china olympics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-QIfZUkDBw

For many years the Chinese have been bringing athletes to the Olympic games who are not old enough to legally participate. Many officials have questioned China’s truthfulness when their athletes look so much younger than their counterparts. There are advantages in certain sports when an athlete is young. In gymnastics a younger person is lighter, more flexible and able to use these circumstances to gain a competitive advantage.

In the Beijing summer Olympics in 2008 the Chinese women’s gymnastics team was a gold medal favorite. There were three gymnasts that were favored to win many individual events and their past performances made other countries teams feel underprepared. Jiang Yuyuan, Yang Yilin and He Kexin all supposedly had just turned 16, thus making them eligible to complete in the 2008 summer games. Even though these girls documentation said they were 16 years old, they looked very young, even to the average observer. On July 27, 2008 the New York Times was able to find some proof that He Kexin was actually 14 and therefore was not eligible to compete in the Olympics games. Kexin’s coach showed the New York Times her passport and it said she was born in 1992 making her 16 during the Olympic Games. Famous gymnastics reporter Bela Karolyi stated this at a NBC interview about the Chinese gymnastics officials, “These people think we are stupid...We are in the business of gymnastics. We know what a kid of 14 or 15 or 16 looks like. What kind of slap in the face is this? They are 12, 14 years old and they get lined up and the government backs them and the federation runs away. There is an age limit and it can't be controlled”.

This is not the first time that China has tried to lie about their athletes ages. In the 2000 Sydney games Yang Yun lied about her true age. Three years before the Sydney Olympics, the International Olympic Committee had raised the age cut off to 16. This made a lot of atheltes ineligible to participate in the Sydney games. On Yang’s passport it said she was born on December 24, 1984 which would have had her turning 16 during the Olympics. After winning a bronze medal for the uneven bars Yang confessed to a news reporter that she and her coach lied about her age on her passport saying that she was really only 14. After the news that Yang Yun lied about her age to compete in the Sydney games the Olympic officials took away her bronze medal and gave it to the U.S. team who had won fourth place at the Olympics.

Not only did the Chinese lie about their athletes ages at the regular Olympics they also have been found lying about the ages of their Junior Olympics competitors as well. Officials took x-rays of some of the competitors’ bones and found out that many were older than the other competitors. One of them was even seven years older than the cut off age. They discovered that twenty percent of the competitors had misrepresented their age. Now the Chinese are testing each girl who competes at the Chinese Junior Olympics. They are subject to x-rays and/or blood work to ensure the rules regarding age are being followed.

This shows that many people will do anything to have their son or daughter compete in any type of Olympic Games. China is showing that they can have younger athletes that can compete with other athletes who are much older than they are. In my opinion I think it is wrong to have someone either older or younger to be competing when they are not supposed to, even if they are amazing at what they do. (623)

Six Day War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8qBMm5Aeq8

For hundreds of years the Middle East has and the Arab World have been at conflict with one another. The Six Day war between Israel and the rest of the Arab world was one of the more defining wars of modern times. The repercussions of the Six Day War ultimately shaped the look and power of the Middle East.

On June 5th of 1967, Israel launched an attack against its neighboring states; Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Many believe this war was a continuation of two earlier wars. In 1948 Israel fought against its neighbors over the Arab rejection of Israel. Then in 1956 there was a conflict over an Egyptian blockade of shipping to Israel. In June of 1967 Israel felt it had to defend itself from an imminent Arab attack from Egypt and Syria. The Israeli attack also included action against Iraq and Jordan.

In May of 1967, Egypt ordered the United Nations Emergency Forces to leave the Egypt-Israeli border. This peace keeping force had been in place since 1957. Then later that month Egypt announced it was going to put a blockage in the Tiran Strait which would cut off free trade to Israel. During this same time period, Syria moved many of its military troops to the border in the Golan Heights region causing many small border skirmishes and clashes.
Seeing these events pushed Israel into a difficult spot. They could see the tension building between them and their Arab neighbors. Israel felt backed into a corner. Did they wait to see what would happen through time and diplomatic means, or did they see enough cause to strike first in a preemptive and defensive attack against their Arab neighbors. One historian made the following statement:

"Never in human history can an aggressor have made his purpose known in advance so clearly and so widely. Certain of victory, both the Arab leaders and their peoples threw off all restraint. Between the middle of May and fifth of June, world-wide newspapers, radio and, most incisively, television brought home to millions of people the threat of politicide bandied about with relish by the leaders of these modern states. Even more blatant was the exhilaration which the Arabic peoples displayed as the prospect of executing genocide on the people of Israel ... In those three weeks of mounting tension people throughout the world watched and waited in growing anxiety--or in some cases, in hopeful expectation--for the overwhelming forces of at least Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to bear down from three sides to crush tiny Israel and slaughter her people."
- Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and fantasy in http://www.peacefaq.com/sixdaywar.html

With this, Israel made the justifiable decision to strike the first blow in a defensive attack.
In the first hours of this strike, Israel gained control of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Leading up to this event Israel had asked Jordan to not join in the conflict. However, Jordan sided with Egypt and Syria and attacked Israel. By doing so, Israel lost control of the West Bank and the east side of the City of Jerusalem.

The results of the Six Day War are still evident in the Arab world today. There are ongoing conflicts between Israel and its Arab and Palestinian neighbors. There are continued fights over borders and control over the Gaza Strip and West Bank. My mother traveled to Israel and saw how the border security and tensions exist between these countries. While most people and countries try to avoid war at all costs, the Six Day War was started by Israel in an attempt to protect itself from the imminent conflict from its neighboring states. (611)

America During the 2 World War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2JvarEfX0g When Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, the Second World War II began. In America the economy was just starting to improve after the great depression. President Roosevelt did not want America to get involved in another war. Doing so would certainly mean the loss of more American lives. Roosevelt’s desire was for America to be isolated from the rest of the world. In an interview, Roosevelt was asked if America would be able to stay out of the war and his response was "... I believe we can, and every effort will be made by the Administration to do so." The age old question is, had America entered the war in 1939 would the overall length of the war been shorter? If America had been involved earlier would the large loss of life from the Holocaust been minimized? I believe that if the United States had entered the war when Germany first invaded Poland, the war would have been shorter and the overall loss of human lives would have been less.

As the war continued in Europe some of the leaders in America were arguing that America need to get involved in the war in Europe. America’s leaders recommend fighting in the war however, the American people did not want to get involved and sacrifice more American lives. During this era, America espoused the philosophy of isolationism. There were two instances when America could have entered the war before it did. When Japan was fighting against China and Germany was at war with much of Europe. During this time America continued to sit on the sidelines and remain neutral while other nations were experiencing great losses. America did however assist in the war effort when it broke the Japanese war-time code in August of 1940. This gave the United States the ability to understand Japan’s and Germany’s plans war time plans. America shared these plans with the entire world and yet didn’t realize that an attack might come to American soil. In August of 1940 Roosevelt made an initial effort in preparation for war when he asked Congress to enlist the National Guard into Federal service for a period of one year.

In September of 1940 America started to take steps that were precursors to entering the war. Japan, Germany and Italy singed the Tripartite Treaty. This treaty called for an alliance that if one of these nations attacked or was attacked by another nation, the other two countries would in turn declare war on the other nation. Roosevelt did not want to proactively enter the war. He believed that if either Japan or Germany were to attack America we would have no choice but to join in the war time cause. This was an important fact to Roosevelt’s leadership as if America was attacked the American people support entry into the war. On December 1941 Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor. This event marked the end of America’s isolationism and forced the United States into the war where it fought the final three year of the war.

After staying neutral and espousing isolationism for nearly a decade, America was finally pulled into the Second World War. America should have entered the war sooner so as to prevent the significant loss of life to the people in Europe. Not only would the US have assisted the European nation’s safety but we would also have averted the embarrassing attack on Pearl Harbor. Looking back at history America entered both the First and Second World War’s late. America has always wanted to be a peaceful nation but when attacked or provoked will defend our freedom, our citizens and our borders. (609)

Roosevelt and the Supreme Court

“During the past half-century the balance of power between the three great branches of the federal government has been tipped out of balance by the courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. It is my purpose to restore that balance. You who know me will accept my solemn assurance that in a world in which democracy is under attack, I seek to make American democracy succeed. You and I will do our part.” http://www.hpol.org/fdr/chat/

With these words President Franklin D. Roosevelt ended his fireside chat to the people of the United States on March 9, 1937 and thus threw down the gauntlet to both the Congress and the citizens of the United States. He revealed a plan which had been years in the making to overcome the opposition of the Supreme Court to his New Deal.

On Jan. 30, 1937, the president disclosed to his closest aides a draft bill to reorganize the federal judiciary. The measure -- mischievously linked to a long-ago proposal by 75-year-old Justice James C. McReynolds -- called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one older than 70.
The practical effect of the proposal: Roosevelt could have appointed six more Supreme Court justices immediately, increasing the size of the court to 15 members. A Congress dominated by Democrats undoubtedly would have appointed judges friendly to Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.

Roosevelt's animosity toward the Supreme Court emerged in his first presidential term. Overwhelmingly elected in 1932, he promised a New Deal of social and economic involvement by the government in an America ravaged by the Great Depression. But the court, most of whose justices were appointed by Republicans, soon began to undo his work by ruling his New Deal laws unconstitutional on 5-4 votes.

In May 1935, the court attacked two laws. First, it invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, a law that had established pensions for railway workers. Then in a blow to the cornerstone of the New Deal, the court gutted the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Roosevelt lambasted the justices for those rulings. "We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce," he complained. But his contempt for the conservative-minded courts of “Nine Old Men” -- six justices were age 70 or older, and the youngest was 61 -- did not deter them. In January 1936, the court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional.

Re-elected to a second term by an even larger majority than in 1932, and given an even larger Democratic edge in Congress, Roosevelt, then the only 20th-century president not to have appointed a Supreme Court justice in four years, began to ponder "the court problem" openly. He even took a subtle jab at the court in his second inaugural address, saying that Americans "will insist that every agency of popular government use effective instruments to carry out their will."http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklindroosevelt

In his 1993 book FDR: Into the Storm, Roosevelt biographer Kenneth S. Davis said commentators of the 1930s described the battle between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court as "the gravest constitutional crisis since the Civil War." A confrontation of some sort seemed inevitable, but few people, even among those closest to Roosevelt, expected what came next.
Top aides suggested alternative judicial reforms -- a constitutional amendment allowing a two-thirds vote of Congress to overrule Supreme Court rulings, for example -- but Roosevelt would not budge. He also downplayed worries about the disingenuousness of his message, which said his bill was the best solution to an alleged judicial backlog rather than a justified attack on an unruly Supreme Court.

Roosevelt pitched his plan to Congress and the public Feb. 5, and the futility of his quest quickly became apparent. Republicans like Herbert Hoover, whom FDR ousted in the 1932 presidential election, accused Roosevelt of attempting "to pack the court." But the president's political enemies did far less damage to his cause than his friends.

The Senate hearings produced a chorus of opposition to the bill from distinguished leaders in many walks of life. Such an outpouring of public opinion stiffened the spines of many legislators who had been worried but silent. The Republicans wisely kept in the background and let opponents of the bill in the President’s own party lead the fight. The White House was increasingly alarmed by the disaffection of loyal New Dealers, but the President continued to scoff at any suggestion of compromise. To anxious members of his official family his stock answer was: “The people are with me; I know it.”

Still confident that he could win the public's backing despite opinion polls that indicated otherwise, Roosevelt ignored much of the criticism. In a March 9 "fireside chat," he acknowledged his true intentions -- to create a Supreme Court that could "understand these modern conditions" -- but it had no measurable influence on public opinion.
Support began to slip after Senate Judiciary Committee hearings later in March, and by June, Roosevelt reluctantly agreed to a compromise that would have allowed him to name just two new justices. But it was too late. On June 14, the committee issued a scathing report that called FDR's plan "a needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle … without precedent or justification."

Can this strange chapter in our history be regarded as an essential part of the process by which the Constitution has been modernized? Was President Roosevelt right in asserting, long after the fight was over, that he had lost a battle and won a war?

Roosevelt's biographers generally agree that his court-packing scheme robbed him of much of the political capital he had won in two landslide elections. It also hindered his all-out war on poverty. But to some extent, the president won his war with the Supreme Court.

First, the court's philosophy began to change even as Congress debated the merits of judicial reform. Owen J. Roberts, the youngest jurist, began to vote Roosevelt's way in close decisions; giving FDR 5-4 wins rather than losses by the same margin. Then before long, the "Nine Old Men" began to retire of their own volition, enabling the president to appoint a "Roosevelt court."
Everyone claimed some measure of victory. But in the end, the American people won the most because the Senate did exactly what its Judiciary Committee had recommended. The Senate "so emphatically rejected" FDR's court-packing scheme that no similar plan ever has been, or likely ever will be, "presented to the free representatives of the free people of America."http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/showdown.html (1,107)