Northwestern University Admission Essay Help

Northwestern University Admission Essay Help Essay Promts Admission Essay requirements Personal Essay is required for undergraduate admisssions. Applicants to Northwestern complete two essays: the Common Application essay and the Northwestern Writing Supplement essay. The suggested word limit guideline gives you the chance to answer each question in detail, while also challenging you to write in a concise and clear manner. In the Northwestern Writing Supplement, we ask students to explain why they would like to attend Northwestern. This question is intentionally open-ended. You may choose one or several aspects of Northwestern to focus your writing, though the majority of the essay’s content should relate to your own interests or experiences. Admission essay/personal statement prompts Personal essay TIP: Essays are an opportunity – they are one of the few sections of your application that you can manage right now, rather than being dependent on your past performance. Essay writing is an excellent opportunity for personal expression and original thought. Office of Admissions Contacts Office of Undergraduate Admission 1801 Hinman Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 (847) 491-7271   LinkedIn University Ranking for Media ProfessionalsGraduate  #3 for Media ProfessionalsUndergraduate  #5 for MarketersUndergraduate  #9 for Investment BankersUndergraduate  #24 Alumni statistics Where they live Greater Chicago Area 44,925 Greater New York City Area 10,320 San Francisco Bay Area 6,985 Greater Los Angeles Area 5,008 Washington D.C. Metro Area 4,813 Where they work Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine 399 Google 366 Accenture 358 Deloitte 331 IBM 304 What they do Education 13,851 Media and Communication 12,889 Research 10,134 Entrepreneurship 9,009 Healthcare Services 7,773 Consulting 6,757 Marketing 6,711 Operations 6,618 What they studied Economics 12,040 Journalism 9,492 Marketing 7,586 Political Science and Government 7,194 Psychology 6,697 Communication, General 5,607 English Language and Literature/Letters 5,372 History 5,279 What they’re skilled at Public Speaking 22,265 Research 22,152 Leadership 21,725 Social Media 20,276 Management 19,636 Microsoft Office 18,974 Strategic Planning 17,845 Editing 15,918 Daniel Roth Executive Editor at LinkedIn Senior Editor at Fortune Magazine Managing Editor, Fortune.com at Fortune Magazine Senior Writer at Condà © Nast Portfolio BSJ, Journalism, Economics, Linguistics Nancy Kruse Menu Maven and Trend Tracker; President, The Kruse Company Executive Vice President at Technomic, Inc. President at The Kruse Company Contributing Editor at Nations Restaurant News M.A., Film Amy Chen Editor at LinkedIn Online Editor, Travel at Frommers.com Community Manager at LinkedIn Freelance Writer: travel, personal finance, gear, tech, health, how-to at Money magazine, Real Simple magazine, and more B.S., Journalism 2000 – 2004 Liz Ryan Founder and CEO, Human Workplace Columnist, Denver Post at The Denver Post VP HR at USRobotics Vocal coach for Sound of Music at Thompson School District MS, Communications 1990 – 2002   Recommendations to apply I got more than a Computer Science Education at Northwestern Yes, academically, Northwestern is well known to be a challenging school. And, I learned a lot about Computer Science and other subjects. And, I got a lot more out of my 4 years in Evanston. I met my closest friends and partners at NU, including my wife. I made my first web page in the EE computer room. I gained a lot of credibility just from Northwesterns name on my diploma. I learned that I was not cut out to be a professional bassoon player. I played pickup basketball as often as I liked (pretty often.) Im a big fan of higher education in general and an even bigger fan of my alma-mater. If youre curious about NU and want to talk, feel free to connect. Tom Resing Web Communications Consultant Public Speaker, Published Author, Microsoft and Jive SME Yes, academically, Northwestern is well known to be a challenging school. And, I learned a lot about Computer Science and other subjects. And, I got a lot more out of my 4 years in Evanston. I met my closest friends and partners at NU, including my wife. I made my first web page in the EE computer room. I gained a lot of credibility just from Northwesterns name on my diploma. I learned that I was not cut out to be a professional bassoon player. I played pickup basketball as often as I liked (pretty often.) Im a big fan of higher education in general and an even bigger fan of my alma-mater. If youre curious about NU and want to talk, feel free to connect. Web Communications Consultant Public Speaker, Published Author, Microsoft and Jive SME 1993 – 1997, BS

Avogadros Number - Example Chemistry Problem

Avogadros Number Chemistry Problem Avogadros number is used in chemistry when you need to work with very large numbers. Its the basis for the mole unit of measurement, which provides an easy way to convert between moles, mass, and the number of molecules. For example, you can use the number to find the number of water molecules in a single snowflake. (Hint: Its an enormous number!) Avogadros Number Example Problem - Number of Molecules in a Given Mass Question: How many H2O molecules are there in a snowflake weighing 1 mg? Solution: Step 1 - Determine the mass of 1 mole of H2O Snowflakes are made of water, or H2O. To obtain the mass of 1 mole of water, look up the atomic masses for hydrogen and oxygen from the Periodic Table. There are two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen for every H2O molecule, so the mass of H2O is: mass of H2O 2 (mass of H) mass of Omass of H2O 2 ( 1.01 g ) 16.00 gmass of H2O 2.02 g 16.00 gmass of H2O 18.02 g Step 2 - Determine the number of H2O molecules in one gram of water One mole of H2O is 6.022 x 1023 molecules of H2O (Avogadros number). This relation is then used to convert a number of H2O molecules to grams by the ratio: mass of X molecules of H2O / X molecules mass of a mole of H20 molecules / 6.022 x 1023 molecules Solve for X molecules of H2O X molecules of H2O ( 6.022 x 1023 H2O molecules ) / ( mass of a mole H2O  · mass of X molecules of H2O Enter the values for the question:X molecules of H2O ( 6.022 x 1023 H2O molecules ) / ( 18.02g  · 1 g )X molecules of H2O 3.35 x 1022 molecules/gram There are 3.35 x 1022 H2O molecules in 1 g of H2O. Our snowflake weighs 1 mg and 1 g 1000 mg. X molecules of H2O 3.35 x 1022 molecules/gram  · (1 g /1000 mg )X molecules of H2O 3.35 x 1019 molecules/mg Answer There are 3.35 x 1019 H2O molecules in a 1 mg snowflake. Avogadros Number Problem Key Takeaways Avogadros number is 6.02 x 1023. It is the number of particles in a mole.You can use Avogadros number to convert between mass and the number of molecules of any pure substance.If you are given the mass of a sample (such as a snowflake), convert the mass to moles, and then use Avogadros number to convert from moles to molecules.

Why Did the Labour Party Win Power in 1945 and Lose It in 1951 Essay

Why Did the Labour Party Win Power in 1945 and Lose It in 1951 - Essay Example The Labour Party was formed by the agreement of several labour unions to come together to form a political party. Back then, trade unions were powerful organizations and had the solid following of their members in order to push for their interests in one common and solid voice. The Labour Party has had its shares of success and failures since it was first established. The last prime minister representing the Labour Party was Gordon Brown, who took over from Tony Blair, also from the Labour Party in 2007 (Lynch 25-65, 2008). However, one of the most successful victories for the Labour Party in the history of UK elections was in 1945, when the party won its biggest majority, led by Clement Attlee, who was deputy prime minister under the coalition government headed by Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill was the conservative party head, and Prime Minister of Britain, and he was the one who led Britain to victory in the second world war that ended in 1942. Under these circumstances, it w as expected that he would win another term as prime minister in the 1945 elections. However, this was not the case as was dictated by many factors. First, there was the intergenerational difference between the masses and the leaders in power. While the former was made of younger people, many of whom had served in the war, the latter was made up of a minority few of the older generation (Butler and Stokes 1-35, 1974). The older generation was outnumbered due to deaths, emigrations to other countries and resignations. In these circumstances, the masses felt that they were not well represented. The conservative party had a majority of this older generation, while the Labour Party’s leadership was made up of fairly younger people, whom the masses could identify with. This increased the Labour Party’s popularity leading to their landslide victory in 1945. Issues of class also had a hand in aiding the Labour Party win the 1945 elections. The post-second world war environment in Britain was such that majority of the people were trying to rebuild their lives by working in different places to make ends meet. Many of these people were labourers and had to work long hours in order to earn their living. The general feeling was that the then current government was not doing enough to expedite changes that could improve their lives (Heath, Jowell, and Curtice 12-58, 1985). Within this atmosphere, the Labour Party came up with a manifesto that promised to do all these and more for the people. Their campaigns were effective and the people decided to give them a chance, hence a majority voted for the Labour Party. Attlee is considered one of the Labour Party’s most significant figures, because he managed to steer England from more problems during the Second World War by stopping Churchill from carrying out some schemes considered wild and dangerous, both to the United Kingdom and its allies, as well as to its enemies. Attlee was prime minister of UK for 6 years, until 1951, when he lost in the general elections of 1951. However, in his time in office, Attlee affected a lot of changes in the social and economical environment in the UK. For instance, he nationalized many industries that had been privatized, making them out of reach for many regular citizens. These included the steel, electricity, gas, coal, wireless and cable services, aviation, and road and railway industries. Attlee was also the one responsible for nationalizing the Bank of England which still stands to date. Attlee introduced a national health scheme by the passing of the National

INFORNO operating system Research Proposal Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

INFORNO operating system - Research Proposal Example Here, the term varied computing systems involves not just desktop computers but a range of devices such as palm tops, laptops, set-top boxes and other communication equipment. The challenge in writing applications for a distributed and hybrid environment is threefold: firstly, the development environments vary greatly, secondly, systems and the way these systems present resources vary greatly and finally a varied network has varying security and authorization policies that may not necessarily synchronize across the network (vitanuaova.com, nd). Inferno was developed as a successor of Plan 9 OS primarily with the help of Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson in the Bell Labs computing Sciences research centre in New Jersey, USA in 1995 (operating-system.org, 2008). The entire team of INFERNO includes Sean Dorward, Rob Pike, David Pressotto, Dennis Ritchie, Howard Trickey and Phil Winterbottom. The primary motivation behind INFERNO is generating the capability to include a range of everyday use hardware devices into a distributed network. INFERNO OS facilitates the creation and support of distributed services in the new and emerging world of network environments, such as those typified by CATV and direct satellite broadcasting systems, as well as the Internet (Dorward et al 2002). Inferno is designed to accommodate the diverse providers of content and services from equally diverse transport and presentation platforms. From the above discussion it is evident that the main strength of INFERNO lies in its portability across several dimensions. Primarily, it is portable across various processor architectures. Currently it works with Intel x86, Intel XScale IBM Power PC, ARM, SunSPARC and MIPS (vitanuova, nd). Secondly INFERNO is portable across platforms. It can run as either a stand-alone operating system or as an application under the regular operating systems such as Window s and Linux (Dorward, Pike, Pressotto, Ritchie, Trickey and Winterbottom, 2002). Inferno's underlying architecture, the STYX protocol is the reason behind Inferno's interoperability. The protocol has been designed such that all communication is essentially handled through the file system which is very similar to UNIX OS (electronicdesign, 2000). Almost all of the INFERNO's capabilities and functionalities are based on Limbo, which is the programming language of Inferno. The primary reason for choosing Limbo to support INFERNO is because of its ability to support distributed computing. Multi-tasking is supported directly by the Limbo language. It supports multi-tasking with the help of independently scheduled threads that can be spawned, and coordinated which enable communication between tasks. It supports modular programming, strong type checking, interprocess communication, automatic garbage collection and simple abstract data types (Ritchie, 2005). Another motivation behind Limbo is its similarity to commonly used languages such as C and PASCAL (Dorward et al, 1997). So, if one needs to port INFERNO from one hardware or a system to another all one has to do is to modify a few hardware dependent functions. This is how it turns out to be an excellent operating system for all types of hardware and distributed computing. The system can be used to build portable client and server applications

Johnson vetoed the first and second reconstruction acts Essay Example for Free

Johnson vetoed the first and second reconstruction acts Essay The impeachment of the 17th president of the United States, Andrew Johnson was a key event in the history of Reconstruction as well as in the history of our nation. In the spring and summer of 1864, it seemed unlikely that Abraham Lincoln was going to be reelected. Not only had the war been going rather badly for the Union, but a president had not been reelected in the past thirty years and it was almost understood that Lincoln would follow that form. One of the ways in which Lincoln helped himself to get elected, as well as planning for the time in which the North and South would need to be reconciled to each other, Andrew Johnson, representative from the border state of Tennessee was selected. Johnson was a Southerner but he hated with a passion, his countrymen from the south who left the Union and despised them. However, despite his hatred for the Southern aristocrats, which Johnson had blamed for the Civil War, he certainly was no friend to the African American and this apathy towards their plight would be seen in one veto after another. Johnson also vetoed the Freedman’s Bill which sought to ensure that the newly freed African Americans would have land and a chance to make a new life for them and to ease the transition from a life of slavery to one of freedom. All of the above mentioned, led to the first impeachment of an American President. The radical Republicans became increasingly frustrated at the rate in which President Johnson was vetoing everything that they had worked so hard to form as it was their goal to make sure that the Civil War was not fought in vain. President Johnson, in the minds of the Radical Republicans and an increasing number of other representatives in both Houses of Congress, started to see Johnson as the enemy. When President Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, it was seen as the last straw and impeachment procedures begun. However, even though Johnson escaped formal impeachment by a single vote, his hopes for a second term, and his first full term, vanished as he was now seen in league with the Southerners whom he had previously professed to hate. When Andrew Johnson was selected by President Lincoln as his running mate in the 1864 election, many Republicans, especially radical Republicans like Thurlow Weed and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, were very suspicious of Johnson’s motives as he was from Tennessee. Their fear left when Johnson expressed his hatred towards the aristocratic land owners of the South, whom he had faulted for the start of the war in the first place. However, suspicion soon returned when Johnson made his feelings know concerning the need for Reconstruction in the first place: â€Å"Those states have not gone out of the Union. Therefore reconstruction is unnecessary. † This would be a theme that Johnson would keep through his formal responses concerning his multiple vetoes. Johnson was either hopelessly optimistic about the plight of the African Americans in the South, apathetic, or purposely took on a mission to help the white farmers against what he considered the legislation of the reformers to be in aid of the black farmer over the white. When Congress met in December of 1865, the first time that both Houses had met since the death of President Lincoln, only Mississippi had failed to adopt the lenient measures that both President Lincoln and Johnson had put in place in order to ease the transition of the South back into the Union. When it was realized that the Southern legislations had placed African Americans in a sort of quasi slavery through the restrictive black codes, Radical Republicans were enraged and sough to instill within the southern states, a series of laws which would ensure and forever protect the rights of the African American as it was their legal rights that were to be protected, the Union had the ability to ensure that these rights were enforced by their military presence in the area and to make sure that the Civil War was not fought in vain. These were the motivations of the Radical Republicans and it soon became clear, that such goals were in direct conflict with the motivations of President Johnson. The trouble between Congress and President Johnson began in February of 1866 with the veto of the Freedman Bill. The original bill had been passed in March of 1865 and it was up for its yearly renewal. The bill called for the redistribution of land to the freedmen, provided schools for their children and set up courts which were reinforced by the military which ensured that these laws would be carried out. President Johnson did not see the need for such expenditures and called it too expensive and unconstitutional. â€Å" I share with Congress the strongest desire to secure to the freedmen the full enjoyment of their freedom and property and their entire independence and equality in making contracts for their labor, but the bill before me contains provisions which in my opinion are not warranted by the Constitution and are not well suited to accomplish the end in view. † Since then, it has become clear by historians that this was not the true motivation of President Johnson. â€Å"President Johnson sought to return African Americans to a state of the oppressive and restrictive black codes. In being an enemy of the large land owners of the South, he still was no friend to the African American. † Also, there seemed to be a sense of ignorance concerning the condition of the African American in these southern states. Upon closing his formal reply in this veto, President Johnson said: â€Å"It is hardly necessary for me to inform Congress that in my own judgment most of these states, so far, at least, as depends upon their own action, have already been fully restored and are to be deemed as entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights as members of the Union†¦Ã¢â‚¬  This would mean, and it would be a common theme that would be seen in many of President Johnson’s responses to repeated measures by Congress to expand or protect the rights of the African America, that President Johnson would not be aiding in any legislation which helped to protect the rights of the African American, despite his aforementioned statements. The next measure which put President Johnson at odds with the Congress was his veto of the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. The Civil Rights Bill was put in place as a reaction the oppressive Black Codes which the South had implemented in order to return African Americans to as close to their previous slavery conditions as possible. Within these codes, African Americans were given a curfew, were not allowed to carry guns, serve on a jury or congregate with other African Americans in a group to name a few of the provisions. The Civil Rights Bill would later be used as a stepping stone for the 14th amendment which said that all persons born in the United States are therefore citizens and as a result, are entitled to equal protection under the law. In his veto of the 1866 Civil Rights Bill, President Johnson stated: â€Å"This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights†¦Ã¢â‚¬  It was believed by the Radical Republicans that such beliefs were not only overly optimistic and ignorant of the current situation in the South, they were simply wrong. The Congress would override Johnson’s veto on the Freedman’s Bill and sought to do the same here. However, President Johnson continued to veto every bill that dealt with Reconstruction and further alienated himself from both Houses of Congress. 1867 would not be a kind year in the Johnson Administration. On March 2nd of that year, President Johnson vetoed the first of two Reconstruction Acts that would be presented to him. The Reconstruction Bill stated that in order for the previous laws to be enforced within the Southern States, the South would be divided up into military districts and put under a type of martial law, depending upon the severity of those who ignored the law. Again, President Johnson vetoed the bill as he saw it to be unnecessary. â€Å"This is a bill passed by Congress in time of peace. There is not in any one of the states brought under its operation either war or insurrection. The laws of the states and of the Federal government are all in undisturbed and harmonious operation. † This certainly was not the case but it would seem to be out of the character of President Johnson if he ever recognized the grave state that the African Americans were under within the South. President Johnson seemed to be oblivious towards this fact and his voting record surely did reinforce this notion. In March of 1867, President Johnson would veto his second Reconstruction Act which provided for military commanders to reconstruct the Southern states into states which would recognize the rights of the African American by force if necessary. In his veto, President Johnson again stated the lack of need for such pieces of legislation. â€Å"The existing Constitution of the ten States conforms to the acknowledged standards of loyalty and republicanism. Indeed, if there are degrees in republican forms of government, their constitutions are more republican now than when these States, four of which were members of the original thirteen, first became members of the Union. † President Johnson will always assert a sort of â€Å"lassie faire† notion towards the South; a notion that is in direct conflict with the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate and especially with regards to the very vocal Radical Republicans. Throughout 1867, The House Judiciary Committee, further irritated by Johnson’s repeated vetoes, sought to find some illegal activity in which to possibly impeach the President. However, upon their investigation, there was no evidence in which to do this. However, later that year, on August 12, 1867, President Johnson removed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Stanton certainly was no friend of Johnson and there was no love loss between them. Stanton repeatedly undermined the President at every turn and President Johnson viewed Stanton as a hold over of the Lincoln Administration and not loyal to his administration. As a result of the firing, which was in violation of the Tenure of Office Act, eleven articles of impeachment were brought against the president. Ironically, it was this very law which President Johnson had vetoed earlier that year on March 2, 1867 in which he said: â€Å"The question, as Congress is well aware, is by no means a new one. That the power of removal is constitutionally vested in the President of the United States is a principle which has been not more distinctly declared by judicial authority and judicial commentators than it has been uniformly practiced upon by the legislative and executive departments of the Government. † President Johnson had overplayed his hand and formal articles of impeachment would be brought to him. On February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Johnson. Congress. The formal reason was the firing of Stanton but in reality, President Johnson’s refusal to adhere to the political flow of Congress, which at that time, sought to regulate by force if necessary, the Southern states into submission on the issues of securing the rights of African Americans. However, a President could only be impeached if he was guilty of â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors† as it states in the Constitution. Article I of the Impeachment document formally spelled out his charge of high crimes and misdemeanors: â€Å"That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War†¦.. † The impeachment committee was made up of all Radical Republicans: Thaddeus Stevens, Benjamin Butler and James Wilson, the most notable of the cast. Johnson’s defense, as President Johnson was never present at the hearings, was Henry Stanberry, William Evarts and Benjamin Curtis as well as Jeremiah Black who would later resign from the hearings. On the first day of the trial Johnson’s defense team asked for a forty stay since they had not been given enough time to gather up their defense. The trial, which was processed over by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, a former member of President Lincoln’s cabinet, allowed a stay of only ten days. Another six day extension was voted upon by the Senate and granted. On March, 30, the trial began in which Benjamin Butler, former Union General, talked for three hours in which he lambasted the President for his violation of the Tenure of Office Act and the fact that even that the President had given orders to subordinates of General Grant before even allowing him to see and review them. The defense opened by stating that President Johnson had not violated the Tenure of Office Act with the firing of Secretary of War Stanton and that Stanton had tried everything in his power to undermined the President at every turn. Also, the fact that President Johnson had not reappointed Stanton meant that his office was not under the protection of the Tenure Act. The prosecution called other witnesses but in the end, proved unhelpful. The prosecution added further charges to the President. Article VIII stated: â€Å"That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, with intent unlawfully to control the disbursement of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War, did unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, , and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States†¦ there being no vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and with intent to violate and disregard the act aforesaid, then and there issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority. The charges went further in order to prove that the firing of the Secretary of War was done with premedidation. Article IX states: â€Å"That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take, and possess the property of the United Sates in the Department of War, and then and there in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary for said Department, contrary to the provisions of an act entitled An act to define and punish certain conspiracies, approved July 31, 1861, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office. † It would also be the vocal opinions of the Radicals which helped the country to come to this stage in the first place. Charles Sumner stated that his objections with the President came from his many vetoes. † Andrew Johnson is the impersonation of the tyrannical Slave Power. In him it lives again. He is the lineal ancestor of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis. And he gathers about him the same supporters. Original partisans of slavery North and South; habitual compromisers of great principles; maligners of the Declaration of Independence politicians without heart; lawyers, for whom a technicality is everything, and a promiscuous company who at every stage of the battle have set their faces against Equal Rights; these are his allies. It is the old troop of slavery, with a few recruits, ready as of old for violence cunning in device and heartless in quibble† Senator John Sherman voted to impeach the President because, he had abused his power and in his words: â€Å"Armed by the Constitution and the laws, with vast powers, he has neglected to protect loyal people in the rebel States, so that assassination is organized all over those States, as a political power to murder, banish and maltreat loyal people, and to destroy their property. All these he might have ascribed to alleged want of power, or to difference of opinion in questions of policy, and for these reasons no such charges were exhibited against him, though they affected the peace and safety of the nation. â€Å" However, there would be members of Congress which would come to his defense. One such member was William Fessenden who stated in his defense: â€Å"To the suggestion that popular opinion demands the conviction of the President o these charges, I reply that he is not now on trial before the people, but before the Senate. In the words of Lord Eldon, upon the trial of the Queen, I take no notice of what is passing out of doors, because I am supposed constitutionally not to be acquainted with it. And again, It is the duty of those on whom a judicial task is imposed to meet reproach and not court popularity. The people have not heard the evidence as we have heard it. † Lynman Trumble would also concur by stating in his formal decision: â€Å"What law does this record show the President to have violated? Is it the tenure of office act? I believe in the constitutionality of that act, and stand ready to punish its violators; but neither the removal of that faithful and efficient officer, Edwin M. Stanton, which I deeply regret, nor the ad interim designation of Lorenzo Thomas, were, as has been shown, forbidden by it. Is it the reconstruction acts? Whatever the facts may be, this record does not contain a particle of evidence of their violation. Is it the conspiracy act? No facts are shown to sustain such a charge†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The trial had commenced and now a formal vote would be needed in order to either convict of acquit the President. In the end, senators who voted for his guilt numbered 35 and those for his innocence was 19 which was one shy of the necessary 2/3 vote needed from the senate. The Radical Republicans had gambled and lost and the zeal that the country had for Reconstruction, would eventually end with the Great Compromise of 1877. A quasi form of slavery would impede the African American from experiencing his equal treatment under the law and as a result, future laws which would be used. Jim Crow laws and grandfather clauses kept African Americans from the polls and placed their previous masters, as masters again. Also, the hopes that President Johnson had for reelection were gone and General Grant would follow him in two lackluster terms as President. It was a sad chapter for the President as well as the Presidency as a whole. Such events make historians wonder how the country would have been different had President Lincoln never been assassinated. Tempers among North and South might not have come to a head as they did and most accurately, African Americans would not have had to wait as long as they did for equal treatment under the law. The choice of Andrew Johnson for Vice President had consequences for the Union which could not have been seen when President Lincoln first appointed him as the Vice President in 1864. Only unhelpful speculation can possibly answer what the make up of this country and race relations for the forty years after the end of the Civil War would have looked like, had President Johnson, in the spirit of â€Å"malice towards none and charity for all. † Nobody will ever know. WORKS CITED Commanger, Henry Steele Documents of American History. New York: Century Press. 1947 Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Team of Rivals. New York: Simon Schuster 2006 Reconstruction and the Courts New York: PBS American Experience 2003 http://www. impeach-andrewjohnson. com/ Downloaded on June 5, 2007.

Employment Problems in the US Essay -- Work Corporation Job Loss Unemp

Employment Problems In The U.S. Downsizing, restructuring, rightsizing, even a term as obscure as census readjustment has been used to describe the plague that has been affecting corporate America for years and has left many of its hardest working employees without work. In the year 2001 we had nearly 1.8 million jub cuts, that’s almost three times as much as the year 2000(Matthew Benz). In the 1990's, one million managers of American corporations with salaries over $40,000 also lost their jobs. In total, Fortune 500 companies have eliminated 4.4 million positions since 1979 including the 65,000 positions cut in February of 2002 (Ellen Florian). Although this downsizing of companies can have many reasons behind it and cannot be avoided at times, there are simple measures a company can take to make the process easier on the laid-off employees and those who survive with the company. There are many reasons why a company might need to downsize. In today's corporate America, it is a plain fact that far fewer employees are necessary to maintain a successful operation. Many times, it is the case where a technological advance or breakthrough makes it possible to replace a previously human job. It is also an all-too-common scenario that outside influences such as sudden shifts in the market or changed government policies force corporate executives to make coinciding decisions regarding their staff and these external changes. The fall in interest rates and energy prices have helped companies control spending in the economic recession, but controlling these costs has taken some of the focus away from there employees and satisfying there wants and needs (Economist Vol. 362). Yet another problem facing the employment of our citizens. Another one of the major problems in today's business world are the salaries being paid to the workers. Since employers are not paying their workers high wages, the workers have little to put back into the economy. Some cities have decided to make mandated pay raises for employees who have been with firms for so many years. It would also guarantee that employees make well above poverty levels to insure that more money is being put back into the economy (Eric Roston). This causes the system to plummet and forces companies to downsize to keep from going under. Wall Street firms cut positions in order to bring the Dow Jones Security ... ...ortunities for growth and skill development. After a restructure, there are many ways an employee can grow vertically and horizontally within their company. Since so many positions are eliminated in such a process, the remaining employees sometimes need to learn new skills and adapt to handling greater amounts of work than ever before. While this may be an inconvenience at first, these skills and abilities can assist these people in future job searches.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The downsizing process is a fact of life. It affects all people from managers to laid off employees and their families as well as those who remain with the company. It is something that will continue to occur with no end in sight. As long as our world market continues to grow, so too will the concept of downsizing grow. This process can lead to psychological problems, and creates anxiety and frustration for those of both ends of it. This is a problem that most likely will not have an easy solution, or at least not any time soon. It is something that we all must deal with in one way or another, and as for the victims of downsizing, the only thing they can do is try to piece their lives back together and hope for the best.

Global History †Famines in India and China Essay

The 1876-1879 and 1896-1902 famines in India and China were some of the worst famines the world had ever seen up until that point in time (Rouse Lecture). In China and India from 1876-1882, the estimated mortality was between 31 and 61 million (Davis 2001: 7). If the British and the Chinese governments had made simple changes in their policies regarding India and China, the results of the famine would not have been so catastrophic. In this paper I will analyze, Davis’ argument that â€Å"Millions died, not outside the ‘modern world system,’ but in the very process of being forcibly incorporated into its economic and political structures. They died in the golden age of Liberal Capitalism†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Davis 2001: 9). Almost contrary to that he argues that â€Å"many were murdered†, emphasizing that â€Å"‘millions die’ was ultimately a political choice† and that â€Å"imperial policies towards starving ‘subjects’ were often the exact moral equivalents of bombs dropped from 18,000 feet. † (Davis 2001: 22). I will aim to analyze these relating to British dealings with India, Western dealings with China, the broader development of imperialism and industrial capitalism from the late eighteenth century to the early years of the twentieth century, and also Marks’ claim that there is never such a thing as a purely â€Å"natural† disaster? In 1876, a disastrous famine hit India, starting with an El Nino-induced drought that halted crop production. However, the situation rapidly got worse: due to the inadequacy, there was a major surge in food prices. The vast amounts of Indian grain exports to Great Britain prompted grain speculation, which further raised the price of grain. As prices crept up, the poor could not afford to buy grain, a dietary staple. Furthermore, in 1865, wheat exports to Britain numbered 308,000 quarters. Climate also played an important role in the 1876 famine: El Nino pacific currents brought heavy rains and flooding to some parts of India, but severe drought to others (Rouse Lecture). In fall 1877, the arrival of heavy rains, instead of alleviating the drought, brought malaria-carrying mosquitoes that killed thousands (Davis 2001: 49). There were many responses to the growing famine. The British followed Malthusianism: land does not have a natural carrying capacity. Furthermore, in the few instances when the British distributed aid, they refused it to those unable to work (Davis 2001: 36). In 1896, another famine began due to a failed monsoon and the lack of a substantial 1896 crop (Davis 2001: 142). Grain prices rose again; there was no stored grain to rely on: the excess shipped to England to make up for shipping deficits. People hated the poorhouses: the food they provided was dry flour, salt, and dirt; moreover, as soon as rains fell, the British pushed the poor out of the relief camps (Davis 2001: 147, 158). The British downplayed the famine; overseas, they created stories and paintings that depicted the British as saviors (Davis 2001: 155-56). Finally, by the late 1890s, the British focused their attention on South Africa and India was left to deal with her own problems (Davis 2001: 165). While the famine was happening there were certain British policies that intensified famine in India. The newly constructed railroads, portrayed as agents that could bring relief to the famine were used by the British to build up the inventories for export goods. (Davis 2001: 26). In legislation methods, by the Vernacular press Act, there was see a denial and hiding of deaths saying they’re other diseases, than the famine and also the approval of Anti Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prevented the upper class Indians from helping. (Davis 2001: 34 & 39). Also relief efforts turned away people who could not perform hard labor(Davis 2001: 25 – 36). Seeing that millions had died the British did try to â€Å"prevent† famine again by setting up famine relief and insurance fund had been established in 1878 (Davis 2001: 141). They integrated Burma’s rice surpluses into imperial system. Laid more railroad (financed by Famine Relief Fund) (Davis 2001: 142). But there were many things they chose to overlook, particularly that they didn’t do anything about poor relief or the inflation in the prices of standard goods. They also didn’t spend any money on slum sanitation, which resulted in the Bubonic Plague (Davis 2001: 148). The 1876 famine in China was preceded by the worst Chinese drought in 200 years (Rouse Lecture). In previous famines, the Chinese state would provide generous aid; however, civil war threatened the Qing dynasty. As a result, they put all extra money into the military, as opposed to social welfare. Moreover, the First Opium War severally disabled the power of the Chinese state (Rouse Lecture). The British were known to grow opium in India and then shipping it to China in exchange for other goods the English were in need of. The Chinese administration had been trying to end this now flourishing trade for decades but were unsuccessful I their attempts. This system of trade caused considerable economic damage by the drainage of cash silver from the country to pay for the illegal imports apart from increasing corruption and voluntary unemployment. (Davis 2001: 12) Finally fed up and frustrated with the way the economy was plunging, the emperor too some drastic measures leading to the execution of important individuals involved in the trade (Rouse Lecture). Also the attacking the evil foreign ships in the harbor by the new Commissioner in the area sparked off a bitter battle between the two which ended in the defeat of the Chinese. The 1842 Treaty of Nanjing forced China to pay indemnities to Great Britain and to open up ports for British use: consequently, the Chinese could not give money to relief. (Davis 2001: 12) Furthermore, the Chinese moral economy had turned into a more capitalistic one by the time of the famine. The British, through the illegal trade of opium, instilled an individualistic profit-maximizing outlook on the economy. As a result, the poor received very little aid. Additionally, landowners began to use land to produce commercially crops, leaving even less land for peasants to work on: (empire financially and left bitterness over the relationship between the government and Rouse Lecture). Then came the Second Opium War in the years 1856-1860. This had nothing to do with opium but rather the fundamental problem of imperialism, competition. Other countries are starting to make trade-treaties with China (in other words, Britain isn’t the only imperial power), which leads to Britain wanting to renegotiate Treaty of Nanking and again making it more favorable to them. (Davis 2001: 12) They want to ensure their most favored nation status. They demand to open all Chinese ports, legalize opium trade, exempt imports from duties and again war breaks out and results in Treaty of Tientsin (1858) which again leads to the loss of China and meeting the demands of the British. The Taiping Rebellion, in which millions died, was a massive revolt against the monarchy of the reigning Qing Empire in China. Basically people are devastated and frustrated about China’s defeat in First Opium War and the reaction of the Qing leaders as ineffective and corrupt. Also the1850s flooding causes peasants to lose homes, and they join rebels. The movement was headed by Hong Xiuquan, an unorthodox Christian convert who declared himself the new Messiah (Davis 2001: 12 – 13). The government starts to take note and tries to stop them but Hong and their followers established the Kingdom of Taiping – â€Å"Kingdom of Heavenly Peace† on the basis of a classless society with wealth distribution. But holding their territory against imperial and foreign forces had become virtually impossible which led to their downfall. Almost inspired by this came the Boxer Uprising where a few radicals gathered around Beijing and tried to besiege the embassies of imperialists, as they were tired of the foreign dominance (Davis 2001: 13). The Chinese empire was extremely successful at preventing famine causalities in the past. Landowners and merchants refused aid from missionaries, convinced they would convert the Chinese in payment (Rouse Lecture). The Chinese government should also have cut the taxes: by attempting to gain money, the government stopped the poor from buying food. Finally, if China had limited their military budget they would have been able to keep up famine prevention measures. Both famines in India could have been easily averted by the British had they made certain changes. Lytton did not allow local governments to stockpile grain (Davis 2001: 29). Furthermore, the northwest provinces, historically a subsistence-based system, turned into a commercial system under the British: in order to restore British grain prices, grain was exported to Britain (Davis 2001: 51). If more grain had remained within the country, prices would not have risen so high in the first place. Yet at the same time, many of India’s maharajas gathered grain to sell at high prices, just like the British (Davis 2001: 50-51). Furthermore, the British insisted on collecting taxes from the impoverished rural farmers, who could barely make ends meet (Davis 2001: 50). There were certain social ideas, models and dilemmas that the British were the forerunners for. One of them was the idea of Liberal capitalism; which basically means that the society is based on the principles of capital in its various forms and that almost everything in the society had a price and could be obtained through capital. This idea of gaining capital led to the idea of obtaining it quickly, which came to the idea of imperialism, which was to use up the natural resources of foreigners towards ones own needs. Apart from that great thinkers like Adam Smith said, â€Å"famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconvenience of dearth. † (Davis 2001: 31) which gave base to the idealistic imperialist plans, which were never really implemented. Around the time the idea of Social Darwinism came about which gave imperialists reasons to conquer new territories without worrying about the ethical issues as now they thought that it was just meant to be, as described in Rudyard Kipling’s â€Å"White Man’s Burden† (1899); which came up again at the time. If the British and Chinese governments had implemented these slightly different changes in India and China, the famines’ effects would not have been nearly as catastrophic. China’s numerous rebellions such as the Taiping and Boxer Rebellions wouldn’t have happened: there would be an extremely limited foreign presence in China and its people would not have been unable to provide for themselves. Without foreign influence, famine prevention measures would have been greater than those of the West would have been.