Ancient Civilizations in China: History and Culture

Ancient Civilizations in China: History and Culture Ancient China is Located in Asia. It has the oldest surviving civilization in the world. Most people talk about other civilizations, such as; Egypt, or Rome. Ancient China has a very interesting history. In Ancient China, they had a total of 11 dynasties. No one is sure of when exactly it began, but roughly from 4000-5000 years. The aspects this essay will focus on are education, social classes, and art and architecture. Agriculture in China was is part of social classes, everyone- except the royal families- has jobs to do, and most people are farmers and silk makers, or have any other hard working job. In ancient China, there is lots of different architecture, and they are all based on their history and their rulers. In China the roofs of most buildings, were curved. It was not just because of structural use, but it had a symbolic significance. And by being tiled, it shows as a sign of wealth. And the reason they are curved is because they protected the inhabitants from evil spirits, which were believed to travel in straight lines. In China a buildings roof was normally put up before the walls. It was supported on purlins (horizontal beams) and crossbeams resting on columns rather than on triangular roof tresses. The walls which were made of wooden panels or brick were filled in later and were not load-bearing to any large extent. This system gave Chinese architects freedom to think about different silhouettes for their buildings. Another thing that is created in China, is silk. Silk is made from silk worms. You must unravel, spin and weave their cocoons. You must first take the cocoon of the silk worms, and then connect it to the machine that pulls the silk of the cocoon by a thread. Then once the silk is all off the cocoon (its still wet), they take all the wool together and put it on a curved metal rod, which stretches the wool, also they leave it to dry there. Then they have some people hold all sides of it and stretch it out till it is roughly the size of a single bed. And then they cover it. The more advanced the cocoon is, the thicker the silk is. This could be the job of many farmers. I think ancient Chinas art and architecture is always something to do with their beliefs or rulers. Social classes were very important in ancient China, The Chinese believed that strict social groups and people should behave according to their social position.  This belief that strict social groups and people should behave according to their social position, was proven by Confucius, a Chinese philosopher. Under the emperor, there were four social classes in China. The four classes were nobles officials, peasants, artisans and merchants.   The emperor and his family were the top class in China. Emperors believed that they were chosen by heaven and therefore didnt need to obey humans. An emperor expected his subjects to be loyal and obedient. The noble class in ancient China was very privileged. Nobles were usually the extended family of the emperor and empress and those people that excelled in their fields, mostly in the military. The status of nobles, however, changed often depending on who gained or fell out of favor with the emperor. When a new emperor came to power, it was common for him to favor a new set of nobles. They often became land owners so they could collect taxes from the people who lived on their land, which made them richer. If the nobles gave some of their income to the emperor, they would receive privileges and were afforded some protection in return. If nobles committed a crime that would result in them being sentenced to death, the emperor could grant them a special favor that would allow them to commit suicide, which they considered a much more honorable death. Officials were another group that had high social status in ancient China. Boys whose families could afford to send them to school began their education at an early age to become officials and were prepared to pass a difficult exam. If they didnt pass, they were usually still able to find jobs since they were considered well educated. Officials were arranged in ranks. The two most senior officials acted as advisers to the emperor. Most officials lived very comfortably and were well-respected because of their position and education. Peasants Even though peasant farmers in ancient China were one of the lowest social classes, they were still considered important because they produced the food for the rest of the society. Most peasants were very poor and led simple lives. They worked very hard and hardly ever had a day off. Peasant men worked in the fields and had to tolerate harsh conditions. They worked through the burning heat of summer and the extreme cold of winter. The harsh conditions could also spoil their crops and land, which has consumed most of their time. If the crops were spoilt, poor families had very little to survive on during the winter. If women wove and sewed cloth, they could help provide clothes for their families and they could sell any excess items to earn more money. Even the poorest peasants had to pay taxes, even if their crops were not successful. This left many families, during the winter months, with little to eat.   Artisans were part of the normal class and included painters, carpenters, potters and jewelry makers. Artisans made more than farmers but less than the merchants. They didnt have a good social status but they were respected for their skills. Metalworkers became very important during the Han period. Metalworkers produced weapons and many useful everyday objects, like cooking pots. Weavers worked with silk, which was very valuable. The merchant class included traders, animal breeders and money loaners. Merchants were thought of as the lowest social class in ancient China. Even though they have a low social status, some merchants became very rich and lived in luxury. .During the Han dynasty, some merchants became so rich that they might have been a threat to the emperor and the nobles. The richest merchants attained their wealth by investing money in land and properties. Several merchants, though, were not as wealthy. In order to limit their wealth, merchants had certain restrictions placed on them. Such restrictions included paying heavy taxes and being sent away to join the army. Slaves had existed in ancient China, but they made a very small percentage of the population. Some slaves were relatives of criminals while other sold themselves or their children as slaves if they were very poor. Ancient China appears to be very serious about social classes. In fact, I think everybodys lives ruled around their class. Most of the children in ancient China never got a chance to go to school at all. They had to work hard in the fields, feeding the  animals, weeding the vegetables, planting  rice, or taking care of their  little brothers or sisters. But if you were a boy, and your father could have spared you from the fields, he would send you to school. Beginning in the  Han Dynasty, many schools used to be free, and the emperor paid for their fees. If there were no schools in your village, you might have had to go live with relatives or with strangers in another bigger town. Boys would normally start school when they were six years old. Primary schools were very small, and only had one teacher for the whole school. There was one chair for the teacher, but all the boys had to sit on stools. You were supposed to go to school every day, without weekends, from 6:00 in the morning until about 4:00 in the afternoon. They didnt have math lessons, or science. You learned how to  read and write, a nd then you memorized many pages of  Confucian philosophy  and learned how to write essays and poetry, and how to  paint pictures. Then, you stayed at this school until you were sixteen or seventeen, which is when you are ready for the first examinations. Education in China was quite important, since it was what their futures depended on. If they were not educated, they would most likely work at farms, or work for others in a low social state (if they were not rich). When they are educated, it gave the people a chance at having a better life. Maybe they would be assisting the royal families, and not as a slave. They could be advisors, or maybe even teachers. I think they needed education quite a lot, in order to be anything big in life. I think ancient China is very interesting and complicated. I think the past was quite hard as it seems most people, if they are not rich or dont have any royal relations, dont get any special treatment, in fact, they barely get and good treatment at all. They had seemed to have lead interesting lives and have various beliefs. Their civilization lasted for a very long time, and they have a very developed society ever since it had started. Bibliography Allan, Tony.  Ancient China. New York: Chelsea House, 2007. Print. Allison, Amy.  Life in Ancient China. San Diego, CA: Lucent, 2001. Print. Ancient China Social Classes.  Translation Services | Interpreters | Intercultural Communication | Cross Cultural Training. Web. 17 May 2010. . Chinese Roofs.  Oracle ThinkQuest Library. Web. 4 May 2010. . Eyewitness Travel Guide China.  Dk Pub, 2010. Print. History of Education in China.  Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 16 May 2010. . History of Silk.  Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 22 Apr. 2010. . Http://homepage.mac.com/zichi/.Pictures/blogger2/silk-worms.jpg Http://seaholmeps.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/chinese-architecture.jpg Http://www.cntravel.biz/China/ancient-China/confucius.gif Http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/terracota-army.jpg http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-14_u-173_t-471_c-1707/social-hierarchy/nsw/history/ancient-societiesChina/ancient-China:-part-i Shang Chou (Zhou) Dynasties Ancient China for Kids.  Ancient China for Kids Main Index. Web. 2 May 2010. . Ten Laments Technology and Education in Ancient China.  Logoi.com An Educational Site about Cultures, Languages and History. Web. 17 May 2010. .

Epilepsy Research Paper -- Papers Disorder Health Essays

Epilepsy Research Paper People most often associate violent twitching, falling to the floor and drooling with epilepsy. However the described event is only one kind of an epileptic seizure, which is called a tonic-clonic seizure. There are many other kinds of seizures, and each has different sets of signs and symptoms. During generalized seizures the whole brain is affected and the initial symptom is loss of consciousness. This category includes such seizures as absence seizure, myoclonic seizure, and atonic attack. Those seizures affect the whole body and brain of the patient, and are much more serious than partial or focal seizure, which only affects one muscle or one part of the body, and not accompanied by loss of consciousness. Epilepsy occurs when nerve cells in the brain fire electrical impulses at a rate of up to four times higher than normal. This causes a sort of electrical storm in the brain, known as a seizure. During a seizure the normal neuronal activity, which is usually responsible for human thoughts, feelings, and actions of glands and muscles, becomes disturbed and as a result strange behavior, convulsions and loss of consciousness might occur. Epilepsy knows no geographical, racial or social boundaries. It occurs in men and women and can begin at any age, but is most frequently diagnosed in childhood or old age. Anyone can be affected by seizures. In fact, up to 5% of the world's population may have a single seizure at some time in their lives, but a person might be diagnosed with epilepsy only after they had two unprovoked seizures. From many studies around the world it has been estimated that the m... ...mpted to move, chair should be put in supine position, everything should be out of the way and passive restraint should be used to prevent patient from hitting anything or falling out of the chair. Emergency assistance should be summoned right away. Epilepsy is not contagious and is not caused by mental illness or mental retardation. Many people with epilepsy have normal or above-average intelligence. Famous people who are known or rumored to have had epilepsy include the Russian writer Dostoyevsky, the philosopher Socrates, the military general Napoleon, and the inventor of dynamite, Alfred Nobel, who established the Nobel prize. Many people with epilepsy lead productive lives. Many medical and research advances in the past two decades have led to a better understanding of epilepsy and seizures than ever before.

Margaret Atwood’s Surfacing †Is the Film More Absurd than the Novel? :: Comparison Compare Contrast Essays

Margaret Atwood’s Surfacing – Is the Film More Absurd than the Novel? Surfacing, starring Joseph Bottoms, is not only an astute interpretation of Atwood’s work, but it is also a marvellous film in itself. Yes, marvellous. Certainly, it does justice to Atwood’s portrayal of substanceless women, but if it has any clearly defined themes, they are lost on the audience. What more could an audience want but a film that is incoherent and that is filled with vivid imageries? A woman dancing half-naked with a maggot-infested heron. A deadly fight breaking out because someone pipes up, "You play as well as you shoot?" The narrator searching for rock paintings. These fragments make up the backbone of this film and yes, they are shown in the proper sequence, unlike Margaret Atwood’s novel! No more pieces of information surfacing at unpredictable points in your mind, no further need to decipher the narrator’s invented past, and best of all, no need to agonize over the narrator’s painful process of finding her authentic self. In the film, the narrator is given a name, Kate. She is now more tangible, unlike Atwood’s narrator. Everyone knows that tangibility is what makes a piece of work great. At any rate, the film does a great job of stripping everything down to their essentials. Why make you plod through Atwood’s depiction of the tensions that exist between the French and the English? Just remove all that political nonsense! Why create suspense about the truth behind the narrator’s father’s drawings? Remove this as well, for it is a waste of time! Film viewing time is better spent on David and Anna’s preoccupation with sex, after all. Now, be forewarned: Relationships in the film have taken a different route from that of Margaret Atwood’s novel. "Kate" and her boyfriend Joe exchange many a word in the film, and they know one another well. Joe is easygoing and he even romps with David. In Atwood’s Surfacing, Joe is quite a different character. He is quiet and sullen, and he does not even like having the narrator look at him! Being unmarried is looked down upon in this little town, but in the film, when Evans sees "Kate" and Joe together, disapproval is apparent, and Evans comments on how Kate is "growed (sic) up and married." Of course, it may be suspicion on Evans’ part, but one cannot be sure. The most important discovery that the narrator makes in Atwood’s Surfacing is the discovery of her authentic self – the discovery that she needs not be a victim of her false self.

America And The Ludendorrf Offensive :: essays research papers

The Entry of the USA and the Failure of the Ludendorff Offensive. The Entry of the USA. Both of these factors were very important in determining the outcome of the war. The American factor was important because when America joined the war, it was a critical period for the allies (April 1917). At the time they joined, Britain only had six weeks supply of corn, the French armies were exhausted after Verdun and French morale was so low that ten divisions had mutinied so the American involvement boosted the allies morale. At the time the Russian army was disintegrating after the February revolution so the German army for the first time, could transfer all their troops on the Eastern front to the Western front, so for the first time in the war having numerical superiority on the Western front, also because of the treaty of Brest-Litovich the Germans had much more guns and equipment that the allies. Also at the time, the Italians contribution was much weakened by the battle of Caporetto in November, so the situation at the time for the allies was quite dire! The US navy, when America entered the war, sent lots of destroyers to Ireland to help with anti-submarine patrols. Also, US Admiral Simms enabled Prime Minister Lloyd George to overcome Admiralty resistance to the convoy system so cutting our ship losses from twenty five percent to one percent, which was vital, if Britain was to stay in the war. Also America closed off the submarine threat from Germany by laying a big mine barrage across the North Sea. Although it was not until June 1918 before the Germans had enough troops in Europe to do any serious damage to the Germans and it was not until September that the Americans were strong enough to launch a major offensive (the Meuse-Argonne battle that engaged 1.2 million Americans for 47 days). The US armies also gave the allies the margin of Victory by giving us many men and guns that we would not have otherwise had. I.e.: In April 1918 the Germans had 300,000 more men that we did on the Western front but by November 1918, the allies had 600,000 more men than the Germans on the Western front. This was in part because that Germans were losing many lives through the Ludendorff offensive but mainly because the Americans poured many men in to Europe. America And The Ludendorrf Offensive :: essays research papers The Entry of the USA and the Failure of the Ludendorff Offensive. The Entry of the USA. Both of these factors were very important in determining the outcome of the war. The American factor was important because when America joined the war, it was a critical period for the allies (April 1917). At the time they joined, Britain only had six weeks supply of corn, the French armies were exhausted after Verdun and French morale was so low that ten divisions had mutinied so the American involvement boosted the allies morale. At the time the Russian army was disintegrating after the February revolution so the German army for the first time, could transfer all their troops on the Eastern front to the Western front, so for the first time in the war having numerical superiority on the Western front, also because of the treaty of Brest-Litovich the Germans had much more guns and equipment that the allies. Also at the time, the Italians contribution was much weakened by the battle of Caporetto in November, so the situation at the time for the allies was quite dire! The US navy, when America entered the war, sent lots of destroyers to Ireland to help with anti-submarine patrols. Also, US Admiral Simms enabled Prime Minister Lloyd George to overcome Admiralty resistance to the convoy system so cutting our ship losses from twenty five percent to one percent, which was vital, if Britain was to stay in the war. Also America closed off the submarine threat from Germany by laying a big mine barrage across the North Sea. Although it was not until June 1918 before the Germans had enough troops in Europe to do any serious damage to the Germans and it was not until September that the Americans were strong enough to launch a major offensive (the Meuse-Argonne battle that engaged 1.2 million Americans for 47 days). The US armies also gave the allies the margin of Victory by giving us many men and guns that we would not have otherwise had. I.e.: In April 1918 the Germans had 300,000 more men that we did on the Western front but by November 1918, the allies had 600,000 more men than the Germans on the Western front. This was in part because that Germans were losing many lives through the Ludendorff offensive but mainly because the Americans poured many men in to Europe.

A Fading India :: Journalistic Essays

On the dawn of a June morning, I wait outside the Vasant Kunj residential buildings in New Delhi for a tour bus to the Taj Mahal. It is not yet six but India is never quiet. Nearly a billion people live in this country and need all twenty-four hours to live their hopes, fears, and dreams. The cows from the neighboring dairy farm are moaning wildly in anticipation of being violated to produce milk. Men sit on verandas and read newspapers while women calm whistling tea kettles and fussy babies. On the street a traffic policeman waits to direct the morning commute, fiddling to center his beret and smoking a cigarette from the corner of his wrinkled mouth. I am waiting for the Regal Taj when another bus, advertising itself as the â€Å"premier deluxe air-conditioned Taj Express,† arrives, its seats apparently filled completely with people. I climb up the creaking steps as the driver stretches his hand for a 10 rupee note for the pleasure of this upgraded ride. There is a reason why the bus is â€Å"air-conditioned†; two of the windows are broken. A makeshift cellophane sheet stuck with duct tape over the open space keeps coming undone and rattles angrily against the ledge. This is not a bus for the country club crowd. Men show deep creases of labor and worry on their foreheads and women balance four or five children, on their laps and pressed against their bosoms. But they are Indian, and they have a birthright and an obligation to respect their history. This is the country where spontaneous monuments sprout up in honor of Shivaji, the Hindu warrior who lost his friends, family, and then his life in resisting the conquering Moguls. This is the country where people invoke the name of Gandhi at political rallies, â€Å"Long Live Mahatma,† as if his placid face lingers as a ghost on the stage. The Mahabharat, mostly mythical but historically based, was adapted for television a few years ago and remains the highest rated series of all time. So, as overworked and overburdened as the masses may be, the Taj Mahal beckons to reveal the glory of India’s past to them. The back of the bus has an empty seat, next to a foreign tourist, which I claim as my own.

Trent Lott

Trent Lott, senior senator from the state of Mississippi, is one of the foremost figures in the United States Senate and one of the most recognizable figures in all of politics. This recognition comes from the stances which he has taken, the fact that he has been a formidable figure in the Senate for many years, the fact that he was the Majority Leader in the Senate for the Republicans from 1996 until 2001 as well as controversial comments which he made in 2002 and which brought back a great deal of resentment as well as a reminder of the history of racial conflict that the United States and especially the South endured in America’s history. Despite this, Trent Lott is still a highly respected member of the United States senate and at a time when the approval rating of Congress is currently at a dismal 14%, for many in Mississippi, he represents one of the very few bright spots in all of Congress.(Page, 2002 pg. A14) He has maintained a strict party line when voting but has not been afraid to vote against his party when the time and circumstance called for him to do so. Despite being raised as a Southern Democrat, Lott, feeling that his beliefs were more in tune with the Republican Party, joined the party and has been a strong Republican ever since. Those Americans consider themselves republicans because they believe in strong faith and family values, the sanctity of human life and marriage and the rule of law as it applies to limited government, find comfort in Trent Lott. Those who disagree with Republicanism and/or Trent Lott on the majority of his issues, can also rely upon the fact that he will always respect the other side of the debate and will not resort to underhanded tactics in order to win. At a time when less people have a favorable opinion of Congress than in all of American History, such people serve as a breath of fresh air for all those who are interested in politics and how it will reshape the landscape and the future of the country. Trent Lott was born in Grenada Mississippi on October 8, 1941. His father Chester was a shipyard worker and his mother was a teacher. Trent Lott started from humble beginnings but soon rose in the social and political ranks of the state to establish himself as one who was not going to spend his entire life in Mississippi, though he would be hard pressed to forget where he came from and the people and places which helped to establish the man who is Trent Lott. Trent Lott was introduced to a more social life when he was attending the University of Mississippi where he earned a degree in public administration in 1965 and a law degree in 1967. (Mercurio, 2002) After he graduated, he moved to Pascagoula where he opened up a law practice and still lives to this day. It was also during this time that Lott began his life in politics. He served as an assistant to the House Rules Committee chairman William Colmer from 1968 until 1972. ( Smith 2005) Despite the fact that Colmer, for the past forty years, was one of the leading segregationists of the state, he still endorsed Lott as one capable of replacing him when Colmer retired. Despite the fact that Lott ran as a Republican; a party which had not had much success in the South since the beginning of the Civil War, Lott was by a landslide. People could see beyond the labels which all too often seem to identify everything there is to know about a candidate. However, there were other factions involved during this time which helped Lott gain the seat that was vacated by Colmer. During the 1960’s especially after the 1965 Civil Rights Bill, there appeared cracks in the solid Democratic South that was so apparent in the decades before. The Democratic Party was losing converts to its cause left and right and more and more people were willing to vote on the Republican ticket. In the 1964 Presidential Election, despite the fact that Barry Goldwater was routed by President Johnson, Goldwater, Senator from Arizona won 87% of the popular vote of Mississippi. ( Smith, 2005) Trent Lott was on the cusp of this political change and he was going to make the most of it for himself and the legacy which he sought to create in politics. The only question was where Trent Lott was going to end up and how far his aspirations and the people of Mississippi were willing to take him. During the 1970’s, a time when the South and Mississippi was lending most of its support to Republican candidates, Trent Lott was enjoying the success that his adopted party was giving him. That, coupled with the people of Mississippi and their ability to relate to   somebody in politics who still seemed approachable, Lott   became in 1974, the first Republican to get reelected from the state of Mississippi since the end of Reconstruction in 1877. (Page 2002 pg A14) Lott would be re-elected six more times and won easily. In 1978 he even ran unopposed since Lott had established himself so strongly in this part of the country. It was becoming apparent that Trent Lott was going to be in Congress for some time to come. It was also during this time in the 1980’s that Lott served as the House Majority Whip for the Republican Party from 1981 until 1989. (Smith, 2005)   In doing so, he was the first southern Republican to hold such an office. The Republican Party was becoming a strong hold for the South and so too was Trent Lott. It was now time for Trent Lott to rise in his political career. The Senate seemed like the next logical answer. The House of Representatives has 435 members and the number of representatives which each state sends to Congress is directly based upon the population of that particular state. Mississippi had a number of representatives like Trent Lott which were expected to represent the state. In the Senate, only two members from each state, regardless of how populated the state is, are sent to Congress. This would mean that Lott would have much more power and influence within Congress in which his views would affect the state of Mississippi and the country to a greater degree. When Lott ran for the senate in 1988, he again was taking advantage of the political climate of the day. President Bush ran and won a resounding victory in the Presidential election as voters sought to continue the Republican success that had come under eight years of the previous President, Republican Ronald Reagan. Lott ran and won a resounding eight point victory over incumbent Wayne Dowdy. Lott was re-elected in 1994, 2000 and 2006 with there existing no sizable Democratic opposition. (Smith, 2005) Lott continued to benefit from the success that the Republican Party was having at this time. From 1993 until 2001, Democrat Bill Clinton was President of the United States and enjoyed high approval ratings throughout out most of his administration. However, it was the Republicans who enjoyed a sizable lead in the Congress through a good portion of the 1990’s. Lott became Senate majority leader of the Republicans in 1996. (http://archives.cnn.com) Lott was best known for the role that he took in the impeachment of President Clinton who, it later turned out, lied to a grand jury about his relationship with a White House intern. Lott preceded in the trial of President Clinton but eventually acquiesced to suspend the proceedings in the Senate. Even though the House had voted to impeach the President, Senator Lott knew that the Republicans in the Senate numbered far short of the necessary votes in order to make the impeachment complete. After the 2000 election when a highly partisan country resulted in a deeply divided Congress and a 50-50 split occurred in the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney’s vote gave the Republicans the majority in the Senate once again and Trent Lott was again the leader of the Senate. This was short lived when Vermont senator Jim Jeffords became ad independent, thus giving the Democrats the majority in the Senate, Trent Lott then became the Senator Minority Leader. However, 2002 would provide more problems for Trent Lott and possible the Republican Party when Trent Lott made some controversial comments about the nation’s and state’s past which helped to bring to the forefront, a history and hurt feelings and resentment which many in the state as well as the country had tried hard to bury. The spotless record which Trent Lott had spent his entire private and political life building, ended on December 5, 2002 when at a 100th birthday celebration for Senator Strom Thurmond, longtime senator from South Carolina   and who in 1948, ran for President under the Dixicrat ticket which appealed to mostly segregationist southerners. Commenting on that regrettable chapter in American history, Senator Lott commented instead: â€Å"When Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years either.† (http://archives.cnn.com) This was a comment which was blown up for a number of reasons. The first reason is the historical significance of the 1948 election and the role that Senator Thurmond in his strict   stand for segregation. The political and social atmosphere had changed and what was previously seen as acceptable in the way of racial prejudice, in our present time, has finally been seen for what it is worth; completely unnecessary and an impediment on the freedom of every individual in America. The second problem was that Senator Lott was from the South and represented the South. Despite coming a long way from the times of slavery and segregation, there still existed a strong awareness of history in the South; especially the history of race relations. Such comments helped to bring up a great deal of pent up anger and issues which many had hoped had finally been resolved. IN many degrees it may have been, but this comment by Senator Lott helped to open up a wound that had many thought had been healed. The last problem with the comment, aside from the comment itself, was the voting record of Senator Lott. He had voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act as well as the formation of a national holiday for Martin Luther King Junior when it was made a law in 1986. The comment gained strength as the NAACP and Black Entertainment Television BET called for the resignation of Senator Lott. A good deal of political commentators on television also called for the resignation of Senator Lott and the Republican Party, feeling the backlash towards a public, many of which was suspect towards their history of race relations, and feeling a loss of power, compelled Senator Lott to step down from his position as the Minority Leader in the Senate on December 20, 2002 and was replaced by Tennessee Senator Bill Frist. Despite these comments and how in the minds of many, they have forever associated Senator Lott with the Republican Party of the past, Lott has proven that he is not one who will always vote the strict party line. Within his own party, Lott blasted what is referred to as â€Å"pork spending.† (http://archives.cnn.com) This refers to the fleecing of Americans and their hard earned taxes through kickbacks, deals made in smoke filled rooms and money being placed under the table in order to repay one political favor for another. A senator would try to have a disproportionate amount of federal aid sent to his state or local district in order that such efforts would then be repaid by getting the senator elected. There will never be the full disclosure of how popular this is within the Senate but there is an unwritten law among the members of Congress not to speak out against this. â€Å"Despite their on camera antics and fighting, the members of the House and to a greater degree the Senate, constitute a private club in which each member supports and defends the other.† (Smith, 2005) Trent Lott was not one of these men. After the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina and the all too real reality of forty years of political corruption in Louisiana, which led to much of the troubles during that natural disaster, Senator Lott commented: â€Å"I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina. â€Å"   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     (http://archives.cnn.com) Many would say that they have been trouble ever since the Congress was formed at the end of the 18th century. Lott became an outspoken critic against a Congress which had been traditionally made up of â€Å"good old boys† who fleeced the tax payers with their nonsense projects and grafting procedures.† (http://archives.cnn.com) It was comments like these which helped cement the reputation of Senator Lott as one that was above being bought or being swayed by public opinion. As much as politics is polarizing and such comments can raise the ire with people as it is human nature, most free thinking individuals can see beyond the partisan back biting which many casual observers cite as the reason for their disinterest in politics. Trent Lott is an exception to what is becoming the norm: partisan members of Congress who will vote the party line and what is popular among the people who voted them in order to continue their role in the Senate. Lott has thought differently and still has been able to make a name for himself in the Senate. Another issue in which Senator Lott angered much of his conservative base was over the issue of immigration. A recent CNN poll cites more than 85% of the American public want the immigration laws to be strengthened in order to stop what is becoming a severe impediment to the country as a whole. (Dobbs, 2005) There is no doubt that illegal immigration needs to be fixed. The inability of the Congress to do anything about it helps to create such low approval ratings. This is because, despite the country being in agreement about the fact that illegal immigration needs to be stopped, there is still much debate as to how exactly that is to be accomplished.   There are a number of factions within the Congress as there is in the country and all have strong opinions. The Democrats seem to be a little more lenient and propose for an easy road to citizen ship. Most Republicans feel that illegal immigrants broke the law and compromised the security of the border and propose anywhere from the deportation of twelve million people to strict fines and being pushed to the end of the line in the path towards citizenship. Some of these feelings are strengthened through talk radio which is currently monopolized by conservatives; many of whom have very strong opinions about what should be done about the problem. Lott made his opinion clear and called for resolve and moderation. Lott sought to do this by listening to his conscience more than what his people tell him to do, which he felt, was asking for more than what was right in this situation. Lott commented: â€Å"Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with the problem†¦. I’m sure senators on both sides of the isle are being pounded by these talk radio people who don’t have a clue what is even on most of these bills.   They are ill informed to comment so.† (Dobbs, 2005) Senator Lott reached across the isle and teamed up with the very liberal Senator Ted Kennedy for their comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Throughout the whole process, Senator Lott was a voice of reason who called for a moderate approach to the problem so that some immigration bill could be passed. He commented: â€Å"Can we do anything more? I don’t like a lot of these amendments. Some people were acting like this is a sinister operation. I don’t believe so. Everybody knew there was an effort underway†¦. Do you have faith in me after 35 years?† ( http://archives.cnn.com) Despite his best efforts, Senate Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada killed the bill after less than a week of debate. Since Senator Lott has resigned from his leadership position in the Senate, he still has remained a voice of reason and is not hesitant to vote his conscience over the strict party line. Senator Lott received a mild, though strong Democratic following when he called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before most Republicans even contemplated the movie. He battled with President Bush over the closing of military bases in the state of Mississippi and was an outspoken critic of Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief advisor. On July 18, 2006, Trent Lott even voted in favor stem cell research; a bill which President Bush in July 2007, vetoed because in the process, the stem cell, which would eventually become a fetus, was viewed by Christians to be a human life and therefore felt that such measures acted as like an abortion. On the other side of the issue, stem cells can be used, researchers think, to grow healthy cells and combat various diseases which attack the brain, spine and nervous system. Senator Trent Lott voted for this research and in the process, alienated himself from much of his base. He knew this before casting his vote but he has gained the respect of his peers on both sides of the isle for being motivated by what he thought to be right and not necessarily what was popular within his own party or with the nation. Whether Trent Lott is alienating his base or voting with the majority, he has been a voice of reason and moderation for most of his career. Trent Lott has been a mainstay in Congress for the last thirty years and even though he has voted in ways that he later regretted and made comments which have hurt him and his legacy in the long run, to the people who like honest talk, both in his home state of Mississippi and in the country at large, have come to respect him for all that he has done. Even after the made those now infamous comments about Senator Thurmond, most Democrats in Congress, despite seeing a political opportunity to increase their support from African Americans and other minorities, realized that the comment was not a true testament to the feelings, the beliefs and the life work which had become Trent Lott. The former leader of the Senate for the Democrats and a figure which had no trouble raising the ire among most Republican supporters, commented on that recent turn of events: â€Å"There are a lot of times when he and I go to the mike and would like to say things we meant to say differently, and I’m sure this is one of those cases for him as well.† (http://archives.cnn.com) This is the case with free thinking individuals who, despite raising the hated and ire for many Republicans through his years in the Senate and could further increase the support of his base by responding their calls to vilify the man, such people who have known Senator Lott for any period of time, though they might not agree with the man and his politics, respects his morals, values and the ways in which he conducts himself. This is hard to do sometimes as the persona cross the isle might be causing a great deal of trouble in one’s political pursuits and perhaps had even exerted efforts to derail their bid for re-election. Nevertheless, the millions of people in America who feel that the actions of the Congress and the beliefs of the men and women who make up such an exclusive club is more important that what the current pop culture icon is wearing or dating, can recognize a genuine person. Those who want to stay in touch with current events and the politics which shape them but still cannot resort to such efforts, cite the fact that in their opinion, there is a severe shortage of people whom they feel to be â€Å"real.† This is most likely true as observers for both Presidential campaigns can record the amount of back peddling that each candidate makes in order to maintain thee highest level of political power; regardless of whether or not that is their real opinion. It is unlikely that Trent Lott, despite his high popularity, will never even contemplate running for President. And it is to the advantage of all those who believe in him that he does not. This is because Trent Lott, with his inability to be disincentive, shoots from the hip and when asked, tells people what he believes more times that not. Sometimes the words will come out wrong and he will regret what he says. However, isn’t this true for all of us. If every formal word of ours over the last 35 years was recorded, how well would others regard us? It is to the benefit of millions of people that is not the case and for those like Senator Lott who has been in the public eye for thirty five years, his record will stand for itself and by itself in this highly partisan climate which is currently choking Washington with no hope of reviving the healthy action of dissent across party lines when an issue does not react well to their own beliefs; the beliefs in which they were elected. Senator Trent Lott is not a member of the former class but stands alone as not only one who apologizes for his mistakes, but also is willing to cross party lines and let the criticism come as they may. This is the true test of one who has earned the trust of the people. It would behoove Washington and the American people if there were more such people in politics. WORKS CITED Dobbs, L. Lott: A Freethinking Member of Congress! CNN Moneyline w. Lou Dobbs. Aired in syndication June 15, 2005 Page, C. Lott’s Comments: Representative of a Larger Culture of Hate?† Chicago Tribune December 15, 2002 Mercurio, J â€Å"Lott Apologizes for Thurmond Comment† http://archives.cnn.com Downloaded July 19, 2007 December 10, 2002 Smith, Harry Senator Trent Lott. Biography   Aired June 12, 2005                              

Administrative Policy

The case of Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Eldridge are different in nature. Mrs. Kelly is fighting for her welfare benefits, while Mr. Eldridge is fighting for his disability benefit. Under the same point, they are both claiming that the terminations of their benefits were made without giving them the opportunity to undergo a â€Å"pre-evidentiary hearing†, which they both believe is a deprivation of their rights to enjoy the benefits of due process of law.While both of them are entitled to be given pre-evidentiary hearing, but the nature of their benefits, and the circumstances that they are fighting are totally different. Mr. Eldridge’s case can be easily won; it only requires an effort of collecting medical information, as the case itself tackles disability benefit eligibility, Compared to Mrs. Kelly’s case, Mr. Eldridge has lots of options for proving his eligibility.On the other hand, Mrs. Kelly’s case requires a deeper type of inquiry to prove her eligibility. However, under both are entitled to be given due process. But the court had prioritized Mrs. Kelly’s case as it requires broader scope of study compared to Mr. Eldridge. The court just wants to set priorities on their caseloads at hand. Under the Goss v. Lopez, and the Ingraham v. Wright cases, again the weight of the interest and the liberty which is at stake is given higher value. In the first case, there were two major areas which are considered. First, students are entitled to avail education at schools. Second, expulsion, suspension, or any disciplinary actions imposed by schools can have an effect on the morality of the student.Considering these two points, the school can’t impose disciplinary actions to students without pre-evidentiary hearing, because the degree of risk associated with imposing penalties is very high, therefore, it should be cautiously done. On the second case, complainants were fighting against imposing corporal punishment at schools. Imposing physical punishments such as paddling, betting, or forcing students to do shameless activities is against the law.Students have the rights to be protected from such actions. However, this strategy of disciplining students has been traditionally applied by the school. Although this also involves degrading the morality of the students, or inflicting physical abuse, but this is still different from the Goss v. Lopez case.The first case was characterized by imposing suspension, or expulsion, therefore, the student’s right to avail the right education is suppressed. But in either case, the presence of pre-evidentiary hearing is required; however, this is again another issue of prioritizing caseloads at the hands of the courts. Pickering and Nurse Churchill’s cases differ in nature. Both employees were entitled to their rights to speak about their opinion. However, Pickering’s allegations are more viewed as an issue of public concern. The nature at which Mr. Pickerin g spoke of his idea is more reasonable and formal in nature, he wrote it in address to the people whom he wants to question.But Churchill’s case was somewhat like spreading rumors or hearsay. Mr. Pickering’s case can be easily protected under the rights to speech while Churchill has more complexities.All cases have good grounds on due process recognition. However, the aspect of how it can be processed under their claims requires more effort which the courts and other judicial system prioritize in terms of the validity of its claims and the level of interest and liberty of the different parties at stake.