Реферат: Топики по Английскому

War and Peace.

Thegreatest problems that have faced men throughout his history have been theproblems of war and peace.

In the XIX century and before warwas quite common. It did not touch the majority of nations and was fought byprofessional and semi-professional armies. War was not total war. It was foughtwithin limited territories.

However, the XX century broughtabout a profound change in the character of war and its consequences. The mostimportant event in this was, perhaps, the First World War, which lasted from1914 till 1918, The World War I was perceived to be just the war to teach theRussians a lesson. But that war became total war with the most horrendous lossof life, the World War I destroyed the creation of the generation. The numberof talented people who were killed during that war was uncountable.

The Second World War is known inthis country as the Great Patriotic War. WWII showed how war could affect totalnations. That war was waged by Hitler against (Hitler waged that war against) completepopulations. All of us know of the famous Siege of Leningrad, which people heldout against horrendous conditions and total bombing for many, many months.There was also that terrible Blitzkrieg in which Stalingrad, <st1:City w:st=«on»>Moscow</st1:City>,<st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Leningrad</st1:place></st1:City> andhundreds of other cities and towns were continuously bombed. WWII was total waragainst populations and it made Governments and people very (unwilling)reluctant to embark on war. Therefore, we have to struggle for peace and how tokeep the peace.

After the WWI there were fivegreat Powers in the world: the Soviet Union, <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Great Britain</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>France</st1:country-region>,the <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>USA</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region>. It was(Sell???)(decided) that to keep the peace in the world, it was necessary to setup a World Organization.

Therefore the <st1:place w:st=«on»>League of Nations</st1:place> was set up. However, its life was not very long. Itexisted from 1919 to 1939. And the advent of the WWII marked its death knellbecause what it had been set up for, to avoid another bloody WW, it failed todo. After the WWII there was no longer great powers, there were only twosuperpowers: the SU and the <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>USA</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

And what happened next was themost terrible act for the civilization of the Earth; it was the nuclear bombingof <st1:City w:st=«on»>Hiroshima</st1:City> and <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Nagasaki</st1:place></st1:City> by the Americans, which ushered inthe nuclear age with the possibility of the destruction of the whole planet atthe use of “the press of a button”. It caused a great split between the twosuperpowers. Besides the two superpowers had ideologies, which were completelyopposed to each other and that, meant that there could be no dialogue, nocompromise between the USS and the <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>USA</st1:place></st1:country-region>, though the people of the worldwere eager to avoid war at all costs.

However, peace did not mean it wasfor all the nations, as the world knows Stalin and his killing of fifty millionof the Russian people waging a war against his own population. Thus, inpeacetime we have the problem of Tyrants and dictators who have control overalmost all the people. The two greatest tyrants of history were Hitler andStalin.

One more problems for us now areto avoid nuclear war. Still we have many trouble spots in the Middle East, <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Iran</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Iraq</st1:country-region>,<st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Yugoslavia</st1:country-region>, and <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:place></st1:country-region>. TheSoviet Union had problems in <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Poland</st1:country-region>,<st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Czechoslovakia</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Hungary</st1:country-region> and also <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Afghanistan</st1:country-region>and for the <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>US</st1:country-region> there wereproblems in South America (in such countries as <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Nicaragua</st1:country-region>,<st1:City w:st=«on»>Salvatore</st1:City>, <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Mexico</st1:country-region>,<st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Brazil</st1:place></st1:country-region>,etc).

Now the two superpowers aretalking more freely. The reasons for that are, perhaps, the facts that theyhave both been hurt by their interference in other countries and bloody wars,which affected their prestige. <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Vietnam</st1:country-region>was a complete disaster for the American policy and <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Afghanistan</st1:country-region>proved to be the same disaster for the <st1:place w:st=«on»>Soviet Union</st1:place>.


<span Times New Roman",«serif»; mso-fareast-font-family:«Times New Roman»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: RU;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">War and Peace.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The twentieth century has marked a clear watershed notonly in mankind's social history but in its very destiny.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The outgoing century is different from those thatpreceded it in that, for the first time ever, mankind cannot regard itself asimmortal, for it has become aware that its dominion over nature has limits andmay even threaten its own survival.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Even if nuclear war can be avoided, the threat tomankind will remain, for the Earth may one day no longer have the capacity tobear the burden of human activity.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">It is becoming increasingly clear that the historicform of mankind's existence that produced modern civilization, with all itsseemingly boundless possibilities and comforts, has also engendered a multitudeof problems that need to be addressed without delay.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Solutions can, in principle, be found. The twentiethcentury has taught people many lessons. The emerging social, economic,political and information interconnectedness of all parts of the worldcommunity is objectively preparing the ground for joint efforts that couldavert the threat of a «creeping catastrophe» and solve globalproblems on a planetary level. There is, after all, no other way to succeed.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">In that sense, the twentieth century can be said to bethe beginning of a transition to a new era; for mankind, the end of thiscentury is a crucial fork in the road, a time to respond to the challenges ofthe future. Should we swim with the flow, or can we harness the availableknowledge and experience, can we manage the processes of globalization andidentify appropriate responses?

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Our initial hypothesis is that the survival anddevelopment of mankind is increasingly dependent on its ability to effect aprofound spiritual reformation, to be followed by a dramatic reordering of thesocial, economic and cultural patterns of its development. The Project is, infact, an attempt to verify this hypothesis.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Its goal is to search for answers, to obtain new«cautionary knowledge,» and to identify a humanist alternativethrough the study of various scenarios of development. This work will pursueseveral avenues, exploriing philosophical, socio-cultural, socio-environmental,economic, political, and global security problems. A sub-project on "<st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Russia</st1:country-region></st1:place>in the Emerging Global System" will be an organic part of the proposedstudy.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The Project will seek wide-ranging cooperation withother groups of researchers and with national and international centers thatwork on similar issues and are suggesting their own ideas, concepts, andtheories.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The Project aims to be a contribution to the debatedeveloping around the world on the problems of globalization and mankind'sprospects in the twenty-first century. Its central assumption is the need topreserve a universal human perspective, to prove its viability in newcircumstances. All sub-projects proceed from the belief in the possibility of a«democratic globalism» — a unity of the world based on cooperation,not on force and hegemony.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-fareast-font-family:«Times New Roman»;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-fareast-language:RU;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">While discussing the new Russian-Chechen war, fearinglosses, feeling sorry for our soldiers, and just a little for the Chechenssometimes, we completely forget the most important thing-what can bring Russiavictory in Chechnya and how it all can end.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Any victory in <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region></st1:place> can be only temporary. Wecannot exterminate the Chechens or drive them out of <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region>and replace them with Russians, as Stalin did-we are weaker now (and maybe evenkinder) and the United Nations, Organization for Security and Cooperation in <st1:place w:st=«on»>Europe</st1:place>, NATO and governments and public opinion in theWest would not allow it.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">After what <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Russia</st1:country-region>has done for the last five years, is doing now and plans to do in the near future,it will be impossible to integrate the populace of <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region></st1:place> into Russian society. Itis much easier to image the extermination of the majority of the Chechenpopulace than fantastical democratic elections for the Russian Duma andFederation Council on Chechen territory.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The most that can be achieved, after the killing ofmany, many Chechens and heavy losses on our side, is the establishment of longterm military occupation, which will unavoidably lead to significantdeformation of Russian democratic and legal institutions and the transformationof <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Russia</st1:country-region></st1:place>into a criminalized police state to an even great extent than today.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Even at that price, it will be possible to«calm» <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region></st1:place>only for a while. Today's Chechen youths and future generations of Chechenswill have no illusions that peace; compromise and agreement are possible with <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Russia</st1:country-region></st1:place>.Probably there are already no doubts about that among those currently in powerin Chechnya, or among the commanders and fighters in the Chechen armed groups,who see that the Agreement on Peace and the Principle of Peaceful Interrelationsigned by the presidents of Russia and Chechnya on May 12, 1997, has todaysimply been «forgotten» by Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, and byall Russian politicians from Zyuganov to Kirienko and by Russian journalists.This makes terrorism in <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Russia</st1:country-region></st1:place>by Chechens and international Muslim fundamentalists and a new Chechen uprisinginescapable in the future. Therefore, the subjugation of <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region></st1:place> is not needful for Russiansociety or the Russian state.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The solution of the Chechen problem is not so much aproblem for Chechen society as it is for Russian society. The <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region> with a weak and, in the eyes of theChechen populace, illegitimate «occupational» power, the <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region> seething to throw terrorist groups offits territory, the <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region></st1:place>perpetually ready to revolt is too valuable to the Kremlin and the presentprime minister for them to let it go. It is just that Chechnya that the Kremlinand present prime minister need so that they can talk about defending Russiafrom Chechen terrorists and manipulate public opinion and draw attention awayfrom the corruption scandals in the highest echelons, manipulate the budget,play leading roles in the next presidential election, and so on. Therefore, thecurrent Russian authorities do not allow <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region></st1:place> peace or let an orderlyand legitimate state form there.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">For the current Russian authorities, it is much moreprofitable to start a war in Chechnya, impose semi-military law, maintain anoccupational force there and hunt down terrorists in Russian cities than it isto help Aslan Maskhadov and the Chechen people stop the «slave trade»in Chechnya, to set up a legal authority acceptable to both the Chechen andRussian inhabitants of Chechnya, to put an end to terrorist raids and eliminatethe terrorist groups of Basaev, Khattab and others (which Aslan Maskhadov andthe Chechens who support him would be fully capable of doing with the supportof Russia), restore the completely destroyed material conditions of life there,the health care system, education, etc.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The perverse, at first glance, desire of the Russianpresident, the present prime minister and the military leadership for amilitary victory and the presence within Russia of a Chechnya hungering forfreedom is, unfortunately, completely natural. Such authorities as we have nowrequire a <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Chechnya</st1:country-region></st1:place>in unrest. And all of us-the people of <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Russia</st1:country-region></st1:place> and the people ofChechnya-are being held hostage to the present Russian authorities and to eachother.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-fareast-font-family:«Courier New»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: RU;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">
<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Essay on<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">World War 2<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     War is one of the most tragic things in our world today.  It is even sadder that usually it comes around at least once in our lifetime.  In the 20th century alone we have already had two huge wars.  These wars were call the World Wars simply because they involved most of the big countries of the world.  Many people have died in these wars, especially the Second World War.  That is my focus for this essay.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">               The leader of <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Germany</st1:country-region></st1:place> at the time of WW2 and the person who most think started WW2 was a man named Adolf Hitler.  Adolf Hitler was born in <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Austria</st1:country-region></st1:place>.  By the time that World War 1 started in 1914, he was living in <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Germany</st1:country-region></st1:place>.  He served well in the German Army and for that he earned a medal for bravery.  At the end of the war Hitler decided to take up politics.  By 1921 he was already the founding<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">leader of the Nazi party.  Hitler was an incredibly racist man and he had a great hate for Jews.  By 1933, Hitler gained political power by winning the election.  Soon after he made himself absolute dictator, calling himself the Fuhrer which means «Leader».  By the end of the 30's he was already sending Jews off too concentration camps to meet a horrible death.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     I believe that Hitler was one of the greatest causes of World War 2.  Although there are many other reasons, he was definitely one of them.  Another reason was the Treaty of Versailles.  This was the treaty that was signed at the end of World War 1.  This treaty outlined the rules that <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Germany</st1:country-region> must follow because of their defeat by <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Britain</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>France</st1:place></st1:country-region>.  Many Germans were angered by the treaty, for most of the rules in the treaty were unfair and <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region> lost a great amount of wealth.  One of the cruelest reasons for the war was Hitler's racist hate for Jews.  He would send them off in cattle cars to places called concentration camps were they would be slaughtered by the thousands.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     World War 2 was huge and involved a lot of countries.  There were thousands of battlefronts and warsites.  The two main battlefronts were the battle front between <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Britain</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region> and the battlefront between the Japanese and the Americans.  These battlefronts were split up into smaller battlefronts even still.  Many lives were lost in the air, on land and in the sea.  Some of the most notable battles were: The Battle of Britain, The Battle of Midway and The Battle of the <st1:place w:st=«on»>Atlantic</st1:place>.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     Since the <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>US</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region> were at war with the Japanese, Japanese Canadians were treated very poorly.  The government had decided that all or most Japanese Canadians, even if they were born in <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region> had either go home or go and live in one of the camps. These camps were made to keep all the Japanese Canadians together in one location.  But the fact was that these camps were very dirty and not fair treatment.  Also, the government took away all Japanese possessions and without the Japanese knowing, they were auctioned off at a fraction of their original value!  This treatment went on for all of World War 2 and Japanese Canadians were not treaty fairly for many years after.  Just recently the government of <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region> has decided to pay compensation for their losses but most agree that it doesn't even come close to what they lost.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     One of the greatest outcomes of the war was the great world power shift.  For more than a century <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Great Britain</st1:place></st1:country-region> had been the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.  But they used up too many resources in the wars and their status greatly decreased.  One person even wrote that it is not <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Great Britain</st1:country-region> any more… it is just <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Britain</st1:place></st1:country-region>.  People all over the world suffered through this war.  Hundreds of<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">thousands of people died.  All for the sake of their countries.  And you know what?  No one actually gained anything from it. The fact is that all of the countries (excluding the <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>US</st1:place></st1:country-region>) lost much, much more than what they gained.  <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Britain</st1:country-region> lost their power, <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>France</st1:country-region> lost lives and land, <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region> lost everything and<st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»><span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> lost thousands of civilians in their suicidal attacks called Kamikazes.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">    In my opinion the war was a total waste.  Although some people will tell you that we fought and gained the peace that we have today and have had for almost fifty years.  People fought for 5 years and lost more than 50 billion dollars.  Do think it was worth it?  Now, maybe if governments use the past as a guide to the future we won't have to fight such a bloody battle ever again.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> Especially withnuclear weapons so easily obtainable.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Are we civilized?<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     We are starting to witness the beginning of a new era. It is full of information and technology, and it will decide how the future is going to be. But despite all our new inventions and ideas that show us how we're better off than the generations before us, have we grown in any other ways? Does being civilized only mean to become more advanced technologically, or does it apply to our moral foundation?<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     It is very obvious that society has developed a lot in learning and technology. Today, we have inventions such as the stealth fighter, the home computer and nuclear powered power plants and naval vessels. Things that were imagined many years back have now become today's reality. Single machines now hold the jobs that used to take hundreds of men to accomplish by hand so in this sense, we have become more civilized.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     On the other hand, not all of the inventions that have been developed from the technology world are used to do good deeds. Our great society has allowed the production of many weapons whose sole intention is to create mass destruction and to kill large amounts of life. Many people now live in constant fear of the use of these weapons, while others sit back and enjoy them for protection. We still have as many wars as we did in the past, but now the new technology used in them helps bring about more human casualties. An example of this would be Operation Desert Storm. I was a 23-year-old man, sent off to fight for the liberation of <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Kuwait</st1:country-region></st1:place> and to kick the crap out of a bully named Saddam Hussein. I was the crewchief on an UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division from <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:City w:st=«on»>Ft. Hood</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st=«on»>TX</st1:State></st1:place>. From the time the air war started to the 100 hours of hell we threw at the Iraqi Army, it was never more evident the role that technology played in decimating an enemy and b!<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">reaking his will to win and survive. The pictures that my young eyes saw will forever be burned into memory. Technology was a teacher of pain and suffering, but it was also a savior in helping bring home the lives of many young men who might of not come back in previous wars.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     Besides the wars, society really has yet to understand other people. Prejudice is alive and burning in the hearts of many throughout our society. Many hate groups are still around today, as they were hundreds of years ago, and many new groups are starting to form and become active. <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Oklahoma City</st1:place></st1:City> felt the wrath of some very passionate people who were trying to avenge the loss of comrades to the Federal Government. Many innocent people were killed, and it all boils down to beliefs and ideas. Racism still has its hand around the throats of many in our society as well. It seems that some of the worst racists in our society are the ones who say they're not racist, but on the inside they really are. These are the people who say they're not racist, but they don't hire the East Indian employee who was the most qualified of the candidates. They coach the all white basketball team. They fight over the red and blue colors of bandannas worn around their heads. The worst part is, it d!<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">oesn't even phase them when they are doing it. In the past when our country was just starting to be formed, there were many prejudices just because people were different. Now over a century later, people haven't changed much, which makes me wonder if we really have become civilized yet.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     Democracy is also something that has played a big part in our journey to become civilized. A democracy in my words is where the people who choose to live under it run the government. And to have a true democracy, everyone must vote! People vote to exercise their democratic rights. If only 70% vote, then 70% control 100% of the government. Voting without adequate understanding and choosing candidates for the wrong reasons are symptoms of voting for the sake of voting and not taking an active interest in how our country is run. Instead of making an effort to understand issues and party fundamentals, too many ignorant people actually base their decisions on what the candidates say. The result is that everybody feels «burned» by the government, never realizing that he or she could have tipped the election simply by paying attention. Another problem with our vision of democracy is the structure and size of it. It seems everybody is always trying to help somebody get something !<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">for nothing. This just creates class envy and finger pointing. I personally believe the government's goal is to keep us divided as a country so we will fight amongst ourselves rather than pay attention to what's going on. So, is this civilized? I think not.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     Technically though, if you want to look at it really hard, we have become a civilized society. We can now travel across the country in a few hours or send someone an email. Most people believe that to become civilized you need to create new inventions and spend lots of money on social programs, making most people think that they are becoming better off and are more civilized. But our nature has not become more civilized. There are still wars, hatred, and acts of violence. Maybe it is more important to grow in this area than the other is. So in reality, we're not as civilized as we think we are.    <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">     

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Decision Making<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Any decision affecting people has ethical ramifications and virtually all important decisions reflect the decision-maker’s mindfulness and resolution to ethical behavior. This is why it is important to know for yourself how you go about making ethical decisions, or decisions of any kind. Finding out how one goes about making decisions can be a rather hard task as I found out while I was researching my mind to ‘decide’ exactly how I do go about making the decisions I make. The first thing I decided was that most of the decisions I make in my life are made with much thought about anything that might be affected by the decision. The most important thing, to me, is to make a decision and have reasons. I have to know why one choice is better than another. I feel compelled to look at every angle to assess what will be the outcome. I, personally, have a hard time making ‘spur-of-the-moment’ decisions especially if it involves something rather important to me. Many things go through my mind and trust in my practical intuition (notice I didn’t say ‘blind’ intuition) also plays an important part. I make decisions based on different things depending on what kind of decision I am having to make, but there is always one ultimate source for my decision making that supersedes all other ‘sub-categories’ that influence my decision making, and that does not change, regardless of the situation ­ and that is God. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    To me, God is the supreme ethical teacher and giver of wisdom, and if this is true then when searching for wisdom, why shouldn’t I look to the originator of wisdom. God is my number one influence in any decision that I make. My love for Him and faith in His power causes me to adhere to His will and actively search out the text of the Bible in order to learn more about the way He wants me to live and the things He wants me to have in my heart and in my mind as a guide for myself when making decisions. It is through this searching that I have discovered which ethical principles are important to me and how to adopt them as my own. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    One does not have to be a Christian to have ‘values’. Everyone has a primary source from which they draw to make decisions and it is often their values. The important thing is how or where you obtained your values. Are they yours or did someone else just pass them down to you. I have values, but the values I hold in my heart are not merely of tradition passed down to me, but spring from a diligent study of the Bible, which again comes from my love of the Father (which by-the-way, exists because of His great love for me). So, in this light, for me as a Christian or a non-Christian, values provide the very motivation for decision-making in the first place. I therefore decide to make decisions for myself because I want my life to adhere to the values that encompass my heart. I want to live my life constantly aware of the presence of God, and therefore, train my thoughts to become value-focused, and since the values in my heart are an extension of the Father, then I ought always to ask myself “What have I done that is as God wills and what have I left undone of that which He does not will?”. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Another word that has a similar connotation as the values that I am discussing is virtues. Virtues are ideal character traits that people should incorporate into their lives such as: honesty, loyalty, respect, etc. For myself, this also is primarily obtained from my study of the Bible. I need to address the fact that in growing up in a family that held strongly to the values or virtues it was taught by their parents, that it is, in fact, nearly impossible not to be influenced by these things that were taught in the family, whether they were bad or good, and say that all values and virtues are entirely my own and have originated within me. That just is not valid, because a person does hold on to some of the things that were taught no matter how he or she feels about it, but if the virtues can stand next to God <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">then there is no reason why a person shouldn’t keep in his heart that which was taught to him merely for the sake of “coming up with your own values’. The important thing is not ‘coming up with your own’ values/virtues, etc., it is the weeding out, picking and choosing, those values and virtues you will keep for your own life, accepting some and discarding others, all in an effort to make them your own, and weighing all against the ultimate source, the Bible. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    How does a person do this? Good question. First, you must ask yourself many questions, two of which I found to be the most important in my own opinion: 1) What does the scripture obviously teach about the subject? What does it blatantly come right out and say? 2) What does the Bible suggest about the subject? Through stories and examples of Jesus and the disciples, etc., what can you correctly decipher? (Correctly is the key word here). Once you have answered these two questions there are others you may want to ask yourself to get more specific. Generally, questions about yourself would be good, such as: 1) Does it violate my conscience? Because of your belief in God you seek to have your conscience framed by Him. (Obviously the conscience question is no good if you have not been careful how your conscience was formed or if your conscience has been ‘seared’.) 2) Is there an obvious primary duty, and if so, what is it? 3) How will it affect mothers? There are many more good questions, it is just a matter of finding out what is important to you and checking your actions to make sure that they coincide with these things. For example, if Jesus is an important figure in your life, <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">ask yourself, ‘What would Jesus do?’. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    So, as a result of all this, what are the virtues/values I have adopted? The first is love of God, which I already discussed. It is the first and greatest commandment given in the Bible and therefore is my first and greatest virtue. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    The next is love or compassion, and devotion to others. Why? Because God gave us the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves as the second greatest commandment and as a foundation in order to win others. This love for others is the place we have to begin if we are to be true Christians because all commandments of Christ depend on this one. Not only are we commanded to love others, but we are given the example of Christ in the New Testament, who healed and fed and offered living water to those who were «thirsty». He was/is the greatest example of love for others that there is because He died, having never met us, for us while we were so sinful. If He is to be our example, then, literally, we are to do what He does. If we have a genuine love for others, then all decisions will take into account, and be sincerely responsive about, the well-being of all people involved. But this isn’t a hard concept, it’s simply the golden rule. «Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.» <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    As for my opinion, if a person possesses these two qualities, love of God and love of others, all other virtues/values which are the foundation for making ethical decisions will follow. They will not have to be learned abstractly and within no context because they will be actions that arise as cause and effect: Because you love God and others, the effect is that you will develop the characteristics that reflect love. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    There are certain characteristics that are more important to me than others such as: trustworthiness. If there is no trust in a relationship there is nothing. Furthermore, if a non-Christian has no trust in you, how do you ever expect to convert him, which is the very essence of our Christianity. I have always liked the song «Standing On The Promises» because of that statement…standing on the promises. The words «standing on» emphasize the majesty of what we really are doing. When I think of standing on something I think of something that holds me up as in this past year when we went to <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>Guyana</st1:country-region>, SA, and I stood on the very edge of the <st1:PlaceName w:st=«on»>Kaiture</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>Falls</st1:PlaceType>, five times higher than <st1:place w:st=«on»>Niagara</st1:place>, and NOTHING was holding me up but that ledge I was on. To think that we are standing on the PROMISES of God is a very amazing thing to me to be standing on when there’s nothing below me. Can you think another’s promises you’d rather be standing on? That’s a sobering thought. It is a valuable thing to be able to trust in God’s promises. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Jesus was trustworthy in that He came to earth to do a mission and as much as He wished the cup to pass, He still carried out that mission. (Good thing for us.) He is also trustworthy in that He said He loved us, and we have to be able to trust that because our salvation depends on it. His love for us is our only connection to God. Yes, trust is a gravely important thing indeed. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    I have many other virtues/values I consider important, most of which stem from all else discussed. Honesty, faithfulness, respect, loyalty, a forgiving heart, and many others. But the important thing, to reiterate, is that love should always be at the heart, and if it is these other attributes will surge from it, and making the right ethical decisions will not be so grievous.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">QUALITY INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    A quality interpersonal relationship is a relationship, which is built on understanding of self and others.  A quality interpersonal relationship goes beyond just being casually acquainted with others to sharing with and gaining an understanding of one another.  What I mean by sharing with is that you get a feeling for each other.  I can empathize with you and see things through your eyes.  When a quality interpersonal relationship is present there's certain amount of synergy that takes place between the persons involved in the relationship.  A good example of a quality interpersonal relationship could be found within the strong family unit.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    If we were to study a family that is close knit what would we see.  We would most likely see the following characteristics: individual respect, trust, open lines of communication, open mindedness, patience, empathy, love and many other attributes which add up to a strong interpersonal relationship. With in a strong family you find people that truly feel for each other. For example if Mom is sick the morale of the other family members goes down. If Dad gets a promotion the hold family shares the feelings of esteem with Dad. The point I'm trying to make is that in quality interpersonal relationship you will start to feel some of things that I feel which allow you to better understand me and communicate with me.  Although a quality interpersonal relationship sounds like the best thing since <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Campbell</st1:place></st1:City> soup and the Gerry-curl it's not a relationship that's easily achieved.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    To achieve a quality interpersonal relationship takes time, effort, desire, understanding, trust, disclosure, and feedback, effective communication, and etc.  When we first meet a person we don't immediately establish an interpersonal relationship.  As implied in the opening paragraphs, a quality interpersonal relationship goes for beyond conducting casual conversation.  It takes time to build an interpersonal relationship.  Why?  People like to interact; however, they are protective of there feelings and don't immediately open up to let you inside to see who's live there.  What I'm saying is to establish an interpersonal relationship with others you need to know things about them and get some perception of how they interpret things.  To get this type of understanding about another person takes time.  A good example would be the development of a friendship.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Think of your best friend.  This is probably one of the most productive impersonal relationships that exist for you.  Now go back from the time you met up until now.  How did you get to become such best friends?  As you think through the process you find those things that lead you to become best friends are the some of the same things that are required to build and interpersonal relationship.  I think the depth or even mere existence of an interpersonal relationship hinges on disclosure and feedback.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Let's talk about the importance of disclosure and feedback in a quality interpersonal relationship. First of all let me give credit where credit is do.  My ideas of disclosure and feedback come from the self-disclosure model developed by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham.  The model has become know and Johari's window.  The premise of the model is that the more we disclose about ourselves and get feedback the more we learn about ourselves and the more others learn about us.  I believe there is a direct tie between this theory and how a quality interpersonal relationship is achieved.  When I met the person who is now my best friend, I started the relationship with a casual hello, like most people do.  As time passed, I found reasons to disclose things about me.  Well guess what happen; as I started to disclose things about me he also shared things about him.  As more time passed, we started to give feedback to each other about the characteristics and behaviors of each other. The longer relationship lasted and the more we disclosed the more we begin to trust each other.  The more trust the more disclosure and feedback.  This continued until we've developed an inseparable friendship and a top quality interpersonal relationship.  So you can see it doesn't happen over night and it takes time and risk to build an interpersonal relationship.  The risk comes in when we open ourselves up and share some the personal things that could be used to damage us emotionally.  Although a quality interpersonal relationship is difficult to develop it more than worth it in every walks of life, personal and professional life. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    My organization is responsible developing curriculum for supervisory and management courses. Our job requires the most effective communication skills that we could possibly use.  Our customers depend on our communication skills.  To give our customer a quality product requires a lot of interaction between those of use in the organization.  The very nature of our business is very stressful because the job requires us to be somewhat creative.  We have many think sessions just to figure out which direction to take.  At time the emotions run rampant during these think sessions.  Opinions are criticized and feelings are crushed.  This is where a quality interpersonal relationship is important.  I believe we have quality interpersonal relationships present in our organization.  So instead of addressing what would happen if they were to occur, I’d address what happens due to the presents of the quality interpersonal relationships.<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Our organization is an excellent place to work.  The good Lord blessed me when He assigned me to the organization.  The work is challenging but because of the interpersonal relationships you look forward to the challenge.  I'm not saying I don't get frustrated or complain but when I do feel this way there’s someone there that will listen.  The management shows a genuine concern for the workers.  The lines of communication are open from top to bottom.  There is known backstabbing and very few negative comments about the work ethics of other.  Let me give you example.  There are times that my boss and I have major disagreements to the point of raising our voice and getting frustrated to such a time we have to call timeout.  You would think that this would cause hard feeling between the two of us on standing bases, not so.  The healing process is quick and we have one of the best bosses to subordinate relationships I've seen.  It's not just like that with me but with all of us that have been assigned for over six months or so.  I say six months or so because it takes that long to get use to each other.  Another major plus is all of us are able to discuss what's on our minds with out fear of retribution.  There's a lot of trust between each of us.  All of these things are a result of the strong interpersonal relationships that exist in the organization.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">The Breakdown of Society<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Over the years, people have brought forward hundreds of proposals for the breakdown of society. One of the more popular, or perhaps notorious, depending on your point of view, has placed the blame on the rising predominance of single parent households in society. I personally have trouble believing that one problem can be held responsible for all of societys ills. However, I can definitely see how some people could feel so strongly about this. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Coming from a two-parent family, I cannot speak from experience about life in a single parent household; but I do have friends and acquaintances that were brought up in single parent households. When I spent time with these people and their families, it became quite clear to me that their way of life, though not necessarily better or worse than mine, was certainly not the same. They were clearly missing certain aspects of life that I was accustomed to. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    For instance, while growing up, I always had the experience of two adults on which I could draw in order to form my own opinions, whereas the children who had grown up with only one parent were not afforded this luxury. I always felt bad for them because I had something that they didnt have. Whenever I brought it up, they became very defensive of the parent they lived with, and accused me of being shortsighted. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Financially, single parent households seem to be at a definite disadvantage compared to households with both parents. There are many statistics showing how difficult it is to support a family on one income. Even the <st1:country-region w:st=«on»>United States</st1:country-region> department of Health and Human Services has declared, It is no longer feasible in <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>America</st1:place></st1:country-region> to enjoy a middle class standard of living without the presence of two incomes (Burk, 1). This problem seems to be worsened by the unfair system of transfer payments that has been implemented by our government. It becomes a case of two families living on two incomes, rather than the traditional system of one family living on the same two incomes. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Recent efforts to criminalize non-payment of child support are ludicrous. It gives boys the message that when they grow up and foolishly become fathers themselves, their lives will be destroyed by bitter wives, just like their fathers before them had their lives ruined. Girls, on the other hand, get the impression that they can grow up and become breeder mommies whose lives will be subsidized by government sanctioned child support. The net effect is bitter children with a warped sense of values. In addition to marring the children, this also poses the question of how a father would be able to pay child support from prison (Burk, 2). <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Clearly, this is a very obtuse point of view. To blame all of this problem solely on either the mothers or the fathers would be cruelly unfair. Obviously both parents should be held both financially and emotionally responsible for the raising of a child, even if the child only lives with one of these parents. Some fair system must be designed so that a child can be financially supported, without draining the assets of the non-custodial parent. I personally feel that a child would be able to get just as much love and emotional nourishment from one parent as a child would get from both. Though there may be more of a financial burden, I think that children of single parent families can live as full, happy, and successful a life as their two-parent counterparts. Surely, there must be thousands of children from single parent households who have made very successful lives for themselves despite their upbringings. Or, maybe their single parent upbringing actually contributed to their success. Perhaps some children thrive on the difficulties that they faced as children and are all the better for having gone through it. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Statistically, however, far more social pathologies can be found among children from single parent households than can be found among children from two parent households. There is a broad spectrum of these problems, obviously <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">rooted in single parenting: 63% of all youth suicides are committed by children from single parent households; 70% of all teenage pregnancies occur in women from single parent families; 71% of all adolescent chemical and substance abusers reign from households with only one parent present; 80% of all prison inmates grew up with only one parent; 90% of all homeless and runaway children belong to families with only one parent (Burk 2). These statistics point a very guilty finger in the direction of single parent families being to blame for the breakdown of society. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Though these are definitely strong statistics; in my opinion, they don’t demonstrate anything but the fact that more programs need to be in place to help children regardless of their parenting situation. Since none of these statistics equals a full 100%, it is clear that children from two parent families, can also fall victim to these social pathologies. This still leaves the question in the air of whether society as a whole is to blame for its downfall of if all problems are rooted in single parenting practices. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    There is substantial evidence to support the belief that single parent households place a severe financial burden on society as a whole. Since single parents need to be home to take care of their children, many cannot or choose not to work, and are forced to go on welfare to survive. With as many as five million families are on welfare at this time, this program this costs the combined state and federal governments 25.2 billion dollars per year. That figure works out to an average of approximately 156 dollars per family per year in federal and state taxes (Freeman, 1). However, perhaps it is our responsibility to share some of this burden. As our esteemed First Lady put it «It takes a village to raise a child.» <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    There is clearly a much tougher burden placed on single parents that on parents of an «textbook family.» This parent becomes responsible not only for providing financially for their children, but also being the sole provider of guidance, companionship, and moral support, all of which are vital to the healthy upbringing of a child. They have no one to share this workload with, nor do they have anyone as a companion, on whom they can vent their frustrations and joys. This must be a terrible burden for only one parent to handle alone. Perhaps this is contributing to the fact that nearly 70% of child abuse is perpetrated by single parents (Burk, 1). In addition, there are certain things that a child needs to learn from a person of one particular gender. Children of single parents often miss out on this. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    However difficult this burden may be to shoulder, I believe that some people are born with certain inherent characteristics that make them more or less able to handle this burden. Some people are perfectly happy raising children by themselves, and if they can find a way to meet the needs of their children, I believe that they can make perfectly good parents. Also, there are support groups for single parents, which can, in some ways, be a partial substitute for the second parent. There are many cases in which a child that has grown up with both parents is less successful in life than a similar child that had only one parent participate in their upbringing. As Vernellia Randall writes in her «Open Letter on Single Parenting», «I submit that it is not the structure of families that determine their success, but whether the adult(s) in the family have a good education, make a decent income, and have good parenting skills. Being a single parent is not the problem; it's the lack of these ingredients that is the problem.» <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    So the question remains would society be better off in there were no single parent households? Perhaps it would be. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Or, maybe it wouldn't be. Since there doesn't seem to be any way to prove either case, the goal of society should be to deal with the task at hand, which is to properly raise children, regardless of how many parents they live with. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">                    Even if it were somehow proved that single parent families are hurting society, there is very little that could be done to curb this trend. I personally don't see what society has to gain by pointing fingers, but I do understand mankind's instinctual need to place blame, whether the target of the blame deserves it or not. <span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">THE CONFLICTS OF THE MODERN WORLD.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">A COMPETITIVE SOCIETY.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»">                                  

<span Arial",«sans-serif»">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»">He, who commands the past, controls thefuture,

<span Arial",«sans-serif»">                                   He, who controlsthe future, conquers the past.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»">                                                                                  -KANE-

<span Arial",«sans-serif»">Inthis composition I would like to discuss the conflicts of the modern world andthe consequences of the competitive society. Being asked about this I usuallystart with a competitive society. Because this is the thing we face in everyday life and always ask one question ourselves: ’Why have we created the worldfull of troubles and problems whereas we ourselves live in it?’ This soundsreally paradoxical but it is true. For instance, the taxes in our country bringso many troubles to people who want to start their own business that theysimply have to find ways not to pay them. Thousands of examples all over theworld can be given here but the idea is that, understanding all this, we do nottry even to improve anything.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»">Onthe other hand competitive life exists even at school where pupils are toparticipate in a so-called ‘racing game’ which is based on gaining better marksand results in everything. This idea is not new that is why different people atdifferent times tried to solve this problem. The most famous is the of aboutsocial equality. The idea of social equality is really silly, to my mind,because there will always be one who will think that he is better than theothers and just only due to this we will not ever get equality.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»">Onthe contrary, if there is no competitive society there is no development. It isof no use of aspiring to the best. Nothing but a competitive society made aman  make a flight to space. Besides,there were a lot of other discoveries, which improved the life and socialconditions, which happened only due to competitive society.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»">Ibelieve, that there exists only one solution. It is nesessary to develop thecompetitive society limited with a strict law. Because we do not realize thatthis competitive society reflects <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:City w:st=«on»>Darwin</st1:City></st1:place>’stheory about survival but on a higher level. Moreover, we do not realize thatthe last level of such development is a war.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">            Frommy point of view, the problem of a war is the most urgent problem nowadays dueto the invention of new high technological weapons and weapons of massdestruction. It is extremely important to bear in mind that the only horriblething, which will ever happen, is the third world war.

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">

еще рефераты
Еще работы по иностранным языкам