Journal Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Journal - Assignment Example Since this is true, the author can be said to be credible. The author seems highly trustworthy. This is because of how the points are brought out in the article. Trustworthiness of the author can be seen when the author shows the seriousness involved in animal right terrorism by providing statistical data. The author can also be trusted because they assess the situation and compare it with future possibilities. Here, the author states that if animal testing is not permitted, millions will die since research will not be undertaken. This information is authentic. Sound logic is used in the argument. This is because of certain claims made that indicate use of logic. For instance, it is logical that people would die if drugs are not produced. The overall claim being made is that if scientists are prohibited from using animals in their research tests, production of medicinal drugs will not be possible and millions would die as a result. The information provided is reliable because it provides data that is supported by relevant evidence. The overall information has been communicated appropriately making it

What is productivist agriculture; what are its related problems and Essay

What is productivist agriculture; what are its related problems and how and why is agriculture changing in the UK - Essay Example which facilitated the continued expansion of agricultural production. Other conceptualizations have stressed on the frequently environmentally destructive nature of productivist agriculture, based on the maximisation of food production through the application of ever-more intensive farming techniques and biochemical inputs (Wilson, 2007: 80). Thesis Statement: This paper proposes to identify the implications of productivist agriculture, determine the problems related to productivist agriculture, and investigate the ways in which, and the reasons why agriculture is changing in the United Kingdom. Productivist agriculture is conceptualized mainly as industrially driven agriculture for production of high quantities of food, which is strongly supported by the state through subsidies and a productivist policy regime. Productivism should be seen as the practice of using farmland to its full potential, creating a mechanistic landscape appearance that reflects the production process. Productivism is also referred to as an era that is a significant part of 20th century historical development in agricultural change, mostly as a reaction towards food shortages after the Second World War† (Egoz et al, 2001: 177). The productivist era lasted from 1945 to mid-1970s. During the years of the second world war from 1939 to 1945, many rural areas underwent a marked increase in their economic conditions. As part of the war effort, the government initiated a â€Å"ploughing up† campaign in order to reduce reliance on imported food. In compliance with the Barlow and Scott reports the initiatives facilitated a transformation in the government’s approach to the rural economy in the post-war years. Governmental policy promoted the preservation of rural land for agricultural production. The economy entered the productivist era, while there was increasing tension between

Thurgood Marshall: Supreme Court Nomination and Confirmation

Thurgood Marshall: Supreme Court Nomination and Confirmation Thurgood Marshall began his career fighting for voting rights and equal housing for African Americans and fighting against racial and gender discrimination. As head of the Legal Defense and Education fund of the NAACP, he garnered an impressive success rate arguing cases before the Supreme Court, (Gibson 110), which likely earned him the appointed to the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals by President Kennedy. In 1965 he was appointed Solicitor General by President Lyndon Johnson, and just two years later, on June 13, 1967, President Johnson nominated Marshall as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Marshall’s nomination led to heated debates in the Senate; opposition was primarily from southern senators who hailed from states where Jim Crow laws were still in force, despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act three years earlier. Senate hearing transcripts cited one senator’s grievance that Marshall’s past record as jurist and attorney led him to believe the appointment would cause a dangerous imbalance in the Court, as he would replace Justice Clark, who was viewed as a conservative. Ultimately, Marshall’s nomination was confirmed with a 69 to 11 vote, and 20 non-voters. (U. S. Senate 24656). Sworn in by Chief Justice Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall became the first African American Justice in the history of the United States. The 96th Justice served from 1967 until his retirement in 1991. (Thurgood Marshall). Marshall was nominated to fill an anticipated vacancy in the Court due to the impending retirement of Justice Tom Campbell Clark. Clark was stepping down to avoid a conflict of interest caused by the appointment of his son, William Ramsey Clark, to the U.S. Attorney General position by President Johnson. Tom Clark had been the U.S. Attorney General from 1945 to 1949 before his own nomination to the Court by President Truman. Tom Clark had no prior judicial experience and Truman later expressed regret over his choice. (Dutton). Clark was viewed as a conservative, but turned out to be a swing voter. It is evident Johnson created the vacancy by design. In his remarks to the press, Johnson said of Marshall, â€Å"I believe he earned that appointment; he deserves the appointment. He is best qualified by training and by very valuable service to the country. I believe it is the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place.† (Peters and Woolley). It is noteworthy also, that both Marshall and Clark were nominated by Democratic Presidents in a Democratic controlled congress. (Lou Frey Institute). A liberal ideological shift took place in the Warren Court, most significantly when Justice Goldberg replaced Frankfurter and Marshall replaced Clark. (Grofman and Brazill 63-64). The amount of time between Supreme Court nominations and the final committee vote has varied significantly, from three days or less to 117 days, in the case of the 1916 nomination of Louis D. Brandeis. Between 1967 and 2009, from Marshall to Sotomayor, the Judiciary Committee has consistently taken more time; the average is around 50 days, but some took more than 80 days. (Bearden and Rutkus 13). The table below shows how the trend changed between the confirmation of Marshall and his predecessor, Tom Clark. Table 1 Nominee Pres Date rec’d in Senate Public Hearing Dates Final Vote Date Final Vote Date Final Action First Public Hearing Date Committee Final Vote Date Final Action Senate or President Tom Clark Truman 08/02/49 08/09/49 08/10/49 08/11/49 8/12/49 In Favor 9-2 08/18/49 Confirmed 73-8 7 10 16 Thurgood Marshall L Johnson 6/13/67 07/13/14 07/14/14 07/18/14 07/19/14 07/24/14 8/3/67 In Favor 11-5 08/30/67 Confirmed 69-11 30 51 78 Source: Bearden, Maureen and Steven Rutkus. Supreme Court Nominations, present-1789. Analysis. Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2009. Print. 23 Mar 2014, 34-35. In his book, Pathways to the U.S. Supreme Court: From the Arena to the Monastery, Garrison Nelson says, â€Å"44 of the first 88 Supreme Court nominations were previously governors, senators, members of the House or cabinet members.† The Nelson theory claims there are four paths to the Supreme Court. Of those four paths, however, the most common is vertically, as former judges in other courts. Justices elevate from this route 47.3% of the time. Marshall ascended by a less common path, by serving as Solicitor General. Nelson calls this the diagonal route; only 11.6% of Justices elevate by this route. (Reidel). So then, what is the appropriate role of the Senate in Supreme Court nominations? Should the voting public have a more active role in the nominations? Or should it be just left to the President? If left to the President without Senate consent, the nominees would be ideologically suited to the President his party. Since Justices have lifetime appointment and Presidents have term limits, this may cause conflict between the Court and future administrations. The Senate consent feature acts as a check and balance of the Executive as intended by the framers. Similarly, if the nomination is left to the voting population, individuals may not fully comprehend the impact of a decision based solely on popularity or publicity. Individuals may not balance their own personal views against the needs of society in making a decision. Furthermore, the average individual may not be qualified to determine the potential future legal effect a lifetime appointment on the laws of the country. The American B ar Association reports that in 2012, a mere .26% of the U.S. population consists of a combination of lawyers, law students and law professors. (American Bar Association). Using census data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and including a more generous pool of the population to include lawyers, law students, law professors, clerks, judges, paralegals and other legal support positions, while narrowing the scope to include only the employed portion of the population, the number is still a meager 0.36% of persons who have some knowledge of the law and courts. (Bureau of Labor and Statistics). Over 100 years ago, Finley Peter Dunnes infamous Mr. Dooley uttered the proclamation, â€Å"No matter whether th Constitution follows th flag or not, th Supreme Court follows th illiction returns.† (Dunne 26). One study linked constituent opinion to Senate voting patterns and researched how the visibility of the roll-call during Senate confirmation hearings influenced outcomes. Senators tend to vote against nominees with controversial policies. Stakes are high in the competition for re-election and senators must be responsive to the views of their constituents. (Kastellec, Lax and Phillips 676,782,783). Despite these results, the intent of the Senate’s role in the process is still sound. Senators are elected officials, representing their constituents. Although Senators tend to vote based on their own views and their interpretation of the nominees views, they also factor in the views of their constituents and the balance of the Court. And finally, Senate consent fulfils the Legislative check and balance requirement on the Executive branch of government as required under the Constitution. Since Marshall supported similar positions on civil rights issues as his predecessor Clark, the argument that Marshall would create a dangerous imbalance in the Court was moot. Although Justice Clark was viewed as a conservative, he was often the swing vote, supporting landmark cases such as Mapp v. Ohio, which applied the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to the states, and Abington School District v. Schempp, nullifying daily Bible readings in public schools. Clark also supported the end of racial segregation and joined the unanimous decisions in Brown v. Board of Education. (Reger). Marshall was an influential figure in the civil rights movement, always pursuing the goal of racial equality. His liberal opinions challenged race and gender discrimination, opposed the death penalty, supported the rights of criminal defendants, and defended affirmative action and abortion rights. â€Å"As a Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall believed the Constitution was a living document that should be interpreted based on the current political, cultural, and moral climate.† (Maki 4). References American Bar Association. Lawyer Demographics. Statistical. Washington: American Bar Association, 2012. Print. Bearden, Maureen and Steven Rutkus. Supreme Court Nominations, present-1789. Analysis. Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2009. Print. 23 Mar 2014. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Household Data Annual Averages. Statistical. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2013. Print. Dunne, Finley P. Mr. Dooley’s Opinions. New York: R.H. Russell, 1901. Print. Dutton, C. B. MR. Justice Tom C. Clark. Indiana Law Journal 26.2 (1951): 169-206. Print. Gibson, Larry. Young Thurgood: The Making of a Supreme Court Justice. New York: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print. Grofman, Bernard and Timothy J. Brazill. Identifying the median justice on the Supreme Court through multidimensional scaling: Analysis of â€Å"natural courts†. Public Choice 112 (2002): 55-79. Print. Kastellec, Jonathan P., Jeffrey R. Lax and Justin H. Phillips. Public Opinion and Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees. The Journal of Politics 72.3 (2010): 767-784. Print. Lou Frey Institute. Composition of Congress by Political Party 1855–2013. 2014. Majority and Minority Party Membership Other Resources. Internet. 23 Mar. 2014. Maki, Lisa A. Thurgood Marshall. Research paper. University of North Florida. Jacksonville, 2014. Print. Peters, Gerhard and John Woolley. Lyndon B. Johnson: Remarks to the Press Announcing the Nomination of Thurgood Marshall as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. 13 Jun. 1967. The American Presidency Project. Internet. 23 Mar. 2014. Reger, Marianne. Meet The NJC’s Founder: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark. 12 Sep. 2012. Judges.org. Internet. 23 Mar 2014. Reidel, Jon. Path to Supreme Court Runs Through Judicial Monastery. 21 Jan. 2014. University of Vermont. Internet. 15 Feb. 2014. http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=newsstoryID=17580category=uvmhome>. Texas v. Johnson. No. 491 U.S. 397. U.S. Supreme Court. 21 Jun. 1989. Internet. 15 Feb. 2014. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3498200303.html>. Thurgood Marshall. The Biography Channel. 2014. Internet. 15 Feb. 2014. http://www.biography.com/people/thurgood-marshall-9400241>. U. S. Senate. Senate Confirmation Hearings-Marshall. Congressional Record. Washington: Government Printing Office, 30 Aug. 1967. Internet.

The Federal Reserve: Central Banking In The Us Essay -- Economics Econ

The Federal Reserve: Central Banking in the U.S. The Federal Reserve as we know it today was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 by President Woodrow Wilson. The Fed, as it is commonly referred, is the central bank for the United States. Primarily, the Fed's job is to manage our nation's money supply. Prior to establishing the central bank, the United States did not have a money manager and the financial system was similar to the nation itself, "diverse and subject to uneven growth" (San Francisco). This led to frequent depressions and financial panics, and after the Bank Panic of 1907, which consisted of heavy withdrawal of funds, large importations of gold, and among other things, a major bank failing, the public realized a central bank was necessary (Herrick). The Federal Reserve System is composed of four basic components; the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve Banks, and member banks. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is an independent federal agency that does not receive any funding from Congress. The Board is made up of seven members who are appointed by the president for one term of 14 years that can span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Two of the appointees are designated by the president as the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board, to serve four-year terms, subject to Senate Confirmation. The Chairman of the Board of Governors is one of the most important decision-makers in American economic policies. Even though members function independently, the Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the House. If the president sees "cause," a member may be removed from the Board. T... ...rable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Bank. Works Cited "Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned." Save-A- Patriot. 23 Jul 2007 . "Fed FAQs." Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 2007. 23 Jul 2007 . Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, "FED101." The Reserve Today. 2007. 23 Jul 2007 . "The Federal Reserve System in Brief: The Nation's Central Bank." Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. 30 Aug 2006. 23 Jul 2007 . Herrick, Myron. "The Panic of 1907 and Some of Its Lessons." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 31(1908): 8-25. Kemmerer, Edwin. The ABC of the Federal Reserve System. Fourth. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1920. Obringer, Lee Ann . "How the Fed Works." Howstuffworks. 02 May 1992. 23 Jul 2007 . "Open Market Operation." Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 2007. 23 Jul 2007 .

Geography Reflection

This project was challenging from the beginning. We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them.Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly. If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the p resentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation.However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning. We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper.Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly. If I were to re-do the project I w ould have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end.I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning. We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions.I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly. If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went.We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning. We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around.Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’ t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had t heir own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of th e paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper . Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however w e did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. How ever I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sou rces and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper s hould go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to s tructure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the o ther members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help and we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited o ur work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper. This project was challenging from the beginning.We had difficulty identifying what we were going to center our project around. Once we got going however we did get a lot of productive work done. I didn’t contribute a large direct contribution to the paper, but I did the introduction and conclusion portions. I also worked closely with Yibo and Bobby to structure their arguments in their portions of the paper. Bobby found my assistance very helpful and him and I constantly worked on revising portions of the paper as we were writing them. Yibo asked for help a nd we gave him help as well as outlined how his paper should go, but he was unable to structure his part of the paper accordingly.If I were to re-do the project I would have liked to work more closely with Yibo on his part of the paper, and ensured we all cited our work as we went. We got mixed up in a few of our sources and it was a headache to fit them at the end, but we were able to crunch it out at the end. I felt the presentation fell upon my lap for the most part and I would have liked more contributions from the other members as far as setting up the presentation. However I was very grateful that each of the members had their own knowledge about their sections of the paper.

Jamestown and Massachusetts Bay Essay

Both the colonies of Massachusetts Bay and Jamestown were different in that Massachusetts Bay consisted of mostly puritans; Massachusetts Bay was settled by Europeans. Both settlements struggled to survive at first. They both also encountered natives living there before they arrived. In Virginia there were the Native Americans and in Massachusetts Bay there was a large number of Puritans. Although there were many differences between the two colonies it comes to no surprise that they are very much so related, mostly in their hardships. Such as in Virginia there was disease, famine and continuing attacks of the neighboring Native Americans which took a tremendous toll on the population. Only sixty out of the original two hundred and fourteen settlers at Jamestown survived. While at the Massachusetts Bay, the settlers had their hardships too. The long, harsh winters, the unfertile soil, and the unfriendly relationship with the puritans surely made the population shrink. Both colonies struggled with finding nourishment. They survived mostly on the crops that they grew or wild berries and vegetables found in the wilderness. In the winter the crops soon started to die and there was nothing for the settlers to eat. This famine therefore, being the main cause of the population decrease. In the winter, the temperature would drop so low that if you didnt wear several coats of animal fur to keep you warm, you wouldnt stay alive. In Jamestown (Virginia) the settlers were being faced with the danger of the being under attack every day. The Native Americans did not take kindly to the settlers and found it an invasion of land. They were under the impression the settlers were only staying a short time, and would not take over the territory. The settlers had other plans however, to claim the land for King James. In summary, the colonies of Massachusetts Bay and Jamestown were alike in their hardships. Their population downfalls were also quite similar. They were different, in the people in which they had living in each colony, also the enemies that both colonies established. Jamestown and Massachusetts Bay  were great civilizations that started our society as a whole, where would we be without them? Sources http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/jamestown-and-plymouth-compare-and-contrast.htm