While bureaucrats have an awful lot of power, they do have some accountability to the public.  For example, most of the rules bureaucrats propose must be open for public comment.  These proposed rules are posted on The Federal Register, and are there for anyone to review and comment on, typically for 60 days.

Your task is to go to The Federal Register and review a proposed rule under the Current Issue section.  To receive credit, you’ll need to:

Summarize the rule– who proposed it, and what will it change? (0-3 points)

Analyze the rule– give at least one reason why the new rule would be good, and one reason why it would be bad (0-3 points)

Evaluate the rule– Should the rule be passed?  Why, or why not? (0-4 points)

Be sure your essay is at least 250 words long, and includes a link to the proposed rule.  No credit will be awarded if you fail to do this.  Also– keep in mind that, while this is a shorter essay, you are still expected to use multiple paragraphs in your essay.  No credit will be awarded if your essay is only one paragraph long.

Then write a 2500-word (max.) essay based around a central topic/theme/issue from your chosen book. Your essay must be based around a strong thesis statement and in depth research (both verified/approved by an earlier assignment). Contextualise the subject matter in the global history of medicine. Link the book to broader course themes. Remember, you should express a clear opinion and create an organised, argumentative essay.

I have already completed the provisional thesis and approved the articles that need to be cited. See profs feedback.

Also I am only a B student so if it is too good, the prof will know. Thanks

write a 2500-word (max.) essay based around a central topic/theme/issue from your chosen book. Your essay must be based around a strong thesis statement and in depth research (both verified/approved by an earlier assignment). Contextualise the subject matter in the global history of medicine. Link the book to broader course themes. Remember, you should express a clear opinion and create an organised, argumentative essay.

I have already done the provisional thesis as well as the citations that are to be used in the paper, so those must be used

By the end of the New Deal era, had the executive become more powerful than the judiciary, or vice versa? Did they remain the same? Why?

Your thesis statement is the answer to this question. Do not cite anything other than the book and the sources linked below. While you may cite any part of the book if you so choose, most of the information for this question comes from chapter 23. Do not write in the first person. This paper must have a thesis statement, footnotes, and a bibliography in this case, of the sources below. This writing assignment will be a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of four (4) pages, where the student will analyze evidence from the textbook and primary sources. See the rubric for how the paper will be graded, but bear in mind the final grade is determined by the instructor.

When forming your answer, think about the shift in the Court’s position throughout these three cases, and FDR’s position on what the Court should or should not do. What is happening to the Court’s view of the Constitution? How does FDR justify his actions? How does each branch conceive of the other’s role in government?

Read from pages 53 to 88 of the opinion (Links to an external site.) from United States v. Butler
Read from pages 25 to 61 of the opinion (Links to an external site.) from A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. et al. v. United States
Read from pages 08 to 22 of the opinion (Links to an external site.) from West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
Read President Roosevelt’s March 09, 1937 fireside chat (Links to an external site.).

Marx and Engels wrote their Communist Manifesto in late 1847 (published in February 1848). They were not only attempting to create a call to action for the working class, but also address the rising importance of the role of the people in the European state. The 19th century gave birth to the defining type of those states: the nation-state. Forging together the ideas of the state with the ideas of Nationalism, the nation-state defines the makeup of Europe to this day, and lead to both the triumph of liberal principles and the embracing of such principle by their conservative rivals.

The Revolutions of 1848 were the key hinge point for these ideas in the history of Europe. Though the first of these revolutions technically occurred in Naples (leading to limited constitutional reform), the major catalyst for this series of revolutions, not surprisingly, will be France. Soon revolutions occurred all across Europe, calling for constitutional reform and major political and social changes. However, despite this initial success, the revolutionaries were not united. Fear of radicals among moderates lead to the collapse of the revolutions and the reestablishment of the old order throughout much of Europe.

While the Revolutions of 1848, with the expectation of France, were largely a failure, in the ashes of the revolution rose a variation of the nationalist traditions that had been pushed forward by the middle-class liberals of Europe: Conservative Nationalism. While conservative nationalism did come from the major states which had pushed through constitutional reform in 1848, namely Prussia and Piedmont-Sardinia, the manner in which nationalism was forged in these countries followed a far different pattern imagined by the liberal revolutionaries of 1848.

Large, monarchical states, such as Prussia and Piedmont-Sardinia, used nationalism as a tool to create a unified nation-state. This is evident in Germany Unification in 1871 and Italian Unification in 1861. While liberal ideas of representation would eventually exist within these nation-states, including the formation of the Reichstag in the German empire, the nature of nationalism had changed considerably post 1870.

Nationalism will fundamentally alter the relationships between the people and the state. No longer are states simply governments that rule over the masses, but now the people have an active role in the identity of a state. Such a relationship leads to greater demands from these masses to take part in government, but will also fundamentally lead to nations and people defining themselves as different from others. This, of course, will be at the center of later racism and imperialism across the globe (more on that next week).

Watch the following crash course video about the industrial revolution.  Select two specific items from the video that helped develop the industrial revolution that you found interesting. Then expand on those two with a short description roughly 5 paragraphs long.  Try to include more information on the items that was presented in the video.

For this short (4 page) reflection essay, you will do a primary source analysis of Mariano Azuelas The Underdogs.

For Sections 2 and 3, you may use one or two secondary sources for background information. Acceptable sources include course materials, peer-reviewed articles from JSTOR, and encyclopedia articles from the online Encyclopedia Britannica.

Section 4 must be ENTIRELY based on your reading of The Underdogs.


Use footnotes to cite your sources for the paper following Chicago Style footnoting (illustrated at the end of the syllabus and/or google how to do them). Use 12 pt. Times New Roman font, double-spaced, 1-inch margins.

While reading The Underdogs:

Consider the author Mariano Azuelas purpose and biases. Did the author have first-hand knowledge of the events? How did the author collect the information? Who was the audience? Which side appears in the most favorable light? What assumptions does the author make about attitudes and society? What aspects of daily life, government, or religion does the author mention in passing?

What to say in the analysis:

Your paper should be 4 full pages and include the following information:

1. Introduction. A single paragraph that introduces the topic for your paper.

2. Historical background of The Underdogs. What was happening at the time that the book was written? Be sure to indicate the source(s) of your information. Give priority to information that is likely to have a direct bearing on how you interpret the book. [about half a page]

3. Context for writing The Underdogs. Who wrote it? When? Why? What is it about? For whom did the author write? Did the author have a personal stake in how events turned out? [about half a page]

4. Usefulness of The Underdogs as a primary source. What can be learned from the source? Give examples of things which can (or cannot) be learned from the source. How are the author’s circumstances reflected in the source? Give specific examples of statements that are particularly biased or particularly even-handed. Does the author reveal anything about general societal attitudes (e.g. towards religion, politics, gender, class, family life)? Does the author offer insights into the specific historical events or personages? Does the author give information about things that are not the main topic of the source? Try to go beyond a consideration of the basic facts presented in the source to an analysis of larger insights into history which might be gained from the source. [this should be the bulk of your paper]

5. Conclusion. What is your overall assessment of the source? Is this a reliable source? What are its strongest and weakest points?

Pose two questions in response to at least two different posts.  Your questions should be very specific as to what you are asking or critiquing in regard to anothers post and also as to what further points of elucidation or clarification you are situating in your questions.
Respond to at least two other posts in the form of a critical commentary.  Your critical commentaries do not need to ask any questions, but rather they are vehicle for you: to further develop a point or argument about a text that someone else began, to reiterate in your own use of language what someone else is trying to articulate, and this is also a space to make a case against someone’s argument or position with supporting evidence from the text.

Read Power Over Peoples, Daniel R. Headrick (2010).

Note: It will be easier to understand the material if you do all the readings first, but you might want to note where you found the material to answer the questions. It will improve your reading comprehension and youll know whats important and whats not. Theres a lot of details in this book but dont let them overwhelm you; focus on the intent of the author (to investigate whether or not technology is what gave Europeans the ability to control peoples).

Write a ten to fifteen page paper about technology and European Imperialism. This essay needs to address the following questions:

From the Introduction:

    What are the two phases of Western Imperialism?
    What is the relationship between technology and Imperialism?
    What is technology?
    What is meant by superior technology?
    What was the source of innovativeness in the West?
    What is imperialism?
    What does the author say are the connections between technological innovations and Western imperialism?
    What is the authors thesis?  (you may need to read the entire book before you can answer this question)

From Chapter 1:

    Why was Portugal an unlikely sea-borne empire?
    Why did Portugal become a sea-borne empire before anyone else in Europe?
    Whos Henry the Navigator? Why is he important?
    What advantage in technology did the Dutch and English have?
    What was the motivation for the second wave of exploration? What made it possible?

From Chapter 2:

    What besides mastery of the environment was necessary to dominate the sea?
    In what ways did the different technologies of the Portuguese and the Ottomans determine how they confronted each other?
    Why were the Portuguese successful with so few men and ships?
    Why was there a stalemate between the Portuguese and Ottomans?
    Why did the Dutch begin to trade and explore in South West Asia?
    What was different about the Dutch in contrast to the Iberian kingdoms?
    What technologies gave the Dutch an advantage?
    How did they take control of the spice trade away from the Portuguese?
    Were the English as successful as the Dutch?
    Were the Portuguese successful in China? Japan?
    Did technology allow the Europeans to dominate Asia?

From Chapter 3:

    What is the authors thesis for this chapter?
    What advantages did the Spaniards have over the Indians?
    Why were the Spaniards able to defeat the Aztecs and Incas?
    Why werent they able to conquer the peoples of Northern Mexico, the Great Plains, and southern South America until the nineteenth century?

From Chapter 4:

    Why werent Europeans able to explore and conquer the interior of Africa?
    Why were the British finally able to conquer India?
    Whats the Military Revolution?
    What impact did the Military Revolution have in Europe?
    Were the British successful in Afghanistan?
    Were the French successful in Algeria?
    Why was Russia able to conquer the Caucasus?
    What do all of these examples show about the successes and limitations of old imperialism?

From Chapter 5:

    What advances in technology during the Industrial Revolution give the Europeans new advantages in Empire building?
    What was the impact in North America?
    What was the impact in South Asia? China? Niger?
    What conclusion does the author draw from the comparison of the Opium War and the first Anglo-Afghan War of 1839-42?

From Chapter 6:

    How did medicine change in the early nineteenth century?
    How did these advances allow the Europeans to then explore and conquer the interior Africa?
    How is empirical knowledge different from a scientific explanation (theory)?
    Why are scientific theories important? (use the germ theory of disease to explain)
    What actions by governments were needed to prevent epidemics? Why did it take them so long to implement the solution?
    Was public health a benefit shared by all? Why or why not?

From Chapter 7:

    What is the third advantage in technology that made the New Imperialism possible?
    What were the causes of the innovations in firearms?
    What advantages did this give Europeans in Africa? North America? Argentina and Chile?
    Why was Ethiopia different?

From Chapter 8:

    What advantages did airpower five Europeans? Where was this technology first used? How was it used?
    What is the doctrine of Major Giulion Douhet?
    Why was air control so attractive?

From Chapter 9:

    What is the paradox of the postwar world?
    What was the outcome of using air power in Vietnam, Algeria, Afghanistan, and Iraq?


    What conclusion does the author draw from all of these cases?
    What are the lessons that he thinks we need to learn from the history of Western Imperialism?
    Do you find the authors argument persuasive? Why or why not?

In this discussion, please choose and respond to two of the prompts that follow. Topic prompts are generally comprised of several sub-questions, of which all must be addressed. Responses should be in original wording and contain a few images or videos to enhance the posting. The inclusion of researched information from supplemental resources is highly encouraged (cited in MLA format below your answers). Remember that you are expected to read postings created by classmates and the instructor and thoughtfully comment on a few of them as well. Your participation will enable us to learn from and through each other.

Please include your selected topic questions above your responses.

Topic 1: What were the reasons or motivations (both ostensible and genuine) behind the Spanish-American War? What were some positive and negative outcomes of this conflict?

Topic 2: How and why did John Muir become involved with environmental conservation? Who were some of his influences and whom did he inspire? What were some accomplishments of the Sierra Club and at least one setback for it?

Topic 3: In your view, what were three significant progressive reforms that emerged during the first decades of the 20th century that profoundly altered American society for the better? Explain your answer.

Topic 4: Some Americans were largely excluded from the societal improvements of the progressive era. Supplementing your response with information obtained through basic research, provide details for two marginalized groups during the years 1890 through 1917.

Topic 5: What were three actions and behaviors that you believe made Teddy Roosevelt such a consequential president? What were one or two that you disagree with and why? How do you think Teddy Roosevelt would be regarded today?