Federalism vs. Functionalism Essay - 1290 Words

October 8, 2010 First Writing Assignment Europe was a disastrous place after World War II. Many countries were in agony because of their economy and military. Many feared Germany would rearm and try to take over again, while other feared the big â€Å"C†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Communism and the Soviet Union would attack. In order to rebuild the continent, leaders decided on one solution: the unification of Europe. What they couldn’t decide on was which path to take: federalism or functionalism. Federalism, on one hand, is the Big Bang Theory of Europe, the idea to rebuild the continent all at once. This comes from the notion of popular sovereignty. If there are European people, they can build an European government. This provokes the idea of supra†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"The multiple problems which poison international life on the continent have proved to be insoluble: tracing boundaries through areas inhabited by mixed populations, defense of alien minorities, seaports for landlocked countries, the Balk an Question, the Irish problem, and so on. All these matters would find easy solutions in the European Federation.† (p. 5, Spinelli and Rossi) Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain calls for the Unites States of Europe, â€Å"What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family or as much as we can of it, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of America.† (p.8, Churchill) These three articles all promote one thing: federalism. They have chosen to unify Europe through the people. If they can successful unite Europe as a sole institution, each individual nation state won’t have to handle their own affairs and they can have representatives intervene in the decision making. An example of this is the United Nations, which includes most of Europe, US, and USSR. All countries have to listen to what five main countries in the security council has to say. Robert Schuman, France’s Foreign Minister outlines the plan for the European Coal and Steel Community. â€Å"The pooling of the coal and steel production should immediately provide forShow MoreRelatedFederalism in The European Union: Treaty of Lisbon1358 Words   |  6 PagesFederalism in the EU Federalism is a system of administration involving two or more levels of government with autonomous power and responsibilities. It is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by a covenant with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). In theRead MoreTheories of International Politics2076 Words   |  8 Pagestheir analysis of globalization (what explains it, who benefits from it, etc.)? Realism, Liberalism, and Radicalism offer three very different ideas to International Political Economy. They differ for many reasons, such as the winners and loser, poor vs. richer country gain, free market ideas, and the effects of globalization due to capitalism. The ideas of power, free trade, and class also cause difference between the three. The views these three theories hold on IPE lead to their differences on globalization-Read MoreNationalism and Transnationalism in the Context of the European Union28567 Words   |  115 Pagesmost important aspect of that treaty was that it set 1st of January 1993 as the date by which a full internal market was to be established.[118] With the Single European Act the European Community made a significant move on the road to federalism.[119] This treaty constituted another important step forward in the integration process of the market issues. By placing a considerable amount of power in the hands of European institutions, the organization indicated its federalist approach. AsRead MoreNational Security Outline Essay40741 Words   |  163 Pages-Constitutional and Instrumental -Law plays two different roles -Constitutional - defines institutions, procedures, and guidelines to make decisions in society -Institutional - shape public order in society -International Law -Legalism vs. Antilegalism -Legalists think international law will work to influence international behavior -Antilegalists doubt that international law will accomplish its goals -Realms of Stability -International law creates stability by protecting diplomats

Stop Book Banning Free Essays

Stop Book Banning! Should school administrators be allowed to ban books? Of course not! They are abusing their power of having the right to teach children. They want to ban a book just because it shows the true past of America, which some students cannot handle. They should not shield the past; if anything they should tell everything about the past and explain to the students why the events occurred. We will write a custom essay sample on Stop Book Banning or any similar topic only for you Order Now They should understand why America did the things it did so that they will not be ashamed of the country that they live in and they can then defend their country to anybody trying to put it down. One reason administrators should not be allowed to ban books is because it takes the right and freedom to choose what is read, away from the parents and students. Doesn’t it say in the first amendment that all people have the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press? By writing a book you are expressing and sharing your opinions which is exercising the freedom of speech, and by putting your words down on paper, you are exercising your freedom of the press. Why then are the school administrators trying to take our rights away from us? What makes them think they have the right to take away our freedoms given to us from the first amendment of the Constitution? The article â€Å"Book Banning Efforts are Up, Poll Finds† by Hillel Italie, says, ‘â€Å"It all stems from a fearfulness of well-meaning people,† said Michael Gorman, president of the library association. â€Å"We believe in parental responsibility, and that you should take care of what your children are reading. But it’s not your responsibility to tell a whole class of kids what they should read. ’ This is saying that yes you do have the right to decide what your kid reads, however you cannot decide what other kids should read. This also applies to the administrators. They can decide what their kid can read, but they cannot decide what an entire school can or cannot read. Another reason to not ban books is because it prevents kids from learning. How can we learn about the past and the way America was back when the great Ame rican authors wrote, when the administrators take away the books that teach us this, preventing us from learning? How can we learn of the language of the olden days when we cannot read this language? How are we supposed to learn the history of our ancestors and their ancestors when there is a possibility that administrators will ban the book that will help us do so? Why are the people of America letting these administrators get away with this cruel and unjust act? The article â€Å"Let Me Poison My Mind with Books† by Craig Pearson states, â€Å"Just like muscles, the brain requires pushups. The more ideas we expose ourselves to the more we devise our own. That’s why education, and thus reading, is so essential, even if by some people’s account what we read is dirty. † People should be able to choose for themselves what they read, and nobody else should be able to tell them differently. One person reads a book and learns something from that particular book. However, another person can read the exact same book and learn something completely different from what the first person learned. Why should this fact of life and learning be taken away because one person reads a book, learns something they don’t like from it, and then proceeds to take that book away from others, even though they will most likely learn something different then what the person trying to ban the book learned? The reason for the first person trying to ban the book could be something that another reader does not even notice or care about and it therefore does not impact them. So why are people so worried? One argument to my case could be that some people feel that these books should be banned to protect students from indecent and controversial material. But why should books be banned to protect one student in a school of hundreds, when none of the other kids or their parents feels that they need that kind of protection? You can not protect one kid from material if it means preventing others from that material. Instead, the kid who needs â€Å"protecting† should learn to protect themselves and choose not to read that material that could be harmful to him/her. Students need to learn to make decisions for themselves and banning material from a library is in no way helping them learn for themselves. If they are sheltered their whole life then what is going to happen when they embrace the real world? In the article â€Å"Did You Ever Meet a Book You Didn’t Like? † by Sharon Coatney, she says, â€Å"That being said, books are meant to be chosen carefully. Some titles are appropriate in one situation and not in another, for one child and not another. † I think she says it beautifully. Every kid needs to look at the book, asses it, and make sure it is something that they can and want to read. Each book that is made has a purpose. This could mean that that book is meant to be read by a certain kid at a certain point in their life so as to help guide that kid through life. All books have the chance to influence a kid’s life, so why would administrators want to prevent the book from somehow helping someone? Why can’t the administrators put themselves in our shoes? If the roles were reversed they would feel the same as we do. Why then do they have no compassion? Why can’t they do for us what we would do for them? The saying goes, â€Å"Treat others the way you want to be treated. † Young children can do it. Why can’t we? How to cite Stop Book Banning, Essay examples

Of Mice and Men Alienation free essay sample

In John Steinbecks Of Mice and Men, Crooks, a black stable buck, endures alienation due to racial discrimination. Racial discrimination also hinders him from any type of success. Despite the hardships, he overcomes these obstacles and faces this struggle head on. Forced into isolationism, due to segregation, alienation becomes Crooks companion. This describes Crooks all the way. Hes self-educated and meek yet frustrated, indignant, and angry by his helplessness as a black man in a racist culture. 2Hes also very wise and observant and also listens with cynicism. For Crooks the American dream represents 3independence and self-sufficiency. Racism defeats his hope for reaching the American dream. 4Racism makes him powerless and forces him to become an outcast. 5 Money and success eludes him. Alienation and segregation contain him. His mental abilities and state of mind set him free. Candy Candy also feels the burden of loneliness and shows it by his relationship with his sheep dog. The dog, being described as ancient, stinky, and half-blind, had been in Candys life for a very long time and Candy had grown attached to it. Once the other farmhands had finally gotten fed up with it and stated that the dog needed to be put out of its misery Candy was extremely reluctant to turn it over and let him go. After hearing the shot ring outside, all Candy could do was turn his face towards a wall and not look around. Certainly Candy found this dog to be a loyal companion of his and he had developed a strong relationship with it over the years, which helped him cope with his loneliness on the ranch. Whenever one is taking a deeper look at Of Mice and Men one will probably get a sense of how depressing and dismal the ranch really is. Candy gives Steinbeck an opportunity to discuss social discrimination based on age and handicaps. Candy represents what happens to everyone who gets old in American society: They are let go, canned, thrown out, used up. Candys greatest fear is that once he is no longer able to help with the cleaning he will be disposed of. Like his old dog, he has lived beyond his usefulness. Curleys wife Curleys wife knows her beauty is her power, and she uses it to flirt with the ranch hands and make her husband jealous. She is utterly alone on the ranch, and her husband has seen to it that no one will talk to her without fearing a beating. The Ranch Steinbeck reinforces the theme of loneliness in subtle and not so subtle ways. In the vicinity of the ranch, for example, is the town of Soledad. The towns name, not accidentally, means solitude or alone. Also, the others reactions to George and Lennie traveling together reinforces that, in Steinbecks world, traveling with someone else is unusual. When George and Lennie arrive at the ranch, four other characters — the boss, Candy, Crooks, and Slim — all comment on the suspicious nature of two guys traveling together. This companionship seems strange and, according to at least the boss and Curley, the relationship is sexual or exploitative financially. George While George can be very rational and thoughtful, he also gets frustrated and angry with Lennie because the big man cannot control his strength or actions. George repeatedly gets angry, so much so that Lennie knows by heart what it means when George gives him hell. But Georges anger quickly fades when he remembers Lennies innocence and his inability to remember or think clearly. George, unlike other men, has a companion and friend in Lennie. Because of this, Lennie makes George feel special. They are different from all the other guys, and George realizes only too well that they have a special bond. At the ranch, George often plays solitaire, a game for one. Without Lennie, George would be a loner. Even though George gets frustrated by Lennies mental weakness, he also feels compassion for his friend. Lennie offers George the opportunity to lay plans, give advice, and, in general, be in charge. Without Lennie, George would be just like the other hands, but with Lennie, George has a strong sense of responsibility. Their dream also sets George apart from the others because it means he and Lennie have a future and something to anticipate. Unlike Lennie, George does not see their dream in terms of rabbits; instead, he sees it in a practical way. Their farm will be one where they can be independent and safe and where he will not have to worry about keeping track of Lennies mistakes. They can be secure and in charge of their own lives. However, Lennie is the one who adds the enthusiasm because George never really believed they could swing this farm of their own. He mostly uses the story to give Lennie something Lennie Georges taking care of Lennie and the dream of the farm are attempt s to break the pattern of loneliness that is part of the human condition. Similarly, Lennies desire to pet soft things comes from his need to feel safe and secure, to touch something that gives him that feeling of not being alone in the world. For Lennie, the dream of the farm parallels that security. George is going to give me hell or George wont let me tend the rabbits. He is devoted to George like a dog is devoted to its master, and he tries to follow Georges commands. There is a childlike wonder in Lennie that can be seen when he first sees the pool of water and slurps down huge gulps of water like a horse. Only when Candy offers the stake does George actually begin to see that this dream could come true. But, realist that he is, George tells Candy over the lifeless body of Curleys wife, I think I knowed from the very first. I think I knowd wed never do her. He usta like to hear about it so much I got to thinking maybe we would [be able to have the farm.]