Author: Jeffrey Pitts

Mason Locke Weems was an American minister, as well as an evangelical bookseller and author. He is best known for his biographies of historical figures. The best known one was a biography on George Washington, The Life of Washington. He wrote this book in the year 1800.

The Life of Washington was widely accepted after it was written. According to Google Books, “The effect of this “single, immortal, and dubious anecdote,” and others like it, has made this book one of the most influential in the history of American folklore. Originally published as an eighty-page pamphlet entitled The Life and Memorable Actions of George Washington, it quickly attained immense popularity.” This book helped to influence folklore about the life of Washington. I think that one reason why this book was widely accepted was because he was the first president of the United States of America, which is kind of a big deal.

In this book includes a lot of Washington’s successes in his life, but it also talks about his childhood and his private life, some of which we know nothing about, so he kind of came up with some stories to fill in the gaps and make Washington seem like a better person than he probably was.

How believable is Weems’ book on Washington? Some of these stories he tells about Washington are completely believable, because we have historical evidence that it actually happened. However, some stories he told about Washington he either exaggerated, or it just did not happen. He once said in his book, Washington, as a boy, threw a stone over the Rappahannock river which was over 300 yards long. Now, maybe some baseball pitchers can do this, but Washington as a kid? I doubt it. Some stories he completely made up to make Washington seem ever the more great than he really was. However, some stories are historically accurate. Weems also talk about Washington’s theology. He says that the public loves Washington. He says Washington was the model of greatness. He also gives a detailed description of Washington’s death. He says God has rewarded Washington greatly, and how angels arrive to bear him up to heaven. I would say that this highly unlikely that this would happen. Weems also gives us a detailed description of his childhood. He says that he played strategic army games with his friends, and he was amazing at them. He says that Washington was fast on his feet. He said Washington won every footrace because he was fast. He also tells the famous story of young George cutting down a cherry tree. We all know that story, right?

How believable is Weems’ book on Washington? I would say mostly not believable at all. Most of these stories are made up, but some are true. However, they are so intertwined, I could not figure out which of his stories were true, or false. However, it was widely accepted after Washington’s death, and helped add to common folklore. It was a bestseller, so apparently it was a really good book back then.

A labor union is a group of employees or workers of a specific business or industry or trade that work to maintain a better working conditions, salary, etc. Price inflation is the increase of prices of goods or services over time.

It is commonly believed by many people that labor unions do cause price inflation, however, they cause it not by increasing the current salaries of workers, but by reducing the current salaries of workers. How is this possible? Well, they push their employers to raise the prices of their products. This means that the employees get paid more. Remember when I said a labor union of a specific industry work to maintain a better salary? Some times they do this by pushing the employers to raise the prices of the products, so that people will pay more for the product. This way, the employees get paid more for their work. This may work out for the labor unions, but the buyers of the product now have to pay more for the product. In fact, the buyers may even think that this product is not worth the extra money, and buy something else from a different industry or company. Enough people do this, and labor unions are stuck with even less money than they began with.

Labor unions want more money for their work, so they push their employers to raise the price of the product. Buyers then see the raised price of the product, and decide this product is not worth the extra money, and buy something else. Now, the workers who formed the labor union are now stuck with even less money than they had at the beginning.

 If I wanted to make money by writing a self-improvement book for Americans, what topic would I chose? The topic would be related to self-improvement, so it would be a book that helps people improve their own knowledge, character, or status. I would rather write a book that helps people improve a person’s character. That would be my topic. I would write a book that helps people improve their character. I would do this by using the Bible for references to write the book. The Bible is full of lessons about how to model your character and it gives examples of who to model yourself after. I would use the Bible to write a book about how people can model their character and examples they can use to model their own life after. However, this book might not be a self-improvement book, but more like a Biblical counseling book. But, I would rather write a Biblical counseling book focusing on the topic of self-improving your character based on what the Bible says, rather than a regular self-improvement book focusing on improving your character. I would write this book to help people improve their character using Biblical methods so they can not only improve their character based on the Bible, but they can also grow closer to God while doing it. That way, people can improve their character based on what the Bible says and at the same time, grow closer to God. That way, if the reader was having trouble with their character, they might read the book, find inspiration, and the book can help the reader change their character and give them examples of Biblical people to help them. However, the book could not only help them with this, but it could motivate them to get deeper into the Bible and grow closer to God and help them become a better Christian.

If I wanted to make money by writing this book, I would chose the topic improving you character based on what the Bible says. I would write this book, and maybe make money. There is a chance that I would not make a lot of money, but that is fine. I would not really care about the money, but it would be nice to get some. I would write it to help people improve their character based on Biblical standards, and it might even encourage them to get into the Bible themselves and grow closer to God. This is why I would this book, to help people improve their character based on what the Bible says. That way, people can grow in Christ and improve their character at the same time. That they put off the old man, and put on the new man in Christ.

 

Ephesians 4:22-24

“that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.”

Imports are goods that were made in one country and is coming into a different country to be sold. Exports are goods that were made in one country and is being sent out to be sold into another country. Think of imports as in-coming goods, and exports as out-going goods. Make sense? Also, tariffs are kind of like taxes. People place tariffs (taxes) on people who want to sell their goods in a different country. Basically, people who want to sell their products in another country have to pay the government in order to be free to sell their products. That is what a tariff does.

Does a tariff (tax) on imports (in-coming goods) also reduce exports (out-going goods)? It will. Here’s how. If you put a tariff on imports, there is likely to be lower imports, causing lower exports. Tariffs could potentially hurt exporters by making the exported products more expensive. The exporters could struggle to maintain their sales, or be forced to cut the prices of their goods. This causes profits to fall, and this could affect the exporters’ country’s economy.

Tariffs can also increase the cost of goods and services from an importing country. This causes higher prices, causing a decrease in the consumer’s demands for that commodity. This creates a surplus in the exporting country. All of this causing a decrease in the exporting country’s export volume.

There are many other reasons why tariffs on imports reduce exports, I just mentioned some simple to understand ones.

 This topic refers to Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis, published during the American Revolution. A critique is kind of like a criticism. So what I am supposed to to is write a criticism referring to Pain’s American Crisis from the point of view of a loyalist to the British.

Paine’s idea of this pamphlet was idealizes the American citizens and the countries origins, and uses this to encourage them to fight for independence rather than be subjects loyal to Britain. He encourages them to continue to fight for independence in their strive for freedom from Britain.

If I were loyal to Britain, I would say that the colonists are wasting their time, that Paine was wasting his time writing these pamphlets. That even though they wanted independence, Britain still owned them, and they were loyal to Britain whether they liked it or not. I would also say that America would prosper much better if it were under Britain rather than independent from it. That the men trying to fight for independence would all die in the war, and America would still be under Britain’s control. I would tell Paine that he was giving the colonists false hope, telling they to fight for independence and claim freedom from the British. That his false hope encouraging the colonists to fight for independence would get the colonists killed. That him and his pamphlet would cost the colonists their lives.

If I were loyal to Britain (which thankfully I am not), this would be my criticism of Paine’s pamphlet. I do not know if it would do any good though.

Would I pay 20% more to shop at a store that sells only American-made goods? Why would I do that? Prices are already high enough. I would not pay even more to shop at a store that sells only American-made goods. Now, American-made goods are helpful, but not all of America’s goods can be helpful. In fact, some of the best things are made in China. I would buy American things, but to pay 20% extra to shop at a store that sells only American-made goods? I would never. If there was an item you wanted to buy and it was made in China, but you found the same item elsewhere and it was made in America, but the item made in America was 20% more, which one of these two items would you want to buy? I would assume it would be the one made in China. And that goes for every other nation as well. I you did all of your shopping at a store that sells only American-made goods because you do not want to buy anything that was made in another country, does that mean that you do not like the other countries that the US buys things from? What kind of message are you sending to other people? Now, I may pay an extra 20% at a store that sells only American-made goods, but only if it has the item I need, and I can not find it anywhere else. Otherwise, I would not go there and pay an unnecessary extra 20%.

The author of Common Sense, Thomas Paine, was an American Founding Father, even though he was born in England (he was actually encouraged to move to Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin in London). He was also a political activist, philosopher, political theorist, and revolutionary. He is most remembered for his pamphlet called Common Sense. Common sense was written by Paine from 1775-1776. It was a forty-seven page pamphlet that advocated independence to the thirteen colonies from Great Britain. Paine argues for two main points in Common Sense. He argues for independence from Britain, and also for the creation of a democratic republic. This pamphlet inspired the people to fight for their independence from Britain. It also had a huge impact on the American independence movement. In this pamphlet, he continually calls the founding fathers and the colonists to take action against the oppression of the British government. Because he was born in Britain, he understood the injustices of Britain. Because of this, he made it clearly obvious in his pamphlet to call for independence from Britain. He argues this throughout his pamphlet.

What is the most illogical argument in Common Sense? There are many arguments displayed in common sense. For starters, Paine argued that it was crazy for an island to rule over a continent, and of course he was talking about Great Britain ruling over America. He also argued that if America were free from Great Britain, they could avoid European conflicts. He went on to argue that London was way too far away from America to rule it, and that the King and Parliament would eventually rule over America for Britain’s benefit instead of the America’s, which was the exact opposite for why the Pilgrims left in the first place. Some loyalists to Britain argued the America has thrived under Britain’s rule, but Paine argues that America would had thrived even more if it was an independent country. He argued that one of America’s greatest strengths was trade and commerce, and because of this it would have been even more successful if it had not been limited to trade with only the British. He also argued that Britain only protected America against Britain’s enemies only for Britain’s benefits. Paine argued that Britain’s enemies had no quarrel with America, and that America would eventually be pulled into Britain’s wars. He communicated with the colonists through his pamphlet on a more personal level, and he said that the moving to America was to escape the tyranny of Britain, but they were still under it’s rule. He said that with independence, they could gain freedom from Britain, which is why they left Britain to move to America in the first place. With his pamphlet, he was able to invoke passion into the colonists throughout the colonies. Now, these were all valid arguments, but what is the most illogical argument in Common Sense? According to LitCharts, “Paine’s argument throughout Common Sense relies heavily upon a logical fallacy: he consistently appeals to God as the definitive moral authority.“

‘First come, first served’ simply means that people will be served according to the order in which they arrive or apply. It is like concert tickets. If you come first, you get served (get the tickets) first. However, if you do not come first, but a lot later, the tickets will probably be sold out. This is kind of like another quote I heard once, ‘you snooze, you lose’. And this is totally true. It is used all the time today.

‘High bid wins’ is like at an auction. Whoever pays the most, or offers up the highest bid, wins or gets the product being offered.

Each of these ‘quotes’ are used every day today, and they are everywhere. They are also distributed to the companies who sell products according to the buyers. For example, you would not put groceries up for auction to the highest bidder, or vice versa. It just does not work that way. In what areas of my life would I prefer ‘first come, first served’ to ‘high bid wins’? Like I just said, I would prefer ‘first come, first served’ to stores, among other things. I just think that the economy is fine just the way it is. ‘First come, first served’ is used by the companies that should be using it anyway, and ‘high bid wins’ is used exactly were it should be used. The economy is not perfect, but these two ‘quotes’ are being practiced by the companies that should be using them.

What did Professor Hasnas mean when he claimed that the idea of the rule of law is a myth? The rule of law is a political idea that all citizens and institutions within a specific community, state, country, etc. are all under the same law, including the people who make these laws, and the leaders. It can be simplified by the statement “no one is above the law”. However, Professor Hasnas at Georgetown University Law Center claims that the rule of law is a myth. What does he mean by this? According to taylorfrancis.com, “This chapter begins with what is intended as an entertaining reprise of the main jurisprudential arguments designed to show that there is no such thing as a government of laws and not people and that the belief that there is constitutes a myth that serves to maintain the public’s support for society’s power structure.” (“This chapter” refers to Hasnas’s book Anarchy and the Law, the chapter titled The Myth of the Rule of Law.)

Professor Casey claims that the idea of political representation is an empty one. How does he defend this argument? Basically, political representation is when politicians represent the citizens and they act in the best interest of the citizens, making the citizens “present” in public policy-making processes. How does Professor Casey defend his argument that the idea of political representation is an empty idea? He once said that representation is insufficient to cover the brutal fact that despite our sophisticated modern states, the elegant rhetoric, and persuasive propaganda, some rule, and others are ruled.

Does he who pays the piper call the tune in education? Think of it this way: If you pay a piper (a musician who plays the pipe) some money to play for you, you get to call the tune, or song, that the piper plays, or at least that was how it was back then. Does this happen in education? It happens sometimes. Let me explain. In an earlier essay, I wrote about tax-supported schools. In that essay, I wrote the following: “If the government pays the institution, they get to decide what is taught and what is not taught….public schools are tax-supported, so the government decides what is taught and what is not taught.” The government (the person who pays the piper) pays the public school system (the piper) to keep them in business, however, the government tells the school system what to teach and how to teach it. Does he who pays the piper call the tune in education? For the public school system, yes, but not for private schools or homeschoolers. Private schools and homeschoolers are not paid by the government, therefore they can teach whatever they want, not what the government tells them to. In my other essay, I also wrote: “Whereas private schools are not tax-supported, so they can teach whatever they want. They do not need to ask permission from the government to teach what they want to teach. That is why private schools are incredibly better than public schools. Although there is another solution, homeschooling.” I homeschool, and it is paradise (almost).