What Makes Shakespeares Hamlet Popular?

What Makes Shakespeares Hamlet Popular? The Enduring Popularity of Shakespeares Hamlet Why is Hamlet so popular? Shakespeare wrote countless masterpieces, many of which are debatably more exciting (The Tempest), momentous (Macbeth), intriguing (Othello), romantic (Romeo and Juliet) and profound (King Lear). But not only has Hamlet been produced more by the Royal Shakespeare company than any other work, it is a favourite of troupes (and audiences) around the world. From the play’s inception in 1602, up until the National Theatre’s acclaimed production in 2000 (and beyond), Hamlet has captured the imagination. A close examination of the play, along with a careful focus on its themes, will shed some light on Hamlet’s 400 year old enthrall, with a special emphasis on its relevance to a modern British audience. Hamlet is a tale of revenge, murder and existential and spiritual angst. The title character is a young prince whose father, the King of Denmark, has unexpectedly passed away. His brother, Claudius, has inherited the throne and taken the former king’s wife as his own. Hamlet is visited by his father’s ghost, who informs him that he was murdered by Claudius, and that his death needs to be avenged. Instead of instantly doing so, Hamlet attempts to first confirm his uncle’s guilt by feigning madness, and later by staging a play of the murder, to which Claudius’ reaction essentially confirms his guilt. But even with the evidence in hand, Hamlet is still unable to enact his revenge. After accidentally killing the king’s councilor Polonius, he is deported to England, and upon his return enters into a duel with Polonius’ son, Laertes. However, the fight is a setup; Laertes’s blade is poisoned, as is the wine in a goblet from which Hamlet is t o drink. While Hamlet wins the duel and ends up killing Claudius, he too succumbs to the poison and dies. In the play, Hamlet is by far the major presence: his problem is central to the plot, and his public and private exultations and speculations dominate the action (Hoy, 1991). Furthermore, the role of Hamlet is far larger than any other in all of Shakespeare’s works. While the play is filled with ambiguities, the biggest of all have to do with Hamlet’s motivations and actions (Levin, 1959). There is always more to him than the other characters in the play can figure out. Part of this has to do with the way Shakespeare crafted him – his intense pensiveness, his uncertainness, the vagaries of his actions – but part of it is Hamlet himself, who actually tells other characters that there is more to him than meets the eye, notably his mother and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. In addition, when he speaks, he sounds as if there’s something important he’s not saying, maybe something even he is not aware of (Hoy, 1991). What separates Hamlet from other revenge plays is that the action we expect to see is continually postponed (Wilson, 1951). Instead of being based on activity, the play is all about character, and really only the character of Hamlet. Many people regard Hamlet as a play about indecisiveness, but more than this, it can be seen as an examination of action itself; that is, the conditions necessary for such, and the appropriate amount required, depending on the circumstances. The question of how to act is affected not only by Hamlet’s need for certainty, but by emotional and psychological factors (Halliday, 1964). Hamlet himself appears to distrust the idea that it’s even possible to act in a controlled, rational way. For when he does act, he does so swiftly and recklessly. This extreme shift from paralysis to impulsiveness further adds to his enigmatic nature. Without action to sustain the play, the plot instead revolves around Hamlet contemplating various questions, among them: Is the ghost what it appears to be, or is it really trying to deceive him? How can the facts about a crime be known without there being any witnesses? Can Hamlet know the intricacies of Claudius’s soul by studying his behaviour? Can we ever really know whether our actions will have the consequences we want them to have? Can we know what happens in the afterlife? (Levin, 1959). This last question is one of the most powerful throughout the play. There are times when Hamlet seems to feel that death itself may bring the answers to his deepest concerns (Wilson, 1951). The question of his own death plagues him, and he more than once contemplates whether or not suicide is a legitimate choice in an unbearably painful world. Hamlet’s grief is such that he frequently longs for death to end his suffering, but worries that if he commits suicide, he will be suffer eternally in hell. In his famous â€Å"To be or not to be† soliloquy, Hamlet concludes that no one would choose to endure the pain of life if they were not afraid of what will come after death, and that it is this fear which causes morality to interfere with action (Levin, 1959). In sum, Hamlet, is ambiguous, vague and mysterious, uncertain, indecisive and pensive, self-loathing and self-reflexive, simultaneously afraid to live and afraid to die. Is it any wonder then that people can relate to him? People enjoy Hamlet because he evokes their sympathy. His character is flesh and blood. He doesn’t just act; he thinks, he questions, he feels. Hamlet is extremely philosophical and contemplative, and takes the time to analyze difficult questions that cannot be answered with any certainty. His melancholy is in many ways endearing. Though his actual age is debatable, in essence he is the quintessential teenager, afraid to grow up and take on burdens and responsibility he knows he must and yet is not ready for. His urgency is contagious. Beyond this, there are the questions he deals with, primarily those of death and the afterlife, that haunt us all. It is extremely rare to not only hear such questions so well articulated, but to hear them articulated at all. These conversations are largely relegated to our own heads. They are intimate and personal, and are seldom expressed. To see them on stage is to bear witness to our own souls. But this only explains why the character of Hamlet is so popular. Though he dominates the course of the action (or lack thereof), there is another reason why the play itself has been so successful and so resonant, which has to do with the famous line: â€Å"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark† (Hamlet, I, iv, 90). Everything is related in Hamlet, including the health of the ruling royal family and that of the nation as a whole (Hoy, 1991). Throughout the play, there are explicit connections drawn between the two. Denmark is often described as a physical body made ill by the moral corruption of Claudius. While the dead King Hamlet is portrayed as a strong, noble ruler under whose guard the state was in good health, Claudius, is regarded as wicked, corrupt and out to satisfy only his own appetites (Wilson, 1951). Throughout history, similar correlations have been made, from Stalin and Hitler to Blair and Bush. While the latter pair are perhaps far less sinister, their po litical decisions have similarly shaped the perceptions of the citizens of the nations they lead, as well as the perceptions of those on the outside. Our leaders are responsible for the overall â€Å"health† of the state, and the war in Iraq and other actions are doing little at the moment to paint a picture of good health. Close observers of Hamlet, no matter of what time period, sense this parallel instantly. Modern society, specifically the UK, is still in Hamlet’s thrall. In today’s world, with so many problems and too few solutions, it is easy to feel powerless and paralyzed. There are choices to be made, and actions to take, but 1) which ones should be carried out and 2) will they even do any good? The modern person is at a crossroads, and in some ways Hamlet personifies this better than anyone else. Throw in the play’s description of the state as being deceased, and the work comes across almost as the poster child for modern malaise. This is evidenced in the 2000 production by the National Theatre, which is only one of many recent and successful incarnations of the play. The title role was played by Russell Beale, who prepared for the part by looking into himself in an attempt to bring out the â€Å"everyman quality† of Hamlet, along with his intense self-reflection and (albeit feigned) madness. To do justice to Shakespeare’s words, in this case gra vitating between wit, wryness and self-reflection, Beale decided not to force emotion, but to instead â€Å"get there slowly, to get the emotional arc right, and not find too many moments of crisis† (Beale, 2000). The actor, in perhaps a bit of method, decided to try and capture Hamlet’s grief by using his own, in this case the fact that his mother died a few weeks before the performance. He also used his frustration over â€Å"not being able to feel enough† to further cement and perfect his interpretation (Beale, 2000). By all accounts he didn’t disappoint. The Independent declared Beale’s Hamlet â€Å"not at all ‘Hamlet-like,’ and his performance â€Å"moving and crystal clear,† characterized by â€Å"an aching regret for the world that might have been rather than a seething contempt for the world that exists† (Taylor, 2000). When Hamlet returned from England, the reviewer found him emanating a â€Å"shyly gracious acceptance of the mystery of life and fate,† and in dying â€Å"moved towards the audience as if painfully and belatedly conscious of their presence, imparting an even more shattering sense of the waste of a noble life† (Taylor, 2000). The Evening Standard wrote that the performances illuminated the text in ways that made it fresh and accessible, and Beale’s performance of â€Å"clarity, humanity and humility held the audience spellbound†¦they could only suffer with his confusion, grief self-loathing and doubt† (de Jongh, 2000). The Guardian complimented Beale for being â€Å"everything one could hope for: witty, ironic, intelligent, ‘a Henry James who is also a swordsman’ to borrow Harold Bloom’s phrase,† and: â€Å"bookish, inward, reflective and intensely capable of self-scrutiny† (Billington, 2000). Furthermore, the paper admired his â€Å"capacity for surprise, moral sensitivity and parodic wit† and his ability to convey â€Å"the paralysis of the intellectual caught up in a world of realpolitik,† resulting in a â€Å"first-rate, deeply intellectual Hamlet whose weapons are primarily verbal and who understands that revenge cannot offer meaningful redress† (Billington, 2000). In the National Theatre’s production, along with countless others over four centuries, a central theme is constantly repeated: Hamlet’s self-loathing, specifically in regards to his lack of feeling, which, as much as his lack of action, makes him guilty. This aspect of his character is perhaps more relevant today than ever. The theme of powerlessness, along with the tangible frustration and guilt that comes with it, can easily find a home in the mind of a modern audience member. In addition, Hamlet’s intensely relatable â€Å"human all too human† qualities, his probing thoughts on the afterlife and the theme of the â€Å"nation as diseased body† are so universal and timeless that they shed much light on the play’s appeal. Perhaps there will come by a day when Hamlet fails to strike a chord with audiences. But for now, Shakespeare’s masterful creation and revolutionary character study is safely ingrained in our consciousness. Bibliography Beale, Russell. The Readiness is All. National Theatre, 2000. http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/?lid=2485 Billington, Michael. The Guardian, September 6, 2000. Crystal, David, and Crystal, Ben. The Shakespeare Miscellany. Penguin: New York, 2005. de Jongh, Nicholas. The Evening Standard, September 6, 2000. Halliday, F. E. A Shakespeare Companion 1564-1964. New York: Penguin, 1964. Hoy, Cyrus. Hamlet: An Authoritative Text, Intellectual Backgrounds, Extracts from the Sources, Essays in Criticism. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1991. Levin, Harry. The Question of Hamlet. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Braunmuller, A.R., Orgel, Stephen (Eds.). New York: Penguin Classics, 2001. Taylor, Paul. The Independent, September 6, 2000. Wilson, John. What Happens in Hamlet. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1951.

Essay on Character Parallels in To Kill a Mockingbird :: Kill Mockingbird essays

Character Parallels in To Kill a Mockingbird  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚      In real life there are many different types of people, some of them are similar to one another, while others can be opposite/different, just like in the book To Kill a Mocking Bird, by Harper Lee. There are many people in the book, some people are contradictory to one another (character foils), while others resemble each other (character parallels) in both good and/or bad ways. Atticus Finch and Aunt Alexander is an example of a character foil in the book. Even though they are brother and sister and grew up together, they are two people with very different views. Atticus is more easy going when he raises up Jem and Scout, for example he lets his kids call him Atticus, and let's Scout dress with the clothes that she feels comfortable in. While on the other hand Aunt Alexander is more strict, she cares a lot about family background and she wants Scout to act and dress more "lady like". Atticus views that it is his duty to do his best in the Tom Robinson trial and feels no prejudice against Tom, because he is black. While Aunt Alexander doesn't like Atticus taking the case because Tom is black, and wants Atticus to go and fire Calpurnia. Tom Robinson and Bob Ewell is another example of a character foil in the book To Kill a Mocking Bird. Bob Ewell and Tom Robinson are two completely different people in the story. They both don't have a lot of money, but Tom Robinson chooses to work hard for his money, while Bob Ewell lives off welfare and sqaunders all his money on booze and whiskey. Bob Ewell beats up on his daughter Mayella, while Tom tries to do all that he can in order to help her out. Tom says that he did not beat and rape Mayella, while Bob Ewell says that he did. Two characters that are similar to each other are Tom Robinson and Boo (Arthur) Radley. These two are similar in that there are false rumors going on about them. People accused Tom of beating and raping Mayella Ewell, and people talk about Boo, and say that he is a very violent person, when those things are both false.

Christopher McCandless Essay

Christopher Johnson McCandless (February 12, 1968 – August 1992) was an American hiker who adopted the alias Alexander Supertramp and ventured into the Alaskan wilderness in April 1992 with little food and equipment, hoping to live simply for a time in solitude. Almost four months later, McCandless’s remains were found, weighing only 67 pounds (30 kg). It has recently been speculated that Chris had developed lathyrism, caused by his consumption of seeds from a flowering plant in the legume family which contain the neurotoxin ODAP. McCandless’s resulting paralysis would have caused a gradual inability to move, hunt or forage and this could have led to his death from starvation.[1] His death occurred in a converted bus used as a backcountry shelter, near Lake Wentitika in Denali National Park and Preserve. In January 1993, Jon Krakauer published McCandless’ story in that month’s issue of Outside magazine. Inspired by the details of McCandless’s story, Krakauer wrote and published Into the Wild in 1996 about McCandless’ travels. The book was adapted into a film by Sean Penn in 2007 with Emile Hirsch portraying McCandless. That same year, McCandless’s story also became the subject of Ron Lamothe’s documentary The Call of the Wild. A full-length article on McCandless also appeared in the February 8, 1993 issue of the The New Yorker magazine.[2] Earlier years[edit] Christopher McCandless was born in El Segundo, California, the first of two children to Walter â€Å"Walt† McCandless and Wilhelmina â€Å"Billie† Johnson. Chris had one younger sister, Carine. In 1976, the family settled in Annandale, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C., after his father was employed as an antenna specialist for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). His mother worked as a secretary at Hughes Aircraft and later assisted her husband with his successful home-based consulting company in Annandale. Walt and Billie often fought and sometimes contemplated divorce.[citation needed] Chris and Carine had six half-siblings living in California from Walt’s first marriage. Walt was not yet divorced from his first wife when Chris and Carine were born; however, Chris did not discover his father’s affair until a summer trip to Southern California[3] in 1986. This discovery caused him to hold a lot of bitterness towards his father, and could have been a factor in his views about society. At school, teachers noticed McCandless was unusually strong-willed.[citation needed][who?] In  adolescence he coupled this with intense idealism and physical endurance. In high school, he served as captain of the cross-country team, urging teammates to treat running as a spiritual exercise in which they were â€Å"running against the forces of darkness †¦ all the evil in the world, all the hatred.†[4] On June 2, 1986, McCandless graduated from W.T. Woodson High School in Fairfax, Virginia. On June 10, McCandless embarked on one of his first major adventures in which he traveled throughout the country in his Datsun B-210, arriving at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, two days prior to the beginning of fall classes. His upper middle class background and academic success were drivers for his contempt of what he saw as the empty materialism of society. McCandless was strongly influenced by Jack London, Leo Tolstoy, W. H. Davies and Henry David Thoreau. In his junior year, he declined membership in the Phi Beta Kappa Society, on the basis that honors and titles were irrelevant. McCandless graduated from Emory on May 12, 1990, with a Bache lor’s degree, double majoring in history and anthropology. He envisioned separating from organized society for a Thoreauvian period of solitary contemplation. Travels[edit] In May 1990, Christopher McCandless donated the remaining $24,000, given to him by a family friend for his law degree, to Oxfam International, a hunger prevention charity. Towards the end of June, he began traveling under the name â€Å"Alexander† McCandless until later adopting the last name of â€Å"Supertramp† (Krakauer notes the connection with Welsh author W. H. Davies and his 1908 autobiography The Autobiography of a Super-Tramp). Most people he encountered regarded him as intelligent and one who loved to read. By the end of the summer, McCandless made his way through Arizona, California and South Dakota, where he worked at a grain elevator in Carthage. He survived a flash flood, but allowed his car to wash out (although it suffered little permanent damage and was later reused by the local police force as an undercover vehicle) and disposed of his license plate.[citation needed] In 1991, McCandless paddled a canoe down remote stretches of the Colorado River to the Gulf of California. He crossed the border to Mexico and, having gotten lost in many dead-end canals, was towed by duckhunters to the sea, where he stayed for some time. He took pride in surviving with a minimum of gear and funds, and generally made little preparation. Alaskan Odyssey[edit] For years, McCandless dreamed of an â€Å"Alaskan Odyssey† wherein he would live off the land of the Alaskan wilderness, far away from civilization, and â€Å"find himself†[citation needed]. He kept a journal describing his physical and spiritual progress as he faced the forces of nature. In April 1992, McCandless hitchhiked from Enderlin, North Dakota, to Fairbanks, Alaska. He was last seen alive on April 28, 1992, by Jim Gallien, a local, who gave him a ride from Fairbanks to the head of the Stampede Trail. Gallien was concerned about â€Å"Alex†, who had minimal supplies (not even a compass) and no experience surviving in the Alaskan bush. Gallien repeatedly tried to persuade Alex to defer his trip, and even offered to drive him to Anchorage to buy suitable equipment and supplies. However, McCandless ignored Gallien’s warnings, refusing all assistance except for a pair of Wellington rubber boots, two tuna melt sandwiches, and a bag of corn chips. Gallie n allowed Chris to wander off with the belief that he would head back towards the highway within a few days as his eventual hunger set in. After hiking along the snow-covered Stampede Trail, McCandless found an abandoned bus (about 40 miles (64 km) west of Healy) used as a hunting shelter and parked on an overgrown section of the trail near Denali National Park, and began to live off the land. He had 10 pounds (4.5 kg) of rice, a Remington semi-automatic rifle with 400 rounds of .22LR hollowpoint ammunition, several books including one on local plant life, and some camping equipment. He assumed he could forage for plant food and hunt game. For the next thirty days or so, McCandless poached porcupines, squirrels, and birds, such as ptarmigans and Canada geese. On June 9, 1992, he managed to kill a moose; however, he failed to preserve the meat properly, and within days it spoiled and was covered with maggots. His journal contains entries covering a total of 112 days. These entries range from ecstatic to grim with McCandless’ changing fortunes. In July, after living in the bus for three months, he decided to leave, but found the trail back blocked by the Teklanika River, which was then considerably higher and swifter than when he crossed in April. Unknown to McCandless, there was a hand-operated tram that crossed the river only 1⠁„4 of a mile away from where he h ad previously crossed. In the 2007 documentary The Call of the Wild, evidence is presented that McCandless had a map at his disposal, which should have helped him find  another route to safety.[5] McCandless lived in the bus for a total of 113 days. At some point during that time, presumably very near the end, he posted an S.O.S. note calling on anyone passing by to help him because he was injured and too weak. The full note read: â€Å" Attention Possible Visitors. S.O.S. I need your help. I am injured, near death, and too weak to hike out. I am all alone, this is no joke. In the name of God, please remain to save me. I am out collecting berries close by and shall return this evening. Thank you, Chris McCandless. August?[6] † Death[edit] On August 12, 1992, McCandless wrote what are apparently his final words in his journal: â€Å"Beautiful Blueberries.† He tore the final page from Louis L’Amour’s memoir, Education of a Wandering Man, which contains an excerpt from a Robinson Jeffers poem titled â€Å"Wise Men in Their Bad Hours†: Death’s a fierce meadowlark: but to die having madeSomething more equal to centuriesThan muscle and bone, is mostly to shed weakness.The mountains are dead stone, the peopleAdmire or hate their stature, their insolent quietness,The mountains are not softened or troubledAnd a few dead men’s thoughts have the same temper. His body was found in his sleeping bag inside the bus by Butch Killian, a local hunter, on September 6, 1992.[7] McCandless had been dead for more than two weeks and weighed an estimated 30 kilograms (66 lb). His official, undisputed cause of death was starvation. Krakauer suggests two factors may have contributed to McCandlessâ€⠄¢s death. First, he was running the risk of a phenomenon known as â€Å"rabbit starvation† due to increased activity, compared with the leanness of the game he was hunting.[8] Krakauer also speculates that McCandless might have ingested toxic seeds (Hedysarum alpinum or Hedysarum mackenzii) or a mold that grows on them (Rhizoctonia leguminicola produces the toxic alkaloid swainsonine). However, an article in Men’s Journal stated that extensive laboratory testing showed there was no toxin present in McCandless’s food supplies. Dr. Thomas Clausen, the chair of the chemistry and biochemistry department at UAF said â€Å"I tore that plant apart. There were no toxins. No alkaloids. I’d eat it myself.†[9] Analysis of the wild sweet peas, given as the cause of Chris’s death in Sean Penn’s film, turned up no toxic compounds and there is not a single account in modern medical literature of anyone being poisoned by this  species of plant.[5] As one journalist put it: â€Å"He didn’t find a way out of the bush, couldn’t catch enough food to survive, and simply starved to death.†[9] However, the possibility of death through the consumption of the mold, which grew on the seeds in the damp bags which McCandless stored them in, was considered a suitable explanation by Krakauer.[3] Subsequently the academic Ronald Ha milton made the link between the symptoms described by Chris and the poisoning of Jewish prisoners in the Nazi concentration camp in Vapniarca. He put forward the proposal that Chris McCandless died of lathyrism caused by ODAP poisoning from Hedysarum alpinum seeds which hadn’t been picked up by the previous studies as they were searching for alkaloid instead of toxic protein. The protein would be relatively harmless to a well-fed person on a normal diet, but toxic to someone who was malnourished, physically stressed, and on an irregular and insufficient diet, as McCandless was. Subsequent tests revealed ODAP was indeed present in the seeds. [10][11] Criticism[edit] McCandless has been a polarizing figure ever since his story first broke following his death, along with Krakauer’s Outside article on him in January 1993. While Krakauer and many readers have a largely sympathetic view of McCandless,[12] others, particularly Alaskans, have expressed negative views about McCandless and those who romanticize his fate.[13] The most charitable view among McCandless’s detractors is that his behavior showed a profound lack of common sense. He chose not to bring a compass, something that most people in the same situation would have considered essential. McCandless was also completely unaware that a hand-operated tram crossed the otherwise impassable river 0.25 miles (0.40 km) from where he attempted to cross. Had McCandless known this, he could easily have saved his own life.[4] There has been some speculation (particularly in details given in the Lamothe documentary) that he vandalised survival cabins and supplies in the area. However, Ken K ehrer, chief ranger for Denali National Park, denied that McCandless was considered a vandalism suspect by the National Park Service.[14] His venture into a wilderness area alone, without adequate planning, experience, preparation, or supplies, without notifying anyone and lacking emergency communication equipment, was contrary to every principle of outdoor survival and, in the eyes of many experienced outdoor  enthusiasts, nearly certain to end in misfortune. Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote: When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn’t even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament [†¦ ] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide.[13] Sherry Simpson, writing in the Anchorage Press, described her trip to the bus with a friend, and their reaction upon reading the comments that tourists had left lauding McCandless as an insightful, Thoreau-like figure: Among my friends and acquaintances, the story of Christopher McCandless makes great after-dinner conversation. Much of the time I agree with the â€Å"he had a death wish† camp because I don’t know how else to reconcile what we know of his ordeal. Now and then I venture into the â€Å"what a dumb–† territor y, tempered by brief alliances with the â€Å"he was just another romantic boy on an all-American quest† partisans. Mostly I’m puzzled by the way he’s emerged as a hero.[15] Jon Krakauer defends McCandless, claiming that what critics point to as arrogance was merely McCandless’s desire for â€Å"being the first to explore a blank spot on the map.† Krakauer continues that â€Å"In 1992, however, there were no more blank spots on the map—not in Alaska, not anywhere. But Chris, with his idiosyncratic logic, came up with an elegant solution to this dilemma: He simply got rid of the map. In his own mind, if nowhere else, the terra would thereby remain incognita.†[16] Others have pointed out that a map of the area (although apparently not including the location of the hand-powered tram) was found among McCandless’s belongings, and refute the accusations that he intentionally discarded this map.[17]

What Camp Lejuene Rule Change Means For Veterans

What Camp Lejuene Rule Change Means For Veterans What The Camp Lejuene Rule Change Means For Veterans An upcoming rule change from the Department of Veterans Affairs is a major step in the right direction for thousands of our veterans. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North Carolina was found to have had a water contamination between 1953 and 1987. This has led to many veterans suffering from debilitating diseases.The new rule change will presume that if a veteran served a minimum of 30 days at Camp Lejeune between those years, and has one or more of the eight diseases set forth, that there is a service connection between them.The eight diseases that they have set forth are:LeukemiaAnemiaMultiple MyelomaNon-Hodgkin’s LymphomaParkinson’s Diseasesome bladder disorderskidney cancerliver cancerJust because the VA is changing their rule on this, does not guarantee that you will receive the proper disability rating. This is long overdue, and the veterans who have already been fighting this type of case are not going to be magically approved. As anyone who has g one through the disability process with the VA will tell you, nothing is guaranteed, and nothing happens overnight. Even with all of the proper documentation, these cases can still be a massive undertaking.If you have any questions about the Camp Lejeune rule, or anything else regarding veteran’s benefits, please contact our office today at 888-679-5180. Our experienced Veterans Disability attorneys will gladly assist you.

Issue Paper Essays - Bush Family, Livingston Family, Schuyler Family

Issue Paper Essays - Bush Family, Livingston Family, Schuyler Family Issue Paper Issue paper In the two thousand presidential elections there are two main candidates. The candidates are Al Gore and Governor George W Bush. Al Gore is the candidate running for the Democratic Party and Bush is running for the Republic party. Each candidate has great points on certain issues. The president whom won my vote though, was Governor Bush. Bush won my vote for many reasons. Some of his feelings for certain issues met in agreement with mine. His main mentor is his father. He is governor, so he definitely has the leadership skills needed to be president. His tax cut plan seems to be highly intelligent. He feels that it is important to cut taxes to lessen government spending and to keep economy growing. He pledges to cut one point three trillion dollars for everyone. The best part being is that George wants to cut taxes for people of every class. He has what seems to be a great social security plan, which is to not cut social security for senior citizens. Bush doesnt even want to think of touching set aside money for social security. He wants to give younger workers the option to invest some of their contributions. According to George, his first priority is education. He wants to assist education any which way he can to increase its efficiency. He feels that the government should give schools more stately freedom. Governo r Bush has a list of principles to better schools, some of which are: having measurable goals, regular testing, accountability, local control, and competition. He applied this principle to Texas where he is govenor and the results are incredible. Gore did not win my vote. He didnt win it for a few reasons. He is the vice- president; this is proof that he definitely has the experience. He wants to bring more government into peoples lives. He feels it is trully necessary. Als first priority is campaign-finance reform. He feels that it needs many adjustments, for there are so many flaws in the old laws that contain it. Al wants to reduce the cost of campaigns, restore the faith of the people, and eliminate the influence of special interests and more. He offers great ideas but this shouldnt be his first priority. For social security he feels the system should be kept the same and have Uncle Sam fund extra retirement plans for the working class. He has many propositions of how to save the social security fund. Some of his propositions are; to devote all social security surpluses to social security, oppose efforts to raise the retirement age, three: improving fairness to widows, to create retirement savings plus accounts, which are tax-free accounts that are maintained by private financial institutions, and more. This shows he wants more government involvement. For his tax plan it seems that he wants to pick only certain people to give assistance to and neglect the others. Some categories he has chosen to help out are; Working families caring for children and aging parents, for educational purposes, Family liabilities, retirements, low-income communities, and more. My vote is for Bush, and stands firm. I like Gores tax plan a little better, but Bushs whole outlook seems more beneficial to me. I dont like Clinton too much and I feel that if we do get Gore as president it is just like reelecting Clinton. Gore has some good ideas but his wanting for more government involvement made him lose my vote. Overall Bush has better plans and ideas in-which government assistance is not needed.

Extra credit Human resources development Assignment

Extra credit Human resources development - Assignment Example Therefore, it can be safely inferred that certain methods of recruitment are superior to others due to a variety of reasons. The power of the internet can be emphasized by the fact that it has found widespread application in nearly all aspects of human lives. From grocery shopping to international import/exports, the usefulness of the internet cannot be denied. The aspect of online recruiting is one of these, and it seems that internet has to a great extent molded the face of modern recruiting activities. The process of shortlisting the candidates has greatly been simplified as seen in the selection process of very famous firms like Coopers & Lybrand where one-fourth of the applicants are eliminated during the initial process of selection online (College Press Service, 1997). The HR management teams identify a number of parameters for which the applicants have to be tested. Once this is done, it becomes possible to conduct the test online and manage the selection of eligible candidates (Vecchio, 1996). Another important benefit of using the online recruitment systems is the widespread availability and accessibility of internet. This has removed the concept of international borders to some extent as employers are free to hire capable individuals from all around the globe for the specific job at hand. Similarly, in the virtual world, nearly everyone is able to promote and sell his/her skills online, and employers have the choice of limiting their selection to the most appropriate employee. One of the negative aspects of internet recruiting is the fact that for the demanding jobs on the internet, HR managements of companies are flooded with applications once a job is advertised, this makes it impossible for humans to manage such huge amounts of data thereby making it possible for computers or softwares to replace humans in the future. A number of legal issues are likely to arise as the practice of internet recruiting is

Socio-Technical Systems Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Socio-Technical Systems - Term Paper Example The most significant characteristic of a Socio-Technical is that â€Å"it values both effectiveness and humankind†. Such a system is important because it works in a way that can eliminate the unethical aspects of technology. It works to attain technological brilliance and an enhanced and quality work from labor force. It scrutinizes different projects thoroughly before working on them in order to cut down their negative and unscrupulous traits. Such a system works according to the modern world by taking advantage technology but on the other hand these systems also consider individual welfare. By compiling human force and technology such system builds up a ground which can develop and prosper easily if it uses its human and technological resources efficiently. Joint collaboration, communication and cooperation are major goals of a socio-technical system. Some common examples of socio-technical systems are a factory and a hospital where a variety of employees work together under different groups and teams and use technical equipment such as spinning machines or X-Ray machines etc to perform their tasks. Collaboration and agreement between the members of these groups and teams are necessary for fluid operating system.