Legislative and Executive Branches Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Legislative and Executive Branches - Assignment Example â€Å"the executive action that would offer real legal status to the immediate family of US citizens and permanent residents.†2 The senator has argued that the Senate Republicans should focus on revoking the 2014 order and allow the 2012 plan to remain intact. On the other hand, the Presidency has drawn a red line on the two executive actions by warning that the President will veto any legislation sent to him that seeks to topple the orders. The tussle over the executive order is taking place on a legislation to finance the Department of Homeland Security whose funding ends on February 27.3 I think President Obama needs to consult the Republicans on the issue of the executive actions. The issue of immigrants affects every American and it is a matter of national importance. Both the Republicans and the Democrats need to sit on a negotiation table and make a way forward on how to tackle the issue of immigrants. There are very many illegal immigrants in America who found themselves in the country because of their parents’ choice and circumstances. The negotiators must balance the rights of the migrants and the interest of the

The Road To German Unification - 1856-1871 Essay Example for Free

The Road To German Unification 1856-1871 Essay During the period 1856 1871 the unification of the German states was achieved due to a number of interconnected factors, which accumulated together, realised this aspiration. These factors included both internal and external factors; internally Prussias growth into an economic super power within Europe, military advances and the invoking of latent nationalist sentiment by Bismarck through the use of his shrewd diplomacy and political aptitude all contributed. Externally the shifting international setting into a propitious climate twinned with the roles of France and Austria compelled the unification process. Following the ravages of the Crimean war the international setting fluctuated from being favourable and unfavourable towards the aspiration of German unification. The roles of the major powers; Britain and Russia together with France and Austria played a pivotal part in the eventual unification of Germany. The withdrawal from European affairs and disputes by arguably the two strongest superpowers Britain and Russia had previously been unseen in Europe and so left the door wide open for smaller, upcoming powers such as Prussia to become more active and more influential. While Britain were concerned with maintaining a stronghold over their imperial colonies in Africa and the Indian subcontinent and with Russia occupied in attempts to reverse the black sea clauses France emerged as the predominant European superpower. Frances role in the German unification process were initially favourable as Napolean III wanted to champion a nationalist cause and search for a stroke of European prestig e which would make him more viable to the growing number of European nationalists. An example of France aiding the German unification process was the signing of the informal Biarritz agreement between Bismarck and Napolean III stating that France would remain neutral in any Austro Prussian war in exchange for Venetia, which Napolean would subsequently hand over to Italy. Napolean also had another reason for signing neutrality as he hoped a protracted war between two of Europes strongest central powers would leave them both battle worn and weak and therefore Frances dominant position would be yet more intensified and entrenched. What is clear about Frances role is that however France attempted to aid Germany or any form of European nationalism they did it for the sole purpose in which to further their own gains and power. Austrias role within the international setting was more apparent. The reactionary henchman set up to prevent the spread of European nationalism and nationalist sentiment was now the sole defender of the Vienna settlement and so aimed to suppress any forms of European nationalism especially on or within its borders as this would have meant the complete break up of the already crumbling Austrian polyglot empire. Although Austrias intentions were to crush nationalism their feasibility within Europe had deteriorated as a direct result of poor politics, poor diplomacy and the Crimean war. Austria was left ally less (the Austrian glove had even lost the iron fist of Russia). The climate within the Austrian borders was also bleak, as Austria had swamped to a level where they were politically stagnant, economically bankrupt and militarily overstretched in trying to keep a stranglehold over its fragile empire. In essence the international setting looked more favourable towards the goal of German unification as there was little or no intervention from Britain or Russia, France were supporting the cause to an extent but only to further their own gains and Austrias decline in power influence and pride left a gaping hole for a viable struggle to begin. Alongside the international setting the biggest role played in the German unification process was that of Prussia and her growth into a major European superpower. Prussia during the 1850 and 1860s flourished into an economic superpower within Europe. Her advance far outshone that of either France or Austria. One of the major developments of the 1850s was Prussias new and modern railway system, which arguably gave the whole nation a foundation onto which they could build and communicate. Some historians state that the railways were Prussias backbone and stemmed the military advances. In just one year alone an additional 3280 km of track was laid and by this Prussia had as fleet of 15000 steam engines with a combined horsepower of 800000. this new railway system came to goods use in the military efforts of Prussia against both France and Austria as it allowed the quick and efficient mobilisation of troops and supplies. An example of this was in the Austro- German states war against Prussia where Prussia moved all of its army to the battlefield in five days opposed to the five weeks it would normally have taken. Alongside the railways the production of other vital resources such as coal iron and steel increased and continued well into the 1860s where coal production rose from 9.7 to 14.7 million tonnes. Prussia at this stage was now producing more coal and iron than any of its European rivals and this echoed in the rise in stock companies from 58 to 172 and the boost in wealth and industry. The growth in Prussias economic level also increased Prussias role as a major European exporter by 1858 Prussia had a surplus of over 17 million marks which they used to fight the war of 1864. Due to this and other factors historians believe that economic advances underpinned military advances JM kaynes quotes that, the German empire was not found on coal and iron but on blood and iron. In prà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½cis it is clear from the evidence that Prussias growth into an economic superpower enabled them to fight the unification struggle. In contrast to the beliefs of JM Kaynes some historians argue that it was not coal and iron but rather blood and iron that led to the eventual unification of Germany. The military advancements were made on two levels initially through re-modelling and having a better-organised army and secondly through the use of new technology such as the needle gun. Bismarck through appointing two key figures in von Roon and Von moltke modernised the army a central command structure was initially introduced which enabled better and improved communications, logistics and enabled supplies and troops to be mobilised efficiently through the use of the railways. As well as this manpower was increased through the implementation of conscription the numbers went from 40000 to 63000 alongside this the service time of a soldier was increased from 1-3 years this resulted in an army which was bonded together, better organised and more professional. The organisation and efficiency of the new army was shown ion the Franco- Prussian war where France managed to mobilise only 200000 troops onto the battlefield in comparison to the 380000 of Prussia. Alongside all these factors the formation of new barracks and regiments gave a greater strength of unity and this unity was illustrated on the battlefield through the execution of new war tactics such as Von Moltkes empty battlefield strategy where his forces would divide into 3 regiments and then would surround the enemy from all sides leaving them in an uncompromising position. Together with structural advances technological advances such as the needle gun, which could be loaded and fired far more swiftly, and effectively than the previous muzzle loaded rifles allowed the Prussians to grasp victory on various occasions. Some historians have the view that it was Prussian soldiers on horseback with rifle and cannon which unified the German states between 1856-71. Concisely the military advances alongside economic growth brought about the unification of Germany. The military and economic advances were propelled through the nature and character of German nationalism and the latent nationalist sentiment which existed in Germany and was simply waiting for someone to ignite it into a flame of nationalist glory. In this case the spark was Bismarck who invoked nationalist sentiment by creating the illusion of a united Germany where in all honesty he was only interested in expanding Prussian interests. Firstly the growth in nationalist press and propaganda enticed and inspired German nationalists and liberals into thinking they had a new leader. Alongside this a sense of unity was arising within Germany itself through the growing number of German societies which were run and completely under the control of Germans. An example of one of these societies was UFL Bochum which was a sporting club established in 1840 by Germans and for Germans. The clubs success is evident as it later became a professional football club playing in the German Bundesliga. These clubs and societies gave the nation a sense of unity and boosted morale. In conjunction with the societies and clubs nationalist themed operas and fables such as The Flying Dutchman and The Brothers Grim again inspired nationalists and liberals and gave the whole a sense of pride and belonging. Bismarck was so influential in raising nationalist sentiment that even the German parliament turned a blind eye to him collecting illegal taxes in the hope that he would unite Germany and then they would push for their liberal and democratic ideals in the formation of Germany. In the final analysis Bismarck exposed latent nationalist sentiment through injecting a sense of unity and through the use of propaganda which together gave the whole nation a point to aspire to and made himself the figurehead who would part the waves and lead the nation there. In conjunction with German nationalism and the aforementioned factors the role of Bismarck was key and arguably the most important role in linking all the factors to bring about German unification. Bismarck never had the intention of uniting the German states he simply wanted to expand Prussian interest within Europe. AJP Taylor summed up Bismarcks role effectively in saying that, he was a Prussian patriot rather than a German nationalist. There are two defined views that historians have on the role of Bismarck some believe that he was an opportunist in that he learnt to take advantages of opportunities which arose on the European frontier and gain the best out of unpredictable circumstances in contrast to this view some historians argue that Bismarck was a master planner in that he engineered events to suit his needs and that he had a clear blueprint of his future aims which may have been influenced by his Junker upbringing and his conservative, autocratic view. What is clear about Bismarck is that he used shrewd diplomacy and his political skill through which he exploited industrial strength in conjunction with other factors such as the favourable international climate in which he played of power against power to good effect. Bismarck on various occasions between 1856 1871 used his political genius to increase Prussian interests whether he had a master plan or not. An example of this was in 1863 when he crushed the polish revolts on his borders in order to ensure that nationalist sentiment did not spill over onto his borders as this would have resulted in his personal conservative and autocratic views would have been challenged. In crushing the revolts Bismarck also gained the friendship of Russia. Later when the issue of the Danish duchies was raised Bismarck went to war with Denmark however enlisted Austrian support this was to show Austria as the major partner if anything went wrong, as well as this the union of two of Europes major superpowers would have prevented any foreign intervention from any other European powers. In 1866 and 1870 Bismarck provoked both Austria and France into going to war with Prussia in Austrias case through mobilising his troops on the Austrian border and forcing an ultimatum from them and engineering the situation so Austria looked the aggressor and therefore preventing French involvement. After winning this war he again provoked France this time by utilizing the issue of the Hollzolleren Candidature to his advantage and through doctoring the EMS telegram he enticed the French into setting an ultimatum which was to back out of the running for the Spanish throne and apologise or go to war. Bismarck refused to apologise and France declared war making themselves look the aggressor in a war which they lost because of a better, more organised Prussian army. Succinctly through Bismarcks success all of Germany looked to him for leadership in the German unification struggle. However Bismarck could not have known how France and Austria would have reacted to his politics nevertheless through his cunning tactics and from knowing that Prussia had a modern and better organised army than its aggressors he united Germany in conservative and imperialistic manner whether he intended to or not and therefore I deem that Bismarck was an opportunist who learnt to gain the best out of circumstances rather than a master planer. In conclusion Germany was united because of a number of interconnected factors such as the growth of Prussia into an economic superpower, which in turn provided the resources needed for the Prussian army to be strengthened to the extent that it could math if not succeed that of any other European power. As well as this the fluctuating international setting which Bismarck used to great effect alongside invoking latent nationalist sentiment to bring about a viable unification struggle and eventually achieve the endeavour of German unification.

The Grand Inquisitor Poem Theology Religion Essay

The Grand Inquisitor Poem Theology Religion Essay The Grand Inquisitor is part of the stories found in the book by Fyodor Dostoevsky entitled Brothers Karamozov. Dostoevsky concerns himself in analyzing the psychological consequences of engaging in crime, and the moral consequences of engaging in such kind of vices. In the grand Inquisitor, the characters question the validity of religion, free will and morality. The main dilemma that these characters ask, is it prudent for man, to observe the laws of religion? The other questions that linger on the minds of these people is whether they should take the role of God, and ignore the various religious believes or traditions. The poet identifies the various degrees of freedom, and this includes positive and negative freedom, rational egoism, Christian idealism, and nihism. He does this through the various characters in his poem the Grand Inquisitor (Dostoyevsky,, Richard and Larrisa, 27). The Grand Inquisitor is based on the idea of freedom and human nature. In the poem, Alysha is a monk, and Ivan questions the benevolence of God. According to the Grand Inquisitor, the notion of freedom does not exist. The Grand Inquisitor observes that people need to be selfish, and by doing that the whole society will benefit. This is because the needs of individuals are the same and complement each other. On this basis, the freedom the Jesus Christ brings to the world is not freedom but slavery. This aspect is denoted in the poem when the Grand Inquisitor tells Jesus that by coming again, he is destroying the church. He further tells Jesus that the devil tempted him with three items, food, power, and divine authority (Dostoyevsky and Constance, 33). For instance, the devil told Jesus to turn stone into bread. According to the Grand Inquisitor, Jesus should have done that. According to him, men will only follow people who feed their bellies. By turning stone into bread, Jesus will demonstrate his ability to feed the multitudes. The Grand Inquisitor further tells Jesus that he should have cast himself down from the temple and caught by angels. This would have demonstrated his godhead abilities, therefore acquiring worship and trust from the people. Finally, the Grand Inquisitor believes that had Jesus accepted to rule over the world, then the world would have seen salvation (Leatherbarrow, 24). On this basis, the Grand Inquisitor accuses Jesus of giving humanity freedom to choose. According to him, the masses do not have the capability of choosing what is right or wrong. This freedom has led to the destruction of mankind. The Grand Inquisitor therefore believes that the freedom that Jesus gave to mankind, by refusing to oblige to the temptations of the devil, was too much for the people. On this basis therefore, the Grand Inquisitor advocates for selfishness of an individual. However, this freedom that comes with selfishness is an illusion, and does not exist in Christianity. The Christian teachings advocate for love, and humanity. For instance, the Inquisitor believes in giving people bread, in exchange of their souls. According to this teaching, the freedom of people will only come through coercion. On this basis, the Grand Inquisitor takes the role of God, instead of man. In my own opinion, the kind of freedom that the Grand Inquisitor advocates for is the negative freedom. The Inquisitor tries to justify his believes by identifying the roles of Satan in providing real freedom. He does this by denoting that the catholic church long left the teachings of Jesus, and followed the teachings of Satan. In his own opinion, freedom that comes from the devil is sufficient in taking care of the needs of humanity. This is because the devil gives authority to the few, who have the capability of handling their freedom. By doing, the devil manages to end the suffering of humanity, and uniting the world, through the church, i.e. the Catholic Church (Crane and Faynia, 19). No matter what justification the Grand Inquisitor gives, this is negative freedom. This is because it is against humanity to act in a selfish manner. For people to stay together, they must satisfy the various needs of others. There is no way leadership by a few people and through coercion can result to the promotion of humanity, and hence positive freedom. This is because people will always be dissatisfied by the selfishness of individuals, resulting to rebellions. Dostoevsky presents the freedom denoted as Christian idealism through the actions of Jesus Christ. For instance, the Grand Inquisitor accuses Jesus of allowing people to choose on what they want and what they donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t want (Davis, Gary, David, John, 28). For instance, the Grand Inquisitor argues that by refusing to accept the temptations that the devil offered to Jesus Christ, he gave mankind the freedom to choose. This is what Christian idealism is all about. To Christians, they have a role to play in their lives, in regard to worshiping God. They can choose either choose to worship God, and achieve eternal life, or to go against God, and be lead to eternal death (Dostoyevsky, 33). The Grand Inquisitor acknowledges these teachings, and he tell Jesus that even though the devil is leading them to death and destruction, the freedom that he gives is for the benefit of humanity. This kind of freedom is the elimination of the free will of individuals, in exchange of providing for their needs, and happiness. In conclusion, Dostoevsky manages to highlight religious bondage in the manner in which the Grand Inquisitor argues about the freedom. The Grand Inquisitor is under religious bondage because of his assumptions that freedom to choose is limited to a few individual. In reality, this is not freedom but bondage. This is because an individual will not have the capability of acting by himself. The person will always live in fear of need, because the authority will fail to provide for her due to disobedience. On this basis, the notion of harmony does not exist; instead individuals are under spiritual bondage, in the name of self-gratification, and self-love.

Middle Eastern Religious Perspectives on Software Piracy :: Computers

Middle Eastern Religious Perspectives on Software Piracy Introduction Illegal software (pirated, illegally copied, etc) in the Middle East is a rampant problem. It is estimated that 74% of software in Lebanon is illegal, while 37% of software in Israel is illegal1. The lack of intellectual property laws has been sited for the problem; even with these laws being introduced it might not resolve the issue. Though joining the World Trade Organization (as many Middle Eastern countries have recently done) forces the countries to officially recognize copyright law will this affect the citizen’s view of copyright? Religion is a fundamental part of the Middle East with some countries laws derived from religious text. I believe by analysis of religious texts and law I can hope to gain perspective into the views on software piracy. I will focus on Jewish law and Islamic Fatwas. Once the religious perspective on copyright is derived I will analysis if the religious perspective holds up to general ethical analysis. My goal is not to judge (e.g. say co pying of software is wrong therefore those who copy software are bad), but rather gain insight into the religious perspectives towards software piracy. Jewish Law (Torah) 'Torah' has the following meanings2: 1. A scroll made from kosher animal parchment, with the entire text of the Five Books of Moses written in it by a sofer [ritual scribe]. This is the most limited definition. 2. More often, this term means the text of the Five Books of Moses, written in any format, whether Torah scroll, paper back book, CD-ROM, sky-writing or any other media. Any printed version of the Torah (with or without commentary) can be called a Chumash or Pentateuch. However, one never refers to a Torah Scroll as a Chumash! 3. The term 'Torah' can mean the entire corpus of Jewish law! This includes the Written and the Oral Law, which includes the Mishna, the Midrash, the Talmud,

To What Extent Was Whig/Liberal Dominance 1846-68 a Result of Their Free Trade Agenda

To what extent was Whig/Liberal dominance in the period 1846-68 a result of their free trade agenda? Between the years 1846 and 1868, the Conservative party was only in power for a total of just under four years – 1852, 1858-97 and 1866-68. Throughout these short-lived periods, they were never able to achieve a majority and this illustrates and defines the extent of Whig/Liberal dominance in this period. Their dominance was without doubt partially as a result of their free-trade agenda, but other factors, such as other policies the grouping made in this period, the gravitation of the Peelites towards the Whigs, the growth of popular Liberalism, the work of specific individuals and the weakness of the Conservatives also caused their dominance in this period. Whig/Liberal dominance in the period 1846-68 was, without doubt, caused to some extent as a result of their free trade agenda. In 1849 the Navigation Acts, which restricted the nationality of ships carrying British trade, were abolished, thereby causing a huge increase in the number of ships carrying British trade and thus, an increase in British exports. The Companies Acts of 1858 and 1862 played vital roles in bringing more investment into Britain as they limited the liability of the ordinary shareholder and laid out precise rules for companies about their registration and accounts. In the period 1859-65, whilst Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer, income tax was reduced from 9d in the pound to 6d in the pound, and only payable by those earning over ? 00 per annum. This meant that ordinary people had more money in their pocket to spend and put back into the British economy. Gladstone also managed to abolish paper duties in 1861, meaning that the cost of newspapers and magazines fell and ordinary people were able to buy them. He also worked consistently to remove almost all duties on imported goods in to Britain. Finally, the Cobden-Chevalier treaty, signed in 1860, was an integral part of the Whig/Liberals’ free trade agenda in this period. Anglo-French relations had been strained in the years leading up to 1860 with French expansion into Italy, and Gladstone agreed with free trader Richard Cobden that signing a free-trade treaty with France would ease the political tension. He was right, and the treaty helped to double British exports to France in the next 10 years as it reduced the duties British manufacturers and coal owners had to pay when importing to France. As Philip Magnus writes in his biography of Gladstone, ‘the repeal of so many duties helped to reduce the cost of living. People had more money in their pocket as a result of the Whig/Liberals’ policy, so naturally supported them. The free-trade agenda helped the emerging Whig/Liberal party to win the support of what had become the largest single grouping within the electorate, the middle classes. This was as a result of the period of prosperity Britain went through, illustrated by the fact that ‘exports rose by 350% between 1842 and 1873. à ¢â‚¬â„¢ The Whig/Liberal grouping was in power for a large amount of this period of prosperity, and so got the credit for it with the electorate. The free-trade agenda was also an important factor in causing Whig/Liberal dominance because it united the grouping. Within the grouping, there were Whigs, Liberals, Peelites and Radicals, representing all shades of the political spectrum from centre-right (Whigs) to left (Radicals) . They were seen as a ‘curious amalgam’ as a result of their different political standpoints, and the unity which the issue of free trade gave the group was vital in keeping it strong and together. The dominance of the Whig/Liberal grouping from 1846-68 was also caused by the other policies the grouping made in this period. They pursued a sensible social policy which affected many areas of life. They made vaccination compulsory to try and eradicate smallpox, and introduced a Factory Act in 1853 which limited working hours for women and children. The Smoke Abatement Act of 1853 played a major part in cutting down on coal and other fumes which were dirtying the air and affecting the environment. The 1857 Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act allowed divorce through regular courts. This made divorce accessible to all, because previously divorces could only be granted in the House of Lords, which was hugely expensive. The Offences against the Person Act of 1861 helped to clarify criminal law and made many parts of it more humane. Finally, the state grant to education increased radically to ? 1. 3 million by 1862, helping to improve the education that children received. The other main area of policy which helped the dominance of the Whig/Liberal grouping was their attitude towards the non-conformists. As I have mentioned above, the middle class had become the largest single grouping within the electorate and many of them were non-conformist. The Anglican Church had a monopoly over religion in Britain, despite the fact that the Religious Census of 1851 showed that almost half the church-goers in England were non-conformists. Therefore, the Whig/Liberals decided to tackle the issue. Their pressure during the 1850s forced universities to open their doors to everyone, not just Anglicans. As John Vincent writes in ‘The Formation of the British Liberal Party’: ‘The non-conformist community†¦had of course traditionally looked to the old Whig party†¦that allegiance was now potentially available to the Liberal Party. The Whig/Liberals, with their positive attitude towards non-conformist grievances, helped win their support, adding to their dominance in this period. However, as Duncan Watts argues, ‘(Palmerston’s) ministry had no obvious domestic policy at all. ’ The Government in this period actually made few significant policy changes, and this leads on to my next point. The Conse rvative Party, as shown often throughout history, thrive when they are able to persuade the electorate that the opposition party have radical tendencies. In this case, nothing of note occurs so the Conservatives were unable to portray the Whig/Liberals being at all radical. This contributed to their weakness in this period. The sustained weakness of the Conservatives in this period also helped to cause Whig/Liberal dominance. As well as the fact that they were unable to portray the Whig/Liberal grouping as radical, they were also weak for a number of other reasons. Firstly, they held limited electoral appeal. This was primarily because they followed a very unpopular policy in the form of protectionism – defending the interests of the landed classes. This was highlighted in Disraeli’s Budget of 1852 which, while pleasing the Conservative backbenchers with its tax breaks on malt, was not popular with anyone else. Also, as Robert Stewart writes, ‘The Conservative Party was, and suffered electorally for being, firmly tied to the agricultural community. ’ The middle classes, in the main, lived in urban areas and the Conservative focus on the countryside did not serve them well. They had poor party unity, and had a big problem in broadening their appeal without losing their traditional support. If they had been able to shed their protectionist reputation and improve their image, then they may have gained some non-conformist middle-class support, but they were not able to and so the Whig/Liberals dominated the period 1846-68. For a generation after the repeal of the Corn Laws, the Conservatives ceased to be a governing party. ’ In 1846, the majority of the ‘talent’ in the Conservative Party – the Peelites – defected to the Whigs in protest at the party’s refusal to commit to freer trade. This meant that the Conservatives were left with ‘n o obvious leader ’ – making them even less of an electoral threat to the Whig/Liberals, but more importantly giving numbers and talent to the Whigs as the Peelites gravitated towards them. The gravitation of the Peelites towards the Whigs is clearly another important cause of Whig/Liberal dominance in the years 1846-68. At any moment any or all of them (the Peelites) would have been welcomed back into the Conservative ranks or assimilated into the Liberal ranks. ’ (Philip Magnus). However, the Conservatives, with their protectionist leanings (as illustrated in the 1852 Budget with tax breaks for the rich) were unattractive to the Peelites, who saw free trade as a key issue. In contrast, the Whigs were far more receptive to free trade, and the Peelites found ‘cohabitation not entirely distasteful’ (Eric Evans) when they decided to from a coalition with the Whigs in 1846 after the collapse of the Conservative government. The two groups shared a progressive nature and a common focus (free trade) so the Peelites decided to join the Whigs. This gave them an edge over the Conservatives both in terms of numbers and talent. Finally, the Peelites wanted to be in power, and realised that the Conservatives were unpopular amongst the electorate, so gravitated towards the Whigs and aided their dominance in the period 1846-68. A fifth key aspect which helps to explain Whig/Liberal dominance in 1846-68 s the role of key individuals, particularly Palmerston, Gladstone and Bright. Firstly, Lord Palmerston was instrumental in setting up the Willis Rooms meeting at which the Liberal Party was officially formed out of the Whigs, Peelites, Liberals and Radicals. Secondly, his ‘immense appeal†¦and powerful presence’ (Stephen Lee) helped to keep the coalition together in its infancy between 1859 and 1865, as well as the fact that he managed to keep all the factions happy because they were all represente d in the Cabinet. The fact that ‘to the man in the street, he personified British patriotism ’ (i. e. Palmerston’s popularity with the electorate), gave the coalition time to fuse. Palmerston’s conservative approach to domestic policy made him difficult for the Conservatives to oppose because they could not portray him as dangerously radical. H However, also very important was Palmerston’s death, which allowed for a truly ‘Liberal’ party to grow under Gladstone, as Palmerston’s policies were not especially liberal. Gladstone himself is another key individual. He ‘breathes life into the dry bones of the Liberal Party’ (Paul Adelman) and this was as a result a number of reasons, mainly during his time as Chancellor (1852-55 and 1859-65). He gained support for the Whig/Liberal grouping with his successful and very popular Budgets. This support came both from the middle classes with his promise to end income tax and general position of aiding free trade, and from the working class with his removal of tariffs on things like paper, which made newspapers accessible to them. His rhetoric spoke well of the working classes, and his noises about parliamentary reform also helped him gain their support. His reputation for sound finance helped him to win the respect of many independent backbench MPs. His sophisticated knowledge, oratorical skill and hard work impressed Parliament and the electorate, whilst he ‘gave to popular Liberalism an identifiable public face with which the Liberal electorate could easily associate’ (Winstanley), thus helping their dominance in this period. The final key individual who aided the Whig/Liberal grouping’s dominance is John Bright, leader of the Radicals. He persuaded all the members of the diverse grouping which were the Radicals to come to the Willis Rooms Meeting in 1859 and eventually to become a part of the Liberal party. He also gave Gladstone his full support as Bright believed that Gladstone would the most progressive leader when Palmerston died, which would be advantageous to the Radicals. To this end, he persuaded Gladstone to cultivate non-conformist links, as well as links with the newly emerging Labour elite, in order to popularise himself outside of the House of Commons. Bright also persuaded various other groups, such as the non-conformists, trade unionists and other Radicals to support Gladstone. This was also because he wanted to ensure Gladstone became leader after Palmerston, and all this explains why Donald Read writes ‘Bright, as much as Gladstone, created the Gladstonian Liberal Party. ’ As shown from the evidence above, key individuals played a major part in the dominance by the Whig/Liberals between 1846 and 1868. A final key factor which caused Whig/Liberal dominance in the period 1846-68 was the growth of popular Liberalism and grass-roots support for it. John Vincent believed that ‘the tail was leading the head’ – that is to say the Whig/Liberal dominance in government was as a result of grassroots support, not the other way round. He thought that this growth was as a result of three main factors: ‘the creation of a cheap daily provincial press, the growth of militant non-conformism, and the rise of organised labour’ (John Vincent). The growth of a cheap press, mainly dominated by Liberal politicians (e. g. the Baines family with the ‘Leeds Mercury’) meant that the Liberals’ message could be spread across the country, and thus helped to build up an ‘articulate, self-conscious, provincial Liberalism’ which helped the dominance of the Whig/Liberals no end. ‘The non-conformists were prepared to place their wealth, their votes – a bloc of 87 non-conformists MPs were returned in 1865 – together with their influence, their zeal and their organising ability at the disposal of the Liberal Party’ (John Vincent). This meant that the Whig/Liberals gained all the helpful features mentioned above as a result of the growth of militant non-conformity, and this helped their position of dominance. The rise of organised labour also helped the Whig/Liberal because, as Vincent suggests, ‘to vote Liberal was closely tied to the growing ability of whole new classes to stand on their own feet’ – the people of organised labour saw the Whig/Liberals as the party to represent them, and thus the Whig/Liberals gained support and votes from this section of the electorate. Thus we can see that the growth of popular Liberalism was a key factor in the Whig/Liberals’ dominance in 1846-68. To conclude, it is obvious that all the factors mentioned above had an important role to play in causing the dominance of the Whig/Liberal grouping. The gravitation of the Peelites towards the Whigs is a key factor because it kept the Conservatives weak in this period. The role of key individuals was also vital because this meant the grouping followed an agenda of free trade, thus winning middle class support. Middle class support was also won with other policies the grouping followed, such as their addressing of non-conformist grievances. The role of key individuals also helped the growth of popular Liberalism because it meant that the electorate had familiar, popular faces to associate the party with. It can also be argued that what the Whig/Liberals didn’t do was crucial to their dominance because they followed a moderate policy, meaning that the Conservatives were unable to portray them as radical. Thus, dominance is both as a result of factors inside Parliament and outside Parliament, but it is clear that the moderate policies and free trade agenda is the most important factor in the Whig/Liberal dominance because the moderate policies and free-trade agenda won the support of the middle classes, made the party popular at grassroots level, meant that the Tories could not portray the grouping as dangerously radical and meant that the Peelites felt that the Whigs were more suitable for them to join than the Conservatives. Thus, free trade and moderate policies is the most important cause of Whig/Liberal dominance between the years 1846 and 1868.

World War One Essays

World War One Essays World War One Essay World War One Essay The Inspectors mannerisms including the way he speaks are different to Birlings to create the most impression on the family and audience. The unfamiliarity of the Inspector could also prove intimidating for Birling, and coupled with the solidarity and purposefulness of the Inspectors persona it is not surprising that he manages to take control of the situation from the beginning. Described as creating an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness, the Inspector grows as the stories of each character are revealed. He remains solid and unbroken as each of them breaks down, and nothing the others can do or say distracts them from this purpose. He arrives at the Birlings home just after Mr Birling has been setting his view of life: that every man must only look out for himself. The Inspectors role is to show that this is not the case. Throughout the play he demonstrates how people are responsible for how they affect the lives of others and his views are summed up in his visionary and dramatic final speech. It is the Inspector who makes things happen. Without him none of the secrets would otherwise come out into the open. The Inspector leads the characters to confront their own weaknesses, which makes them feel shocked and guilty. He is a catalyst for the evenings events. In the Inspectors last speech, he says:   But just remember this. One Eva Smith has gone but there are millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and their chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We dont live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire, blood and anguish. Good night The Inspector performs a very important speech that covers all the main themes of the play, and allows Priestly to get his message across. The speech is very dramatic and is quite similar to a political speech. It is so powerful as he uses words like us and we and memorable phrases like fire, blood and anguish. A part of what Priestley is trying to get across here is we need to use collective responsibility in order to maintain peace in the world. If we dont, then it could result in war, because of personal suffering or as in this case, someone committing suicide. There are no directions or indication as to how the Inspector would have performed this speech. Therefore, I think the speech would have been performed very seriously with a commanding tone, spoken slowly and carefully so the audience would get the full dramatic effect. This way Priestleys aim would come across in a good way. I think the Inspectors speech would have provoked much discussion in the audience because of the powerful language used and because he left the scene directly after making the speech. The audience may discuss amongst themselves whether they agree with the Inspectors speech. If they do, theyd probably feel pleased and if not, theyd feel guilt and shame. I think that this play would have made a strong impact on the audience, as the message was very poignant considering the country had just suffered a Second World War. The Inspectors name Goole, is significant. It is a homonym. Ghoul, another form of the word has exactly the same sound but its meaning has a bearing on the play. A ghoul is an evil spirit. To Birling, and his upper class peers; this is an accurate interpretation of the Inspector. Priestley wants the Inspector to waken the audience; at the time the book was conceived World War II has scarred society. The atrocity of World War I had been relived again; classes were ripped apart, socialism was trying hard to reshape society. The metaphysical aspect of the Inspector is ever evident, no more so when he prophesises World War One:   Fire, blood and anguish  This heightens the enigma surrounding the Inspector. In 1912, when the play was set, it was virtually only rich men who could vote. The poor peoples opinions were virtually unheard as if they were invalid or irrelevant. This was apart of the social system that made Priestley very angry; it was as if the poor didnt really matter. Priestley was very much against this; he was somewhat a revolutionary and fought for equal rights and unity between all people. As it stood the rich would always stay rich and the poor would definitely stay poor, as they had no say in what happened to their country. The rich rarely considered this at all, and never thought something should be done about it. Priestleys play shows this as the Inspector makes everybody responsible for the girls death, this makes them at least think about how their actions can effect others, and makes them realise that no-one should have to go through pain like that just because of their social standing. An Inspector Calls delivers an important message to society. It is a message of mutual responsibility and shows how everyone has a role to play in society, and that we should do as much as we can to help others, because we know what effects our actions will have on their lives. Priestley hoped this play would create unity-making people prevent something before it happened.  The socialist message is delivered through the mouth of the Inspector, who takes on the role of teacher to the Birling family. He hopes to teach them moral values and respect for everyone, no matter how poor.

Definition and Origins of AD, or Anno Domini

Definition and Origins of AD, or Anno Domini A.D. is the abbreviation for Anno Domine, which is Latin for Year of Our Lord. The term has long been used to indicate the number of years that have passed since the birth of Jesus Christ, the lord to which the phrase refers. The earliest documented use of this method of reckoning the date is in the work of Bede in the seventh century, but the system originated with an eastern monk named Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525. The abbreviation comes properly before the date because the phrase it stands for also comes before the date (e.g., in the Year of Our Lord 735 Bede passed from this earth). However, you will often see it following the date in more recent references. A.D. and its counterpart, B.C. (which stands for Before Christ), constitute the modern dating system used by much of the world, nearly all of the west, and Christians everywhere. It is, however, somewhat inaccurate; Jesus was probably not born in the year 1. An alternate method of notation has recently been developed: C.E. instead of A.D. and B.C.E. instead of B.C, wherein C.E. stands for Common Era. The only difference is the initials; the numbers remain the same. Also Known As: C.E., Anno Domine, Anno ab incarnatione Domini Alternate Spellings: AD Examples: Bede died in A.D. 735.Some scholars still consider the Middle Ages to have begun in 476 A.D.