school, fail my exams, get home and realize that I may as well have stayed home and gotten to know myself a little better.

INTRODUCTION
“If inciting people to do that [9/11] is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.” Osama Bin Laden is, for lack of a better term, Public Enemy #1. Bin Laden has been the world’s leader in terrorism for several decades now; but his role in the events that took place on September 11th, 2001 shot him and his terrorist agenda to the front of everyone’s mind. The only problem is that though everyone is afraid of terrorism, very few people actually know what terrorism is. It’s nobody’s fault, it just so happens that terrorism has no definite meaning. The news media implies it to have the definition of anyone or any group of people that kill innocent people; and since the media seems to own the voice of influence in this country, most people adopt the notion that anyone who kills innocent people is thereby a terrorist. The US State Department defines terrorism as: premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. Last I checked historians do not tend to refer to the Christian Crusaders of the 11th century as terrorists. In his interview after 9/11, Bin Laden, in a mockery fashion, admitted to being a terrorist. Looking closely at his statement, [mentioned above] Bin Laden shows that there are clearly two sides to every story. What we as Americans refer to as blatant terrorism, Bin Laden and Al-Qaida wish to think of as ‘aggressive’ idealism. Though the State Department’s definition is quite thorough, I’m confident that most of the so called ‘terrorists’ do not see eye to eye with it. They believe that they are fighting for their rights and the rights of those amongst them. They feel that their established governments are selling out and have no care for the well being of their people and therefore take it upon themselves to bring about ‘justice’; another concept that always has two sides. Without being able to attach a specific definition to the term, it is difficult to precisely discuss why it is wrong and how it can be stopped. What can be established is that terrorism is much different than conventional warfare; due to the insufficient sizes and lack of resources that the terrorist organizations have. Instead of meeting on a battlefield, like the wars of ole, terrorist use subterfuge, secrecy, and hit-and-run tactics give them a psychological advantage and neutralize their physically superior enemies. Knowing that terrorism is fought in a different manner than conventional war and is based on slightly altered agenda may be enough to begin a discussion on its roots, its organization, and why it continues to be prevalent in today’s world. Terrorists and political criminals have been around since the start of civilization and will continue to be in existence until the end of time because there will always be opposition; like their methods, their infrastructure is not one that most other organizations choose to use; in many aspects our response is working and in many others we have failed.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF TERRORISM
Though the roots of terrorism and political crimes can be traced back much further, even to the times of Greece and Rome, its popularity became widespread towards the end of the Middle Ages.
Before the massive bombings and massacres that we are so used to in this decade, terrorist acts were fairly limited in their physical destruction; organizations bred assassins and sent them to live amongst corrupt societies. And every so often, when a major player in the established political organization was to be eliminated, these ‘terrorists’ would be the ones to take care of business. These terrorist acts were for the most part strictly political, not so much religious; the organizations were more interested in the society itself being a safe and free place for its citizens. Since the dawn of civilization, man due to his nature always wants more; more money, more land, more power, etc. At one point it becomes only an agenda of self- interest; this was usually when organizations such as The Secret Order of Hashshashins (Assassins) came into play. The lived by the “kill one to save a society” sort of mentality; obviously there are moral complications here, but it seemed to work for them and continues to work for intelligence agencies even today. By this definition, if The Secret Order is a terrorist organization, than any other organization that operates in a similar fashion would by some implication also be considered a terrorist organization. Another example of an ancient ‘terrorist’ organization is Zealots; groups of Hebrew warriors that was prevalent during the Roman Empire. Unlike the Secret Order of Hashshashins, the Zealots saw themselves not as an organization to restore and maintain justice, but as a group similar to that of Al-Qaida. Their lands were taken over by the Romans in the first century; as retaliation, the Zealots chose to hide out and build up their forces. They attacked in broad daylight in areas with plenty of witnesses in order to send messages that they will not remain suppressed. In 66 C.E. the Zealots and the Sciari led a revolt against the Romans, in which they held out for seven months in the fortress of Masada. Eventually, the majority of the people committed suicide in opposition to surrendering to the Romans. Even though they seem to fit the description of ‘terrorist’ fairly well, one cannot overlook their confidence and willingness to stand against their opposition and remain firm in their beliefs. Even though organizations like those mentioned above have been around for ages, the term ‘terror’ did not actually come into being until the 1790’s during the French Revolution; starting in reference to the Reign of Terror.
The other major form of terrorism is religious terrorism. In the majority of religious terrorism situations, the acts are being committed from the side of the minority. Of course, the acts being looked at tend to occur after the minority has been invaded and taken over by an overwhelmingly powerful empire or nation; in which case it is completely unfair to put the entirety of the blame onto the minority group as being terrorists. Since most people do not always refer to political crime and invasions as terrorism, they only see the revolt of the invaded as terrorist. When the invading power pushes its religious beliefs onto the minority religious group, it is not seen as terrorist, yet when the minority wants to fight back; they are nothing more than terrorists. Those minority groups that engaged in violent acts against their invaders usually were striving towards one of the following goals: 1) To gain the right to practice their own religion; 2) To establish the supremacy of their religion over the one being forced onto them. There should be no shame in fighting for one’s ideals and beliefs. Though there are always alternative methods for doing so, it should be understood that in many cases those committing the acts do not have the time, the resources, or the ability to choose the alternative methods. There is one other form of religious terrorism, the one most viewed as the only form of terrorism. There are many religions that have stated beliefs which require acts of violence to be committed against those who do not believe. In the ancient times it was the native Indians of Latin America [Aztecs, Incans, Myans, etc] who believed that their gods demanded the blood of the disbelievers. Another example is the Thugee tribes in India; their entire belief system was devoted to violence for seemingly unnecessary causes. The tribes believed in and worshipped Kali, the god of death and destruction. The cult used to carry out ritualistic killings involving religious rites and prayers. Other religions have beliefs that in some cases can be seen as vague in their descriptions. For example, the concept of Jihad in Islam can and almost always is misconstrued into a belief of violence. Since the word Jihad is an Arabic word, it, like many others, does not have a direct and precise translation in other languages. Many people want to just believe that it means ‘Holy War’ and that Muslims have to kill anyone that it not a Muslim. When in fact Jihad, if truly translated as a concept, simply means ‘struggle’. Since the word struggle could mean anything, it is usually tossed into just killing the non-believers. Of course the bigger problem lies in the fact that the words misconception is not only in the minds of ignorant non-Muslims, but also in the minds of arrogant and ignorant Muslims. Just as religious concepts are ultimately left to the interpretation of the mind, their implications as terrorist acts are also left to the interpretation of the mind.

CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF TERRORISM
There are seven contemporary forms of terrorism; ranging from strictly political to religious, to purely criminal. Each form of terrorism is littered with several more subsets that detail specific missions from individual groups. Political terrorism seems to, surprisingly, be the most rampant form of terrorism. The reason it’s surprising is because most people do not consider freedom fighters to be terrorists (obviously depending on the fight). Of the seven major forms of contemporary terrorism, five of them fall under the category of politics; whether they are revolutionaries, state-sponsored, or nationalist, they all have their own political agenda as the goal of their mission.
Revolutionary terrorists are those that oppose the current political regime of their state and wish to replace it with one that holds the same ideals and values as themselves. To accomplish their goals, revolutionaries are not afraid to first destroy their country so that they, themselves, may rebuild it. Many of their acts are meant for the government to respond in a repressive way; they count on the media to focus strictly on the response rather than the cause of the response. This shows to the public how terrible the government is and why it should be replaced by a “better” one. Jemaah Islamiyah is a prime example of a revolutionist group; they are a terrorist organization based out of Indonesia. Though their name and association with Al-Qaida may imply that they are a religiously based organization, the Jemaah is more interested in replacing the governments of both Indonesia and Malaysia with pan-Islamic regimes.
More broadly based political organizations are classified under just political terrorists. These groups have no wish to replace or destroy the current regime, but to instead just impose their views and force the government to accept them. Political terrorists can be split into Rightist and Leftists; and recently emerging Eco-Terrorists…
Right-winged terrorist groups tend to be more militant structured; organizing themselves around such themes as white supremacy, antiabortion, militant tax resistance, and religious revisionism. For example, the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) is a right-winged terrorist organization. In the early and mid part of the last century, KKK members were often putting themselves up in elections for public offices; gaining mass support from their fellow terrorists, most of them won and were able to begin implementing their own rightist view into law.
Left-winged terrorist groups emerged to challenge the rights of the existing political structure. Groups such as the Black Panther Party rose to defend their people from the harassment and the shame showered onto them by those right-winged terrorists in power. They were hunted and convicted because they exercised their second amendment rights to bear arms; they openly carried rifles and shotguns while patrolling areas in Oakland that were known for unnecessary police brutality. Their methods have them classified as terrorists, but just as most other organizations believe: their motives are in just.
Eco-terrorists are overly active environmental tree-huggers. Their uses of violence and sabotage are directed towards corporations that they believe to be dangerous to the environment.
Nationalist terrorism is spearheaded by groups wishing to regain their societal rights or to separate from their current nation and create one that they may rule under their own values; i.e. the Tutsi people in Rwanda [against the majority Hutu tribe].
The fourth main type of terrorist group is known as Retributive. These are groups that have no interest in creating their own political regime, etc. Their only interest is to have everyone in the world agree with them. And to do this, they are willing to target innocent bystanders, including women and children. They have no care for only influential targets; they want as much attention as they can get at all times.
The last form of political terrorism is State-Sponsored Terrorism. This occurs when a corrupt government uses its resources, both wealth and militant, to repress any form of uprising or revolutionary opposition. State-Sponsored Terrorism is almost the exact opposite of Revolutionary Terrorism; in that instead of the poor citizens uprising and standing up for their own beliefs, the rich people of the government are coming down on the poor citizens are stalling their opposition.
The final two forms of contemporary terrorism are not political; one is cult terrorism, which is simply believers and followers of violent cults i.e. Charles Mansion. And the other being criminal terrorism; which as the name implies is just relating to common law crimes, such as theft, drug dealing, gang related violence, etc. Criminal groups may start out as a political terrorism organization, but decide that common law crimes are more profitable and end up just changing their entire mission and purpose.

HOW ARE TERROR GROUPS ORGANIZED?
Most terrorist organizations tend to be structured as networks or hierarchies. Depending on the form of terrorism the group is involved in, they chose their structure respectively. An organization such as Al-Qaida that is constantly involved in heavy combat, risking the loss of important players in their organization, would primarily be a networked organization. Every position has a backup ready to proceed as a leader in an emergency situation. The former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, described that every time a second or third in command was a captured another soldier was ready to take up the role. Over the last 10 years, countless second/third in command leaders of Al-Qaida have been captured or killed.
Pretty much all terrorist organizations, regardless of infrastructure, tend to divide themselves into terror cells. This is useful for both organizational and security purposes. Cells are given limited knowledge of the whereabouts and missions of other cells; this is incase cells get raided and the members get captured, there is nothing to break out of the prisoner. Terror cells are the anti-intelligence; intelligence agencies worst nightmares.

CONCLUSION
Throughout this paper we have discussed what terrorism is (as close a definition we can get to), what many terrorists may describe as their motives, and how organizations continue to march through without missing a beat.
Terrorism has been corrupting and destroying societies for centuries; attempted counter terrorism has failed to halt the efforts of those committing the horrendous acts of violence. There are so many different forms of terrorism and different styles of carrying out their missions that intelligence agencies and governments cannot seem to defeat the terrorists. The terrorists operate under their own laws, are willing to cause mass chaos and destruction, and have no care for human life, that catching and stopping them is almost an impossible task. Even giving in and surrendering to their requests would solve virtually nothing. As soon as a government gives into the political terrorists, the revolutionary terrorists are up in arms and ready for war. There will always be at least one group of unhappy idealists; we’ll be fighting terrorism until they kill us all or the world comes to an end. Either way, they are not going away any time soon.
Over the last 21 centuries, terrorism has maintained its roots in political and religious fights; ranging from individual assassinations of corrupt government officials, to crusades, to civil rights, and now to purely radical interpretations of beliefs. If the terrorists were not so grounded in their beliefs, terrorism would not be a problem; therefore it is pretty much useless for those of us that think differently to sit at home and wonder why negotiations are not taking place and accept the fact that this concept of terrorism has been around forever and will remain forever.

The theories of the mind come from the Metaphysics subdivision of Philosophy. They begin to question and argue for how the mind works, why it may work that way, and even, if it is a totally separate entity than the rest of an individual’s body. When it comes to the mind, scientists [biologists and chemists] as well as psychologists can tell us how the brain works; how the separate regions communicate with each other, how signals are sent from the brain to the body, what chemicals are released in specific situations, why people feel the way they do, etc. but all of these questions/answers only have the possibility of being true assuming the brain and the mind are one and the same. This is where metaphysics comes into play; philosophers engage themselves in an endless pursuit to find the ‘correct’ answer. This has been going on forever; and will continue to go on forever. Separating the ‘mind’ and the ‘brain’ serves the purpose of differentiating between the brain telling the body to lift its arm and the mind telling the individual what to think, how to think, etc. Over the course of the last several hundred years, many philosophers have come and left us with their oh so important thoughts on The Mind; since there are so many different areas of the mind that philosophers found relevant to discuss, so many theories were branded, yet many of them can be mutually exclusive from the others. Therefore it is ok for a person to accept or agree with several of the theories rather than be forced to pick just one. A theory such as Dualism simply suggests that the organ that we call the brain is considered as part of the body itself; whereas the real ‘mind’ is a non-physical object that is entirely a separate entity. Another theory, Functionalism, suggests that an object should be defined by the purpose it serves rather than by its physical attributes. The theory of Anomalous Monism explains that mental and physical events are in some way linked but no law can be put in place to show an exact way that the two separate events may be associated. As far as concept is considered, none of the three examples above have anything in common; one makes a literal differentiation between a physical body and a non-physical mind, another suggests how a dictionary should define its content, and the third says that the events that take place in the mind [such as thoughts] and events that take place in the physical reality have separate properties yet share a common link. All three are considered to be theories relating to mind because whether it is about the literal state of the mind, the properties of the different states, or how the mind should comprehend an object; each theory has an opinion on how the mind works/should work.
As previously stated, the basic premise of the examples above does not require that an individual chose one over the rest. One theory, Anomalous Monism for example, can be seen as a possible extension of Descartes’ Dualism theory. Dualism differentiates between a physical body and the non-physical mind. Dualism wants to show that the brain is a physical organ that is just a control room/data center for the physical body; but the mind is much more. According to Dualism, the mind is made of up thoughts, feelings, personality, things that cannot be categorized solely as physical. Anomalous Monism takes the concept of the mind and body being separate units and further determines that the same event can take place, yet be considered two separate events, one in the non-physical mind and the other in a physical reality. The same event, twice, has a link between its occurrence in the non-physical world and the physical world but its overall properties differ greatly. The similarities between the premise’s of Dualism and Anomalous Monism merely show that one has to exist for the other to exist. If Dualism did not create a clear distinction between a physical body (including the brain) and a non-physical mind, Anomalous Monism would have nothing to base its idea of separate events and different properties on.
While Dualismt and Monists (?) worry about the difference between the mind and the body, all functionalists seem to care about is how we chose to define things. Instead of using physical attributes of an object to define it, functionalists want to use its function to define the object. For example, biologists define the liver as the body’s anti-toxic center. To them it would not make a difference whether the liver was made from organic compounds, plastic tubes, etc., their focus is on the role that the liver plays in the body and its interactions with other organs. Functionalism’s connection to the previously discussed theories is that instead of simply stating that there is a difference between the body and mind, functionalists want to create the distinction based on a functional definition of both, the mind and the body. Assuming a metaphysicist can come up with an agreeable definition, the basic difference between Functionalism and Dualism would be that Functionalism just explains why Dualism says what it says.
From the examples provided, it seems fair to say that an individual can accept/agree with all three of them; instead of contradicting each other, the theories, in a way, complement each other. Dualism creates the distinction, Anomalous Monism extends the distinction [by differentiating between how events are experienced in the non-physical mind and in the physical reality], and Functionalism attempts to create a more specific and comprehensive definition of the overall distinction stated by Dualism.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Philip Dick was an American Sci-Fi novelist who focused on Metaphysics in many of his works. I believe that his words capture the essence of the Realism Theory; that no matter what we believe, reality will always continue to be ‘real’. Realists believe that reality is mind-independent; there is a real world that we can learn about. According to Austin, Realism is the idea that there are non-mental entities in existence.
Conversely, idealists believe that the world is a creation of the mind; that ‘reality’ is mind-dependant. There is no such thing as a real world. Under idealism, there is a sub-theory in which idealists believe that they are the only one that exists, and that everything they experience is a creation in their own mind. To them all people, things, interactions, anything that takes place in the ‘world’ is actually taking place in their own mind. I personally do not agree with this theory. My disagreement with this belief is that if everything takes place in the mind, how can the settings of a particular place be the same every time an interaction is experienced there? The consistency of the world as we experience it is far too great for a human mind to comprehend. For example, when we enter IT239 every Tuesday and Thursday, for the most part the room looks the same as it did a couple days before. According to idealism, the way the room looks is only in the mind; yet since our minds are not complex enough to keep the room exactly the same, it would look different every time. There are far too many details for us to have to keep consistent. Another problem with idealism is assuming that everything exists in the person’s mind, they should be able create into existence only things that they want. But if that were true, would this not be Heaven and the person be God? But I’m sure that even idealists have terrible days; so does that mean that they do not control what they create (?), in which case it would not be their mind that’s creating the object/scene. I feel like I’m not understanding the entire concept of Idealism, but from what we’ve gone over in class I’m fairly certain there isn’t much to actually understand. A question that comes to my mind is that if reality only exists in the mind of the thinker, where does the person himself exist? Does a person have to exist for his mind to exist? If not, whose mind is it? Idealism just has way too many questions to seem like a legitimate theory for what is real.
I consider myself to be a realist; I believe that there is a reality outside of my mind and that my surroundings are not entirely creations of my mind. Because I can guarantee that if reality was mind-dependant, on my mind, I would either be watching or playing football twenty-four hours a day. There would be no need for to sleep, to eat, be clean, or anything else that is required for us to live. But in reality, I am right now sitting on the floor of my bedroom writing this paper. According to idealism I should essentially be able to create in my mind that the paper is done without me going through the brutal process of actually writing it; but if in fact my reality was up to me, I would not have to write this paper in the first place. School would not exist, having to work would not exist, stress and boredom, I would be living how I want to live. Seeing as how that is not the case, I cannot wrap my head around being an idealist, plain and simple.
In my previous discussion on why I disagree with idealism, I mentioned that our brains are not complex enough to comprehend the consistency required to create a stable reality. As I also mentioned, I’m currently sitting on the floor in my bedroom; behind me there is a wall with two fairly tall windows, or at least that’s what it looked like last time I checked. The color of the wall and the blinds on the windows are both white, but two slightly different shades. I honestly have no idea what the two shades are called or what the difference is; but no matter how many times I look away and look back the colors are exactly the same difference every time. Every time I measure the wall, it is exactly the same length; the room and the house are the same every time I enter. There has to be something outside of my own mind that has put the world into existence.
Austin says that the apparent goal of human existence is to make realist statements about the world and that our statements about the world have the goal of being true in the realist sense. He is not claiming that only realist tend to do this, but all people. I do not understand how this relates to idealists; does it imply that no matter how much they believe in idealism, any statement they make about the world makes them a realist? The Correspondence Theory of Truth states that something is true if it corresponds to the real world. And from what we’ve discussed in class, idealists do not have an actual defined sense of truth. That would imply that any statements they make about ‘the world’ have no validity to them. Therefore idealism can only be a legitimate theory in the mind of a person who thinks of themselves as an idealist. To realists, the theory of idealism makes no sense at all. A person cannot live in a world that they do not believe exists.
Other than the few reasons that I attempted to relay in my previous arguments, I believe in a mind-independent reality because it is a part of my religious faith. (I realize that bringing God into a discussion like this does throw off the objectivity of it, but since philosophy is largely based on how an individual perceives their own world, I’m going to assume that it is okay for this paper). According to Islam, God is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth and He created man. Berkeley argues that everything exists as a creation in the mind of God; which explains the lack of control over our experiences as well as the ability to keep consistency throughout our experiences. Although this seems to be more plausible than just everything only existing in our own minds; saying that reality exists in the mind of God would be to say that God has a mind. This implication would be to attribute a human characteristic to the one who created mankind. I do not agree with the possibility that the Creator of everything has characteristics similar to those of His creation. In Islam God praises man as the greatest of all His creation, but if we study the history of the world we see that mankind’s journey in this world has been for only but a fraction of the life of the Earth. How can a species that was created only so few years ago be compared to the All-Powerful Lord of the Heavens and the Earth? The difference between The Creator and the creation is inconceivable, just simply unimaginable. Based on my own beliefs, I cannot support Berkley’s take on the theory of idealism; or the theory of idealism as a whole. Just to be clear, I would like to state that I do not blindly choose to be a realist only because my faith tells me to; the beauty of Islam is that it gives reasons for why we believe in what we believe. This allows us to come to a rational conclusion of why we believe what we do. I have been given reasons why I should believe in a mind-independent reality, I have looked into these reasons and decided that they make enough sense to me that I should consider myself to be a realist.
In this paper I talked about the theories of idealism and realism, but did not mention anti-realism. That is because, from my understanding, anti-realism is not actually taking a stand on whether the reality is mind-dependant (idealism) or mind-independent (realism); rather it is sort of the neutral theory which states that there could be a real world, but we can never truly know about it. Though I’m sure my arguments in support of realism and against idealism were not solid, mostly because I’m certain that I’m not fully understanding the entire basis of each, I know that I do believe in a mind-independent reality.

The Healthcare Financing Administration (HCFA) was created as a principal operating component of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in March of 1977. Its purpose was to combine under a single administration the oversight of the Medicare program, the Federal portion of the Medicaid program, and the related quality assurance activities.

Medicare: The Medicare Program provides health insurance coverage for people over the age of 65 and younger people who are receiving social security disability benefits. Beneficiaries of Medicare can receive care either through the traditional fee-for-service delivery system or through coordinated care plans; plans such as health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans, contracted through Medicare.

Medicaid: The Medicaid Program is a medical assistance program jointly financed by State and Federal governments for eligible low-income individuals. Medicaid covers healthcare expenses for all recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and most States also cover the needy elderly, blind, and disabled who receive cash assistance under the Supplemental Security Income Program. Some coverage is may also be extended to certain infants and low-income pregnant women. Some States also allow for the coverage of other low-income individuals with medical bills that qualify them as categorically or medically needy.

Quality Assurance: The Medicare/Medicaid programs include a quality assurance focal point to help carry out quality assurance provisions of the programs, the development and implementation of health and safety standards of care providers in Federal health programs, and the implementation of the End Stage Renal Disease Program and the Peer Review provisions.