Junk Food Essay Example for Free

Junk Food Essay Hello, my name is Daniela and I am here today to share my opinion about banning junk food, and hopefully I change your opinion, if you disagree with me. Well, junk food is food that’s very high in fat, sugar, and calories. It hardly has protein, vitamins, or minerals. I know it may be very tasty and good, but it’s not so good for your body. Eating junk food can cause your brain to get addicted to it in a way like drugs do. You’ll constantly think you need it, when you don’t. If you go a couple weeks without junk food and you’re use to eating it, you’ll want it even more, which is bad. Poor eating habits as a kid, become worse when you’re an adult. Eating it for years can cause obesity. Over 31. 8% of children in America are obese or overweight. This all leads to heart problems, diabetes, and other health problems. It can also cause cavities and other dental problems. Junk food also has a lack of oxygen, which is what feeds the brain and the rest of the body. Lack of oxygen causes fatigue and lack of concentration. A lot of studies also show that kid’s grades are sliding down very fast, due to being tired and lack of concentration. They can’t keep all the information they’re learning in their head. Parents should monitor their kid’s diet, but at school they can’t. Therefore the school should help the students in deciding what’s better for their nutrition. Kids do what they see other people do no matter if it’s bad or good. They see us eating a lot of junk food; they’ll eat a lot of junk food. They see us being healthy; they’ll want to become healthy. So why teach them that eating a lot of junk food is healthy? At home, maybe some parents may not care what their kid eats; therefore they should at least have one healthy meal provided by the school. Many students like to go and socialize with their friends during lunch since they can’t really talk or see each other any other times during school. Therefore, they’ll want to just grab a quick snack, like a type of junk food, and just leave to go talk with their friends. They aren’t eating a good meal and are just putting junk in their body. It’s much better if the school bans it and replaces the junk food with a healthy snack so at least the person can be eating something good for them. What if the school makes you take P. E. more than you’re required to since they decided to keep junk food? I know many of you hate it. So I don’t know about you, but I rather be eating healthy, than be trying to lose those calories I got from the junk food. I rather not even be taking P. E. another year just because they decided to keep that junk. Also, students are taught in health classes about healthy eating, and if the schools promotes and sells junk food, then the school contradicts its purpose of teaching this. The money you waste on junk food funds most of the cool and new stuff we get for our school. The school board should be paying for this stuff. They’re basically making money off your poor health choices. I hope you see things my way now and think about supporting the idea of banning junk food in school. Thank you for your listening!

The Absolute War

The Absolute War In order to understand why absolute war does not occur in reality, the absolute war should be defined in the first place. It should be underlined that absolute war differs from total war. Total war involved the total subordination of politics to the war effort, an idea Clausewitz emphatically rejected, and the assumption that total victory or total defeat were the only options. Total war involved no suspension of the effects of time and space, on the other hand Clausewitzs concept of the absolute did.[1] The word absolute refers to purity and extremes in that sense. Before explaining Clausewitzs conception of absolute war, his military as well as intellectual and historical background should be kept in mind. The context of Clausewitzs ideas which covers the transition from the enlightenment to the German movement that was hostile to it should be recognized. In Berlin Institute for Young Officers, he learnt that the theory had to be concrete and circumstantial, encompass that formed the reality, and be closely linked to historical experience.[2] He was also influenced by the theoretical ideal that has to reflect the relationship between the parts of war and the whole, and be necessarily grounded in the nature of things. The primacy of the major battle, aided by a massive concentration of forces and aggressive conduct, and aiming at the total overthrow of the enemy reflected the impact of the Napoleonic experience.[3] In 1827, while composing On War, Clausewitzs line of thought underwent a radical change of direction. He transformed but did not ab andon his old military outlook, and developed completely new theoretical devices. The origins and nature of Clausewitzs new theoretical framework have remained a mystery, and as a result the exact nature of the transformation in his thought has not been entirely clear. This explains why Clausewitzs ideas could be interpreted so differently by successive generations.[4] Clausewitz wanted to do more than merely writing for next generations, or Prussian army, he wanted to search for the absolute, the very nature, or the regulative idea of things.[5] He put emphasis on the role of the theory that it is its duty to give the place to the absolute form of war and to use that form as a general point of direction, it had to reflect the relationship between the parts of war and the whole, and to be found in the nature of things. He regarded absolute war as ideal in the philosophical sense, as a regulative idea which gives unity and objectivity to diverse phenomena, an idea like that of perfect beauty in art which may never be attained but constantly approximated.[6] According to Clausewitz, the definition of war is: War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.[7] After defining, he then deductively argued from this definition to essential features to conclude how one should behave to realize its will. Therefore, from the definition, it can be understood that the violence, or physical force is the means, and the compulsory compliance of the adversary to our will is the ultimate end. To this end, the violence is pushed to its utmost bounds, since one side dictates law to its adversary, there occurs a kind of reciprocal action, leading to an extreme, which is first reciprocal action [8]. To compel the enemy to our will, the enemy must be placed in a situation so that he would sacrifice which is demanded. This situation can be disarming the enemy, threatening him with it, or overthrow of him. As long as the enemy is not defeated, there is always possibility that he may dictate to the other side. Therefore, it is the second reciprocal action leading to second extreme.[9] If one wants to defeat the adversary, he must proportionate his efforts to the others powers of resistance by increasing the means as much as possible, however the adversary would do the same and meet him in a new mutual enhancement, therefore there would occur the third reciprocal action leading to the third extreme.[10] The absolute war can also be understood as a war, in which all available force is concentrated into a single, instantaneous blow.[11] From this logic, it can be argued that there can be no middle ground between the state of peace and the absolute war, the two extremes where force remains wholly unused or wholly and immediately used in order to make the adversary defenceless. However, in reality, the conduct of war engages the incremental use of force.[12] The discrepancy between the absolute and real wars is due to the two basic factors. Firstly, the real war is dictated by the time and space. Actual military means are spatially distributed; therefore they can be employed in some period of time, but not instantaneously. Also, the real war is affected by the friction, which refers to the obstacles to the efficient usage of force that the real world imposes, and it is caused by the chance, and uncertainty, physical exertion and danger.[13] Moreover, for constraining the absoluteness of war, Clausewitz introduced the effect of politics on wars. According to him, all characteristics of war are influenced by politics, and this influence is not part of the nature of war. On the contrary, the influence of politics is an external force which works against the true essence of war, harnesses it to its needs, and modifies the imperatives which it imposes in the process.[14] It is due to the fact that when the political influence on the war is admitted, one may be willing to wage minimal are closely linked to the character and scope of the political objectives. These wars may consist threatening the enemy, with negotiations held in reserve.[15] Therefore, the politics convert the destructive element of war into a mere instrument, in other words, the conception that war is a mere continuation of policy by other means.[16] To introduce the Trinitarian nature of war, Clausewitz, first of all, wrote that warfare was a complex combination of passion, chance and reason. War is partly a matter of great passion, of hatred, danger, exertion. To the extent that war was an extension of politics, it was a rational, purposive activity aimed at altering the behaviour of an opponent. War, according to Clausewitz, was also the realm of chance. This combination makes war a paradoxical trinity. [17] In short, war is composed of three elements: first, primitive violence, hatred, and hostility, which should be regarded as a blind natural force; second, the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and third, its subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason alone.[18] The relations among these elements are fluid and tense. As warfare moves towards its absolute nature, the passion increases and the rational direction of war becomes more problematic. As the violence becomes more complete, untramelled, and absolute -since the pure concept requires, war would drive policy out of office and it would rule by the laws of its own nature. As the goals of war expand and the stakes increase, warfare would tend to move towards to the absolute form. This tendency towards absolute war would increase the tensions between the constitutive elements of the trinity, threatening to displace reason.[19] However, by arguing that the war is the extension of politics, Clausewitz asserted the rational direction of war as a whole. Similarly, as long as war is a political activity, it is fought for a purpose. It is neither the result of unreasoning passion, nor the result of mistakes. Besides, to explain the fact that although politics is artificial element to the nature of war, the real war may still come close to the absolute war. From Clausewitzs writings, it can be understood that state policy determines the main lines along which war is to move. This is the correct order of things, since the policy does not demand anything against the nature of war. If the political tensions carry very powerful character, and if adequate material means are given, the political aim may disappear behind, or rather coincide with, the military aim of disarming the enemy. In such case, real war approaches to absolute war. [20] He argued that this type of warfare would appear again and again in the age of nationalism.[21] On the other hand, this does not necessarily mean Clausewitz argued in favour of the absolute war, but rather he supported limited war. His conception of war became more durable, and more sophisticated after seeing Napoleons defeats at Russia in 1812, at Leipzig i n 1813 and finally at Waterloo in June 1815. This conception became regarded as a political act, and as an act which is and should be limited.[22] To argue in favour of why limited wars happen in reality, Liddell Hart raised Clausewitzs conception of absolute war to the level of an infallible religious dogma.[23] In this critic, it may be argued that Hart did not carefully read Clausewitz, however at this point I would only like to give Harts point of view on war. Harts definition of strategy was designed to reemphasize the subordination of the conduct of war to political objective. He believed that since Napoleon, the definition of strategy had expanded to the point where it was controlled completely by the military, the situation which created the dominance of the false objective.[24] Therefore, he redefined strategy as the distribution and transmission of military means to fulfil the needs of policy making it more clearly dependent upon political decisions while leaving its execution in the hands of the military.[25] Since the objective of war is to change the enemys will, Hart concluded that the strategy should not accept s eeking decision in battle as a guiding principle, the situation in which the enemys power of resistance is likely to be greatest, but it should be attacking to the vulnerable points in the enemys armour where defeat would destroy his moral and physical capacity to resist. In other word, it is a strategy of paralysation thorough dislocation rather than annihilation thorough attrition.[26] Moreover, Hart also criticized Clausewitzs argument that locates overthrow of the enemy as the aim of the war. Hart argued that the complete overthrow of the adversarys forces and the occupation of the opponents territory may be necessary to his success, but it is not compulsory to ones achievement. The object is fulfilled if the enemy can be convinced that he cannot conquer.[27] In order to illustrate this logic, the nuclear age and the deterrence theory based on the assumption that when one state does cost-benefit analysis before engaging to any aggression, and in this case since one state owns nuclear capability, it would deter other states from creating or getting involved to aggression, can be used.[28] The nuclear weapons and limited war are incompatible with each other since an unlimited war with nuclear weapons would mean mutually suicide. Therefore, the states need to establish adequate forces to defend themselves. Hart criticized the common assumption that the world faces a choice between the extremes of total war and total peace, but he urged a more limited approach to war.[29] Therefore, it can be understood that if wars are likely to occur, the limitation of their destructiveness is in every states interest. Similarly, although it is always irrational to fight nuclear war, and it may not be irrational to risk nuclear war, not all wars are nuclear wars, even in the nuclear age.[30] Nor nuclear war is instrument of policy, neither are nuclear weapons. These nuclear weapons are to be used only to prevent wars, not to fight wars. The purpose of the development of the doctrine of limited war in the 1950s was to restore policy control over the use of violence.[31] From these arguments, it can be understood that states may sometimes choose limited war, in order not to start or create possibility of engagement to any nuclear wars, but to keep their power over the use of force. It can be therefore further argued that while engaging to wars, states keep their political aims limited, so that they can keep their weapons conventional and limited. For instance, in 1950, during the Korean War, the US General MacArthur was in favour of nuclear weapons against North Korea. However, American policy makers decided on diplomatic and political utility in nuclear weapons rather than military utility.[32] Therefore, when the US intervened in Korea, it used conventional and limited military means to defend the South Korea. Meanwhile, when the allied powers came at the border of Yalu River, China got involved to the conflict to support North Korea. These two states, namely the US and China fought with limited scope and conventional weapons, therefore this example shows that states sometimes prefer to keep their force limited due to the political influence. Apart from these, the bargaining theory which assumes the wars with bargained settlements developed by Alastair Smith and Allan C. Stam approaches to Clausewitzs limited wars, or wars in reality. Since the bargaining theory is in realm of game theory, I will not speak of it in details. However, since one of the key feature of the theory is much more related to Clausewitzs limited wars, I will use it as an instance as an illustration. One of the features of the model is that as nations fight battles and capture forts from each other, both nations learn common information about the nature of warfare between them. As long as more and more information is revealed, the beliefs of nations converge. Therefore, wars are fought until either one side decisively defeats the other or until beliefs of each side unite sufficiently so that they can agree to a settlement.[33] Bibliography Gat, Azar. 1989. The Origins of Military Thought: From Enlightenment to Clausewitz. New York: Oxford University Press Earle, Edward Mead. 1973. Makers of Modern Strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press Howard, Michael. 1983. Clausewitz. New York: Oxford University Press Bassford, http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Cworks/Works.htm, 8 July 2008 Gat, 1989, p.167 Gat, p.199 Gat, p.199 Edward Earle, p.94 Edward Earle, p.103 Clausewitz, p.101 Clausewitz, p.103 Clausewitz, p.104 Clausewitz, p.105 Stone, p.31 Stone, p.32 Stone, p.32 Gat, p.221 Howard, p.39 Clausewitz, p.119 Roxborough, p.625 Roxborough, p.625 Roxborough, p.626 Earle, p. 106 Earle, p.106 Cornish, p. 217 Larson, p.70 Larson, p.71 Larson, p.71 Larson, p.71 Larson, p.72 Kibaroglu, p.4 Larson, p.72 Moody, p.419 Moody, p.429 Dingman, p.56 Smith and Stam, p.787

Why Firms become Multinational Enterprises

Why Firms become Multinational Enterprises Introduction One of the important aspects of globalization is the international transformation of the companies around the world. The companies have evolved from being a domestic firm to a multinational corporation and being present almost everywhere in the world either physically or via internet. These international companies are regarded as true MNCs only if they have made substantial direct investment in foreign countries and have actively and continuously taken part in the management of these assets (Barlett, Ghoshal, p2). Though the companies had started the internationalization process as early as in the seventeenth and the eighteenth century when the developed nations moved towards the under developed ones for acquiring key resources and in search for markets, but the latter part of the twentieth century and the beginning of twenty-first century witnessed a huge expansion in the extent to which the firms go international  (Barlett, ghoshal, p1). The internationalization process has trans formed greatly due to the evolution of the motives and the way firms integrate and expand their businesses around the world. There are both proactive and reactive motivations for a firm to go international. Proactive motivations are evident in firms that see a need for a strategic change and want to go international; whereas reactive firms are those that go international because they have to in order to deal with the competition from the domestic firms growing internationally as well as the foreign players entering the domestic market. (Czinkota, The Export Marketing Imperative, 2004, pg 4). This essay discusses these motives for firms to become MNEs and how they go about it. Why firms become Multinational Enterprises In the increasingly global business environment, many companies cannot afford to be under the assumption that their domestic markets will always be profitable. For this reason, many companies start with selling their existing products to the countries which have more number of consumers (e.g. China and India) or where consumers have more purchasing power (e.g., USA) (Rennie, Michael W, 193). This arises from the primary profit-seeking motive of the companies but also helps them to increase their brand identity and global presence (Czinkota, p4). These companies then customize their product line according to the country in which they are selling in order to expand their customer base and tackle the competition from the domestic players. So increased sales are a major motive for a companys expansion, and in fact, many of the worlds largest companies including Volkswagen (Germany), Ericsson (Sweden), IBM (United States), Michelin (France), Nestle (Switzerland), and Sony (Japan) derive more than half their sales from outside their home countries (UN Conference: Promoting Linkages, 2001). Another motive, which arose from the firms going international, was seeking cost effective resources to propel production for local and foreign markets. As the firms expanded geographically, they needed to attain competitive advantage over other foreign as well as the domestic companies. This drove them to invest abroad in countries where resources needed for production were available at low cost (Cosmin Sabau). In the earlier days, these resources included mainly the natural resources like rubber, steel, aluminum, etc., for example, crude oil was sourced from gulf countries to meet the shortfall in the domestic supply of crude oil. Today, it includes low cost land, labor and capital as well. This helped in lowering their cost of production and offering competitive prices to the customer. Sports good companies like Rawlings rely largely on labor in Costa Rica, a country that hardly plays baseball, to produce baseballs (Philip Hersh, 2009). The motivations to expand internationally however changed gradually in response to the great organizational and technological forces (Barlett, ghoshal, p6). One of the major contemporary motives is achieving economies of scale. It was first noted by manufacturers in the military aircraft industry in the 1920s and 1930s that direct labor costs decreased by a constant percentage as the cumulative number of aircraft produced doubled. By increasing the cumulative output and exporting to a larger market, the companies can bring down their cost of production by 20-30 percent (Ghemawat). Many companies establish foreign research and development (RD) facilities to tap additional scientific resources, sometimes acquiring useful knowledge in the process (Heather Berry, 2006, p 151-168). Avon, for instance, applies know-how from its Latin American marketing experience to help sell to the US Hispanic market (Nery Ynclan, July 23, 2002:EI). Yet another motive for companies going international was shortening PLCs (Barlett, ghoshal, p6). As the life of a product became shorter, adequate returns for all the research and development done for the product could be made only by introducing the product to multiple larger markets. In addition companies nowadays aim to launch the product simultaneously in as many markets as possible to enjoy the maximum returns before more firms start producing substitutes. How firms become Multinational Enterprises Internationalization is a very crucial and strategic decision that a company takes in its lifetime. Certain prerequisites need to be met before a firm can think of nationalizing and becoming an MNC. The first one is high country attractiveness. The country should be able to offer something that will promise a competitive advantage for the company or something that can help the company sustain its existing competitive advantage. Another prerequisite is the ownership of strategic competencies. The company should have some competencies that will help it counter balance the incognizance of foreign markets and environmental conditions. Also, the company should have some organizational capabilities that will increase the ROI by leveraging the companys strategic strengths intensively. These three prerequisites are essential for selecting the mode of internationalization and the mode of country entry that will help the company compete in world business. (Barlett, Ghoshal) There are many methods adopted by companies to internationalize and conquer foreign markets. The earliest method used by firms in their process of becoming MNEs was exports and imports. This may include both merchandise exports and imports and service exports and imports. Service exports and imports may be tourism and transportation, service performance and asset use. Some services earn payment for the companies for the performance of those services. For example, the companies may pay fees for turnkey projects which are transferred to the owner once they are operational. Management contracts also earn the companies fees for the performance of general and specialized management functions for another. Asset use includes Licensing, Franchising, etc. Licensing is the process of allowing another company to use its intangible assets like patents, trademarks, copyrights, or expertise, under contracts known as licensing agreements for which they earn royalties. Example. Franchising is the pr ocess of business in which a company permits another company to use the trademark as an asset of the franchisees business. The franchisor will help the franchisee by supplying raw materials, management services etc. and also will lay down guidelines and standards that are to be followed by the franchisee. For example, McDonalds has franchised its outlets in many countries like UK, India, etc. In many circumstances, a multinational with an exclusive technology may fear that a licensing contract lead to dissipation of its proprietary knowledge. In that case, setting up a foreign subsidiary is a preferable strategy. (http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP167.pdf) Another method of expanding globally is by making investments on the foreign countries. Foreign investment implies ownership of foreign property in exchange for a financial return. There are two forms of foreign investment: direct and portfolio. The foreign direct investments (FDIs) confer the investor with a controlling stake in the company. For example, when Nintendos CEP bought the Seattle Mariners, the baseball team became a Japanese FDI in the US. Although the control in the foreign company need not be full; even with a minority stake and the remaining ownership widely dispersed, the foreign investor can take decisions that cannot be vetoed by any other owner. When the ownership of the company is taken by more than one company, it is called as a joint venture. Today, at least 61,000 companies worldwide control over 900,000 FDIs in every industry (UN Conference: FDI from Developing and Transition Economies, 2006, p 30-31). On the other hand, the foreign portfolio investment is a non controlling interest in a company or ownership of a loan made to another party. This can be in the form of stocks in a company or loans to a company in the forms of bonds, bills, or notes purchased by the investor. They are comparatively safer than FDIs in terms of risk. Conclusion The changing extent, character and geography of MNE activity over the past two decades is itself a reflection of a series of path-breaking technological, economic and political events. But internationalization is not a one size fits all approach have different motives to go global and do it in the way that best suits their business models and gives them maximum returns. Whichever method a company adopts, it goes through a learning process and increases its knowledge throughout the process. Internationalization has indeed become the need of the hour for companies to sustain their businesses in the long run and develop companys strategic and organizational capabilities.

The Yellow Wallpaper -- essays research papers

Chapters 12-14 Identifying Facts 1.Huck and Jim avoided being seen while floating down the river by camouflaging the raft with thickets and things of that sort. They would just cover themselves up with things of nature which served as a shelter and a hiding place. 2. Huck discovers three men on the wrecked steamboat Jake Packard, Jim Turner, and Bill. 3. Huck and Jim cannot escape the steamboat because there were drunk men in their way. 4.The steamboat sinks 5.Huck gets his information about dukes and kings from books. Chapters 15-16 Identifying Facts 1. Huck and Jim’s plan to reach safe territory was to sell the raft and get on a steamboat and go to the free states. 2. When Huck rejoins Jim after they are lost in the fog Jim has been drinking and talking â€Å"wild.† 3. Jims response to Huck’s trick is frustration. He says â€Å" how could you make a fool of ole Jim with a lie?† 4. Huck convinces the men not to search the raft by saying that his pap is on it and he has smallpox. 5.Huck and Jim know they have passed Cairo because there was no â€Å"high ground† about Cairo. Chapters 17-18 Identifying Facts 1,After Huck forgets his name he tricks Buck into revealing it by having him spell it. 2. Emmeline Grangerford was most interested in the theme of death. 3.Huck rediscovers Jim by following a slave into the woods where Jim has been hiding. 4.Jim and Huck’s raft had been â€Å"smashed all to flinders.† 5.Huck feels responsible for Sophia’s elopement because he had fetched the book with a...

Find the concentration of sucrose in a potato cell - Plan :: GCSE Biology A2 A-Level Coursework

Find the concentration of sucrose in a potato cell - Plan Plan For Osmosis/Plasmolysis Experiment AIM In this experiment, I am trying to find the concentration of sucrose in a potato cell. Also I can observe when a cell is totally plasmolyised. PLAN I plan to complete this experiment within an hour. Firstly, I will cut 15 potato chips, 3 each for 5 different solutions, each weighing 1.2grams, cut with a 4mm corer to approx (full word) 4cm. I will measure weight, as length is less accurate. The weight of the chip may vary as much as 0.02 g each way, which will make it a lot easier to do, but may provide me with less accurate results. I will use 5 different molar solutions of 20 cm3 each, shown to the right. 0M (water), 0.5M, 1M, 1.5M and 2M. I will create 0.5 molar solutions by mixing 10cm3 of water and 10cm3 of 1 molar solution. I will use 3 of each solution to ensure that my results are correct, and to prevent any anomalies disturbing my result graphs. One of each solution will be dropped into the solution at 10-second intervals. They will be taken out 30 minutes after precisely, to ensure a reliable result. They will then be dried on a paper towel, and quickly weighed, and recorded in a pre-written table. RELIABILITY/ FAIR TEST I must control many variables in this test. I will control the time that they are left in the solution, as this will greatly affect results if they are left in for different amounts of time. Also I must control how much I dry the chips before weighing them, because if I leave some excess water on one of them, it will be an unfair test, as ill be weighing the water as well as the chip. Another point is simple, but just to make sure that the scales I am weighing the chip on are at 0 before weighing the chip, as it may add some mass to the chip. I will use 5 different solutions, starting at 0 molar and going up in 0.5 molar concentrations. I have chosen this because they are equidistant, allowing for easy graph drawing, and also because from the preliminary experiment, I know that this will give me results that can show me the concentration of sucrose in the cells sap, and also go on to show me the concentration that the cell will plasmolyise at. I will also control the variety of potato- I will only use 1 brand, as

The Great Gatsby : The American Dream :: essays research papers

In The Great Gatsby, one of the predominant themes is the death of thee American dream. In this, F. Scott Fitzgerald is showing how the American dream has become corrupt and that the dream is dead.. The Great Gatsby took place in the roaring twenties. A time when man no longer found happiness in simple pleasures like he did once such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is when the first breakdown in the American dream occurred. The idealization of the American dream was over, people took what they were born with for granted and did not miss what the never had. Things that the dream stood for such, as life was not an issue that people talked about. There was an unspoken silence of live and let live even though there was vast amounts of discrimination. Liberty, a thing taken for granted since all born on American soil are free men and women, thus no one cherishes that part of the dream either. The pursuit of happiness is befuddling. Daisy makes this clear by saying 'Your revolting'; to tom. Obviously she's unhappy with tom yet she wont leave him for Gatsby. Daisy made this clear when Gatsby gave her the ring and she wouldn't ware it. And she said 'be my friend, be my lover'; meaning she wanted him yet she wanted her life of flirting with the in crowd more then she loved Gatsby. However this is a generation that is comparable to our generation x children in how lazy they were. The roaring twenties was an era off sophistication, technology and leisure. People had what they had ant what they didn't the lived with out. The American dream itself is idealized. It was first thought of during the American Revolution as a way to keep spirits up. The motto, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not by any means a dream but an aspect of a way to make a certain reality for oneself. Then as time went on, the time period to actually make this dream a reality was passed over, people no longer lived a hard life or struggled for freedom. So the dream itself got left behind. We idealized it and later in the roaring twenties, that idealization was recognized by F Scott Fitzgerald. The Great Gatsby was Fitzgerald's cry out to the American people. A metaphor intended to make people aware that they had forgotten about the true pleasures in life and that they were wrapped up in the material world.

Checks And Balances And Seperation Of Powers

The Constitution nowhere contains an express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances. Yet, it does grant to three separate branches the powers to legislate, to execute, and to adjudicate, and it provides throughout the document the means by which each of the branches could resist the blandishments and incursions of the others. The Framers drew up our basic charter against a background rich in the theorizing of scholars and statesmen regarding the proper ordering in a system of government of conferring sufficient power to govern while withholding the ability to abridge the liberties of the governed.The Theory Elaborated and ImplementedWhen the colonies separated from Great Britain following the Revolution, the framers of their constitutions were imbued with the profound tradition of separation of powers, and they freely and expressly embodied in their charters the principle.2 But the theory of checks and balances was not favored because it was drawn from Great Britain, and, as a consequence, violations of the separation–of–powers doctrine by the legislatures of the States were common[p.64]place events prior to the convening of the Convention.3 As much as theory did the experience of the States furnish guidance to the Framers in the summer of 1787.4The doctrine of separation of powers, as implemented in drafting the Constitution, was based on several principles generally held: the separation of government into three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial; the conception that each branch performs unique and identifiable functions that are appropriate to each; and the limitation of the personnel of each branch to that branch, so that no one person or group should be able to serve in more than one branch simultaneously.To a great extent, the Constitution effectuated these principles, but critics objected to what they regarded as a curi ous intermixture of functions, to, for example, the veto power of the President over legislation and to the role of the Senate in the appointment of executive officers and judges and in the treaty–making process. It was to these objections that Madison turned in a powerful series of essays.Madison recurred to â€Å"the celebrated† Montesquieu, the â€Å"oracle who is always consulted,† to disprove the contentions of the critics. â€Å"[T]his essential precaution in favor of liberty,† that is, the separation of the three great functions of government had been achieved, but the doctrine did not demand rigid separation. Montesquieu and other theorists â€Å"did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or controul over, the acts of each other,† but rather liberty was endangered â€Å"where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department.†That the doct rine did not demand absolute separation provided the basis for preservation of separation of powers in action. Neither sharply drawn demarcations of institutional boundaries nor appeals to the electorate were sufficient.7 Instead, the security against concentration of powers â€Å"consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.† Thus, â€Å"[a]mbition must be made to[p.65]counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.†