Why was the Thirty Years War fought?

The Thirty Years War is a series of wars fought between 1618 to1648 for reasons that range from religious to territorial. It devastated most of Europe especially Germany and ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It began with the resistance of Protestant nobles in Bohemia against the Hapsburgs, the family which headed the Holy Roman Empire. Since its beginning, political affiliations among states played a role in the causes and the outcomes of the series of wars. When the war started, the German Protestants allied with Austria. They were defeated by another alliance, that of Brussel and Spain, which was sent by King Ferdinand II. In 1625, Denmark renewed the war but was defeated by General Wallenstein's army, also sent by Ferdinand. Wallenstein was a Bohemian, but who sided with the Roman Empire in return for the spoils of war. The final phases of the war were initiated by Denmark, Sweden and France, all of whom were led to the fray in concern with the increasing Hapsburg power in their territories. The Peace of Westphalia, two treaties which ended the war, returned the German states which were seized by the Holy Roman Empire in the duration of the war to their former rulers. It also allowed them to practice and choose their religions. Countries like Switzerland and Netherland were granted independence. The treaty introduced religious tolerance and ended religious warfare. Matters could have been resolved earlier during the conflict, avoiding the death and destruction that it inflicted upon the affected countries has the Holy Roman Empire been not driven by ambition and greed for more land. The reason why states waged the wars against the empire was their fear of the increasing power of the Hapsburg over Europe threatening their very borders. King Ferdinand could have also appeased the Protestants within Germany; that he would leave them alone, way before the war expanded outside Germany. Reference The Columbia Encyclopia, (2001) Sixth Edition, 2001-2007. Columbia University Press. Retrieved on May 21, 2008. http://www. bartleby. com/65/th/ThirtyYe. html.

Greenhouse Gasses

Greenhouse Gasses Greenhouse Gases The results from the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the cause of global warming. To make the world more habitable for humans and animals, the greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring part of the earth's climate. There is a natural balance in the incoming solar radiation that heats up the earth, which in turn emits an infer-red radiation. The maintenance of this natural balance, which keeps tempatures at a necessary level to support life, depends on continual process of generation and removal of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.Increased levels of greenhouse gases have come from the changes in living standards, industrialization and population growth. Most of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases have a long lifetime and they are accumulating in the atmosphere faster then they can be naturally removed. Due to the increased greenhouse gases from the earth ecosystem not being able to soak the gases up fast enough lead to the changes in climate patterns.Absorptions bands in the Earth's atmosphere create...The change that occurs will not be uniform around the world such that the raise in temperature will be smaller at the equator and greater at the poles and will be accompanied by an increase in average rainfall. Potentially serious changes have been projected such as floods, extremely high temperatures, and droughts. Projections also include less severe floods and droughts. With the variability of the regions other environmental consequences have occurred such as increased fires, pest outbreaks and changes to the spread of disease as well as the changes in the ecosystem composition, structure and functioning.The greenhouse gases are radioactively active gases that comprise on average less then one percent by volume of the atmosphere. The largest natural greenhouse gas is the water vapor that varies in concentration over short time frames. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and...

Profile of Civil War Lt General Ulysses S. Grant

Profile of Civil War Lt General Ulysses S. Grant Hiram Ulysses Grant was born April 27, 1822, at Point Pleasant, Ohio. The son of Pennsylvania natives Jesse Grant and Hannah Simpson, he was educated locally as a young man. Electing to pursue a military career, Grant sought admission to West Point in 1839. This quest proved successful when Representative Thomas Hamer offered him an appointment. As part of the process, Hamer erred and officially nominated him as Ulysses S. Grant. Arriving at the academy, Grant elected to retain this new name, but stated that the S was an initial only (it is sometimes listed as Simpson in reference to his mothers maiden name). Since his new initials were U.S., Grants classmates nicknamed Sam in reference to Uncle Sam. The Mexican-American War Though a middling student, Grant proved an exceptional horseman while at West Point. Graduating in 1843, Grant placed 21st in a class of 39. Despite his equestrian skills, he received an assignment to serve as quartermaster of the 4th US Infantry as there were no vacancies in the dragoons. In 1846, Grant was part of Brigadier General Zachary Taylors Army of Occupation in southern Texas. With the outbreak of the Mexican-American War, he saw action at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. Though assigned as a quartermaster, Grant sought out action. After taking part in the Battle of Monterrey, he was transferred to Major General Winfield Scotts army. Landing in March 1847, Grant was present at the Siege of Veracruz and marched inland with Scotts army. Reaching the outskirts of Mexico City, he was brevetted for gallantry for his performance at the Battle of Molino del Rey on September 8. This was followed by a second brevet for his actions during the Battle of Chapultepec when he hoisted a howitzer to a church bell tower to cover the American advance on the San Cosmà © Gate. A student of war, Grant closely watched his superiors during his time in Mexico and learned key lessons that he would apply later. The Interwar Years After a brief postwar stint in Mexico, Grant returned to the United States and married Julia Boggs Dent on August 22, 1848. The couple ultimately had four children. Over the next four years, Grant held peacetime posts on the Great Lakes. In 1852, the he received orders to depart for the West Coast. With Julia pregnant and lacking funds to support a family on the frontier, Grant was forced to leave his wife in the care of her parents in St. Louis, MO. After enduring a harsh journey via Panama, Grant arrived at San Francisco before traveling north to Fort Vancouver. Deeply missing his family and the second child who he had never seen, Grant became discouraged by his prospects. Taking solace in alcohol, he attempted to find ways to supplement his income so that his family could come west. These proved unsuccessful and he began to contemplate resigning. Promoted to captain in April 1854 with orders to move to Fort Humboldt, CA, he instead elected to resign. His departure most likely was accelerated by rumors of his drinking and possible disciplinary action. Returning to Missouri, Grant and his family settled on land belonging to her parents. Dubbing his farm Hardscrabble, it proved financially unsuccessful despite the assistance of a slave provided by Julias father. After several failed business endeavors, Grant moved his family to Galena, IL in 1860 and became an assistant in his fathers tannery, Grant Perkins. Though his father was a prominent Republican in the area, Grant favored Stephen A. Douglas in the 1860 presidential election, but did not vote as he had not lived in Galena long enough to obtain Illinois residency. Early Days of the Civil War Through the winter and spring after Abraham Lincolns election sectional tensions heightened culminating with the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. With the beginning of the Civil War, Grant aided in recruiting a company of volunteers and led it to Springfield, IL. Once there, Governor Richard Yates seized on Grants military experience and set him to training newly arriving recruits. Proving highly effective in this role, Grant used his connections to Congressman Elihu B. Washburne to secure a promotion to colonel on June 14. Given command of the unruly 21st Illinois Infantry, he reformed the unit and made it an effective fighting force. On July 31, Grant was appointed a brigadier general of volunteers by Lincoln. This promotion led to Major General John C. Frà ©mont giving him command of the District of Southeast Missouri at the end of August. In November, Grant received orders from Frà ©mont to demonstrate against the Confederate positions at Columbus, KY. Moving down the Mississippi River, he landed 3,114 men on the opposite shore and attacked a Confederate force near Belmont, MO. In the resulting Battle of Belmont, Grant had initial success before Confederate reinforcements pushed him back to his boats. Despite this setback, the engagement greatly boosted Grants confidence and that of his men. Forts Henry and Donelson After several weeks of inaction, a reinforced Grant was ordered to move up the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers against Forts Henry and Donelson by the commander of the Department of Missouri, Major General Henry Halleck. Working with gunboats under Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote, Grant began his advance on February 2, 1862. Realizing that Fort Henry was located on a flood plain and open to naval attack, its commander, Brigadier General Lloyd Tilghman, withdrew most of his garrison to Fort Donelson before Grant arrived and captured the post on the 6th. After occupying Fort Henry, Grant immediately moved against Fort Donelson eleven miles to the east. Situated on high, dry ground, Fort Donelson proved near invulnerable to naval bombardment. After direct assaults failed, Grant invested the fort. On the 15th, Confederate forces under Brigadier General John B. Floyd attempted a breakout but were contained before creating an opening. With no options left, Brigadier General Simon B. Buckner asked Grant for surrender terms. Grants response was simply, No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted, which earned him the nickname Unconditional Surrender Grant. The Battle of Shiloh With the fall of Fort Donelson, over 12,000 Confederates were captured, nearly a third of  General Albert Sidney Johnstons Confederate forces in the region. As a result, he was forced to order the abandonment of Nashville, as well as a retreat from Columbus, KY. Following the victory, Grant was promoted to major general and began to experience problems with Halleck who had become professionally jealous of his successful subordinate. After surviving attempts to replace him, Grant received orders to push up the Tennessee River. Reaching Pittsburg Landing, he halted to await the arrival of  Major General Don Carlos Buells Army of the Ohio. Seeking to halt the string of reverses in his theater, Johnston and  General P.G.T. Beauregard  planned a massive attack on Grants position. Opening the  Battle of Shiloh  on April 6, they caught Grant by surprise. Though nearly driven into the river, Grant stabilized his lines and held. That evening, one of his division commanders,  Brigadier General William T. Sherman, commented Tough day today, Grant. Grant apparently responded, Yes, but well whip em tomorrow. Reinforced by Buell during the night, Grant launched a massive counterattack the next day and drove the Confederates from the field and sent them retreating to Corinth, MS. The bloodiest encounter to date with the Union suffering 13,047 casualties and the Confederates 10,699, the losses at Shiloh stunned the public. Though Grant came under criticism for being unprepared on April 6 and was falsely accused of being drunk, Lincoln refused to remove him stating, I cant spare this man; he fights. Corinth and Halleck After the victory at Shiloh, Halleck elected to take to the field in person and assembled a large force consisting of Grants Army of the Tennessee,  Major General John Popes Army of the Mississippi, and Buells Army of the Ohio at Pittsburg Landing. Continuing his issues with Grant, Halleck removed him from army command and made him the overall second-in-command with no troops under his direct control. Incensed, Grant contemplated leaving, but was talked into staying by Sherman who was quickly becoming a close friend. Enduring this arrangement through the Corinth and Iuka campaigns of the summer, Grant returned to independent command that October when he was made commander of the Department of the Tennessee and tasked with taking the Confederate stronghold of Vicksburg, MS. Taking Vicksburg Given free rein by Halleck, now general-in-chief in Washington, Grant designed a two-prong attack, with Sherman advancing down the river with 32,000 men, while he advanced south along Mississippi Central Railroad with 40,000 men. These movements were to be supported by an advance north from New Orleans by  Major General Nathaniel Banks. Establishing a supply base at Holly Springs, MS, Grant pressed south to Oxford, hoping to engage Confederate forces under  Major  General Earl Van Dorn  near Grenada. In December 1862, Van Dorn, badly outnumbered, launched a large cavalry raid around Grants army and destroyed the supply base at Holly Springs, halting the Union advance. Shermans situation was no better. Moving down the river with relative ease, he arrived just north of Vicksburg on Christmas Eve. After sailing up the Yazoo River, he disembarked his troops and began moving through the swamps and bayous toward the town before being badly defeated at  Chickasaw Bayou  on the 2 9th. Lacking support from Grant, Sherman opted to withdrawal. After Shermans men were drawn off to  attack Arkansas Post  in early January, Grant moved to the river to command his entire army in person. Based just north of Vicksburg on the west bank, Grant spent the winter of 1863 seeking a way to bypass Vicksburg with no success. He finally devised a bold plan for capturing the Confederate fortress. Grant proposed to move down the west bank of the Mississippi, then cut loose from his supply lines by crossing the river and attacking the city from the south and east. This risky move was to be supported by gunboats commanded by  Rear Admiral David D. Porter, which would run downstream past the Vicksburg batteries prior to Grant crossing the river. On the nights of April 16 and 22, Porter two groups of ships past the town. With a naval force established below the town, Grant began his march south. On April 30, Grants army crossed the river at Bruinsburg and moved northeast to cut the rail lines to Vicksburg before turning on the town itself. Turning Point in the West Conducting a brilliant campaign, Grant swiftly drove back Confederate forces on his front and captured Jackson, MS on May 14. Turning west towards Vicksburg, his troops repeatedly defeated  Lieutenant General John Pembertons forces and drove them back into the citys defense. Arriving at Vicksburg and wishing to avoid a siege, Grant launched assaults against the city on May 19 and 22 taking heavy losses in the process.  Settling into a siege, his army was reinforced and tightened the noose on Pembertons garrison. Waiting out the enemy, Grant forced a starving Pemberton to surrender Vicksburg and his 29,495-man garrison on July 4. The victory gave Union forces control of the entire Mississippi and was the turning point of the war in the West. Victory at Chattanooga In the wake of  Major General William Rosecranss defeat at  Chickamauga  in September 1863, Grant was given command of the Military Division of the Mississippi and control of all Union armies in the West. Moving to Chattanooga, he reopened a supply line to Rosecrans beleaguered Army of the Cumberland and replaced the defeated general with  Major General George H. Thomas. In an effort to turn the tables on  General Braxton Braggs Army of Tennessee, Grant captured Lookout Mountain on November 24 before directing his combined forces to a stunning victory at the  Battle of Chattanooga  the next day. In the fighting, Union troops drove the Confederates off Missionary Ridge and sent them reeling south. Coming East In March 1864, Lincoln promoted Grant to lieutenant general and gave him command of all Union armies. Grant elected to turn over operational control of the western armies to Sherman and shifted his headquarters east to travel with  Major General George G. Meades Army of the Potomac. Leaving Sherman with orders to press the Confederate Army of Tennessee and take Atlanta, Grant sought to engage  General Robert E. Lee  in a decisive battle to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia. In Grants mind, this was the key to ending the war, with the capture of Richmond of secondary importance. These initiatives were to be supported by smaller campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley, southern Alabama, and western Virginia. The Overland Campaign In early May 1864, Grant began marching south with 101,000 men. Lee, whose army numbered 60,000, moved to intercept and met Grant in a dense forest known as the  Wilderness. While Union attacks initially drove the Confederates back, they were blunted and forced back by the late arrival of  Lieutenant General James Longstreets corps. After three days of fighting, the battle turned into a stalemate with Grant having lost 18,400 men and Lee 11,400. While Grants army had suffered more casualties, they comprised a lesser proportion of his army than Lees. As the Grants goal was to destroy Lees army, this was an acceptable outcome. Unlike his predecessors in the East, Grant continued to press south after the bloody fight and the armies quickly met again at the  Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. After two weeks of fighting, another stalemate ensued. As before Union casualties were higher, but Grant understood that each battle cost Lee casualties that the Confederates could not replace. Again pushing south, Grant was unwilling to attack Lees strong position at  North Anna  and moved around the Confederate right. Meeting Lee at the  Battle of Cold Harbor  on May 31, Grant launched a series of bloody attacks against the Confederate fortifications three days later. The defeat would haunt Grant for years and he later wrote, I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made...no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained. Siege of Petersburg After pausing for nine days, Grant stole a march on Lee and raced south across the James River to capture Petersburg. A key rail center, the capture of the city would cut off supplies to Lee and Richmond. Initially blocked from the city by troops under Beauregard, Grant assaulted the Confederate lines between June 15 and 18 to no avail. As both armies arrived in full, a long series of trenches and fortifications were constructed that presaged the Western Front of  World War I. An attempt to break the deadlock occurred on July 30 when Union troops assaulted after the  detonation of a mine, but the attack failed.  Settling into a siege, Grant kept pushing his troops further south and east in an effort to cut the railroads into the city and stretch out Lees smaller army. As the situation at Petersburg became drawn out, Grant was criticized in the media for failing to achieve a decisive result and for being a butcher due to the heavy losses taken during the Overland Campaign. This was intensified when a small Confederate force under  Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early  threatened Washington, DC on July 12. Earlys actions necessitated Grant sending troops back north to deal with the danger. Eventually led by  Major General Philip H. Sheridan, the Union forces effectively destroyed Earlys command in a series of battles in the Shenandoah Valley later that year. While the situation at Petersburg remained stagnant, Grants broader strategy began to bear fruit as Sherman captured Atlanta in September. As the siege continued through the winter and into the spring, Grant continued to receive positive reports as Union troops had success on other fronts. These and a deteriorating situation at Petersburg led Lee to assault Grants lines on March 25. Though his troops had initial success, they were driven back by Union counterattacks. Seeking to exploit the victory, Grant pushed a large force west to capture the critical crossroads of Five Forks and threaten the Southside Railroad. At the  Battle of Five Forks  on April 1, Sheridan took the objective. This defeat placed Lees position at Petersburg, as well as Richmond, in jeopardy. Informing President Jefferson Davis that both would need to be evacuated, Lee came under heavy attack from Grant on April 2. These assauls drove the Confederates from the city and sent them retreating west. Appomattox After occupying Petersburg, Grant began chasing Lee across Virginia with Sheridans men in the lead. Moving west and harried by Union cavalry, Lee hoped to re-supply his army before heading south to link up with forces under  General Joseph Johnston  in North Carolina. On April 6, Sheridan was able to cut off approximately 8,000 Confederates under  Lieutenant General Richard Ewell  at  Saylers Creek. After some fighting the Confederates, including eight generals, surrendered. Lee, with fewer than 30,000 hungry men, hoped to reach supply trains that were waiting at Appomattox Station. This plan was dashed when Union cavalry under  Major General George A. Custer  arrived in the town and burned the trains. Lee next set his sights on reaching Lynchburg. On the morning of April 9, Lee ordered his men to break through the Union lines that blocked their path. They attacked but were stopped. Now surrounded on three sides, Lee accepted the inevitable stating, Then there is nothing left for me to do but to go and see General Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths. Later that day,  Grant met with Lee at the McLean House  in Appomattox Court House to discuss surrender terms. Grant, who had been suffering a bad headache, arrived late, wearing a worn privates uniform with only his shoulder straps denoting his rank. Overcome by the emotion of the meeting, Grant had difficulty getting to the point, but soon laid out generous terms which Lee accepted. Postwar Actions With the defeat of the Confederacy, Grant was required to immediately dispatch troops under Sheridan to Texas to serve as a deterrent to the French who had recently installed Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico. To assist the Mexicans, he also told Sheridan to aid the deposed Benito Juarez if possible. To this end, 60,000 rifles were provided to the Mexicans. The following year, Grant was required to close the Canadian border to prevent the Fenian Brotherhood from attacking Canada. In gratitude for his services during the war, Congress promoted Grant to the newly created rank of General of the Army on July 25, 1866. As general-in-chief, Grant oversaw the US Army role during the early years of Reconstruction in the South. Dividing the South into five military districts, he believed that a military occupation was necessary and the Freedmans Bureau was needed. Though he worked closely with President Andrew Johnson, Grants personal feelings were more in line with the Radical Republicans in Congress. Grant became increasing popular with this group when he refused to aid Johnson in deposing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. U.S. President As a result of this relationship, Grant was nominated for president on the 1868 Republican ticket. Facing no significant opposition for the nomination, he easily defeated former New York Governor Horatio Seymour in the general election. At age 46, Grant was the youngest US president to date. Taking office, his two terms were dominated by Reconstruction and mending the wounds of the Civil War. Deeply interested in promoting the rights of former slaves, he secured passage of the 15th Amendment and signed laws promoting voting rights as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1875. During his first term the economy was booming and corruption became rampant. As a result, his administration became plagued by a variety of scandals. Despite these issues, he remained popular with the public and was re-elected in 1872. Economic growth came to an abrupt halt with the Panic of 1873 which keyed a five-year depression. Responding slowly to the panic, he later vetoed an inflation bill which would have released additional currency into the economy. As his time in office neared an end, his reputation was damaged by the Whiskey Ring scandal. Though Grant was not directly involved, his private secretary was and it became emblematic of Republican corruption. Leaving office in 1877, he spent two years touring the world with his wife. Warmly received at each stop, he aided in mediating a dispute between China and Japan. Later Life Returning home, Grant soon faced a severe financial crisis. Having been forced to cede his military pension to serve as president, he was soon swindled in 1884 by Ferdinand Ward, his Wall Street investor. Effectively bankrupted, Grant was forced to repay one of his creditors with his Civil War mementos. Grants situation soon worsened when he learned he was suffering from throat cancer. An avid cigar smoker since Fort Donelson, Grant had at times consumed 18-20 a day. In an effort generate revenue, Grant wrote a series of books and articles which were warmly received and aided in improving his reputation. Further support came from Congress which restored his military pension. In an effort to aid Grant, noted author Mark Twain offered him a generous contract for his memoirs. Settling at Mount McGregor, NY, Grant completed the work only days before his death on July 23, 1885.  Memoirs  proved both a critical and commercial success and provided the family with much-needed security. After lying in state, Grants body was transported south to New York City where it was placed in a temporary mausoleum in Riverside Park. His pallbearers included Sherman, Sheridan, Buckner, and Joseph Johnston. On April 17, Grants body was moved a short distance to the newly constructed Grants Tomb. He was joined by Julia following her death in 1902. Sources White House: Ulysses S. GrantCivil War: Ulysses S. GrantLibrary of Congress: Ulysses Grant

Buddhism and Vegetarianism

Buddhism and Vegetarianism All Buddhists are vegetarians, right? Well, no. Some Buddhists are vegetarians, but some are not. Attitudes about vegetarianism vary from sect to sect as well as from individual to individual. If you are wondering whether you must commit to being a vegetarian to become a Buddhist, the answer is, maybe, but possibly not. It is unlikely the historical Buddha was a vegetarian. In the earliest recording of his teachings, the Tripitaka, the Buddha did not categorically forbid his disciples to eat meat. In fact, if meat were put into a monks alms bowl, the monk was supposed to eat it. Monks were to gratefully receive and consume all food they were given, including meat. Exceptions There was an exception to the meat for alms rule, however. If monks knew or suspected that an animal had been slaughtered specifically to feed monks, they were to refuse to take the meat. On the other hand, leftover meat from an animal slaughtered to feed a lay family was acceptable. The Buddha also listed certain types of meat that were not to be eaten. This included horse, elephant, dog, snake, tiger, leopard, and bear. Because only some meat was specifically forbidden, we can infer that eating other meat was permissible. Vegetarianism and the First Precept The First Precept of Buddhism is do not kill. The Buddha told his followers not to kill, participate in killing, or cause to have any living thing killed. To eat meat, some argue, is taking part in killing by proxy. In response, it is argued that if an animal were already dead and not slaughtered specifically to feed oneself, then it is not quite the same thing as killing the animal oneself. This seems to be how the historical Buddha understood eating meat. However, the historical Buddha and the monks and nuns who followed him were homeless wanderers who lived on the alms they received. Buddhists did not begin to build monasteries and other permanent communities until some time after the Buddha died. Monastic Buddhists do not live on alms alone but also on food grown by, donated to, or purchased by monks. It is hard to argue that meat provided to an entire monastic community did not come from an animal specifically slaughtered on behalf of that community. Thus, many sects of Mahayana Buddhism, in particular, began to emphasize vegetarianism. Some of the Mahayana Sutras, such as the Lankavatara, provide decidedly vegetarian teachings. Buddhism and Vegetarianism Today Today, attitudes toward vegetarianism vary from sect to sect and even within sects. On the whole, Theravada Buddhists do not kill animals themselves but consider vegetarianism to be a personal choice. The Vajrayana schools, which include Tibetan and Japanese Shingon Buddhism, encourage vegetarianism but do not consider it to be absolutely necessary to Buddhist practice. Mahayana schools are more often vegetarian, but even within many Mahayana sects, there is a  diversity of practice. In keeping with the original rules, some Buddhists might not purchase meat for themselves, or choose a live lobster out of the tank and have it boiled, but might eat a meat dish offered them at a friends dinner party. The Middle Way Buddhism discourages fanatical perfectionism. The Buddha taught his followers to find a middle way between extreme practices and opinions. For this reason, Buddhists who do practice vegetarianism are discouraged from becoming fanatically attached to it. A Buddhist practices metta, which is loving kindness to all beings without selfish attachment. Buddhist refrain from eating meat out of loving kindness for living animals, not because there is something unwholesome or corrupt about an animals body. In other words, the meat itself is not the point, and under some circumstances, compassion might cause a Buddhist to break the rules. For example, lets say you visit your elderly grandmother, whom you have not seen for a long time. You arrive at her home and find that she has cooked what had been your favorite dish when you were a child- stuffed pork chops. She doesnt do much cooking anymore  because her elderly body doesnt move around the kitchen so well. But it is the dearest wish of her heart to give you something special and watch you dig into those stuffed pork chops the way you used to. She has been looking forward to this for weeks. I say that if you hesitate to eat those pork chops for even a second, you are no Buddhist. The Business of Suffering When I was a girl growing up in rural Missouri, livestock grazed in open meadows and chickens wandered and scratched outside hen houses. That was a long time ago. You still see free-ranging livestock on small farms, but big factory farms can be cruel places for animals. Breeding sows live most of their lives in cages so small they cannot turn around. Egg-laying hens kept in battery cages cannot spread their wings. These practices make the vegetarian question more critical. As Buddhists, we should consider if products we purchase were made with suffering. This includes human suffering as well as animal suffering. If your vegan faux-leather shoes were made by exploited laborers working under inhumane conditions, you might as well have bought leather. Live Mindfully The fact is, to live is to kill. It cannot be avoided. Fruits and vegetables come from living organisms, and farming them requires killing insects, rodents, and other animal life. The electricity and heat for our homes may come from facilities that harm the environment. Dont even think about the cars we drive. We are all entangled in a web of killing and destruction, and as long as we live we cannot be completely free of it. As Buddhists, our role is not to mindlessly follow rules written in books, but to be mindful of the harm we do and do as little of it as possible.

Bipolar Disorder Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Bipolar Disorder - Essay Example A patient may experience high moments in life that is indicated in extreme joy and energy. On the other hand, the patient may undergo low moments that manifest in depression. However, depression is indicated by symptoms that stay for long and influence an individual’s daily tasks. Generally depression is a mood illness triggered by an incorporation of environmental, biological, genetic and psychological aspects. Depression influences the body and mind-affecting physical, feelings, and behavior and thoughts states. A patient with bipolar disorder faces mood swings that manifest in feelings of loneliness, helplessness, weakness, sadness and depression. The tell signs and symptoms of depression include lack of interest in hobbies, feeling irritable and sad. The illness can also inhibit eating and sleep, can be the root for unexplained stomachaches and headaches. Depression can also result to aspiration to be alone, aggression, quarrelsome conduct that put pressure on relationship s with friends and families. The illness also interferes with the ability of the individual to recall events and concentration which affects the academic performance. In other cases patients have ideas of committing suicide or death (Leonard & Jovinelly, 2012). All these symptoms are different for various people. From the mentioned symptoms, the patient in question suffers from bipolar disorder as per her high and low moods as witnessed by the family. The mentioned patient developed a depressed mood over a period of one week, thus is not suffering from major depression as in major depression the signs and symptoms persist for a minimum of two weeks and above (Moragne, 2011). To treat bipolar disorder, bio-psychosocial approach is used. The patient has to be enrolled in a comprehensive case management program where he/she will access care, receive evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychoeducation. Moreover, the family is to take part in this treatment program so that each

Interview Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Interview Analysis - Essay Example In some instances, the teacher encountered difficulties training children who were blind since only a minimal number of languages are in Braille. At such times, the teachers were forced to seek the services of Braille translators who, in turn, used computers. However, technological advancements have significantly reduced this problem since technology affords ELLs suffering from diverse disabilities the opportunity to learn at a similar pace as those without disabilities. From the interview, it became quite clear that ELL students’ learning capabilities are profoundly impacted by their cultural backgrounds. This is primarily because the cultural worlds in which culturally diverse students live encourage different attitudes, beliefs and emphasize diverse learning skills. As a consequence of this diversity, the impact on the learning abilities of ELLs is rather massive. A vast majority of schools often fail to pay close attention to the differences between children, for instance, their beliefs, traditional practices and experiences, and this, in turn, proves detrimental to the students’ abilities to learn since it reduces the teachers’ capabilities to teach them effectively (Shatz & Wikinson, 2011). ... This is primarily because technology has the distinct capacity to ease the process of educating disabled ELLs and make it easy for them to benefit from the technology, particularly in terms of understanding lesson content and facilitating effective assessment. The school, in this case, makes use of a number of procedures and policies, which have proven to be effectual in terms of teaching ELLs. The school typically begins by identifying students who fit the ELL threshold. After identification, the school’s policy requires teachers to assess such students, taking into consideration both their preferential language and English language proficiency. In essence, the school conforms to standard strategies for the identification and assessment of ELLs (Shatz & Wikinson, 2011). In addition, the school makes use of language assessments regarding both the students’ English and preferred languages to ascertain the students’ individual abilities, as well as development in a ll relevant areas of learning such as reading, listening, writing and speaking (Shatz & Wikinson, 2011). However, in order to supplement information acquired from these assessments, schools and teachers typically seek information from bilingual clinicians, parents and guardians and bilingual and ESL teachers, as well as other education stakeholders who provide sociocultural information, as well as academic test data. This information is of critical importance to the education of ELL since it enables teachers appreciate the students’ strongest and weakest points and tailor instruction to maximize learning effectiveness. Notably, a vast majority of ELLs present similar challenges in terms of their learning abilities. Teachers encounter

Cold War and Consumerists Mass Culture Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Cold War and Consumerists Mass Culture - Essay Example . The constraints resulting from World War Two and Great Depression led to a frustrated consumerism situation even more than the capitalist system rejection. The new consumerism had led most Americans and policy makers to believe that the under consumption situation in the country was the main cause of the slump. The government policy after the war had encouraged mass purchasing power instead of coming up with measures to equalize the wealth distribution. Consumer society had become a positive communism answer during the cold war. Despite the relations between freedom and consumption in these years, consumerism of the post war era was domesticated rather than hedonistic. It focused more on the nuclear family and suburban homes (Chafe 107). The period between 1960 and 1980 witnessed a number of challenges and changes making the consumer society stronger than ever. Among the challenges included the counterculture challenge on consumerism premises. The specter scarcity brought into question the cornucopia performance upon which the consumer society depended on. The consequent of this challenge was that consumption ended up being more ubiquitous. The socially and individualistic fragmenting consumerism existing today is believed to be rooted on the critique of consumerism that took place in 1960’s. The countercultural figures critiqued idealized and conformity indicates that most Americans preferred to achieve the authenticity through consumption (Breines and Breines 78). Consumerism began to modify its mass production practices in favor of segmented and flexible production in the demographically distinct markets. Consumerism has since then become adoptable to the hip and green. A good example of this is the energy situation crisis in 1970’s when politicians considered the shortage as being as a result of over production. This was rebuked as being naysayers. Consumerist trends toward fragmentation and individualistic consumptions have accelerated in the recent years leading to market triumphant. The resulting radical faith in the market virtues led to politicians to put moral gloss on the market culture unfettered growth in the 1980s. Consumerism also helped in the integration of the diversity of the inhabitants youth mass culture and cynical marketers through the equal division of multicultural segmented demographic units. This led to the shift from a spirited and integrative public popular culture to an increasingly solipsistic and privatized commercial culture in the early twentieth century (Bloom and Breines 142). Consumerist during this era adopted an ideological medal that adopted an unquestioning approach towards the production uses. This resulted to an increase in self-conscious ness in the manipulation