Two characters analysis in Packer's Geese Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Two characters analysis in Packer's Geese - Essay Example She finds it difficult to trust anyone unconditionally and she is suspicious about everything. The scene for Dina shifts to Tokyo in this story. She lives with a group of young people who are jobless in Tokyo. They face slow starvation, and reach a situation where they share in one grapefruit and banana between five people. â€Å"The all-knowing arrogance of youth† is subdued by hunger. How small issues can take the grim turn—Dina alienates her roommates by eating the last slice of grapefruit. The thematic ploy in this story is â€Å"Asian prejudice against blacks.† The compulsions of living life in odd circumstances, when empty stomach leaves very harsh choices for survival—and Dina prostitutes herself to a Japanese sarariman, the men who liked to proposition black girls, because â€Å"Verry chah-ming daaark-ku skin. â€Å"What the story tells us through Dina is, the important aspect of life is the process through which one lives it. Success and failure s are but incidental factors, the reality of life is one’s approach to the struggles. In this story one finds the older, experienced Dina, from what she was in the story ‘Drinking Coffee Elsewhere.† She is in Tokyo with young company with persons like Ari, Petra, Zoltan etc. Being unable to find work through the normal channels, she invents a trick to eat and pay the rent. â€Å"She left with a wad of yen. While riding the tokkyuu she watched life pass, alert employees returning to work, uniformed children on a field trip. It all passed by — buildings, signs, throngs of people everywhere." — Ayesha Court. ‘Geese’ continues the somber mood, but with an almost surreal edge to it and a host of memorable if not necessarily fully-realized characters. â€Å"The store manager, a nervous Japanese man in his forties, brought her to Zoltan, telling him, in smiling, broken English, to keep her at home"(p.203) is the second important character in the story,

A Question of Corporate Law Literature review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

A Question of Corporate Law - Literature review Example To de Tocqueville, that is a burden of democracy. Limitless influence is dangerous because utter control is the origin of oppression. If people are mistreated, the only place to turn is the majority.    MacDougall v Gardiner clarified the principles of majority rule. If the grievance of a minority is about something to which the majority of the company has the privilege or has done unevenly a meeting may be called, and the majority ultimately gets what it wants. Over the years, the principle of majority rule has become more inclusive, however. We recount some of the more representative policies to make our assessment of the historic nature of the question at hand. A place to start is the generally accepted structure of corporate membership. Members of a corporation have rights against each other and against the business as outlined the company's charter.3 As such minority shareholders usually accept they cannot command the overall control of the organization and must accept the will of the majority rule. Majority rule can be wicked especially when there is a single controlling shareholder. Many exceptions have developed relative to the broad standard of majority rule. Here are some of the more common: Where the majority votes to carry out deception against the minority, judges may allow the minority to sue. Everyone maintains the right to file suit if the majority invades personal rights or, for example, where the company's dealings are not in accordance with the company's foundation. It is possible for minority shareholders to secede in the name of the business when the company is controlled by the supposed wrongdoers.4 In these matters of rights and ethics, the court is supposed to favor the minority. Court involvement in corporate voting has been minimized over the years though. Corporate law has focused on progressive minority protection and shareholders action, but a majority cannot force a dissentient minority to do that which is not allowed by the charter.5 It must allow the minority to express their opinions on the matter of the meeting, but the minority cannot irrationally hinder the resolution of the popular vote by filibuster, for example.6 The minority has no right against the majority with respect to actions of which they do not support if the majority is allowed to do them.   This standard applies where something has been done irregularly which the majority is at liberty to do regularly.8 Nevertheless, the minority may still sue when the majority is abusing power and depriving the minority their rights.9 Again, the court favors the majority while bolstering minority power when there is an ethical question.