Summary:

Was Ben Franklin the Inventor of the daily planner? What ever the case you can stand to learn a lot from this great American achiever.

Keywords:

motivate, goal, inspirational, inspire, how to, success, guide, information, ben franklin, america, hope, succeed, help, self, change, ket to success, better person, happiness, win

Article Body:

Benjamin Franklin, inventor, statesman, writer, publisher and economist relates in his autobiography that early in his life he decided to focus on arriving at moral perfection. He made a list of 13 virtues, assigning a page to each. Under each virtue he wrote a summary that gave it fuller meaning. Then he practiced each one for a certain length of time.

To make these virtues a habit, Franklin can up with a method to grade himself on his daily actions. In a journal he drew a table with a row for every virtue and a column for every day of the week. Every time he made a fault, he made a mark in the appropriate column. Each week he focused his attention on a different virtue. Over time, through repetition, he hoped to one day experience the pleasure of "viewing a clean Book."

He says that he carried out this personal examination for years. In order to do the work thoroughly he decided to attempt each virtue and a quarter of its importance - one at a time. He began with temperance, which included the moderating of every pleasure or inclination to develop undesirable habits, because temperance "tends to procure that coolness and clearance and head that is so necessary where constant vigilance is to be kept up and guard maintained against the unremitting attraction of ancient habits and the force of perpetual temptations."

The other virtues practice in succession by Franklin were silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, Justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity and humility. For the summary order he followed a little scheme of employing his time each day. From five to seven each morning he spent in bodily personal attention, saying a short prayer, thinking over the day’s business and resolutions, studying and eating breakfast. From eight till twelve he worked at his trade. From twelve to one he read or overlooked his accounts and dined. From two to five he worked at his trade. The rest of the evening until 10 he spent in music, or diversion of some sort.

This time is used also to put things in their places. In the last thing before retiring was examination of the day. At the age of 79, he ascribed his health to temperance; the acquisition of misfortune to industry and frugality; the confidence of his country to sincerity and justice.

Franklin's extraordinary success in life and politics can be attributed to his perseverance to overcome his personal liabilities, and his desire to constantly become better.

Next time you really want to achieve something, take time to focus on your own personal journal. What is your temptation that is standing in your way to greatness? What can you do to form the habit of becoming a success?

Summary:

One of the more absurd movies of the decade, Napoleon Dynamite nonetheless manages to be a hilarious comedy in its own right. Featuring a unique brand of alienated-teenage humor, the film relies more on its well-timed pauses and character body language than on zinging one-liners. If you enjoy its subtle humor, then Napoleon Dynamite is a film you'll find utterly hilarious. Otherwise, it might cause boredom or outright confusion. The film has a near non-existent storyline, but...

Keywords:

napoleon dynamite dvd review

Article Body:

One of the more absurd movies of the decade, Napoleon Dynamite nonetheless manages to be a hilarious comedy in its own right. Featuring a unique brand of alienated-teenage humor, the film relies more on its well-timed pauses and character body language than on zinging one-liners. If you enjoy its subtle humor, then Napoleon Dynamite is a film you'll find utterly hilarious. Otherwise, it might cause boredom or outright confusion. The film has a near non-existent storyline, but what it lacks in plot, it makes up for with its witty and hilarious comedy sequences…

Jon Heder plays the title role of Napoleon Dynamite, an estranged and nerdy high school youth living with his grandmother and older brother, Kip (Aaron Ruell), in Preston, Idaho. Sporting a clueless, unchanging facial expression throughout the movie, Napoleon simply glides through life, getting kicked around, pushed into lockers, and watching life pass by. When a Spanish student named Pedro (Efren Ramirez) moves into town, Napoleon befriends the social outcast. The two drone on and on about myriad subjects, such as who to take to the upcoming dance. Fellow socially-challenged student Deb (Tina Majorino) becomes the object of their affections.

Meanwhile, Kip trolls the Internet chat rooms in search of women, and Napoleon's Uncle Rico (Jon Gries) moves in with the boys while their grandmother is away. Uncle Rico's own exploits add to the hilarity of a film with little in the way of substance, at least until Pedro decides to run for class president against the school's most popular girl, Summer (Haylie Duff). Now, Napoleon and Pedro must work against all odds to win the school election…

The true strength of Napoleon Dynamite is its clan of outrageous characters, characters that are so outrageously ridiculous that every viewer can point out the mirror image of that character from his own high school yearbook or current life experience. The arrested social development of Napoleon and his friends are amplified for effect within the film's context, drawing the viewer into a Lord of the Flies world of Darwinian adolescence. The humor is sometimes subtle, and Napoleon Dynamite is not to be confused with an Academy Award winning drama. But if you like stupid movies such Dumb And Dumber, then this is the film for you.

Napoleon Dynamite is a unique comedy which pushes the boundaries of plot-challenged, immature filmmaking. In short, you'll love it. Most of the characters are so pathetic, you'll find yourself laughing at them simply because they exist. One of the biggest surprises of 2004, Napoleon Dynamite is an oddball comedy that definitely ranks as a must-see movie…

While visiting Universal Studios Tours, you should

pay a visit to the Hollywood Ticket Outlet booth. You

can do more than purchase tickets to great shows;

you can also request free tickets for many of the

shows that are currently being filmed. Note that the

shows are limited to the ones that allow studio

audiences.

There are other services available at the Hollywood

Ticket Outlet booth as well. These include upgraded

park tickets, visitor information, and foreign currency

exchange. The Hollywood Ticket Outlet is located by

the Blues Brothers stage inside the park, and it is

open during the same days and hours that the park

is open.

Depending on when you visit Universal Studios, and

what is going on at that time, you may be pleasantly

surprised to find some really great deals – or to find

yourself sitting in the audience of your favorite

television show! Talk about sneak previews! Even if

you don’t plan to purchase any tickets, make sure

that you stop by the Universal Studios Tours

Hollywood Outlet booth to see what is being offered

that day.

When we think of law, and what law means to us as a society, we all have a good idea, or rather an innate sense, of what law is and the kind of things to expect. But trying to put an accurate definition on what law is is somewhat more of a difficult task. This very question lies at the heart of the study of jurisprudence, or legal philosophy. Since early civilisation, philosophers and thinkers have worked with a view to establishing a definitive meaning of what law is and where it fits in to the community. From these efforts have arisen major 'schools' of thought which demonstrate ideas and concepts distinct from one and other yet equally valid in their interpretations.

When asked 'what is law?', most people will proffer an initial response along the lines of 'law is rules', or on a more complex level, 'law is the rules that regulate our behaviour'. This basic response is actually very valid, and true it forms the cornerstone of numerous schools of thought. However, posing slightly more probing questions raises doubts as to the validity of this statement, and casts doubt over a large consensus of lay-opinion on the matter. For example, if the law is a regulatory body of rules, then by itself it is useless. Rules alone can surely only set parameters at most, and can never seek to regulate independently. In order to provide this regulatory aspect, there is a requirement for something more; there is a requirement for enforcement, or coercion. In our society, this is provided by the threat of sanctions like prison and fines. Therefore our traditional notion of law as 'rules' is deeply flawed: law must be more of an interaction between rules and a physical persuasion. In other words, we need some motivation to obey the law, partly as a consequence of our nature as human beings, to keep us within its boundaries and to keep up above its line of governance, therefore there is more required to offer an accurate description than this simple straightforward idea.

Consider also this fundamental point in determining the nature of law at a conceptual level. If the law, as we see it, is a body of rules, in what sense do these rules operate, i.e. are the prescriptive (how one must behave), or descriptive (how the majority of society behave). If it is prescriptive, there would essentially be a requirement for every citizen to learn the law from a young age in order to ensure consistency with the proscriptive body of legislation. If on the other hand it is descriptive of how society behaves, this raises the problem of authority: the way society behaves is not an objective concept, therefore why should any given person or body of people be afforded a subjective look at what is right and what is wrong? In a nation with strong fundamental freedoms, it is even more peculiar that the law is allowed to operate, if it were to operate in this sense. Rather it would seem more apt to consider law as a relationship between people internally (with other people) and with the state, with an element of mutual consensus in achieving the relevant social ends.

From this basic analysis of the conceptual nature of law, it is obvious that there is scope for debate. So much so, legal scholars have for generations sought academic argumentation and competition with other writers. From Aristotle to Dworkin to HLA Hart and beyond, the concept of the nature of law is one which is both fascinating and complex, with many facets and caveats yet to be explored. In an international legal context, the study of jurisprudence transcends jurisdiction and specific legal training moving towards the realms of independent thought and observation. Nevertheless the nature of law is a popular academic study, as well as an interesting and thought provoking topic for the 'everyday' citizen subject to its governance.