5 Most Influential People In American History Essays -

5 Most Influential People In American History The United Sates has had a short yet complex history in its two hundred and twenty-four years. She has produced millions and millions of great individuals. These great minds have shaped what America is today. Others, however, have personally molded this magnificent nation with their own acts. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson are the most influential builders of the United States of America. John Adams was born loyal to the English Crown but evolved into the second President of the Free World. As a lawyer, Adams emerged into politics as an opponent of the Stamp Act and was a leader in the Revolutionary group opposing the British measures that were to lead to the American Revolution. Sent to the First Continental Congress, he distinguished himself, and in the Second Continental Congress he was a moderate but forceful revolutionary. He proposed George Washington as commander in chief of the Continental troops to bind Virginia more tightly to the cause for independence. He favored the Declaration of Independence, was a member of the drafting committee, and argued eloquently for it. Adams was one of the negotiators who drew up the momentous Treaty of Paris to end the American Revolution. Adams diplomatic skills brought him much political fame. Thomas Jefferson, although never effective as a public speaker, won a reputation as a draftsman of resolutions and addresses. In the colonial House of Burgesses Jefferson was a leader of the patriot faction. He helped form, and became a member of, the Virginia Committee of Correspondence. In his paper A Summary View of the Rights of British America, prepared for the First Virginia Convention, he brilliantly expounded the view that Parliament had no authority in the colonies and that the only bond with England was that of voluntary allegiance to the king. A delegate to the Second Continental Congress, he served as a member of the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. That historic document, except for minor alterations by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and others made on the floor of Congress, was wholly the work of Jefferson. In 1783 he was again in the Continental Congress where he drafted a plan for a decimal system of coinage based on the dollar and drew up a proposed ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory, which, although not then adopted, was the basis for the very important Ordinance of 1787. Though absent when the Constitution was drafted and adopted, Jefferson gave his support to a stronger central government and to the Constitution, particularly with the addition of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was the first President inaugurated in Washington, a city he had helped to plan. He believed that the Federal government should be concerned mostly with foreign affairs, leaving the states and local governments free to administer local matters. Despite his contention that the Constitution must be interpreted strictly, he pushed through the Louisiana Purchase, even though such an action was nowhere expressly authorized. His eager interest in the West and in exploration had already led him to plan and organize the Lewis and Clark expedition. Jefferson led a slanderous yet substantial life. John Marshalls brilliant skill in argument made him one of the most esteemed of the many great lawyers of Virginia. A defender of the new U.S. Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention, Marshall later staunchly supported the Federalist administration. He accepted appointment as one of the commissioners to France in the diplomatic dispute that ended in the XYZ Affair. Marshall's effectiveness there made him a popular figure. In his long service on the bench, Marshall raised the Supreme Court from an anomalous position in the Federal scheme to power and majesty, and he molded the Constitution by the breadth and wisdom of his interpretation; he eminently deserves the appellation the Great Chief Justice. He dominated the court equally by his personality and his ability, and his achievements were made in spite of strong disagreements with Jefferson and later Presidents. He made incontrovertible the previously uncertain right of the Supreme Court to review Federal and state laws and to pronounce final judgment on their constitutionality. He viewed the Constitution on the

Olympics Boycott essay

Olympics Boycott essay Olympics Boycott essay Olympics Boycott essayThe Olympics boycott of 1980 was one of the major sports event of the 20th century that revealed the full extent to which politics influenced the world sports and Olympic movement. At the same time, being driven by morally just reasons, the Olympics boycott of 1980 became the failure of the US because the US made the move that put under a threat the survival of the Olympic Games as one of the few international events that united sportspersons and nations globally, regardless of their political background. In addition, the boycott had failed to become a truly global decision. Instead, the boycott was virtually forced on close allies of the US but it had never been fully supported in the world, while its effects were negative not only for the USSR but also and mainly for American sportspersons, who were deprived of an opportunity to participate in the main sports event of their life which they fairly deserved, because of political concerns of Jim Carter’s a dministration.The Olympics boycott was triggered by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as the USSR deployed its military to support the pro-Soviet, communist regime in Afghanistan (Mertin 235). In response to the military intervention of the USSR in Afghanistan, the US and its allies introduced sanctions, among which the boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow was a part of sanctions. The military intervention of the USSR into Afghanistan was apparently the unfair and challenging decision but this political and military move was not new in international politics, taking into consideration the Soviet troops deployment in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, Hungary in 1956 and threatened to deploy its troops in Poland in 1980, while even the US deployed its troops to reach their geopolitical ends, as was the case of Korea in 1953 or Vietnam in 1956-1975. However, neither of the aforementioned conflicts did result in sanctions affecting sportspersons and major sport events like the Olympics.At the same time, the expansion of sanctions on the Olympics evoked controversial responses not only in the world community but also among allies of the US. In fact, many countries were unwilling to support the Olympics boycott initiated by the US. Therefore, even allies of the US were not willing to support the Olympics boycott, while countries that took the position close to neutral were even more unwilling to join the boycotting cohort. As for social states, they were neither willing nor capable to boycott the Olympics in Moscow, especially in light of the extensive deployment of the Soviet army in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Obviously, socialist states were not willing to trigger the outrage of Moscow which threatened the deployment of troops against states that manifest their disloyalty.Nevertheless, the US conducted the large scale campaign aiming at the support of the boycott. The US attempted to use celebrities to persuade the public and political leaders along with national commit tees of other countries to support the US Olympics boycott. For instance, Muhammad Ali’s voyage to Africa before the 1980 Olympics aimed at persuading leaders of some African countries and their national Olympic committees to support the boycott.The alternative Olympics Boycott Games were conducted in the US. In fact, this was the weak attempt to save the Olympics for those, who supported the boycott because the alternative Olympics were not recognized by the International Olympic committee or by the international community as the Olympic Games. As a result, there were just regional games, a sport event that involves some popular sportspersons but could never be viewed as a large scale, major event of four years period as the Olympics normally are.Many countries refused to support the Olympics boycott, while many US allies, such as West Germany, had to apply a considerable pressure to persuade their national Olympic committees to support the boycott. At the same time, some co untries, which officially refused to participate in the Olympics, still sent their sportspersons, although they participated under the Olympic flag and did not use their national flags and anthems. For instance, French, British and other sportspersons participated in the Olympics in such a way.Remarkably, the Soviet television did not show the sportspersons under the Olympics flag to maintain the general impression of the worldwide participation and involvement into the Olympic Games. In such a way, the Olympics boycott had failed to defeat the Soviet propaganda since the population of the USSR was just fed up with the Soviet propaganda and the average spectators watching the Olympics in the USSR on TV did not even notice that something went wrong but the absence of the American sportspersons, whom they perceived as enemies and did not really care about their absence.The Olympic boycott was generally perceived as the failure because even the allies of the US participated in the 1980 Olympics, although their participation was informal. Other countries just refused to support the boycott (Corthorn 51). Even though sixty-five countries did not participate in the Olympics at all, the boycott did not reach its main goal, which it was launched for. The USSR did not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. The public image of the USSR did not suffer much because its response to the boycott was predictable as well as the boycott itself. In addition, the USSR had the powerful propaganda machine that shaped the public opinion in the USSR as the ruling regime wished. Hence, the boycott could not have any significant effects on the public opinion and the population of the USSR and Jim Carter’s administration expected.On the other hand, sportspersons of those countries, which supported the boycott, suffered the most, whereas the boycott did not affect the USSR much (Cousineau 76). Therefore, the boycott has not reach its main goal to raise the public opinion in the USS R as well as internationally since the USSR public remain basically ignorant or indifferent to the boycott, while the world community was rather willing to participate in the Olympics than support the boycott initiated by the US out of political reasons and concerns.The aftermath of the Olympics boycott was the deterioration of international relations between the US and the USSR and their allies. In response to the Olympics boycott in 1980 in Moscow, the USSR responded with the boycott of the Olympics of 1984 in Los Angeles (Sarantakes 121). The USSR was supported by thirteen socialist states, which were allies of the USSR. At the same time, there were only two states that supported both boycotts and did not participate in neither Olympics, these states were Albania and Iran.In fact, the Olympics boycott of 1980 was rather a failure than success. The US failed to make the boycott global. In this regard, undemocratic, socialist states naturally ignored the boycott and participated in the Olympics in Moscow. Moreover, even close allies of the US did not really support the boycott because, in spite of the formal support, sportspersons of the US allies still participated in the Olympics. At the same time, the boycott had a negative impact on the development of sports in the US because the entire generation of sportsperson was deprived of the possibility to participate in the Olympics, which they prepared for during four years. As a result, the refusal of the US Olympic Committee to participate in the Olympics in 1980s in Moscow deprived American sportsperson to participate in the Olympics which was the only lifetime chance for many sportspersons to participate in the Olympics.Thus, the Olympics boycott of 1980 was rather a failure than success. The politically driven sanctions did not have desirable effects on the USSR and its allies, while the extrapolation of the political struggle between the two superpowers on the Olympic movement contradicted to fundamental p rinciples of the Olympics which always stood on the ground of the peaceful competition between all sportspersons from all over the world.

Essay is to define Ahimsa Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Is to define Ahimsa - Essay Example provision of ahimsa because both these human factors are closely linked and are vulnerable to cause a reaction that may result in the physical expression of the same. Alternatively, it can be said that ahimsa is the basic principle of life that promotes universal values and ethical living because it abhors violence. It teaches one to love fellow-beings and live in harmony. In the contemporary environment of fast paced life, people are living on their nerves and each of them is trying to become better than others. This has significantly influenced human behaviour that has become less tolerant and more vulnerable to the vagaries of life, provoking violent expressions, both in action and thought. The repercussions are highly detrimental to the society that is increasingly becoming global in essence but diverse in equation. The rapid globalization has changed the dynamics of societal norms and the emergence of pluralistic society demands new paradigms of peaceful living. Indeed this definition of ahimsa becomes pertinent in the current times and needs to become the governing principle of living. Interesting, while ahimsa is fittingly described as a principle of non violence against all odds, it also seems to have acquired huge scope of interpretations that encompass not only the real and meta physical reality of human life but also life after physical death. The spiritual annotations of ahimsa bring human beings closer to the divinity and therefore, towards immortality of soul that is indestructible. It inculcates selfless service and promotes acceptance of human failings within the wider realm of human interactions. In short, it teaches people to love and to cherish what one has. In loving others, one would not hate nor desire harm to those whom one loves! Ahimsa is also the philosophy of life because it teaches to love not because another person is wholly pure in thoughts and actions but because he understands that the other person is also created by the same