Resurrection and Body Paragraph Essay Example for Free

Resurrection and Body Paragraph Essay Detail 1:Carton believes that he is a waste of life and has no purpose being the world †¢ I am a disappointed drudge, sir I care for no man on earth and no man on earth cares for me. (2. 4. 70) †¢Detail 2:Starts to show his slow resurrection when he admits his love for Lucie the last dream of [his] soul. (book 2 Chapter 130 †¢Detail 3:Carton redeems himself by sacrifices his life for the women he loves and her happiness showing that he has been resurrected I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die, (3. 9. 89). †¢BODY PARAGRAPH II: †¢Transition/Opening Sentence:_________________________________. †¢Detail 1:When Dr. Manette is first released from prison he is like an infant that doesnt know the world. Prisoner 105, North Tower, †¢Detail 2:Starts to realize who he is when he meets his daughter Lucie at the Defarge winery †¢ She was the golden thread that united him to a Past beyond his misery, and to a Present beyond his misery: and the sound of her voice, the light of her face, the touch of her hand, had a strong beneficial influence with him almost always. (2. 4. 3) †¢Detail 3:He is finally shown in his full resurrectional the towards the end of the novel when he find out his bench has been taken away Transition/Opening Sentence:_________________________________. †¢Detail 1:Marrying Lucie had hide his past from many people in France and England I know that when she is clinging to you, the hands of baby, girl, and woman, all in one, are round your neck. I know that in loving you she sees and loves her mother at her own age, sees and loves you at my age, loves her mother broken-hearted, loves youthrough your dreadful trial and in your blessed restoration. (2. 10. 9) †¢Detail 2:His past was now coming back for him like a zombie coming out a grave. I care nothing for this Doctor, I. He may wear his head or lose it, for any interest I have in him; it is all one to me. But, the Evremonde people are to be exterminated, and the wife and child must follow the husband and father. (3. 14. 6) †¢Detail 3:He now knows that his old life will never come back to him and he must live his new life with the help of Carton.

Simon as the Christ Life Figure in The Lord of the Flies Essay

The Lord of the Flies was written by William Golding. Simon is one of the major characters in this novel. Simon’s character lives by what is morally right as opposed to the rest of the island. Simon represents essential human goodness. There are many biblical parallels in the Lord of the Flies that result in Simon being compared to Christ.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  One reason Simon is regarded as the Christ figure in Lord of the Flies is that he commits many selfless acts just like Jesus Christ did. Simon chooses to stay and help Ralph build huts rather than go play with the other inhabitants. Ralph compliments Simon by saying â€Å"Simon. He Helps. All the rest rushed off. He’s done as much as I have† (54). Golding also illustrates Simon’s generosity when â€Å"Simon pulled off the choicest fr...

DBQ: Growth Of Political Parties Essay

In current times, the American political system is most commonly associated with the ongoing conflicts between political parties. The two major parties that strive for control of the American vote are the Democrats and the Republicans. However, when our government was formed, the political parties were quite different. At first, politicians tried to stay away from political parties, but by creating a democratic government, a political party system could not be avoided. The two recognized parties were the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, and the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton. Political parties separated the country. Washington had tried to prevent them from rising up, but due to extreme differences in views, his attempt was futile. Hamilton’s strong central government idea contrasted with Jefferson’s strong state side government. Sides were taken, and differences were debated. Without a compromise, each party would continue to try and impose their beliefs on the American people. The Democratic-Republicans appealed more to the common man, whereas the Federalists favored wealthy aristocrats. Financially, the Federalists were much more powerful than the Democratic-Republicans. The wealthy merchants were voted into office originally because of their social and economic status. Prior to Jefferson’s administration, many politicians were not publicly known like today. This led to Washington and Adam’s government being controlled by the Federalists. Jefferson would win the people and presidency. Jefferson and his supporters would control the government, ensuring that America would remain a democracy. Alexander Hamilton was Washington’s Secretary of Treasury. Over the course of Washington’s presidency, Hamilton proposed and passed some federalist bills. These bills led to a public distrust of the Federalist Party. Therefore causing a large portion of the country to side with the Democratic-Republicans. Hamilton’s party feared the Democratic-Republicans, saying â€Å"†Ã‚ ¦. the views of these gentlemen [Democratic-Republicans] are â€Å" ¦ unsound and dangerous.† Hamilton’s lack of faith in the other party caused him to impose more Federalist bills and limit the power of the common man. In retaliation to these new laws, many men began to express their distrust in the government through the newspapers. The Alien and Sedition Acts was  the most controversial bill passed by the federalists. As stated by John Allen, a Federalist Congressman, in 1798 â€Å"†Ã‚ ¦. Papers printed in this city and elsewhere [which print] the most shameless falsehoods against the representatives of the people†Ã‚ ¦Ã¢â‚¬  The Federalists feared the common man’s power to persuade others into becoming Democratic-Republicans. Washington’s Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, was the leader of the Democratic-Republican Party. As Jefferson wrote in a memo to himself in 1790, â€Å"†Ã‚ ¦Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but [in support] of a monarchy†Ã‚ ¦Ã¢â‚¬  Jefferson had not only publicly discredited Hamilton and the Federalist Party, but in private he also felt the same distrust. Jefferson also talked about the bills that Hamilton passed in his speeches, â€Å"The excise tax is an infernal one â€Å" ¦ and has now associated to it a detestation of the government.† After Hamilton’s biggest mistake, allowing the Alien and Sedition Acts to be passed, Jefferson easily won support from the common man. Even members of the government began to support Jefferson and his beliefs. As George Hay, a member of the Virginia State Legislature, said in 1799, â€Å"The freedom of the press â€Å" ¦ means the total exemption of the press from any kind of legislative control, and consequently the Sedition Bill â€Å" ¦ is an abridgement of its liberty†Ã‚ ¦Ã¢â‚¬  There were many differences in political views between Hamilton and Jefferson; this led to the formation of the political parties, and Hamilton’s poor choice of governing led to the popularity and the distinction of the two parties. Even though Washington attempted to forewarn us about the dangers of political parties, compromises could not be met, and therefore differences in beliefs will become actions; as demonstrated in the history of America’s government.

Gun Rights Under President George W. Bush

After a series of new laws under the administration of President Bill Clinton instituted background checks for handgun purchases and banned assault weapons, gun rights took a significant step forward during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration that followed. Although Bush himself supported several mild gun control measures and vowed to sign a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban if it reached his desk, his administration saw several advancements of gun rights on the federal level, especially in the courts. A Supporter of ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control In debates during both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush stated his support for background checks for gun buyers and for trigger locks. Additionally, he said on multiple occasions that the minimum age for carrying a handgun should be 21, not 18. However, Bush’s support for background checks stopped at instant checks that did not require waiting periods of three or five days. And his push for trigger locks extended only to voluntary programs. During his administration as governor of Texas, Bush implemented a program that provided voluntary trigger locks through police stations and fire departments. During the 2000 campaign, he called for Congress to spend $325 million in matching funds to enable state and local governments across the country to set up similar voluntary trigger lock programs. While his advocacy was for voluntary trigger locks, Bush said at one point during the 2000 campaign that he would sign a law requiring trigger locks for all handguns. On the other hand, Bush was an opponent of state and federal lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. An 11th-hour victory of the Clinton administration was a landmark deal with firearms manufacturer Smith Wesson that would see lawsuits cease in exchange for the company including trigger locks with gun sales and implementing a smart gun technology. Early in his presidency, Bush’s stance on gun industry lawsuits led to Smith Wesson withdrawing from its promises made to the Clinton White House. In 2005, Bush signed legislation providing the gun industry federal protection against lawsuits. The Assault Weapons Ban With the Assault Weapons Ban set to expire before the next presidential term was complete, Bush stated his support for the ban during the 2000 presidential campaign but stopped short of pledging to sign an extension. As the 2004 expiration date neared, however, the Bush administration signaled its willingness to sign legislation that either extended the ban or made it permanent. â€Å"[Bush] supports reauthorization of the current law,† White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters in 2003, as the debate over the gun ban began to heat up. Bush’s position on the ban represented a break from the National Rifle Association, which had been one of his administration’s staunchest allies. But the September 2004 deadline for renewing the ban came and went without an extension making it to the president’s desk, as the Republican-led Congress declined to take up the matter. The result was criticism on Bush from both sides: the gun owners who felt betrayed and the gun ban proponents who felt he did not do enough to pressure Congress into passing the AWB extension. â€Å"There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush into office, and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him,† keepandbeararms.com publisher Angel Shamaya told the New York Times. â€Å"In a secret deal, [Bush] chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and families he promised to protect,† said U.S. Sen. John Kerry, Bush’s opponent in the looming 2004 presidential election. Supreme Court Appointments Despite a cloudy picture on his overall stance on gun rights, the lasting legacy of the Bush administration will be his appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. John Roberts was nominated by Bush to replace William Rehnquist in 2005. Later that same year, Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the high court. Three years later, the court took up arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a critical case revolving around the District’s 25-year handgun ban. In a landmark ruling, the court knocked down the ban as unconstitutional and ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, providing a right to own guns for self-defense inside the home. Both Roberts and Alito ruled with the majority in a narrow 5-4 decision. Just 12 months after the Heller decision, another monumental gun rights case made its way before the court. In McDonald v. Chicago, the court struck down a gun ban in the city of Chicago as unconstitutional, ruling for the first time that the gun owner protections of the Second Amendment apply to states as well as to the federal government. Again, Roberts and Alito sided with the majority in a 5-4 decision.