After the coup of 1980, Turkey was governed by a military administration for three years, during which the junta restructured the country's political system. The most important outcome of this process was probably the Constitution of 1982, the most militaristic fundamental document of law in the history of the Turkish Republic. The new constitution was enacted by a popular plebiscite, which the junta conducted with quasi-transparent envelopes.

The next and final phase of the process was the restoration of 'democracy,' which, according to the junta, was a synonym of 'elections.'

The Turkish Parliament adopted eight legislative packages between February 2002 and July 2004, introducing somewhat revolutionary changes to the country’s political system. As the European Commission’s 2004 progress report on Turkey stated, these changes ranged from "improved civil liberties and human rights to enhanced civilian control of the military." The changes were so wide in scope that the European Commission, in response, recommended the EU to start accession negotiations with Turkey.

Preceded by a number of other positive developments, this long-awaited decision of the European Commission was warmly welcomed in Turkey. The majority of the Turkish people came to believe that things were finally getting on track in the country. The subsequent events, however, proved otherwise.

The current U.S. foreign policy focuses on the states that sponsor terrorism, and aims to replace dictatorial regimes with democratic ones – on the assumption that the latter will bring new societal and political values which will not only moderate strong anti-American sentiments but also make America safer. In that sense, the region that poses imminent security risks and requires immediate attention in the world is the Middle East. Therefore, democratization of the Middle East surfaces as one of the biggest concerns of the current U.S. administration.

The riots brought into question the French idea of republicanism.

Pluralism, as a theory of power, relies on the dynamics of the concept of free market of ideas, and affirms that free competition of diverse interests will serve the best interests of a democratic society. Policy decisions, according to the pluralist approach, are therefore results of the struggles among competing groups that have different causes.

There's still something astonishing to me that a country can declare a plant illegal. A plant. The reason? Because it cures some people, alleviates some horrible illnesses, and, worst of all, gives others pleasure.

Are Negroes in fact Indians and therefore entitled to Indians' exemptions from federal income taxes? Are the federal income tax laws unconstitutional insofar as they do not provide a deduction for depletion of the human body? Is the 16th Amendment unconstitutional as violative of the 14th Amendment? and... Does a ban on drivers turning on a red light constitute an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce?

My favorite is from a guy called Clarence Brummett, who repeatedly asked the Court to assist him in a war of extermination he vowed to wage against Turkey!

Go figure...

Every now and then, left-wingers accuse President George W. Bush of opposing Darwinism while making social darwinist economic policies.

This argument has two major flaws.

First; the term social darwinism is not necessarily one that all capitalists agree on.

Secondly; if this argument is valid, aren't the views of those who claim to be Darwinists in a biologic but not economic sense equally in conflict?