Silly But Brilliant Man to Be Leader Easily

A leader is a person who guides or directs a group, team or an organization. Probably he or she looks distinguished or outstanding form others because of their appearance. The majority of people insist that leaders must pretend to make them different from the normal. Is it reality? However, they have the highest statues, they have the best benefits, they have the most powerful leading rights which can make them determine the direction of the future. Whereas, no one could share the several commercial secrets or power with them, they feel lonely. Obviously, we need a unique leader in a particular area. Ancient Chinese sayings say, “The higher position you are, the more criticism you will get.” It’s tough and hard to be an informed leader. Here you have many good characteristics a good leader must be equipped

A silly man in America ----George W. Bush, who is the son of a former silly president George H.W. Bush, now is the president of America. The first when George W. Bush was fighting for his presidency on TV in 2002, I was impressed by his “cartoon face”, ignored his curved gray hair, which looked like a vivid chimpanzee. His extremely rough face was decorated with groups of lines. His massive nose was likely to fall down if he was not careful. Nevertheless, the small mouth was just under his giant nose. That was why I was deeply impressed, when first time I saw him. It was a sun-balanced phenomenon that clearly displayed his comedic face. I was amazed by his acceptable fact that he had won the vote competition. The reason he beat out the other candidate was that this country needed an “animal president” who cared himself or herself more than what he or she cared about his or her citizens. So Bush Junior did. It indicated that, I’m sure, Americans like animals.

A cartoon appearance is also a useful resource for someone’s career. In midst of dialogue with a lady, a cartoon appearance could make them closer and closer. A lovable middle-aged man with smiling is more attractive to the all ladies. It’s OK for you to be a good “cartoon face” will make you a good and talented leader. The leader must be cordial, kind to their subordinates, because you have to direct and teach them how to do it and what to do. In terms of that, you must communicate instantly with your own subordinates heart to heart. A cartoon face you born with, is a good deal. Suppose there are two clients, one is a cartoon face, the other is severe. Which one you are prefer? If I were you, obviously I would choose a cartoon face client even I am male. I like cartoons either. At least it is pleased to talk with a “cartoon character”.

It is true to say that everybody should dream to have a cooperative junior with a lovely face and easily to know. I suggest you to be the Detective Conan , a famous character in cartoon, who is a genius high school detective in Japan. What a clear brain he has! You will be popularly acceptable by adolescents. Even if you are foolish enough to be contented, don’t show it, but grumble with rest; and if you could do with a little, ask for a great deal, because if you don’t, you will get any. Remember you have millions of cartoon fans to support you.

In addition, though cartoon face is significant, the common factors are as well. In building their list of the 20^th century’s top business leader, you will divide these brilliant bosses into three types: the entrepreneur, the manager and the charismatic. No matter what their styles, they all possess a cute sensitivity to social, political, technological contexts.

It doesn’t matter if you are a brilliant leadership but no a cartoon face. George W. Bush won the voting game not only just by his chimpanzee face, also with his graduation from Yale University, his family background and his own effort. Graduated from Yale, he got a certificate proofed he was bracketed not so much with contemporaries. Born surround by many politicians in his family, he griped the way for him to roar his fame and to gain his reputation. If he was born in any average family, he couldn’t find any financial group to provide him grant for vote. If he was a fool, he couldn’t be the president. If he hadn’t had a cartoon face, there are not many Bush fans to follow him. Maybe in the lists of US presidents, there was not George W. Bush longer.

You are silly but brilliant; let yourself to be the leader please!

                                         Gay?

Gays and lesbians in America would do themselves a great service by exposing the nature of surveys that claim to assess our number in the population to a severe critique.

Karin Swann

Familiar to most gays and lesbians in America is the Kinsey Report's statistic revealing that a full 10% of the American population had experienced some form of personal exposure to "homosexuality." This statistic was determined by a survey conducted in the late 1940s which — fifty years later — is certainly worthy of re-evaluation. How was homosexuality assessed in Kinsey's research, and how might today's population be best assessed? Or, perhaps more importantly, would a contemporary survey reveal these numbers to have changed?

The recent attention brought to gays and lesbians by the Clinton administration's position on gays in the military has brought a wave of related reports on the American public. The consequence of coverage on homosexuality is a familiar debate among gays and lesbians who deliberate over the potential value of exposure, regardless of content. Recently, however, a story ran on CNN's Headline News (Friday, February 26th) offering more recent statistics on gays in America which, I would argue, has an indisputably negative impact. In this report, a "general social survey" administered by Tom Smith at the National Opinion Research Center (University of Chicago) revealed that 2% of men and 0.7% of women (yes, that's less than one percent!) report "exclusive homosexual activity in the preceding year."

If this survey is accurate, gays and lesbians are confronted with the reality that in 1992 they were accompanied by less than 3% of the population. Where did the other 7% go? Of course, because the survey's assessment was period-specific, and age cohort- unspecific, it is not surprising that these statistics are considerably lower than the Kinsey Report's. Furthermore, the survey's assessment of "exclusive homosexual activity" is limited to gays and lesbians who were sexually active in the past year. The question arises, however: are statlistics limited to respondents who classify themselves as "exclusively heterosexual" best suited to assess the full size of our community? What about those amongst us who shrink away from classifying themselves as "exclusively homosexual" because we don't want to acknowledge what "exclusivity" means in a homophobic society? Or, what of those who are afraid to reveal information about their gayness for a survey... or those who are still closeted, those who suffer in the straight world, fully aware of their secrets, fully aware of the damage that would result from revealing them — victims, in turn, of a paralyzing fear of entering the "unknown" and stigmatized gay world, or of leaving the security of the inadequate but "known" and "normal" straight one. There are, of course, a myriad of other factors which serve to encourage homosexual invisibility, especially of lesbians, in our society. How then are we to best assess ourselves? After all, for anyone who has attended the Castro Street Fair in San Francisco it is hard to believe that those streets alone are not filled by at least 3% of the country!

An interview with Tom Smith of the National Opinion Research Center illuminated certain characteristics of the CNN-reported study: 1. The survey sample size: 2243 men, 3017 women. 2. It was a "totally representative, nationwide, random survey of households." Smith was asked about the value of a random nationwide survey given the tendency for gays and lesbians to congregate in urban areas and in particular cities and regions across the country. Smith responded that "only under very extreme conditions where all the group is concentrated in a particular area" do regional oversights have much of an effect. Furthermore, after some additional commentary on the tried and true nature of the "General Social Survey," Smith assured that for the past ten years San Francisco and New York have, in fact, been included in the sample. When asked if there was any significant in the number of gay/lesbian self-reports in those particular areas, Smith responded that no qualified statistician would isolate those statistics since the respondents from those areas represented a "very small" percentage of the total and would therefore not provide a reliable measure. ...What's wrong with this picture?

The significance of this report airing on CNN Headline News is two-fold.

1. The survey designed by the National Opinion Research Center was structured in such a way that gays and (especially) lesbians were rendered more "invisible" than they already are. Any gay or lesbian in this country would find these statistics very hard to believe.
2. The selection of, and report on the nation's #1 news channel of statistics which appear to provide erroneous information on our presence in the population is highly damaging to both gays and non-gays. Certainly we demand to have our rights represented regardless of our numbers, but numbers which aren't accurate take from us the confidence we need to believe we are not alone and the dignity and self-esteem that is necessary for us to consider ourselves worthy of representation. ...And of course, statistics like these make it much easier for those who aren't sympathetic to our lifestyles to argue that we are little more than "a big deal made out of nothing."

All this is not to suggest that we turn today's statisticians back on the past to enforce a reification of the Kinsey 10%. Kinsey's numbers were gathered from intensive and extensive, longitudinal interviews which defined homosexuality in very broad terms. (To Tom Smith's credit, he notes that one of the great gifts of Kinsey's study was its assessment of fluidity in sexual and gender identity.) The results, in fact, may even be seen to overestimate the prevalence of homosexuality in America. However, what I do mean to suggest is that gays and lesbians in America would do themselves a great service by exposing the nature of surveys that claim to assess our number in the population to a severe critique. We should be sure, against all fears, to record the truth about ourselves if we ever find that we are subjects in such surveys and, most of all, we should think of ways in which we can accurately reach one another and develop our own means — our own numbers if necessary — of determining the size and extent of our (wonderful! growing!) community.

公平世界

也许在这个世界上本来就会有许多的不公平，在很多人眼中那些所谓的身份本来就应该低下的人是不需要爱和关怀的。其实一个完整，和谐，美好的社会需要我们去关心那些弱势之人。好不容易现在我作了一次弱势群体---- 

在我的高三暑假中，我去了福州，在福州的半个月里，我决大多数的时间都奔波在医院和我二姨家两点之间。我外婆因为要去医院进行全面的检查，我大多数时间都要在医院里度过，具体地说是在医院的等待厅里度过的，为了一个大约10分钟的检查，甚至是为了咨询医生一些基本的问题和一些具体的事项，经常是在大厅里面等医生叫你的名字大约要1、2个小时。每次晚到了之后还没有医生的预定了，在福州的大医院里，大多的有名的医生都要预定才能向他就症，名医须预定，晚来则无位！是，啊 ，在当今的这个世界中，在这个有生老病死的社会上，有人生病就会有医生的一碗饭吃；在当今这个世界中，有钱人想要永葆青春的有钱人，就会有医生薪水的制造厂。在当今的这个世界上，只要有手术，就会有回扣，只要有药方就会有，就会有回扣。医生们正在用着自己锋利的手术刀，向病人索取自己的行刀费，医生们正用这他们的救世济民专业知识，伸向了病人们的钱包！是啊，在被医院收了钱之后，病人们还会高兴地对医院说：“谢谢啊！”。我很震惊，我很难过，被人涮了还不知道。难到这个世界上就只能这样吗？

        行医易，就医难，

        行医赚，就医烦。

世界正是有了这些弱势的群体才能够体现这些优势群体的伟大啊！！！没有人愿意天生就是弱者，没有人愿意一出生就是别人生命中的配角，是别人伟大，别人高尚的陪衬。但是我却无能无力，这就是一个弱肉强食的世界，是一个能者生存的世界，是一个优胜略汰的世界。人不就是因为这样才成为世界的主宰的。正是人类在用这个亘古不办的真理来统治这整个自然和人类自己创造的社会圈子。

人， 强者，家财万贯的人---- 妙手仁心的人。

人， 弱者，两袖清风的人---- 痛并呻吟的人。