Spanish 1 0 1- 03 Essays - Speculative Fiction, Arts, Spanish Films

Spanish 1 0 1- 03 Cultural Composition October 23 , 2013 El laberinto del fauno Pan's Labyrinth (2007), directed by Guillermo del Toro, is the story of a girl named Ofelia who escapes from the reality of war into a magical land . S he is a lost princess who must regain her title through a series of tasks given to her by a mysterious faun. It fits neatly into the categorization of the fantasy genre, where magic is often a driving force of the plot. The genre of fantasy uses a number of conventions such as good vs. evil, the quest of the hero, magic and magical beings to tell a story, and Pan's Labyrinth is no exception to this rule. Pan's Labyrinth is set in Spain, during 1944 at the time Francisco Franco taking power as dictator in Spain . The setting takes place at a house, known in the movie as a mill, surrounded by the forest. The movie shows two worlds; the real world and the fairy tale world of a little girl, Ofelia. It depicts violence and repression from the Francoise regime, as well as by resistance from antifascist guerrillas who hide in the mountains and are aided by village sympathizers. Ofelia s stepfather, Vidal, is a cruel captain in Franco's Civil Guard based at a rural military post. As figure of Fascism, Vidal is in charge of fighting the guerrillas who resist his regime. Ofelia is an orphan whose father died in obscure circumstances during the Spanish Civil War. Carmen, her mother, remarried Vidal who controls her and limits her to being a housewife. She is constantly sick and weak to the point where she cannot leave the bedroom during the last weeks of her pregnancy with Vidal's child. From the beginning of the story, it is clear that Ofelia does not have a good relationship with her stepfather. Vidal is incapable of noble feelings, and completely uninterested in any type of familial relationship with Ofelia. The main theme of the story centers on Ofelia's internal struggle . She loves to read fairy tales, although her mother disapproves of her reading and encourages her to stop. In the film, Carmen does not seem to be very interested in Ofelia's interests or her emotional well being, but rather constantly thinking of ways to please Vidal. For instance, she pressures Ofelia to call the vicious captain "father." She is isolated in a violent world with a weak and needy mother who is constantly sick and a disconnected, nasty stepfather whose only interest is in gaining more power and does not care about her. Ofelia is left with no choice but to escape into her fantasy world in quest for finding a new hope and identity. Mercedes is her only hope in the real world, who takes the role of Ofelia's biological mother. In conclusion, the film is based on Ofelia's difficult change of circumstances that surrounds the story, allowing for an exploration of a psychological process associated with her inner reality. In this film, fantasy and innocence conflict with reality and cruelty to describe the characters of Ofelia and Vidal, respectively. Around these two characters a double narrative develops to represent a larger historical event that left an indelible mark in the collective subconscious of Spain.

How To Job Search Over the Weekend

How To Job Search Over the Weekend So you want to be a weekend job search warrior. Maybe  you set yourself some goals this week and then get too busy to fulfill them. Or maybe you just want to dip your feet in the job search pool to see how you feel when you have a bit of free time. Regardless of why you find yourself job searching on the weekend, here are some good strategies to keep in mind. Stay on top of your go-to sites.Sure, there won’t be a lot of new jobs posted over the weekend. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t keep an eye on your alerts and even consider responding to any that might come up. It’s a competitive market out there and someone is working harder at getting hired than you are!Use the time to play catch up.Maybe you’ve been so busy all week that the alerts and opportunities are piling up. Use the weekend to catch up and respond. Clear out your alerts, do a few searches, and send out those  networking emails. Go into Monday fresh and up to speed.Review your p rogress.Look back on the week before. How did you do? What’s working/not working? Take this time and space to evaluate your progress and make any necessary adjustments.Remember to weekend.It is still your weekend. Be sure not to burn out by spending the entire time job searching. Do something weekendy!Clean house.Are your documents all in order? Do you have old versions lurking on your hard drive that can be deleted? Any files that should be reformatted or renamed? Is everything that needs to be in your documents already there? You could even consider saving the cover letters that got you nibbles to a separate folder; you’ve obviously got something right in them!While you’re at it, tidy up your real house. Make your desk a calming and productive space where you can get in, do your thing, and get out efficiently.Dial back your search.Follow the quality vs. quantity rule and prune your list down to jobs you actually qualify for- not just partial possibles. Putting more energy into fewer applications might actually get you a job a lot faster.Follow up.You might not expect to reach anyone over the weekend, but it’s a good time to chart who you’ve heard back from and who you should nudge. You could even write your emails and save them in your drafts folder to send mid-morning Monday.

Multiple Intelligences Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Multiple Intelligences - Essay Example Multiple intelligences developed by Howard Gardner have a great impact on education process explaining the ways of thinking, problem-solving and logic. Typically these skills cross the disciplines and include such things as communication, collaboration, information management, and higher-order thinking skills such as problem solving. These types of outcomes cannot be measured by written tests; they require performance measurement. Educators who assess by performance believe that being able "to do" is parallel to saying that a student has really learned something, rather than simply memorized it. The impact and role of intelligences in education was widely discussed in the literature during 1980s. The first attempts to define and explain this process made by Alfred Binet (1900) who tried to create a measure to predict which youngsters would do well in the primary grades of Parisian schools (Kagan and Kagan 1998). In the mid-1980s, Howard Gardner challenged the belief that IQ was fixed with his work at Harvard University, which was explained in his book Frames of the Mind (1985). He hoped to see society move from testing people to growing people, by focusing on the diverse ways people develop skills important to their lives. He redefined intelligence as the ability to solve problems and fashion products that are valued in a culture or community. His research showed intelligence as more complex, more diverse, and less fixed than originally thought. Garner (1985, 1997) and Sternberg (1985) have argued for specific, multiple domains of intelligence. Today, intelligence is being more broadly conceptualized and defined (Kagan and Kagan 1998). At the beginning of the 21st century, researchers applied Gardner's Theory to instructional technology and distance-based education, to different learning strategies and learning environments. For instance, Milheim and Osciak (2001) examine advantages and benefits of multiple intelligences within online learning environment and come to conclusion that it "can provide multiple avenues for learning based on an individual's preferred style regardless of the discipline or the geographic dispersion of the intended learners" (4). Another layer of literature examines practical application of multiple intelligences in different fields including leadership and employees training, physical education and gifted children. For instance, Kernodle and Mitchell (2004) analyze the benefits of multiple intelligences in teaching tennis at the secondary level or in a college. They find that "offering a variety of activities that enhance different intelligences also helps students who are weak in certain intelligences by giving them the opportunity to improve themselves in those areas" (32). Some researchers examine the role of multiple intelligences in development of gifted and talented children (Fasko 2001); identify sex difference in learning process and perception in children (Furnham and Ward 2001). They find that the role of the teacher is acknowledged in this perspective but only in the context of co-constructing meaning for content and skills. Thus, Kagan and Kagan (1998) admit that this is still the realm of procedural thinking. The

The Merchant's Tale from Canterbury Tales Assignment

The Merchant's Tale from Canterbury Tales - Assignment Example His wife May, young and tender perhaps remained unsatisfied with the old man’s love making and his bristly beard is shown in contrast to her tender skin. The knight’s squire was madly in love with May and when the knight foolishly sends his wife to enquire after the health of his squire Damian, the two shake hands on a treacherous plot to trick the knight. Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales is a delightful collection of stories, that vividly paint the lives of people in 14th. century England. Considered one of his finest works, it is written in poem as well as prose form. The Merchant’s Tale is a story told by one of a group of pilgrims who are on their way to visit a shrine at Canterbury. It is an age old tale of infidelity, that is as true today as it was in Chaucer’s time. The story of an old man who seeks the pleasures of a young bride, and the young girl who in her time probably had no say in the matter of marrying a man old enough to be h er father; or did it for the wealth that she would enjoy on his death. This is true in many societies even today where fathers, lured by the glitter of gold, sell their daughters to the highest bidder without a thought for the girl’s happiness.

How american civil war was irrepressible

How american civil war was irrepressible INTRODUCTION The American civil war was the largest ever armed conflict to occur on Americas soil and it occurred in between the years of 1861 to 1865. It was deadly and arguably the most important event in the nations history. Sections entrenched in the constitution of the united sates Catapulted tension between the northern and the southern states leading to a brutal war. Slavery was a root cause of the conflict. This war increased Americas economic dominance until it overtook all the other countries of the world. It also lead the country into having a strong constitution that made Americans to be part of a single nation instead of a corporate made up of different states with their own rules and institutions. The war indeed changed the way Americans viewed their own nation seeing it as one nation. After the war every part of Americas national fabric changed; from the role of the federal government to the status of African Americans. The war was triggered by the victory of Abraham Lincoln in the elections of 1860. FACTORS THAT MADE THE CIVIL WAR IRREPRESSIBLE In these elections. The Republican Party led by Lincoln won, beating three other candidates. The southerners did not vote for him so his victory was seen as a northern affair. His speech, given in 1858, stated that, a divided house cannot stand and visualized that America can not endure a â€Å"half-slave and half-free.† This clearly showed that he was a moderate and was therefore not up to task, in the views of the southerners, to be able to tackle the abolitionist they perceived as a threat. He countered this by stating he will uphold the doctrine of states right. Most southerners distrusted him.. His victory in the election led to the secession of eleven southern states from the union leading to the formation of the Confederate States of America with Jefferson Davis as its president. This was viewed by the US administrators as an act of treason. Hostilities were prompted in April of 1861 when the conferderationist attacked a US military installation at fort summer in South Carolina leading to Lincoln, who had been in office for only six weeks to call for each state to volunteer an army. He declared these acts of secession as illegal and asked Congress for 500,000 soldiers to crush what threatened to be an aggressive rebellion. This lead to declaration of secession by four other states. In 1862 lincolin emancipation declaration made ending slavery in the south the goal of the war. This was the principle of abolition. As a principle it was more than just the need to limit and abolish slavery. Slavery existed in the southern states and the federal government could not intervene as the constitution did not permit. Previously most northerners had favored a gradual and compensated scheme of slave emancipation but this was rejected by 1849 where they know demanded its immediate end every where. In 1807 external slave had been abolished making slave trade to be purely internal. The Dred Scott decision effectively limited the expansion of slavery in the US but the fugitive slave act that was subsequently passed declared slaves as properties. This lead to hostilities between the southern states and the northern ones. Politicians in a bid to stem the feuds brought the compromise of 1850 and negotiated the status of territories gained after the Mexican- American war (1846-1848). This compromise was also aimed at maintaining the balance of power in Congress between leaders of slave states and those of Free states. It designated land, boundaries and processes by which a country could be slave state or a free state. Still, these compromises did not prevent divisions from growing. Opposition to the abolition movement in the south was strong due to several factors. The coexistence of the slavery south with the free states of the north was a recipe for disaster. Abraham lincolin had not proposed any laws to curb slavery and most politicians were riding on the fence. Political feuds were a bout expanding slavery to the new territories of the west so as to enhance economic security of the south. These new territories were more likely to become Free states, a move that propelled southerners to embrace secessionism. Both leaders of the north and south used Thomas Jefferson ideas listed in his Kentucky resolutions to defend there hard line positions. Slavery indeed was the chief reason for secession. The southerners used state rights as a cover for defending slavery. They used this doctrine of a states right to base many of their grievances. The Constitution aimed at taking a middle ground by juggling the notion of a federal government with the freedom of individual states to govern them. This doctrine to which the United States was founded became the basis for the South in its quest to block northerners from imposing anti-slavery laws to it. The support of seccession was correlated to the number of plantations in the south and these were the regions that had more slave owners who had more than 100 slaves. To the southerners the notion of equality with blacks coupled with loss of economic prosperity was a worrisome matter. The north and south were different as the south had an agricultural economy based on slavery while the north had an industrial economy based on free labor and was an industrial power. The fear in the south was a bout the abolitionist movement in the north that was growing stronger each day and had the potential to putting down slavery and in effect putting an end to their way of life. The constitution of 1787 provided some legal protection to the institution of slavery and also prohibited the importation of slaves after 1808. By the first half of th e nineteenth century, states north of the Mason Dixon line that is the border between Maryland and Pennsylvania began to outlaw slave labor. This lead to temperament and brewing sectional conflict leading to the Missouri compromise of 1850 where the northern leaders accepted into the Union a new slave state of Missouri, on condition that Maine, another state be a free territory. These are the major primary factors that precipitated the American civil war. CONCLUSION. The southern states were agricultural in nature. Hence they relied heavily on slavery as the main means of labor provision. This is what underpinned the high economic growth experienced by these states prior to the crush of the 1850s. Hence when the abolitionist was campaigning for equal rights and equality, these were viewed as a direct threat to there means of survival and wealth creation. The implication of slavery vibrated through the political, social and economic dimension in the relationship between the northern states and the southern states. This was the primary reason for the civil war and these factors made the slide to the civil war inevitable. REFERENCE. Nash, G,et al, â€Å"The American People, Creating a Nation and a Society Vol 1 to 1877†, sixth edition, Pearson, New York, 2008. Finlay, J.L. â€Å"Pre-Confederation Canada: The Structure of Canadian History to 1867†, Prenice Hall, Scarborough,. 1990.

Is Claudius Presented by Shakespeare as a Tragic Villain Without Any Redeeming Features? Essay

As the King, Shakespeare presents Claudius as an able ruler who is trying to prove his worthiness to his court. This is apparent in Act 1, Scene 2 in Claudius’ opening speech. Claudius can be seen as being sincere in this speech as he mentions the death of his brother: ‘bear our hearts in grief’ (page 15) and he also states that the country is ‘contracted in one brow of woe’ (page 15). His language could be interpreted as heartfelt in his opening speech as he feels genuine sorrow over his brother’s death. This is a redeeming feature as he appears to feel love towards his brother for mentioning him as he takes his place as King. The language Shakespeare uses in Claudius’ opening speech is dismissive about the threat that Denmark may face from Norway due to Fortinbras: ‘So much for him’ (page 17). This is because he wants to display his confidence as a leader and to calm the listeners. This contributes to Claudius’ redeeming features as he appears to be considerate towards the feelings of those within the court. He does not wish to worry them and therefore comes across as an able leader. It may be interpreted that Claudius is inferior to his predecessor and is trying to provide the court with the reassurance that he can follow on from the previous King. Hamlet states that Claudius is ‘no more like my father/Than I to Hercules’ (page 25). This imagery that Shakespeare uses shows the previous King as a stern warrior in the mold of classical Greek heroes. In contrast, Claudius is a corrupt politician whose weapon is his ability to manipulate others through his skillful use of language. Shakespeare structures juxtaposition between the setting of Act one, Scene ne and Act one, Scene two in order to show a contrast in the reality and the dream in Claudius’ mind. Act one, Scene one takes place outside the castle at the dead of night. This pathetic fallacy creates a foreboding and intense atmosphere, almost predicting the appearance of the Ghost. The Ghost represents the harsh reality that Claudius has to face and the reason for his feelings of guilt. Act one, Scene two contrasts with the previous scene as it takes place inside the castle, with Claudius at the centre. This is Claudius’ dream situation, that he is King of Denmark with Gertrude as his Queen. The dramatic change in setting between scenes makes Claudius appear more oblivious to the consequences of his actions, as he is now centre of attention as King. This disillusion that Claudius appears to be in may deter the audience, as he cannot accept the effect of his actions. Unlike the majority of speeches throughout the play, Claudius’ opening speech deviates from iambic pentameter. This reflects the disorder that Claudius has created because of the murder. Court life would ordinarily have order and tranquillity and the structure of Claudius’ speech does not reflect this. However, it can be seen that Claudius is trying to restore order through his speech as he settles the court over the threat of Fortinbras: ‘So much for him’ (page 17). However, this is unlikely as Claudius’ actions led to the destruction of many other characters and does not restore order. The fact that the speech itself does not fit in with the typical Shakespearean structure of iambic pentameter, could reflect that Claudius himself does not fit in as the King of Denmark as he disrupts the divine hierarchy. Claudius disrupts the Chain of Being, a hierarchy derived from Aristotle and Plato; this would have been followed during the Elizabethan time period. At the top of the chain are God and the angels; whilst at the bottom are plants and rocks. Claudius disrupts the hierarchy as he takes the place of the previous King by marrying the Queen and not being next in line to the throne: ‘†¦for which I did the murder/My crown, mine own ambition, and my Queen’ (page 165). This can be interpreted as a villainous act that was committed purely for the gain of Claudius. Such an act would be typical of a tragic villain as his acts lead to the downfall of the other characters. For example, Claudius’ actions lead to Hamlet receiving a visit from the Ghost and therefore feigning his madness in order to, eventually, avenge his fathers’ death. However, it is possible that Claudius is not a typical tragic villain. Claudius appears to feel guilt for murdering his brother, which is clear from his soliloquy in Act three, Scene three: ‘My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent’ (page 163). His attempted prayer proves he cannot be wholly evil if he seeks forgiveness for his sins. He does this although he is not a religious man: ‘Bow stubborn knees’ (page 165), which suggests he feels deep guilt and resentment over his actions for him to turn to religion for forgiveness. This is not typical of tragic villains, who tend not to be religious or feel any resentment for their behaviour. This could show that Claudius wishes to be saved from going to hell after his death, which would not be a typical concern of a Shakespearean villain. Claudius also creates peace with the other characters. For example, in his opening speech in Act one, Scene two, he is trying not to worry the court about the potential threat of Fortinbras, and in Act four, Scene five, Claudius tries to calm Laertes’ rage rather than encourage him to kill Hamlet. Such actions would not be typical of Shakespearean tragic villains, such as Iago from ‘Othello’. Iago feels no guilt for his actions against Cassio, Othello and Desdemona and is aware of the pain he is inflicting onto others. His actions against Othello also appear purposeless as it is never revealed why he dislikes him and wants him to suffer so much. Claudius is unlike Iago as he does feel guilt and his actions are indeed purposeful. Whereas most of the other important men in ‘Hamlet’ are preoccupied with ideas of justice, revenge, and moral balance, Claudius’ actions are focused on maintaining his power. Although Claudius is Hamlet’s antagonist, he does have a number of redeeming features. He appears to have genuine affection for Gertrude, as one of the reasons for the murder of the King was to marry her: ‘My crown†¦and my Queen’ (page 165). This also comes across in Act five, Scene two, as when Gertrude is about to drink the poisoned wine, he tells her ‘do not drink’ (page 281). Claudius is aware of the affection Gertrude feels for Hamlet and when trying to be rid of him, considers her feelings: ‘That as the star moves not but in his sphere/I could not but by her. ’ (page 223). The imagery that Shakespeare uses is very unlike Claudius’ character and more similar to Gertrude’s. The imagery of spheres, that at the time where believed to revolve around the Earth containing heavenly bodies, shows that Claudius has love for Gertrude and could not live without her. Claudius also appears to care for Hamlet to some extent. He appears to be concerned for Hamlet’s well-being, as he brings in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in order to work out the cause of his ‘transformation’ (page 77). However, some may argue this is just an excuse for Claudius to discover whether or not Hamlet may know the truth of his father’s death. He thinks Hamlet’s madness is ‘More than his father’s death’ (page 77) and therefore wants to uncover the reason behind it. It can be seen that Hamlet’s madness is feigned and he does this purposely to see if Claudius is becoming suspicious of his actions. For example, in Act three, Scene two after witnessing Claudius’ outburst when the Player King is killed, Claudius demands for the lights: ‘Give me some light – away! ’ (page 153). This could be seen as an expression of emotion as Claudius feels tremendous guilt over his brother’s death or as a way of not allowing anyone else to gain suspicion in him through the play. Other interpretations of Claudius that the audience receive are from the other characters. Shakespeare presents grotesque and vile imagery used by Hamlet and the Ghost to describe Claudius. When Hamlet sees the Ghost in Act one, Scene five, the Ghost uses imagery of disease and corruption to describe Claudius and his actions: ‘Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast’ (page 51). Shakespeare uses the word ‘beast’ in reference to a cuckold. In Elizabethan times, if a woman were to have an affair, the husband would be known as a cuckold with horns to represent their foolishness in â€Å"losing† their wives. This imagery contrasts with the audience’s first interpretation of Claudius where Shakespeare presents him as a competent leader. This is the only alternate view that the reader receives in the play as both Hamlet and the Ghost have reason for hating Claudius. The view that Shakespeare gives them will have been fogged by their hatred of him and not give a fair representation of Claudius’ character. To conclude, Claudius is not a typical tragic villain due to his feelings of guilt and his consideration of others. The representation the reader receives from other characters is not a fair interpretation due to their abhorrence of him. Bibliography Heinemann Advanced Shakespeare – ‘Hamlet’ sparknotes. com sirbacon. org – F. C. Hunt interpretation

American National Government

What a piece of writing must that be, one inevitably thinks, the story which contributes to and precedes by two months the scandalous fall of a President. All the President’s Men is the real account of Washington Post’s two young reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward who conducted two years of investigations to untie the Gordian knot and eventually expose of a very complicated political conspiracy mounting up to the Chief of State.The actual report starts one sunny Saturday in the Capital in 1974, when the two authors have started working on the topic of the Watergate break-in and develops into a broad inquiry through the political fraud and crimes that lead to the resignation of the then president Richard Nixon and his administration. Even though narrated in a simple and succinct manner, almost telegraphic, the story astonished me because of the huge bid of the search and the courage of taking it to its end, the chain-reaction it provoked, which obviously disrupte d the political life of the US and fired up the world’s public opinion.Placing it in real-time, we see that President Nixon resigned two months after the story was published. Carl Bernstein & Bob Woodward’s investigation was altogether a great factor which contributed to the disclosure of a dirty business including money laundering, fraudulent electoral campaign, illegal wiretapping and other crimes that contravene to the very principles of the American Constitution and the Governmental establishment, and to the values of democracy in total.Undoubtedly, the sum of notes, papers and inquiries that the two reporters have gathered for the two-year coverage in The Washington Post has given birth to a book full of suspense, easy to read for the less initiated, full of insight into the political machinations and hierarchies at the White House and other organisms like CIA and FBI. The true story was awarded the Pulitzer price and inspired a very faithful cinematographic adapt ation in 1976, which in my opinion respects exactly the long and thorough problem-solving demarche of the two reporters through a net of hundreds and hundreds of leads.What I liked is the rhythm of the story and the perfume of the time. It is astounding to read the original chronicles of a journalistic investigation that made so much difference in the political and administrative life of the United States. At first, I found it a good, fast-paced detective story that appeals to the adventurer hidden in any of us, featuring a burglary intrigue and two â€Å"ordinary† heroes describing their obstinate effort to penetrate a very scary wall of silence that lead higher that either of them had imagined.Until then, it was like all good detectives normally do. But some dozen pages later, the heavy responsibility of the whole account struck me. I mean, as foreigner, this gave me a very crude and abrupt insight into the ramifications of the American administration seen through the eyes of professional journalists at that time, without much of introduction or decryption. This could account for a negative point, the rapidity of the narration, if the book had been meant to be didactic, not informational: a snapshot of the event.And because it was written at a time when this scandal grew to be central to the daily life of Americans, it achieves a role that I find essential for a very good documentary: the pulse of the time, the organisms of decision, the power structures and pressure games, the small hassles at the Post’s headquarters etc. Even though I had some notion about the affair before, the book launched me into a roller-coaster ride into the world of politics, newspaper journalism and communications.Before reading it as a sensational story, for me it was a manual of journalistic methodology and intuition. I particularly liked considering the ethical issues of such a public-related endeavor and the responsibility towards the audience, sources and actors, the dedicated meticulousness in working their way through this spider web of secret connections and political protocols. But overall, I found particularly inspiring the unequal buildup of the whole scheme up to the final takeover.There are several stages where Woodward and Bernstein’s findings give butterflies in the stomach, like discovering that one of the Watergate intruders was a CIA security agent, or when the two reporters meet the secretive agent â€Å"Deep-Throat†, and then when they publish the findings of the FBI regarding the greater scope of the burglary, which was in fact a huge misappropriation of funds, sabotage meant to create funds for Nixon’s reelection. And even though this book is not written in a pedagogical manner, the facts speak for themselves beyond any morals or heavy conclusions.As their echo proves, the articles, book and then the movie they inspired created a completely new approach to America’s institutions and, most probabl y, raised a great questioning mark over the political regimes worldwide. Taking up by the traces it left, I believe â€Å"All the President’s Men† managed to prove that any earthly institution is deeply questionable and may be biased or fraudulent despite its ideology. However, from a historical point of view, the book further shows that these regimes are savable provided the freedom of speech and research is allowed.The very principle of democracy is that each individual has the privilege and the duty to contribute for the collective well-being, and so they can become agents of change, when irregularities happen. I deeply believe this book stimulates such awareness and, why not, the reflex to keep one’s eye open and act with abnegation when needed. In consequence, the papers make an excellent material for our American National Government course because it provides a very strong case study of the American federal scheme of government and its potential breaches.I t underlines how the 4th state power, the mass media, can contribute to the regulation of an eventually corrupted system by rendering it transparent. We also have a very intricate access to very confidential information and behind the scene leads in the governmental hive. Because I come from a different culture, I esteemed the way this story, written with modesty, reveals the power of the press within American political process, as well as the power of the individual(s) within the hierarchies of power.The determination, perseverance of the two reporters, even after hitting apparent dead-ends lead to a huge mobilization of forces and a substantial change. In accordance, I would like to mention the patriotism of the veteran â€Å"Deep Throat†, revealed after more than 30 years of confidentiality as â€Å"FBI ‘s No. 2† official, W. Mark Felt† . This is an example of a personal belief initiative taken despite the great threats, without which the whole story cou ld have passed unproven.Wondering about the real contribution of Felt, I came about the statement of the two reporters in a 2005 Washington Post article. According to article’s author David Von Drehle’s, â€Å"Woodward and Bernstein expressed a concern that the Deep Throat story has, over the years, come to obscure the many other elements that went into exposing the Watergate story: other sources, other investigators, high-impact Senate hearings, a shocking trove of secret White House tape recordings and the decisive intervention of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. † To my understanding, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have been very aware of the boom their investigation would consequently incite. There followed a great chain-reaction by which the juridical power, the intelligence services and other institutions have equally contributed to the making of the complete case against the President and his administration, through extensive legal procedures. For me, thi s is in a sense a revolution.It is a revolution because the corruption and the anti-constitutional deeds are denounced to the public opinion and, even though this mounts up to the head of the state, the guilty part finishes exposed, with reprimands in accordance. Even though this book has been written in a short and snappy manner, without personal elaboration or explanations, it surely reconstructs the pulse of the time and the dramatic beat of the ascending inquiry. Personally, I feel I had been dragged also in the â€Å"present tense† of the best politics& detective story of the passed century.Even though the authors do not make any deep analysis either about the power structures they touch, or about the consequences of their investigation, it remains a grand dissertation-scenario of the changing nature of political actions and the particular framework of the state powers during the time of Nixon and beyond. References: Bernstein, Carl; Woodward, Bob. â€Å"All the Preside nt`s Men†. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006. Von Drehle, David. â€Å"FBI's No. 2 Was ‘Deep Throat'†. June 1, 2005; Page A01. Washington Post. 8 Sept. 2007 < http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100655. html >