Thesis (M.Sc. (Horticulture)) --University of Limpopo, 2012 / Refer to document / the National Research Foundation

布希政府執政期間（一九八九～一九九二），在國際上正逢冷戰結束、兩德統一、東歐巨變，蘇聯解體等極具轉折性的變化，過去兩極體系之下僵化的外交政策已不能適應新的局勢，再加上美國國內經濟不景氣，輿論對於振興經濟的要求也日益高漲，所以布希政府勢必調整以往過多的海外軍事承諾及經濟實力日益雄厚的東協各國加強經貿關係。 　　本論文的第一章旨在闡明研究動機、目的、研究的範圍、架構、方法，以及研究期間所遭遇的困難及限制；第二章則回顧過去美國針對東協在政治、經濟、安全各方面的政策，其中七○年代的越戰是美國參與東南亞事務的轉折點，在越戰之前，美國全力介入東南亞以圍者共產勢力的擴張，而越戰過後，東南亞地區曾經是美國不願碰觸的傷痛，直到雷根政府時期，美國才又致力與東協發展全面性的關係。 　　第三章由安全層面探討布希政府的東協政策，國防預算的撙節加上蘇聯威脅的降低，促使美國減少亞太前進部署兵力的時機成熟，加上菲律賓的民族主義高漲，使美國不得不撤出其在菲國的軍事基地。不過，儘管美國逐漸從東南亞地區撤出，但其仍是東協國家企盼留下來維持區域安定的一股力量，美國也不斷強調其身為一個太平洋國家，勢力繼續留在亞太地區的誓言絕不改變。 　　第四章則由經濟層面切入探討美國的經濟困境會促使布希政府對經貿政策做出何種改革，而這些改革又會給東協國家帶來怎樣的影響。美國強調APEC在亞太地區的作用，而且極力反對東協提倡EAEC將美摒除在外，看來雙方在加強經貿關係的同時，競爭與摩擦也會隨之增加，需要睿智的領導者共同努力化解。 　　第五章則探討東協未來的角色。東協各國在冷戰結束之後，掙脫兩極體系下的束縛，更能在經貿方面全力衝刺，逐漸發展出一股傲人的實力，也因此更增加了自信心在政治、人權方面選擇自己的判斷標準，美國在面臨這種新的轉變時，必須在舊的互動模式瓦解，新的規則又尚未完全建立之時，努力尋求彼此之間的共識，加強良性的互動。 　　第六章結論總結了本論文所探討之議題，釐清一條明確的布希政府對東協之政策走勢，並希望藉此能概略地指出柯林頓政府努力的方向。

At the heart of this exegesis is the city-bush gap and the rivalry and stereotypes that gap has generated. I acknowledge how and why our national identity evolved from the writing of the 1890s but I argue that most current artists, particularly novelists, have failed to incorporate the ongoing cultural, societal and industrial changes that have occurred since, particularly in the last thirty years. I assert that the majority of artists still refer to and draw inspiration from established, inaccurate myths and stereotypes rather than the bush and Australian characters of today. Through examining three texts, Kate Grenville's The Idea of Perfection (Picador, Sydney, 1999), Christos Tsiolkas's Loaded (Random House, Sydney, 1995) and Silences Long Gone (Picador, Sydney, 1998) by Anson Cameron, I also point out how most artists in general have failed to keep pace with changes in the bush city cross-culture. My exegesis attempts to give an account of some deficiencies in contemporary Australian literature. In the creative component of this project, Summer at Mount Hope (Duffy and Snellgrove, Sydney, 2005), I write, as did Anson Cameron in his book, Silences Long Gone, (Pan Macmillan, 1998) of a bush (in 1894) where city and bush rely on each other and technology pushes into the bush uniting city and bush, thus enhancing the economy, the cross cultural interdependence and advancing the commonality between the two. I replace stereotypical characters with less predictable characters whose traits sit easily in either bush or city culture and skew the Traditionalist role of bush and city.

<p>Rhetoric and politics have been interrelated through time. Major political leaders have tried to influence their followers through well-organized and well-written political speeches since the Roman Empire and Byzantium. As one of the original writers of rhetoric, Aristotle referred to it as the art of finding the best aspect of an argument that tends to convince the audience. In my thesis, I analyze and compare the rhetoric of President George W. Bush with that of President Barack Obama. Specifically, I compare and contrast their respective State of the Union Addresses. The questions that I want to answer lay upon the methods both Presidents use during their respective speeches. My thesis also discusses their respective prioritized topics. I give a short presentation of the importance of rhetoric, ranging from the Roman Empire to today‟s American politics. I also comment on the meaning of rhetoric in the modern age. In order to perform my analysis, I use the five stage method of rhetorical analysis: Context, Disposition, Means to convince, Argumentation Analysis and Style. The different argument styles of President Bush and President Obama are discussed.</p>

<p>The aim of this paper is to try to explain how specific, foreign policy decisions are made, and why one state decides to use violence against another state. A qualitative method is used, and text and documents are analysed. The two theoretical points of departure are central within foreign policy analysis: realism´s theories on external threats and constructivism´s theories on ideas´ policy influence. The empirical case chosen is the US decision to use military violence against Iraq. The paper investigates whether the real threat from Saddam Hussein´s Iraq was the cause of the American military attacks, or whether the ideas of leading politicians in the USA were decisive for the decision to invade the country. The main theoretical assumption is that politicians´ ideas – rather than real, external threats – influence their actions. </p><p>The differences between President Clinton´s benevolent Iraq policy and President Bush´s aggressive Iraq policy can be summarized as a result of a combination of a changed external environment and differences in ideas on the use of military violence. The general conclusion is that politicians´ ideas – rather than real, external threats – influence their decision-making on specific foreign policy decisions.</p>

Thesis (M. Environmental Science)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

The TV show is a central focus of American life, one that not only reflects but also produces social imaginaries for the American audience that support the way people interact and engage with reality. It is the nation’s most influential storyteller, which dominates the nation’s imagination and understanding of reality. This dissertation explores the political and cultural meanings of four TV shows from the George W. Bush era: The West Wing (1999-2007), Deadwood (2004-06), The Wire (2002-08) and Heroes (2006-10). In examining these TV shows, this dissertation aims to shed light on both the origins of the state of exception, its conduct, its purpose, and the possibility of meaningful critique of or resistance to the state of exception. Chapter I discusses The West Wing, focusing on President Bartlet’s decision-making process regarding the assassination of Abdul Shareef, so as to elucidate the decisive actions of a sovereign figure in a state of exception. Chapter II explores Deadwood’s resurrection of the nineteenth-century mining camp in our twenty-first century, in terms of the capitalist state of exception. In discussing the show’s portrayal of the conflicts among the main characters, this chapter reveals that the same sovereign logic of exception is innate in the expansion of capitalism. Chapter III examines The Wire’s depiction of rebellious petty-sovereigns such as Major Colvin, Detectives McNulty and Freamon. According to The Wire, the claims of equality are deeply urgent in the bleak reality of contemporary America. With their commitment to equality and justice, the petty-sovereigns intervene in the bleak reality in their subversive ways. Chapter IV explores Heroes’s rendering of the main characters’ struggles against a fictional national emergency, the Company’s conspiracy to blow up half of New York City. In this chapter, I argue that Heroes portrays a political subject that attempts to constitute itself outside biopolitical sovereign power—what Hardt and Negri would call the advent of the multitude. While explicating the struggles of the main characters, I argue that its limitation in envisioning a new world underscores how contemporary critics fail to see past sovereign politics when they imagine another world. / English

Rhetoric and politics have been interrelated through time. Major political leaders have tried to influence their followers through well-organized and well-written political speeches since the Roman Empire and Byzantium. As one of the original writers of rhetoric, Aristotle referred to it as the art of finding the best aspect of an argument that tends to convince the audience. In my thesis, I analyze and compare the rhetoric of President George W. Bush with that of President Barack Obama. Specifically, I compare and contrast their respective State of the Union Addresses. The questions that I want to answer lay upon the methods both Presidents use during their respective speeches. My thesis also discusses their respective prioritized topics. I give a short presentation of the importance of rhetoric, ranging from the Roman Empire to today‟s American politics. I also comment on the meaning of rhetoric in the modern age. In order to perform my analysis, I use the five stage method of rhetorical analysis: Context, Disposition, Means to convince, Argumentation Analysis and Style. The different argument styles of President Bush and President Obama are discussed.

The aim of this paper is to try to explain how specific, foreign policy decisions are made, and why one state decides to use violence against another state. A qualitative method is used, and text and documents are analysed. The two theoretical points of departure are central within foreign policy analysis: realism´s theories on external threats and constructivism´s theories on ideas´ policy influence. The empirical case chosen is the US decision to use military violence against Iraq. The paper investigates whether the real threat from Saddam Hussein´s Iraq was the cause of the American military attacks, or whether the ideas of leading politicians in the USA were decisive for the decision to invade the country. The main theoretical assumption is that politicians´ ideas – rather than real, external threats – influence their actions.  The differences between President Clinton´s benevolent Iraq policy and President Bush´s aggressive Iraq policy can be summarized as a result of a combination of a changed external environment and differences in ideas on the use of military violence. The general conclusion is that politicians´ ideas – rather than real, external threats – influence their decision-making on specific foreign policy decisions.

This essay will show how conservatism and liberalism is established and maintained in American presidential rhetoric, by analyzing the speeches held by George W. Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008 at their respective party’s national convention, at the time when they accepted their party’s nomination for the presidency for the first time. By conducting an ideology analysis by examining the language used in the two speeches, and connect that to the metaphors of morality in George Lakoff’s (2002) theory of the Nation-as-Family, the essay will show examples of how the two presidential candidates establish themselves as bearers and protectors of their party’s ideological base and how this can be related to the view on moral in American politics. The Republican Party connects to conservative ideology and the Democratic Party to liberal ideology. The Nation-as-Family theory involves looking at the relationship between the government and its citizens as that between parents and their children. Connected to conservative ideology is the Strict Father who proclaims authority, obedience and character and connected to liberal ideology is the Nurturant Parent who proclaims nurturing, empathy and equal distribution of opportunities. Connected to Strict Father and Nurturant Parent there exists a number of metaphors of morality that helps organize the language being used. Although notions of the ‘wrong’ moralities appear in the ‘wrong’ speeches, the results from the analysis clearly indicates that the Nation-as-Family theory is highly valid in displaying the connections between political speeches and the ideological bases to which the speakers adhere.