You are to read Chapters 11 and 12 in the text.You are also going to read the lectures on presidents Thomas Jefferson to Ulysses Grant.You are going to choose Two of the following presidents: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson James Polk or Abraham Lincoln You will then view the videos on the two presidents that you choose and also read information in the module on your chosen presidents.
You are going to compare your TWO presidents as leaders, with their domestic policy, with their foreign policy. Remember that Polk and Lincoln were also war presidents and should be evaluated as war leaders.You are going to rate these two presidents by the following categories: High, above average, average, below average or poor.
Finally, you are going to rate which of the early presidents from Washington to Grant as the best president and why. Please respond to TWO of the other students’ choices. Good luck with this evaluation of the early presidents.
Machiavelli the Comedian GuidesorSubmit my paper for examination By Christopher S. Celenza portrait"Comedian," as a matter of fact, isn't the primary word you partner with Machiavelli—and "amusing" isn't a word ordinarily applied to Lucretius. But, through some weird speculative chemistry of time, condition, and the rhythms of Renaissance life, those apparently harsh components met up in a noteworthy manner. You could contend that Machiavelli's whole perspective was funny, however comic in an impossible to miss way: unexpected, wry, somewhat despairing, punctuated by a gritty indecency that, nowadays, would get him lost a college workforce in a moment. More than this, the focal premises of what was entertaining have changed so remarkably that it welcomes us to consider how parody functions and when the time has come to state that a satire, anyway admired, simply isn't clever any longer. Take his play, Mandragola, or, in English, "The Mandrake Root." The odd title (and it would have been odd in Machiavelli's day, as well) has to do with fruitfulness. The plant shows up in the Bible, in settings where coitus is being referred to, similar to when Leah, one of Jacob's two spouses, needs to persuade him to lie with her (Gen. 30:14-16), or when, in the Song of Songs, a lady sings her very own tune enchantment "I am my beloved's, and his longing is toward me … The mandrakes give a smell, and at our doors are all way of charming natural products … ." (Song of Songs, 7:10-13). On the off chance that the enduring scriptural relationship of the plant had to do with adoration, the herb likewise had mystical and spell-like implications. It could be thought to initiate an extraordinary and ground-breaking rest, and in certain records, was even idea to shout out when pulled from the earth. Machiavelli's title included a large number of these implications. The play concerns a youngster, Callimaco, who however Florentine in inception, spent quite a bit of his childhood in France. From signs in the play, we learn he is around thirty years of age and that the activity is set in the year 1504. At a get-together of companions, all male obviously, a discussion breaks out over who has the more lovely ladies, France or Italy. Despite the fact that the debaters give the palm to French ladies, one of his Florentine companions says he has a family member, Lucrezia, whose excellence is unparalleled anyplace. Callimaco gets inquisitive to the point of leaving France and going to Florence. There his interest heightens to energy, as he is everything except made frantic by adoration after at last looking at Lucrezia. As it occurs, Lucrezia is hitched to a moderate witted legal advisor named Messer Nicia. They have been attempting fruitlessly to have youngsters. Ligurio—a go between and, not fortuitously, a companion of Callimaco—proposes that the couple's difficulties may permit Callimaco to draw near to Lucrezia. From the outset, Ligurio recommends that the couple go to the showers, known to improve ripeness. Callimaco says he will go, so he can see Lucrezia and on the grounds that di cosa nasce cosa—"one thing brings forth another." He is prepared to heed his gut feelings and extemporize as need be to figure out how to be with Lucrezia. In any case, at that point another arrangement is brought forth. This one includes a detailed plan whereby Callimaco, acting like a specialist, persuades dull-witted Nicia to have Lucrezia take an extraordinary mixture to enable her to consider. The catch? The main individual to have intercourse with Lucrezia after she takes this mixture will kick the bucket. Yet, from there on, she will be fruitful, youngsters will follow, and all will be well, so the created story goes. Nicia consents to this "arrangement." Lucrezia's mom consents to help, as does a corruptible minister named Timoteo, and obviously Lucrezia is never to know about the lethal outcomes of her one-time, totally important, extra-conjugal undertaking. Furthermore, who lines up to assume the job of that conciliatory, lovemaking sheep? Callimaco (in ensemble), with Ligurio's excited assistance. Ligurio discloses to Callimaco how to break the updates on this to Lucrezia: Disclose the secret to her, show her the affection you bring her, reveal to her the amount you love her and how she can be your darling with no disrespect and how she can be your adversary, however with an incredible loss of her respect. When she goes through the night with you, she won't need it to be the last. Everything works out as expected. Lucrezia, having had Callimaco with her for a night and understanding that her respect would be lost in the event that she blew the whistle, in a manner of speaking, consents to take Callimaco as a darling in the desire that, when Nicia (more established as he seems to be) in the end dies, she and Callimaco will wed. Poor old Nicia is tricked into tolerating "specialist" Callimaco as a nearby family companion, and the play closes with Lucrezia being "presented" to this marvel working specialist. Furthermore, here is the place things get confused, in light of the fact that in all actuality what is being portrayed in the play is, basically, a sort of date assault. I had never been very alright with the content for definitely this explanation. Valid, there have been some women's activist researchers who have contended that it was Lucrezia's decision to go ahead, with the goal that it is truly she who has "organization." But we comprehend what the story is: Callimaco and Ligurio figured out how to get unadulterated, guileless Lucrezia into bed, chuckling as far as possible. This satire, just as Machiavelli's other comedic works, has from various perspectives a proper solidarity with the remainder of his (better known) oeuvre. All shaped piece of what we can call the "satire of life," in which life's arbitrariness, capriciousness (di cosa nasce cosa), and unintelligibility invest heavily of spot. Machiavelli himself had endured silly slings of fortune. He went from being a regarded open authority who partook in more than forty conciliatory missions for Florence (from 1498–1512) to going under outlandish doubt for trick, enduring prison time, and being constrained into house capture. A mind-blowing conditions instructed him all he had to think about existence's unconventionality. In any case, there was more to the story—some time around the year 1498, when a moderately youthful Machiavelli had not yet entered open life conclusively, he set aside the effort to hand duplicate two writings into a composition (that today dwells in the Vatican Library). The writings were: Lucretius' On the Nature of Things and Terence's Eunuch. It is an unusual juxtaposition, in any event superficially. Lucretius had gotten famous in the fifteenth century after Poggio Bracciolini found a full form of On the Nature of Things during the Council of Constance. The main century BCE mastermind had composed a thoughtful sonnet in six books. Its superseding subject was Epicureanism, and the greatness of its Latin enchanted Renaissance scholars consistently on the caution for expressive models. As an Epicurean, Lucretius embraced "atomism" as a premise of his regular way of thinking. He accepted, that will be, that all things were made of particles. At the point when the proper solidarity of some random thing finished—when a tree kicked the bucket, say, or when an individual died—the constituent particles at that point scattered into the void, to consolidate and recombine unendingly into different things. This procedure was absolutely common: "… nature is free and uncontrolled by glad bosses and runs the universe herself without the guide of divine beings." And however divine beings exist, they live in their own domain, totally indifferent with human issues: "… All their needs are provided essentially, and nothing whenever infections their genuine feelings of serenity." Human creatures are individually, and if there is a reason behind human life, it isn't self-evident: haphazardness is all. Lucretius is a ton of things. One thing he isn't, is entertaining. In any case, Terence is, at any rate by the guidelines of pre-present day Florence. Truth be told, Renaissance scholars loved Terence a lot, both as a model of how to compose Latin as individuals talked it everyday and as a model for satire. Tangled plots, romantic tales, clever workers, love-causing "frenzy" in youth: these things and more filled in as essential components of parody in the old world, as they did in the Renaissance. With regards to the Eunuch itself, it set stylishly in Athens, where a youngster, Phaedria, is frantically enamored with a remote conceived prostitute and is offered harsh guidance on adoration by his wily hireling. Sub-plot after sub-plot develops, and other love-struck characters become an integral factor. These incorporate Phaedria's sibling acting like an eunuch who utilizes his pretended status to be distant from everyone else with a lady with whom he is frantically enamored and on whom he at that point drives himself. He flees, however then is compelled to return, whereupon he announces his affection for the lady he assaulted, and they end up together. We don't generally have a clue why Machiavelli replicated those writings by Lucretius and Terence, consistently, going along with them in a solitary original copy. We have just the ancient rarity itself. Also, obviously, it is imprudent to make a lot of the reality. Be that as it may, the juxtaposition is important, welcoming us, as it does, to take a gander at what the two old writings shared and how they may have added to Machiavelli's perspectives on the "parody of life." Coming back to Mandragola, we can ask: is it amusing? As well as can be expected thought of is … kind of. On the off chance that it were performed and set well, the numerous comic asides could make a group of people giggle. In their farce of devout strictness, Timoteo's endeavors to persuade Lucrezia to proceed with what she accepts will be a savage demonstration of extra-conjugal sex are clever. Furthermore, the different occasions Timoteo is depicted as not exactly devout can induce a wry grin. Model: LIGURIO TO CALLIMACO: Your monk will need something past supplications. CALLIMACO: What? LIGURIO: Money. Yet, at that point there is that other thing: the date assault, yet additionally the feeling that Machiavelli and his male partner had not even once plunked down and had a genuine, individual to-individual discussion with a lady. Take Timoteo's monolog in Act 3, scene 9, where he is considering so anyone can hear on the arrangement. The genuine explanation he figures it will work: "… at last, all ladies are quite moderate" (tutte le donne hanno alla fine poco cervello). It is l>GET ANSWER