To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee :: essays research papers

"To Kill A Mockingbird" by Harper Lee is a book that i would reccomend for anyone to read. This book talks about the issues of prejidice and how it affects the community. When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem broke his arm badley at the elbow. When it healed, and Jems's fears of never being able to play football were assuaged, he was seldom self-conscious about his injury. His left arm was somewhat shorter than his right; when he stood or walked, the back of his hand was at right angles to his body, his thumb parallel to his thigh. He couldn't have cared less as long as he could pass and punt. When enogh years had gone by to enable us to look back on them, we sometimes discussed the events leading to his accident. I maintain that the Ewell's started ti all, but Jem , who was four years my senior, said it atarted long before that. He said it began the summer Dill came to us, when Dill first gave us the idea of making Boo RAdley come out. this book sucks dick i just wish that there were some kind of site that poor people could go to, u know to find essays that they might need help on. But no everyone is trying to get a little green out of things. Well you know what i am going to find a site and than rub it in ya'll faces. Ya you bot that right! Well my name is Marcia Bryant and i hope some one reads this shit and relizes that i don't have a damn credit card. I'm sixteen fucking years old, What am i going to do wit a credit card. I mean come on. You people should know that the majority of people looking for essays r students. fi hope that all the people running these essay web site burn in hell, it is only common sense here not rocket science.haluioueowijkfdsoufiudokfjkmniidlm foidom oifms oidmfkjoia flioaidj,dm foidm,fl lkfm,d ndwp04 rlksm,mkjsfj f8u9kjkjfksjlojslkjslja;lsj;ljsljkasjl;fkjslajljfljfljsdlkjfldksjflkjsaljdlksjljdlfjksdlfjskljfljsdfkljsdlkfjlsdkjflksdjflsjflkjsalkjljalkjdflaj;ldkfjlasjfljsdlfkjdkslfj s;fk jdlkf lkdj f df df dslkf ;kjds fjk ;saklf df f d flkjd;lkf aklj fjlka lk;f dlkf kla;j;fjaf;iuweopruiweuroiwuri wriwjfsdpuifpsiodu[fosudfipousdpoivfu po u ofu [psdufu po udfp[ ouf o opusdfp[uaod[puapou opfua[pouf poudfpousafopuasdpofupodsaufpoudspofupodsufpousd jfijsdlkhf;ljkshdflkjlkfj kjdfl;j d jsklfj;lskfjkldsfj;lksljf;jdkjf;dsjf;ds jsdlfkjds klfjsldkjflk;dsfjlk;jdsljflkjdlkfjklsd flkj kljdspfiuaisufpdsuifoupovupoczxupvoupjspkfj;suv;pc vefduopuivgop ergupioufcjg fsdgj fpufp p ou9opuf u o9u pou fopsdu fojdspofias ofuods ofipodu fpodsuifo ipodsuifp odsu fopudsfoids;lkfo ofd p fudfopuauspofus o o pofduspofusp9ofgksjf uodofus aasfoiaou sfdskjfdsopufduspfo f "To Kill A Mockingbird" by Harper Lee is a book that i would reccomend for anyone to read.

The Services Directive Proposal

Of   course   the   fundamental   freedoms   set   out   in   the   Treaty   of   European   Union   are   central   to   the   success   and   functioning   of   the   EU   Internal   Market.Two   of   these   were   of   great   importance   for   the   Internal   Market:   freedom   of   establishment   (Article   43)   and   the   freedom   to   provide   cross   border   services   (Article   49).   While   the   former   provides   access   for   operators   to   practice   their   economical   activities   in   one   or   more   Member   States,   the   latter   enables   an   operator   providing   services   in   a   Member   State   to   do   the   same   in   another   Member   State   temporarily   without   being   obliged   to   get   established   there.[1]   Obviously   these   have   legal   implications.â€Å"This   means,   in   practice,   that   Member   States   must   modify   national   laws   that   restrict   freedom   of   establishment,   or   the   freedom   to   provide   services,   and   are   therefore   incompatible   with   these   principles.This   includes   not   only   discriminatory   national   rules,   but   also   any   national   rules   which   are   indistinctly   applicable   to   domestic   and   foreign   operators   but   which   hinder   or   render   less   attractive   the   exercise   of   these   â€Å"fundamental   freedoms†,   in   particular   if   they   result   in   delays   or   additional   costs.†Ã‚   [2]The   Internal   Market   has   effected   a   number   of   real   benefits   particularly   in   some   sectors   and   generally   in   providing   employment   and   freedom   of   movement   for   operators.â€Å"Overall,   the   Internal   Market   has   resulted   in   real   benefits.   For   instance,   in   the   10   years   since   the   completion   of   the   first   Single   Market   programme   in   1993,   at   least   2.5   million   extra   jobs   have   been   created   as   a   result   of   the   removal   of   barriers.The   increase   in   wealth   attributable   to   the   Internal   Market   in   those   10   years   is   nearly   â‚ ¬900   billion;   on   average   about   â‚ ¬6000   per   family   in   the   EU.   Competition   has   increased   as   companies   find   new   markets   abroad.   Prices   have   converged   (in   many   cased   downwards)   and   the   range   a nd   quality   of   products   available   to   consumers   have   increased.†Ã‚   [3]Later   in   1992   Jacque   Delor   proposed   and   implemented   a   programme   aimed   at   creating   a   single   market   by   eliminating   non-tariff   barriers   to   goods   trading.   Although   the   programme   has   been   beneficial   but   it   leaves   room   for   substantial   progress   in   order   that   services   can   be   offered   across   borders   smoothly.[4]In   2002   EU   commission   studied   the   numerous   barriers   that   affect   the   flow   of   services   across   the   borders   of   Europe.   It   was   found   that   these   barriers,   including   legal   restrictions,   difficulties   in   obtaining   the   required   authorisation   from   local   authorities,   an d   the   length   and   complexity   of   procedures,   made   it   almost   impossible   for   some   businesses   to   get   established   in   countries   other   than   their   origin.[5]However,   on   7   May   2003   the   European   Commission   implemented   its   Internal   Market   Strategy   for   the   period   of   2003-2006.â€Å"The   Strategy   concentrates   heavily   on   removing   many   of   the   barriers   that   prevent   businesses   in   the   services   sector   from   operating   across   Europe.   The   commission   views   improvements   in   this   sector   as   essential   to   meeting   the   targets   of   the   2000   Lisbon   package,   given   that   services   now   account   for   around   two-thirds   of   the   EU’s   GDP.†[6]The   Commission   als o   pointed   out   that   the   enforcement   of   EU   legislation   was   not   effective   in   a   way   that   it   itself   become   one   of   the   barriers.   Within   these   strategies   and   in   order   to   address   the   problem   of   removing   barriers   hindering   the   flow   of   services   within   the   Member   States,   the   Commission   proposed   a   Service   Directive   aimed   at   enabling   service   providers   of   the   Member   States   to   establish   themselves   and   provide   services   in   States   other   than   they   originally   come   from.In   January   2004   Frits   Bolkestein,   the   European   Commissioner   for   Internal   Market   at   the   time,   proposed   a   draft   of   the   Directive   on   services   in   the   Internalà ‚   Market;   today   commonly   referred   to   as   ‘Bolkestein   Directive’.[7]   The   Services   Directive   by   removing   all   the   barriers   hindering   the   movement   and   establishment   of   service   providers   with   the   EU   Member   States,   is   expected   to   â€Å"create   jobs,   boost   economic   growth   and   increase   quality   and   choice   for   consumers.†Ã¢â‚¬Å"The   consultants   Copenhagen   Economics   have   predicted   a   0.3%   rise   in   GDP   and   a   0.7%   increase   in   employment.   The   European   Commission's   estimates   point   to   a   1.8%   increase   in   GDP   and   2.5   million   new   jobs.†[8]Yet   the   Service   Directive   was   not   well   received.   Although   it   was   adopted   for   first   reading   in   February   2004,   opposition   in   different   countries   were   pronounced.   Countries   with   high   standard   of   social   protection   expressed   fear   from   the   consequences   of   cheaper   competition   from   the   foreign   market.â€Å"Some   countries   and   trade   unions   feared   this   would   lead   to   a   â€Å"race   to   the   bottom†,   with   firms   relocating   to   countries   with   lower   wages   and   the   weakest   consumer,   environmental   protection,   employment   and   health   and   safety   rules.†[9]Yet   the   most   disagreed   point   was   that   of   â€Å"country   of   origin   principle†Ã‚   which   allows   services   providers   to   operate   in   another   country   while   being   obliged   to   abide   only   by   the   laws   of   the   country   of   origin.[1]  Ã‚  Ã‚   EU   Single   Market:   General   Principles   available   at:   http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/principles_en.htm   accessed   on   15   January   2007 [2]   EU   Single   Market:   General   Principles   available   at:   http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/principles_en.htm   accessed   on   15   January   2007 [3]A   Single   Market   for   Services   available   at:   http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_19_en.htm   accessed   on   15   January   2007[4]   Can   Europe   Deliver   –   Research   by   Paul   Stephenson   –   Edited   by   Neil   O’Brien   (2006)   available   at:   http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/services.pdf   accessed   on   15   January   2007 [5]   Can   Europe   Deliver   –   Research   by   Paul   Stephenson   –   Edited   by   Neil   O’Brien   (2006)   available   at:   http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/services.pdf[6]   Services   Directive   background   available   at   :   http://www.smallbusinesseurope.org/en/basic_background319.htm   accessed   on   15   January   2007 [7]Directive   on   services   in   the   internal   market   –   From   Wikipedia,   the   free   encyclopedia   available   at:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Service_in_the_Internal_market#column-one   accessed   on   15   January   2007[8]   Q&A:   Services   Directive,   Available   at:   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4698524.stm   accessed   on   15   January   2007 [9]   Q&A:   Services   Directive,   Available   at:   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4698524.stm   accessed   on   15   January   2007

Taking Back The Medi Margaret Gallagher - 2586 Words

Rachel Bidock Sister Lucia Treanor, FSE WRT-150-29 October 20, 2014 Taking Back the Media Margaret Gallagher, a researcher specializing in gender and the media and the author of, â€Å"Women, Media And Democratic Society: In Pursuit Of Rights And Freedoms† once said, â€Å"in the name of freedom of speech, the media claim the right to represent women as they wish.† In society today women have degrees, doctorates, own businesses and even run entire countries yet they are still underrepresented in one of the largest and most well known industries: the media, including news, magazines, TV, radio programs and so fourth. Although women are representing entire countries there is only a very small portion managing high senior positions in media corporations. Media has been known to portray women as beauty and not brains they are seen in magazines as merely objects and in news reports as just a pretty face. It is time that women who are qualified get the chance to take control of media and start representing men and women as equals by giving bo th genders the same opportunities in front of the camera as well as equal opportunities to reach senior positions in media networks. To begin, men take up more than half of all the positions in media. They hold 2/3 of all executive positions, while women hold only 1/3 according to Karen Ross a professor of Media at the University of Liverpool, the former foundational editor of Communication, Culture Critique, and author of â€Å"Women in Media