One new development in the way Americans work is the work ethic has improved since modern technology. Modern technology has increased the need for well done work.
Another would be the new amount of jobs. This is because more and more people are getting into computer science and that way there is more jobs for those in America.
Answer: In 1959, a young senator wrote an article for a young magazine called "TV Guide" trumpeting the potential for the new medium of television to permanently change the way politics worked. In a little more than a year, that same senator, John F. Kennedy, would be elected president of the United States, thanks in no small part to his charismatic performance in a series of televised debates with opponent Richard Nixon and a TV ad campaign that featured some catchy jingles. Three years later, news coverage of Kennedy's assassination would captivate the country, becoming one of the first major tragedies covered by network news [source: Kaid]. By that time, television's place in shaping the political landscape was undeniable.
Explanation:
Answer:
1. How are patrician and lower class families similar?)) The patricians were any member of a group of citizen families who formed a privileged class in early Rome. The patricians were the wealthy upper class, who owned land and held political power. The plebeians were the working class without substantial wealth. (the head of the family is/were paterfamilias)
2. How are patrician girls and slaves similar/How are Roman women and plebeians similar?))
<em><u>(</u></em><em><u>(</u></em><em><u>woman</u></em><em><u>)</u></em><em><u>)</u></em><em><u> </u></em>Roman women had a very limited role in public life. They could not attend, speak in, or vote at political assemblies and they could not hold any position of political responsibility. ... Typical jobs undertaken by such women were in agriculture, markets, crafts, as midwives and as wet-nurses.
<em><u>(</u></em><em><u>(</u></em><em><u>plebe</u></em><em><u>ians</u></em><em><u>)</u></em><em><u>)</u></em> They protected some basic rights of all Roman citizens regardless of their social class. Eventually the plebeians were allowed to elect their own government officials. They elected "tribunes" who represented the plebeians and fought for their rights. They had the power to veto new laws from the Roman senate. (Roman women cannot vote, but plebeians now can. in the early stages of Roman, plebeians had very few rights aswell)
3. How does the social class impact the type of food eaten?)) In contemporary Western society, social class differences in food consumption follow a general pattern. Upper class groups consume foods that signify exclusivity and access to rare goods; while lower class groups, on the other hand, consume foods that are readily available.
Zealots were a political/philosophic movement in first century (what I call) Israel. They were (if I can put it this way) a sort of uncouth bunch who thought the only way to free themselves from Roman rule was to oppose the Romans with force.
That was their platform. They did not take into account that the Roman's were a huge military power that was ruthless when antagonized. As these things go, Rome was a pretty good ruler. At least they knew the difference between meaningful opposition and tolerance of differences.
The zealots did not see Rome that way. They believed that any interference was too much interference.
That's when Rome got upset and the first Jewish War of 65 AD or so began. It was like sticking your arm in a hornet's nest. The Zealots had gained the largely unwelcome wrath of Rome. The zealots were unlucky (in a way). If they had picked a time that a warrior/emperor was not leader, their opposition may have evaporated. It would be like hitting a marshmallow. Rome may have considered it an internal affair. They had up to this point. Even though some of the Pharisee priests supported the Zealots, the alliance was destroyed by the unwillingness to negotiate further.
Anyone who is really dedicated can be termed a Zealot in modern times. I am using the term to describe someone that is Zealous. You could look up Galatians 1:11 - 14 to see how Paul used the term. This connection between Paul and Jewish leaders (including Zealots) is really hotly debated. It's another hornet's nest.
