Author: Jeffrey Pitts

The Industrial Revolution was basically the transition to new manufacturing processes. This occurred in Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States. It lasted from about 1760 to 1820–1840. The important technological developments were textiles, steam power, iron making, and the invention of machine tools. These technological changes introduced new ways of working and living, and it completely transformed society.

What was the standard-of-living debate? Well, the debate is about whether the Industrial Revolution raised or lowered the general standard of living. According to investopedia.con, “Standard of living generally refers to wealth, comfort, material goods, and necessities of certain classes in certain areas whereas quality of life is more subjective and intangible, such as personal liberty or environmental quality.” Now, before the Industrial Revolution, several people worked on farms and traded what they made for things that other people made (this is called bartering). After the Industrial Revolution, there was an increase in wealth, the production of goods, and the standard of living. People had access to healthier diets, better housing, and cheaper goods and education increased during the Industrial Revolution. So, the standard-of-living debate is about whether the Industrial Revolution raised or lowered the general standard of living. I say that the standard of living got better, actually, despite all the negatives concerning it.

There were many different arguments that lead up to the abolition of slavery in Britain, and I am going to tell you a little bit about this. William Wilberforce was a key figure in the abolition of slavery in Britain. He wanted to abolish slavery, and over time, like minded figures joined him, which lead to the foundation of the Anti-Slavery Society. Wilberforce continued to give many speeches in the House of Commons. By 1807, Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act. This was a huge step toward his goal, but it only banned slave trade, but not slavery itself. By 1833, however, the wheels were turning for a new piece of legislation to be passed. Sadly, however, Wilberforce died only three days later. This new act banned slavery in Britain as well as in a few other places.

Would In some cases, people can better understand what the author is trying to convey to the reader if the author uses experiences of his or her life. It works better for me. Anyway, this method is very effective in conveying the message of the book to the reader. Some authors do this, but others just leave out examples of their life. Francis Bacon was one of these people. He did not give any experiences of his own life in his essays.

According to Wikipedia, “Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban PC, QC, also known as Lord Verulam, was an English philosopher and statesman who served as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England.” He was born on January 22, 1561 and died on April 9, 1626. He wrote several well known essays. According to Wikipedia, “Essayes: Religious Meditations. Places of Perswasion and Disswasion. Seene and Allowed was the first published book by the philosopher, statesman and jurist Francis Bacon. The Essays are written in a wide range of styles, from the plain and unadorned to the epigrammatic.” His essays were originally published in 1597.  There are lots and lots of themes in Bacon’s essays, for example: adversity and prosperity, married life and single life, parents and children, love, envy, revenge, nobility, unity in religion, goodness, superstition, traveling, atheism, truth, death, simulation and dissimulation, etc. Bacon said he had three goals with these essays, to serve his church, to serve his country, and to uncover truth. According to www.literaturemini.com, “Bacon’s essays are reflective and philosophical. The essay is a series of counsels, It is not an elaborate or discursive development of a particular subject. It is neatly direct and frankly didactic. He is moralist and his essays are meant for men of ambition in the Renaissance, which desired self-realisation.” Bacon also put some moral teachings into his essay. According to www.josbd.com, “His essays suggest us not to seek morality only by leaving practical idea. There is nothing wrong with the mixture of morality and the practical idea together. Just as no ornament is possible with pure gold, some crude metal should be added with it so only morality without practical concept of a thing cannot do.”

Would any of Bacon’s essays have been more persuasive if he had talked about his own experiences? Well, I were to say that if Bacon put his own experiences into his essays, the essays would definitely be more persuasive. The essays would be more persuasive if Bacon put his own experiences of himself into the essays. Like if Bacon had experiences in his life where he used what he wrote about in his essays, and then put that into his essays, the essays would be a lot more persuasive than without his experiences. If he did that, then we could know more about what he meant because he gave us an example of himself using what he wrote about in his essay, and we could understand it better.

Overall, my answer to the topic question is yes, they would.

Should the group in a legislator’s district that got him elected monitor his votes, and recruit someone to run against him in the next primary if he starts voting wrong? Let’s break this down real quick. OK, so lets say a man gets voted mayor of a town, and the mayor does something wrong. Do the people who elected that guy mayor last election have the right to vote someone else the next election (now, this goes with every level of government, not just a mayor)? Of course they do! Nothing is holding them back from voting for a person who is different from the original person they voted for. Now, a man can bribe people to vote for them, but the people have the right to vote for whoever they want. Now, they can vote for whoever they want, but it is the peoples choice who to vote for. Now, I hope people will make the right decision and vote for the good people, but it is their choice. And if you think that the person you voted for originally will be angry at you for not voting for him, do not be scared! It is so dumb to even think that! And if a person says that he will do something, and that helps get him into office, and he does not do it, oh well. Guess you will have to wait for the next election to pick someone else. But if a person says that he will do something and he gets elected, he better do it.

The American and French Revolutions were alike in several ways, but they were also very different from each other. In America, the intent of the American Revolution was to break away from the British government and form their own government in America. In France, the intent of the French Revolution was to change, or even replace the existing government. In America, they just simply rebelled against Britain and refused to live by their laws until eventually America signed the Deceleration of Independence and were finally freed from Britain. In France, it was just a disaster. There was the Reign of Terror, Napoleon coming to power, it was just disastrous. There were more similarities than differences in these revolutions though. For example, both Americans and the French wanted to escape the rule of their king, and the two revolutions were started by an uprising of people against unfair taxation by the monarchy. These were the “big” similarities and differences between these two Revolutions, and there are so much more than what I wrote down. I encourage you to research this topic yourselves and see what you come up with.

According to Wikipedia, “Mary Wollstonecraft was a British writer, philosopher, and advocate of women’s rights. Until the late 20th century, Wollstonecraft’s life, which encompassed several unconventional personal relationships at the time, received more attention than her writing.” Her greatest work was A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. According to Britannica, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is one of the trailblazing works of feminism. Published in 1792, Wollstonecraft’s work argued that the educational system of her time deliberately trained women to be frivolous and incapable.” She also argues that women should be given a better education.

William Shakespeare was an English playwright, actor, and poet. According to Wikipedia, “He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world’s pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England’s national poet and the “Bard of Avon”.” He was born April 1564 and died April 1616. He wrote several plays and works. Some of the more famous ones are Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Hamlet, and The Tempest. He wrote much more plays than this, but these are some of the more well known ones. Shakespeare was a great writer and his works were very well known by the people back then. He wrote plays, tragedies, poems, and sonnets. He is widely considered the greatest writer in the English language.

The King James Bible was an early modern translation of the Bible for the church of England. The publishing of this book was commissioned in 1604 and it was published in 1611. It was sponsored by King James IV and I, hence the name, King James Bible. This book seems too be written by one person, but it was not. In fact, this book was a committee project. It was written by so much more people. This book was written by forty-seven people and six committees. This was a very poetic book. The King James Bible has been described as one of the most important books in English culture. It was also a driving force in the shaping of the English-speaking world. Originally, the King James Bible had thirty-nine Old Testament books, twenty- seven New Testament books, and an intertestamental section between the two Testaments containing 14 books of what most Protestants consider the Apocrypha.

In this essay, I have to find out if Shakespeare plays or the King James Bible is easier to read and understand. So, I have read many of Shakespeare’s plays for my school, and in my opinion, it took me a while to understand Shakespeare’s plays, but once I have gotten used to reading it, I could understand it a lot better. These plays were written in a kind of “form” of writing that most people do not use anymore, so it was really hard for me to follow along with the plays, and I usually need help to understand it.

When I was reading the King James Bible, there were a lot of words that I did not know the meaning to, so it was kind of hard for me to understand it. But I kept reading it and compared the chapters to the same chapter from a different version of the Bible, and I have gotten used to the writing. Now I can understand it a lot easier.

In my opinion, I think the King James Bible is easier to read than Shakespeare’s plays. Shakespeare used a form of writing style that I was not used to, so it was kind of difficult to understand, whereas the King James Bible was also hard to understand, but it was quick and easy to learn to understand the writing, and I was used to the Bible so I knew a lot about what it was talking about.

According to Lumen Learning, “The Estates-General of 1789 was a general assembly representing the French estates of the realm summoned by Louis XVI to propose solutions to France’s financial problems. It ended when the Third Estate formed into a National Assembly, signaling the outbreak of the French Revolution.” So the third estate began the French Revolution by forming into the National Assembly, and that signaled the beginning of the French Revolution.

According to Wikipedia, “The French Revolution was a period of radical political and societal change in France that began with the Estates General of 1789 and ended with the formation of the French Consulate in November 1799.” The French Revolution lasted from 5 May 1789 – 9 November 1799. The French Revolution began when the Estates General was called because of a widespread economic distress in France. This became radicalised by the struggle for control of public finances. Shortly after the Estates General was convened at Versailles, the Third Estate met alone and formally adopted the title of National Assembly. Three days later, they met in a nearby indoor tennis court. It was there that they took the Tennis Court Oath, vowing never to disperse until constitutional reform had been achieved. A little while later, we have the Storming of the Bastille, and then the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Then the king was executed, and the Reign of Terror began. Then we have the Thermidorian Reaction. Eventually, Napoleon Bonaparte came to power, and ended the French Revolution and marking the beginning of the Napoleonic era.

For those of you who do not understand this question, here is a quick description (FYI, this is what I think it is ’cause I do not fully understand it either), what an open meeting is is a meeting where anyone participating in the meeting can talk about any topic and for as long as they like. There are no existing rules governing taking turns, topic adherence, or other constraints on the meeting. This meeting can also be recorded by any means by anyone present.

In my opinion, my answer to this question is no. The police should not be allowed to restrict recording or taping a video in an open meeting. Let me tell you why. In many cases, an open meeting is very important to a lot of people, and they video tape it so that people can watch it later and know what happened. Also, politicians are supposed to be helpful to the people and truthful. In most cases, a politician who is not being truthful does not want the meeting to be recorded, so a politician who does not want the meeting to be recorded is not really being truthful most of the time. So really, if a politician is okay with the meeting being recorded, then the politician has full confidence they will say and do the truth, and hopefully help a lot of people. So, the police should not be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting.

How important is the idea of covenant sanctions in the week’s readings? Well, I have recently began to read the King James Bible, and I must say, this is the most interesting version of the Bible I have ever heard of or read. The King James Bible was an early modern translation of the Bible for the church of England. The publishing of this book was commissioned in 1604 and it was published in 1611. It was sponsored by King James IV and I, hence the name, King James Bible. This book seems too be written by one person, but it was not. In fact, this book was a committee project. It was written by so much more people. This book was written by forty-seven people and six committees. This was a very poetic book.

Here is an exert from Deuteronomy 28:20 KJV: “The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

And here is that same exert from the ESV Bible: “The Lord will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me.“

Here is another exert from the KJV, Matthew 5:13-16: 13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. 14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

And here it is again in the ESV: 13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so thata] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Which translation do you think sounds more poetic? I think the KJV Bible sounds better.

How important is the idea of covenant sanctions in the week’s readings? This past week I read Deuteronomy 28-34, Ruth, Lamentations, and Matthew 5-7. In all of these readings, I found out that a broken covenant brings negative implications, and a kept oath promises inheritance in the future.

Enlightened absolutism was just the belief in Enlightenment-era rationality and the concern for social problems. That, intermixed with the belief in an absolute monarchy or despotism. That is Enlightened absolutism. An example of an enlightened absolutist is Catherine II of Russia. She succeeded in creating enlightened policies.

The constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that led to the American Revolution. Ever since the colonists landed in America, the British tried to control them, because they thought the colonists were still British, but the colonists wanted to be free from Britain. So there was a constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that led to the American Revolution. There were events in which the constitutional dispute was evident, an one of these was the Stamp Act. According to Wikipedia, “The Stamp Act 1765, also known as the Duties in American Colonies Act 1765, was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain which imposed a direct tax on the British colonies in America and required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper from London  which included an embossed revenue stamp.” Well, I bet you can imagine that the colonists were furious at this, so they decided to revolt against this, and not pay the taxes. Then the American Revolution ensued shortly after this.