Sanitarium

“Instead of a war on poverty – they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me…” In the song Changes, Tupac shares a popular opinion on the legality of illegal street drugs. Although the basic interpretation of this opinion is that it does not root itself in the ethics of the consequences resulting from the use of the drugs, but rather questioning the ethics behind enforcing a more winnable [for lack of a better term] war than the war on poverty for example. Contrary to popular belief, the war on drugs is not completely tied to the health risks linked to substance abuse – the more controversial issue is that the economy is not being directly boosted by the sale of such substances. Common knowledge gives the assumption that all transactions involving the sale of illegal substances are dealt with in cash form. Cash means that there is no money trail to be traced, means that there are no expense/profit records, means that the US government has no idea how much money has been exchanged in such transactions, means taxes are not paid, which means that there is essentially hundreds of millions of dollars literally floating around – money that is not being used to pull the country out of debt or to help solve any other issue that affects Americans regularly. The controversy of legalizing the drugs and taxing the sale presents the exact question at hand: What are the ethical issues of abandoning the war on drugs and decriminalizing and taxing the marketing of certain drugs?
The question proposed is addressing the ethical issues surrounding the legal profitability of marijuana through the use of taxation and marketing – as opposed to the actual use of the herb in both medical and recreational cases. Simply put, the opposing forces presented in the issue are: individual [person’s] health versus profitable gain for the economy as a whole – which is somewhat comparable to a classic ethical dilemma such as: let one (in this case, many one(s)) suffer for a greater [monetary] good (in this case, money that could be used to solve countless other problems). To be more specific, the officials in charge of drug regulations are stuck weighing the value of the health of single people versus the significant benefits that would arise from the surplus in tax dollars coming into the economy. According to the Center for Disease Control (sub-operational division of the US Department of Health and Human Services) the percentage of regular marijuana users above the age of twelve was approximately 6.6% - that number is surprisingly low for a habit that seems to be quite prevalent in many communities. But if the statistical facts show that the amount of people that regularly abuse marijuana is so low, why then is there such a concern over public opinion? One possible reason may be that there is a fear of marijuana (if legalized) having the same result as alcohol after the prohibition – becoming a social norm, in which case safety enforcement laws would need to be put in place and actually enforcing those laws may prove to be more of a hassle than prohibiting its use as a whole. All of a sudden the ethical issue has expanded and complexities come flying out.
Currently, with marijuana’s legal state, the only stakeholders that are legitimately benefiting are the suppliers at the top of the chain. They are the ones raking in the millions of dollars – the ‘street pharmacists’ are also sharing in a portion of the benefit – until they get put in jail [for possession and intent to sell – (a criminal charge that is filling up and overloading the prison system – an argument that is often used by pro-marijuana lobbyists)]. The people on the supply end of the exchange are the ones making money – everyone else (all citizens that are not involved in the drug trade) can be the categorized as the disgruntled stakeholders; because they are losing the benefits of millions of lost tax dollars. What if the ruling was flipped and marijuana (and maybe other selected drugs) were legalized and marketed – who then would be the stakeholders [both benefiting and suffering]? Once the tables are turned, the disgruntled stakeholder becomes the beneficiary, but only as a whole; each individual [that chooses to entertain the abuse of legalized substances] is now on the losing end of the stick. Not that people that are currently users are not suffering, but in the case of marijuana becoming legalized, the user base is bound to grow exponentially and therefore affects more individuals. The legalization of marijuana would negatively affect more stakeholders than it currently does – speaking from strictly a health stance (which is the ethical stance – the individual health of the many exceeds the monetary needs of the whole.)
There are a several psychological factors to be addressed here – many of which are intertwined and stem from one another. Drastically changing a public policy that is in place to maintain the physical and mental well-being of the country’s citizens could lead to an array of misleading thoughts, which would result in an exponential decrease of public satisfaction in the country’s leaders. For example: if marijuana was suddenly legalized, there is a strong chance that the majority of registered voters would feel betrayed by the government – that the government is willing to trade the individual health of its people to make some extra money. A feeling like betrayal seems to have a strong influence the decisions of the people affected – when people feel betrayed by their leaders, their first instinct is to find a new leader; one that will put the needs of the people first, in a way that is pleasing to the people. On a more literal level, the psychological effects of using marijuana can be, in many ways, detrimental to the user’s mental health. To name just a few of these effects: paranoia, delusions, short-term memory loss, anxiety, depression, etc . all of which have the possibility of becoming permanent issues if exposed continuously.
Politicians running for [re]election would likely be unwilling to take a strong stance on either side of this issue. When considering a stance for a politician, we see yet again, the rise of another ethical issue; take the stance that the majority of the community is likely to take or take the deontological stance? But if the community demanded a stance on the issue, the smart politician would side on the view of the majority. In today’s society it is safe to assume that the view of the majority and the deontological view would be one and the same. The problem with standing on the side to legalize the drugs is that there really is no justification to knowingly allow your own people to jeopardize their health. It’s one thing if a person chooses to put their health at risk, but when a government essentially encourages, through enabling, its citizens to develop unhealthy habits, they have betrayed their citizens in a moral sense. A comparable example which can be brought up to get a better sense of the issue is the prohibition of alcohol in 1920’s. Alcohol was made illegal due to its health hazards. But once it was legalized again it has since become a social norm and is widely encouraged in today’s society. The same result may come with the legalization of marijuana – this is one of the main fears in legalizing the substance. The difference between letting alcohol become a social norm and letting the same happen to marijuana is that there is no real way to measure the current state of a person under the influence of marijuana. For example, a police officer may conduct a breathalyzer test to determine the drunken state of a person – but there is no way to determine how much of a high a person is on. With all of that being said, a politician concerned with his political career should side with the majority, whereas a politician concerned with his moral and ethical integrity will stand on the side of keeping harmful substance banned from use; no matter the effect on his career.
The legalization of marijuana would not only cause a re-architect of most insurance companies’ policies, but it would also have a major impact on how and what kinds of healthcare organizations offer. One would assume that the legalization of the drug would come paired with a set of enforceable rules and protocols to regulate its distribution. Though fifteen states have legalized the use of medical marijuana, the federal government still classifies it as a controlled substance – which means that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the substance yet; and until that happens, no insurance company is willing to take a chance on covering medical marijuana under its policies. If the legal state of marijuana is overturned, then it is plausible to think that organizations would have to figure out a way to incorporate the use of medical marijuana into their healthcare packages. Obviously a limit would be applied to avoid the abuse of the marijuana – the only difficult part would be the enforcement of the set restrictions.
A complete flip on the legality of marijuana would spawn the birth of countless shops openly selling the drug. Not only that, but all the shops that already do sell it would began to publicize themselves in hopes of booming business. As exciting as it would be to finally be able to openly sell a previously banned, but surprisingly popular substance, the liability and risk involved in supplying mind-altering drugs is too high. In the way that a customer is allowed to sue a store for selling a defective product that caused some sort of damage, customers would be able to do the same to a weed shop; but in the case of a drug such as marijuana, the customer may also be able to argue that the drug caused the user to perform a certain action or to behave in a certain manner – the fault for that would come back to the shop owner. The reason that cases like that are not prevalent in today’s society is because taking a drug dealer to court would be incriminating oneself in the process.

Aside from the research aspect of this paper, I feel like it is necessary to add a personal opinion and stance on the subject. Since there are apparent [arguable] pros and cons to each side of the argument, an alternative solution could be to legalize the drug on a probationary period and apply very, very strict restrictions and limitations to its use. Although trying to come up with a plausible proposal for this alternative has proven difficult, I’m sure that if enough thought is put into it, a good plan can be proposed. In my own opinion, I do not find that there is sufficient evidence or reason that legalizing a mind-altering substance would serve a greater good than harm. My stance remains to keep the substance banned and continue to enforce the laws currently in place to prevent the sale and consumption of the drug.

Bibliography/ Works Cited

Adams, M. (2005, 8 15). The Raw (and Ugly) Truth About the War on Drugs. Retrieved 10 28, 2011, from Natural News: http://www.naturalnews.com/010944.html

Amal Chakraburtty, M. (2010). Marijuana Use and Its Effects. Retrieved 2011, from WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects

Center for Disease Control. (2011, July). Illegal Drug Use. Retrieved October 2011, from FastStats: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/druguse.htm

Egan, B. H. (n.d.). Health insurance coverage for medical marijuana? No way, dude! Retrieved 2011, from InsuranceQuotes.com: http://www.insurancequotes.com/health-insurance-medical-marijuana/

Nocon, A. (2006). Journal of Psychiatric Research vol 40.

Introduction:

With the plethora of tablets on the market today, the two tablets that have made the biggest splash this summer are the iPad 2 and the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 [powered by Android 3.1]. Though they are not the only tablets that are 3G/4G enabled, they have the most and the best features. By the end of this comparison, it will clear as to why the only two that matter are the Galaxy and the iPad.

Design:

The Samsung Galaxy [though not by much] has been crowned the thinnest tablet on the market. Although the Galaxy and the iPad look the same, by literally a hairline, the Galaxy wins. But this comes at the price of not having the slick, sleek, and sexy design of the iPad – instead having a plastickier feel.
As far as screen resolution goes, again both are very similar. The Galaxy brags a larger 10.1 inch PLS-LCD screen with a resolution of 1280 x 800 pixels – whereas the iPad has a slightly smaller 9.7 inch IPS display at 1024 x 768 pixels.
Both tablets have the same ports/buttons along the sides – both have a 3.5mm headphone jack, a proprietary data/charging port, a power [lock] button, and a volume rocker. The iPad has a slight advantage in that the buttons seem to be a little flushed, which makes them easier to locate in the dark [tablets are very useful when you can’t fall asleep, trust me].
One major difference in their designs is the speaker(s). The iPad has one single speaker on the back corner, whereas the Galaxy flaunts two speakers – one on each side- allowing for a simulated 5.1 surround sound experience.
On a side note, neither tablet allows user accessibility to the battery.
And now, for everyone’s favorite part – the camera! The Samsung Galaxy has a beautiful 3.2 megapixel auto-focus camera with accompanying LED flash – the iPad’s camera is under 1 megapixel and no flash. When it comes to the 720p video recording, again the camera on the Galaxy comes out on top. Though the iPad shows a little more fluidity in its camera motion, the overall quality just does not match up to the beauty of the Galaxy.

Interface and Functionality and Performance:

Since already we are finding cell phones coming to the market equipped with dual-core processors, no reason to be surprised that both, the iPad and the Galaxy, are fitted with 1 GHz dual-core processors – Galaxy with 1 GHz NVIDIA Tegra 2 CPU and the iPad with its own Apple A5.
As a small, but important note, it is definitely important to mention that the email interface on the Galaxy is far superior to that of the iPad – that could be because Google [developer of Android] carries with itself a market specialty in email [Gmail], whereas Apple does not really have a large following in an email system.
The two tablets offer very different types of Operating Systems – The Apple iOS vs. the Android Honeycomb 3.1. The biggest and most important difference is user friendliness. Honeycomb offers much more of a PC like feel – including the ability to freely multi-task, personalize essentially everything, and notifications [from both emails and applications]. In contrast to Honeycombs fairly complex nature, iPad’s iOS is very basic and incredibly simple to learn and use. The iPad runs everything from downloaded apps, has a very vague sense of notifications, and does not allow for multi-tasking quite like Honeycomb. The friendliness of an OS should (but many times is not) the biggest factor that should go into a decision on technology. The iPad’s simple nature is great for those that are “technologically challenged”, whereas those of us that spend most of our day playing with computers – the Galaxy wins.

App Market:

Since iPhone came first, the market is quite a bit larger than the growing Android market. But both offer the major apps that people want and many little things are just fun to play with.

Conclusion*:

In pretty much every aspect other than complete simplicity, the iPad falls to the Galaxy and its powerful Android Honeycomb 3.1 – for technical people. Simplicity and ease of use, go iPad 2; pure power and ability to do more, go Galaxy. Oh and I forgot to mention that the Galaxy is enabled with 4G LTE on Verizon, but the iPad only has 3G…
And with a two year contract with Verizon, the much better Samsung Galaxy 10.1 is $100 LESS than the iPad.

*I am the proud owner of a Motorola DROID 2 and a Samsung Galaxy 10.1, therefore it is my duty to steer the public towards Android and away from the ever so simplistic and market driven Apple.

“Contrary to popular opinion, the hustle is not a new dance step- it is an old business procedure.”(Fran Lebowitz) . America’s economy is currently valued at $14.7 billion . As the world’s largest economy , there is no question as to “what is American culture?” – America’s culture is: hustle, hustle, hustle, and grind–$MONEY$. Good Morning America and welcome to New York.
New York is one of the most commercial cities in the world . Areas such as Time Square and Manhattan are overrun with big business. These two parts of the city are well built and well established to bring in tourists and entrepreneurs looking for new opportunities. Time Square has the big city lights, the big shopping stores, the big televisions, the big everything. In the 1920s and 1930s, Jazz musicians began to refer to New York as ‘The Big Apple’. This came from an old show business saying “There are many apples on the tree, but only one Big Apple.” At that time, New York was the premier place for jazz musicians from around the country to perform; hence the city adopting the name: ‘The Big Apple’. Similarly, Manhattan is running wild with big business. All the pictures of New York show enormous skyscrapers and people in suits, on their phones, while catching a cab to a meeting. A visit to Manhattan during peak business hours shows just that. Everyday Americans are out there grindin’ for that paper. Around the corner from the big city lights are the not so built, not so established parts of the inner city; the run down, poverty stricken projects of New York City. Yet even here, where the buildings are boarded up, graffitti’d and falling apart, for many it’s just another day, just another hustle. Obviously not every street corner is home to one of Forbes Fortune 500 companies; but the people that live in those areas are making their money the way they know how. “ ”I made a G today” –but you made it in a sleezy way, sellin’ crack to the kid–“I gotta get paid.” – well hey, that’s the way it is.” (2Pac - Changes) Big Business Manhattan and Hustlin’ Harlem seem to be worlds apart, yet both equally show how Americans hustle and grind everyday for the cash.
This city that never sleeps is also a home to much of America’s popular culture. New York is the premier fashion capital in the United States ; with Fifth Avenue and events like Fashion Week, New York dictates America’s fashion trends. New York’s Broadway theaters are the starting place for actors that become big in musicals and theaters as well as many who go on to the larger film industry in Hollywood, CA. In 2009, one of the most popular genres of music was Hip-Hop/Rap… a genre whose origin lies right here in Harlem, New York City. Even New York’s sports teams receive an overflow of media attention, just because they are from New York. The Yankees are one of the most recognized sports franchises in the world. The iconic meshed NY symbol can be recognized anywhere in the world. All of America wants to know what’s new with the Jets; with their fat, loud-mouth head coach and arrogant overrated players , they are one of the most covered franchises in the country. All the parts of America’s popular culture that were just mentioned obviously do not apply to everyone American and every region in America; but are applicable to an overwhelming majority and are therefore illustrates another way in which New York shows itself as a major player in America’s culture.
The part of NY that is less about the hustle or entertainment, but just as much about money are its tourist attractions. Other than all the previously mentioned acctrations (Broadway, Time Square, etc), New York is a city of many American Icons. Obviously not anymore, but before 2001 the World Trade Centers stood tall at the center of the city calling out to big business all while showing off their revolutionary architecture. These magnificent icons of business exemplified how America did business: BIG. Another very special icon that pretty much means America is the beautiful Lady Liberty, standing proud and welcoming immigrants to this great country of ours. Ellis Island was and is still one of the most important ports that bring new immigrants to America. When people first step onto the island, they look up and see The Statue of Liberty, look across the river to a lively, lit up city, and they know…they have reached America.
“I’ve got all the money I’ll ever need if I die by four o’clock this afternoon.” Henny Youngman knew what Americans were all about (of course he had to since he was making fun of us ). Americans work every day for more money, cause frankly yesterday is never enough. The government contractor that made about $3,000 on Tuesday is back in his office at 7am Wednesday morning. Fourteen hours a day, the dude is busting his balls for the next $3,000; it’s “The city that never sleeps, betta slip you a Ambien.”(Jay Z - Empire State of Mind) Goodnight…and welcome to New York.

Just a small paper for SOCY101 about the cultural implications of American Idol.

It is unfair to say that ‘American Idol’ is representative of American culture. As it may seem that an overwhelming majority of Americans are addicted to this (terrible) show, television rating show that only about 8% of the country watches it. The rest of the 92% could care less. Before we go into the cultural implications that ‘American Idol’ may carry around the world, it is important to assess just how much influence it has in this country; after all, it is American, Idol.
Though America, as a country is one, it is quite difficult to pinpoint how much real influence one, specific, show has on the country as a whole. America is divided into regions and each region observes a culture which it calls its own. Where there could be an 80%+ fanbase in New York, North Dakota may have a .6% fanbase. Because of the wide variety of sub-cultures within America, one genre of music can in no way represent the taste our 300million citizens. It is actually for this precise reason that there are so many different genres in the first place. For example, there was a contestant that did a rendition of “You’ve Got Another Thing Coming” by Judas Priest; obviously Steven Tyler was super excited, being that he is the lead singer for Areosmith, but much of Idol’s younger audience has no idea who Priest is. Even with the wide range of opinions on which parts of popular culture are superior, it is definite that the idea/concept of having a popular culture is quite universal. The reason that much of the most publicized pop culture is so similar is because the underlying culture of America is making money. ‘Just Dance’ assumed that if ‘Dancing with the Stars’ is making bank, then why not change the dance style and tweak the rules and make lots of money? As phases in pop culture spread throughout America, other nations realize that they could just as easily throw in their own cultural twist and make their own money. The reason we call them ‘American Idols’ is because it’s much easier than saying ‘Possibly the Next Teen/Young Adult Pop/Rock/Hip-Hop/Country Star’.
Although the question was only pertaining to the influence of this show on American and world cultures, I feel it is important to realize that popular culture’s primary objective is to create as large a revenue stream for as few people as it can. Those few people are the CEOs of production companies. As they keep coming up with ideas, that hold no real value to improving quality of life, but give the impression of wealth and fame, people will continue to support them and in turn make them wealthier. Bottom line, Americans love money, the world loves money; constant phases of popular culture is just a vehicle to reach that money.

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.