Reflection On The Self Of Light Of My Baptism - 1255 Words

This paper will reflect my perceptions of self in light of my baptism. It also exemplifies and magnifies my Christian journey. I was chosen by God as his servant before he placed me in my mother’s womb. It was after my birth and through his directing that I came to Him. My baptism was and remains my identifying symbol of God’s love for me, and that same symbol has become my credentials of a new birth, so that I can present it as evidence to prove to â€Å"whom I belong.† Who am I in light of my baptism, a simple question doesn’t always require a complex answer. I identify myself as a Christian, a follower of the word of God and the life of Jesus Christ my savior, servant of God, mother, daughter, sister and friend. I am a reflection of†¦show more content†¦My baptism lets me and others know that I can go to God for anything. It keeps me aware that I am covered by His blood, and there is an earthly death to sin that leads to eternal life. My baptism was an opportunity to cleanse the old me, and devote my life toward learning and developing a new me based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am the recipient of three baptisms; first as a child, second as a young adult and last as a mother. I became a member of the Methodist church as a young child. It was what was expected of me, to unite and become a member of our church. But, my doing so went beyond the expected; I joined the church, and was baptized because I knew Jesus had a calling on my life. Baptism was different to me because it confirmed my special place as God’s chosen one. I had always thought that I had a special mission for God, and I had to be baptized in order to do complete my task. My baptism as a child made me feel special and complete. When I was about nineteen, my mother changed churches and denomination. She became a Baptist, and I followed her, because I believed that families should worship together. This church required that I be submerged in water, which gave me the true understanding and feeling of death to sin. This baptism increased my commitment to the church, at this age, I had acquired a better understanding of God’s presence and purpose. I knew that I was saying that I would come to church every Sunday, work in the church, and

American Movies of the 1920’s Free Essays

Running head: AMERICA AND THE MOVIES OF THE 1920’S February 13, 2012 US HIS II ABSTRACT The movies of the 1920’s provided one of America’s most forms of entertainment after World War One. Americans were able to spend a little extra and enjoy such events as they were not devastates during with war. The movies for the American people began soon after the invention of automobiles. We will write a custom essay sample on American Movies of the 1920’s or any similar topic only for you Order Now The movies provided communications and entertainment and soon began to open the American people to ideas of a different lifestyle on the screen. Some great actors and actresses came from this era. One of the being Charlie Chaplin, who with his charm, wit and forms of acting entertained the American people. The years following the devastating war take place prior to 1920 and fortunately left the United States unharmed. The United States was therefore able to experience a decade of peace and prosperity following one of the most devastating wars. One of the reason’s America was able to prosper was because technology played a vital part in bringing the economic and culture prosperity that America experienced in the 1920’s. New advancements, new inventions and the discoveries improved American lives in numerous ways. The combination of an increase in American recreation and the invention of the automobile helped in bringing success to the movie industry. Early movie attendance was low due to the distribution of theaters. As soon as the automobile was more popular, transportation was less of a hassle and movie attendance increased. The history of film spans from the early part of the nineteenth century. Motion pictures developed gradually from carnival novelty to one of the most important tools of communication and entertainment. Many of the films in the 20th century were silent. In the silent era of film, marrying the image with sound was not possible for the inventors and producers. For the first thirty years of the history of film, they were silent, and sometimes were accompanied by live musicians and sometimes sound effect and commentary were spoken by the showman. In the earliest silent films the actors were responsible for method acting or pantomime to portray their feelings to the audience. This in itself took much talent from the actors and actresses to help the audience feel the total impact of the movie. The movie industry became a huge part of American industry in general. Movies became America’s favorite form of entertainment. â€Å"Early movie stars such as Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Douglas Fairbanks became idols to the American people who set trends in clothing and hairstyles† (James, 2009). Although the movies were a huge part of American life, some negative roles came from the movies. Actress Clara Bow, known as the â€Å"jazz baby† was enticing in the movies, and she soon became a cultural icon, who women accepted as their idol. The silent movie â€Å"It† was a huge success for Clara and millions of girls across America soon began imitating her style. Another famous person in the movies of the 1920’s was Charlie Chaplin. Chaplin was one of the greatest and most loved movie stars. He was known for his slapstick acrobatics. Chaplin was able to keep the attention of the audience by creating an environment and walk around it until something natural happened. He used overdramatic acting and lots of emotion. He helped the audience with knowing what the film was about by his demonstrations. The advent of technology helped the success of the movie history. Life was easy and convenient due to the industry of movies that took place during the 1920’s. The American people had dealt with the happenings of the war, and now they were able to relax and enjoy the newer things that life had to offer. Movies were the biggest form of entertainment during this time. REFERENCES Henrietta James A. , et. al. America: A Concise History. 4th Edition Bedford/St. Martins: Boston 2009. Primary Source Packet. Bethel University: McKenzie, TN 2005 How to cite American Movies of the 1920’s, Papers

Public Potential of Corporate Law - Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Public Potential of Corporate Law. Answer: Introduction: The present case is consisting of certain questions that are specifically engraved under the provision of the Corporation Act 2001. The subject matter of the case is evolved with the continents of Australia and it depends upon the duties of the director in a company or the corporation (Hiller 2013). The company related matters of Australia is dealing by Corporation Act 2001. It has been stated under the Act that it is a duty of the director to act in good faith while performing his duties and should treat all the shareholders and the colleagues similarly (Li 2014). The Acct binds the director of a company so that they could not take any arbitrary steps. The primary objective of the Act is to protect the interest of the shareholders. Under the Act, it has been mentioned that a director of a company should work for the best interest of the company (Huggins, Simnett and Hargovan 2015). Therefore, a director should have to adopt necessary policies for the betterment of the company. A dif ference between two terms- best interest of the company and interest of the company as a whole has also been done in this case. The term good faith means an intention to do a job sincerely (Anderson 2014). In the continents of Australia, the term good faith is particularly goes with the acts of the directors of the company. Directors are holding an important position in a company and all the important works are executed by the directors (Welsh 2014). Therefore, the future of a company is vehemently depends upon the acts of the directors. The primary motto of a director should be doing certain works for the benefit of the company. They should be intended to use the power imposed by the company positively and they should not act for gaining illegal money from the company (Dixon 2016). The principle of good faith is depending upon the principle of equity. It is considered as the fiduciary obligation of the directors and under this provision; a director is obliged to perform his duties for the benefit of the related persons of the company (Viven-Wilksch 2015). The term fiduciary means trust and in the sectors like company or corporation, the person who acts on behalf of another, is said to hold the fiduciary position. Under the law it has been mentioned that the person upon whom the fiduciary conditions are imposed ought to act honestly. Good faith has also been discussed under the provisions of the Corporation Act 2001. From the definition of the director under section 9 of the Corporation Act, the importance of the director can be assessed properly (Whincop 2017). They represent the company in various issues and therefore, it is required by them to perform the duties diligently. The term good faith has been discussed under section 181 of the Corporation Act where it has been mentioned that it is mandatory for the director to exercise their power in good faith. This is a principle duty of the director as mentioned under the Act for the better interest of the corporation. It has been stated under section 184 of the Act that if there is any violation regarding the provision for the good faith has been made by the director, he shall be liable to penalise under the necessary provisions of the Corporation Act. A director is said to violate the provision regarding good faith if they become reckless regarding their work an d/ or perform their work dishonestly. However, section 184 is a provision regarding the criminal responsibility of a director. The term good faith mainly engraved under section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001 (Hannigan 2015). In ASIC v Adler [2002], Adler was the non-executive director of Adler Corporation Ltd. and Pacific Eagle Equity Pty Ltd (PEE). One insurance company has granted a loan of $10m. Adler had bought shares of the insurance company to deceive the shareholders and the Equity Unit Trust of Australia had given $2m to Adler. However, he had not disclosed the facts to the other director or the shareholders of the company. As one of the directors of the company, it is his primary duty to act in good faith and for the interest of the company. however, there is a violation regarding the same has been observed and the Australian Court was pleased to held him liable under different provisions of the Corporation Act 2001 including section 181 (Chia, and Ramsay 2016). In ASIC v Macro Realty Developments Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 292, it was held by the court that macro Realty had failed to meet the requirements of section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001 and violate the fiduciary duties by deceiving the investors and to feather their own nest without think about the interest of the company. In Bell Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (2008) 225 FLR 1, the court had observed that there is a distinction present in between power to exercise duties to meet certain criteria and act in good faith is different to each other. Best interest of the company: The phrase best interest of the company means for the interest of the shareholders. Shareholders are the most common part of a company. The economic backbone of a company is very much depended upon the shareholders (Riaz, Ray, and Ray 2015). They invest their money to buy the shares of the company and in this way, the share capital of a company increased. Apart from the shares, shareholders are playing important role in the inner management of a company. The shareholders have a right to join in the Annual General Meeting of the company. They are also taking participation in the meeting regarding the appointment or removal of the directors. Therefore, it can be stated that the shareholders are the most important part of the stakeholders (de Melo Bandeira 2013). The director of a company owes certain duties towards the shareholders. Under the Corporation Act 2001, there are certain sections that are stated about the directors duties towards the shareholders. According to section 180 of the Corporation Act, it is the duty of the director of a company to show certain care to the shareholders and act diligently while dealing with them. In Sharp and Others v Blank and Others [2015] EWHC 3220, it was held that the duty of the directors is to be loyal to the shareholders and have to provide the shareholders clear information about any relevant facts. In Australia, there is a case that evaluates section 180 of the Act and determines the duties of the director of a company. In ASIC v Cassimatis [2016] FCA 1023, the director of the company had projected one financial model and prayed for investment from the persons to invest money in to the project and gain lifelong benefit from it. It was known to the director of the company that there were risks bu t he had not disclosed the fact to them. After the investment, the company had faced a financial breakdown and the investors lost their money. It was held by the court that it is the duty of the director of the company to disclose all the essential facts to the shareholders. Therefore, he had failed to take good care and diligence to the shareholders and held liable under section 180 of the Corporation Act 2001 (Mills 2014). In Starlink International Group Pty Ltd v Coles Supermarket, an allegation has been brought against the Coles that they had terminated a contract with Starlink without maintaining any conditions of the contract made in between them. It was supported by the court of New South Wales and it was held by the court the super market had failed to show the care to the terminated company and the steps taken by the authority of Supermarket is arbitrary in nature. It was also held by the court that the alleged authority had failed to act in the best interest of the company (Tills and Wills 2016). The doctrine behind the interest of the company is intending to create a relationship between the director and the other stakeholders of the company. It is an obligation so that the directors of the company can perform their duties in good faith. The directors are under an obligation not to secure their own interest in lieu of the companys interest. If certain acts are done by the directors, their acts will be void in nature. In Hutton v West Cork Railway Co (1883) 23 Ch D 654, it was held by the court that there is no other cakes or ales of the director except for the benefit of the company. It was held in Multinational gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch 258, it was held by the court that if a director of a company can do anything, which is beyond the scope of their power, the shareholders of the company can rectified the same and they can bring the work within the purview of the company. From the above mentioned discussion, it has been observed that the phrase best interest of the company relates to the interest of the shareholders. Shareholders are the most important part among the other stakeholders of a company. The word stakeholders denoted the person without whom it is not possible to run a company. The word stakeholders include shareholders, directors and other staffs of the company. The shareholders of a company have certain powers imposed by the respective law of Australia. In the light of the important duties maintained by the shareholders, they become the best interest of a company and it is the primary duty of the director of the company to secure the interest of the shareholders. In the interest of the company as a whole: The phrase in the interest of the company as a whole means that it is the duty of the director to act in such way that the interest of the company can be retained at any cost. A company is composed of certain stakeholders who are directed the company and the administrative work of the company is vehemently depended on them. The phrase as a whole can be interpreted that include all the essential and related character of the company. That means a director of the company must be loyal to the stakeholders of the company. There are certain differences present in between the two phrases. In Aberdeen Ry v Blaikie (1854), it was held by the court that a director should have to take care of the stakeholders of the company and should not throw light any one of the parts of the stakeholders. In Sharp v Blank and Others [2013] it was held by the court, shareholders are not separate from the company. They are one of the integral parts of the company. In this case, a serious question has been generated and the base of the question made conflicts between the facts that state that a company is separate from its shareholders. In a famous case of Salomon v Salomon Co [1897], it was for the first time found by the court that a company is a separate legal entity and the interest of the court should not be mismatched with the shareholders of the company. A well known principle of the Company law lifting the corporate veil has been based on the same principle. The case was followed in another popular case Re a Company [1985] BCLC 333, where the principle of Lifting the corporate veil has been discussed. In Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 All ER 442, the director of the company had sold the company to another as an order specific performance had been passed against them and they wanted to avoid the same. It was held by the court that the directors were acted in bad faith and their acts cannot be treated for the interest of the company as a whole. In this case, the court had passed an order to lift the corporate veil of the company (Brown and Lawrence 2017). However, in the case of Sharp v Blank and others [2013], the court had passed its view in favour of the company. It has been stated by the court that a director owes duty to the company only and shareholders are the part of the company and the case is denied the principle regarding the separate legal entity of the company. Therefore, in this case, it has been stated that the director should have to work for the interest of the company as a whole. There is no principle regarding the best interest of the company. It was held in the case that the shareholders are the part of the company (Nicholls, Donald and Liu 2015). The contradiction regarding the directors duties is an old problem and in the case of Perceval v Wright [1902], a similar dilemma was arose and it was held by the court that director of a company is only liable to the company and not to the shareholders of the company. Conclusion: Therefore, from the above mentioned discussion, it can be stated that the phrases best interest of the company and interest as a whole are different in nature. It has also been discussed in the case that the director of a company should have to perform his duties under section 180 and section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001. Reference: Anderson, H., 2014. Directors' Liability for Fraudulent Phoenix ActivityA Comparison of the Australian and UK Approaches.Journal of Corporate Law Studies,14(1), pp.139-173. Barker, S., Baker-Jones, M., Barton, E. and Fagan, E., 2016. Climate change and the fiduciary duties of pension fund trusteeslessons from the Australian law.Journal of Sustainable Finance Investment,6(3), pp.211-244. Bolimos, I.A., Bolimos, I.A., Choo, K.K.R. and Choo, K.K.R., 2017. Online fraud offending within an Australian jurisdiction.Journal of Financial Crime,24(2), pp.277-308. Brown, A.J. and Lawrence, S.A., 2017. STRENGTH OF ORGANISATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWING PROCESSESANALYSIS FROM AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND. Chia, H.X. and Ramsay, I., 2016. An Analysis of Shareholder Resolutions Involving Australian Listed Companies from 2004 to 2013. de Melo Bandeira, G.C.S., 2013. Corruption and social and economic criminal law: Criminology, criminal policy, political science and law economicsA new idea about criminal liability of legal entities.Tkhne,11(2), pp.105-113. Dixon, O., 2016. Honesty without Fear-Whistleblower Anti-Retaliation Protections in Corporate Codes of Conduct.Melb. UL Rev.,40, p.168. Hannigan, B., 2015.Company law. Oxford University Press, USA. Hiller, J.S., 2013. The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility.Journal of Business Ethics,118(2), pp.287-301. Hiller, J.S., 2013. The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility.Journal of Business Ethics,118(2), pp.287-301. Huggins, A., Simnett, R. and Hargovan, A., 2015. Integrated reporting and directors concerns about personal liability exposure: Law reform options.Company and Securities Law Journal,33, pp.176-195. Li, Y., 2014. The impact of corporate governance on the corporate social responsibility of small corporation in australia: a structural equation modeling approach. InWEI International Academic Conference Proceeding, New Orleans, USA. Mills, C.W., 2014.The racial contract. Cornell University Press. Nicholls, R., Donald, M.S. and Liu, K., 2015. It's a Small World after All: Using Social Network Analysis to Investigate Systemic Risk in the Australian Superannuation Sector. Riaz, Z., Ray, S. and Ray, P.K., 2015. Collibration as an alternative regulatory mechanism to govern the disclosure of director and executive remuneration in Australia.International Journal of Corporate Governance,6(2-4), pp.241-274. Tills, M. and Wills, C., 2016. Corporate law: Directors found guilty of breaching duties following corporation's breaches.Governance Directions,68(10), p.624. Viven-Wilksch, J., 2015. The adventures of good faith: can legal history and international developments provide guidelines for Australia?.Alternative Law Journal,40(2), pp.89-92. Welsh, M., 2014. Realising the public potential of corporate law: Twenty years of civil penalty enforcement in Australia.Fed. L. Rev.,42, p.217. Whincop, M.J., 2017.Corporate governance in government corporations. Routledge.