• Usage of Keywords – Effective Google Searches can be referred to know more about the working of keyword phrases. It is better to have a keyword phrase for your site as it has to be the most used and most relevant parameter to shoot your ranking.

• Density of the Keyword – The required density of the keyword should be between 3 % - 5 % ideally. The number of times the keyword is repeated which is relevant to the context in a blog contributes to the rank.

• Linking of the Site – The hyperlinking of one’s site by others is ‘the’ most important measure by which the rankings are calculated. The links should be in between the posts or the article to add more value to the hyperlinking than just hyperlinking for the sake of it.

• Well designed page – Another significant influencer to the shooting of the ranking is the design content and properly organized pages. As goes the famous quote, good design is popular design.

• Proper Site Submission – The open directory project is widely regarded by Google as the most essential link in the calculation of its rankings. The best possible submission sites to be added to are dedicated directories and organizations.

1. Firstly, install the Alexa toolbar and display the widget.
2. Some article can be written about Alexa itself, just to get the required number of links.
3. Enriching content writing and promotions on social networking sites and webmaster forums also helps the cause.
4. Get the linking of your articles done to stumbleupon.com, digg.com and del.icio.us.
5. Site optimization using the keyword phrases strategy.
6. An unethical practice is enabling running of many scripts which in turn uses numerous multiple proxy servers to create a jump in the visitor list.

Islamic Education is the religious education of Chinese Muslims. Its main contents include religious belief, value out1ook, ethics and moral principles, and Islamic culture and knowledge. Education is an important way to raise Muslims’ concepts and personalities to a higher level. According to the historical records, a special form of education originated in the middle of the 16th century. Over a long period of development, there appeared two forms of teaching: one form is called Mosque Education, initiated by the pioneer Mr.Hu Dengzhou(1522-1579);the other fom1is called Islamic School Education, which appeared in modem times. The former has a long history, and is a kind of specific religious education, which is taught by imams in mosques-By this means, Islamic knowledge is spread and religious personnel are trained. In order to improve their living standards and the fine traditions of Islam, the pioneer Chinese Muslims always put study and education in the first position. They used the Arabic, Persian and Chinese languages to teach, translate and expound the Islamic scriptures. By doing so, they created the conditions for Islam and Islamic culture to spread in China. Where there is a Muslim community, there is a mosque, so it is very convenient for a Muslim to get Mosque Education. Chinese Mosque Education is the result of Islamic culture adapting to the Chinese traditional cultural environment, and the combination of the traditional education in Arabic countries of the Middle Ages and old-style Chinese private school education. This teaching system suits Chinese social conditions and the Chinese Muslim situation in China. In addition, Mosque Education is open to all Muslim students. A Mosque provides free accommodation and tuition for any student who comes to study. Imams also teach for free-Islamic schools set up in Mosques are the best choice for Chinese Muslims.

Chinese Mosque Education is Islamic education with Chinese characteristics. From the Ming Dynasty to the present, Mosque Education has produced several educational sects and teaching styles. In the early period, there was the Shanxi Sect, which was represented by Feng Yangwu and Zhang Shao Shan, which focussed on "Ilm al-kalam"and "Ilm al-Trafsir". There was the Shandong Sect, which was represented by Chang Zhimei, Li Yanling and She Qiling, focussing on the 13 scriptures in Arabic and Persian, and on the study of Suffism. There was theYunan Sect, which reformed mosque education and taught the scriptures in both Arabic and Chinese. There was the Hezhou Sect, which originated in Linxia Hezhou in the Northwest of China, and which concentrated on teaching "kitab Mishkat al-Masabih"and "Ihya ulum al-Masabih". Religious education in the Xhujiang area is in the form of small and scattered old-style private schools. Every big mosque in Xinjiang has an independent Madrassa (Islamic School), at which the teaching mode, contents and management pattern have the characteristics of central Asian Muslim education. Chinese Mosque Education has been constantly improving. When this education mode was first established, there were not enough scripture books, and few students. So at the beginning, Imams taught students in their own homes. Later, the mosque became the teaching place. In modern Chinese Islamic history, Mosque Education has made great1mprovemenu. It has a fixed teaching place, as the classroom is in the mosque. Usually, the north and south teaching halls in the mosque are specially used for teaching. Teaching both Islamic and ordinary culture, and a step-by-step teaching pattern were the new contents added to the old-style Mosque Education in the past two or three hundred years. Mosque Education is divided into two sections: One is the primary school section, in which Muslim children get basic Islamic education. Imams teach children Arabic so that they can read the Qu'ran in Arabic pronunciation. The students in the primary school section also get Tauhid education, recite selected readings from the Qu'ran, read popular religious books and learn various salat (prayers) in a period of 3-4 years; the other section is the Islamic University section, also taught by imams. The students receive systematic religious education and Islamic ethical education. They study for 6-7 years. The courses are of two kinds-basic courses and professional courses. The basic courses are Arabic, Persian, rhetoric and logic; the professional courses include "Ilm a1-Tafsir", Hadith, "Ilm al-kalam", Shariah and Suffi philosophy. There are 13 kinds of textbooks. After Enisi1ing all these courses, the students graduate with the approval of the imams who taught them. The graduate students go to mosques in various places to be imams, by invitation. There is another form of Islamic education in China, called School Education, which emerged in the 1920s and 1930s. Influenced by the new cultural concepts springing from the May 4th Movement of 1919, some Muslim intellectuals and social activists tried to find a way by which cultural education could promote the development of the nation. To establish a system of modem Islamic education, they set up Islamic schools successively in Beijing, Shanghai, Sichuan, Jinan, Yunnan Ningxia and other places in China. Of these schools, the Beiping Dacheng Normal School, Shanghai Islamic Normal School, Sichuan Wanxian Islamic Normal School and Ningxia Wuhong Chinese and Arabic Normal School made great contributions by fostering qualified personnel who not only possessed scientific and Islamic knowledge, but were proficient in Arabic. What was more important was that these educators with modem concepts also sent Chinese Muslim students abroad from the 1930s. This pioneering work added new contents to modern Chinese Islamic education. The overseas students played important ro1es in the fields of Islamic education and academic research after they came back to the motherland.

"...that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not vanish from this earth."
-- President Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg Address, 1863

Speaking at the dedication of a national cemetery at Gettysburg in the midst of a great civil war fought to preserve the United States as a country, President Lincoln gave us in his ringing conclusion perhaps the best-known definition of democracy in American history. By "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," he meant, the essentials of democratic government he so well described are applicable to all nations that aspire to a democratic society.

Democracy is hard, perhaps the most complex and difficult of all forms of government. It is filled with tensions and contradictions, and requires that its members labor diligently to make it work. Democracy is not designed for efficiency, but for accountability; a democratic government may not be able to act as quickly as a dictatorship, but once committed to a course of action it can draw upon deep wellsprings of popular support. Democracy, certainly in its American form, is never a finished product, but is always evolving. The outer forms of government in the United States have altered little in two centuries, but once we look past the surface we discover great changes. Yet, most Americans believe -- and rightly so -- that the basic principles underlying their government derive directly from notions first enunciated by the framers of the Constitution in 1787.

In these papers, we have tried to explicate what some of those principles are, indicating a little of their historical development and explaining why they are important to the workings of government in the United States in particular as well as democracy in general. Because any democracy is an evolving system, the papers also indicate some shortcomings of the U.S. governmental system, and how the nation has tried to address those problems. No one claims that the American model, as successful as it has been for the United States, is the model that all democracies should follow. Each nation must fashion a government out of its own culture and history. But these essays do identify fundamental principles that, in one form or another, must be present in all democracies. The exact manner in which laws are made, for example, can vary widely, but no matter what the forms, they must obey the root principle that the citizenry has to be involved in the process and feel ownership of those laws.

What are these root principles? We have identified 11 that we believe are key to understanding how democracy has evolved and how it operates in the United States.

Constitutionalism: Law-making must take place within certain parameters; there must be approved methods for laws to be made and to be changed, and certain areas -- namely the rights of individuals -- must be off limits to the whims of majority rule. A constitution is a law, but at the same time it is much more than that. It is the organic document of a government, laying out the powers of the different branches as well as the limits on governmental authority. A key feature of constitutionalism is that this basic framework cannot easily be changed because of the wishes of a transient majority. It requires the consent of the governed expressed in a clear and unambiguous manner. In the United States, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1787. The framers made the amendment process difficult but not impossible. Most of the amendments have extended democracy by enlarging individual rights and wiping away differences based on race or gender. None of these amendments were lightly undertaken, and when adopted, all had the support of a great majority of the people.

Democratic Elections: No matter how well designed a government is, it cannot be considered democratic unless the officials who head that government are freely elected by the citizens in a manner perceived to be open and fair to all. The mechanism of an election may vary, but the essentials are the same for all democratic societies: access of all qualified citizens to the ballot, protection of the individual against undue influence in the casting of the ballot, and an open and honest counting of the votes. Because large-scale balloting is always subject to errors and fraud, care must be taken to avoid these as much as possible, so that if there is a problem or a close election -- as happened in the 2000 presidential election in the United States -- the people will understand that despite the difficulty, the results can still be accepted as binding upon them.

Federalism, State and Local Governments: The United States is unique in its federal system of government, in which power and authority are shared and exercised by national, state, and local governments. But if the model is not suited to other nations, there are still lessons to be learned. The further government is from the people, the less effective it is and the less it is trusted. By having local and state governments, Americans can see some of their elected officials up close. They can tie policies and programs directly to the men and women who enacted them and who implement them. In addition, decentralization of authority makes it all that much harder to effect an illegitimate takeover of the government. The principle that democracies ought to decentralize power and responsibility may not matter much in a small and relatively homogeneous country, but it can be an important safeguard in large and heterogeneous nations.

Creation of law: History records that formal laws have been made by mankind for five millennia, but the methods different societies have used to make the rules under which they will live have varied enormously, from edicts by god-kings to majority vote at village meetings. In the United States, law is made at many levels, from local town councils, on up through state legislatures, to the U.S. Congress. But at all these levels, there is a large input from the citizenry, either directly or indirectly. Law-making bodies recognize that they are responsible to their constituents, and if they do not legislate in the people's best interests, they will face defeat at the next election. The key to democratic law-making is not the mechanism or even the forum in which it takes place, but the sense of accountability to the citizenry and the need to recognize the wishes of the people.

An independent judiciary: Alexander Hamilton remarked in The Federalist in 1788-89 that the courts, being without the powers of either sword or purse, would be "the least dangerous branch" of the government. Yet courts can be very powerful in a democracy, and in many ways are the operating arm through which constitutional constraints are interpreted and enforced. In the United States, the courts may declare acts of Congress and of state legislatures invalid because they conflict with the Constitution, and may enjoin presidential actions on similar grounds. The greatest defender of individual rights in the United States has been the court system; this is made possible because most judges have life tenure and can focus on legal issues without the distraction of politics. While not all constitutional courts are the same, there must be a body that has the authority to determine what the Constitution says, and when different branches of government have exceeded their powers.

Powers of the presidency: All modern societies must have a chief executive able to carry out the responsibilities of government, from the simple administration of a program to directing the armed forces to defending the nation in wartime. But a fine line must be drawn between giving the executive sufficient powers to do the job and, at the same time, limiting that authority to prevent a dictatorship. In the United States, the Constitution has drawn clear lines around the powers of the president, and while the office is one of the strongest in the world, its strength derives from consent of the governed and the ability of the occupant of the White House to work well with the other branches of government. Here again, the actual organization of the chief executive's office is not the issue, but rather the constraints imposed upon that office by such principles as "separation of powers." In a democracy, a president must rule through his or her political skills, establishing a framework of cooperation with the legislature and above all with the people. At the same time, the citizenry must feel secure that constitutional constraints ensure that the president or prime minister is always the servant, and not the master, of the people.

Role of a free media: Closely tied to the public's right to know are a free media -- newspapers, radio and television networks -- that can investigate the workings of government and report on them without fear of prosecution. English common law made any criticism of the king (and by extension the entire government) a crime known as seditious libel. The United States eventually did away with this crime, and in its place created a theory of the press that has served democracy well. In a complex state, the individual citizen may not be able to leave work to go watch trials, sit in on legislative debates, or investigate how a government program works. But the press is the surrogate of the citizen, reporting back through print and broadcast media what it has found so that the citizenry can act on that knowledge. In a democracy, the people rely on the press to ferret out corruption, to expose the maladministration of justice or the inefficient and ineffective workings of a government body. No country can be free without a free press, and one sign of any dictatorship is the silencing of the media.

Role of interest groups: In the 18th century, and in fact well into the 19th, law-making represented primarily a dialogue between the voters and their elected representatives in Congress or in state and local governments. Because the population was smaller, governmental programs more limited, and communications simpler, there was no need for citizens to resort to mediating organizations for assistance in making their views known. But, in the 20th century, society grew more complex, and the role of government expanded. Now there are many issues that voters need to speak about, and in order to make their voices heard on specific matters, citizens create lobby groups, groups advocating public and private interests, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) devoted to single issues. There has been much internal criticism of this aspect of American democracy, and some people claim that those interests with access to large sums of money can make their voices better heard than those with fewer resources. There is a certain truth to that criticism, but the fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of these groups who help to educate the public and lawmakers about particular matters, and in doing so they help many individual citizens of ordinary means get their views known to their lawmakers in a complex age. With the age of the Internet upon us, the number of voices will increase even more, and these NGOs will help to refine and focus citizen interest in an effective manner.

Public's right to know: Before this century, if people wanted to know how their government was running, generally all they had to do was go down to the town hall or the agora and listen to the debates and discussions. But today we deal with large, complex bureaucracies, statutes and regulations that often run hundreds of pages, and a legislative process that, even while accountable to the people, may still be too murky for most to understand what is happening. In a democracy, government should, as much as possible, be transparent -- that is, its deliberations and decisions should be open to public scrutiny. Clearly, not all government actions should be public, but the citizenry have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent, whether the administration of justice is efficient and effective, and whether their elected representatives are acting responsibly. How this information is made available will vary from government to government, but no democratic government can operate in total secrecy.

Protecting minority rights: If by "democracy" we mean rule by the majority, then one of the great problems in a democracy is how minorities are treated. By "minorities" we do not mean people who voted against the winning party, but rather those who are indelibly different from the majority by reasons of race, religion, or ethnicity. In the United States, the great problem has been that of race; it took a bloody civil war to free black slaves, and then another century before people of color could count on free exercise of their constitutional rights. The problem of racial equality is one that the United States is still wrestling with today. But this is part of the evolutionary nature of democracy, the drive to become more inclusive and to grant to those who are different from the majority not only protection against persecution but the opportunity to participate as full and equal citizens. Examples of nations treating their minorities in a bloody and horrible manner are numerous, and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews is only the most vivid illustration. But no society can aspire to call itself democratic if it systematically excludes specific groups from the full protection of the laws.

Civilian control of the military: In ancient times, the primary responsibility of a leader was to lead society's military forces either to defend the nation or to conquer others. All too often, the popularity of a successful general led him to seek control of the government through force; he who controlled the military could easily sweep all others aside. In modern times we have seen, far too many times to count, a colonel or general using the power of the army in a coup to overthrow the civilian government. In a democracy, the military must not only be under the actual control of civilian authorities, but it must have a culture that emphasizes the role of soldiers as the servants and not the rulers of society. This is easier to accomplish when there is a citizen army, whose officers come from all sectors of society and after a term of service, return to civilian life. But the principle remains the same: The military must always be subordinate; its job is to protect democracy and not rule.

From these essays we can derive certain overarching themes. First, and most important, is that in a democracy the ultimate source of all authority is the people. The Constitution of the United States announces this boldly in its first words: "We, the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution." All powers in government must come from the people, and must be accepted by them as legitimate. This validation takes place through a variety of means, including the processes of making law as well as free and fair elections.

A second general principle is that there must be a division of powers so that no one part of the government can become so strong as to subvert the will of the people. Although the president is always seen as the most powerful office in American government, the Constitution limits those powers and requires the chief executive to work in harmony with the other branches as well as with the constituency of voters. Although civilian control of the military would seem to place great power in the president's hands, the culture underlying the military in a democratic society works against the misuse of that force. Courts also exist to serve as limitations not only on the executive but on the legislative branch as well. In a democracy, government must be in a balance, and all the different parts must appreciate the wisdom and necessity of that balance.

Third, the rights of individuals and of minorities must be respected, and the majority may not use its power to deprive any person of basic liberties. In a democracy this may often be difficult, especially if there is a diverse population holding diverse views on critical subjects. But once a government deprives one group of rights, then the rights of all the people are in jeopardy.

These themes run throughout the Democracy Papers, and each topic supports all of these overarching principles. The will of the people is ensured through free and fair elections, through the making of law, through a free press examining the workings of government, and through a right to know what the government is doing. It expresses itself through interest groups, even if a bit unevenly. In the United States, the division of powers is mandated by the Constitution, an organic document held in near reverence by the American people. It is also seen in limitations imposed upon the government, by civilian control of the military, and by a federal system. And rights of minorities are ensured through many means, the most important of which is an independent judiciary.

But can these principles be translated into other cultures? There is no simple answer, because the success of any governmental system depends on so many intertwined features. During the colonial period in American history, the imperial government in London could not exert close control of its distant American colonies, and so power and authority devolved onto the local legislatures. This in turn led to a federal system encapsulated in a Constitution that reflects the peculiar historical situation of the people of the United States. The perceived excesses of the British king led to limits on executive authority, while the experience of a citizen militia laid the basis for civilian control of the military.

Individual rights proved harder, but as democracy has evolved in the United States, the rights of the people have expanded from those of white, property-owning men to include men and women of all races, colors, and creeds. Diversity, originally seen as a problem for government, became one of the great strengths of democracy. With so many different peoples, religions and cultures in large democratic nations, any effort to impose one uniform manner of life would have proven disastrous. Instead of fighting diversity, the American people made it a cornerstone of their democratic faith.

Other nations as they experiment with democracy -- and it is always an experiment -- will need to examine how the attributes described in these papers can best be created and sustained in their own culture. There is no one way; to paraphrase the poet Walt Whitman, democracy is a multitude, often contradicting itself. But if we keep our eye on the basic, immutable principles -- that ultimate authority resides in the people, that governmental powers must be limited, and that individual rights must be protected-then there can be many ways in which to achieve those goals.

________________________________________ About the Author:
Series Editor Melvin I. Urofsky, professor of history and public policy at Virginia Commonwealth University, is the author or editor of more than 40 books. His most recent works are The Warren Court (2001), and with Paul Finkelman, A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States (2nd ed., 2001).

The Benchmark of Elections
Elections are the central institution of democratic representative governments. Why? Because, in a democracy, the authority of the government derives solely from the consent of the governed. The principal mechanism for translating that consent into governmental authority is the holding of free and fair elections.

All modern democracies hold elections, but not all elections are democratic. Right-wing dictatorships, Marxist regimes, and single-party governments also stage elections to give their rule the aura of legitimacy. In such elections, there may be only one candidate or a list of candidates, with no alternative choices. Such elections may offer several candidates for each office, but ensure through intimidation or rigging that only the government-approved candidate is chosen. Other elections may offer genuine choices--but only within the incumbent party. These are not democratic elections.

What Are Democratic Elections?
Jeane Kirkpatrick, scholar and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has offered this definition: "Democratic elections are not merely symbolic....They are competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives."

What do Kirkpatrick's criteria mean? Democratic elections are competitive. Opposition parties and candidates must enjoy the freedom of speech, assembly, and movement necessary to voice their criticisms of the government openly and to bring alternative policies and candidates to the voters. Simply permitting the opposition access to the ballot is not enough. Elections in which the opposition is barred from the airwaves, has its rallies harassed or its newspapers censored, are not democratic. The party in power may enjoy the advantages of incumbency, but the rules and conduct of the election contest must be fair.

Democratic elections are periodic. Democracies do not elect dictators or presidents-for-life. Elected officials are accountable to the people, and they must return to the voters at prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office. This means that officials in a democracy must accept the risk of being voted out of office. The one exception is judges who, to insulate them against popular pressure and help ensure their impartiality, may be appointed for life and removed only for serious improprieties.

Democratic elections are inclusive. The definition of citizen and voter must be large enough to include a large proportion of the adult population. A government chosen by a small, exclusive group is not a democracy--no matter how democratic its internal workings may appear. One of the great dramas of democracy throughout history has been the struggle of excluded groups--whether racial, ethnic, or religious minorities, or women--to win full citizenship, and with it the right to vote and hold office. In the United States, for example, only white male property holders enjoyed the right to elect and be elected when the Constitution was signed in 1787. The property qualification disappeared by the early 19th century, and women won the right to vote in 1920. Black Americans, however, did not enjoy full voting rights in the southern United States until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And finally, in 1971, younger citizens were given the right to vote when the United States lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.

Democratic elections are definitive. They determine the leadership of the government. Subject to the laws and constitution of the country, popularly elected representatives hold the reins of power. They are not simply figureheads or symbolic leaders.

Finally, democratic elections are not limited to selecting candidates. Voters can also be asked to decide policy issues directly through referendums and initiatives that are placed on the ballot. In the United States, for example, state legislatures can decide to "refer," or place, an issue directly before the voters. In the case of an initiative, citizens themselves can gather a prescribed number of signatures (usually a percentage of the number of registered voters in that state) and require that an issue be placed on the next ballot--even over the objections of the state legislature or governor. In a state such as California, voters confront dozens of legislative initiatives each time they vote--on issues ranging from environmental pollution to automobile insurance costs.

Democratic Ethics and the Loyal Opposition
Democracies thrive on openness and accountability, with one very important exception: the act of voting itself. To cast a free ballot and minimize the opportunity for intimidation, voters in a democracy must be permitted to cast their ballots in secret. At the same time, the protection of the ballot box and tallying of vote totals must be conducted as openly as possible, so that citizens are confident that the results are accurate and that the government does, indeed, rest upon their "consent."

One of the most difficult concepts for some to accept, especially in nations where the transition of power has historically taken place at the point of a gun, is that of the "loyal opposition." This idea is a vital one, however. It means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors don't necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to play. Moreover, the ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate.

When the election is over, the losers accept the judgment of the voters. If the incumbent party loses, it turns over power peacefully. No matter who wins, both sides agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the society. The losers, now in the political opposition, know that they will not lose their lives or go to jail. On the contrary, the opposition, whether it consists of one party or many, can continue to participate in public life with the knowledge that its role is essential in any democracy worthy of the name. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.

As the next election comes around, opposition parties will again have the opportunity to compete for power. In addition, a pluralistic society, one in which the reach of government is limited, tends to offer election losers alternatives for public service outside government. Those defeated at the polls may choose to continue as a formal opposition party, but they may also decide to participate in the wider political process and debate through writing, teaching, or joining one of many private organizations concerned with public policy issues. Democratic elections, after all, are not a fight for survival but a competition to serve.

Inalienable Rights

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. In these memorable words of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set forth a fundamental principle upon which democratic government is founded. Governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms enumerated by Jefferson; governments are created to protect those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his or her existence.

In their formulation by the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, inalienable rights are God-given natural rights. These rights are not destroyed when civil society is created, and neither society nor government can remove or "alienate" them.

Inalienable rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly, and the right to equal protection before the law. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the rights that citizens enjoy in a democracy--democratic societies also assert such civil rights as the right to a fair trial--but it does constitute the core rights that any democratic government must uphold. Since they exist independently of government, these rights cannot be legislated away, nor are they subject to the momentary whim of an electoral majority. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, does not give freedom of religion or of the press to the people; it prohibits the Congress from passing any law interfering with freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. A historian, Leonard Levy, has said, "Individuals may be free when their government is not."

The detailed formulation of laws and procedures concerning these basic human rights will necessarily vary from society to society, but every democracy is charged with the task of building the constitutional, legal, and social structures that will ensure their protection.

Speech
Freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of any democracy. To debate and vote, to assemble and protest, to worship, to ensure justice for all--these all rely upon the unrestricted flow of speech and information. Canadian Patrick Wilson, creator of the television series The Struggle for Democracy, observes: "Democracy is communication: people talking to one another about their common problems and forging a common destiny. Before people can govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves."

Citizens of a democracy live with the conviction that through the open exchange of ideas and opinions, truth will eventually win out over falsehood, the values of others will be better understood, areas of compromise more clearly defined, and the path of progress opened. The greater the volume of such exchanges, the better. American essayist E.B. White put it this way: "The press in our free country is reliable and useful not because of its good character but because of its great diversity. As long as there are many owners, each pursuing his own brand of truth, we the people have the opportunity to arrive at the truth and dwell in the light....There is safety in numbers."

In contrast to authoritarian states, democratic governments do not control, dictate, or judge the content of written and verbal speech. Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable citizenry whose access to the broadest possible range of information enables them to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society. Ignorance breeds apathy. Democracy thrives upon the energy of citizens who are sustained by the unimpeded flow of ideas, data, opinions, and speculation.

But what should the government do in cases where the news media or other organizations abuse freedom of speech with information that, in the opinion of the majority, is false, repugnant, irresponsible, or simply in bad taste? The answer, by and large, is nothing. It is simply not the business of government to judge such matters. In general, the cure for free speech is more free speech. It may seem a paradox, but in the name of free speech, a democracy must sometimes defend the rights of individuals and groups who themselves advocate such non- democratic policies as repressing free speech. Citizens in a democratic society defend this right out of the conviction that, in the end, open debate will lead to greater truth and wiser public actions than if speech and dissent are stifled.

Furthermore, the advocate of free speech argues, the suppression of speech that I find offensive today is potentially a threat to my exercise of free speech tomorrow--which perhaps you or someone else might find offensive. One of the classic defenses of this view is that of English philosopher John Stuart Mill, who argued in his 1859 essay "On Liberty" that all people are harmed when speech is repressed. "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth," Mill wrote, "if wrong, they lose...the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error."

The corollary to freedom of speech is the right of the people to assemble and peacefully demand that the government hear their grievances. Without this right to gather and be heard, freedom of speech would be devalued. For this reason, freedom of speech is considered closely linked to, if not inseparable from, the right to gather, protest, and demand change. Democratic governments can legitimately regulate the time and place of political rallies and marches to maintain the peace, but they cannot use that authority to suppress protest or to prevent dissident groups from making their voices heard.

Freedom and Faith
Freedom of religion, or more broadly freedom of conscience, means that no person should be required to profess any religion or other belief against his or her desires. Additionally, no one should be punished or penalized in any way because he or she chooses one religion over another or, indeed, opts for no religion at all. The democratic state recognizes that a person's religious faith is a profoundly personal matter.

In a related sense, freedom of religion means that no one can be compelled by government to recognize an official church or faith. Children cannot be compelled to go to a particular religious school, and no one can be required to attend religious services, to pray, or to participate in religious activities against his or her will. By reason of long history or tradition, many democratic nations have officially established churches or religions that receive state support. This fact, however, does not relieve the government of the responsibility for protecting the freedom of individuals whose beliefs differ from that of the officially sanctioned religion.

Citizenship: Rights and Responsibilities
Democracies rest upon the principle that government exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the government. In other words, the people are citizens of the democratic state, not its subjects. While the state protects the rights of its citizens, in return, the citizens give the state their loyalty. Under an authoritarian system, on the other hand, the state, as an entity separate from the society, demands loyalty and service from its people without any reciprocal obligation to secure their consent for its actions.

When citizens in a democracy vote, for example, they are exercising their right and responsibility to determine who shall rule in their name. In an authoritarian state, by contrast, the act of voting serves only to legitimize selections already made by the regime. Voting in such a society involves neither rights nor responsibilities exercised by citizens--only a coerced show of public support for the government.

Similarly, citizens in a democracy enjoy the right to join organizations of their choosing that are independent of government and to participate freely in the public life of their society. At the same time, citizens must accept the responsibility that such participation entails: educating themselves about the issues, demonstrating tolerance in dealing with those holding opposing views, and compromising when necessary to reach agreement.

In an authoritarian state, however, private voluntary groups are few or nonexistent. They do not serve as vehicles for individuals to debate issues or run their own affairs, but only as another arm of the state that holds its subjects in positions of obedience.

Military service provides a different but equally contrasting example of rights and responsibilities in democratic and non-democratic societies. Two different nations may both require a period of peacetime military service by their young men. In the authoritarian state, this obligation is imposed unilaterally. In the democratic state, such a period of military service is a duty that the citizens of the society have undertaken through laws passed by a government they themselves have elected. In each society, peacetime military service may be unwelcome for individuals. But the citizen-soldier in a democracy serves with the knowledge that he is discharging an obligation that his society has freely undertaken. The members of a democratic society, moreover, have it within their power to act collectively and change this obligation: to eliminate mandatory military service and create an all-volunteer army, as the United States and other countries have done; change the period of military service, as happened in Germany; or, as in the case of Switzerland, maintain reserve military service for men as an essential part of citizenship.

Citizenship in these examples entails a broad definition of rights and responsibilities, since they are opposite sides of the same coin. An individual's exercise of his rights is also his responsibility to protect and enhance those rights--for himself and for others. Even citizens of well-established democracies often misunderstand this equation, and too often take advantage of rights while ignoring responsibilities. As political scientist Benjamin Barber notes, "Democracy is often understood as the rule of the majority, and rights are understood more and more as the private possessions of individuals and thus as necessarily antagonistic to majoritarian democracy. But this is to misunderstand both rights and democracy."

It is certainly true that individuals exercise basic, or inalienable, rights--such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion--which thereby constitute limits on any democratically based government. In this sense, individual rights are a bulwark against abuses of power by the government or a momentary political majority.

But in another sense, rights, like individuals, do not function in isolation. Rights are not the private possession of individuals but exist only insofar as they are recognized by other citizens of the society. The electorate, as the American philosopher Sidney Hook expressed it, is "the ultimate custodian of its own freedom." From this perspective, democratic government, which is elected by and accountable to its citizens, is not the antagonist of individual rights, but their protector. It is to enhance their rights that citizens in a democracy undertake their civic obligations and responsibilities.

Broadly speaking, these responsibilities entail participating in the democratic process to ensure its functioning. At a minimum, citizens should educate themselves about the critical issues confronting their society--if only to vote intelligently for candidates running for high office. Other obligations, such as serving juries in civil or criminal trials, may be required by law, but most are voluntary. The essence of democratic action is the active, freely chosen participation of its citizens in the public life of their community and nation. Without this broad, sustaining participation, democracy will begin to wither and become the preserve of a small, select number of groups and organizations. But with the active engagement of individuals across the spectrum of society, democracies can weather the inevitable economic and political storms that sweep over every society, without sacrificing the freedoms and rights that they are sworn to uphold.

Active involvement in public life is often narrowly defined as the struggle for political office. But citizen participation in a democratic society is much broader than just taking part in election contests. At the neighborhood or municipal level, citizens may serve on school committees or form community groups, as well as run for local office. At the state, provincial, or national level, citizens can add their voices and pens to the continuing debate over public issues, or they can join political parties, labor unions, or other voluntary organizations. Whatever the level of their contribution, a healthy democracy depends upon the continuing, informed participation of the broad range of its citizens.

Democracy, Diane Ravitch writes, "is a process, a way of living and working together. It is evolutionary, not static. It requires cooperation, compromise, and tolerance among all citizens. Making it work is hard, not easy. Freedom means responsibility, not freedom from responsibility."

Democracy embodies ideals of freedom and self-expression, but it is also clear-eyed about human nature. It does not demand that citizens be universally virtuous, only that they will be responsible. As American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."

Human Rights and Political Goals
As a principle, the protection of basic human rights is accepted widely: It is embodied in written constitutions throughout the world as well as in the Charter of the United Nations and in such international agreements as the Helsinki Final Act (the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe--CSCE).

Distinguishing among different categories of rights is another matter. In recent times, there has been a tendency, especially among international organizations, to expand the list of basic human rights. To fundamental freedoms of speech and equal treatment before the law, these groups have added rights to employment, to education, to one's own culture or nationality, and to adequate standards of living.

These are all worthwhile undertakings, but when such entitlements proliferate as rights, they tend to devalue the meaning of basic civic and human rights. Furthermore, they blur the distinction between rights that all individuals possess and goals toward which individuals, organizations, and governments may reasonably be expected to strive.

Governments protect inalienable rights, such as freedom of speech, through restraint, by limiting their own actions. Funding education, providing health care, or guaranteeing employment demand the opposite: the active involvement of government in promoting certain policies and programs. Adequate health care and educational opportunities should be the birthright of every child. The sad fact is that they are not, and the ability of societies to achieve such goals will vary widely from country to country. By transforming every human aspiration into a right, however, governments run the risk of increasing cynicism and inviting a disregard of all human rights.

BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS •Freedom of speech, expression, and the press. •Freedom of religion. •Freedom of assembly and association. •Right to equal protection of the law. •Right to due process and fair trial.

Anthony J. Principi was nominated to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs by President George W. Bush on December 29, 2000, and was confirmed by the Senate on January 23, 2001.

As Secretary, Mr. Principi directs the federal government's second largest department, responsible for a nationwide system of health care services, benefits programs, and national cemeteries for America's veterans and dependents. With a budget of more than $51 billion, VA employs approximately 219,000 people at hundreds of VA medical centers, clinics, benefits offices, and national cemeteries throughout the country.

Prior to his nomination, Mr. Principi was president of QTC Medical Services, Inc., a group of professional service companies providing independent medical examinations and administration. During the past decade, he was senior vice president at Lockheed Martin IMS, and a partner in the San Diego law firm of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps.

A combat-decorated Vietnam veteran, Mr. Principi has worked on national policy issues and has held several executive-level positions in federal government throughout his career. He chaired the Federal Quality Institute in 1991 and was chairman of the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance established by Congress in 1996.

Mr. Principi served as Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, VA's second-highest executive position, from March 17, 1989, to September 26, 1992, when he was named Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs by President George Bush. He served in that position until January 1993. Following that appointment, he served as Republican chief counsel and staff director of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

From 1984 to 1988, he served as Republican chief counsel and staff director of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He was the Veterans Administration's assistant deputy administrator for congressional and public affairs from 1983 to 1984, following three years as counsel to the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Principi is a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., and first saw active duty aboard the destroyer USS Joseph P. Kennedy. He later commanded a River Patrol Unit in Vietnam's Mekong Delta.

Mr. Principi earned his law degree from Seton Hall University in 1975 and was assigned to the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps in San Diego, Calif. In 1980, he was transferred to Washington as a legislative counsel for the Department of the Navy.

Norman Y. Mineta became the 14th U.S. Secretary of Transportation on January 25, 2001.

In nominating him, President Bush said, "Norm made a reputation in the halls of Congress as someone who understands that a sound infrastructure in America will lead to economic opportunity for all Americans."

"Transportation is key to generating and enabling economic growth, determining the patterns of that growth, and determining the competitiveness of our businesses in the world economy," said Secretary Mineta. "Transportation is thus key to both our economic success and to our quality of life."

As Secretary of Transportation, Mineta oversees an agency with 100,000 employees and a $58.7 billion budget. Created in 1967, the U.S. Department of Transportation brought under one umbrella air, maritime and surface transportation missions.

The U.S. transportation system includes 3.9 million miles of public roads and 2 million miles of oil and natural gas pipelines. There are networks consisting of 120,000 miles of major railroads, more than 25,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways and more than 5,000 public-use airports. The transportation system also includes more than 500 major urban public transit operators and more than 300 ports on the coasts, Great Lakes and inland waterways.

Prior to joining President Bush’s administration as Secretary of Transportation, Mineta served as U.S. Secretary of Commerce under President Clinton, becoming the first Asian Pacific American to serve in the cabinet. He is the first Secretary of Transportation to have previously served in a cabinet position. Prior to joining the Commerce Department, he was a vice president at Lockheed Martin Corporation.

From 1975 to 1995 he served as a member of U.S. House of Representatives, representing the heart of California’s Silicon Valley. As a member of Congress, Mineta was known for his dedication to the people of his district, for consensus building among his colleagues and for forging public-private partnerships. Mineta's legislative and policy agenda was wide and varied, including major projects in the areas of economic development, science and technology policy, trade, transportation, the environment, intelligence, the budget and civil rights. He co-founded the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and served as its first chair.

Mineta served as chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee between 1992 and 1994. He chaired the committee’s aviation subcommittee between 1981 and 1988, and chaired its Surface Transportation Subcommittee from 1989 to 1991. During his career in Congress he championed increases in investment for transportation infrastructure, and was a key author of the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 which shifted decisions on highway and mass transit planning to state and local governments. ISTEA led to major upsurges in mass transit ridership and more environmentally friendly transportation projects, such as bicycle paths. He also pressed for more funding for the department’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

After leaving the Congress, Mineta chaired the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which in 1997 issued recommendations on reducing traffic congestion and reducing the aviation accident rate. Many of the commission’s recommendations were adopted by the Clinton administration, including reform of the FAA to enable it to perform more like a business.

Mineta and his family were among the 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry forced from their homes and into internment camps during World War II. After graduating from the University of California at Berkeley, Mineta joined the Army in 1953 and served as an intelligence officer in Japan and Korea. He joined his father in the Mineta Insurance Agency before entering politics in San Jose, serving as a member of its City Council from 1967 to 1971 and mayor from 1971 to 1974, becoming the first Asian Pacific American mayor of a major U.S. city. As mayor, he favored greater control of transportation decisions by local government, a position he later championed in ISTEA.

While in Congress, Mineta was the driving force behind passage of H.R. 442, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which officially apologized for and redressed the injustices endured by Japanese Americans during the War. In 1995, George Washington University awarded the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Medal to Mineta for his contributions to the field of civil rights.

Mineta is married to Danealia (Deni) Mineta. He has two sons, David and Stuart Mineta, and two stepsons, Robert and Mark Brantner.

President George W. Bush nominated John William Snow to be the 73rd Secretary of the Treasury on January 13, 2003. The United States Senate unanimously confirmed Snow to the position on January 30, 2003 and he was sworn into office on February 3, 2003. As Secretary of the Treasury, Snow works closely with President Bush to strengthen economic growth and create jobs.

Snow was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CSX Corporation, where he successfully guided the transportation company though a period of tremendous change. During Snow's twenty years at CSX, he led the Corporation to refocus on its core railroad business, dramatically reduce injuries and train accidents, and improve its financial performance.

Snow's previous public service includes having served at the Department of Transportation as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Deputy Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary for the Governmental Affairs, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Plans and International Affairs.

Snow's knowledge of international industry stems from his tenure as Chairman of the Business Roundtable, the foremost business policy group comprised of 250 chief executive officers of the nation's largest companies. During his tenure as Chairman from 1994 through 1996, he played a major role in supporting passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Snow is also recognized as a leading champion of improved corporate governance practices. He is a former co-chairman of the influential Conference Board's Blue-Ribbon Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise. He also served as co-chairman of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement in 1992 that made recommendations following the savings and loan crisis.

John Snow was born in Toledo, Ohio, on August 2, 1939, and graduated in 1962 from the University of Toledo. He later earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia where he studied under two Nobel Prize winners. Snow graduated with a law degree from the George Washington University in 1967 and then taught economics at the University of Maryland, University of Virginia, as well as law at George Washington. He also served as a Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in 1977 and a Distinguished Fellow at the Yale School of Management from 1978 until 1980.

Snow lives in Richmond, Virginia with his wife Carolyn. He has three children and three grandchildren.

Laura Welch Bush shares America's concerns about the education of our children. Through her national initiative called Ready to Read, Ready to Learn, she stresses that America's children can't wait to read. In fact, they should have a book and an adult to read with long before they start school.

She urges more Americans to become teachers; discusses preparing young children for learning and school; and wants parents and other adults to have important information on child rearing and cognitive development. Family
Married to President George W. Bush

Daughters
Twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara

College
Southern Methodist University, bachelor's degree in education

Graduate School
University of Texas at Austin, master's degree in library science

Career and Public Service
Public school teacher and librarian in the Houston, Dallas and Austin school systems; First Lady of Texas; First Lady of the United States

On September 8, 2001, Mrs. Bush launched the first National Book Festival, which featured authors from across the nation and was attended by 30,000 people. Building on the success of the first festival, Mrs. Bush hosted the second annual National Book Festival on October 12, 2002. Seventy award-winning authors, illustrators and storytellers participated in the event which was attended by 45,000 people. Mrs. Ludmila Putina, wife of Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, traveled to America to attend the festival.

Since the tragedy of September 11, Mrs. Bush has focused her energy on helping our nation, especially children, through the healing process. She encourages Americans to spend more time together as families and support the teachers who take care of their children every day in school.

Mrs. Bush joined a worldwide effort to stop the Taliban's oppression of women and children in Afghanistan. In November 2001, Mrs. Bush became the first First Lady in history to record a full presidential radio address, speaking out on the plight of women and children under the oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In May 2002, Mrs. Bush addressed the people of Afghanistan through Radio Liberty in Prague, the capitol of the Czech Republic.

In her speeches and public appearances, she expresses what many Americans believe: that every human being should be treated with dignity; and that no child should be left behind in school, or in life.

Mrs. Bush is also interested in women's health issues - particularly heart disease and breast cancer awareness. In Texas, she worked with the Governor's Spouse Program of the National Governors Association to promote women's health issues. She worked to establish Adopt-A-Caseworker programs and Rainbow Rooms throughout Texas. Rainbow rooms provide abused and neglected children with basic necessities such as clothing and diapers.

Her love of education and reading began in her youngest years and guided her to a career as a Texas public school teacher and librarian.

She attended Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, where she earned a Bachelor of Science degree in education in 1968. After college, she worked as a teacher at Longfellow Elementary School in the Dallas Independent School District until 1969 and then moved to Houston, Texas, where she taught at John F. Kennedy Elementary School in the Houston Independent School District until 1972.

Later, she enrolled at the University of Texas at Austin and earned a Master of Library Science degree in 1973. Afterward, she worked at the Houston Public Library, Kashmere Gardens Branch until she moved back to Austin in 1974.

She worked as a librarian at Dawson Elementary School until 1977, when she met George Walker Bush at the home of mutual friends. They married in November 1977 and made their home in Midland. In 1981, George and Laura Bush became the proud parents of twin girls, who are named Barbara and Jenna, after their grandmothers.

Today she brings her experienced viewpoints, her love of children and her interest in education to a much broader audience as the wife of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Ann M. Veneman was sworn in as the 27th Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on January 20, 2001. Her lifelong commitment to food and farm issues, along with her bipartisan approach to solving problems and confronting new challenges, are reasons that explain why she was chosen by President George W. Bush to serve in his Cabinet and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Growing up on a family farm in a small rural community, Ann Veneman understands well the issues important to America's farmers and ranchers. She has spent much of her career dedicated to food and agriculture issues and advancing sound U.S. farm and food policies.

President Bush has often said that the spirit of the American farmer is emblematic of the spirit of America, signifying the values of hard work, faith and entrepreneurship. Secretary Veneman believes strongly in these principles and since taking office, has worked to foster economic opportunities for farmers and ranchers, ensure a safe and wholesome food supply, protect agriculture against pests and diseases, encourage conservation and environmental stewardship, invest in rural communities, and support the next generation of agricultural leaders through new educational opportunities.

Secretary Veneman brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the USDA. She is no stranger to managing the complexity of a large government agency and working with the Congress. Her management style encourages teamwork, innovation, and mutual respect in forging common sense solutions to issues facing American agriculture.

From 1991 to 1993, Veneman served as USDA's Deputy Secretary, the Department's second-highest position. She also served as Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and Commodity Programs from 1989 to 1991. Veneman joined the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service in 1986 and served as Associate Administrator until 1989. From 1995 to 1999, Veneman served as Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), managing agricultural programs and services for the nation's largest and most diverse agricultural producing state.

Secretary Veneman's extensive background and experience has been valuable since taking office as American agriculture has confronted critical issues such as new farm policy, international trade, homeland security, environmental stewardship and food safety.

Within months of taking office, Secretary Veneman released the Bush Administration's vision for American agriculture through the publication of Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century. This publication outlines the Administration's priorities for farm sector policy, trade expansion, infrastructure enhancement, conservation and the environment, rural communities, nutrition and food assistance, and USDA program integration. The report, available on USDA's website at www.usda.gov/farmpolicy/farmpolicy.htm has received widespread praise for its candor and forward-looking vision.

Secretary Veneman has played a key role in eliminating trade barriers and expanding opportunities for American farmers through new export markets. She has worked closely with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, helping lead to the successful launch of a new round of trade negotiations for the World Trade Organization.

Following a devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease in parts of Europe and the tragic events of September 11th, Secretary Veneman and her team acted swiftly to respond to potential threats and continues working to strengthen USDA's protection systems. The Secretary has been an advocate for strong pest and disease, food safety and research programs to ensure U.S. agriculture and consumers have a safe, wholesome food supply and the infrastructure to protect it.

Secretary Veneman has been a strong advocate of agriculture education and established the "Leaders of Tomorrow" initiative to strengthen USDA education programs, particularly those involved with mentoring young adults.

The Secretary earned her bachelor's degree in political science from the University of California, Davis, a master's degree in public policy from the University of California, Berkeley, and a juris doctorate degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law. In a personal capacity, she serves as a board member of the Close Up Foundation, a nonpartisan civic education organization.

Why Use Games in Class Time?
* Games are fun and children like to play them. Through games children experiment, discover, and interact with their environment. (Lewis, 1999)
* Games add variation to a lesson and increase motivation by providing a plausible incentive to use the target language. For many children between four and twelve years old, especially the youngest, language learning will not be the key motivational factor. Games can provide this stimulus. (Lewis, 1999)
* The game context makes the foreign language immediately useful to the children. It brings the target language to life. (Lewis, 1999)
* The game makes the reasons for speaking plausible even to reluctant children. (Lewis, 1999)
* Through playing games, students can learn English the way children learn their mother tongue without being aware they are studying; thus without stress, they can learn a lot.
* Even shy students can participate positively.

How to Choose Games (Tyson, 2000) * A game must be more than just fun.
* A game should involve "friendly" competition.
* A game should keep all of the students involved and interested.
* A game should encourage students to focus on the use of language rather than on the language itself.
* A game should give students a chance to learn, practice, or review specific language material.

by Yin Yong Mei and Jang Yu-jing Daejin University ELT Research Paper. Fall, 2000.

'Language learning is a hard task which can sometimes be frustrating. Constant effort is required to understand, produce and manipulate the target language. Well-chosen games are invaluable as they give students a break and at the same time allow students to practise language skills. Games are highly motivating since they are amusing and at the same time challenging. Furthermore, they employ meaningful and useful language in real contexts. They also encourage and increase cooperation.'

'Games are highly motivating because they are amusing and interesting. They can be used to give practice in all language skills and be used to practice many types of communication.

by Aydan Ersoz The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VI, No. 6, June 2000.

'Games have been shown to have advantages and effectiveness in learning vocabulary in various ways. First, games bring in relaxation and fun for students, thus help them learn and retain new words more easily. Second, games usually involve friendly competition and they keep learners interested. These create the motivation for learners of English to get involved and participate actively in the learning activities. Third, vocabulary games bring real world context into the classroom, and enhance students' use of English in a flexible, communicative way.'

'Therefore, the role of games in teaching and learning vocabulary cannot be denied. However, in order to achieve the most from vocabulary games, it is essential that suitable games are chosen. Whenever a game is to be conducted, the number of students, proficiency level, cultural context, timing, learning topic, and the classroom settings are factors that should be taken into account.'

'In conclusion, learning vocabulary through games is one effective and interesting way that can be applied in any classrooms. The results of this research suggest that games are used not only for mere fun, but more importantly, for the useful practice and review of language lessons, thus leading toward the goal of improving learners' communicative competence.'

by Nguyen Thi Thanh Huyen and Khuat Thi Thu Nga 'Asian EFL Journal' - December 2003

'Language learning is hard work ... Effort is required at every moment and must be maintained over a long period of time. Games help and encourage many learners to sustain their interest and work.'

'Games also help the teacher to create contexts in which the language is useful and meaningful. The learners want to take part and in order to do so must understand what others are saying or have written, and they must speak or write in order to express their own point of view or give information.'

'The need for meaningfulness in language learning has been accepted for some years. A useful interpretation of 'meaningfulness' is that the learners respond to the content in a definite way. If they are amused, angered, intrigued or surprised the content is clearly meaningful to them. Thus the meaning of the language they listen to, read, speak and write will be more vividly experienced and, therefore, better remembered.

If it is accepted that games can provide intense and meaningful practice of language, then they must be regarded as central to a teacher's repertoire. They are thus not for use solely on wet days and at the end of term!' (from Introduction, p. 1)

by Andrew Wright, David Betteridge and Michael Buckby Cambridge University Press, 1984.

'There is a common perception that all learning should be serious and solemn in nature, and that if one is having fun and there is hilarity and laughter, then it is not really learning. This is a misconception. It is possible to learn a language as well as enjoy oneself at the same time. One of the best ways of doing this is through games.'

'There are many advantages of using games in the classroom:

1. Games are a welcome break from the usual routine of the language class.
2. They are motivating and challenging.
3. Learning a language requires a great deal of effort. Games help students to make and sustain the effort of learning.
4. Games provide language practice in the various skills- speaking, writing, listening and reading.
5. They encourage students to interact and communicate.
6. They create a meaningful context for language use.' .

by Lee Su Kim

'In an effort to supplement lesson plans in the ESL classroom, teachers often turn to games. The justification for using games in the classroom has been well demonstrated as benefiting students in a variety of ways. These benefits range from cognitive aspects of language learning to more co-operative group dynamics.'

General Benefits of Games

Affective:
- lowers affective filter
- encourages creative and spontaneous use of language
- promotes communicative competence
- motivates
- fun

Cognitive:
- reinforces
- reviews and extends
- focuses on grammar communicatively

Class Dynamics:
- student centered
- teacher acts only as facilitator
- builds class cohesion
- fosters whole class participation
- promotes healthy competition

Adaptability: - easily adjusted for age, level, and interests
- utilizes all four skills
- requires minimum preparation after development

by M. Martha Lengeling and Casey Malarcher 'Forum' Vol. 35 No 4, October - December 1997 Page 42

Actually internet is not only a source of information but also internet is a source of money. Many person have proved this statement. There are person who get $10,000 a day from internet.

The source of money from internet that I have proved are below :
1.hits4pay
This program will pay you 0,02 just for clicking an ads. We will also get $10 after sign up. The sound is nice!! Yes there many person who has proved. Click image below to join

2. ClixSense
By taking advantage of the ClixSense online advertising program, as a potential online consumer, you can actually get paid for your web browsing, up to $5.00 for every 30 seconds worth of work. The income you earn is paid directly to you every month. The best part about the ClixSense program is that as a potential online consumer, there is no charge to register your new account and begin earning money immediately.

3. Bux.To
Advertisers will pay YOU up to $0.01 for every website you view! Additionally, you can maximize your earnings by referring someone to join under you. your referrals' direct click earnings and commissions on any Bux.To service that your referrals purchase!

I believe that to be most effective as an instructor, one must create a safe environment that is interactive and collaborative and that promotes problem-solving and critical thinking skills. A welcoming environment accommodates a variety of adult learning styles and encourages students to present their opinions while respecting the opinions of others. By giving students a voice in class, not only do the students benefit from peer-peer learning by enriching the course material with personal experiences and knowledge, but they also take responsibility for their own learning and, therefore, enhance the integration of their new knowledge into practice. Promoting independent thinking is essential so that students can take what they have learned and apply it in real-life situations. Therefore, I endeavor to make my classroom an arena for students to learn skills and demonstrate outcomes.

To create a safe learning environment, I encourage students to ask questions and give their views on the material we are covering. I solicit anonymous feedback in the form of “one-minute papers” from my students about assignments as well as my teaching style, and I then implement student suggestions to improve my service delivery and their learning outcomes. I create assignments that improve students’ problem-solving and critical thinking skills, such as analyzing the behaviors of a social worker as depicted in a television show to determine if the social worker abided by the NASW Code of Ethics. I utilize small-group discussions both to actively involve the students in their own learning as well as to improve their critical thinking skills.

In order to achieve the ultimate goal of student learning, I strive to implement strategies that create a collaborative and safe atmosphere and encourage the application of knowledge to new situations. I believe that these strategies help students become ready and able to utilize their knowledge in their studies and in their future employment.

By : Jill Davis

Teaching is a process of instilling the concepts and necessary skills for life-long learning, in addition to team participation, with an individual. The student will ultimately leave the protective environment of the ‘educational system’ to enter society as, hopefully, a contributing entity. When this occurs, it is vitally important to have the ability to ‘teach one’s self’ and effectively collaborate with others, in order to manage and process the problems and issues that are presented during life. I believe this is necessary for the continued growth of humanity

As a teacher, my goal is to share this process, focusing on subject matter in my area of expertise, using current teaching tools available. I strive to personally model this using my professional experience in the real world, often incorporating current projects as they are presented to me, and continuously seek new methods of processing and presentation. My lesson plan allows flexibility for this spontaneous discovery as well as directives toward specific goals. I present students the fundamentals of the subject, real world examples, and a collaborative forum for discussing options to deal with these issues and why. From this, the student will experience a ‘hands-on’ practical application of the learning process, and, as a teacher and professional in my field, I have the opportunity to gain new insight based on individual student needs and collaboration with colleagues.

By: Russ Ward

My emphasis in teaching is on learning. My teaching goal is to facilitate learning (helping students learn) and I believe that teaching plays a major role in that. Learning is primarily the student's responsibility, whereas teaching is my responsibility. My emphasis is on helping the student to learn, rather than just dispensing my knowledge to them. I am there to “light their candle," not just "fill their bucket.”

Dr. Thomas Evans

Overview The constancy of change in contemporary teaching and learning environments behooves one to think critically about a teaching philosophy. In the 21st century, a new literacy has emerged—the ability to use appropriate technological tools in an Information society. For example, the personal computer and associated technological innovations, e.g., the Internet and E-mail, have become commonplace.

Alvin Toffler, futurist, and author of the classic Future Shock, puts it best, when he says: "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn". Faculty must critically examine and re-examine teaching philosophies, as the environments in which teaching and learning become increasingly diverse and varied.

Since originally published in 1987 by the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE), Chickering and Gamson’s “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” have weathered the test of time. These principles, equally applicable to graduate instruction, provide an adequate conceptual framework for the goals of my teaching philosophy. Chickering and Gamson assert that good educational practice does the following:

• Encourages student-faculty contact .
• Encourages cooperation among students
• Encourages active learning
• Gives prompt feedback
• Emphasizes time on task
• Communicates high expectations
• Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

Methodology In teaching, my overarching goal is to develop a student-centered environment. I want students to actively participate, rather than passively learn. When planning a course of instruction, I identify a set of objectives and skills. Next, I compile a rationale for each objective and skill. I design a course plan that emphasizes the application of critical thinking skills to foster deep learning, and the use of collaborative learning skills to facilitate “real-world” problem solving. I also embed activities in the instructional process that are designed to help students develop research and writing skills—readily transferable across disciplines—as they engage in learning of content material.

Throughout the teaching and learning process, I incorporate multiple choices and pathways through the learning materials. I encourage students to engage in open-ended formative and summative evaluation of the course (what’s working, what’s not). I also ask students to self-evaluate individual progress. Finally, my course design includes a data-driven evaluation component, which focuses on systematic outcomes and results, that are clearly tied to course goals and objectives.

Evaluation To measure student learning, I provide multiple assessments. Over my 16 years of teaching experience, these assessments have included:

• Collaborative research projects
• Formal scholarly research papers
• Portfolios
• Presentations (Speaking, Multimedia)
• Quizzes
• Review activities
• Student written newsletters
• Traditional exams
• Writing Activities
• Written concept summaries

Summary My philosophy of teaching asserts that students are entitled to quality instruction in an active and stimulating learning environment. Students should experience frequent and repeated opportunities to act, react, and interact with each other and the professor. Curriculum materials should be timely and relevant. Standards of excellence—high, yet attainable—should be used to facilitate optimal student learning. Finally, as teaching is a process, not an activity, my teaching philosophy offers an invaluable reflective view on “how to” strive for instructional improvement.

By Ruby Evans

Colin L. Powell was nominated by President Bush on December 16, 2000 as Secretary of State. After being unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate, he was sworn in as the 65th Secretary of State on January 20, 2001. .

Prior to his appointment, Secretary Powell was the chairman of America’s Promise - The Alliance for Youth, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to mobilizing people from every sector of American life to build the character and competence of young people. .

Secretary Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held myriad command and staff positions and rose to the rank of 4-star General. His last assignment, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, was as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including Operation Desert Storm in the victorious 1991 Persian Gulf war. .

Following his retirement, Secretary Powell wrote his best-selling autobiography, My American Journey, which was published in 1995. Additionally, he pursued a career as a public speaker, addressing audiences across the country and abroad. .

Secretary Powell was born in New York City on April 5, 1937 and was raised in the South Bronx. His parents, Luther and Maud Powell, immigrated to the United States from Jamaica. Secretary Powell was educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a bachelor’s degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration degree from George Washington University. .

Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell’s civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President’s Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country. .

Secretary Powell is married to the former Alma Vivian Johnson of Birmingham, Alabama. The Powell family includes son Michael; daughters Linda and Anne; daughter-in-law Jane; and grandsons Jeffrey and Bryan. .