Free Essays on Late 19th Sentury Japan

In the late 19th century Japan was â€Å"opened† up by the west. The Japanese saw the advancements of the west and sought its own modern state. The process of this modernization came during the Meiji period, thus the Meiji Restoration. The Meiji Restoration completely altered the face of Japan, affecting societal, economic and political conditions. With the coming of the west and the eventual modernization of Japan, many social norms changed according to the west. In past times, formal and everyday dress was a kimono of varying niceness, depending on many variables. During the Meiji restoration, the dress changes to western formal dress, which is a suit and tie, or for the emperor and his court, Prussian military outfits. This change is in the forefront of Rough Living, Oshima’s eventual dream is to be a successful tailor with a â€Å"shop facing the main street in broad daylight† (Shusei, 138). Along with the new dress habits the structure of the army was changed as well. The new army was no longer to be dependant upon the daimyo and the samurai class, but instead the government setup a system of conscription, making it so anyone could be a warrior, which was a dramatic change from the way things had been. Without their warrior status, the samurai had no distinction nor income beyond what the government ga ve them, mostly in lump sums or bonds. This situation created much tension between the samurai and the government which eventually flowered into a rebellion, which the government was able to put down in less than a year. With the end of the feudal system and the dissolving of the Hans the central government once again placed itself in the center. Around this center huge cities grew, like Tokyo. While these cities grew with people seeking opportunities, the provinces suffered the loss of population and income, and were eventually relegated to and almost contemptible position. This is illustrated in Rough Living when Osh... Free Essays on Late 19th Sentury Japan Free Essays on Late 19th Sentury Japan In the late 19th century Japan was â€Å"opened† up by the west. The Japanese saw the advancements of the west and sought its own modern state. The process of this modernization came during the Meiji period, thus the Meiji Restoration. The Meiji Restoration completely altered the face of Japan, affecting societal, economic and political conditions. With the coming of the west and the eventual modernization of Japan, many social norms changed according to the west. In past times, formal and everyday dress was a kimono of varying niceness, depending on many variables. During the Meiji restoration, the dress changes to western formal dress, which is a suit and tie, or for the emperor and his court, Prussian military outfits. This change is in the forefront of Rough Living, Oshima’s eventual dream is to be a successful tailor with a â€Å"shop facing the main street in broad daylight† (Shusei, 138). Along with the new dress habits the structure of the army was changed as well. The new army was no longer to be dependant upon the daimyo and the samurai class, but instead the government setup a system of conscription, making it so anyone could be a warrior, which was a dramatic change from the way things had been. Without their warrior status, the samurai had no distinction nor income beyond what the government ga ve them, mostly in lump sums or bonds. This situation created much tension between the samurai and the government which eventually flowered into a rebellion, which the government was able to put down in less than a year. With the end of the feudal system and the dissolving of the Hans the central government once again placed itself in the center. Around this center huge cities grew, like Tokyo. While these cities grew with people seeking opportunities, the provinces suffered the loss of population and income, and were eventually relegated to and almost contemptible position. This is illustrated in Rough Living when Osh...

Free Essays on Causes of Divorce

About half of all American marriages that occur will end in divorce (â€Å"Family...† 37-41). That is the conclusion that is being drawn from most studies done today. The divorce rate in the Untied States has been traveling upwards for more then a century. In fact between 1960 and 1980 the rate of divorce surged nearly 250% (â€Å"Divorce... 2). The divorce rate has stabilized since the 1980’s but it is still the highest in the industrialized world by far. Studies show that today 40% of all first marriages will end in divorce compared to only 16% in the 1960’s. It has also been found that upwards of 60% of all remarriages will not last either (â€Å"Divorce†¦Ã¢â‚¬  2). The question being asked is why? Stress can be a huge cause of marital difficulties (LaFayette 18). One thing that has come up numerous times in research is that money causes the most stress for married couples. According to PREP (Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program), money is said to start more arguments then any other topic. Citibank also states that their research shows money to be the leading cause of divorce (â€Å"Money†¦Ã¢â‚¬  128). Couples not having enough money or even having more money then they know what to do with can cause major friction in any marriage. A study done by the National Bureau of Economic Research Inc. shows that there are some financial problems more likely to lead to divorce then others. An example would be getting fired. Getting fired from a job significantly raises the probability of getting divorced. The National Bureau of Economic Research also says that married men who are fired have an 18% higher chance of being divorced within three years of losing their jobs then men who aren’t fired from jobs. Women are said to have a 13% higher chance (â€Å"Lost†¦Ã¢â‚¬  26). The reasons that getting fired from a job would raises the chances of getting a divorce so much are many; but the most important is stress. Getting fired ... Free Essays on Causes of Divorce Free Essays on Causes of Divorce About half of all American marriages that occur will end in divorce (â€Å"Family...† 37-41). That is the conclusion that is being drawn from most studies done today. The divorce rate in the Untied States has been traveling upwards for more then a century. In fact between 1960 and 1980 the rate of divorce surged nearly 250% (â€Å"Divorce... 2). The divorce rate has stabilized since the 1980’s but it is still the highest in the industrialized world by far. Studies show that today 40% of all first marriages will end in divorce compared to only 16% in the 1960’s. It has also been found that upwards of 60% of all remarriages will not last either (â€Å"Divorce†¦Ã¢â‚¬  2). The question being asked is why? Stress can be a huge cause of marital difficulties (LaFayette 18). One thing that has come up numerous times in research is that money causes the most stress for married couples. According to PREP (Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program), money is said to start more arguments then any other topic. Citibank also states that their research shows money to be the leading cause of divorce (â€Å"Money†¦Ã¢â‚¬  128). Couples not having enough money or even having more money then they know what to do with can cause major friction in any marriage. A study done by the National Bureau of Economic Research Inc. shows that there are some financial problems more likely to lead to divorce then others. An example would be getting fired. Getting fired from a job significantly raises the probability of getting divorced. The National Bureau of Economic Research also says that married men who are fired have an 18% higher chance of being divorced within three years of losing their jobs then men who aren’t fired from jobs. Women are said to have a 13% higher chance (â€Å"Lost†¦Ã¢â‚¬  26). The reasons that getting fired from a job would raises the chances of getting a divorce so much are many; but the most important is stress. Getting fired ...

Assessed research Exercise in Law of Property Case Study

Assessed research Exercise in Law of Property - Case Study Example Ann and Claire remained in the house and continued to make the mortgage payments between them. The nature of their relationship changed. In 2005 they became registered civil partners. In 2007, following the death of Ann's sister, Ann's niece, Nora, now aged 8, came to live with them. I am a trainee in the firm of solicitors consulted by Ann and Claire. My principal has asked me to research the relevant law and report to the principal on the legal principles and relevant case and statue law as to: a) What are the current legal and beneficial interests in the house, and b) On the basis that Joe and Tina have an interest in the house, whether they could enforce a sale of the house. After Brenda's untimely death in 2000, the current legal and beneficial interests in the house are Ann and Claire. Brenda's parents, Joe and Tina, now have her properties but there is no mention about the house. Do Joe and Tina have any claim on the house Joe and Tina do not pay Brenda's share of the mortgage instalments although they have reportedly expressed the view that they want the house sold obviously to recover Brenda's share in the property. The roots of the problem lies in the absence of organized thinking on the part of Ann, Claire and Brenda on the action to be followed in case they are left in a position where either one of them or all of them are unable to pay the mortgage instalments. This is just one part of the problem. The bigger problem is the lack of planning about their respective rights in the property. The women have a close relationship based on love and understanding and have given little thought to the possibility of separation or the legal consequence of one of them dying or the claims of creditors on the shared home. In order to deal with the inadequacies of the current law, there is the attempt to devise a scheme which would operate to identify and quantify the parties' beneficial interests in circumstances where no express arrangements have been made. This scheme is based on an objective assessment of the economic value of the contributions made by each party sharing the home. The contributions which would qualify are to be widely defined. The court would then be able to define and declare the parties' interests by reference to the contributions made. The scheme is not intended to give the court the discretion to adjust or to re-allocate property rights. Notwithstanding the current law's position, as joint tenants, Ann, Claire and Brenda have equal share in the house. With the death of Brenda, the survivors, Ann and Claire, take over the property (Joint Tenancy). On the basis that Joe and Tina have an interest in the house, whether they could enforce a sale of the house Besides Brenda's