To what extent would you agree with the view that the protagonist of Essay

To what extent would you agree with the view that the protagonist of Poe's stories is language itself, and the structure of the tale is its hero discuss with r - Essay Example This internal battle causes Wilson to go insane and eventually attempt to murder a man who looks and acts just like him because he believes that this will reacquire his identity for him. Each of these stories has a protagonist that can be representative of language as a whole because each of them is battling against other forces who are trying to regulate their language. Dupin does not wish to be bound by the conventional rules of investigation, just like many do not like to be bound by the conventional rules of language, so he becomes an innovator in his field, which leads to him solving the crime. Wilson, on the other hand, believes that his own person language is being threatened and so he acts violently in order to protect it. Each of these characters represent language because language, while constantly evolving, must also be protected from external factors, otherwise we will all eventually end up speaking and writing exactly alike. In the story ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue,’ by Edgar Allan Poe, the protagonist is an expert detective named C Auguste Dupin. Poe is often credited with creating the genre of detective fiction that is present today, as he â€Å"introduced three common motifs of detective fiction: the wrongly suspected man, the crime in the locked room, and the solution by unexpected means. Dupin solved the crime by reading the evidence better than the police did and by noticing clues that they had neglected, thus highlighting the importance of inference and observation†1. This story’s use of language focuses on both Dupin and the narrator, who is an overly sympathetic figure and does not believe that Dupin can do any wrong. Dupin forms the plot of this story around his belief that the Paris police department has not done all that it can do to solve this crime. He uses his power of observation to recognize clues at the crime scene

Significance of Therapeutic Relationships between Nurses and Patients Essay

Significance of Therapeutic Relationships between Nurses and Patients with Different Cultural Background in Saudi Arabia - Essay Example 4 b. Significance of Spirituality as a Core Component of Holistic Nursing Care †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 6 c. The Different Stages of Nurse-Patient Relationship as Described by Hildegard Peplau †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 9 c.1 Orientation Phase †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 9 c.2 Working Phase †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 10 c.3 Resolution or Termination Phase †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 11 d. Strategies that will Improve Nurse-patient Therapeutic Approach particularly with Regards to the Patients with Different Cultural Background †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..†¦. 12 e.1 The Application of Humour and Laughter When Caring for Patients †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 12 e.2 The Use of Good Communication Skills †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 13 e.3 The Ability of the Nurses to Tolerate the Patients’ Negative Attitude †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 15 e.4 The Application of Cultural Leverage †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 17 e. Real-life Examples that will serve as a Guide in Improving the Nurse-patient Therapeutic Relationship with the Patients in Saudi Arabia †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 18 III. Conclusion and Recommendations †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.†¦..†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. ... In order for a nurse to properly care for a patient, cultural sensitivity is very important. It is not enough to administer medicines in a professional manner. Nurses need to understand why patients make certain requests, why they act certain ways, and what their expectations really are. Understanding cultural differences is a key part of this. Culture forms the way in which social relations of a particular ethnic group are being structured and shaped (Clarke et al., 1976, pp. 4 – 6). In line with this, strong values represent a stable, long lasting belief which could greatly influence the perception and decision-making of the patients with regards to their preferred treatment and care. In general, culture sets a standard in guiding us in determining what is good from bad and what is morally right from wrong (Sagie & Elizur, 1996). Since there are a lot of differences with regards to religion, race, educational attainment, and economic status of each ethnic group, nurses shoul d learn more about the cultural differences of each patient. Upon examining the impact of cultural differences with regards to the overall team performance, the study of Strauch (2010) revealed that cultural factors could lead to team errors especially when the team members have high-level of work load and are highly stressed during the operational phase. In line with this, Wachtler, Brorsson, & Troein (2006) confirmed that cultural differences between the health care professionals and the patients could cause the general practitioners to wrong diagnosis and treatment. As an indirect result of general practitioners’ wrong diagnosis, nurses may end up administering wrong medications to patients with different ethnic and cultural background. Developing awareness regarding the

Gender Differences in Speech

Gender Differences in Speech A striking contrast between ‘the taciturn man and the ‘cackling hen Abstract: Are men really more casual and women more sophisticated while speaking? Despite both genders being part of the same human species, they do have a salient difference in the manner they interact, speak, react and even the topics they choose to talk about. While men are more at ease in their social contexts, women appear to be conscious about their status and thus tend to use higher standard language in terms of talking. In addition, both men and women have different purposes when talking: for men it has more to do about imparting information and demonstrating expertise compared to women who aim to maintain and develop relationships. However, like in a lot of other things, exceptions are a part of this issue too; some men are just ‘too feminine and some women are just ‘too boyish. Ever noticed how differently girls and boys talk? What words they use? What topics do they speak on? If you havent yet; next time make sure to do so because linguists have â€Å"claimed to establish a rather intriguing difference between the language used by women and men† (Talbot, 1998, p. 20). Language and gender is a vast topic that attracts a lot of discussion from linguists around the world who aim to extract the variations and distinctions between a males language and a females. Up until today several such distinctions have been discovered, studied and noted. These differences are essential in characterizing the ‘masculine style of talking and the ‘feminine style. The paramount objective of this paper will be to look deep into these specific differences and also to find possible reasons as to why they exist. The ‘he dominance Historically, English was considered as a sexist language with gender bias in its use (Yule, 2006; Jule, 2008). An example of this gender bias is the use of â€Å"pronouns, particularly the generic use of ‘he or ‘him or ‘his to refer to something relating to both men and women† (Jule, 2008, p. 13). For instance, the tendency to say â€Å"each student is required to buy his own dictionary† indicates the sexism in the use of ‘his (Yule, 2006, p. 225). Nevertheless, now it is becoming much less common and there is now strong use of the forms ‘she/he and ‘his/her so that both genders can be included in all contexts where both the genders are being referred to. Variation and Exception Language use not only varies between cultures and religions but also â€Å"varies according to the social context, in terms of level of formality required by the relationship between speaker and hearer and what they are talking about, as well as other aspects† (Talbot, 1998, p. 19). It also varies based on geographical locations, both within and across national boundaries; there are forms like Nigerian English, South African English, Australian English etc However, apart from social dialects and contexts, sociolinguists have asserted that there is a striking divergence between the language used between men and women in general. Several studies have been conducted by sociolinguists to prove that these distinctions in a mens speech and womens speech do exist and are not just for say. In addition, differences not only exist in matters of speech but also in terms of interaction. This gendered language is the reason that not only reflects these social differences between men and women but it also creates and maintains them (Talbot, 1998). However, what is worth remembering is that it is not always the same; not all women have a stereotypical style as outlined by the linguists and not all men have the exact identical way described by linguists. You must have occasionally heard someone say ‘hes too feminine or ‘shes totally boyish. This does indicate that exceptions, as in everything else, exist in gendered language too. All women and men cannot be placed in the category set out by linguists. Nonetheless, a general framework that has been created by linguists clearly defines that differences amongst la nguage used by men and women are present. There are vocal differences, differences in forms, in politeness, in compliments and what is interesting is that these differences exist since childhood. Boy talk vs. girl talk Even as young girls and boys, there is a great amount of difference in the way each one speaks, interacts and responds. There is a difference in interests as well. While girls are busy dressing up Barbie dolls or playing teacher-teacher, boys are fighting for dominance in wrestling games or killing each other in robotics. Linguists have pointed out that girls, since school age, have a more interactive style with â€Å"socializing in small groups, more often in co-operative activities, establishing reciprocal relationships and exchanging roles† (Yule, 2006, p. 224). Boys, on the other hand, tend to exclude girls from their activities and make fun of those who do include them. Comparatively, they tend to â€Å"socialize in much larger groups, often in competitive activities, establishing and maintaining hierarchical relationships† (Yule, 2006, p. 224). Also what is noticed is when conflicts arise between girls and boys, both use different strategies for tackling them. Amy Sheldon undertook an interesting set of analysis of ‘conflict talk and studied the discourse of 3-5 year olds in day care centers. â€Å"Boys she observed handled conflict in a more heavy-handed fashion, expressing more self-assertive statements and dominance, whereas the girls used more collaborative discourse negotiationto mitigate conflict† (Clark, Eschholz, Rosa Simon, 2008, p. 519). In addition to conflict strategies, there is also a difference in forms and pitch ranges between young boys and girls. Fern L. Johnson goes on to state that â€Å"since childhood, girls tend to speak in softer, polite, higher-pitched voices† compared to boys who have more â€Å"forceful, straight forward, lower pitched voices† (Clark, Eschholz, Rosa Simon, 2008, p. 504). However, the differences in pitch and voice range is accounted for by the differences in vocal characteristics of males and females. Males have longer vocal tracts, larger larynxes and thicker vocal chords compared to females and this is the reason why there is a difference in pitch ranges. The result is that men typically speak in a lower pitch range- typically between 80 200 Hertz whereas women speak in a much higher version- between 120 400 Hertz. The term pitch refers to the vibration in the vocal chords, â€Å"with slower vibration making voices sound lower and rapid vibration making voices sound higher† (Yule, 2006, p. 224). What you might also notice is that at an early age parents are often heard telling their kids different things to sons and to their daughters. Sons are always told to ‘toughen- up and ‘stand-up for themselves and if they dont act like it, they are advised ‘dont be a sissy. In contrast, girls are always commanded to ‘act ladylike, ‘sit and speak properly and to ‘dress decently. These reasons are also responsible for the differences in a womans speaking style and a mans. ‘Chatty women and ‘Men of few words Women have always been addressed with typical phrases like ‘cackling hens, ‘chatty women and ‘the gossip whereas men have been tagged with ‘the taciturn man and ‘man of few words (Clark, Eschholz, Rosa Simon, 2008, p. 523-524). Women, undoubtedly, have been believed to talk more than men. Jule mentions a study statistic done by Mark Peters (2007) on the number of words used by women and those used by men in a single day. â€Å"Peter indicates that women use about 7000 words a day compared to only 2000 for men† (Jule, 2008, p. 27). Apart from the fact that females talk more, what is interesting is that the ‘speech they use varies considerably than that used by men. Womens speech has been associated with the use of tag questions, super polite forms, affective adjectives, hedges, rising intonations and hypercorrect grammar. Tag questions are questions at the end of a sentence, like an utterance, often asking for an opinion, approval or confirm ation, like ‘this dress is pretty, isnt it? or similarly ‘dont you? ‘havent we? are all questions tagged at the end of a sentence. Super polite forms refer to the â€Å"avoidance of swear-words and extensive use of euphemism. Euphemism is the use of veiled, indirect expression (for instance, saying passed away instead of died)† (Talbot, 1998, p. 39). These tend to make womens language more standard and often higher in prestige compared to men. Hedges are filler items or an utterance like ‘you know, ‘well, ‘kind of or sounds like ‘hmm and ‘yeah. These hedges are often a reason of misinterpretation amongst men and women. Since hedges are in a womens use, men consider it to be a sign of agreement whereas when women do not see men using such hedges, they take it as if the men are not paying attention to what the speaker is saying (Yule, 2006). Affective adjectives are used in expressing approval, or admiration, many of which are use d by women, words such as ‘divine, ‘adorable and ‘charming. Hypercorrect grammar, as stated by Lackoff, is simply to state that women tend to use more standardized forms, which implies that â€Å"they are more correct than they ought to be† (Talbot, 1998, p. 40). All these above mentioned characteristics are rarely heard from a man and are usually not a part of their speech. These characteristics also point to something else: interaction between and amongst the two genders. The casual man and the sophisticated woman   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Women have a completely differing style of interaction than men. Also, topic choices vary between men and women. Each gender speaks more about the topic that they are comfortable with. The general view of linguists is that men speak more casually than women. This is perhaps because women are more conscious about their social status and how others around them perceive them to be. In a study mentioned by Jule, the conclusion drawn was that â€Å"men are more at ease in their social settingsand that women are more anxiousin social situations because of their need to achieve or maintain social status† (Jule, 2008, p. 20). Deborah Tannen also asserts that men and women â€Å"have different goals in conversation and that the conversational strategies men use, such as interruptions, help to establish their own status and authority† (Clark, Eschholz, Rosa Simon, 2008, p. 506). Jennifer Coates mentions a study conducted by Zimmerman and West (1975) which cle arly suggests that the number of interruptions is very high in mixed- sex conversations, with men interrupting more than women. Also, there is a fact that men rarely interrupt each other while speaking amongst themselves, â€Å"it is when they are talking to women that they use interruptions† (Coates, 1993, p. 109). Conversely, women do not use overlaps in conversation with men (while they do use amongst themselves) suggesting that they are â€Å"concerned not to violate the mans turn but wait until hes finished† (Coates, 1993, p. 110). There is also a difference in communication and interaction of men and women within social contexts and private contexts. According to a study mentioned by Janet Holmes â€Å"males tend to talk more than women in public contexts where talk is highly valued and attracts positive attention† (Holmes, 1995, p. 37). Therefore, each gender provides more contribution in the situation they are most contented in. In private contexts â€Å"women tend to regard talk as means of maintaining and developing relationships† (Holmes, 1993, p. 38). Mary M. Talbot also puts forward that â€Å"men tend to use conversation as arenas for negotiating and maintaining status.Conversations are about imparting information, talking for a purpose, demonstrating expertise† (1998, p. 99). This then explains why men are more aware about their status in public perspectives than in casual conditions. Tannen mentions a personal experience where at a party she noticed that when men dont know much a bout a particular topic, they tend to â€Å"change the subject to something they know more about† (Clark, Eschholz, Rosa Simon, 2008, p. 533). Whos more polite? With regards to politeness, there are two things that are of great significance in indicating the level of politeness: compliments and apologies. In both the aspects of compliments and apologies, women definitely hold their flag much high than men. In a study conducted by Janet Holmes (1995) on the levels of politeness amongst men and women, what was found was that â€Å"women give 70% of compliments and receive about 75% of them; compliments between men are rare- less than 10%† (Jule, 2008, p. 83). She further presents a study conducted between New Zealand men and women in regards to who apologizes most and what Holmess data relates is that â€Å"apologies were more frequent between and amongst women† typically around 58% compared to only 8% amongst men (1995, p. 157). However, â€Å"the number of apologies between women and men is remarkably evenly distributed† close to the 20% mark (1995, p. 159). As an explanation to this, Holmes offers that women might consi der explicit apologies for offences as more important in maintaining relationships than men do which may also be why women tend to be more polite, aware of their surroundings and status than men. In conclusion, as Holmes points out; it is not always this way, not all women speak in the way describes above i.e. using hedges, super polite forms, tag questions, standard language, hypercorrect grammar etc. This is the general view of linguists that has been established after a wide range of studies and this is what outlines such patterns in the styles of gendered language. However, this does not mean that women do not have an abrasive, challenging and antagonistic speech style, some of them do but then they are considered to have adopted a ‘masculine style of talking and thus, they are placed under the category of exceptions. Nonetheless, these exceptions exist as a minority and the general pattern in womens and mens speech is the one described above and the one that is observed and accepted by several linguists of this field. A brief word about the cited authors: Janet Holmes is a professor of linguists at the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. She is a teacher of sociolinguistic courses, New Zealand English, and language and gender issues. Her publications consist of ‘An introduction to sociolinguistics, ‘New Zealand ways of speaking English, ‘Gendered talk at work, ‘Women, men and politeness and several others. Jennifer Coates is a professor of English language and linguistics at Roehampton University, UK. Her works comprise of ‘Women, men and language, ‘Women in their speech communities, ‘Women talk, ‘Conversations between women friends along with many others. Recently, she has completed a book on men, masculinity and narrative entitled ‘Men talk. Most of her research interests address the issue of language and sexuality and the conversational patterns in gendered talk. She is also the editor of the Blackwell sociolinguistic series ‘Language and Social change and the senior editor of the Longman ‘Real Language series. Allyson Jule, a PhD from Roehampton University, London, has particular research interests in the field of gender and language. She is an associate professor of education at the Trinity Western University along with being on the Advisory committee of the International Gender and Language Association (IGALA). Her famous works are composed of ‘Sh-shushing the Girls, ‘A beginners guide to language and gender, along with several other journal articles and co-edited books on the same issue. She is also part of the British Association of Applied linguists (BAAL) and is the reviewer of the Gender and Education journal. References Clark, V., Eschholz, P., Rosa, A., Simon, B. L. (Ed.). (2008). Language: Introductory readings (7th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St.Martins. Coates, J. (1993). Women, men, and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men, and politeness. New York: Longman. Jule, A. (2008). A beginners guide to language and gender. Toronto: Cromwell Press. Talbot, M. M. (1998). Language and gender: An introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Yule, G. (2006). The study of language (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught in Public Schools Essay examples -

A hotly debated topic concerning public schools centers on the origin of life. Now more than ever, science and religion are butting heads. What should public schools teach to their students? Alex Rainert reasons that both â€Å"science and religion are engaged in the same project, to discover the origin of life† (141). In short, one could better describe the debate as a crusade between evolutionists and creationists; both sides have their well-founded arguments, but when one looks at the decisions of the courts, clearly only one side may win the battle when deciding biology curriculum in schools. Despite an overwhelming number of individuals in favor of teaching creationism in public education, science classes should refrain from becoming a discussion of religious belief. In 2004, Sharpes and Peramas report that â€Å"nearly two-thirds of all Americans surveyed favored teaching creationism together with evolution in schools,† according to a poll organized by CBS Broadcasting (qtd. in Costley and Killins 5). Thus, it seems as if the public has bought into the fair play argument proposed by creationists. After all, creationists contend, why not have a place to teach equally credible theories of the origin of life in schools? (Eldredge 634). Chet Raymo, a noted science professor of physics and astronomy at Stonehill College, rejects this notion, stating, â€Å"one might as well give equal billing to those who believe the Earth is flat† since creationism stands on little factual ground (156). At any rate, the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates that teaching creationism puts pressure on minorities to conform to the obviously favored religion when the power of the government backs up the theory (qtd. in Anti-Defamation League 143). Therefore, if s cho... ...nd Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World. New York: Penguin Group, 2007. Print. Eldredge, Niles. â€Å"Creationism Isn’t Science.† The Conscious Reader. 6th ed. Ed. D. Anthony English and Eben Ludlow. Needham Heights: Simon & Schuster, 1995. 633-638. Print. Hickman, Cleveland Pendleton. Integrated Principles of Zoology, sixth edition. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1979. Print. "Of Darwin, Dover and (un)intelligent design: scholar says the future of science— and Church-State separation--are at stake in the creationism/evolution conflict." Church & State 62.2 (2009): 10+. General OneFile. Web. 23 Feb. 2012. Rainert, Alex. â€Å"Creationism V. Evolutionism in America’s Public Schools.† Cooke 138-41. Print. Raymo, Chet. Skeptics and True Believers: The Exhilarating Connection Between Science and Religion. Walker Publishing Company, Inc., 1998. Print.

Kaveri River water dispute Essay

Kaveri river flows in South Karnataka and then to Tamil Nadu. The sharing of waters of the river Kaveri has been the source of a serious conflict between the Indian states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The genesis of this conflict, rests in two controversial agreements—one signed in 1892 and another in 1924—between the erstwhile Madras Presidency and Princely State of Mysore. The 802 km Kaveri river [1] has 32,000 sq km basin area in Karnataka and 44,000 sq km basin area in Tamil Nadu. The state of Karnataka contends that it does not receive its due share of water from the river as does Tamil Nadu. Karnataka claims that these agreements were skewed heavily in favour of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on â€Å"equitable sharing of the waters†. Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, pleads that it has already developed almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2) of land and as a result has come to depend very heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in the state. Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit. The Government of India then constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. After hearing arguments of all the parties involved for the next 16 years, the tribunal delivered its final verdict on 5 February 2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 billion ft ³ (12 km ³) of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 billion ft ³ (7.6 km ³) to Karnataka; 30 billion ft ³ (0.8 km ³) of Kaveri river water to Kerala and 7 billion ft ³ (0.2 km ³) to Pondicherry. The dispute however, appears not to have concluded, as all four states deciding to file review petitions seeking clarifications and possible renegotiation of the order. History of the dispute The British controlled both Mysore and Madras for a short period in the middle of the 19th century. During their regime, numerous plans were drawn up for the utilization of the Kaveri waters by both states. However, the drought and subsequent famine in the mid 1870s put a hold on the implementation of these plans. The plans were revived by Mysore in 1881, by which time Mysore was back in the hands of the Mysore kings, while present day Tamil Nadu continued to remain a part of the Madras Presidency. Mysore’s plans to revive the irrigation projects met with resistance from the Madras Presidency. Mysore state made a representation to the then British government; as a result of which, a conference was held in 1890 with the objective of agreeing â€Å"†¦on the principles of a modus vivendi, which would on the one hand allow to Mysore reasonable freedom in dealing with her irrigation works, and on the other, give to Madras practical security against injury to her interestsâ₠¬  and eventually the Agreement of 1892 was signed. Karnataka deems this agreement as having been between unequal partners because, while Mysore state was a princely state, Madras formed a part of the British Raj. Karnataka also considers this agreement to have been severely inimical to its interests as it gave sweeping powers and prescriptive rights to Madras, the lower riparian state. As per this agreement, Mysore was required to obtain Madras’ consent for any new irrigation reservoirs across any of the main rivers it wished to utilize and share information on any new irrigation scheme it wished to undertake to utilize the waters Things came to a head in 1910 when Mysore, under Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar as the king and Sir. M.Visvesvaraya as Chief Engineer came up with a plan to construct a dam at Kannambadi village to hold up to 41.5 TMC of water. The dam was planned to be built in two stages. In the first stage a capacity of 11 TMC was envisioned, while in the second stage the full capacity was set to be realized. Madras however, refused to give its consent for this move as it had its own plans to build a storage dam at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC. After a reference to the Government of India, permission was accorded to Mysore, but for a reduced storage of 11TMC. During construction, however, the foundation was laid to suit the earlier desired full storage. This raised Madras’ hackles and the dispute continued. As a result, the then British Government of India referred the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892 Agreement. The Cauvery dispute thus had come up for arbitration for the first time. Sir H D Griffin was appointed arbitrator and M. Nethersole, the Inspector General of Irrigation in India, was made the Assessor. They entered into proceedings on 16 July 1913 and the Award was given on 12 May 1914. The award upheld the earlier decision of the Government of India and allowed Mysore to go ahead with the construction of the dam up to 11 TMC. The agreement also stipulated that Mysore was not to increase its area under irrigation more than 110,000 acres (450 km2) beyond what was already existing, while the same cap for Madras Presidency was pegged at 301000|acre|km2. Nonetheless, Madras still appealed against the award and negotiations continued. Eventually an agreement was arrived at in 1924 and a couple of minor agreements were also signed in 1929 and 1933. The 1924 agreement was set to lapse after a run of 50 years. As a result of these agreements, Karnataka claims that Mysore was forced to give up rights. Post independence developments In 1947, India won independence from the British. This changed the equations drastically. Tamil Nadu was carved out of Madras Presidency and Mysore province became a state. Further in 1956, the reorganization of the states of India took place and state boundaries were redrawn based on linguistic demographics. Kodagu or Coorg (the birthplace of the Kaveri), became a part of Mysore state. Huge parts of erstwhile Hyderabad state and Bombay Presidency joined with Mysore state. Parts of Malabar which earlier formed part of Madras Presidency went to Kerala. Pondicherry had already become a de facto Union territory in 1954. All these changes further changed the equations as Kerala and Pondicherry also jumped into the fray. Kerala staked its claim as one of the major tributaries of the Kaveri, the Kabini, now originated in Kerala. Karaikal region of Pondicherry at the tail end of the river demanded the waters that it had always used for drinking and some minimal agriculture. While these additional claims complicated matters greatly at a technical level, Mysore state and Tamil Nadu still remained the major parties to the dispute. By the late 1960s, both states and the Central government began to realize the gravity of the situation as the 50 year run of the 1924 agreement was soon coming to an end. Negotiations were started in right earnest and discussions continued for almost 10 years 1970 s While discussions continued, a Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) was constituted. The brief of the CFFC was to inspect the ‘ground’ realities and come up with a report. The CFFC came up with a preliminary report in 1972 and a final report in 1973. Inter state discussions were held based on this report. Finally in 1974, a draft agreement which also provided for the creation of a Cauvery Valley Authority was prepared by the Ministry of Irrigation. This draft however, was not ratified. While all these discussions went on, Tamil Nadu’s irrigated lands had grown from a pre-Mettur command area of 1,440,000 acres (5,800 km2) to 2,580,000 acres (10,400 km2) [7] while Karnataka’s irrigated area stood at 680,000 acres (2,800 km ²). Karnataka maintains that these figures demonstrate the lop-sided nature of the agreement.[7] In 1976, after a series of discussions between the two states and the Central government chaired by Jagjeevan Ram, the then Irrigation Minister, a final draft was prepared based on findings of the CFFC. This draft was accepted by all states and the Government also made an announcement to that effect in Parliament. Tamil Nadu came under President’s rule soon after that and the agreement was put on the backburner. When President’s rule was lifted, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) with M. G. Ramachandran at the helm came to power for the first time in Tamil Nadu and the dispute took a new turn. The Tamil Nadu government now rejected the draft agreement and started insisting that the 1924 agreement had only provided for an extension and not a review. It began insisting that status quo be restored and everyone go back to the agreements of 1892 and 1924. This however, did not cut ice with Karnataka which had throughout maintained that those agreements were partisan and had been signed between unequal partners. When Karnataka began construction of the Harangi dam at Kushalanagara in Kodagu, it was once again met with resistance from Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu went to court demanding the constitution of a Tribunal under the Inter State Water Disputes Act (ISWD) of 1956. It also demanded the immediate stoppage of construction work at the dam site. As a result of Tamil Nadu’s protests, Karnataka had to fund the construction under the non-plan head and this led to a severe strain on its finances.[8] 1980s Later Tamil Nadu withdrew its case demanding the constitution of a tribunal and the two states started negotiating again. Several rounds of discussions were held in the 1980s. The result was still, a stalemate. In 1986, a farmer’s association from Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court demanding the constitution of a tribunal. While this case was still pending, the two states continued many rounds of talks. This continued till April 1990 and yet yielded no results. The constitution of the tribunal The Supreme Court then directed the government headed by Prime Minister V. P. Singh to constitute a tribunal and refer all disputes to it. A three man tribunal was thus constituted on 2 June 1990. The tribunal was headquartered at New Delhi and was to be headed by Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee.[3][9] The four states presented their demands to the tribunal as under * Karnataka – claimed 465 billion ft ³ (13 km ³) as its share * Kerala – wants 99.8 billion ft ³ (2.83 km ³) as its share * Pondicherry – claims 9.3 billion ft ³ (0.3 km ³) * Tamil Nadu – wants the flows to be ensured in accordance with the terms of the agreements of 1892 and 1924 (ie., 566 billion ft ³ (16 km ³) for Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry; 177 billion ft ³ (5 km ³) for Karnataka and 5 billion ft ³ (0.1 km ³) for Kerala). [edit]Interim award and the riots Soon after the tribunal was set up, Tamil Nadu demanded a mandatory injunction on Karnataka for the immediate release of water and other reliefs. This was dismissed by the tribunal. Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court which directed the tribunal to reconsider Tamil Nadu’s plea. The tribunal reconsidered Tamil Nadu’s plea and gave an interim award on 25 June 1991. In coming up with this award, the tribunal calculated the average inflows into Tamil Nadu over a period of 10 years between 1980–81 and 1989–90. The extreme years were ignored for this calculation. The average worked out to 205 billion ft ³ (5.8 km ³) which Karnataka had to ensure reached Tamil Nadu in a water year. The award also stipulated the weekly and monthly flows to be ensured by Karnataka for each month of the water year. The tribunal further directed Karnataka not to increase its irrigated land area from the existing 1,120,000 acres (4,500 km2) Karnataka deemed this extremely inimical to its interests and issued an ordinance seeking to annul the tribunal’s award. The Supreme Court now stepped in at the President’s instance and struck down the Ordinance issued by Karnataka. It upheld the tribunal’s award which was subsequently gazetted by the Government of India on 11 December 1991. Karnataka was thus forced to accept the interim award and widespread demonstrations and violence broke out in parts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu following this. Thousands of Tamil families had to flee from Bangalore in fear of being attacked and lynched by pro-Kannada activists. The violence and show down, mostly centered in the Tamil populated parts of Bangalore, lasted for nearly a month and most schools and educational institutions in Bangalore remained closed during this period. The crisis of 1995–1996 In 1995, the monsoons failed badly in Karnataka and Karnataka found itself hard pressed to fulfill the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of at least 30 billion ft ³. The Supreme Court refused to entertain Tamil Nadu’s petition and asked it to approach the tribunal. The tribunal examined the case and recommended that Karnataka release 11 billion ft ³. Karnataka pleaded that 11 billion ft ³ was unimplementable in the circumstances that existed then. Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court demanding that Karnataka be forced to obey the tribunal’s order. The Supreme Court this time recommended that the then Prime Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao intervene and find a political solution. The Prime Minister convened a meeting with the Chief Ministers of the two states and recommended that Karnataka release 6 billion ft ³ instead of the 11 billion ft ³ that the tribunal ordered. Karnataka complied with the de cision of the Prime Minister and the issue blew over. Constitution of the CRA Karnataka had all through maintained that the interim award was not ‘scientific’ and was inherently flawed. It had, nevertheless, complied with the order except during 1995–96 when rains failed. What complicated matters was that the Interim award was ambiguous on distress sharing and there was no clear cut formula that everyone agreed upon to share the waters in the case of failure of the monsoon. In 1997, the Government proposed the setting up of a Cauvery River Authority which would be vested with far reaching powers to ensure the implementation of the Interim Order. These powers included the power to take over the control of dams in the event of the Interim Order not being honoured. Karnataka, which had always maintained that the interim order had no scientific basis and was intrinsically flawed, strongly protested the proposal to set up such an authority. The Government then made several modifications to the powers of the Authority and came up with a new proposal. The new proposal greatly reduced the executive powers of the Authority. The power to take over control of dams was also done away with. Under this new proposal, the Government set up two new bodies, viz., Cauvery River Authority and Cauvery Monitoring Committee. The Cauvery River Authority would consist of the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of all four states(Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Kerala) and was headquartered in New Delhi. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee on the other hand, was an expert body which consisted of engineers, technocrats and other officers who would take stock of the ‘ground realities’ and report to the government . The flare up and high drama of 2002 In the summer of 2002, things once again came to a head as the monsoon failed in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Reservoirs in both states fell to record low levels and inevitably tempers rose. The sticking point yet again, as in 1995–96 was how the distress would be shared between the two states. The tribunal had overlooked this crucial point[10] when it gave the interim award and it had returned once again to haunt the situation. Tamil Nadu demanded that Karnataka honour the interim award and release to Tamil Nadu its proportionate share. Karnataka on the other hand stated that the water levels were hardly enough to meet its own demands and ruled out releasing any water in the circumstances that prevailed.[11] CRA meeting and the Supreme Court order A meeting of the CRA was called on 27 August but the Karnataka chief minister walked out of the meeting. The focus now shifted to the Supreme Court which ordered Karnataka to release 1.25 billion ft ³ of water every day unless CRA revised it. Karnataka started the release of water but pressed for another meeting of the CRA which was fixed for 8 September. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister this time boycotted the meet citing insufficient notice as the reason. A minister from her cabinet, however represented Tamil Nadu. The CRA revised the Court’s order from 1.25 billion ft ³ to 0.8 billion ft ³ per day. This time however, the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the CRA, refused to release any water succumbing to the large scale protests that had mounted in the Kaveri districts of the state. Tamil Nadu aghast at the defiance, went back to the Supreme Court. Karnataka now resumed the release of water for a few days, but stopped it again on 18 September as a protesting farmer committed suicide by jumping into the reservoir and the protests threatened to take a dangerous turn. The centre now stepped in and asked Karnataka to release the water. The SC meanwhile, in response to Tamil Nadu’s petition asked the CRA for details of the water release and water levels in the reservoirs. The CRA in turn ordered for the inspections of the reservoirs. While the CRA inspected the reservoirs in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu (on 23 September) flatly refused to grant them permission to inspect its reservoirs. This move by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, coupled with her earlier walkout and boycott of the CRA meets, came in for severe criticism from all quarters. On 30 September the Supreme court ordered Tamil Nadu to co-operate with the CRA and Tamil Nadu gave in Demonstrations The flare up had by now, well and truly taken an ugly turn and there were accusations and counter accusations being thrown all around in both states. The opposition parties in Tamil Nadu too had jumped into the fray and at the same time joining Jayalalitha in stinging rebukes of both the Centre and the CRA, while the opposition parties in Karnataka expressed their full solidarity with the Congress-led Karnataka government to protect their right to the Kaveri water. To add to all this, the dispute had already spilled onto the streets in the district of Mandya in Karnataka and was threatening to spread to other parts of the state too. Precipitating the matters on the streets, the SC ordered Karnataka on 3 October to comply with the CRA and resume the release of water. Karnataka once again refused to obey the orders of SC. Tamil Nadu slapped another contempt petition on Karnataka and soon the issue degenerated into a ‘free for all’ with all and sundry from both states joini ng the protests. Soon, film actors and various other cross sections of society from both states were on the streets. Tamil TV channels and screening of Tamil films were blocked in Karnataka. Also all buses and vehicles from Tamil Nadu were barred from entering Karnataka. The belligerence soon hit a crescendo with Tamil activists calling for a stoppage of power from the Neyveli Power station to Karnataka as a tit-for-tat measure. A Pan-Tamil militant outfit (a month or so later) went ahead and blasted a major power transformer supplying power to the neighbouring states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.[12] The Karnataka Chief Minister, Mr. S. M. Krishna on the other hand, fearing that the situation might spiral out of control, embarked on a padayatra from Bangalore to Mandya. While some saw this as merely a gimmick, some, like U R Ananthamurthy saw it as a good faith effort to soothe tempers and joined him in the yatra. 2003–2006 This period did not see any major flare up in the dispute even though the summer of 2003 saw a dry spell in both states. The monsoons in 2004, 2005 and 2006 was quite copious and this helped a great deal in keeping the tempers calm. While the last 3 or 4 years have been relatively quiet as far as jingoistic voices are concerned, a flurry of development has been afoot in the courts. The term of the tribunal was initially set to expire in August 2005. However, in the light of the many arguments the court was yet to hear, the tribunal filed a request for extension of its term. The extension was granted and the tribunal’s term was extended for another year until September 2006. Early in 2006, a major controversy erupted over the ‘Assessor’s report’ that was apparently ‘leaked’ to the press. The report had suggested a decision which Karnataka summarily rejected. Another major controversy erupted when just a couple of months before the September 2006 deadline, the tribunal recommended the formation of another expert committee to study the ‘ground realities’ yet again. This was unanimously and vehemently opposed by all the four states party to the dispute. The states contended that this move would further delay a judgment which has already been 16 years in the making. More than the disapproval of all the four states of the new expert committee that was proposed, the proposal turned out to be a major embarrassment for the tribunal. This was because, not only were the four states opposed to it, even the Chief Judge of the tribunal was opposed to it. However the other two assistant judges on 3-man adjudication team, overruled the opinion of the main Judge. And all this was done in a packed courtroom and this led to petty bickering and heated arguments between the three judges in the packed courtroom. This left everyone in the courtroom shocked and the Tamil Nadu counsel was moved to remark that it was embarrassing that the judges probably needed help settling their own disputes before adjudicating on the dispute at hand. Nonetheless, the new expert committee was formed and carried out further assessments. Subsequently, the extended deadline of the tribunal also passed and the tribunal was given yet another extension. Judgement The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007. According to its verdict,[13] Tamil Nadu gets 419 billion ft ³ (12 km ³) of Cauvery water while Karnataka gets 270 billion ft ³ (7.6 km ³). The actual release of water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu is to be 192 billion ft ³ (5.4 km ³) annually. Further, Kerala will get 30 billion ft ³ and Pondicherry 7 billion ft ³. Tamil Nadu appears to have been accepting the verdict[citation needed] while the government of Karnataka, unhappy with the decision, filed a revision petition before the tribunal seeking a review[citation needed]. 2012 On 19th Sep 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh , who is also the Chairman of Cauvery River Authority (CRA), directed Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu at Biligundlu (the border) daily from September 21 t-19}} But Karnataka felt that this was impractical due to the drought conditions prevailing because of the failed monsoon. Karnataka then walked out of the high level meeting as a sign of protest. On Sep 21, 2012, Karnataka filed a petition before the Cauvery River Authority seeking review of its September 19 ruling. On Sep 24 ,2012, Tamil Nadu Chief minister directed the officials to immediately file a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to Karnataka to release Tamil Nadu its due share of water.[14] On Sep 28, 2012, the Supreme Court slammed the Karnataka government for failing to comply with the directive of the CRA. [15] Left with no other option, Karnataka started releasing water. This led to wide protests and violence in Karnataka. [16] On Oct 4, 2012, the Karnataka government filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on its September 28 order directing it to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water everyday to Tamil Nadu, until October 15. [17] On Oct 6, 2012, Several Kannada organisations, under the banner of â€Å"Kannada Okkoota†, called a Karnataka bandh (close down) on October 6 in protest against the Cauveri water release. [18] On Oct 8, 2012, Supreme Court of India has announced the release of 9000 cusecs has to be continued and its upto the CRA head, the Prime Minister is the responsible person. On Oct 8, 2012, the Prime Minister ruled out a review of the Cauvery River Authority’s (CRA) decision asking Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu till October 20, rejecting the plea by both the Congress and BJP leaders from Karnataka. Within a few hours from this, Karnataka stopped release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu [19] On Oct 9, 2012, Tamil Nadu chief minister directed authorities to immediately file a contempt petition against the Karnataka government for flouting the verdict of the Supreme Court by unilaterally stopping the release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu.[20] On Oct 17, 2012, Tamil Nadu made a fresh plea in the Supreme Court reiterating its demand for issuing appropriate directions to Karnataka to make good the shortfall of 48 tmcft of water as per the distress sharing formula.[21] On Nov 15, 2012, The Cauvery Monitoring Committee, directed the Karnataka government to release 4.81 tmcft to Tamil Nadu between November 16 and 30, 2012 [22] On Dec 6, 2012, The supreme court directed Karnataka to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu. SC has asked centre to indicate the time frame within which the final decision of cauvery water dispute tribunal(which was given in feb 2007) will be notified. This decision was given in the view of saving the standing crops of both the states. [23]

The Truth Without All The Facts

The main problem with A Doomsday Reader: Prophets, Predictors, and Hucksters of Salvation, edited by Ted Daniels, is that this work is intended as a guidebook or compendium of sorts for a reader concerned with prophecy and Christian salvation. However, Daniels consigns his work to the inferior status of the lofty dissertation, or more accurately, an extensive annotated bibliography for a term paper, of this contentious subject by his choice of style and configuration.This main hindrance, which appears to actually have been purposeful, comes from the format for which Daniels chooses to present information to his reader and openly excludes any contradictory statements to further support or refute his assembled facts.To begin with, Daniels constructs Doomsday as a three-parter, with Part One highlighting the religious and political philosophies behind secular enlightenment, Part Two illustrating the evil lurking within those political and religious realms, and Part Three relating the tr agic results, all well-known and controversial events, and how chaos originated by the all-consuming, apocalyptic movement known as the Revelation.In the Introduction, Daniels spends a few discerning pages explaining his definition, literally and figuratively, for the critical terms a reader might come across when researching Christian prophecy and Revelation. Then, after a short explanation of his theory â€Å"that apocalypticism†¦is inherently political and that [a reader] might come to understand it better by taking that aspect of it fully into account† (Daniels 15), the book begins with his collection of essays and carefully constructed footnotes on his topics.However, Daniels’ theory is more or less left behind as the reader becomes disoriented by the essays and assembled information. His thesis, which he shrewdly never states in its entirety has a fundamental problem that he attempts to ignore by presenting his information as pure fact, with nothing to dispu te, deny, or, for that matter, confirm. And, because he offers no further insight into his claim, it can only be accepted as is, as fact, and while his chapters do provide a focus on his theory, they do nothing to prove anything other than to illustrate that he is more than adept in compiling facts to suit his purpose.For example, in Part One, Daniels highlights two main examples of leaders, Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler, who politically enforced their ideals for secular millenarianism, or, as Daniels has chosen to refer to it, the apocalyptic movement. Daniels uses Marxism to show how â€Å"like earlier apocalyptic ideologies†¦the interaction of opposing forces—in this case, labor and capital—drives events in the world† (56).It is a deceitful method of relating the truth, because apocalyptic ideologies, which he defines in his Introduction as â€Å"a struggle between the forces of good and evil† (4) focus on spirituality and redemption, not jobs and mo ney, but he is clever not to mention this again because Marxism would then have nothing to do with his point at this moment. Now, the facts cannot be denied that Hitler was indeed a bad man, but in truth, his position was one of purification, of ridding the world of the tainted race, the â€Å"ape-men† (65) and was not about religious enlightenment.Daniels gets around this fact by offering that â€Å"Hitler’s program combined two related elements common to many apocalyptic movements: revenge and purity† (70). With that said, a reader can be led to believe, because of Daniels’ previous definition for apocalypse as basically anything or any movement that has the potential to destroy the world, that Hitler could be very much an averted anti-Christ. With no other testimony or evidence contrary to this, a reader is forced to accept Daniels’ claim as fact.Now, the biggest problem with his thesis comes from his claim that the apocalyptic nature inherent i n all people is caused or, more succinctly, manufactured, by politics. By saying this, Daniels is expunging the reality and responsibility from people who knowingly commit suicide thinking that their salvation is at hand if they choose to follow the best salesman. To follow, dumbly and blindly without question because someone believes glory comes with a sacrifice like suicide (which is ironically the greatest of all sins, according to Christian religion) is not something that can be placed in the broad category of political maneuvering.It can be orchestrated by a political mastermind, yes; but that political mastermind is also very nearly as blind and dumb as the herd of sheep they lead to slaughter because they too believe, without question, that their own redemption or whatever freedom they are seeking comes from controlling the lives of others, and how well they manage at the task. While this can be defined as apocalyptic nature, because it is utterly destructive, it is not inher ently political—it is inherently human.But to say that the apocalypse and the movement that will one day revolutionize the world is inherently human is perhaps too extreme for a book of this sort to delve into. Daniels is most certainly aware of the controversial nature of his subject and understands, too, how people read and react to this subject when taken as a whole. If he focused on the problem and the ultimate destruction of the world as originating from being human, a large segment of his audience would close the book in disgust because they are, instinctively, because of the nature of the topic, seeking answers.And, with an efficiency to be admired, Daniels is cleverly able to grant those answers—even if it means skipping a measure of the truth. But, with any decent argument or frankly, any decent production of information, the fact and the fiction of the accumulated information need to be presented side by side so that the fact, if it truly is fact, will stand on its own because, by its nature, fact has more power and authority than any fabrication ever will. With this method, information can be highlighted and validated at the same time.While this may work in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Daniels, is not an authorized authority on the subject and therefore requires room in his work, or at the very least, acknowledgement, for such interpretation. Otherwise, the reader is being led into the exact trap that Daniels expresses is responsible for sending cults off to commit suicide for a holy comet in Part Three. In this way, Daniels actually forbids a reader to consider their options, and instead, ironically commits the very same sin that he compiled Doomsday Reader to argue about: herding the people with cunningly used portions of fact.And, with his choice of format, Daniels also neatly removes himself from any sort of literary or spiritual criticism because he assigns himself as the editor of this work, and does not hold the mantle of the au thor. Moreover, as is his way, every chapter ends with a â€Å"Notes† section in which all sources and facts gleaned from weblogs, news, and the Bible are posted in the standard APA citation style. While this is not unusual in a reference book of this sort, it becomes a bit disconcerting when every chapter ends with two pages of sources to review.At that point, a reader is left to wonder how much, if any, of the information came from Daniels. Or, more importantly, why he chose the facts he did to illustrate whatever version of the truth he hopes to prove. But with a topic this controversial and completely emotional and sacred for a great deal of the religious community, fact needs to be presented with disconcerting arguments as well, or at least offer in his extensive Works Cited, since he took the time to make it happen, authors or websites that offer some form of skepticism.In this manner, Daniels is able to present all of the related information on this subject without eve r being forced to declare his position or specify an exact opinion. But, more importantly, Daniels never offers any information to refute his truths either, so for that reason alone, Daniels is removing himself and his information from interpretation because the method he uses presents everything as fact. His sources, as they are quoted, are to be accepted and believed as fact, no questions asked, no tokens granted.Overall, while Daniels attempted to compile a compendium of information for the reader interested in prophecy or the Revelation, his theories and ideas are hardly presented at all, unless a reader gives the same weight to the slightly audacious Introduction, which offers his brief, indeterminate premise for creating and organizing his work. And, by choosing so specific a format for assembling his work, his information can be taken no other way, especially because every chapter, and very nearly every paragraph, ends with a footnote, and not an opinion.It is his chosen form at that lends to an attitude of distrust from a reader because Daniels cannot be taken fully and with complete authority on such a controversial theme. If anything, Doomsday Reader serves more as a tidy and eloquent annotated bibliography for a term paper than as the foremost guidebook for understanding prophecy and the terms required by the Bible for Christian salvation. Works Cited. Daniels, Ted, Ed. A Doomsday Reader: Prophets, Predictors, and Hucksters of Salvation. New York: New York UP, 1999.