Communicate with my old brother Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Communicate with my old brother - Essay Example In our culture, children are expected to love and respect their parents at all times. Children do not answer back whenever being punished, and they obey their parents’ will no matter what. In my case, my big brother and I both have learned to talk to one another when we have problems in the family. Specifically, big brother demonstrated to me, his little sister, what respect means by listening to me and giving me the freedom to speak up and say what I feel. As a family, we make time to listen to each other by gathering every night to discuss what happened to us during the day. My big big brother listens to my stories and gives me advice. By allowing me to talk freely, my big brother shows me how important it is to listen to others. After the family meeting, I spend time with my big brother whenever I have the time. He shows me what respect means by listening to me and looking into my eyes. My communication with my big brother is also filled with kindness. I have a feeling that he favors me over my other siblings. Thus, he is often kind and gentle to me than to my brothers and sisters. I feel this is unfair and should be changed so that my siblings will enjoy the same privileges I enjoy. But, I am happy to my big brother for showing me kindness each day. He has been very supportive of me since I was a child. We spend time doing a lot of things and telling stories. We enjoy each other’s company and often while away time with stories to tell. He is like a best friend to me whom I can count on in times of disappointments. However, unlike a friend who expects something in return, he does not expect anything back from me. This is so because I know what he wants for me and I usually do what I think would please him. I do not ever want to disappoint him because he is my role model. If I fail to be good, I know that he will be sad. So, to avoid disappointing him, I stud y hard and limit the time I spend with my friends. In return, he

Qualities of a good leader Essay Example for Free

Qualities of a good leader Essay Whenever and wherever human beings are gathered together in large numbers, they need leadership. Even children need their school prefects and schools captains ! Armies need Generals. Civilians need governments, captains of industry and intellectual leaders of thought as well. Men whether of the East or the West, require to be led and each group throws up its own leaders in each succeeding generation. Whether in the school-room, or on the battlefield or in governmental deliberations, people who are natural leaders and who are chosen to lead, always have the same qualities of character and of outlook. In the first place, it is the personal qualities that count for most, in other words, the personality. A leader, in any location, must be someone who can be looked up to and respected. His personal judgment must be trusted and he must be able to evoke love and warmth from those he leads. So the, the first quality of a leader is that he must have the ability to win over mens hearts. Secondly, he must have intellectual control over his followers and a mind that is capable of assimilating what is true and what is right and then of exerting this over others. It is useless, no matter what personal qualities or what intellectual prowess a man may have, if he lacks the initiative and the will to lead and to rally men around him. He must also, in his search for truth, have great powers of concentration. Again, a leader must possess this mysterious thing we call character or strength of will, clarity of mind, tenacity and determination. In other words character is knowing what you want to do and being ruthlessly determined to do it. Men and women will not follow a gloomy person! Therefore a kind sense of humor and a sense of optimism are two other essential qualities of a good leader. He must also, not only be a good judge of thins and of events, but of people too, so that he can select good subordinates. He must also show and practice such virtues as self-control, temperance and moderation, so that not only his body, but also his mind are always at their best, healthy  and sharpened like finely tempered steel. There is, too the good leader and the bad leader, of which Hitler, is a striking example of bad leader because it is possible to have all the qualities of leadership without the most important one of all. This is a moral sense of right and wrong and the right kind of love which is emphasized in many of the worlds great religions. This is true not only of international figures like Adolf Hitler, but also in smaller figures. The gangs of youths, typical of both East and West, whose members are led to violence and lawlessness are invariably led and inspired by leaders without a moral sense of right and wrong. The final test of a good leader is, of course, the question: Do men follow him? The answer will be Yes if, combined with strength of character, the ability to evoke love, a clear brain and a fair minded outlook, he also has a knowledge and respect for truth, honesty and fair play. Such a man surely possesses the spark of leadership and men will look up to him and follow him.

Affirmative Action :: essays research papers

Affirmative Action   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the Human Rights Act, Chapter 214 of the revised statutes, 1989, it states that â€Å"in recognition that human rights must be protected by the rule of law, this Legislature affirms the principal that every person is free and equal in dignity and rights without regard to race, religion, religious creed, colour, sex, physical or mental disability or ethnic or national origin.† Unfortunately though, sometimes this law is not always abided by. Women, aboriginal people who are physically or mentally challenged, and visible minorities have often been denied employment equity, or equal employment opportunities due to discriminatory practices. These groups should enjoy equal representative share of employment opportunities in all occupations and at all levels.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  An example of discrimination that denies equal opportunity is the practice of allowing members of these four groups to advance within a company only to a certain level. The company may appear to be equitable by including members of these groups in management positions. However, the top executive positions are still out of reach for members of these groups not because these people are not qualified for the jobs, but because they are discriminated against. Legislation, including the federal Employment Equity Act, exists to ensure employment equity. Such legislation requires employers to report what proportion of their employees belong to these four groups. Employers must then prove that all groups are equally represented at all levels within their organizations.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Affirmative action promotes equality in the workplace in such areas as hiring, training-apprenticeships, promotion, compensation, transfer, layoff, termination and goals. It also promotes equal employment opportunities for those groups or individuals who are disadvantaged due to race, religion, creed, colour, disability, national or ethnic origin, sex, age or marital status. Affirmative action programs are designed to improve the lot of people who have suffered as a result of past discrimination.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  By the year 2000, white males will likely account for only 15% of new workers - 85% of new workers will consist of women, aboriginal people, physically or mentally challenged people, and members of visible minorities. The number of women and minorities has increased in many occupations because of affirmative action programs. Some companies actually make a point of advertising that they are Equal Opportunity Employers.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Application forms and advertisements for employment should not make any inquiry that directly or indirectly expresses or invites any limitation, specification, preference or information as to age, race, colour, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, ethnic, national

A Dream of a Social Entrepreneur

â€Å"I have a dream that in the near future, Ecolife Cafe will become the bridge of knowledge for people in Phu Long and promote Community Ecotourism for the Protection of Mangrove so that tourists and foreigners will know and love the community initiatives to protect the green environment here, and then have a chance to experience life with local people in our island. Lying on the coastal island of Cat Hai, Hai Phong City, Phu Long commune’s population is consisted of 70% people earning their lives by small-scale aquaculture and rudimentary fishing – their lives depend much on the nature and they often suffer from crop failure during the flooding season. Phu Long does not have conditions for produce growth, thus the locals’ life totally depends on supply of produce from the outside. Phu Long is connected with Hai Phong City via Dinh Vu ferry. It takes up to 3-4 hours to transport passengers and goods over that less-than-30km distance. The difficulties in transportation make the living cost in Phu Long high. In the tough economic time, with unstable prices of seafood like the recent years, the lives of people have become tougher and riskier. Getting over the obstacles, the people here are seeking for the new livelihoods, specifically with the Community Ecotourism having flourished. People doing this work just have the simple wish of making more income for the family, feeding and educating their children, and at the same time caring and preserving the nature. This can be done by tours experiencing and plating mangroves to better off the biodiversity. Mangroves account for one-third of the Phu Long area. They are not only the â€Å"green walls† protecting people’s life and property from natural disasters, but the â€Å"green lung† providing fresh air for the city. Contributing to the effort of protecting humane values and the environment, Centre for Marinelife Conservation and Community Development (MCD) in coordination with Vietnet Information Technology and Communication Center (Vietnet) and the community’s representatives led by a social entrepreneur in Phu Long mobilize investment from personal capital and social capital to establish and open the Tourist Information Center and Environment Education Ecolife Cafe in Phu Long, Cat Ba in the summer 2012. Ecolife Cafe Phu Long is primitive, simple, environment-friendly and close to the people in the commune, which is located on the area of more than 200m2 on the family’s ground of the social entrepreneur Vu Hong Hung. He is the Head of the Cooperation and Operation Board of Phu Long’s Community Ecotourism. Initially, Ecolife Cafe has had a bookcase for community with more than 50 books on culture, environment, law, engineering, which partly met the reading demand of the people. Hung has also finished installing a wireless Internet connection here. Hung shares that his wish now is to facilitate Phu Long Ecolife Cafe a number of used computers which can connect to the Network that he has set up. Every day, people in the commune can drop by and connect to the internet to read the news and search information about the new farming techniques which are economically efficient and environment-friendly to preserve the green space here. In addition, households participating in his Community Ecotourism Board will have internet access to introduce the land to the domestic and foreign tourists. Talking about the cost, Hung expressed his willingness to pay for utilities and take time to ask for experts coming to the commune to teach IT for local people, especially the young. Since then, Phu Long can reach millions of people loving the sea, people in the coastal areas and the mangrove and they will come to this land. Summer 2013 is coming, this story intends to reach people loving sea nature and understand the difficulties of local people, with the hope to seek for the accompany with Social Entrepreneur Vu Hong Hung to realize the dream of Education Center, Phu Long Ecolife Cafe. Let wish that there will be more and more Ecolife Cafe like this presenting in every coastal areas throughout the country , with the spirit of social entrepreneur to enrich the knowledge, livelihoods and protect the environment for the future generations. Individual/organization willing to share with Phu Long Ecolife Cafe, please contact: – Entrepreneur VU HONG HUNG – Manager of Phu Long Ecolife Cafe Tel: (084)976 433 656 Address: Phu Long commune, Cat Hai district, Hai Phong city – Ms. Pham Tu Uyen – Vietnet Information Technology and Communication Center (Vietnet-ICT) Tel: (084)914 717 695 Email: [email  protected] org Address: Room 3104, Building 34T, Hoang Dao Thuy street, Cau Giay district, Hanoi

12 angry men paper Essay

The movie â€Å"12 Angry Men† is about a murder trial set in the mid 1900’s when the American legal system had very different rules from what it has now. The trial is about a 16 year old boy who supposedly murdered his father late one night in New York City. He was from a slum, with a history of problems with the law, including knife fights. The jury is made up of twelve white men who are supposed to deliberate about the boy’s fate when he is Latino. In the beginning of the movie it’s very clear that eleven of the twelve jurors have already decided that he was guilty, the only one who said not guilty is juror number eight. Juror number eight believes that you can’t send someone to die without even talking about the case first. As the movie goes on they discuss the different parts of the case and one by one the jurors begin to change their vote to not guilty. The first thing they discuss is the knife that was used to kill the father, then they discuss the time it took the only man on the floor below to get to the door after he heard the body hit the floor. After that they went on to deliberate more about previous things talked about, until finally they talked about the women who actually viewed the killing through a passing L train. One of the jurors remembers that she had indents on the sides of her nose indicating that she wore glasses, so they come to the conclusion that she couldn’t of seen anything since she wasn’t wearing her glasses while lying in bed. Once they finally call for a last vote they come to the verdict of acquitting the boy. All twelve jurors finally agree on the decision of not guilty. Throughout the entire movie there are many different dynamics at work among the 12 jurors. One of the main dynamics is that the boy is Hispanic during a time when racism was a natural part of society. You can clearly see that racism, and stereotyping played a huge part when even before they started deliberating eleven out of the twelve jurors voted guilty. There wasn’t a doubt in their minds that he didn’t do it, they based that solely off of the fact that the defendant was Hispanic. Having a all white jury for a trial with a Hispanic person as the defendant in the 1950’s, without a doubt racism will play a major role in deciding weather or not he is guilty. Another dynamic at play during this movie is that they are all in a group together giving them group mentality where they will be hesitant to speak out, or change their vote because they are self conscious of what other people will think about them. Throughout the movie there where many different things that influenced individual jurors and the jurors as a whole. In the movie 12 Angry Men there was an abundance of things that influenced individual jurors. One of the main things that influenced many of the jurors is racism because the defendant was Hispanic. One juror said â€Å"He’s an ignorant kid from a slum who doesn’t speak good English†. That’s flat out racism, there’s no way around the fact that racism played a huge role in their decision making process. In the 1950’s racism was part of everyday life, it was socially accepted during that time. Another thing that influenced one of them was that he had baseball tickets to a game later that night so he was going to side with what ever got him out of their sooner than later. He was voting guilty all the way till it became a split between the jurors on weather he was guilty or not. That shows that it affected his decision making process, because he was going to side with what ever side got him out faster. Another thing that influenced individual jurors is their fear to speak their minds, or side with the side they really think is the right one. In the beginning you could tell that some of the people were hesitant because they were afraid of what other people would think of them, that’s why they had to do a silent ballot in order to keep deliberating. There were other factors that affected the group as a whole in their decision making process. Different things affect the group than the individual jurors. The main thing that affected their decision making process is the extreme heat, the heat would make them want to get out of there as fast as possible, making them side with whatever side will get them out faster. I know I can’t work right when I’m extremely hot, I get frustrated really fast and have no patients, I know I would want to get out as fast as possible. You can tell that it affects people because they snap at each other at the drop of a hat, and they were sweating the whole time till they turned on the light. Another thing that affected the group as whole was groupthink, which is the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility. They will make decisions as a group so no one person can be blamed for whatever happens, people don’t like too much responsibility. Lastly another thing that helped sway their decision making process as a group is the fact that one person was trying to pressure other people into speaking, and pressuring them into siding with him. The movie 12 Angry Men was about a trial during the 1950’s in which a Hispanic boy supposedly killed his father, and twelve white men deliberate to determine his fate. They start out 11 to 1, and one by one they change sides till they eventually acquit him of all the charges. Things like racism, baseball tickets, and fear of what other people think are a few things that affected their individual decision-making. Things like groupthink, the heat, and the fact that you would run out of patients at a certain point, and you would start to snap at each other at the drop of the hat. In my opinion I think this movie was really good and a good look into the American legal system, because it shows the changes that have been made from them to now. 12 Angry Men Paper Essay â€Å"If there’s a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty†¦however you decide, your verdict must be unanimous.† The movie, The Twelve Angry Men, was a fascinating movie. Surprisingly, it was very interesting and engaging even though it was in black and white and made in 1950. This movie was a perfect demonstration of how individuals who meet in a goal orientated group fulfill roles, create norms, have status, acquire power, and become leaders, and how a group decides on a unanimous outcome. Each of the twelve jury members fulfilled a role at some point within the movie. They fulfilled task roles, maintenance roles, and self-centered roles. They had to learn to work together despite the roles they played to come to a unanimous decision. The Forman (Juror #1) fulfilled one group maintenance role (tension reliever) and two group task roles (procedural technician and initiator). As a tension reliever, the Forman told Cobb to calm down when Cobb started on his rant. He often tried to relieve tension in situations with conflict. As a procedural technician, Forman emphasized teamwork by asking the group to vote a couple of times in a couple different ways, vocal ballots and silent ballots. This helped the group stay on track. He also ran errands for the group, like retrieving the knife and the apartment blueprint. As an initiator, the Forman initiated the discussions after the jurors would break in the beginning of the movie. Whimpy (juror #2) fulfilled a group maintenance role as a supporter. Once Whimpy changed his vote to not guilty, he supported Fonda’s ideas. When Fonda was conversing with Cobb about the glasses, Whimpy supported Fonda’s point of view and told Cobb, â€Å"You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that!† Lee J. Cobb (juror #3) played three individual roles (blocker, dominator, and confessor) and one group task role (opinion giver). Cobb played the role of the blocker most often. From the beginning to the end of the movie, he disagreed and ignored any of the jurors’ statements that are different from his opinion. At one point, Cobb shut down Whimpy who wanted to speak up. As a dominator, Cobb belligerently yelled at anyone who voted non guilty. He often started on a rant of his opinions and refused to let any of the other jurors s peak. Cobb played the role as a confessor towards the beginning of the movie when he shared the picture of his son. As an opinion Giver, Cobb said over and over that he was positive the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. He  repeatedly stated through out the movie, â€Å"he (the boy) has to pay for what he did.† E. G. Marshall (juror #4) played a group task role. As an opinion giver, Marshall was loyal to his vote. His opinion towards the end of the movie was still not guilty because of the eyewitness testimony from the women across the street. He was firm in this belief until the eyeglasses fact was brought up. Jack Klugman (juror #5) fulfilled a group task role. As an elaborator, he often compared and contrasted the case to his own life on the street. Specifically, he brought valuable information to the case when talking about the proper way to use a switch knife and how this information compared to the father’s stab wound. The painter (juror #6) was an information seeker, a group task role. It seemed as if the painter was unsure of where he stood for the majority of the movie. At one point he said to Fonda, â€Å"Supposin’ you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father.† He was seeking information that would make him sure of his decision. Jack Warden (juror #7) played a group-building and maintenance role (follower) and an individual role (Joker). He wanted the jurors to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. He had tickets to see a baseball game, and did not want to miss it. He followed and switched his vote to whatever the popular vote was, so that he could leave as soon as possible to get to the baseball game. As a joker, he said nothing that contributed to making a decision. He mostly joked or complained that the process was taking too long. Henry Fonda (juror #8) fulfilled many group task roles in this film including informational seeker, informational giver, and initiator. As an informational seeker, Fonda asked for important facts that could help convince the jurors that it was possible the boy was not guilty. For example, when the elderly man pointed out that the witness had dents on the sides of her nose, Fonda asked for an explanation and clarification on what the elderly man meant by pointing this out. As an informational giver, Fonda demonstrated this role when he reenacted how long it would take the crippled old man to get across his bedroom, down the hall to unlock the door, and to see the boy run down the stairs. As the initiator, Fonda proposed new ideas and suggestions that there was a possibility that the boy was not guilty. He was the first person to suggest that the boy was not guilty. He initiated most of the conversations that lead to their verdict of not guilty. The elderly man (juror #9) fulfilled a group task role and a group-building and  maintenance role. As an information giver, the elderly man was the one to notice that the witness had notches on the side of her nose where typically eyeglasses usually sit. He was the one to point this out to the group. As an encourager, the elderly man was the first to understand and accept the not guilty vote that Fonda made. He agreed with Fonda’s ideas and suggestions that there is reasonable doubt that the boy may not be guilty. Archie (juror #10) played an individual role of special-interest pleader. At the end of the film, Archie had a melt down. He yelled and offended many of the jurors with his unnecessary crude insults and racist remarks. He was trying to sway the group based on his own personal biased opinions instead of the facts of the case. The watchmaker (juror #11) fulfilled one group task role as a recorder. At one point in the movie, the watch maker stood up and told the group that he had been listening and taking notes of what the other group members have been saying. Slick (juror #12) played a group building and maintenance role as a follower. He did not speak up much about the case. When he did speak, it was about his ad agency. He thought very highly of himself and his job. He changed his vote back and forth several times. Additionally to roles, there were many social norms that developed through out this movie. All of them were violated by at least one person at some point. Sometimes, the jurors who violated the norms were punished and other times they were not. The first social norm that was created was to vote guilty. Fonda was the first to violate this norm by voting not guilty. Eventually the rest of the group slowly changes their vote, and the group created a new norm of voting not guilty instead of guilty. Another social norm that was created by the legal system was that the jurors’ decision had to be unanimous. Fonda violated this norm by voting against the group. As punishment for violating the norm, the group verbally attacked him before they gave him a chance to explain his reasoning. Because of this, a norm developed that it was okay for the jurors to harass and belittle Fonda for his not guilty vote. The elderly man violated this norm. He was subjected to harassment and belittlement as well as his punishment. After time went on, more people started to agree with Fondaâ₠¬â„¢s ideas, and the group did not follow this norm any more. An additional social norm was to make a decision based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who obeyed the norm, like Fonda and Marshall, were looked to as leaders. The juror that made  arguments based on stereotypes, Archie, was eventually ignored. From this, a norm that no racial prejudices would be tolerated was created. Archie violated this norm when he said that he knew people of these kinds very well. As punishment, one by one group members left the table and turned their backs on him. In every group, there are members of high status and of low status. In this movie, there was almost an equal balance of high status jurors and low status jurors. The status of the jurors developed when they assumed a role within the group. The high status members included, the Foreman, Cobb, Marshall, Fonda, the Elderly Man, and Archie. The Foreman assumed a high status role because he organized where everyone would sit, passed out the ballots, and was able to rein the jurors back in to vote when needed. Cobb would be considered high status because he dominated a lot of the conversations. He communicated more than other group members, and other jurors listened to him in the beginning of the movie. Marshall is a stockbroker and was viewed as high status because of his education. Fonda was definitely a high status member. Over the course of the movie, he convinced the other eleven jurors to change the ir vote by pointing out new ideas and suggestions. The elderly man proved his high status when he pointed out the information about the witness wearing eyeglasses. That swayed the rest of the jurors. The low status members included, Whimpy, Klugman, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick. Whimpy tried to voice his opinion, but was rarely listened too. Klugman was viewed as low status because of his life on the streets. The painter, Warden, the watchmaker, and Slick were all considered low status, because they barely contributed to the group’s decision. Archie is considered low status because of his racial insults. None of the jurors listened to him because they were all offended by his speech. In addition to status, power is also a big part of the movie. Every powerful individual was considered to be high status. Some people used their power for the good, others for the bad, and one person completely gave up his power. As the jurors begin their deliberation, the foreman was selected to be the leader of the group. He had legitimate power. He told the jurors that the vote has to be unanimous, that they have to sit in juror number order, and he tried to keep the group on task. After the foreman stopped using his power, Fonda and Cobb became more powerful. Fonda had an expert power. He suggested ideas and facts that the other jurors listened to. He influenced the group through their knowledge, thus an expert power. Cobb, however, had a coercive power. Cobb thought he could he could â€Å"punish† the other jurors into thinking his way. He would â€Å"punish† the other jurors by manipulating and belittling them.Also, Klugman had expert power for a couple minutes in the movie. His street knowledge about the knife and how it was used gains him this power. Although he had an expert power, he was not viewed in the same regard as Fonda. Most of the low status member did not have any power at all. Whimpy, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick lacked the status to gain power. However, they did play an important role in power, because in a way, they gave the power to the people who had it. In a way, leadership and power go hand in hand. In this movie, the powerful individuals had at least a few leadership characteristics. The foreman had a chance at leadership, but he gave it up. Cobb had some negative leadership qualities that were eventually rejected. Fonda was the most important leader in this movie. He took over as a leader after foreman stepped down. He attended to maintenance needs, he proposed valid information, and was passionate toward swaying the group not to condemn the boy to death. As a leader, Fonda listened to the low status people when they had information to give. For example, Klugman had information about the knife that might have been overlooked if Fonda was not respectful of him. In the end, the group did arrive at a high quality decision. Although the case in the courtroom seems crystal clear that the boy was guilty, there were some misleading facts that were given. The jurors unanimously voted not guilty; however, they were not positive the boy was not guilty. There was not enough substantial evidence to prove if the boy did or did not stab his father. If the jury had voted guilty, the boy would have been condemned to death. This was a life or death decision, not just a guilty or not guilty. When the Fonda and some of the other jurors started to break down the evidence and the facts, they found the evidence to be misleading to the point were it might not be factual. Although the boy could have killed his father, there was reasonable doubt in the evidence to make the jurors believe the boy may be innocent. Even the possibility of condemning an innocent boy to death is horrifying. The group made the right high quality decision.

Power, Privilege, and Difference a Book by Allan G. Johnson

Power, Privilege, and Difference a Book by Allan G. Johnson Allan G. Johnson, the author of the book, Power, Privilege, and Difference, provides vital information about the concept of the systems of power and privilege as applied in societies. In this book, Allan explores how the society preserves privilege, how it interacts with power, and how it can create a difference by interacting with the systems. Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on â€Å"Power, Privilege, and Difference† a Book by Allan G. Johnson specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In chapter one, he identifies the common problem and posits that all people contribute towards them. I concur with him not only on this opinion, but also on others, as pointed out in chapters two and three. Allan’s argument that all people are responsible for any problem facing the society is true and to the point. It holds that any change, constructive or destructive must originate from the people. For instance, race-related probl ems, sex, and gender are the major problems encountered in every society. They have become part of our daily life such that we hardly realise our connections with them. Basing my argument on how people intermingle with these fields on a day-to-day manner, it stands out that any inconvenience affecting these among other areas must result from the people. Though Allan focuses his views on the American society, I extend this by treating America as an illustration of a society. This comes from his implication of privilege and power in chapter two. He considers these two as the pillars upon which the entire societal conflicts are built because people have acquired title and given the mandate to handle things they have not worked for. This is true because these favour some on the expense of others. Not all can be powerful neither can all be privileged. When one has one or both, the rest feel lower-ranked and begin yearning for equality. By so doing, troubles arise affecting the whole soc iety. A way out of this quagmire is people’s cooperation regardless of ranks to influence their society for the better. Neglecting the negative implications of the two words as seen by the society, they ought to bring a change enjoyable by all members of the social system. In chapter three, the issue of capitalism is brought forward. Every social organization has its own reliable resources, which ought to be distributed uniformly to all the members. Allan points out the problem that is born when this is not the case as capitalism. From my experience, this holds everywhere. Advertising Looking for essay on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This brings his issue of difference. The society views it as imbalance and rejects it since it seems to be advantageous to some while it is an expense to others. According to it, all social units should be equal. The powerful should ensure that powers are not o nly felt by some but all in the society. Everyone needs not to treat himself or herself as favoured rather than similar to any other member. From all the categories of problems faced by the society, man will always play a major part to cause them in as much as he/she lives. From my view, he acts as the force or power behind every activity that happens whether good or bad. He/she is also liable of changing the situation by participating in solving the problems since he/she is able to. People only need to change their mindsets pertaining to the existence of privileges and power. They need to join hands in discussing these issues openly neglecting the shame-blame notions portrayed by many. To pose a suggestion, they need to look at the present state of the society, identify the prevailing problems, think of their relevant solutions, and then cooperate to implement them. All these calls for people’s involvement and thus Allan’s opinion that people contribute towards a pr oblem is true though it needs to be broadened to include them as part of the solution.

Conjugation of Pensar

Conjugation of Pensar Pensar, a verb usually meaning to think, is a prototypical stem-changing verb. The -e- in the stem (pens-) changes to -ie- when stressed, and in all other situations the verb is regularly conjugated. Other verbs following the pattern of pensar include acertar, alentar, apretar, arrendar, atravesar, calentar, cerrar, confesar, despertar, encerrar, enterrar, gobernar, helar, manifestar, merendar, recomendar, reventar, sembrar and sentar. Irregular forms are shown below in boldface. Translations are given as a guide and in real life may vary with context. Infinitive of Pensar pensar (to think) Gerund of Pensar pensando (thinking) Participle of Pensar pensado (thought) Present Indicative of Pensar yo pienso, tà º piensas, usted/à ©l/ella piensa, nosotros/as pensamos, vosotros/as pensis, ustedes/ellos/ellas piensan (I think, you think, he thinks, etc.) Preterite of Pensar yo pensà ©, tà º pensaste, usted/à ©l/ella pensà ³, nosotros/as pensamos, vosotros/as pensasteis, ustedes/ellos/ellas pensaron (I thought, you thought, she thought, etc.) Imperfect Indicative of Pensar yo pensaba, tà º pensabas, usted/à ©l/ella pensaba, nosotros/as pensbamos, vosotros/as pensabais, ustedes/ellos/ellas pensaban (I used to think, you used to think, he used to think, etc.) Future Indicative of Pensar yo pensarà ©, tà º pensars, usted/à ©l/ella pensar, nosotros/as pensaremos, vosotros/as pensarà ©is, ustedes/ellos/ellas pensarn (I will think, you will think, he will think, etc.) Conditional of Pensar yo pensarà ­a, tà º pensarà ­as, usted/à ©l/ella pensarà ­a, nosotros/as pensarà ­amos, vosotros/as pensarà ­ais, ustedes/ellos/ellas pensarà ­an (I would think, you would think, she would think, etc.) Present Subjunctive of Pensar que yo piense, que tà º pienses, que usted/à ©l/ella piense, que nosotros/as pensemos, que vosotros/as pensà ©is, que ustedes/ellos/ellas piensen (that I think, that you think, that she think, etc.) Imperfect Subjunctive of Pensar que yo pensara (pensase), que tà º pensaras (pensases), que usted/à ©l/ella pensara (pensase), que nosotros/as pensramos (penssemos), que vosotros/as pensarais (pensaseis), que ustedes/ellos/ellas pensaran (pensasen) (that I thought, that you thought, that he thought, etc.) Imperative of Pensar piensa tà º, no pienses tà º, piense usted, pensemos nosotros/as, pensad vosotros/as, no pensà ©is vosotros/as, piensen ustedes (think, dont think, think, lets think, etc.) Compound Tenses of Pensar The perfect tenses are made by using the appropriate form of haber and the past participle, pensado. The progressive tenses use estar with the gerund, pensando. Sample Sentences Showing Conjugation of Pensar and Similarly Conjugated Verbs Quien no quiere pensar es un fantico. Quien no puede pensar es un idiota. Quien no osa pensar es un cobarde. (Whoever does not want to think is a fanatic. Whoever cannot think is an idiot. Whoever does not dare to think is a coward. Infinitive.) Aà ºn no he pensado en la cuestià ³n del retiro. (I still havent thought about the question of retirement. Present perfect.)  ¿Cà ³mo calienta un microondas los alimentos? (How does a microwave oven heat up food? Present indicative.) Los padres pensaron que perderà ­an el derecho de vivir en Estados Unidos. (The parents thought they would lose the right to live in the United States. Preterite.) Hasta ahora todos los expertos recomendaban que lo ideal era comer cinco veces al dà ­a. (Until now all the experts recommended that the ideal was to eat five times a day. Imperfect.) Nos manifestaremos hasta tener una solucià ³n. (We will demonstrate until we have a solution. Future.) Mi madre siempre sabe lo que estamos pensando. (My mother always knows what we are thinking. Present progressive.) No pude evitar preguntarme si pensarà ­amos lo mismo doce horas ms tarde. (I couldnt avoid asking myself if we would think the same thing 12 hours later. Conditional.) Los jueces no permitir que gobierne los socialistas. (The judges will not allow the socialists to govern. Present subjunctive.) No sà © lo que ocurrirà ­a si yo pensara como tà º. (I dont know what would happen if I thought like you. Imperfect subjunctive.)  ¡Despierta Amà ©rica! (Wake up, America! Imperative.)