'외국어/Essay'에 해당되는 글 10건
- 2010.07.31 Essay
- 2010.07.21 Essay
- 2010.06.22 Essay
- 2010.06.20 Essay
- 2010.05.26 After reading 'David Copperfield'
- 2010.05.25 Comparison
- 2010.05.24 Essay
- 2010.05.22 Essay
- 2010.05.21 Essay
- 2010.03.01 Essay
It is generally agreed that the amount of rubbish created by humans today is a worldwide problem. What do you think are the main causes of this situation? What measures can be used to tackle the problem?
The increase of rubbish is a very big problem in the world because it pollutes the earth and it sometimes destroys the ecologic balance. For example in some parts of the Pacific Ocean there is a huge rubbish area (Garbage Patch) as big as my country and this kills animals and destroys the food chain. Consequently it might cause a problem for human beings. So to solve this problem, we have to think about what the causes are and what the solutions could be.
The first reason is egoism of each country. Especially countries like the USA, that don't care about other countries' environment and sell a lot of stuff that is not environmentally friendly just to earn money. They even throw away their toxic rubbish in under-developed countries or neighbour countries like Mexico.
Secondly, commercial and people's greed (desire to have some products) can be a cause resulting in an increase in the amount of rubbish created. Most companies advertise their products through the media and people who aren't educated to control their desire want to buy every good though it is not necessary to them. They just want to show off by using expensive and good products.
Lastly, people's willing to follow government policy like recycling is too weak. For example a government may prepare all of infrastructure to recycle the rubbish, like recycling bin and recycling factories but if people don't recycle the rubbish, the government policy can be useless
Now, it's time to think about solving these problems. To stop or regulate the companies' or countries' egoism we have to create some organisation like WTO. If a country sells non-environmentally frendly products and throw away their rubbish to the sea or in another country, they have to be regulated and got some disadvantage not to do that and there has to be no exception to developed-countries.
And to make people follow government policy and to buy proper stuff, the government have to educate their people through the schools and the media. Because that is the reason of the existance of a government. They have to protect not only their sovereignty but also the environment and the whole globe.
[예시글]
Recent decades have witnessed a significant increase in the amount of rubbish produced by people around the world, causing a serious threat to all living things. It has been pointed out that changes in lifestyle and the industrial revolution are the main causes for this rise. However, there are many steps that can be taken to stop this problem.
After the industrial revolution there was a huge growth in the number of products available for people. Most of the producers try to attract consumers by using different types of packaging materials. Sometimes, the size and the amount of these materials are bigger than those for the products themselves. Also the production of new versions of different equipment, such as mobile phones, increases the waste.
Moreover, while most people, in the past, used their own bags when they went for shopping, nowadays, they depend on the disposable bags offered by shops, which are mostly made from plastic. In addition to that, the consumption of prepared food has experienced a crucial increase as a result to the rise in the number of working women. These foods are covered by different types of packaging material leading to increase in the amount of rubbish produced per capita.
Not only does the increases in the amount of rubbish threaten our lives by different pollutants, but it also causes depletion of valuable resources, For this reason there should be a new movement to decrease the amount of waste to its lowest level and to use less harmful materials like biodegradable ones. Governmental and social organisations like schools and media, should contribute to this process by explaining to people the important of conserving our environment and resources.
The increase of rubbish is a very big problem in the world because it pollutes the earth and it sometimes destroys the ecologic balance. For example in some parts of the Pacific Ocean there is a huge rubbish area (Garbage Patch) as big as my country and this kills animals and destroys the food chain. Consequently it might cause a problem for human beings. So to solve this problem, we have to think about what the causes are and what the solutions could be.
The first reason is egoism of each country. Especially countries like the USA, that don't care about other countries' environment and sell a lot of stuff that is not environmentally friendly just to earn money. They even throw away their toxic rubbish in under-developed countries or neighbour countries like Mexico.
Secondly, commercial and people's greed (desire to have some products) can be a cause resulting in an increase in the amount of rubbish created. Most companies advertise their products through the media and people who aren't educated to control their desire want to buy every good though it is not necessary to them. They just want to show off by using expensive and good products.
Lastly, people's willing to follow government policy like recycling is too weak. For example a government may prepare all of infrastructure to recycle the rubbish, like recycling bin and recycling factories but if people don't recycle the rubbish, the government policy can be useless
Now, it's time to think about solving these problems. To stop or regulate the companies' or countries' egoism we have to create some organisation like WTO. If a country sells non-environmentally frendly products and throw away their rubbish to the sea or in another country, they have to be regulated and got some disadvantage not to do that and there has to be no exception to developed-countries.
And to make people follow government policy and to buy proper stuff, the government have to educate their people through the schools and the media. Because that is the reason of the existance of a government. They have to protect not only their sovereignty but also the environment and the whole globe.
[예시글]
Recent decades have witnessed a significant increase in the amount of rubbish produced by people around the world, causing a serious threat to all living things. It has been pointed out that changes in lifestyle and the industrial revolution are the main causes for this rise. However, there are many steps that can be taken to stop this problem.
After the industrial revolution there was a huge growth in the number of products available for people. Most of the producers try to attract consumers by using different types of packaging materials. Sometimes, the size and the amount of these materials are bigger than those for the products themselves. Also the production of new versions of different equipment, such as mobile phones, increases the waste.
Moreover, while most people, in the past, used their own bags when they went for shopping, nowadays, they depend on the disposable bags offered by shops, which are mostly made from plastic. In addition to that, the consumption of prepared food has experienced a crucial increase as a result to the rise in the number of working women. These foods are covered by different types of packaging material leading to increase in the amount of rubbish produced per capita.
Not only does the increases in the amount of rubbish threaten our lives by different pollutants, but it also causes depletion of valuable resources, For this reason there should be a new movement to decrease the amount of waste to its lowest level and to use less harmful materials like biodegradable ones. Governmental and social organisations like schools and media, should contribute to this process by explaining to people the important of conserving our environment and resources.
'외국어 > Essay' 카테고리의 다른 글
| Essay (0) | 2010.07.21 |
|---|---|
| Essay (0) | 2010.06.22 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.06.20 |
| After reading 'David Copperfield' (0) | 2010.05.26 |
| Comparison (0) | 2010.05.25 |
A second language is regarded as essential to success in the modern world. It should be compulsory for all children to study a second language as soon as they start school.
To What extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Give reasons for your answers and include any relevent examples from you own knowledge or exprience.
As the world globalizes more and more, some countries are trying to teach a second language (mostly English) to students who just start school. Is it effective for young children to learn a second language? In my essay I will explain the reason why it isn't a good idea to make all the kids learn a second language at such an early age.
Firstly, leaning a foreign language too early can affect the national identity. A language reflects its culture and conventions. For example in Korea our language has strict rules that are there to show respect to older people e.g. if a person is older than me even one year, I have to use different vocabulary. So a relationship as friends is only possible in the same age group. If young children who usually don't know their mother tongue thorougly learn a second language, they can be confused when they meet or talk with older people.
Secondly, young children need a balance in the development of their brains. Generally left brain is related to learning language so if we emphasize learning a second language, other minor subjects like music and art will be belittled inevitably. It means they will not have proper time for PE, music or art that can help the development of the right brain and result is a well-balanced brain.
Lastly, in the circumstance of EFL (English as a foreign language) though we have more time to learn English, it is difficult to get a chance to speak or write English. It means English is only used in the classroom and after the class we don't use that language in our daily life. So it's also difficult to speak English fluently even though we study English a lot.
For these reasons, I don't agree with the idea of theaching a second language to young children. The only thing that we can do is giving a motivation to them so that they can learn a second language efficiently when they grow older.
To What extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Give reasons for your answers and include any relevent examples from you own knowledge or exprience.
As the world globalizes more and more, some countries are trying to teach a second language (mostly English) to students who just start school. Is it effective for young children to learn a second language? In my essay I will explain the reason why it isn't a good idea to make all the kids learn a second language at such an early age.
Firstly, leaning a foreign language too early can affect the national identity. A language reflects its culture and conventions. For example in Korea our language has strict rules that are there to show respect to older people e.g. if a person is older than me even one year, I have to use different vocabulary. So a relationship as friends is only possible in the same age group. If young children who usually don't know their mother tongue thorougly learn a second language, they can be confused when they meet or talk with older people.
Secondly, young children need a balance in the development of their brains. Generally left brain is related to learning language so if we emphasize learning a second language, other minor subjects like music and art will be belittled inevitably. It means they will not have proper time for PE, music or art that can help the development of the right brain and result is a well-balanced brain.
Lastly, in the circumstance of EFL (English as a foreign language) though we have more time to learn English, it is difficult to get a chance to speak or write English. It means English is only used in the classroom and after the class we don't use that language in our daily life. So it's also difficult to speak English fluently even though we study English a lot.
For these reasons, I don't agree with the idea of theaching a second language to young children. The only thing that we can do is giving a motivation to them so that they can learn a second language efficiently when they grow older.
'외국어 > Essay' 카테고리의 다른 글
| Essay (0) | 2010.07.31 |
|---|---|
| Essay (0) | 2010.06.22 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.06.20 |
| After reading 'David Copperfield' (0) | 2010.05.26 |
| Comparison (0) | 2010.05.25 |
Without Capital punishment our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society. To what extent you agree or disagree?
[예시문]
Some people are totally in favour of capital punishment as they reckon it could be the perfect deterrent and the only way of reaching higher levels of safety and lower levels of crimes of violence, such as rapes or murders. On the other hand some others claim that the death penalty is to win over crimes. These individuals are also adamant that tolerance and respect for life are the most important values ever.
Capital punishment is not only legally enforced in underdeveloped countries where there may be very radical views in relation to crimes, but also in developed countries. A clear example of this is the USA, where the death penalty is enforced in many states and has its highet rates. The State of Texas, in particular, is at the top of the list in terms of number of execution per year and strongly supports this measure against crimes, especially those committeed by serial killers and those involving children. Nonetheless, the crime rates in Texas do not show a tendency to reduce because of the application of capital punishment, and on top of this it is often claimed that this type of penalty is a discriminatory practise against the less advantaged portion of the population, such as Afro-American communities.
Personally, I do not believe that capital punishement is the one thing that can result in a decrease in the number of crimes and an increased safety. I do believe that life sentence could be a much better penalty and that prevention in terms of better evaluation by social workers of those individuals classified at risk and rehabilitation of those who commit a crime are the right way forward.
[나의글]
Soem countires have capital punishment and others don't. And though a judge sentence death penalty if it isn't excuted, the country is classified non-capital punishment country. Is this system effective in preventing crimes? And can people kill other people in the name of justice?
There is an example of a country that enforced the capital punishment. In china, corrupted politicians and civil servants are given the death penalty. Drug dealers can be given the death penalty as well and it seems to be a very effective way of preventing these kinds of crimes. But same crimes are not eradicated in China and still occur now. In Korea the death penalty was used to kill people who were against the government and they made victims who were not criminals. Because it was very useful to get support and vote in election. Because Korean people were very sensitive to some North Korean terrors, crimes and spies. So they deliberately made victims who were innocent and they killed them just to get the support from the people and to win the elections.If some countires that don't have specific laws or rulled by dictators, that system can be abused and misused.
Actually all of the laws in every country are based on Napoleonic code which was in force approximately 200 years ago. The law has evolved from then. Because a judge is not always perfect, they can also make mistakes and they executed innocent people. It has really happened several times. And modern society always pursues justification, democracy and human rights. These are the aims of law. And the reason why developed-countries like the US and Western European countries are called so is that they always give priority to those aims.
To become a developed country, to evolve more for democratic society and to always take into consideration human rights, we have to be very careful to accept the capital punishment.
[예시문]
Some people are totally in favour of capital punishment as they reckon it could be the perfect deterrent and the only way of reaching higher levels of safety and lower levels of crimes of violence, such as rapes or murders. On the other hand some others claim that the death penalty is to win over crimes. These individuals are also adamant that tolerance and respect for life are the most important values ever.
Capital punishment is not only legally enforced in underdeveloped countries where there may be very radical views in relation to crimes, but also in developed countries. A clear example of this is the USA, where the death penalty is enforced in many states and has its highet rates. The State of Texas, in particular, is at the top of the list in terms of number of execution per year and strongly supports this measure against crimes, especially those committeed by serial killers and those involving children. Nonetheless, the crime rates in Texas do not show a tendency to reduce because of the application of capital punishment, and on top of this it is often claimed that this type of penalty is a discriminatory practise against the less advantaged portion of the population, such as Afro-American communities.
Personally, I do not believe that capital punishement is the one thing that can result in a decrease in the number of crimes and an increased safety. I do believe that life sentence could be a much better penalty and that prevention in terms of better evaluation by social workers of those individuals classified at risk and rehabilitation of those who commit a crime are the right way forward.
[나의글]
Soem countires have capital punishment and others don't. And though a judge sentence death penalty if it isn't excuted, the country is classified non-capital punishment country. Is this system effective in preventing crimes? And can people kill other people in the name of justice?
There is an example of a country that enforced the capital punishment. In china, corrupted politicians and civil servants are given the death penalty. Drug dealers can be given the death penalty as well and it seems to be a very effective way of preventing these kinds of crimes. But same crimes are not eradicated in China and still occur now. In Korea the death penalty was used to kill people who were against the government and they made victims who were not criminals. Because it was very useful to get support and vote in election. Because Korean people were very sensitive to some North Korean terrors, crimes and spies. So they deliberately made victims who were innocent and they killed them just to get the support from the people and to win the elections.If some countires that don't have specific laws or rulled by dictators, that system can be abused and misused.
Actually all of the laws in every country are based on Napoleonic code which was in force approximately 200 years ago. The law has evolved from then. Because a judge is not always perfect, they can also make mistakes and they executed innocent people. It has really happened several times. And modern society always pursues justification, democracy and human rights. These are the aims of law. And the reason why developed-countries like the US and Western European countries are called so is that they always give priority to those aims.
To become a developed country, to evolve more for democratic society and to always take into consideration human rights, we have to be very careful to accept the capital punishment.
'외국어 > Essay' 카테고리의 다른 글
| Essay (0) | 2010.07.31 |
|---|---|
| Essay (0) | 2010.07.21 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.06.20 |
| After reading 'David Copperfield' (0) | 2010.05.26 |
| Comparison (0) | 2010.05.25 |
Nowadays some countries, for example emerging or developing countries are focusing on language and mathematics for their education. Because they believe only major subject like math, language and science can help them to become a rich country or successful people. But they have to notice that advanced-countries are giving a balance between major subject and minor subject like art and music.
More than 2 or 3 decades ago, the notion of intelligence was just about logics, maths and language. So the education system followed that kind of notion. But the result was tragic. The people who were not interested or didn't have that kind of talent were regarded as losers. Some crimes and high rate of suicide were caused by this education system and this is still a big issue in Korea. They have the highest suicide rate in the world because they still use this system.
But, some reseach by brain scientist has shown that people have various kinds of ability and each person has their own talents in their blood : not only maths and language but also physical ability, a sense of music or art, the ability to make relationship with other people and so on. Because of this ability, Steven Spielberg could earn more money by making the film 'Jurassic Park' than HYUNDAI's profit by selling cars all over the world and also Joanne Rowling could be very successful by writing 'Harry Porter'.
On top of that, children need a balanced education because art and music can help them to learn major subjects because the 'bridge' which connects the right-brain and the left-brain can be developed by learning art and music. Because the left-brain is related to ration and the right-brain is related to emotion. So by learning art and music, it gives a balance to each brain.
To sum up, by learning art and music together, people can be successful and stable. I think that people need a balance for their brain and for their lives.
======================================================================================================
한국에 있을때부터 느낀거지만 모국어를 잘 해야 외국어를 잘 할수 있다는것...
주제가 주어졌을때 뭔가 써서 채우자니 내 배경지식과 경험의 한계를 절실히 느낀다.
난 아직도.... 한참 배고프다. (무지하다)
학창시절 왜 그리 책을 읽지 않았는지..... 최소한 신문이라도 좀 많이 읽었어야 하는데.....
나이 28 넘어가서 겨우 철들락 말락하여 조금 몇 페이지 넘긴걸로 IELTS Writing을 하자니, 번번히 벽에 가로 막힌 느낌이 들때가 많다.
모국어를 잘하자. 정말 불변의 진리인것 같다.
More than 2 or 3 decades ago, the notion of intelligence was just about logics, maths and language. So the education system followed that kind of notion. But the result was tragic. The people who were not interested or didn't have that kind of talent were regarded as losers. Some crimes and high rate of suicide were caused by this education system and this is still a big issue in Korea. They have the highest suicide rate in the world because they still use this system.
But, some reseach by brain scientist has shown that people have various kinds of ability and each person has their own talents in their blood : not only maths and language but also physical ability, a sense of music or art, the ability to make relationship with other people and so on. Because of this ability, Steven Spielberg could earn more money by making the film 'Jurassic Park' than HYUNDAI's profit by selling cars all over the world and also Joanne Rowling could be very successful by writing 'Harry Porter'.
On top of that, children need a balanced education because art and music can help them to learn major subjects because the 'bridge' which connects the right-brain and the left-brain can be developed by learning art and music. Because the left-brain is related to ration and the right-brain is related to emotion. So by learning art and music, it gives a balance to each brain.
To sum up, by learning art and music together, people can be successful and stable. I think that people need a balance for their brain and for their lives.
======================================================================================================
한국에 있을때부터 느낀거지만 모국어를 잘 해야 외국어를 잘 할수 있다는것...
주제가 주어졌을때 뭔가 써서 채우자니 내 배경지식과 경험의 한계를 절실히 느낀다.
난 아직도.... 한참 배고프다. (무지하다)
학창시절 왜 그리 책을 읽지 않았는지..... 최소한 신문이라도 좀 많이 읽었어야 하는데.....
나이 28 넘어가서 겨우 철들락 말락하여 조금 몇 페이지 넘긴걸로 IELTS Writing을 하자니, 번번히 벽에 가로 막힌 느낌이 들때가 많다.
모국어를 잘하자. 정말 불변의 진리인것 같다.
'외국어 > Essay' 카테고리의 다른 글
| Essay (0) | 2010.07.21 |
|---|---|
| Essay (0) | 2010.06.22 |
| After reading 'David Copperfield' (0) | 2010.05.26 |
| Comparison (0) | 2010.05.25 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.24 |
This story takes place in Eastern England and London. This book is about the life of David Copperfiled. His father had died before he was born and his stepfather Mr.Mudstone is very stern and cruel so David has a very unhappy, difficult childhood. Despite of his young age, he is sent to a boarding school and work by his stepfather. Young David meets a cruel principal, wicked friends there but he also has good people in his life too. They are nurse Peggotty, aunt Trotwood and Miss Agnes who always gives good advice to David.
All of these characters are connected with some events. Sometimes they have good times, sometimes their lives are not easy. Hate, love, marriage, death, con and bankruptsy, all of these feelings and events happen to David, his family and friends. David also marries a waman who is a lawyer's daughter but she is silly and childish. That means, their love is blind love and they love each other indiscreetly and after their marriage she dies with illness. After that, David realises what true love is and he marries Agnes who has been being a true and wise friend.
Our life is unpredictable. I think Charles Dickens shows his unpredictable and dramatic life well through this story. As I just expected, Charles Dickens is the best writer.
All of these characters are connected with some events. Sometimes they have good times, sometimes their lives are not easy. Hate, love, marriage, death, con and bankruptsy, all of these feelings and events happen to David, his family and friends. David also marries a waman who is a lawyer's daughter but she is silly and childish. That means, their love is blind love and they love each other indiscreetly and after their marriage she dies with illness. After that, David realises what true love is and he marries Agnes who has been being a true and wise friend.
Our life is unpredictable. I think Charles Dickens shows his unpredictable and dramatic life well through this story. As I just expected, Charles Dickens is the best writer.
I live in Daegu. Daegu is the third biggest city in Korea and 70% of our land is mountains, so my city is surrounded by them. My home is in a remote part of Central Daegu so it's easy to go to them. So, if you like hiking and climbing moutains, Daegu is amazing city. Because my hobby is hiking. London is a bit dull by camparison.
The transport system is similar to London because my city also has buses, an underground system and trains. But the fare is miles cheaper than London because the fare is only 50 pence and we can transfer bus to tube or tube to bus without any additional charge if you touch your transportation card (Oyster) on a touch pad whithin 1 hour of your first touch. And we don't distinguish zones so you can only pay 50p regardless of distance.
But there's no comparison with the environment. Because my city is surrounded by mountains so it gets a bit stuffy and my city has only a few parks in the certre of the city so I much prefer London's environment.
We have 4 distinctive seasons and a lot of mountains. To enjoy seasonal sports, England is not even close to Korea because we can go skiing in winter and we can go swimming or rafting in summer in the valley.
I've been to Brighton to see the beach. I think the beach in Brighton is nothing like as good as it is in Korea because our water doesn't contain lime, the colour of the sea is clean blue or green.
My city's economy is nowhere near as strong as London's because London is the centre of European and World finance and famous for tourism so a lot of foreign tourists spend their money on sightseeing and tours.
Near my city, there is a very traditional old city, Kyoung-Ju which was the capital of an ancient dynasty so it has rich heritage like big temples, marble sculptures, traditional houses, tombs of kings and so on. So I suppose there are paralles between the two cities.
If you visit Korea you should climb the mountains, enjoy seasonal sports and visit ancient and old cities because there is nothing for tourism in Korea without them.
The transport system is similar to London because my city also has buses, an underground system and trains. But the fare is miles cheaper than London because the fare is only 50 pence and we can transfer bus to tube or tube to bus without any additional charge if you touch your transportation card (Oyster) on a touch pad whithin 1 hour of your first touch. And we don't distinguish zones so you can only pay 50p regardless of distance.
But there's no comparison with the environment. Because my city is surrounded by mountains so it gets a bit stuffy and my city has only a few parks in the certre of the city so I much prefer London's environment.
We have 4 distinctive seasons and a lot of mountains. To enjoy seasonal sports, England is not even close to Korea because we can go skiing in winter and we can go swimming or rafting in summer in the valley.
I've been to Brighton to see the beach. I think the beach in Brighton is nothing like as good as it is in Korea because our water doesn't contain lime, the colour of the sea is clean blue or green.
My city's economy is nowhere near as strong as London's because London is the centre of European and World finance and famous for tourism so a lot of foreign tourists spend their money on sightseeing and tours.
Near my city, there is a very traditional old city, Kyoung-Ju which was the capital of an ancient dynasty so it has rich heritage like big temples, marble sculptures, traditional houses, tombs of kings and so on. So I suppose there are paralles between the two cities.
If you visit Korea you should climb the mountains, enjoy seasonal sports and visit ancient and old cities because there is nothing for tourism in Korea without them.
Last December, I went to France. It was the first time that I had travelled to another European country outside of England. I visited several cities and Paris was my first city. I thought I wouldn't have any problems communicating in Franch. Although the French are very proud of their language, English is global language and I thought young generations can not have know English. But it turned out that my thought was a misconception.
They totally belittle English. I couldn't see any sign of English in Paris even in famous museums or tourist attactions. I took a strong stand against my ignorance of French.
Notwithstanding, I could find various tourist attractions on foot because Paris is not such a big city and I'm not illeterate wiith maps. But when I went to a restaurant or a bar, I struggled to understand the menu. I wanted to know what was what but, the waiter or waitress didn't know English.
Through my first journey, I realised that learning another foreign language is also important instead of English not for the total language or conversations with natives, but just for my journey. For example, some terms used in a station, restaurant, asking directions and greetings etc.
But apparently, I think French people are so serious. They are so ignorant about English. They have to accept the fact that the Napoleon's reign finished more than a hundred years ago, and the rise of using English in gllobal society has been common for 2 decades.
=====================================================================================================
James' Comment : Haha. I like the way you finish, Seokwon.
Don't forget - French was the language of the educated elite not too long ago. It's only in the past 20 years that languages like Greek, Latin and French have passed out of academic use. England was once a gift to be given by the French King. Given all that, it's easier to see...
Why the French have such an aversion to English and such a strong desire to maintain the use of their own language.
They totally belittle English. I couldn't see any sign of English in Paris even in famous museums or tourist attactions. I took a strong stand against my ignorance of French.
Notwithstanding, I could find various tourist attractions on foot because Paris is not such a big city and I'm not illeterate wiith maps. But when I went to a restaurant or a bar, I struggled to understand the menu. I wanted to know what was what but, the waiter or waitress didn't know English.
Through my first journey, I realised that learning another foreign language is also important instead of English not for the total language or conversations with natives, but just for my journey. For example, some terms used in a station, restaurant, asking directions and greetings etc.
But apparently, I think French people are so serious. They are so ignorant about English. They have to accept the fact that the Napoleon's reign finished more than a hundred years ago, and the rise of using English in gllobal society has been common for 2 decades.
=====================================================================================================
James' Comment : Haha. I like the way you finish, Seokwon.
Don't forget - French was the language of the educated elite not too long ago. It's only in the past 20 years that languages like Greek, Latin and French have passed out of academic use. England was once a gift to be given by the French King. Given all that, it's easier to see...
Why the French have such an aversion to English and such a strong desire to maintain the use of their own language.
'외국어 > Essay' 카테고리의 다른 글
| After reading 'David Copperfield' (0) | 2010.05.26 |
|---|---|
| Comparison (0) | 2010.05.25 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.22 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.05.21 |
| Essay (0) | 2010.03.01 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
