French Government Essays (258 words) - Decentralization,

French Government The modern French government is run very much like the government of the United States. France is a democratic republic that is divided into three branches, the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch. The Legislative branch is made up of the Parliament, which like the United States Congress, is divided into two houses. Those being the Senate and the National Assembly. The National Assembly has 577 members and is the more powerful of the two houses, while the Senate has 319 members in this somewhat less influential house. This branch is in charge of passing and repealing laws. The Judicial branch is in charge of the courts, and criminal trials. As in the United States there is the Executive branch, which is headed by the President and Prime Minister. This branch is in charge of carrying out laws and bills passed by the parliament. The French government is quite unique, in that during times of a national emergency, such as a war, the President of France has the authority to assume almost complete power. The Local government is divided into twenty-two regions, that are further divided into ninety-five departements, which are again divided into smaller arrondissements which are then divided into communes. There are approximately 36,500 communes in France. The communes are run by mayors appointed by local municipal councils. An interesting fact about the French government, is that we get the expressionsof a left-wing party and a right-wing party from the French Revolution, because at the National Assembly, the radicals would sit on the left, and the conservatives on the right. Government Essays

Definition and Discussion of Classical Rhetoric

Definition and Discussion of Classical Rhetoric Definition The expression classical rhetoric refers to the  practice and teaching of rhetoric in ancient Greece and Rome from roughly the fifth century B.C. to the early Middle Ages. Though rhetorical studies began in Greece in the fifth century B.C., the practice of rhetoric began much earlier with the emergence of Homo sapiens. Rhetoric became a subject of academic study at a time when ancient Greece was evolving from an oral culture to a literate one. See the observations below. Also see: Definitions of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece and RomeAn Overview of Classical Rhetoric: Origins, Branches, Canons, Concepts, and ExercisesRhetoric Review QuestionsDialecticDissoi LogoiGlossary of Rhetorical TermsLetteraturizzazioneOrality Oratory  and  The Parts of a Speech PraxisSophistsStoic GrammarTechneWhat Are the Five Canons of Rhetoric?What Are the Progymnasmata?What Are the Three Branches of Rhetoric? Periods of Western Rhetoric Classical RhetoricMedieval RhetoricRenaissance RhetoricEnlightenment RhetoricNineteenth-Century RhetoricNew Rhetoric(s) Observations [T]he earliest surviving use of the term rhetorike is in Platos Gorgias in the early fourth century BCE. . . . [I]t is likely, although impossible to prove definitively, that Plato himself coined the term.(David M. Timmerman and Edward Schiappa, Classical Greek Rhetorical Theory and the Disciplining of Discourse. Cambridge University Press, 2010) Rhetoric in Ancient GreeceClassical writers regarded rhetoric as having been invented, or more accurately, discovered, in the fifth century B.C. in the democracies of Syracuse and Athens. . . . [T]hen, for the first time in Europe, attempts were made to describe the features of an effective speech and to teach someone how to plan and deliver one. Under democracies citizens were expected to participate in political debate, and they were expected to speak on their own behalf in courts of law. A theory of public speaking evolved, which developed an extensive technical vocabulary to describe features of argument, arrangement, style, and delivery . . . .Classical rhetoriciansthat is, teachers of rhetoricrecognized that many features of their subject could be found in Greek literature before the invention of rhetoric . . .. Conversely, the teaching of rhetoric in the schools, ostensibly concerned primarily with training in public address, had a significant effect on written composition, and thus on literature.(George Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton University Press, 1994) Roman RhetoricEarly Rome was a republic rather than a direct democracy, but it was a society in which public speaking was as important to civic life as it had been in Athens . . ..The ruling elite [in Rome] viewed rhetoric with suspicion, leading the Roman Senate to ban the teaching of rhetoric and close all the schools in 161 BC. Although this move was partially motivated by strong anti-Greek sentiments among the Romans, it is clear that the Senate also was motivated by a desire to eliminate a powerful tool for social change. In the hands of demagogues like the Gracchi, rhetoric had the potential to stir the restless poor, inciting them to riots as part of the endless internal conflicts among the ruling elite. In the hands of skillful legal orators like Lucius Licinius Crassus and Cicero, it had the power to undermine Romes traditionally rigid interpretation and application of law.(James D. Williams, An Introduction to Classical Rhetoric: Essential Readings. Wiley, 2009) Rhetoric a nd WritingFrom its origin in 5th century BC Greece through its flourishing period in Rome and its reign in the medieval trivium, rhetoric was associated primarily with the art of oratory. During the Middle Ages, the precepts of classical rhetoric began to be applied to letter-writing, but it was not until the Renaissance . . . that the precepts governing the spoken art began to be applied, on any large scale, to written discourse.(Edward Corbett and Robert Connors, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. Oxford University Press, 1999) Women in Classical RhetoricThough most historical texts focus on the father figures of classical rhetoric, women (though generally excluded from educational opportunities and political offices) also contributed to the rhetorical tradition in ancient Greece and Rome. Women such as Aspasia and Theodote have sometimes been described as the muted rhetoricians; unfortunately, because they left no texts, we know few details about their contributions. To learn more about the roles played by women in classical rhetoric, see Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity Through the Renaissance, by Cheryl Glenn (1997); Rhetorical Theory by Women Before 1900, edited by Jane Donawerth (2002); and Jan Swearingens Rhetoric and Irony: Western Literacy and Western Lies (1991). Primary Rhetoric, Secondary Rhetoric, and LetteraturizzazionePrimary rhetoric involves utterance on a specific occasion; it is an act not a text, though subsequently it can be treated as a text. The primacy of pri mary rhetoric is a fundamental fact in the classical tradition: through the time of the Roman Empire teachers of rhetoric, whatever was the real situation of their students, took as their nominal goal the training of persuasive public speakers; even in the early Middle Ages, when there was reduced practical opportunity to exercise civic rhetoric, the definition and content of rhetorical theory as set forth by Isidore and Alcuin, for example, show the same civic assumption; the revival of classical rhetoric in Renaissance Italy was foreshadowed by renewed need for civic rhetoric in the cities of the 12th and 13th centuries; and the great period of neoclassical rhetoric was the time when public speaking emerged as a major force in church and state in France, England, and America.Secondary rhetoric, on the other hand, refers to rhetorical techniques as found in discourse, literature and art forms when those techniques are not being used for an oral, persuasive purpose. . . . Frequent m anifestations of secondary rhetoric are commonplaces, figures of speech, and tropes in written works. Much literature, art and informal discourse is decorated by secondary rhetoric, which may be a mannerism of the historical period in which it is composed. . . .It has been a persistent characteristic of classical rhetoric in almost every stage of its history to move from primary to secondary forms, occasionally then reversing the pattern. For this phenomenon the Italian term letteraturizzazione has been coined. Letteraturizzazione is the tendency of rhetoric to shift focus from persuasion to narration, from civic to personal contexts, and from speech to literature, including poetry.(George Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition, 2nd ed. University of North Carolina Press, 1999)

An American Indian Providing their Perspective of the English Assignment

An American Indian Providing their Perspective of the English - Assignment Example Primarily coming from the southern states of America, my forefathers had later settled in the northern part, in quest of better living. Recounting my experience is interesting because history has long since been regarded as a very important document of a country’s inheritance of its cultural values, people and its socio-political and economic evolution. While some of the historical events can be gleaned from the written accounts of the eyewitnesses, the authenticity of the same is always in doubt and helps the historians to delve deeper into the myriad aspects of evolving time. Indeed, my children grandchildren tell me that there is well-documented information about America from the time it was discovered by the Spanish conquistadors. But we are the original inhabitants of this country and I think, history should be interpreted from the accounts of our people and sot solely accepted from the foreigners who have now been declared as rightful citizens of this land! History for us is the tales of the times that are passed on to from generations to generation and added from the inputs of the succeeding generations. Frankly speaking, the stories of my forefathers, as told to me by grandparents, are a mixture of the good and the bad. The good things comprise of our culture and the pride in our tradition and values. We value human beings as the creation of God and they have the responsibility of maintaining good relationships with all the things that God has created. Thus, conservation of the environment is an intrinsic part of our heritage. I think this was the major issue that has brought about so much of conflict in our lives through the times. The clash of ideas and the ambitious and often nefarious intentions of the Europeans have resulted in the formation of a new social order where racial discrimination has superseded human values.

The Visitation of the Gods Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Visitation of the Gods - Assignment Example The writer does succeed in creating a sense of apathy by exploiting expected events. The plot is unconventional and the events effortlessly flow into each other to give way to a sense of unity.  Miss Noel, a young and idealistic teacher is the main protagonist, which acts as a suitable foil to the somewhat less upright and opportunistic Principal and the supervisors. The characters in the story are somewhat flat, especially the visiting officials. The writer on purpose has kept the antagonists flat to enhance the sense of apathy and hopelessness permeating the story. This provides a suitable and grave background against which is depicted the internal conflict in the protagonists’ consciousness that is Miss Noel. The grossness of the characters indicated by the expressions like â€Å"the supervisors, with murmured apologies, belched approvingly† do contributes to the filthy ethical environment in the play. In the story ‘The Visitation of the Gods’, Gilda C ordero-Fernando intricately uses the setting as a background against which unfolds the contrived yet disgusting drama of school inspection. At the very start of the story, the austere setting of the school is elaborately highlighted to depict the ordinariness and unquestioning helplessness of the school staff. However, as the drama of visitation starts unfolding itself, the setting starts altering with the improvised stuff like bougainvillea pots, mattresses , nd cushions, china, crockery, napkins, etc to highlight the conceitedness of the visiting officials. The hastily improvised stuff creates the sense of a satin patch on the otherwise drab and ordinary life of the school teachers. The writer aptly elaborates on the settings accompanying every event in the story to build on the readers’ sense of waste and apathy. In the story, Gilda uses the third person omniscient point of view.

Federal Reserve Money Train Activity Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Federal Reserve Money Train Activity - Assignment Example The discount rate has its many affects on the economy. The discount rate will determine if the Federal Reserve is going to allow banks to lend at higher or lower rates. Deciding to raise the discount rate will increase overall lending rates and slow down the rate at which consumers are buying. If fewer loans are taken out it is likely that spending is also less. This is important to slow economic growth to prevent inflation, low unemployment rates and too high of a GDP. Discount rates are truly a large participator when it comes to the government’s role of increasing or decreasing economy growth. Open market operations affect the economy as they control whether or not bonds are to be made more or less available. The purchasing of bonds will allow for less money for the government. Selling bonds will allow for more money for the government. Deciding to sell bonds will allow for an increase in economic growth as it will allow more available in the economy. Buying bonds will minimize what is in the economy and cause the economy to shrink. The use of open market operations depends on the size the economy needs to be in order to be successful and grow at the appropriate

John Lockes State Of Nature Philosophy Essay

John Lockes State Of Nature Philosophy Essay John Lockes state of nature is where humans exist without an established government or a social contract. It is a state of anarchy where there is completely no order or rules that guide human behavior. There are no laws to govern us and we are guided by our own instincts on what is right and wrong. According to Locke humans do not need a higher authority to control them and there can be a peaceful co-existence among people. There is no need for one person to take charge to bring about order. People behave according to the laws of nature which include natural freedom and moral equality. It is also known as our natural rights. John Locke believes that human beings are born with certain divine rights such as the right to live, the right to liberty and property. These natural rights alone have the sole capability of managing a harmonious society. Natural rights are rights of any species that exists outside the laws of the governing body. Fish that swim in the ocean do so by natural right not because legislation allows them to do so. The presence of a ruler to carry out our rights is uncalled for. He points out that a sovereign, limits human liberty and our natural rights. Human beings are perfectly capable of governing themselves as the respect for our natural rights. The state of nature is a state of equality with no one having more than another. People can act freely without being held by any set of rules or laws that would curtail their freedom and happiness. Locke states that God owns us and we are his property, therefore one has the right to protect themselves from harm. Humans have the right to defend themselves and punish anyone who violates the state of nature. The state of nature is governed by the law of nature. The law of nature states that we should refrain from causing harm to each others life, liberty, and property. Locke says that we should all treat each other as equal and doing harm to another is like doing harm to yourself. Rene Descartes is chasi ng me around the forest with a butcher knife and trying to kill me. Locke would argue that I did have the right to defend myself for my life was in danger. Descartes was harming my state of nature by trying to attack me. I have an obligation to punish him for he violated the laws of nature and caused me harm. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction. Unlike the state of nature where we exists peacefully, the state of war is filled with malice and violence. We are constantly trying to watch our backs and protect ourselves. If any man is threatened by another he is in a state of war with that person. The innocent has the right to destroy the aggressor. Locke compares Descartes attacking me to a wild beast attacking me. He states that whether it be a man or lion, the consequences are similar because it is logical for me to attack anyone or anything that threatens my life. Rene Descartes is to be treated as a beast of prey. The state of war occurs when people exert unwelcome force on other people interfering with their own natural right and freedom without common authority. When one man uses force to deprive another of his life, health, possessions, or property, it becomes a state of war. The fundamental law of nature declares that man should preserve as much as possible, when al l cannot be preserved and the safety of the innocent is preferred. One may destroy a man who makes war upon him. Self-defense is a corollary of the natural law and we have the right to our preservation. The law of self-preservation dictates that a person may kill another person in self-defense. So in a state of war, I do have the right to defend myself because I am preserving my life and keeping the enemy from harming it. It is lawful to kill him for he put himself in a state of war with me and he has disobeyed the state of nature. I am able to destroy that which threatens me with destruction. Since there is no common authority, I myself can only be a judge of my own conscience. It is up to me to decide the fate of Descartes. The war does not end until the aggressive party offers peace and reparations for the damage done, until then the innocent party has the authority to destroy the aggressor. In a civil society, our natural rights à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬ life, liberty, and property is protected by the government. A civil society exists when there is chaos and an authority must be present to set things in orders. We place the authority to a legislative and executive power and must abide by the laws set forth by the government. Humans no longer have the ability to punish those who violates their state of nature. This job solely rests upon the authority. In a civil society, I would not be able to kill Descartes or decide his penalty. In a civil society, a state of war exerts in the manner except there are laws and the government determines the punishment of the aggressor. Question 6: Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes state of nature is where there is no sovereign to put forth rules and regulations and human beings are living like wild beasts in the jungles. It is not a place where we can all peacefully co-exist amongst each other. It is filled with violence and we are constantly trying to escape death. Our equality is that we all want to kill each other. All men in the state of nature have a desire and will to hurt those who endangers them. Our nature of human beings is to be selfish and we will strive to protect and achieve are selfish ends. Everyone is naturally willing to fight one another and it is every man against every man. There is no civil society and we live in continual fear. According to Hobbes, life with constant battles and no strong central government would be solitary, poor, brutish, and short. There are no laws to maintain order and people have the freedom to do whatever it is their hearts desire. A state of nature is simply a state a war and its a competition for t he survival of the fittest. Humans are fighting with one another in order to survive. We will do anything to stay alive, even if it means taking another persons life. If I lived in a state of nature where food was scare, Descartes and I would kill each other in order to survive. Hobbes declares that a state of nature is horrible for there is no sense of what is right or wrong, except self-preservation. We are only looking after ourselves and every person has a state of natural right to do anything one thinks is essential for preserving ones life. There is no jurisdiction and humans cannot be held accountable for their actions. People are at each other throats for survival, resources, and power. There is nothing to protect the weak against the strong. The strong will prey upon the weak and overpower them. Descartes being a strong man and I am a weak fragile girl, he can easily wipe me out. There is no sovereign to protect me from getting killed. In this state there is no sense of sec urity and are lives are always in danger. Hobbes state of nature differs from Lockes. Lockes state of nature is peaceful and is separate from his state of war. Hobbes argues that a state of war exists within the state of nature. Humans fear a violent death and we are all aware that we can harm one another. We possess two desires, free of violent death and superiority over one another, we have the ability to hold it over one another. Without a governing authority, this will cause war to break out in a state of nature. Since we are all fearful of one another, we become aggressive towards each other with causes disputes and war to break out. Hobbes claims that there is no rule of property in the state of nature. No one can claim ownership over anything. All the laws come from the sovereign. We have the right to steal items from one another because it wasnt theirs to begin with for they do not have ownership over it. He argues that we must have a government to settle this chaos and madness. If we live in a world with no authorit y it would be destructive and everyone would be killing each other. Hobbes tells me that I need someone to protect me from Descartes and prevent him from killing me. Once we have a sovereign the laws of property and life are established. Descartes would receive punishment for his crimes and I could get a restraining order against him. Unlike the state of nature, we would be safe and secure living under a legislation and executive. The laws of the sovereign helps regulate how we act with one another and it keeps civil war and war against each other from happening. These laws ensures us to live in a peaceful civil society where we are protected from the things that we fear. In the state of nature, people had more freedom and more rights. Under the rule of the sovereign people will give up their rights in exchange for a more peaceful life and environment. The sovereign is given authority to by the people and whatever they do is right. They are the voice of the entire ruling body. One m ust not question their actions for there will be consequences if they disobey. They will follow the rules for they fear receiving punishment. The establishment of a government makes it possible for the lives of man kind to be preserved and their rights to be protected. The purpose of a sovereign is to control natural law. It acts as a remedy to restore sanity and tame the rambunctious behavior of man. The law acts as some form of punishment to those who go against it and try to interfere with the rights of other citizens. A government ensures that we each have our individual rights, however we must not interfere with the rights and freedom of others. An oppressive government, is better than no government at all.

Billy Budd Essay example -- essays papers

Billy Budd Herman Melville’s Billy Budd, Sailor is evidently an extremely divisive text when one considers the amount of dissension and disagreement it has generated critically. The criticism has essentially focused around what could be called the dichotomy of acceptance vs. resistance. On the one hand we can read the story as accepting the slaughter of Billy Budd as the necessary ends of justice. We can read Vere’s condemnation as a necessary military action performed in the name of preserving the political order on board the Bellipotent. On the other hand, we can read the story ironically as a Melvillian doctrine of resistance. Supporters on this pole of the debate argue that Billy Budd’s execution is the greatest example of injustice. They argue that the execution is a testament of denunciation, deploring the shallow political order of a paranoid military regime. I do not wish to argue either side of this debate. I have pointed it out to illustrate that Billy Bud d, Sailor is a text about principles of right conduct, or at least this view is held by critics. Is Vere’s conduct right or wrong? This is the basic question at stake. In this sense it is a text about moral values and ethical conduct. However, considering that Billy Budd, Sailor is an ethical text, what I find most curious about it is the mysterious absence of the emotion guilt. Here we have a story about two murders. Billy obviously kills Claggart and Vere (Although it is indirect, ultimately the decision is his) kills Budd. Neither of these murderers shows the emotion of guilt in the form of remorse. For a narrative which tries so hard to situate the reader in an ethical and moral position of choosing interpretations, isn’t it somewhat ironic that the cha... ...g or resisting an ethical dilemma is perhaps a moot point. The ethical thrust of the story could possibly be to indict mans insatiable need to punish and requite injuries through erroneous means. As Nietzche seems to think, "we may unhesitatingly assert that it was precisely through punishment that the development of the feeling of guilt was most powerfully hindered." If we conceive of the text of Billy Budd, Sailor as situating the reader for an alignment with this viewpoint, then perhaps the reader "gags" at the death of Billy Budd not for the seemingly unfair and unjust killing of a sympathetic character, but instead for its illustration of a social system inherently disjointed at its foundation; one which doesn’t make sense considering human nature, but one which is so inextricably linked to society that it is doubtful that it could ever, or will ever, be changed. Billy Budd Essay example -- essays papers Billy Budd Herman Melville’s Billy Budd, Sailor is evidently an extremely divisive text when one considers the amount of dissension and disagreement it has generated critically. The criticism has essentially focused around what could be called the dichotomy of acceptance vs. resistance. On the one hand we can read the story as accepting the slaughter of Billy Budd as the necessary ends of justice. We can read Vere’s condemnation as a necessary military action performed in the name of preserving the political order on board the Bellipotent. On the other hand, we can read the story ironically as a Melvillian doctrine of resistance. Supporters on this pole of the debate argue that Billy Budd’s execution is the greatest example of injustice. They argue that the execution is a testament of denunciation, deploring the shallow political order of a paranoid military regime. I do not wish to argue either side of this debate. I have pointed it out to illustrate that Billy Bud d, Sailor is a text about principles of right conduct, or at least this view is held by critics. Is Vere’s conduct right or wrong? This is the basic question at stake. In this sense it is a text about moral values and ethical conduct. However, considering that Billy Budd, Sailor is an ethical text, what I find most curious about it is the mysterious absence of the emotion guilt. Here we have a story about two murders. Billy obviously kills Claggart and Vere (Although it is indirect, ultimately the decision is his) kills Budd. Neither of these murderers shows the emotion of guilt in the form of remorse. For a narrative which tries so hard to situate the reader in an ethical and moral position of choosing interpretations, isn’t it somewhat ironic that the cha... ...g or resisting an ethical dilemma is perhaps a moot point. The ethical thrust of the story could possibly be to indict mans insatiable need to punish and requite injuries through erroneous means. As Nietzche seems to think, "we may unhesitatingly assert that it was precisely through punishment that the development of the feeling of guilt was most powerfully hindered." If we conceive of the text of Billy Budd, Sailor as situating the reader for an alignment with this viewpoint, then perhaps the reader "gags" at the death of Billy Budd not for the seemingly unfair and unjust killing of a sympathetic character, but instead for its illustration of a social system inherently disjointed at its foundation; one which doesn’t make sense considering human nature, but one which is so inextricably linked to society that it is doubtful that it could ever, or will ever, be changed.