If you had the authority to change your school in a positive way, what specific changes would you make?
This is the same question that's up for a scholarship. My sister JUST finished applying for it. Hopefully you aren't using it for that benefit, that's unfair to the rest of the students who are doing it in the correct manner.
If you were given the authority to change your school in a positive way, what changes would you make?
I would get rid of all the Marxist/socialist/communist etc. teachers that our American schools and colleges are filled with...
I need some information on the Tennessee Valley Authority part of FDR's New Deal.?
Now for an answer that you can actually read and use from a real historian: Positive effects: 1. It lowered the rate people in the Tennessee Valley region had to pay for electricity by nearly 80% thus helping making more homes electrified than ever before. 2. It helped industry spread into that region of the country now that cheap electricity was made available 3. It created tens of thousands of jobs for those that built and maintained the dam, those that built and maintained the powere plants along the line, those that maintained the power lines, those that created businesses that drew power from the dams, and those associated in any way with the management of the electricy. 4. It generated tax dollars in the region thanks to the paychecks families received for working with the dam 5. The increased tax dollars helped provide better schools and public services Negative effects: 1. It damaged the environment by flooding areas of forest land as the water from the dams backed up, damaging the natural habitat of animals in the region. And that is about it. There are not many negative results of the TVA. It was BY FAR the most successful of ALL the New Deal programs extablished by Roosevelt and the New Deal braintrust. And there you have it.
Who don't feminists go to India or Saudi Arabia and try to change there?
“Who don't feminists go to India or Saudi Arabia and try to change there?” Because modern feminism was financed by the corporate elite in the western nations to divided and conquer the working class HERE where they have a presence and stake in the whole economy. India and Saudi Arabia are compliant bit players for the moment in the whole new world order arrangement. If and when they produce their own middle class that begins to rise to prominence and demands a greater share of power and wealth, they too will then have a similar type program foisted on them by whichever elite will prosper by keeping them down. In most of the world, the women there are NOT interested in western type feminism anyway. We in the west are the oddballs who prescribe to a system that has soaring divorce rates, devalues the family, promotes debauchery on mainstream media, allows our young girls to dress like little hookers, tolerates a subversion of authority in our young boys and are sliding into moral decay as a whole society. There is no way a country like Saudi Arabia is going to tolerate western feminists subverting their culture by demanding that THEIR women be allowed to dress like slvts. Especially while the men there are similarly controlled by the state. The final irony is that feminism cannot exist where men have not first made it safe for them to exist. Anywhere outside of the worlds western nations are NOT safe for feminists. Any work done on behalf of women is always performed by Human Rights organizations and never by what we understand to be specific Feminist organizations.
What can a Majority Shareholder do ?
If a public company is undervalued or having a bad year due to incompetent management - and If an individual investor comes and purchases the vast majority {near 100%, if available, in a takeover tender offer} of general/voting shares of that company, what exactly are their rights and how do they exercise their authority ? If you purchase majority of voting and general shares in a public company, can you walk in the following day, call an emergency meeting and use your new found authority for any of the following reasons: > Request an immediate sell off of specific assets ? > Request an immediate purchase of certain product ? > Replace CEO/CFO/Senior Directors immediately ? > Request an immediate change to the allocation of resources ? > Shift internal business plans for the next quarter/year, with a more feasible one, in your opinion ? > Cut costs by immediately laying off workers, shutting down non-productive factories/brands, etc. ? > Micromanage and Give senior staff members specific tasks and responsibilities ? > Initiate & delegate a new direction, brand strategy, projects without being a CEO ? > How soon after gaining their overwhelming majority ownership, can they enact operational/budgeting/procedural/financi... changes, as they see fit ? **********DISCLAIMER: The Majority Shareholder would be doing all things to the benefit of the entire company, including minor shareholders and existing staff. Not for any expedient, short sighted purposes that may violate minority shareholder rights. In fact, this hypothetical should be considered a takeover tender offer of 100% of outstanding shares. So there are no minority shareholders to hurt. Thanks