Commands and Requests in Spanish Without the Imperative Mood

Although the imperative mood is frequently used to tell or ask people to do something, other verb forms also are used. This lesson covers some of the most common non-imperative ways of giving commands. Infinitives as Impersonal Commands The infinitive (the unconjugated verb form that ends in -ar, -er or -ir) is frequently used, especially in print and online rather than verbally, to give commands to no one person in particular. It is seen most commonly on signs and in written instructions. Examples: No fumar. (No smoking.) Hacer clic aquà ­. (Click here.) No tocar. (Do not touch.) Sazonar los frijoles y servirlos en un plato. (Season the beans and serve them on a plate.) Colgar el telà ©fono y esperar. (Hang up the telephone and wait.) Use of Present and Future Tenses to Give Commands As in English, the present and future indicative tenses can be used to issue emphatic commands. Using the present and future tenses in this way normally wouldnt be done when youre trying to be diplomatic; more likely, they would be used when simple persuasion hasnt been successful or if youre trying to be particularly matter-of-fact. Examples: Comerà ¡s el brà ³coli. (You WILL eat the broccoli.) Me llamas maà ±ana. (You call me tomorrow.) Indirect Commands By using the subjunctive mood in a clause beginning with que, it is possible to indirectly give a command to someone other than the person being spoken to. As the following examples indicate, a variety of English translations can be used, depending on the context. Examples: Que Dios te bendiga. (God bless you.) Que vaya à ©l a la oficina. (Have him go to the office.) Que me traiga ella sus archivos. (Tell her to bring me her files.) Que en paz descanse. (May he rest in peace.) First-Person Plural Commands There are two ways to give a command to a group that includes yourself: use followed by the infinitive, or use the first-personal plural subjunctive form of the verb. These are typically translated in English by using lets. In the negative form (lets not), the subjunctive form (not no vamos a) is typically used. To say lets go, use vamos or và ¡monos; to say lets not go, use no vayamos or no nos vayamos. Examples: Vamos a comer. (Lets eat.) Comamos. (Lets eat.) No comamos. (Lets not eat.) Vamos a hacerlo. (Lets do it.) Hagà ¡moslo. (Lets do it.) No lo hagamos. (Lets not do it.)

Comparing Poor Mans Pudding, Bartleby, Ministers Black...

Lack of Epiphany in Poor Mans Pudding, Bartleby, Ministers Black Veil, or Masque of the Red Death In the Melville stories, Poor Mans Pudding and Rich Mans Crumbs and Bartleby, the Scrivener, the narrators go through what appear to be life-changing experiences. Hawthorne offers a similar outline in The Ministers Black Veil as does Poe in Masque of the Red Death. Yet, at the conclusion of each of these stories, there is no evidence to suggest that the narrator is affected by the differences (and perhaps similarities) of their lives and those less fortunate. In Poor Mans Pudding and Rich Mans Crumbs The narrator has the opportunity to absorb, as much as an outsider can, the heartache and trials of the†¦show more content†¦While he is bothered, disturbed and almost haunted by this curious employee there is no proof that the narrator is a changed man as a result of his experiences with Bartleby. The narrator does not even appear to see himself clearly, claiming to be a man of peace while practicing harsh and aggressive mannerisms and expressions such as: I should have violently thrown him out and words like thrust, advance and gorge. If the narrator fails to recognize who he is in the first place then there is little hope that he will be changed by the events relating to Bartleby. The narrators willingness to tell his story, in my opinion, is not substantial evidence that there has been a deep conversion of social attitudes in this man so that he is affected by the lessons and the reality of humanity that was brought to his attention as a result of Bartleby. Hawthorne offers a similar outline in The Ministers Black Veil. The minister wears a veil for unknown reasons. Theories range from the ministers need to punish himself for some unknown sin to the ministers deliberate effort to force his congregation to acknowledge their own veils. While the veil, and the feelings it stir among the town, create a palpable distance between the minister and his congregation there is really no change on the part of the minister. He may be

Doma Debate Free Essays

string(87) " from obtaining any of the rights afforded to persons who marry opposite their gender\." DOMA: Support or Repeal? BCOM 275 DOMA: Repeal or Support? Abstract This debate argues whether the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be supported or repealed on the basis of its definition of marriage, its constitutionality, and its impacts on non-heterosexual families. This debate argues that the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed because its definition of marriage is heavily based on values of tradition in this country and because the definition violates the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. DOMA: Support or Repeal? The Argument in support of DOMA The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a federal law that was first introduced by Republican Bob Barr from Georgia in May of 1996. We will write a custom essay sample on Doma Debate or any similar topic only for you Order Now The bill passed in the house by a vote of 342-67 and in the Senate by a vote of 85-14. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. DOMA gives states the right not to recognize same-sex marriage that another state has already recognized. Secondly, the law provides a federal definition of marriage. DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In this paper, we are going to outline the two major provisions of DOMA. We will explore the federal definition of marriage and whether this is justified. We will further discuss the rights granted to the states and their ability to decline same sex marriage from other states. We will discuss both pros and cons of each part of DOMA, and then provide our teams determination on which is the more persuasive argument. First let’s explore the DOMA mandated federal definition of Marriage. The language, taken directly from the law itself, is defined as follows: â€Å"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. † By this definition, it is very clear cut that DOMA defines marriage as a traditional man and woman union. Since 1998, following in the footsteps of DOMA, 30 states have had their voters approve constitutional amendments to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Although not overwhelming, it is a majority and represents 60% of our states that have taken steps to protect the traditional definition of marriage. The question next becomes a matter of whether this definition, based in tradition is justified? The traditional argument is based in the belief that marriage, rooted in tradition has always been between a man and a woman, and that this is also the best environment to raise children. The belief that marriage should be defined traditionally is not about taking away rights from anyone, it is just about not redefining the word marriage. Many supporters of a marriage definition argue that they don’t have any issues with gay couples; they just want the definition of marriage to be traditional. They are not proponents of banning anyone’s rights. The definition of marriage, is only part of DOMA’s mandate, the second part is the power granted to the states. The second part of DOMA that we will discuss is the rights granted to the state. It is defined as: â€Å"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. † This very simply means that if you are a same sex couple and were married in a particular state that recognizes same sex marriage, then other states are not required to recognize that marriage. It serves to protect the rights of the states and the voters who have enacted rules in their states that define marriage as only between a man and a woman. These rights granted to the states are extremely important to respect the laws of the states that are already in place and are being adhered to. It is very important for people who live in a certain place to be able to rely on the community beliefs being upheld legally and not be changed when couples from other states move there and want the same recognition as they had in another state. It helps protect the states’ rights, and although some will argue that what is good for one state should be good for another, it is important to have the voters of each state decide what is right and wrong. The decision of DOMA to grant this power to states helps preserve this sense of community and provide a stable way ahead in this matter. The Argument to repeal DOMA The Defense of Marriage act should be repealed because it discriminates against same-sex couples; it violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment: and because it simply is not necessary. Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 because of the concern of states that do not support same-sex marriages. Section 3 of DOMA states:   â€Å"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife† (CNN Washington, 2011). This definition of marriage clearly discriminates against those individuals who desire to legally enter into marriage with persons of the same gender because it prohibits such individuals from obtaining any of the rights afforded to persons who marry opposite their gender. You read "Doma Debate" in category "Essay examples" This act of discrimination toward same-sex couples violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment by requiring the federal government to deny recognition of the existing legal marriages of same-sex couples (Gay Lesbian Advocates Defenders, 2012). The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the Federal Government not deprive individuals of â€Å"life, liberty, or property,† without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws (Find US Law, 2012). Because Section 3 of DOMA excludes same sex couples from having their marriages recognized legally under federal law it does, in fact, deprive those individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. For many people, regardless of their sexual orientation, marriage is a major event in life. DOMA deprives homosexual individuals from fully participating in marriage because they do not reap the same benefits from marriage as their heterosexual counterparts. DOMA treats married same-sex couples as unmarried for purposes of all 1,138 federal laws in which marital status is a factor (Gay Lesbian Advocates Defenders, 2012). For example, at tax time, legally married same-sex couples suffer financially because of they are unable to file their federal tax returns jointly, as heterosexual married couples do. They also they don’t have the same access to Social Security benefits as heterosexual couples. Children of same-sex couples do not have the same inheritance rights in regards to Social Security and retirement benefits as do children of heterosexual couples, because both parents cannot be listed on their birth certificate. Same-sex spouses also do not have the same next of kin rights in making medical decisions during a medical crisis for their spouse. In order for them to have any decision making role, they are forced to take additional legal steps just to provide their spouse with a decision making capacity, that is automatically and freely afforded to married heterosexual couples. The fact that Section 3 of DOMA discriminates against homosexuals was supported on February 23, 2011, when a public letter was sent to the House of Representatives by Attorney General Eric Holder. In his letter Holder wrote, â€Å"The President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. In the letter, Holder also informed the Speaker of the House that the Department of Justice of the United States would no longer defend DOMA â€Å"unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. †Ã‚   The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted by Congress to exclude same sex married couples from being able to receive the same benefits afforded to opposite sex married couples. Section 2 of DOMA states: â€Å"No state, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. † Only states can marry people and Congress has always deferred to state status determinations. The Tenth Amendment provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from exercising, are â€Å"reserved to the States respectively, or to the people† (New World Encyclopedia, 2009). Since each state has the sovereign right to decide on whether same-sex marriage is legal or not, there is no need for the Defense of Marriage Act. Additionally DOMA not only violates the Fifth Amendment, it violates and was written to circumvent Article IV, Section 1, of the U. S. Constitution, more commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Full Faith and Credit Clause provides â€Å"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. † (Wikipedia. org, Full Faith and Credit Clause). Essentially, the clause states that evidence, judicial proceedings, and the like, if accepted by in the state it took place in, must be accepted in any other state. This is exactly how a marriage in good legal standing in Michigan is recognized in good legal standing, in California. While this clause has been applied to family law protective orders and child support collection, it was never applied to force any state to recognize an interracial marriage, prior to all laws banning such marriages were struck down by the Supreme Court, in 1967. To date, the clause has never been applied to any same sex marriage. DOMA unnecessarily contradicts this clause and creates a needless legal quandary by allowing states to pick and choose which regulations they will honor, from other states, all the while further engendering further discrimination. Not only does this clause apply to interstate legal matters, it is applied to international marriages. The definition of marriage, as defined by DOMA, prevents the federal, and thus the state government from recognizing same sex marriages from countries where it is legal. This then also impacts the legal and economic rights of immigrants and international travelers. DOMA has been cited as protecting traditional marriage and supporting the family unit. DOMA only provides a definition of marriage, it does nothing to upport or protect traditional, heterosexual marriages or the children of those marriages. DOMA only protects economic and legal privileges for heterosexual married couples. As such, it condones and enforces discrimination based on the gender of married couples. Non heterosexual families have and raise children, our future community members, just like heterosexual couples. By not repealing DOMA, we as a nation, are telling future generations that it is acceptable to withhold legal, inheritance, medical and economic rights and privileges, based upon someone’s gender. Conclusion The arguments of this debate have been made a team of individual who have differing views on this legislation. We have respectfully agreed to conclude our arguments, based on a majority vote, which in this case, is for repealing DOMA. While DOMA established a federally determined definition of marriage based on tradition, that very definition unjustifiably restricts certain rights afforded to heterosexual couples from non-heterosexual couples. DOMA serves to act as a divisive piece legislation that does nothing to protect heterosexual married couples, or their families, all the while, endangering same-sex couples’ financial, legal, medical, and inheritance rights, and destabilizing their families. DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, as well as contradicts Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full and Fair Credit Clause, and needlessly creates national and international ligation. Ultimately, DOMA should be repealed because it is discriminatory, divisive, and unconstitutional. References CNN Washington. (2011, February 23). The 1600 Report`. Retrieved from CNN Politics: http://whitehouse. blogs. cnn. com/2011/02/23/attorney-general-declares-doma-unconstitutional/ Dayna K. Shah. (2004). GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act. Washington D. D. , : U. S. G. A. O. Defense of Marriage Act. (2004). Retrieved from http://www. pbs. org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/act. html Find US Law. (2012). U. S. Constitution- 5th and 14th Amendments. Retrieved from How to cite Doma Debate, Essay examples

Agency Policy and Projects Unit

Question: Discuss about the Agency Policy and Projects Unit ? Answer: Introduction The Government of Tasmania is planning to develop its capability by felicitating good practices and developing appropriate methodologies for supporting the government information management and system activities. For this purpose its agency that is Inter Agency Policy and Projects Unit (IAPPU) has already set up the phase 1 and working on implementing the phase 2. Phase 2 has been developed in the form of a business case. A business case is a document (mostly) which argues to convince the decision maker to approve actions need to be taken on a particular project (A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 2013). It includes the tools that project manager will be in need to guide the management, design, and evaluation of the project. The business case in question is Sharing Better Practice Project Business Phase 2 developed by Department Of Premier and Cabinet. Its importance will be critically analysed in this essay and in the conclusion the whole essay will be summarized a long with the recommendations (Beresford, 2010). Critical Evaluation of the Business Case for the Project A literature review presented here will help in knowing the importance of the business case Sharing Better Practices for the project of developing capability by progressing and implementing of sharing better ideas between agencies to find better ways to run an association (Trad, Kalpic, 2015). The business case considered here is prepared to assess the outcome of the steps need to be taken for the completion of the project of creating a department that will collect good idea and this business case will to saves time, money, and risk of loss. Famous author John Moore agrees on it and state in his article state tells about the importance of the business case. He says that business case analyses all the phases of the project long before of implementation which gives an idea of the success of the project along with other important details required for the project on implementation or may be required during the implementation (Moore, 2009). The question raises that in increasing the capa bility of a government agency why a business case is required? To answer this question, the article written by Simon becomes handy because he says that a business case helps in looking at bottom line which expresses the vision, values, and mission of the project. With so many different agencies involvement, that there are so many people to convince a verbal communication is time-consuming at times. Thus, a business case helps in clearing all the aspects of the project and help in convincing everyone (Simon, 2013). The companies emphasize on preparing the business case because it helps the management to understand and foresee the outcome of the project taken. Author Alan Gleeson says that yes a business case helps the management in five ways, first it helps in mapping the future, secondly, it supports the growth and secure funding, thirdly, it develops and communicates the course of action, fourthly, it helps in managing the cash flow, and lastly, it plans a strategic exit also (Glee son, 2017). A business case is developed to make the decision maker understand the importance of the project and how this project can prove to be beneficial for them. A project has many aspects, and factors that are in need to be discussed before taking any decision on it (Gallagher, 2011). A well-detailed business includes everything from money, labour, time duration, and drawbacks. Many a times even solutions to problems that may occur in future are also mentioned in it. Stakeholders are the decision makers, and it is a very difficult task to assure them about the profitability or the success of the project. For this purpose, a business case helps the management drastically as it is a sample plan of the exact project that the company or agency will be developing. It will be helping the stakeholders in understanding what will be happening when and what sources will be required for it. In short it clarifies whatever a stakeholder wants to know about the project development (Gotoh, 2009). A company understands the importance of developing a business case before starting any project. An idea, expansion and development for a company are important for achieving its goal of success (Turner, 2014). In the development of the capability of the Tasmania Government, many different agencies will be required to share information and ideas with a department dedicated to it in IAPPU. The major drawback of this project is the involvement of many agencies and convincing them to share their information with the Better Practice Services. (Ulbrich, 2010) Doing it verbally is totally impossible. Sharing Better Practice business case will help in convincing all the agencies by showing them the benefits of sharing ideas. They will be able to relate to the project in a better way. The agencies will have an idea all the time as to which part of the project will be in development at that moment, which will help them in measuring the completion of the project will be on time or not (Marsh, 20 11). The project has already set up its phase 1. Thus, for implementation which is phase 2 of the project a business case Sharing Better Practices Project Phase 2 is developed. The question arises here is that when the agencies were ready to participate in the development of the department by sharing their ideas and then what is the need of preparing this implementation part that phase 2 business case. The phase 2 implementation business case is a development of phase 1 and in detail explains the process (Michalos, 2013). The agency could have done without it also. This business case does not add anything new to the project more than just the details on the points presented in the phase 1 business case. Spending public money on the development of such business cases feels useless if it is not able to make some significant addition to the project (Miller, 2013). A business case can never give a surety of hundred percent that the project will be a success. There is no certainty that the business case developed can justify with the project that will be in the development sometime in the future (Niles, 2011). Sharing Better Practice business case given here gives out a few limitations that the agency may face, but is that all? There can be some other issues that the business case is not able to identify. It is important that the business case should have left a leeway for such unexpected limitations that may come and hinder the development of the project in future. Other than this, the project in consideration is so huge and need to be developed on such a large scale with some agencies in consideration that is it really difficult to develop a business case that can justify the project (Palepu, Healy, Peek, 2016). By going through the business case of Sharing Better Practices Phase 2 one thing that comes to mind again and again is the simplicit y of the business case. A more through research is required before the implementation of the project. This phase includes agencies at the national and international level, which is not being discussed as it should in the business case. A business case should discuss all the matters and the international agencies, and their coordination with the national agencies is not mentioned in the business case. It is important that the business case should fulfill all the important development activities required for the project that somewhere lacks in this business case (Richmond, 2010). A government project is developed for the benefit of the country and the world. The Tasmania Government agency IAPPU has come up with a great idea of developing an agency for sharing ideas and information for better development in all the sectors of the organisation (Sivaev, 2013). Though the business case Sharing Better Ideas was developed to provide necessary information that the members associated with the development should be aware of and convince them to give their decision in the favour of the development of the projects phase 2, but from the details given in the business case it is difficult to lure the agencies to share their information. This is also true that this shared information will help people on the global level, but every agency wants to keep their success idea a secret. For convincing the agencies to share their ideas and information a more convincing and detailed business case is needed that helps the agencies in understanding its importance and benefits (Solodil ova, 2015). Few recommendations for the improvement of the business case Sharing Better Practice are like more details of the benefits of the agencies associated with the project need to be added in the business case. How this project will be benefitting nationally and internationally should be added. Uncertain hindrances that may occur in future are not been added, it is important to consider them in the business case. The success of phase 1 can be added in the business case to make it stronger. Feedback and suggestion from the agencies can be taken to improve the business case. A new department is being formed and no new recruitments are going to happen. This will increase the workload of the existing employees. This may act as a disadvantage, a solution for this problem should be considered. These recommendations will help in making the business case better and more convincing for which a business case is developed. Conclusion A business case is a very useful management tool that not only helps in convincing the decision makers, but also clearly defines all the factors associated with the project that needs to be developed. Tasmania Government wants to increase its capability by developing an agency that will collect the ideas and information that are good and make them available nationally and internationally. Here also a business case Sharing Better Practice Phase 2 is developed to convince the agencies in the implementation of the project that is phase 2. The business case provides adequate information about the project and its need. It also clearly expresses what is expected from the agencies. Though, at some points the business case is not able to deliver as expected. It does not expand on the benefits that agencies are going to earn from this project, and other than common limitation no leeway is mentioned in the business case for uncertainty. Hence, it is concluded that a more detailed business case need to be developed as a business case is an important factor of a project and if well developed then gives the surety of the projects success. References A guide to the project management body of knowledge. (2013). 5th ed. Newtown: Project Management Institute. Beresford, Q. (2010). Corporations, Government and Development: The Case of Institutional Corruption in Tasmania.Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(2), pp.209-225. Gallagher, J. (2011). The Business Case Study: A Suitable Candidate For Blended Learning?.Journal of Business Case Studies (JBCS), 2(4), p.5. Gotoh, R. (2009). Critical factors increasing user satisfaction with e-government services.Electronic Government, an International Journal, 6(3), p.252. Indelicato, G. (2014). A Compendium of PMO Case Studies: Reflecting Project Business Management Concepts.Project Management Journal, 45(2), pp.e4-e4. Marsh, D. (2011). Pragmatic project management: Five scalable steps to success.Project Management Journal, 42(1), pp.93-93. Michalos, A. (2013). The Business Case for Asserting the Business Case for Business Ethics.Journal of Business Ethics, 114(4), pp.599-606. Miller, L. (2013). An Integrative Business Case Utilizing An Online Database.Journal of Business Case Studies (JBCS), 10(1), p.21. Niles, N. (2011). A New Definition Of A Business Model.Journal of Business Economics Research (JBER), 6(12). Palepu, K., Healy, P. and Peek, E. (2016).Business analysis and valuation. 1st ed. Andover, Hampshire, United Kingdom: Cengage Learning EMEA. Richmond, L. (2010). A business case for business history: how companies can profit from their past.Business History, 52(5), pp.872-873. Sivaev, D. (2013). How should we help business grow? Delivering business support.Local Economy, 28(7-8), pp.906-910. Solodilova, N. (2015). Potential for Development and Limitations of Regional Business Environment.Economy of Region, pp.137-148. Trad, A. and Kalpi?, D. (2015). The Business Transformation Framework for Managers in Business Innovation Transformation Projects:.International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 6(4), pp.22-45. Turner, J. (2014).Handbook of project-based management : leading strategic change in organizations. 1st ed. Ulbrich, F. (2010). Deploying centres of excellence in government agencies.Electronic Government, an International Journal, 7(4), p.362.