Zylberberg--> Silverberg--> Silver

In class, we talked a lot about what people do, or feel they must do, in order to become an American. We discussed how part of becoming an American is giving up a lot of one's culture. Immigrants are often forced to give up certain things about them in order to assimilate into society. One interesting thing to study is how immigrants often changed their names in order to assimilate easier.

My dad's father and his brother were Jewish immigrants who came to America after World War II. Their names were Fivel and Harry Zylberberg. When they arrived in America, both decided it was best to translate their name to a more English version- Silverberg. It is interesting, however, the different choice these two made next.

My grandpa kept his name Fivel Silverberg; he realized that although he lost the European culture in his name, he would maintain the Jewish part of it.
My great uncle Harry, however, decided to drop the Jewish culture in his name. His name became Harry Silver instead of Silverberg. He did not do this because he wished to abandon his religious background, but only did it because he believed it would help him become more successful in America.

This is just one example of people who felt the need to give up parts of their culture in hopes of achieving greater success in America.

Is Iran REALLY in the same boat?

As we study the situation in Iran closely, I, like most of the world, are mistrustful of Iran. Iran will not allow the I.A.E.A. to inspect its nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad has stated openly that he wishes to destroy the country of Israel. In all of the research I did about Iran, the country seems to have only one argument as to why it should be able to construct a nuclear program. Iran argues that it has this right, as the U.S., Russia, France, China, Great Britain, and Israel all have their own nuclear weapons program. This idea makes these countries, especially the U.S., seem very hypocritical. This seems like a valid argument to make initially, but in the end, it is erroneous. Iran is trying to strengthen its argument by putting itself in the same category as all of those world powers, but is Iran REALLY in the same boat as them?

In an article from The Washington Post that was written this month, the author discusses how America has protected and even helped supply Israel's nuclear program for over 40 years. Now, a lot of debate is going around regarding whether or not it is time to take away support of Israel's nuke program in order to shut down Iran's. This effort has been made many times, but Israel constantly refutes the idea. Two years ago, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert justified this by stating, "Israel is a democracy, Israel doesn't threaten any country with anything, never did. The most that we tried to get for ourselves is to try to live without terror, but we never threaten another nation with annihilation. Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

I think this is a valid point, and really checks Iran about the idea presented above regarding the category that the country is in. There is a lot of truth in the Prime Minister's statement when he says that Israel is a country that does not aim to attack or destroy other countries. Israel is, and always has been, forced to fight off aggressors. It, therefore, feels that it needs nukes only for defensive purposes. What other alternative does Israel have if Iran, which may already have nuclear weaponry, has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Israel simply is not a country that intends to use its weaponry or bring war and destruction upon any nation; it, therefore, has the right to put itself in the same category as the U.S. Iran has openly stated, however, its intent to destroy Israel and is constructing its nuclear program without complying with the I.A.E.A. Hmmm...Something just tells me that I don't think Iran would fit in too well with the foreign nuclear powers. I believe it is only fair and intelligent to convince Iran to stop its nuclear program, and THEN ask Israel to stop theirs.

Article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/america-has-protected-israeli-nuke-program-for-40-/

Solving the Issue

As we prepare for our simulation next Friday dealing with how to react and respond to the conflict in Iran, I discovered there is quite a lot of information to talk about. I decided to do some additional research online about Iran and came across some very interesting political cartoons that represent two key points that I had read in the various packets we received. One cartoon criticizes Iran for lying about its nuclear program and the other cartoon criticizes the U.S. and other foreign powers for exercising hypocritical behavior towards Iran. This is what will make the simulation so interesting; there is always two sides to every argument, especially in war.

Cartoon #1 shown above is judgmental towards Iran in regards to the idea that the country is secretly operating a nuclear program to construct nuclear bombs, and covers it up by saying that their nuclear program is simply for domestic energy purposes. This political cartoon captures the usual point of argument in this conflict, which is that Iran cannot be trusted in any way shape or form and are a threat because of it. This is the more dominant opinion of Iran today and is definitely a valid point.

Cartoon #2 takes the opposing side of the dominant criticism and shows that part of the problem is the hypocritical behavior of the world powers. The cartoon depicts the U.S., France, Russia, China, and Great Britain as the possessors of nuclear bombs. The words, "Do as we say! Not as we do" are very significant because they effectively bring up a point that is important to consider while dealing with the conflict of Iran. The U.S. and these other world powers have all created nuclear programs in which they produced a large amount of nuclear bombs. Now, as Iran is suspected of doing the same thing, these countries say that Iran cannot do it. This introduces, therefore, an argument that opposes the idea that Iran cannot be trusted, for how can Iran trust these world powers in the first place if they all did what Iran is doing now.

Aside from all the facts, interviews, and cartoons that I have used in my research, I have and probably always will have one bias opinion towards this matter; I do not think Iran can be trusted in the first place, and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Although my stance has not changed, I now have much more information regarding all aspects of the conflict of Iran. Getting all the information can indeed cause someone to change positions in an argument, but it is most important for figuring out the best way to solve the issue. I guess that is what this whole simulation is about; understanding both sides, therefore, is a key part of learning how to react and respond to all of the problems we face in this world.

Super Hero or Super Villain?

A few weeks ago I saw the movie Watchmen. The movie was pretty good, but what I really enjoyed about it was the way they integrated history into the movie. The movie takes place in 1985 and the United States revolves around the period of tension we are leaning about now in AS; this period is known as the Cold War, a nuclear arms race against Soviet Russia. There are a great amount of historical references such as Vietnam, civil rights, etc., but what I really want to comment on is the decision making put into using weapons of mass destruction in the story.

Towards the end of the movie, the character Ozymandias, one of the super heroes, activates his major secret plan and sets off a weapon of mass destruction in New York City killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. His old companions are in horrible shock as they learn what he has done; they do not understand how/why he could do this. You want to view Ozymandias as a villain immediately, but this is where the movie's brilliance shines...

Right before this bomb is set off, tensions were high between Russia and the U.S. The type of bomb that Ozymandias set off was not an atom bomb, however, but created from the energy that Dr. Manhattan is made of, a super hero who is composed of nuclear energy. After the world realized that this WMD set off in New York was the energy Dr. Manhattan uses, the U.S. and Russia blame Dr. Manhattan. Within a matter of hours, the tension between the U.S. and Russia dropped and they halted their arms race once and for all as they joined in peace to rebuild the horror that struck the world that day. Ozymandias' plan the whole time was to frame Dr. Manhattan in order to bring peace between these two destructive world powers.

This was a very interesting idea that the movie presented; in order to bring peace to the world, one man thought the only option was to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I'm so glad I saw Watchmen because I will always look back to this movie when we begin discussing the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in class. The movie raises a lot of questions that can be raised directly to the parallel decision making put into dropping the atom bomb on Japan. Was it the best option? Was it the only option? Are we heroes or are we villains?

The Trickle Effect

During these difficult economic times, people start to blame each other for their own problems; some blame the government, some blame the rich, and some blame the poor. Accusing each other has so far proved to do nothing, however, and maybe it is time to work together to solve the country's problems. If we do not support each other and fuel the economy, we will only sink deeper into this hole, for we have begun to truly experience what many like to call "the trickle effect."

I read an article in the New York Times titled "Who Gets Hit When the Wealthy Cut Back." The article discusses how the affluent are suffering economically now, and as a result, the lower working class is as well. This article mainly talks about the landscapers who work for the wealthy, and how they are having a hard time finding work now.

We have discussed one way to potentially solve an economic crisis is to put money back into the market by spending. Unfortunately, the wealthy are doing quite the opposite. Some are cutting back on the amount of people they have tending to their homes, while others are completely getting rid of their workers.
Yes, it may seem like the right decision for each individual homeowner to make in order to save money, but it is not helping the country as a whole. These landscapers are a large part of the economy and they are completely dependent on the wealthy class for work.

The wealthy need to support the economy by supporting the lower working class. By hiring and spending money on landscapers again, the lower working class will have more jobs available, they will be able to spend money again, the economy will begin to refuel, and the wealthy can then be refueled by the rising market.

We cannot blame each other during this time of economic crisis. We need to think more about what is best for our country than what is best for the individual. Reverse "the trickle effect!"

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/your-money/04wealth.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc

Reverse Our Ways!

An idea we've explored much in our current unit deals with how to fix the economy during difficult times. There is not a simple answer, and there never will be. After browsing through a few articles in the New York Times which talk about our economy's current situation, nearly all of them seem to convey the same plan to fix it. Americans need to reverse the way in which they are responding to this depression.
One article titled "A Downturn Wraps a City in Hesitance" focuses on one location, Portland, where everything is going wrong. Falling house prices, weak consumer spending, and falling investment are really taking a hold of this city. The article only suggests that by acting this way, Portland will only fall deeper into this spiral of depression. It can only be solved by acting in the exact opposite way. Housing values need to rise, people need to put money into the economy, and the stock market should must be refueled.
Portland is described as a place that, "has long attracted investment and talented minds with its curbs on urban sprawl, thriving culinary scene and life in proximity to the Pacific Coast and the snow-capped peaks of the Cascades" (Goodman 1). Large companies like Nike and Intel employed tens of thousands of Americans in Portland and finding a job in this innovative city never proved to be an issue. The city seems have to have completely shut down in this respect, however, as unemployment rose from 4.8% to 9.8% from 2007-2009. The reason a city that always thrived so efficiently is now falling into a deep hole is because psychologically, the city is not acting like its usual self.
No one knows exactly how to solve the economy, but several articles suggest that at this time, the best thing we can do is reverse our ways. Everyone is afraid, and things will only get worse, ironically. America needs to start spending, and housing prices and the stock market need to level off. It seems as if the only thing we can do to save the economy is face our fears and act inversely to what our heads tell us to do.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/economy/27portland.html?fta=y

The Eternal Search

After reading the first chapter of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel, The Great Gatsby, I noticed a particular passage that really spoke to me. The protagonist, Nick, describes his friend Tom as, "one of those men who reach such an acute limited excellence at twenty-one that everything afterward savors of anticlimax" (Fitzgerald 6). In college, Tom had been an outstanding football player and belonged to very wealthy family. He was seen as a "national figure" by others; those were his glory days, per say, and he will never forget them. Yet, Nick continues to describe his feelings towards Tom and feels that, "Tom would drift on forever seeking, a little wistfully, for the dramatic turbulence of some irrecoverable football game" (6). Nick brings up a very important life lesson here.

Tom is very wealthy, has a beautiful wife, and has all the material products he could ever wish for. Nick is able to discover, however, that Tom simply is not satisfied with his life, and he decides that Tom will be searching for that same happiness he USED to have for the rest of his life, never being able to find it.
This point that Nick brings up (most likely Fitzgerald's thoughts as well) applies a lot to my own life. I am in a particular position where I am about to finish high school and move on to a completely different part of my life. I will be going to college, become a full adult, get married, have kids, etc. The point is, each step of my life is a completely new stage of experience; each one is just as significant as the rest. We often are afraid of moving on to new stages in our lives; we tend to focus on one thing to accomplish in life. As a junior in high school, many kids bank their happiness on getting into the best college, winning a state championship, or getting a certain girl/boy to go out with them. People think that if they accomplish these goals, they are set for life and will be happy forever. The world just does not work this way. We cannot look back at our "glory days," as Tom does; we must find happiness in every new stage of our lives.

The theme Fitzgerald is trying to communicate about Americans during the 1920s, as well as today, is that people cannot expect to find eternal true happiness once wealth and material goods are aquired. Many people who are rich beyond belief and own everything they want are, in fact, some of the most depressed people in the world. As I prepare to move on to the many new stages of my life, I will not look forward to finding happiness in one of those areas, but in all of them.

Not Just Privilege for the Privileged

During these tragic economic times in America, colleges and universities have stopped spending money. Building projects are being canceled, faculty is being let go, and these institutions are doing whatever else they can in order to survive. Many people, including myself, believe that these institutions will decrease the amount of financial aid given out to students, but these colleges and universities are doing just the opposite. I read an article from the New York Times titled, "To Keep Students, Colleges Cut Anything but Aid." The name says it all, as it has been discovered that colleges will not cut financial aid during these times and may even expand the aid at some points.

Many students cannot afford to pay for college due to the economic crisis, and if financial aid spending was cut by the colleges, the number of students able to attend these colleges would drop significantly. These colleges understand that these students are the future and to prevent them from having even a shot at attending college would be taking away their privilege to acquire a formal education. Speaking of privilege, the word brings up an entirely new side to this discussion. There is no doubt that if colleges did cut financial aid spending, only those who are truly privileged would be able to attend the institutions. Hope would be diminished for millions of Americans, separating the country into two cultures: Those who can go to college, and those who never will; the privileged and the unprivileged.

Colleges have made the correct decision, however, and prevented this separation of cultures from occurring. College always will be a privilege for people, for there will never be a time when every person can attend college. However, by not cutting financial aid spending, colleges have shown that they still believe all Americans can at least obtain this privilege. Those who cannot afford college still have a hope to during these hard times, and this decision by colleges in America was the best possible one. When it comes down to black and white, these potential college students are our future, and if we are to deny them the chance to gain a college education, problems like the ones we face today may very well reoccur. Colleges, therefore, by not cutting financial aid during this economic crisis, are ensuring that the privilege of education is not just for the privileged, but for everyone who represents the future of America.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/education/28college.html?pagewanted=2&em

Metropolis

After looking at excerpts from The Jungle and watching two films portraying the systematic lifelessness American workers experienced during the early 1900s, I thought back to a movie I had watched freshman year in my English class. The movie is titled Metropolis and was filmed in 1927. The film takes place in the year 2000 and is about how machines have come to rule over man in the workplace and to show the class differences between the rich and poor. This movie conveys the same ideas as the other sources we have looked at regarding workers during the early 1900s, especially because it was filmed during the 1920s and was trying to show what will happen in the future if society's "machine" is not destroyed.

One important aspect of this movie that is made quite clear is the difference between the elites' and workers' lives. The elites are wealthy, control everything, and live in heavenly gardens. The workers are very poor and live under the ground. All day, these workers work in terrible conditions pulling levers, controlling conveyor belts, flipping switches, and so on. Their jobs require no skill, just nonstop labor. The workers do not understand the big picture of it all, however; they do not even know what the world looks like above the ground. The movie worked hard to show how workers during the early 1900s are all part of a machine and have no understanding of the larger picture. The movie also shows how the elites who run the city have everything they want, yet they could never prosper without the workers. There is, therefore, a balance created between the two classes: they need each other.

The main character, Freder, is the son of an elite who travels down below ground to see what life is like for the workers; he discovers a world he never imagined could exist. He sees the awful labor these people must do everyday, and witnesses the death of a worker due to exhaustion. Freder rushes up to his father and tells him about what he saw; his father does not care about the worker at all, causing Freder to rebel and join the workers below ground.

Freder's father and a scientist invent a robot who can now replace the workers below ground, as it will not tire from exhaustion. If these robots were to take over the working class' jobs, an entire class of people would practically be wiped out from society. The robot is a significant part of this film because it shows how Man will be ruled by machine and to prove how the workers are themselves like machines.

This film really grinds the idea into the viewers minds how different these two classes of people are during the 1900s. The workers are not seen as people anymore, but simply as parts of a large machine they do not understand. The director of this film created this visionary masterpiece most likely to let the world know that if this societal system continues in the workplace, the future is going to be a very frightening place.

Ahhh oui, how romantic...Americans and zeir vegetables

The United States is one of the unhealthiest nations in the world due to the type of food we eat; these foods include junk food, like candy and ice cream, or fast food, like McDonald's or Burger King. Sure, it doesn't help Americans to eat this stuff, but the food we eat is surely not the cause of most of our everyday problems. But HOLD ON AMERICA! ORGANIC FOOD HAS COME TO THE RESCUE!! Now our lives will improve ten fold!!!! True statement???.... Not at all. Ever since the introduction of organic food in America, Americans have truly romanticized it.

Organic food is food grown without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. The food no doubt holds true to its original intention, which was to produce all-natural products that are healthy and environmentally safe. Americans have taken this intention, and made it into something much larger and simply untrue over time.

I read an article written about organic food on the website www.organicfoodinfo.net, an online informational source about organic food. This article reminds me of Romeo and Juliet; it has "romance" and is a tragedy (Ohhhhh diss).

The article basically glorified organic food by describing how it will change all aspects of one's life:

-You will find that you are much happier and easy going. You will also notice a great change in your mood, since your body is healthy, making you happy.
-These basic improvements in your health will reinforce your diet, pushing you to eat healthier, lose more weight, and even tighten up your diet further.
-Healthy foods will also ensure that you are bustling with energy; and once you have loads of energy you will have to find a way to use it.
-That will mean that you will find yourself going to the gym or taking up some new hobby, since your energy has to be used up some how.
-You will be amazed to see how easy it is to actually maintain a natural health lifestyle.
-All your friends will notice as you become more energetic and productive.
-Natural health also encourages positive thinking and is a gradual process.

The writer of this article describes organic food as if it can completely improve one's life. Apparently, if you eat this food you will be motivated to go to the gym, take up new hobbies, lose more weight, and my personal favorite, your friends will notice how much more "energetic and productive" you are.

Organic food is a cool idea, but Americans have romanticized the meaning, causes, and effects of it in order to make them believe they can change their lives by eating it.

Link to article: http://www.organicfoodinfo.net/organic_products_usa.html

"Racially Traitorous?" Give Me A Break

Agency and oppression is something that will remain prevalent in society most likely forever. In our nations history, the dominant white society often follows a pattern of oppressing non-whites in order to lift itself up and force others down. Early colonists exercised this practice by acting as agents over the Native Americans, Americans later would oppress blacks by enslaving them, and the cycle continues even today. As we have developed into a much more free and equal nation, these agents act with more subtlety, but the effect they can have on the oppressed today remains equally terrible. In the editorial section of the New York Times, a columnist points a bold finger towards Republicans describing their campaign against immigrants as oppressive as it embodies a, "hidden a streak of racialist extremism." Racism is still a prevalent issue in America today, as well as immigration; but the Republican party and the way it chooses to deal with these topics will not allow for any easy solution. As the Republican party looks back wondering why it lost the congressional race, they see that the large number of foreigners in America were the issue. The party still stubbornly does not recognize that its anti-immigration policy is the issue it must reconsider, but instead believes it has not, "been too hard on foreigners, but too soft."

The Republican party believes it needs to work harder to seal the border and revisit the idea of deporting illegal immigrants. We already learned, however, that deportation is not going to solve immigration issues any time soon.

This editorial describes recent evidence of how this party truly shows racism towards immigrants and foreigners. Republican mailings of songs titled "“Barack the Magic Negro” or “The Star Spanglish Banner” were all parodies blatantly expressing racism. Also, Peter Brimelow, a former editor for Forbes created a website by the name of Vdare.com, a site of extreme anti-immigration. Bill O'reilly and Fox news also referred to the views of pro-immigration "left wingers" as, "racially traitorous."

The actions, ideas, and reasoning the Republican party often takes towards the issue of immigration truly set us back in the strides we've made to become a country where all people are created equal. It makes no difference to slowly over time give blacks rights, let women vote, and so on if we are going to suddenly call our country "racially traitorous."

Hopefully, Republicans will see that their policy towards immigration can lead to racist acts. One week ago, in Long Island, new evidence was brought to attention regarding a few teenagers and a murderous attack they committed against an Ecuadorean immigrant. That crime was committed a year ago, but ever since then, more reports of racial attacks towards immigrants in the area have been brought to the police's attention. The editorial says these police, "have made a habit of ignoring a long and escalating trail of attacks against immigrant men, until the hatred rose up and spilled over one night, fatally."

I'm sure the Republican party never had any intention of creating violence towards immigrants, but hatred is formed nevertheless through their use of politics. I hope the party will soon realize the consequences of its actions and the racism it can potentially create in this country. Agency and oppression is still very real today as the American "tradition" lives on.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01sun1.html

War of False Romanticism

As we discussed romanticism in American Studies, I immediately thought back to my junior theme. For my junior theme paper, I read Cold Mountain, by Charles Frazier, and The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara. These stories are both novels about the American Civil War. I knew I had to figure out the connection these two stories make in order to produce a thesis for my paper. I noticed both were told through the eyes of individual characters (both fictional and nonfictional) and there seemed to be a common theme of negativity towards the terrible causes and effects of the war. I could not think of the deeper connection these two novels possess, but finally had my epiphany while doing some research. I came across a website that brought me to President Dwight Eisenhower's speech about the Civil War on its 100th year anniversary in 1963. In his speech, as I realized most contemporary speeches do, solely speak of the pride, inspiration, honor, and even beauty of the American Civil War:

"Both sections of our now magnificently reunited country sent into their armies men who became soldiers as good as any who ever fought under any flag. Military history records nothing finer than the courage and spirit displayed at such battles as Chickamauga, Antietam, Kennesaw Mountain, and Gettysburg. That America could produce men so valiant and so enduring is a matter for deep and abiding pride" (Eisenhower).

In the past, I never would have thought twice about President Eisenhower's words and what this war means to our country. After reading my two junior theme books, however, this war cannot be glorified as a "romantic war" for America today, but as a tragic experience for the individual citizens/soldiers back then. I now made a distinct connection between the two novels; both describe the war through the eyes of the individual, and we are able to uncover the truth behind the "glory." We discover the fictional pride and concoction of a war of false romanticism. Eisenhower represents Americans' modern day views of the war very well, as he mentions how proud and glorious some of the major battles were.

In The Killer Angels, however, we are able to see the "pride" firsthand of the fighting itself. Shaara uses evidence of real soldiers during the Battle of Gettysburgh to show how destructive and traumatic the scene was. Friends and foe dying everywhere, blood filling the battlefield, and total fear filling the air.
In Cold Mountain, Frazier describes a different part of the war as we are able to understand the feelings of a soldier who is away from the battlefield and traveling home, as well as the experience of his lover who is a female back on a farm. During this soldier's voyage home, he constantly describes how horrific and pointless the war is and he must face the challenges of the world falling apart around him due to the war.
Through the eyes of the individual, a whole new idea of the American Civil War is recognized through these novels, and this war of pride suddenly becomes a war of false romanticism.

The war definitely changed our country in many ways and allowed us to become the great nation we are today, but one cannot look back at the Civil War and call it romantic, honorable, nor glorious; it was a war, nevertheless, where more Americans were killed than in any other war, and it would be unjust to the people of that time to describe their experience as romantic. Through the individual, we see truth.

Eisenhower Speech:

True Meaning of Civil War
September 5, 1963

I would urge in all our commemorations of the Civil War centennial, that we look on this great struggle not merely as a set of military operations, but as a period in our history in which the times called for extra-ordinary degrees of patriotism and heroism on the part of the men and women of both the north and the south. In this context we may derive inspiration from their deeds to renew our dedication to the task which yet confronts us - the furtherance, together with other free nations of the world, of the freedom and dignity of man and the building of a just and lasting peace.

The years 1961 to 1965 will mark the one-hundredth anniversary of the American Civil War. That war was America's most tragic experience. But like most truly great tragedies, it carries with it an enduring lesson and a profound inspiration. It was a demonstration of heroism and sacrifice by men and women of both sides who valued principle above life itself and whose devotion to duty is a part of our nation's noblest tradition.

Both sections of our now magnificently reunited country sent into their armies men who became soldiers as good as any who ever fought under any flag. Military history records nothing finer than the courage and spirit displayed at such battles as Chickamauga, Antietam, Kennesaw Mountain, and Gettysburg. That America could produce men so valiant and so enduring is a matter for deep and abiding pride.

The same spirit on the part of the people at home supported and strengthened those soldiers through four years of great trial. That a nation which contained hardly more than thirty million people, north and south together, could sustain six hundred thousand deaths without faltering is a lasting testimonial to something unconquerable in the American spirit. And that a transcending sense of unity and larger common purpose could, in the end, cause the men and women who had suffered so greatly to close ranks once the contest ended and to go on together to build a greater, freer, and happier America must be a source of inspiration as long as our country may last.

source: http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/19630905%20True%20Meaning%20of%20Civil%20War.htm