The Best Thing Ever Essay Example for Free

The Best Thing Ever Essay Victoria McQueen Doctor-Assisted Suicide is it Right or Wrong? Suicide in all shapes and forms is wrong. There are so many reasons to fight and keep hope, taking the life of yourself or having a doctor assist you with taking your life is absurd. Having the gift of life is exactly that; a gift. Taking something so precious that some people don’t even have the option to is a terrible thing. No matter what you believe or what other people believe there has and always will be a plan for you, if you are alive right now you’re not done with your plan. Getting to choose when you want to die is not right, not when there are people struggling to stay afloat. I think that having the capability to have a doctor assist you in suicide is a terrible idea and I am against it. Depression is a difficult thing that hits Americans today; with our issues on body image, and stress from work and keeping and job and then still coming home to a family has become more challenging for people today. There are people who get depressed and wish to take their lives. If it is that important for them to end their lives I am sure they could find a way. Then there are the people who come to the doctors who try and have them help them with it. Its almost as if they are looking for an â€Å"Okay† from someone to end their life because they have a belief system that frowns upon suicide or something like that. If it’s in the cards for you I am sure you can get through it. You should not think that taking your life is the way to do it. The doctors who are involved in situations like this should have restrictions and guidelines that a person has to follow before even mentioning this option because for this task to even be brought up and seem okay would be wrong. Life gets hard we all know this, you hit rock bottom go through some tough spots but it’s up to you to pick up your boot straps and move on. I think there are certain moments when the doctor-assisted suicide should be ok but they have to be under very strict guidelines because someone having the ability to pick and choose when they want to die is just ridiculous. I think if you elect to have a doctor assisted suicide you should have to create a relationship with the doctor and you should be ask more than once if this is what you really want so there are no chances in making a mistake. In the event you have a disease that requires a cure; what if that very next day or even very next hour they find that cure you just gave up on everything you were fighting for after so long. Giving up on life when you cannot handle it anymore is something that no one should get to decide. Some people live the easy life but in rare cases life gets incredibly hard; paraplegia when you have no use of your limbs. Locked-In Syndrome; you have no use of anything just your brain so you are basically stuck in your body sometimes you can use your eyes to communicate. ALS you lose control of all voluntary muscle movement. These are the moments when someone is suffering that I believe that you should have other options rather than just wasting away locked in your own mind and body. There are other terminal illness that occur where keeping a person as happy as possible and keeping them comfortable becomes very hard. Cost of living is expensive for one then you have the price of round the clock nurses among all the pain medicine that has to be purchased so pain can be managed. There are so many jobs that have to be fulfilled to keep a person happy but how long can that last, unless you are rich and can have whatever you want. Take for instance, Stephen Hawking; he is a rich man but after everything he has been through he continues to fight and it’s not some measly little fight to get through the days he is still so adamant about research and the things he continues to do today. He continues to impress people and wants to keep doing things with his life. Having the will to push on and pursue great things no matter what’s going on is very admirable. Reasons that doctor assisted suicide is wrong is there are also faiths and beliefs and hopes that people have been living by and making it okay to end a life for the fact that it got too hard for someone is not right. With that being said I am against physician-assisted suicide, unless there are dire emergencies and the person is suffering beyond belief. We all have different levels of suffering some people can last longer than others in dealing with that but we should also be able to recognize when a person is really suffering and we should do anything in our power to help a person maintain comfortably and allowing them not to suffer.

Julius Caesar Essay: Loyalty and Chaos -- Julius Caesar Essays

Julius Caesar: Loyalty and Chaos In the play, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare suggests that a society without loyalty will inevitably find itself in chaos. Loyalty and similar traits of love and faithfulness arguably form the framework of societies present and past. Negative forces such as ego, greed and the quest for power continually attack this framework. Julius Caesar illustrates the rapid decay of a Roman society's law and harmony, until it finds itself in the chaos of civil war before concluding in an uneasy order. The absence of loyalty in a society does not necessarily constitute chaos; it is rather variants like extremism and shifting loyalties that are the problem. It is true that the assassination of Caesar was a clear example of disloyalty and betrayal. The relatively cool relationships that Caesar had beforehand with the other conspirators, made Brutus' betrayal clearly the most disloyal: "For Brutus as you know was Caesar's angel: Judge, O you Gods! how dearly Caesar lov'd him. This was the most unkindest cut of all". The sight of his beloved Brutus among the conspirators overcomes Caesar even more than his wounds- "Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms, quite vanquish'd him: then burst his mighty heart". This is supported by the most climatic line in the play- "Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar!" Mark Antony also demonstrates disloyalty as he takes intentionally takes advantage of Brutus' grace and goodwill, to turn the mob against him. From the moment Caesar is stabbed, the... ...d, faithful and just to me", and his promise to revenge Caesar's death. His theatrical well-timed words in his funeral oration incite the crowd to rampage through Rome, as he plays on the constantly changing loyalties of the citizens. In the play, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare suggests that a society without loyalty will find itself in chaos. Loyalty, love and faithfulness form the framework of societies while negative forces such as ego, greed and the quest for power continually attack this framework. Julius Caesar illustrates the rapid decay of a Roman society's law and harmony, until it finds itself in the chaos of civil war. The absence of loyalty in a society does not necessarily constitute chaos; it is rather variants like extremism and shifting loyalties that are the problem.

National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius Essay

Life was different back in the 1880s. The telephone had just been invented, James Garfield was president, and doctors used heroin and cocaine as medicine. Alas, many doctors knew very little about medicine. Oftentimes unsafe and unsterile practices were used on patients. The NY Times reports that, â€Å"At least a dozen medical experts probed the President [Garfield]’s wound, often with unsterilized metal instruments or bare hands, as was common at the time. Historians agree that massive infection, which resulted from unsterile practices, contributed to Garfield’s death. One man suggested that they turn the president upside down and see if the bullet would just fall out. † Because of their usual lack of success, doctors did not charge very much for their services; it was very affordable most of the time, even for middle class families. However, as time and technology progressed, the cost of healthcare and medical instruments dramatically rose. In his â€Å"New Deal† package, President Roosevelt proposed a state-run healthcare system with compulsory health insurance for state residents, but states could choose whether to participate. The federal government would provide some subsidies and set minimum standards that the state had to adhere by. While the proposal did not pass, the idea of universal healthcare coverage for everyone stuck. Since Roosevelt, every single Democratic President elected into office has attempted to pass a version of universal health care, but none have achieved the feat. That is, until President Obama was sworn into office in January 2009. In his 2008 presidential campaign, he made healthcare reform a central issue. Both parties adopted their version of reform, but since Democrats held a majority in the House and the Senate at the time, their version was the one that passed. On March 23rd, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (dubbed by many Republicans as â€Å"ObamaCare†). According to the White House, it claims four key components of the law: stronger consumer rights and protections (which includes a ban on lifetime limits, a ban on denying children health insurance based on pre-existing conditions, and a ban on coverage cancellations), more affordable coverage (Private insurers must provide justification for double-digit increases in premiums), better access to care (Preventative screenings for cancer are now free), and stronger Medicare (Provides relief to seniors who cannot afford prescription drugs). Since insurance companies are required to provide care, it makes sense to buy insurance only when you need it. In other words, wait until you get sick to buy insurance, because they cannot turn you down. In order to combat this, the law includes an individual mandate, which requires anyone that can afford it to buy health insurance, or pay a penalty to the IRS. In essence, this is the part of the law that pays for it all. This is also the section many Republicans hate. In their philosophy, the government cannot force someone to buy something they may or may not need. They argued that this law was unconstitutional, and they sued in federal court to have the law nullified. There were three cases overall: one from the states (Florida v. U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs. ), one from the federal government (U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs. v. Florida), and one from the National Federation of Independent Business (Nat’l Fed. of Independent Bus. v. Sebelius). Due to conflicting rulings from the lower courts in different jurisdictions, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case to settle the differences. From March 26th to March 28th, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides. On the first day, the court heard argument over whether the Tax Anti-Injunction Act passed into law in 1867 barred the Supreme Court from even making a decision in this case. The Tax Anti-Injunction Act says, â€Å"No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed. † Basically, it means that you cannot sue the government for a tax you believe is unfair, until you have already paid that tax. This was passed into law to prevent people from filing lawsuits against the government to avoid paying taxes. Potentially, this could mean that no one can challenge the constitutionality of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) until someone has actually paid the penalty. At the earliest, they could sue on April 15th, 2015. The Supreme Court held that since Congress specifically labeled the consequences of the mandate as a penalty rather than a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply to this case, and that the court had the authority to hear the arguments. On the second day, the court heard arguments over whether the ndividual mandate component of the ACA fell under the constitutional powers of Congress. There were two arguments from the Solicitor General’s side (the ones supporting the constitutionality of the ACA): the ACA was constitutional under the commerce clause, and that the ACA was constitutional under the taxing power of Congress. The states (the ones claiming the ACA is unconstitutional) argued that Congress could not create commerce for it to regulate, and that the law described the consequences of the mandate a â€Å"penalty†, therefore it is not a tax. On the third day, the court heard arguments on the severability of the law. They questioned whether the ACA could survive if the court struck down the individual mandate. In the end, in a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the individual mandate component of the ACA as a valid exercise of the taxing power of Congress. They concluded that a financial penalty for not buying something constituted a non-direct tax. Because it is a non-direct tax, it is not required to be apportioned among the several states. The justices that voted for the constitutionality of the law are the four liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. The justices that voted against the constitutionality of the law are the other four conservative justices: Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. John Roberts was the key swing vote. When asked why he voted for a law he is personally against, Chief Justice John Roberts responded, â€Å"The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express an opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people. In my opinion, I applaud the decision of the Court. From the beginning, I thought the penalty was a tax; I assumed it was called a penalty for political purposes. People would not like the idea of a tax increase. In reality, the penalty is collected in the same manner as a tax, so there are no real differences between the two. I have also gained a newfound respect for Chief Justice John Roberts. I think it is commendable to put the law in front of your personal beliefs. He has done exactly what is expected of a Supreme Court justice. If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would have made he same decision that he and the four liberal justices made. There are two types of consequences this law holds: political and provisional. The provisional consequences of the law are the ones directly stated in the law: a ban on lifetime limits, Medicaid expansion, etc. The political consequences of this law are not explicitly stated, however they can be inferred and speculated upon. There are three major political consequences. The first consequence is that Obama can claim a major victory. He can now say his law withstood a Supreme Court challenge and passed the constitutionality test. A defeat would have been bad for the administration and the campaign. Instead, he has a chance to re-energize his base and reinstate the flow of campaign cash. The second consequence is that now that the law is no longer a legal issue, it becomes a campaign issue. Both Obama and Romney must sell voters on Obamacare. The court ruling could have stir a shift in public opinion among independent voters, and both candidates must appeal to this shift. Obama will insist this law was the right thing to do, while Romney will propose a new healthcare reform bill. The third consequence is that the ruling will enrage Republicans and make them more eager to vote for Romney so he can repeal the law. Voter turnout is expected to be lower than it was in 2008, and anything that can increase the turnout will be beneficial for Romney. This law and its subsequent legal challenge have major political consequences. Whether you live in the 1880s or in the present day, chances are you will need health care at some point in your life. Ever since President Roosevelt proposed universal health care back in the 1930s, many politicians have tried to pass it into law. Until the ACA, it was considered politically impossible; the idea just did not appeal to voters. The law has withstood a major legal challenge, and it will be up to Obama and Romney to convince independent voters that their version of healthcare reform is the best. If Obama wins the election, in 2014 everyone that can afford it must buy health insurance, whether they want to or not. If they don’t, they will pay a tax equivalent to 1% of their income. If Romney wins the election, he will try to repeal the ACA and replace it with a reform package of his own. Only time will tell what will happen.

Tibet and China Early History

For at least 1500 years, the nation of Tibet has had a complex relationship with its large and powerful neighbor to the east, China. The political history of Tibet and China reveals that the relationship has not always been as one-sided as it now appears. Indeed, as with China’s relations with the Mongols and the Japanese, the balance of power between China and Tibet has shifted back and forth over the centuries. Early Interactions The first known interaction between the two states came in 640 A.D., when the Tibetan King Songtsan Gampo married the Princess Wencheng, a niece of the Tang Emperor Taizong. He also married a Nepalese princess. Both wives were Buddhists, and this may have been the origin of Tibetan Buddhism. The faith grew when an influx of Central Asian Buddhists flooded Tibet early in the eighth century, fleeing from advancing armies of Arab and Kazakh Muslims. During his reign, Songtsan Gampo added parts of the Yarlung River Valley to the Kingdom of Tibet; his descendants would also conquer the vast region that is now the Chinese provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, and Xinjiang between 663 and 692. Control of these border regions would change hands back and forth for centuries to come. In 692, the Chinese retook their western lands from the Tibetans after defeating them at Kashgar. The Tibetan king then allied himself with the enemies of China, the Arabs and eastern Turks. Chinese power waxed strong in the early decades of the eighth century. Imperial forces under General Gao Xianzhi conquered much of Central Asia, until their defeat by the Arabs and Karluks at the Battle of Talas River in 751. Chinas power quickly waned, and Tibet resumed control of much of Central Asia. The ascendant Tibetans pressed their advantage, conquering much of northern India and even seizing the Tang Chinese capital city of Changan (now Xian) in 763. Tibet and China signed a peace treaty in 821 or 822, which delineated the border between the two empires. The Tibetan Empire would concentrate on its Central Asian holdings for the next several decades, before splitting into several small, fractious kingdoms. Tibet and the Mongols Canny politicians, the Tibetans befriended Genghis Khan just as the Mongol leader was conquering the known world in the early 13th century. As a result, though the Tibetans paid tribute to the Mongols after the Hordes had conquered China, they were allowed much greater autonomy than the other Mongol-conquered lands. Over time, Tibet came to be considered one of the thirteen provinces of the Mongolian-ruled nation of Yuan China. During this period, the Tibetans gained a high degree of influence over the Mongols at court. The great Tibetan spiritual leader, Sakya Pandita, became the Mongols representative to Tibet. Sakyas nephew, Chana Dorje, married one of the Mongol Emperor Kublai Khans daughters. The Tibetans transmitted their Buddhist faith to the eastern Mongols; Kublai Khan himself studied Tibetan beliefs with the great teacher Drogon Chogyal Phagpa. Independent Tibet When the Mongols Yuan Empire fell in 1368 to the ethnic-Han Chinese Ming, Tibet reasserted its independence and refused to pay tribute to the new Emperor. In 1474, the abbot of an important Tibetan Buddhist monastery, Gendun Drup, passed away. A child who born two years later was found to be a reincarnation of the abbot, and was raised to be the next leader of that sect, Gendun Gyatso. After their lifetimes, the two men were called the First and Second Dalai Lamas. Their sect, the Gelug or Yellow Hats, became the dominant form of Tibetan Buddhism. The Third Dalai Lama, Sonam Gyatso (1543-1588), was the first to be so named during his life. He was responsible for converting the Mongols to Gelug Tibetan Buddhism, and it was the Mongol ruler Altan Khan who probably gave the title â€Å"Dalai Lama† to Sonam Gyatso. While the newly-named Dalai Lama consolidated the power of his spiritual position, though, the Gtsang-pa Dynasty assumed the royal throne of Tibet in 1562. The Kings would rule the secular side of Tibetan life for the next 80 years. The Fourth Dalai Lama, Yonten Gyatso (1589-1616), was a Mongolian prince and the grandson of Altan Khan. During the 1630s, China was embroiled in power struggles between the Mongols, Han Chinese of the fading Ming Dynasty, and the Manchu people of north-eastern China (Manchuria). The Manchus would eventually defeat the Han in 1644, and establish Chinas final imperial dynasty, the Qing (1644-1912). Tibet got drawn into this turmoil when the Mongol warlord Ligdan Khan, a Kagyu Tibetan Buddhist, decided to invade Tibet and destroy the Yellow Hats in 1634. Ligdan Khan died on the way, but his follower Tsogt Taij took up the cause. The great general Gushi Khan, of the Oirad Mongols, fought against Tsogt Taij and defeated him in 1637. The Khan killed the Gtsang-pa Prince of Tsang, as well. With support from Gushi Khan, the Fifth Dalai Lama, Lobsang Gyatso, was able to seize both spiritual and temporal power over all of Tibet in 1642. The Dalai Lama Rises to Power The Potala Palace in Lhasa was constructed as a symbol of this new synthesis of power. The Dalai Lama made a state visit to the Qing Dynastys second Emperor, Shunzhi, in 1653. The two leaders greeted one another as equals; the Dalai Lama did not kowtow. Each man bestowed honors and titles upon the other, and the Dalai Lama was recognized as the spiritual authority of the Qing Empire. According to Tibet, the priest/patron relationship established at this time between the Dalai Lama and Qing China continued throughout the Qing Era, but it had no bearing on Tibets status as an independent nation. China, naturally, disagrees. Lobsang Gyatso died in 1682, but his Prime Minister concealed the Dalai Lamas passing until 1696 so that the Potala Palace could be finished and the power of the Dalai Lamas office consolidated. The Maverick Dalai Lama In 1697, fifteen years after the death of Lobsang Gyatso, the Sixth Dalai Lama was finally enthroned. Tsangyang Gyatso (1683-1706) was a maverick who rejected the monastic life, growing his hair long, drinking wine, and enjoying female company. He also wrote great poetry, some of which is still recited today in Tibet. The Dalai Lama’s unconventional lifestyle prompted Lobsang Khan of the Khoshud Mongols to depose him in 1705. Lobsang Khan seized control of Tibet, named himself King, sent Tsangyang Gyatso to Beijing (he â€Å"mysteriously† died on the way), and installed a pretender Dalai Lama. The Dzungar Mongol Invasion King Lobsang would rule for 12 years, until the Dzungar Mongols invaded and took power. They killed the pretender to the Dalai Lama’s throne, to the joy of the Tibetan people, but then began to loot monasteries around Lhasa. This vandalism brought a quick response from the Qing Emperor Kangxi, who sent troops to Tibet. The Dzungars destroyed the Imperial Chinese battalion near Lhasa in 1718. In 1720, the angry Kangxi sent another, larger force to Tibet, which crushed the Dzungars. The Qing army also brought the proper Seventh Dalai Lama, Kelzang Gyatso (1708-1757) to Lhasa. The Border Between China and Tibet China took advantage of this period of instability in Tibet to seize the regions of Amdo and Kham, making them into the Chinese province of Qinghai in 1724. Three years later, the Chinese and Tibetans signed a treaty that laid out the boundary line between the two nations. It would remain in force until 1910. Qing China  had its hands full trying to control Tibet. The Emperor sent a commissioner to Lhasa, but he was killed in 1750. The Imperial Army then defeated the rebels, but the Emperor recognized that he would have to rule through the Dalai Lama rather than directly. Day-to-day decisions would be made on the local level. Era of Turmoil Begins In 1788, the Regent of  Nepal  sent Gurkha forces to invade Tibet. The Qing Emperor responded in strength, and the Nepalese retreated. The Gurkhas returned three years later, plundering and destroying some famous Tibetan monasteries. The Chinese sent a force of 17,000 which, along with Tibetan troops, drove the Gurkhas out of Tibet and south to within 20 miles of Kathmandu. Despite this sort of assistance from the Chinese Empire, the people of Tibet chafed under increasingly meddlesome Qing rule. Between 1804, when the Eighth Dalai Lama died, and 1895, when the Thirteenth Dalai Lama assumed the throne, none of the incumbent incarnations of the Dalai Lama lived to see their nineteenth birthdays. If the Chinese found a certain incarnation too hard to control, they would poison him. If the Tibetans thought an incarnation was controlled by the Chinese, then they would poison him themselves. Tibet and the Great Game Throughout this period, Russia and Britain were engaged in the Great Game, a struggle for influence and control in Central Asia. Russia pushed south of its borders, seeking access to warm-water sea ports and a buffer zone between Russia proper and the advancing British. The British pushed northward from India, trying to expand their empire and protect the Raj, the Crown Jewel of the British Empire, from the expansionist Russians. Tibet was an important playing piece in this game. Qing Chinese power waned throughout the eighteenth century, as evidenced by its defeat in the  Opium Wars  with Britain (1839-1842 and 1856-1860), as well as the  Taiping Rebellion  (1850-1864) and the  Boxer Rebellion  (1899-1901). The actual relationship between China and Tibet had been unclear since the early days of the Qing Dynasty, and Chinas losses at home made the status of Tibet even more uncertain. The ambiguity of control over Tibet lead to problems. In 1893, the British in India concluded a trade and border treaty with Beijing concerning the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet. However, the Tibetans flatly rejected the treaty terms. The British invaded Tibet in 1903 with 10,000 men, and took Lhasa the following year. Thereupon, they concluded another treaty with the Tibetans, as well as Chinese, Nepalese and Bhutanese representatives, which gave the British themselves some control over Tibet’s affairs. Thubten Gyatsos Balancing Act The 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, fled the country in 1904 at the urging of his Russian disciple, Agvan Dorzhiev. He went first to Mongolia, then made his way to Beijing. The Chinese declared that the Dalai Lama had been deposed as soon as he left Tibet, and claimed full sovereignty over not only Tibet but also Nepal and Bhutan. The Dalai Lama went to Beijing to discuss the situation with the Emperor Guangxu, but he flatly refused to kowtow to the Emperor. Thubten Gyatso stayed in the Chinese capital from 1906 to 1908. He returned to Lhasa in 1909, disappointed by Chinese policies towards Tibet. China sent a force of 6,000 troops into Tibet, and the Dalai Lama fled to Darjeeling, India later that same year. The Chinese Revolution swept away the  Qing Dynasty in 1911, and the Tibetans promptly expelled all Chinese troops from Lhasa. The Dalai Lama returned home to Tibet in 1912. Tibetan Independence Chinas new revolutionary government issued a formal apology to the Dalai Lama for the Qing Dynastys insults, and offered to reinstate him. Thubten Gyatso refused, stating that he had no interest in the Chinese offer. He then issued a proclamation that was distributed across Tibet, rejecting Chinese control and stating that We are a small, religious, and independent nation. The Dalai Lama took control of Tibets internal and external governance in 1913, negotiating directly with foreign powers, and reforming Tibets judicial, penal, and educational systems. The Simla Convention (1914) Representatives of Great Britain, China, and Tibet met in 1914 to negotiate a treaty marking out the boundary lines between India and its northern neighbors. The Simla Convention granted China secular control over Inner Tibet, (also known as Qinghai Province) while recognizing the autonomy of Outer Tibet under the Dalai Lamas rule. Both China and Britain promised to respect the territorial integrity of [Tibet], and abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet. China walked out of the conference without signing the treaty after Britain laid claim to the Tawang area of southern Tibet, which is now part of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Tibet and Britain both signed the treaty. As a result, China has never agreed to Indias rights in northern Arunachal Pradesh (Tawang), and the two nations went to war over the area in 1962. The boundary dispute still has not been resolved. China also claims sovereignty over all of Tibet, while the Tibetan government-in-exile points to the Chinese failure to sign the Simla Convention as proof that both Inner and Outer Tibet legally remain under the Dalai Lamas jurisdiction. The Issue Rests Soon, China would be too distracted to concern itself with the issue of Tibet. Japan had invaded Manchuria in 1910, and would advance south and east across large swaths of Chinese territory through 1945. The new government of the Republic of China would hold nominal power over the majority of Chinese territory for only four years before war broke out between numerous armed factions. Indeed, the span of Chinese history from 1916 to 1938 came to be called the Warlord Era, as the different military factions sought to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. China would see near-continuous civil war up to the Communist victory in 1949, and this era of conflict was exacerbated by the Japanese Occupation and World War II. Under such circumstances, the Chinese showed little interest in Tibet. The 13th Dalai Lama ruled independent Tibet in peace until his death in 1933. The 14th Dalai Lama Following Thubten Gyatsos death, the new reincarnation of the Dalai Lama was born in Amdo in 1935. Tenzin Gyatso, the current  Dalai Lama, was taken to Lhasa in 1937 to begin training for his duties as the leader of Tibet. He would remain there until 1959, when the Chinese forced him into exile in India. Peoples Republic of China Invades Tibet In 1950, the Peoples  Liberation Army  (PLA) of the newly-formed Peoples Republic of China invaded Tibet. With stability reestablished in Beijing for the first time in decades,  Mao Zedong  sought to assert Chinas right to rule over Tibet as well. The PLA inflicted a swift and total defeat on Tibets small army, and China drafted the Seventeen Point Agreement incorporating Tibet  as an autonomous region  of the Peoples Republic of China. Representatives of the Dalai Lamas government signed the agreement under protest, and the Tibetans repudiated the agreement nine years later. Collectivization and Revolt The Mao government of the PRC immediately initiated land redistribution in Tibet. Landholdings of the monasteries and nobility were seized for redistribution to the peasants. The communist forces hoped to destroy the power base of the wealthy and of Buddhism within Tibetan society. In reaction, a uprising led by the monks broke out in June of 1956, and continued through 1959. The poorly-armed Tibetans used guerrilla war tactics in an attempt to drive out the Chinese. The PLA responded by razing entire villages and monasteries to the ground. The Chinese even threatened to blow up the Potala Palace and kill the Dalai Lama, but this threat was not carried out. Three years of bitter fighting left 86,000 Tibetans dead, according to the Dalai Lamas government in exile. Flight of the Dalai Lama On March 1, 1959, the Dalai Lama received an odd invitation to attend a theater performance at PLA headquarters near Lhasa. The Dalai Lama demurred, and the performance date was postponed until March 10. On March 9, PLA officers notified the Dalai Lamas bodyguards that they would not accompany the Tibetan leader to the performance, nor were they to notify the Tibetan people that he was leaving the palace. (Ordinarily, the people of Lhasa would line the streets to greet the Dalai Lama each time he ventured out.) The guards immediately publicized this rather ham-handed attempted abduction, and the following day an estimated crowd of 300,000 Tibetans surrounded Potala Palace to protect their leader. The PLA moved artillery into range of major monasteries and the Dalai Lamas summer palace, Norbulingka. Both sides began to dig in, although the Tibetan army was much smaller than its adversary, and poorly armed. Tibetan troops were able to secure a route for the Dalai Lama to escape into India on March 17. Actual fighting began on March 19, and lasted only two days before the Tibetan troops were defeated. Aftermath of the  1959 Tibetan Uprising Much of Lhasa lay in ruins on March 20, 1959. An estimated 800 artillery shells had pummeled Norbulingka, and Lhasas three largest monasteries were essentially leveled. The Chinese rounded up thousands of monks, executing many of them. Monasteries and temples all over Lhasa were ransacked. The remaining members of the Dalai Lamas bodyguard were publicly executed by firing squad. By the time of the 1964 census, 300,000 Tibetans had gone missing in the previous five years, either secretly imprisoned, killed, or in exile. In the days after the 1959 Uprising, the Chinese government revoked most aspects of Tibets autonomy, and initiated resettlement and land distribution across the country. The Dalai Lama has remained in exile ever since. Chinas central government, in a bid to dilute the Tibetan population and provide jobs for Han Chinese, initiated a Western China Development Program in 1978. As many as 300,000 Han now live in Tibet, 2/3 of them in the capital city. The Tibetan population of Lhasa, in contrast, is only 100,000. Ethnic Chinese hold the vast majority of government posts. Return of the Panchen Lama Beijing allowed the Panchen Lama, Tibetan Buddhisms second-in-command, to return to Tibet in 1989. He immediately gave a speech before a crowd of 30,000 of the faithful, decrying the harm being done to Tibet under the PRC. He died five days later at the age of 50, allegedly of a massive heart attack. Deaths at Drapchi Prison, 1998 On May 1, 1998, the Chinese officials at Drapchi Prison in Tibet ordered hundreds of prisoners, both criminals and political detainees, to participate in a Chinese flag-raising ceremony. Some of the prisoners began to shout anti-Chinese and pro-Dalai Lama slogans, and prison guards fired shots into the air before returning all the prisoners to their cells. The prisoners were then severely beaten with belt buckles, rifle butts, and plastic batons, and some were put into solitary confinement for months at a time, according to one young nun who was released from the prison a year later. Three days later, the prison administration decided to hold the flag-raising ceremony again. Once more, some of the prisoners began to shout slogans. Prison official reacted with even more brutality, and five nuns, three monks, and one male criminal were killed by the guards. One man was shot; the rest were beaten to death. 2008 Uprising On March 10, 2008, Tibetans marked the 49th anniversary of the 1959 uprising by peacefully protesting for the release of imprisoned monks and nuns. Chinese police then broke up the protest with tear gas and gunfire. The protest resumed for several more days, finally turning into a riot. Tibetan anger was fueled by reports that imprisoned monks and nuns were being mistreated or killed in prison as a reaction to the street demonstrations. Furious Tibetans ransacked and burned the shops of ethnic Chinese immigrants in Lhasa and other cities. The official Chinese media states that 18 people were killed by the rioters. China immediately cut off access to Tibet for foreign media and tourists. The unrest spread to neighboring Qinghai (Inner Tibet), Gansu, and  Sichuan Provinces. The Chinese government cracked down hard, mobilizing as many as 5,000 troops. Reports indicate that the military killed between 80 and 140 people, and arrested more than 2,300 Tibetans. The unrest came at a sensitive time for China, which was gearing up for the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. The situation in Tibet caused increased international scrutiny of Beijings entire human rights record, leading some foreign leaders to boycott the Olympic Opening Ceremonies. Olympic torch-bearers around the world were met by thousands of human rights protestors. The Future Tibet and China have had a long relationship, fraught with difficulty and change. At times, the two nations have worked closely together. At other times, they have been at war. Today, the nation of Tibet does not exist; not one foreign government officially recognizes the Tibetan government-in-exile. The past teaches us, however, that the geopolitical situation is nothing if not fluid. It is impossible to predict where Tibet and China will stand, relative to one another, one hundred years from now.