Symbolism In The Glass Menagerie Essays - English-language Films

Symbolism in The Glass Menagerie The play The Glass Menagerie, by Tennessee Williams, Williams uses many symbols which represent many different things. Many of the symbols used in the play try to symbolize some form of escape or difference between reality and illusion. The first symbol, presented in the first scene, is the fire escape. This represents the "bridge" between the illusory world of the Wingfields and the world of reality. This "bridge" seems to be a one way passage. But the direction varies for each character. For Tom, the fire escape is the way out of the world of Amanda and Laura and an entrance into the world of reality. For Laura, the fire escape is a way into her world. A way to escape from reality. Both examples can readily be seen: Tom will stand outside on the fire escape to smoke, showing that he does not like to be inside, to be a part of the illusionary world. Laura, on the other hand, thinks of the fire escape as a way in and not a way out. This can be seen when Amanda sends Laura to go to the store: Laura trips on the fire escape. This also shows that Laura's fears and emotions greatly affect her physical condition, more so than normal people. Another symbol presented deals more with Tom than any of the other characters: Tom's habit of going to the movies shows us his longing to leave the apartment and head out into the world of reality. A place where one can find adventure. And Tom, being a poet, can understand the needs of man to long for adventure and romance. But he is kept from entering reality by Amanda, who criticizes him as being a "selfish dreamer." But, Tom has made steps to escape into reality by transferring the payment of a light bill to pay for his dues in the Merchant Seaman's Union. Another symbol, which deals with both Amanda and Laura, is Jim O'Connor. To Laura, Jim represents the one thing she fears and does not want to face, reality. Jim is a perfect example of "the common man." A person with no real outstanding quality. In fact, Jim is rather awkward, which can be seen when he dances with Laura. To Amanda, Jim represents the days of her youth, when she went frolicking about picking jonquils and supposedly having "seventeen gentlemen callers on one Sunday afternoon." Although Amanda desires to see Laura settled down with a nice young man, it is hard to tell whether she wanted a gentleman caller to be invited for Laura or for herself. One symbol which is rather obvious is Laura's glass menagerie. Her collection of glass represents her own private world. Set apart from reality, a place where she can hide and be safe. The events that happen to Laura's glass affects Laura's emotional state greatly. When Amanda tells Laura to practice typing, Laura instead plays with her glass. When Amanda is heard walking up the fire escape, she quickly hides her collection. She does this to hide her secret world from the others. When Tom leaves to go to the movies in an angered rush, he accidentally breaks some of Laura's glass. The shattered glass represents Laura's understanding of Tom's responsibilities to her. Also, the unicorn, which is important, represents Laura directly. Laura points out to Jim that the unicorn is different, just as she is different. She also points out that the unicorn does not complain of being different, as she does not complain either. And when Jim breaks the horn off the unicorn, Laura points out that now it is like the other horses, just as Laura has shed some of her shyness and become more normal. When she hands the broken unicorn to Jim, this might represent Laura handing over her broken love to Jim, as Jim has revealed that he is engaged to be married. As can be seen, there are quite a few symbols in this play. And a number of them have diverse meanings. Most of these symbols have a direct meaning in the author's own life. This is understandable seeing that the play is supposed to be "memory play." It

The Mexican type of government

The Mexican type of government is a presidential federal republic. The government has a president and a cabinet. It also has a bicameral legislature, and a judiciary. The government has the three traditional branches that the United States has- the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches. The executive branch makes most of the policy making. The judiciary branches, does however have the right to use judicial review. The executive branch is lead b the president. The president can be elected to a six year term, but cannot under any circumstances, run for re-election. They must be at least thirty-five years old, born in Mexico, and their parents must be Mexican by birth. The president is the dominating authority in the government with close to absolute power. The legislative branch is two branches of government of deputies, and senators. There are sixty-four senators are directly elected. Two are from each state and the federal district. The chamber of deputies is composed of about 300 members elected by relative majority. The judiciary branch is basically the supreme court. There are twenty-one justices. The president appoints them and the upper house approves them. They must be of Mexican birth. They must be between thirty-five and sixty-five years old. They must have held a professional law degree for five years. The Mexican constitution was adopted in 1917. Previous versions of the Mexican constitution were drafted or proposed, and one laid out the basic structure (1857). This was during conflict and social upheaval in the nation. The Mexican constitution was influenced by both Spanish law, and the United States constitution. The most striking statements of the constitution are that there is freedom of religion but that another article negates any idea of separation of church and state. Also, it says that anyone arrested is guilty until proven innocent, the opposite of that in the U...

5 Benefits of Accepting an Internship After College

5 Benefits of Accepting an Internship After College Not everyone can graduate college and go straight into a full-time well-paid position. And those who do are often at entry-level. Why not consider a post-graduate internship: one year of servitude in exchange for possible future advantages? Here are 5 benefits  of accepting an internship after college.1. Buy timeA year-long internship gives you an entire year of freedom to figure out where your interests and skills really lie and what sort of job you’d most like to be your first. It’s the best time to take stock and find the track that’s right for you, before plonking your train onto it and charging off into your professional life for good.Soul search, network, look for new opportunities, figure out in which direction you’d most like to push yourself. And remember that a year is short and the time will likely fly.2. Try on a new cityIf you land an internship in a new place, consider it an opportunity to try that city out before committing with a permanen t move. If towards the end of your internship, you find yourself less than thrilled with your physical surroundings, you’ll know where not to direct your job applications.3. Boost your resumeBottom line: internships make your resume look better. Most companies actually consider them a prerequisite for most quality jobs. Having this year on your resume can actually give you a competitive edge when you hit the job market for real.4. Get paidMost unpaid internships get away with being unpaid by offering college credit. But you’ve already graduated! They’ll have to pay you, however meekly. Take advantage of this by working extra hours whenever possible. You’ll prove your diligence and devotion, and start paying off those student loans!5. Use your degreeDon’t want to work alongside a sophomore who just wants to spend a semester in the city partying? Don’t worry. There are internships out there especially designed for college graduates. These will value your accomplishments and help you to make the most of your degree, rather than making you feel you’ve taken a step backward.In short, never underestimate the power of the internship to jumpstart your career.

Analysis of Gail Tsukiyama's novel The Samurai's Garden Essay

Analysis of Gail Tsukiyama's novel The Samurai's Garden - Essay Example As highlighted by Stephen, apart from the fact that his parents were searching for a recuperating place for him, they were also protecting his younger sister from being infected by his disease. In Tarumi; Stephen is cared for by Matsu, a reticent housekeeper and a master gardener. During his continual stay with Matsu, Stephen learns Matsu’s secret and gains not only physical strength, but also profound spiritual insight. Analysis Throughout the novel there is an underlying sense of society being out of place, characterized with crazy ideas of honor and the fact that there was a war going on. This is reflected in the quote below; "When I first arrived at Tarumi, I wondered how Matsu could spend so much time in the garden. But the more time I spend here, the easier it is to see there's something very seductive about what Matsu has created." Stephen, Autumn, p. 31. The undoing stories of his new friends, war, and family eventually brings him to the beginnings of wisdom, love, hon or and loss. The basic argument of the novel is loyalty and honor found in Japanese culture. The significance of the novel’s title is attained through the complex relationship that exists between the characters and the physical adversities and conflicts they face. Gail Tsukiyama also alludes to one’s ability to build upon life as opposed to mere acceptance. Themes Coming of age By the time Stephen prepares to spend time at Tarumi, he was a mature man. However, his maturity is more revealed from the interaction with others and their impact they had on him. "When you're well again, this period of your life will simply be a quiet memory." Stephen's father, Autumn, p. 20. In this quote, Stephen father encourages Stephen of his illness and this gives him a lot of hope and hence mental maturity. The novel starts with Stephen feeling as if he has been exiled. Regardless of these feelings, he is anxious to be kind to the old caretaker of his family beach house and he and Matsu soon find a common ground. The time spend between the two makes Stephen realize that he actually has less knowledge about Matsu as a young man when his family visited the beach house on vacation. As Matsu introduces him to the surrounding environment, Stephen also becomes acquainted with Matsu’s friends who include Sachi and Kenzo. The closer he becomes with these two the more he learns about their lives and entanglements. "When some of those who had the disease were no longer wanted by others in town, they took what few belongings they had and went up into the mountains." Matsu, Autumn, p. 23. In the end, we learn as Stephen does about life, loyalty to family and friends, attachments, betrayal but most importantly is the unconditional love. The authors’ writing is crystalline and delicate as shown in her evocation of time and place. This quite tale of affection between people whose countries are at war speaks of humanity that transcends geopolitics. As witnessed in t he novel, Stephen becomes more and more ingrained in the daily lives surrounding the beach house while Japan begins to invade China. While the main characters of the novel have transverse their own difficulties and hardships; bringing every character to experience their own individual loneliness and sorrow is a true revelation that people are characterized by necessary tools to survive despite of the world. This

The Value of University Education Research Paper

The Value of University Education - Research Paper Example Gradual developments in the field of educational grading and prescribed patterns of course designs in various trades evolved the institution of higher education centers called the universities. Presently, the academic sector of the entire globe is monitored by different universities according to the standards and expectations set by them. As the employment sector has grown enormously out of proportion with equal rise in merit expectations and with the conceptual development in business thoughts, employers have identified the need for acquiring high-end brains among the university graduates. Under the prevailing conditions in which successful university education is becoming the paramount demand for acquiring a position in better companies, a comparative study of the values of the two educational streams – university graduation and high school graduation – is necessary for better understanding the prospects of the students from either stream. Strength of University Gradu ation The prime edge of the university education is it adds value to the knowledge of individuals from the socio-ethical perspective beyond the limited time-bound courses most of the students learn for fixing their position in the job market. While studying in a university campus, the students get elaborate exposure to different cultural and ethnic groups. This exposure takes them to the heights where they shine in the glory of technical aspects of their educational trade with ethical concern and social responsibility. According to certain observations â€Å"university degrees provide students with the knowledge and skills that help make their lives meaningful and rewarding, and strengthen their contributions to society† (â€Å"Ensuring the values†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ). A graduation from a reputed university doubtlessly guarantees all spheres of qualification for the student – spiritual strength, academic excellence, forbearance and sprit of competition, which eventually tur ns them fit for adapting to changing conditions of professional ambience. The spiritual merit of an individual plays a vital role in the formation of his successful personal life with capabilities to accept challenges and workout plans for action in a perfect way. From the academic point of view, students obtain grass-root level standard of knowledge with enough practical experiences and the element of group learning by studying in a university. The prospects of patience containing competitive spirit help students frame sufficient amount of self discipline which is a requirement for achieving higher targets. Moreover, a graduation from the university enables them to prepare themselves for better careers or for choosing higher education in various streams of excellence. The provision for graduate level expectations set by universities also helps students and educators estimate the desired standards of education students are expected to attain from their university graduation. This sy stematized training and evaluation pattern helps the hirers and policy makers in designing the courses according to the standards set for the academic as well as professional qualifications for separate careers. Benefits of university education – individuals and society The importance of higher education from a university is reflected in the field of modern business world. It also provides better living standards and stability of income for the successful candidate as the investors of business

Separation of Powers UK

Separation of Powers UK What was the purpose of the ‘separation of powers as originally envisaged? How does it operate in contemporary practice? Note: Headers have been removed to show that word count is not breached by more than 10% To answer these questions I will need to identify a few key concepts, firstly Separation of Powers and what this means- Separation of powers is the idea that the three functions of government: Legislation, execution and adjudication should be dealt with by separate branches of government: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary[1]. When it comes to the phrase ‘Originally envisaged it has to be worked out who is being referred to the- Montesquieu is the person generally linked with the phrase separation of powers which he wrote about in The Spirit of the Laws. I will speak about Montesquieu views in the first section of the essay. ‘Originally Envisaged may however also refer to the views of the founding fathers and in particular those that contributed to the Federalist papers as they wrote numerous times about the importance of the separation of powers. (To tackle how it was originally envisaged I will make reference to documents written by these parties and extensively use q uotes from The Spirit of Laws, The Federalist Papers and the American Constitution to back up my points and to analysis what they originally envisaged) I will write about this in the section after discussing Montesquieu and his views on ‘Separation of powers. These two sections will answer the section of the question on how ‘Separation of Powers was ‘Originally envisaged; I will then discuss what the purpose of ‘Separation of Powers was according with relation to Montesquieu The Founding Fathers. I will then go onto answer the second part of the question- Outlining where ‘Separation of Powers is not being strictly followed and where problems exist within the system and where ‘Separation of Powers is followed in Contemporary America. Montesquieu is an important figure when discussing Separation of Powers due to his book The Spirit of the Laws in which he outlines why the Separation of Powers is necessary and how it should be separated. Montesquieu discusses how ‘Democratic and Aristocratic states are not necessarily free ‘Tis necessary that by the very disposition of things power should be a check to power'[2] In other words there should be checks and balances to ensure Liberty can exist. Ensuring Liberty is a key theme in The Spirit of Laws and could be seen as the purpose of the ‘Separation of powers according to Montesquieu. But to be able to tell if this operates successfully in contemporary practice we must look at we must look at how Montesquieu explains it- he uses the British constitution as his main example[3] seeing the British system as one that was a free state[4]. He sees the reason for this is because of the independence that exists between the different bodies- ‘Legislative , Executive and Judiciary stating that There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers'[5] this system of power being restrained by other powers[6] is the reason according to Montesquieu why the British constitution could ensure Liberty. These regulations on power had in Montesquieus opinion the power to stop corruption or tyranny as he believes that ‘Every man invested with power is apt to abuse it'[7] This is an argument for the separation of powers as the statement ‘Every Man suggests that any person given absolute power will ‘abuse it, It is important to note however this does not mean that Montesquieu favoured democracy he simply believes that as long as there is separation of powers liberty is ensured he even states that most Kingdoms of Europe enjoy moderate government[8] Not because of any democratic principle but because ‘the prince who is invested in the first two powers, leaves the third to hi s subject'[9] (The third power referring to the Judiciary). Montesquieu places much emphasis on judicial independence, which is important to note as it will become relevant when looking at how it operates in contemporary practice as the appointments by the executive to the Supreme Court may be a potential problem. Another point to note within this section is how separate Montesquieu intended the different bodies to be- whilst he stated that they should remain separate he also mentions that if ‘The legislature think itself in danger by some conspiracy against the state It might authorise the executive power, for a short and limited time, to imprison suspected persons'[10] this suggests that whilst Montesquieu believed that separation was necessary he also believed that if necessary the different parts of government should be able to interact in such a way if it is deemed necessary. It is also important to make clear that Separation does not mean that the 3 different parts will not be able to communicate, indeed Montesquieu believes it necessary for example the Judiciary to be informed of law from the legislature and that they must follow the ‘exact letter of the law'[11]. To summarise Montesquieus views on Separation of Powers I would say that he believes that the purpose of the Separation of the three bodies of government is to ensure that power is not abused, however as mentioned previously there are some limitations to this separation which can be summed up by Montesquieu himself ‘Should abuses creep into one part, they can be reformed by those that remain sound'[12]. Montesquieu is important as he heavily influenced the founding fathers during the creation of the American Constitution and it can be seen that the founding fathers have built upon Montesquieus writings in The Spirit of the Laws, It should be noted however that although Montesquieu was the first person to write about the Separation of in the way it is contemporary understood, there are many links to Polybius and the concept of a mixed constitution[13], Polybius also mentions separate branches of government[14] and as such is important to note along with Montesquieu when discussi ng separation of powers. I will now discuss what the Founding fathers (Specifically those involved with the drafting and approval of the constitution) thought of the Separation of powers as how they ‘Originally Envisaged is crucial to answering the second part of the question, this section will be less detailed than the section on Montesquieu as they were heavily influenced by Montesquieu (Which I will prove later) so will share much of the same purpose and views on the Separation of powers. I will look at a few key Documents from the Federalist papers- 47 and 51- and also at the American Constitution, the Constitution should give an insight into what was originally envisaged and the Federalist papers should give more of an insight into what the purpose was. Firstly the American constitution- the phrase ‘Separation of Powers is not found in the constitution however the principles are prevalent throughout it and the influence of the concept of ‘Separation of Powers strong, many of the constitutions of individual states specifically mention the need for separation of powers[15] Notably Virginia- ‘That the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Commonwealth should be separate and distinct'[16]. Although the American constitution does not cite anything quite as clear as Virginias section on the Separation of powers the way it is built is clearly shows the influence of Separation of powers with legislative power being granted to Congress in the first article ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress'[17] Similarly Executive power granted to the president ‘The executive Power shall be vested in a President'[18] and Judicial power ‘The judicial Power of the United S tates shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior courts'[19]. It is clear that whilst separation of powers is not mentioned as it is in the Virginian constitution the principle is well and truly understood and represented by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, these three quotes were taken from the first three articles respectively, so it can safely be assumed that the Separation of Powers in some form or another was an aim of the constitution. So as ‘Originally Envisaged the constitution shows that three distinct branches were considered necessary, with regard to what the purpose of it was we need an insight into what the Founding Fathers considered, and the Federalist papers provide such an insight which is extremely useful when trying to find out the purpose of ‘Separation of powers. I will now discuss the relevance of the Federalist papers and conclude on what they saw the purpose as. The Federalist papers were essentially pieces of propaganda designed to gain support for the constitution[20], they were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison[21] who were all founding fathers- James Madison is of particular importance as he is considered the Father of the constitution and is said to have played a ‘Pivotal Role in the drafting of the document[22], the papers were published anonymously but the two papers I will be looking at are said to be written by- 47 (Madison) 51 (Either Hamilton or Madison)[23]. The reason I have chosen these two papers is because they both make mention of Separation of powers and as Madison is considered the Father of the constitution it will give an insight into what the purpose of Separation of Powers was as originally envisaged by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Firstly Paper 47, this paper by James Madison makes it clear what the purpose of Separation of powers is- it states ‘The preservation of libe rty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct'[24] so like Montesquieu the purpose is Liberty, this paper also acts to support the idea that Montesquieu was a big influence on the American Constitution with the statement ‘The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu'[25], as discussed in the section on Montesquieu there are caveats with the separation of powers and Madison also accepts and discusses these in this paper, using Montesquieu as his guide he considers the British constitution and how the three branches and not completely separate[26]. Paper 51 sets out in more detail how the separation of powers will work and further emphasises his purpose of support for the separation of powers ‘The great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself'[27] the important phrase here it to control itsel f, this shows an understanding of the principle of Checks and Balances as this is the way in which the government can control itself, however the general theme and purpose are shown to be the preservation of liberty. So to summarise this section I would say I have shown how both Montesquieu and the Founding fathers are agreed on the purpose of the separation of powers which is to ensure liberty, and they are both generally agreed on the idea of how this will be done- through checks and balances and the separation of the 3 branches of government, however I feel that there is one substantial difference between Montesquieu and the Founding Fathers views on the issue which is- Whilst Montesquieu makes it clear that it neednt be a democracy to ensure Liberty, Madison states that ‘dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government'[28] also Montesquieu believes that there is need for a hereditary body[29] which is not considered by Madison or the founding fathers. To start with I will identify the basics of how it operates, at its simplest level separation of powers can be considered to be the split of the 3 Branches of government into Legislative, Executive and Judiciary[30]- In contemporary America these are split thus: Legislative = Congress- including both the Senate House of Representatives Executive = President Judiciary = Supreme Court and lower courts[31] This system operates in that Executive and Legislative are elected by the public and the Judiciary are appointed by the Executive and approved by the Judiciary[32] (I will critique this as a point where Separation of powers does not exist in a later section). With separation of powers the three branches are to act as a limit to the powers of each other[33] (Checks and Balances) so I will now discuss how this operates in practice, one key way in which this exists is through impeachment, this allows the Legislative to remove the Executive from office ‘for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'[34], this could be seen as directly meeting Montesquieus statement: ‘Should abuses creep into one part, they can be reformed by those that remain sound'[35] but it also presents a problem as it means that there is an overlap between the different branches however as I have discussed this does not mean a failure of separation of powers, it can however be considered as a potential weakness as ‘Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors is vague and open to interpretation so the ‘Abuses of power Montesquieu could exist here if the executive were to be removed unfairly by a Legislative with ulterior m otives. With the creation of legislation there are numerous checks and balances on the three branches of government I will attempt to point them all out in the explanation of the passage of a bill becoming law- Laws can come from either chamber of congress- and must be passed in both, this is a check on itself and shows the influence of the British model on the American one (as well as on Montesquieu) through the existence of two chambers in the legislature. If the bill is passed by both Chambers it then must be approved by the Executive- who can either veto it or pass it (Which means that the executive has a check on the power of the Legislature), if the executive vetoes it can be overridden by a 2/3 majority in both Chambers of the legislature, which is a check on the power of the executive. If the bill is passed then it has to be approved by the Supreme Court as being constitutional- which is a check on the power of all the other bodies.[36] As can be seen the amount of checks the separat ion of powers works well here other than with the Supreme Court having no check on it and the ability to outright reject a bill. There are a few quirks in the American system that means Separation of Powers is not as clear cut as it could be one issue being that the vice-president is also the president of the senate[37] which is a clear overlap between the Executive and legislative, however as the Vice-President only has a casting vote[38]and does not have as much power as the president in the executive this can be seen as a technical breach rather than a problematic one. Another breach which is possibly more problematic is the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court- these are appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate[39] whilst the fact that they are confirmed by the senate means that there is a check it also means that all 3 branches overlap in this area, it can create problems for the Executive when previous Presidents have appointed judges of a certain political persuasion which can be seen as an abuse of power and therefore Separation of Powers has not been met. To summarise this essay I would say that the Purpose of the Separation of Powers as Originally Envisaged- Which can refer to either Montesquieu or the Founding Fathers- is in both cases the Preservation of Liberty. Whether or not this operates in contemporary practice is debatable, I have been limited in this essay by attempting to answer two questions that potentially could be questions in their own right, I would like to have been able to explore further the Problems and Quirks but with the word limit of a single essay being imposed on two separate questions had to focus more on the questions at hand rather than being able to discuss these issues. I have attempted to use Primary sources as much as possible- My main references being The Spirit of Laws, American Constitution and The Federalist Papers as I feel that this improves the validity of my points. [1] Heywood, Andrew, (2007), Politics third Edition, Palgrave Foundations, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England Pg. 339 [2] Montesquieu, Carrithers, David Wallace Ed. (1977), The Spirit of Laws, London, England, University of California Press Ltd. Pg. 200 [3] David Boucher Paul Kelly, (2009), Political Thinkers from Socrates to Present, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England Pg. 250 [4] Ibid Pg. 251 [5] Montesquieu, Carrithers, David Wallace Ed. (1977), The Spirit of Laws, London, England, University of California Press Ltd. Pg. 202 [6] David Boucher Paul Kelly, (2009), Political Thinkers from Socrates to Present, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England Pg. 251 [7] Montesquieu, Carrithers, David Wallace Ed. (1977), The Spirit of Laws, London, England, University of California Press Ltd. Pg. 202 [8] Montesquieu, Carrithers, David Wallace Ed. (1977), The Spirit of Laws, London, England, University of California Press Ltd. Pg. 202 [9] Ibid Pg. 202 [10] Ibid Pg.204 [11] Ibid Pg. 203 [12] Ibid Pg. 184 [13] Davis Lloyd, Marshall, Polybius and the Founding Fathers: The Separation of Powers, (Written 22/09/1998 Revised 02/09/2006) Available From: http://www.mlloyd.org/mdl-indx/polybius/intro.htm, (Accessed 12/12/2009) [14] Walbank, F.W., (1990), Polybius, London, England, University of California Press Ltd., Pg. 150 [15] Vile, M.J.C., (1967), Constitutionalism and the separation of powers, Oxford, England, Oxford University Press, Pg. 119 [16] Constitution of Virginia, Article 1 Section 5, Available From http://legis.state.va.us/constitution/a1s5.htm Accessed (12/12/2009) [17] American Constitution Article 1 Section 1, Available From http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Accessed (12/12/2009) [18] Ibid Article 2 Section 1 [19] Ibid Article 3 Section 1 [20] Dahl, Robert A., (2001), How democratic is the American Constitution?, Yale University Press, United States Pg. 64 [21] Ibid Pg. 64 [22] Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/may05/constitution.html, Accessed (12/12/2009) [23] Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html, Accessed (12/12/2009) [24] Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_47.html, Accessed (12/12/2009) [25] Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_47.html, Accessed (12/12/2009) [26] Ibid [27] Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_51.html, Accessed (12/12/2009) [28] Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_47.html, Accessed (12/12/2009) [29] Montesquieu, Carrithers, David Wallace Ed. (1977), The Spirit of Laws, London, England, University of California Press Ltd. Pg. 206 [30] Heywood, Andrew, (2007), Politics third Edition, Palgrave Foundations, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England Pg. 339 [31] American Constitution, Available From http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Accessed (12/12/2009) [32] McKay, David (2009), American Politics and Society, Blackwell Publishers, Printed in Singapore by C.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd. Pg. 47 [33] David Boucher Paul Kelly, (2009), Political Thinkers from Socrates to Present, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England Pg. 251 [34] American Constitution, Article 2 Section 4, Available From http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Accessed (12/12/2009) [35] Montesquieu, Carrithers, David Wallace Ed. (1977), The Spirit of Laws, London, England, University of California Press Ltd. Pg. 184 [36] McKay, David (2009), American Politics and Society, Blackwell Publishers, Printed in Singapore by C.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd. Pg. 47 [37] American Constitution, Article 1 Section 3, Available From http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Accessed (12/12/2009) [38] Ibid [39] McKay, David (2009), American Politics and Society, Blackwell Publishers, Printed in Singapore by C.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd. Pg. 47

Different Tongues

If I ruled the world; which is highly unlikely of course, I would ban all languages except one – Arabic. The majority of you probably disagree but tell me how many of YOU have found yourself in a class with a teacher speaking some alien language to you? Many times, I assume just like me none of you probably enjoyed it, but hated it to bits and thought of the reason as to how and why you ended up in that state. The reason as to why I chose Arabic is that it is an example of different cultures living in one language; how many Arabic countries do you know of? Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya and the list goes on, well each one of the countries are their own, they have their own culture, own tradition but the same language, so why can't the whole world be like this? How easy would life be? Those of you who think that without different languages you can't have different culture, you can't be unique, well your wrong as trust me people from Iraq are as different to people from Syria as people from America and Africa are, and they don't have different languages, they have one – Arabic, true they may have changed words here and there but it is still the same language – they can understand each other. So now as you were just informed that it is possible to have the same language and a different culture don't you agree with me about having only one tongue, one language, one way of verbal communication the same as everyone else? It was said that there is 6,809 languages in the world – it might be possible. But that is a significant number of languages. Like for example in Afghanistan, where I come from there are two main languages – Pashto and Farsi. But as I discovered a while ago, there are many more languages in Afghanistan only the main is Farsi and Pashto and Afghanistan isn't even a big country. I am sure many of you didn't know that, I being an Afghan didn't even know until my dad informed me. So imagine if one country had many languages than how many are there in the world? IF mankind was united there would only be one and only one language! Now that exam period is here, what are you more focused on? I think the majority of you are focusing on French, Spanish or German; if not then when GCSEs come I am almost certain you will – unless you haven't taken a language or you already know that language as it is your mother tongue. Without this extra weight on our shoulders we could all become top fliers in other more important subjects such as maths and science. As the fact that learning language becomes harder to learn as we grow older is true, and if it weren't true I wouldn't mind languages but as it is true ( and we weren't taught different languages at the age which was easy for us to learn languages) and all the endless lists of vocabulary is near to impossible to learn, I would rather banish all languages off the face of this planet except one, so that no one has to suffer sitting and learning the vocabulary off by heart – just to get accepted into a good university or to obtain a good job. Aren't there far better things to spend our time on? We all have better time consuming occupations than sitting there, pulling our hair out trying to learn a language made because the human race cannot be united. One language can symbolise unity amongst humans. If animals of the same species can achieve that why can't we? Surely we are supposed to be greater than animals, with larger brains, so why don't we have one language in which everybody would be able to communicate with each other, making everyone's lives easier. Allow me to share an account I underwent a few years back, I went on holiday with my family to France, on holiday, it was great only a major thing restricted me and my family having the utmost maximum fun my achievable – different languages. We went there via ship and car, so basically we had to drive to Paris and as my dad had never been there and didn't know the way, as expected we became lost. We asked a few people but like us they had blank confused looks on their faces, as they couldn't understand us and we couldn't understand them, after a long period of time we reached Paris, but we would have reached our destination quicker if we had one language. That was only one problem, there was problems with the hotel, finding our way around to Eiffel Tower, Disney Land, matters got so bad we ended up giving up not going to Disney Land. That wasn't the only place I had gone for holiday to, that I didn't know the language of and that I had problems in. I'm fairly positive the majority of you, have also had an account like this, would you and I have undergone those problems if we all shared one tongue, one language, one way of verbal communication the same as everyone else? Imagine you were an immigrant from another country, to England, you don't know English, your parents don't know English, you moved here because of war, your father is desperately trying to make money for the family, but he is having difficulty as he doesn't know English even though he is educated. Wouldn't there be less racism if there was one tongue, one language, one way of verbal communication the same as everyone else? Wouldn't our lives overall just be easier?