'외국어'에 해당되는 글 25건
When we watch the news, we can see that a lot of crimes are committed. Sometimes the sentences are different for the same kind of crime. So this is very controvercial among people, Some people claim there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime and others clam the circumstances should be into account.
If the punishments are fixed, there are several merits. For example, in China a person who is related to drug dealing(trade), will be sentenced to the death penalty. Also, corrupt politicians and civil servants who are given bribes can't avoid the death penalty. And actually these punishments have been very effective in preventing those kinds of crime. And above all it can prevent authorities from misusing or abusing their powers to remove the people who are against them.
But judges are not exactly know-all and perfect people and modern society has evolved into a democracy. Modern society and democratic countries are so complicated, we could be involved in a crime or an accident that is no fault of our own. In this case the truth has to be revealed through the court and trial. Of course this system is also misused by the people. For example, in France if a man who kills another man claims this happened for a woman that he loves, the sentence can be reduced. And, in Korea if a persom commits a crime in a drunken condition, the sentence can also be reduced. But becuase of this reason, I think we shouldn't give up taking into account the circumstances. Because this is the only way of preventing us becoming a criminal. The law is made by men and this has evolved from a lot of cases and judges are also human so they could make mistakes.
The purpose of law is to prevent crime and keep the order, not to punish. We are living in a democratic society and the rule of democracy is based on protecting human rights. So to prevent the country from abusing their power and protect the human rights I think that we have to be eclectic both side of views.
If the punishments are fixed, there are several merits. For example, in China a person who is related to drug dealing(trade), will be sentenced to the death penalty. Also, corrupt politicians and civil servants who are given bribes can't avoid the death penalty. And actually these punishments have been very effective in preventing those kinds of crime. And above all it can prevent authorities from misusing or abusing their powers to remove the people who are against them.
But judges are not exactly know-all and perfect people and modern society has evolved into a democracy. Modern society and democratic countries are so complicated, we could be involved in a crime or an accident that is no fault of our own. In this case the truth has to be revealed through the court and trial. Of course this system is also misused by the people. For example, in France if a man who kills another man claims this happened for a woman that he loves, the sentence can be reduced. And, in Korea if a persom commits a crime in a drunken condition, the sentence can also be reduced. But becuase of this reason, I think we shouldn't give up taking into account the circumstances. Because this is the only way of preventing us becoming a criminal. The law is made by men and this has evolved from a lot of cases and judges are also human so they could make mistakes.
The purpose of law is to prevent crime and keep the order, not to punish. We are living in a democratic society and the rule of democracy is based on protecting human rights. So to prevent the country from abusing their power and protect the human rights I think that we have to be eclectic both side of views.
'외국어 > Essay' 카테고리의 다른 글
| After reading 'David Copperfield' (0) | 2010.05.26 |
|---|---|
| Comparison (0) | 2010.05.25 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.24 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.21 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.03.01 |
1. I'm a bit rusty ( = My ability is lowered)
A : You used to play the piano for a long time. Can you play now?
B : No, While I was living in London, I didn't play at all.
So I'm a bit rusty. If I play now, it will be rubbish!
2. Tools,
To fix the radio, I need pliers, wire cutters and a screw driver.
3. Usage of 'Proper'
A : You look so pale, didn't you eat proper food in England?
4. This is more like it (=This is exactly what I wanted)
B : Oh, I couldn't eat anything. Most of the food was greasy and stodgy.
A : Ok. Then try this.
B : Yeah, this is more like it.
5. social class
The only difference between medieval times and modern society is the existance of slaves. We also have upper class, middle class and working class.
6. could mean the difference between A and B
The amount of young people that vote in this election could mean the difference between Grand National Party getting hegemony or not.
7. Stay put ( = Don't move)
Stay put! There is a dog shit in front of you.
8. attach A to B
I [attached all of our member's photos to black paper] (=I mounted the photos) for next week's photo exhibition. They will be exibited in the cafeteria. Come and see.
9. hang around ( = hang about, chill out, idle away)
A : What did you do last weekend?
B : I just hung around.
A : What did you do exactly?
B : I listened music, surfed the internet and slept during the day.
10. the folling weekend ( = next weekend)
I'll go to Ireland the following weekend.
A : You used to play the piano for a long time. Can you play now?
B : No, While I was living in London, I didn't play at all.
So I'm a bit rusty. If I play now, it will be rubbish!
2. Tools,
To fix the radio, I need pliers, wire cutters and a screw driver.
3. Usage of 'Proper'
A : You look so pale, didn't you eat proper food in England?
4. This is more like it (=This is exactly what I wanted)
B : Oh, I couldn't eat anything. Most of the food was greasy and stodgy.
A : Ok. Then try this.
B : Yeah, this is more like it.
5. social class
The only difference between medieval times and modern society is the existance of slaves. We also have upper class, middle class and working class.
6. could mean the difference between A and B
The amount of young people that vote in this election could mean the difference between Grand National Party getting hegemony or not.
7. Stay put ( = Don't move)
Stay put! There is a dog shit in front of you.
8. attach A to B
I [attached all of our member's photos to black paper] (=I mounted the photos) for next week's photo exhibition. They will be exibited in the cafeteria. Come and see.
9. hang around ( = hang about, chill out, idle away)
A : What did you do last weekend?
B : I just hung around.
A : What did you do exactly?
B : I listened music, surfed the internet and slept during the day.
10. the folling weekend ( = next weekend)
I'll go to Ireland the following weekend.
Women should be allocated a certain percentage?
In modern society, we can see some women leaders in countries and companies. And the rate of women leader is growing more and more and they are doing quite well leading their groups or countries. For example, the prime minister of German have been chosen as the number one woman leader who has influenced on the world by Forbes magazine for four years and the CEO of HP, Fiorina was chosen by the former CEO for overcoming the financial crisis. And they were quite successful leaders and CEOs so some people claim that companies should allocate a certain percentage of high-level position for women.
But I think this opinion is controversial and we have to consider carefully before accepting that. For this reason, first, all of women weren't that successful. For example, Fiorina looked like being adventurous and really she was. She merged HP with COMPAQ but this didn't show remarkable result because the computer business was changing from hardware to software and HP never overtook DELL's profit.
Second, if companies are required to allocate a certain percentage for women, they could be promoted higher than men who are more competent and this can decrease the men's motivation for a project or work and this causes the reduction of productivity.
And the last, reverse discrimination is for the people who don't have any chance although they have tried, are educated and are very competent. This is not the problem of reverse discrimination. Women can have oppotunities to be promoted and to have high-level position if they have the ability to get that because that is not using the muscle power.
Women have their own merits and men also do. Generally, women are more stable and delicate than men. If these traits are effective to survive this high competitive society, maybe there are more women in high-level positions. My point is that let the people who have ability get the promotion. I think that is the only way to be more effective and to survive in this competitive society.
In modern society, we can see some women leaders in countries and companies. And the rate of women leader is growing more and more and they are doing quite well leading their groups or countries. For example, the prime minister of German have been chosen as the number one woman leader who has influenced on the world by Forbes magazine for four years and the CEO of HP, Fiorina was chosen by the former CEO for overcoming the financial crisis. And they were quite successful leaders and CEOs so some people claim that companies should allocate a certain percentage of high-level position for women.
But I think this opinion is controversial and we have to consider carefully before accepting that. For this reason, first, all of women weren't that successful. For example, Fiorina looked like being adventurous and really she was. She merged HP with COMPAQ but this didn't show remarkable result because the computer business was changing from hardware to software and HP never overtook DELL's profit.
Second, if companies are required to allocate a certain percentage for women, they could be promoted higher than men who are more competent and this can decrease the men's motivation for a project or work and this causes the reduction of productivity.
And the last, reverse discrimination is for the people who don't have any chance although they have tried, are educated and are very competent. This is not the problem of reverse discrimination. Women can have oppotunities to be promoted and to have high-level position if they have the ability to get that because that is not using the muscle power.
Women have their own merits and men also do. Generally, women are more stable and delicate than men. If these traits are effective to survive this high competitive society, maybe there are more women in high-level positions. My point is that let the people who have ability get the promotion. I think that is the only way to be more effective and to survive in this competitive society.
'외국어 > Essay' 카테고리의 다른 글
| After reading 'David Copperfield' (0) | 2010.05.26 |
|---|---|
| Comparison (0) | 2010.05.25 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.24 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.22 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.03.01 |
1. If I spent half as much time watching English daramas or listening to training, I might understand most of our conversations
2. A : Why did he fail to pass the test?
B : Really? Mind you. He's always playing computer games and watching TV
A : Oh, He had it coming.
3. Everytime when the president of South Korea chanes, the North Korean military provokes South Korea.
4. Some mothers put their baby to sleep with their face towards to the bed, it sometimes smothers them.
5. He was pickpocked when he was travelling. It's common sense not to put your wallet in your back pocket. What was going through his heads?
6. Lee Myung Bak is really stupid. He's always making slips of the tongue. On top of that, he's always putting his foot in it.
7. A : What's wrong with you? I heard you were shouting. There's been a spate of attacks
My flat isn't so good for soundproofing, on top of that a man who lives upstairs sometimes makes noise late in the evening and last midnight when he was playing the guitar, it was the final straw. I went up to his house and we fight each ohter.
8. Did you see the news? The kidnapper abducted the child and asked to his family some for a ransom, but fortunately police caught the kidnapper.
2. A : Why did he fail to pass the test?
B : Really? Mind you. He's always playing computer games and watching TV
A : Oh, He had it coming.
3. Everytime when the president of South Korea chanes, the North Korean military provokes South Korea.
4. Some mothers put their baby to sleep with their face towards to the bed, it sometimes smothers them.
5. He was pickpocked when he was travelling. It's common sense not to put your wallet in your back pocket. What was going through his heads?
6. Lee Myung Bak is really stupid. He's always making slips of the tongue. On top of that, he's always putting his foot in it.
7. A : What's wrong with you? I heard you were shouting. There's been a spate of attacks
My flat isn't so good for soundproofing, on top of that a man who lives upstairs sometimes makes noise late in the evening and last midnight when he was playing the guitar, it was the final straw. I went up to his house and we fight each ohter.
8. Did you see the news? The kidnapper abducted the child and asked to his family some for a ransom, but fortunately police caught the kidnapper.
I read a book about how advanced countries are exploiting third world. The title of the book is Bad Samaritans which was written by a professor of Cambridge university. This book criticises Neo-Liberalism that has been advertising to developing countries by andvanced countries as if it is the best resolution to be a rich country.
Neo liberalism is believed that the market which is ruled by invisible hands is helpful in developing economy. Advanced countries have been insisting on this theory but during the first stage of the development of their economies, they used Protectionism thoroughly until they had a competitiveness with other advanced countries and after having the competitive powers of almost every industry they prevented developing countries from using protectionism.
They organised the IMF, WTO and IBRD to open the market to third countries and the evil trio are such hypocrites, as if they would be so 'helpful' in developing their economy.
In the details of the book, investment of foreign countires, privatization and protect of the right to a patent look persuasive. Direct investment understandably helps the economy over the short term but it has turned out unfavouable now that the world economy is facing recession.
And the privatization, especially the water and electricity supplies aren't the solution for developing economies because Private company always pursue profit so they increase fees and the result is a low GDP
Prolonging the period of a patent right or making it strong are also make advanced countries to protect their right so it has resulted in depriving developing countires of opportunity of using it.
But keeping Neo-liberalism going isn't always profitable. Basically, they have to have a market to sell things. If they exploit third world constantly, their market could be collapsed and it could lead to panic. They have already experienced two World Wars and it was the result of their greed. They are forgetting a lesson.
There is a Aesop's Fables for them. A donkey has a heavy burden so he asked to share his burden with a horse but the horse refused. So the death of the donkey was broght about by the horse's self-centered mind and now the horse has to carry all of the donkey's. They should remember a lesson from this story. I think that is the only way to cooperate with third world.
Neo liberalism is believed that the market which is ruled by invisible hands is helpful in developing economy. Advanced countries have been insisting on this theory but during the first stage of the development of their economies, they used Protectionism thoroughly until they had a competitiveness with other advanced countries and after having the competitive powers of almost every industry they prevented developing countries from using protectionism.
They organised the IMF, WTO and IBRD to open the market to third countries and the evil trio are such hypocrites, as if they would be so 'helpful' in developing their economy.
In the details of the book, investment of foreign countires, privatization and protect of the right to a patent look persuasive. Direct investment understandably helps the economy over the short term but it has turned out unfavouable now that the world economy is facing recession.
And the privatization, especially the water and electricity supplies aren't the solution for developing economies because Private company always pursue profit so they increase fees and the result is a low GDP
Prolonging the period of a patent right or making it strong are also make advanced countries to protect their right so it has resulted in depriving developing countires of opportunity of using it.
But keeping Neo-liberalism going isn't always profitable. Basically, they have to have a market to sell things. If they exploit third world constantly, their market could be collapsed and it could lead to panic. They have already experienced two World Wars and it was the result of their greed. They are forgetting a lesson.
There is a Aesop's Fables for them. A donkey has a heavy burden so he asked to share his burden with a horse but the horse refused. So the death of the donkey was broght about by the horse's self-centered mind and now the horse has to carry all of the donkey's. They should remember a lesson from this story. I think that is the only way to cooperate with third world.
=======================================================================================================
James' comment : Divide and conquer, my friend, devide and conquer. It is not the aim of any ruling elite to resolve conflicts. It is to generate them. Then, through the establishment of institutions that are costly to the tax payer to maintain, deal with them as slowly as possible. Here's a story for you.
A bull and his son are looking at a field of beautiful cows. The son says to the father excitedly, "Dad, dad. Let's run down there and fuck a cow." The father turns to the son and says 'No son. Let's walk down and fuck them all!"
There is no money in solving issues, but there is a lot of money that goes to organisations that slowly pretend to.
And, Let's be honest, it is always all about the money, isn't it? Then the power......
Sorry for taking so long to make this. I really enjoyed reading something well-informed. Hopefully I'll get a chance to read that book. Not long ago, I finished 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman'. Some useful facts in there I think you'd be interested in.
Take care, Seok Won.
James' comment : Divide and conquer, my friend, devide and conquer. It is not the aim of any ruling elite to resolve conflicts. It is to generate them. Then, through the establishment of institutions that are costly to the tax payer to maintain, deal with them as slowly as possible. Here's a story for you.
A bull and his son are looking at a field of beautiful cows. The son says to the father excitedly, "Dad, dad. Let's run down there and fuck a cow." The father turns to the son and says 'No son. Let's walk down and fuck them all!"
There is no money in solving issues, but there is a lot of money that goes to organisations that slowly pretend to.
And, Let's be honest, it is always all about the money, isn't it? Then the power......
Sorry for taking so long to make this. I really enjoyed reading something well-informed. Hopefully I'll get a chance to read that book. Not long ago, I finished 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman'. Some useful facts in there I think you'd be interested in.
Take care, Seok Won.
'외국어 > Essay' 카테고리의 다른 글
| After reading 'David Copperfield' (0) | 2010.05.26 |
|---|---|
| Comparison (0) | 2010.05.25 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.24 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.22 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.21 |
