Spanish literature Essay Example for Free

Spanish literature Essay From Latin litterae (plural); letter is the art of written work. The word literature literally means: things made from letters. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity (Rebecca West). The art or occupation of a literary writer. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field. Printed material  Written material such as poetry, novels, essays, etc. , esp works of imagination characterized by excellence of style and expression and by themes of general or enduring interest. The body of written work of a particular culture or people Written or printed matter of a particular type or on a particular subject Printed material giving a particular type of information. The art or profession of a writer Obsolete learning Writing in prose or verse regarded as having permanent worth through its intrinsic excellence. The entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc. The writings dealing with a particular subject. The profession of a writer or author. Literary work or production. Any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills. Archaic. literary culture; appreciation of letters and books. Creative writing of recognized artistic value  writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest,are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays. Written works (such as poems, plays, and novels) that are considered to be very good and to have lasting importance.

Affirmative Action :: Affirmative Action Essays

For the past several years the argument over affirmative action has been a highly debated topic. The issue at hand is whether or not affirmative action is reverse discrimination or not. Affirmative action by definition "means taking positive steps to end discrimination, to prevent its recurrence, and to create new opportunities that were previously denied to qualified women and people of color," (Work & Family). The reason that affirmative action is so controversial is because Americans can't decide what they want. "Poll after poll concludes that Americans firmly support "‘affirmative action'" to create opportunities for women and people of color, while they vigorously oppose "quotas'" and "‘preferences'" for unqualified candidates," (Work & Family). Which is odd considering that the same "affirmative action" that people support does in fact, in some cases, put unqualified personnel in undeserving positi ons. For those people who believe affirmative action works they generally are only focusing on the diversity affirmative action has brought to jobs. Their arguments consist of wanting to see more ethnic and gender diversity in jobs that are usually being worked by white males. To many of these people quality is sometimes put aside for quantity and diversity. The strongest argument that the people who are in support of affirmative action is that having more gender and ethnical diversity brings more to the work place. This argument is very good and very accurate. Having different people in different jobs helps a company to work and receive input from all sorts of different perspectives. Which leads to a better understanding of what a wider cross-section of the target market wants. On the other hand the people who support affirmative action also give some not so strong arguments. The one that stands out the most is that companies don't try and fill quotas in their gender and ethnical h iring. Instead it is done entirely on skill alone. This is their weakest and most disputed argument. Especially when in many cases if two potential employees are close in skill the job will more than likely go to the potential employee who is a minority. As in the case of Paul Johnson versus Diane Joyce. Both had comparable skills, but even though Paul Johnson's oral interview was scored higher than Diane Joyce it was her that was selected for the job. "The Court upheld the county's use of Ms. Joyce's gender as a positive factor in choosing between these similarly-qualified candidates," (Work & Family). Affirmative Action :: Affirmative Action Essays For the past several years the argument over affirmative action has been a highly debated topic. The issue at hand is whether or not affirmative action is reverse discrimination or not. Affirmative action by definition "means taking positive steps to end discrimination, to prevent its recurrence, and to create new opportunities that were previously denied to qualified women and people of color," (Work & Family). The reason that affirmative action is so controversial is because Americans can't decide what they want. "Poll after poll concludes that Americans firmly support "‘affirmative action'" to create opportunities for women and people of color, while they vigorously oppose "quotas'" and "‘preferences'" for unqualified candidates," (Work & Family). Which is odd considering that the same "affirmative action" that people support does in fact, in some cases, put unqualified personnel in undeserving positi ons. For those people who believe affirmative action works they generally are only focusing on the diversity affirmative action has brought to jobs. Their arguments consist of wanting to see more ethnic and gender diversity in jobs that are usually being worked by white males. To many of these people quality is sometimes put aside for quantity and diversity. The strongest argument that the people who are in support of affirmative action is that having more gender and ethnical diversity brings more to the work place. This argument is very good and very accurate. Having different people in different jobs helps a company to work and receive input from all sorts of different perspectives. Which leads to a better understanding of what a wider cross-section of the target market wants. On the other hand the people who support affirmative action also give some not so strong arguments. The one that stands out the most is that companies don't try and fill quotas in their gender and ethnical h iring. Instead it is done entirely on skill alone. This is their weakest and most disputed argument. Especially when in many cases if two potential employees are close in skill the job will more than likely go to the potential employee who is a minority. As in the case of Paul Johnson versus Diane Joyce. Both had comparable skills, but even though Paul Johnson's oral interview was scored higher than Diane Joyce it was her that was selected for the job. "The Court upheld the county's use of Ms. Joyce's gender as a positive factor in choosing between these similarly-qualified candidates," (Work & Family).

Is free trade ever fair trade? Essay

Every one of us has probably seen reports or heard something about demonstrations against globalization when international organizations like the WTO meet. One example was the G8 meeting in July 2001. So we have to ask us the question why there are some people who protest against globalization and also against the free trade the WTO stands for. The main complain and concern of these groups is unfairness. They say free trade is unfair, the low wages are unfair, the poor working conditions of foreign workers, the environmental standards in less developed countries, the high profits of multinational corporations, the inequality in incomes around the world, everything is unfair. If these reproofs are true it would mean that also free trade and globalization is unfair. However the people of international institutions and multinational corporations who are in favour of free trade and globalisation also use the term fairness in their arguments. If a multinational company pays low wages in less developed countries, they can claim that the wages are still fair set because they are above the legal minimum wage standards and that the workers would not get a better opportunity in a company of their country or their government. The WTO and other international organisations consider free trade even as a help because it will promote economic growth, which in turn will raise the living standards throughout the whole world and reduce also the income inequality in the future. They suggest that globalisation can promote better outcomes for many people what makes the free trade fair. Both sides, either supporting or depreciating free trade predicate that what they think and support is fair. Of course everyone is in favour of fair  trade, nobody could ever proclaim the opposite. But how can supporters of two opposed policies both be in favour of fairness. The truth has to be somewhere in the middle. In my opinion there are certainly some or even many aspects of free trade which are unfair. Those who support the free trade are certainly the international corporations and the rich. Due to free trade the wealthy companies can force some small companies down. If they sell their products at a price that is less than it ´s cost of production and this way undercuts the competition for a sufficient length of time, the competition will be forced out of the business, because everybody would demand the product with the same quality but lower price. When there is no competition anymore they can raise their prices again and be able to recoup their losses. That’s of course unfair for the smaller companies, which are not able to use this strategy and go to bankrupt because of it. So developing countries have to allow big business access to their markets. Another point which is true and doesn ´t support the free trade policy is that in cases of deciding whether to protect the environment or to encourage trade, the WTO tends to decide in favour of trade. There have been many examples for that issue. Yet the WTO allows trade to continue however there is no proof if a product is safe until it is proved unsafe. That issue should be handled the converse way, because environment and health is definitely more important than economic profit. So in this case the free trade policy of the WTO is unfair and not correct towards the environment and the population. A dramatic aspect showing the unfairness of free trade is the unequal income and wealth. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, at least relatively poorer. Fairness in trade and globalization would mean that the rich would need to redistribute some of their wealth and income to the poor, or that the poor would need a higher percentage of the income of their nation. But free trade doesn ´t only has unfair and negative aspects. For example one point that is considered as unfair of many opponents of free trade is that workers around the world are not treated equal and do not gain wages in developing countries. But why should a man in Africa who has the same profession as a man in the US gain the same amount of many? His living cost are not as high as the living costs you have to pay in the USA. So in relation he actually gains about the same wage and is not treated unfair. Also the increasing number of developing countries is a proof for the efficiency of free trade and there are many countries which has already benefited of the WTO. To come to a conclusion I think that free trade can ´t be always fair to every country, every economy or every individual and certainly there should be some attempts made of the WTO to become more fairly in some aspects. But it ´s important to have in mind how difficult the job of the WTO is. They have to show consideration for developed countries and for developing countries, which of course have different interests. Although the developing countries and economies have some disadvantages and not the same influence, power and treatment like the developed ones, they would be worse off without the WTO and if not now, in the future they will profit of free trade. The aim is to develop a good working free trade economy on the whole world without such inequality between some countries, but to achieve this every country has to make some sacrifices.

The French Verb Conjugation of Causer (to Cause)

It seems obvious that the French verb  causer  would mean to cause. Yet, it has a double meaning and can also be used for to chat. This lesson in conjugating  causer  to express caused or causing should be a pretty easy one, especially if youre familiar with similar words. Conjugating  the French Verb  Causer Causer  is a  regular -ER verb  and that means it follows one of the  most common verb conjugation patterns. Once you learn the correct endings for  causer, you can apply those to words like  cacher  (to hide) and  blesser  (to hurt), as well as many others. To learn these simple conjugations, study the chart and pair the subject pronoun with the appropriate tense. For example, I cause in the present tense is je cause and we will cause in the future tense is nous causerons. Its really that easy, but you have to remember the endings. Subject Present Future Imperfect je cause causerai causais tu causes causeras causais il cause causera causait nous causons causerons causions vous causez causerez causiez ils causent causeront causaient Tip:  The  je  present tense is used in the French expression à  Ã‚  cause de. This is a common way to say because of or due to. The Present Participle of  Causer Used as a verb, adjective, gerund, or even a noun, the  present participle  of causer  is causant. Notice how this ending is a simple change from -er  to -ant. This change happens in almost every present participle youll come across. The Passà © Composà © and Past Participle For the past tense, you can also use the common French form known as  passà © composà ©. To do this, conjugate the  auxiliary verb  avoir  to match the subject, then add the  past participle  causà ©. As an example, I caused becomes jai causà © and we caused is  nous avons causà ©. More  Causer  Conjugations to Know As you expand your use of the French language, you may also have a  use for some of these conjugations. Its likely that youll only find the  passà © simple and imperfect subjunctive in formal writing. The other two are a bit more common. For instance, you will use  the  conditional verb mood when the action will only happen if something else happens; when its dependent on conditions. Likewise, the  subjunctive verb mood implies a degree of subjectivity or uncertainty to the action of causing. With  causer, these may be particularly useful because causes are not always accurate or easy to define. Subject Subjunctive Conditional Pass Simple Imperfect Subjunctive je cause causerais causai causasse tu causes causerais causas causasses il cause causerait causa caust nous causions causerions causmes causassions vous causiez causeriez caustes causassiez ils causent causeraient causrent causassent Should you wish to express  causer  as an exclamation, use the imperative verb form. When doing so, skip the subject pronoun and use the verb alone:  causons rather than nous causons. Imperative (tu) cause (nous) causons (vous) causez