Explanation:
Yesterday's prefect induction at XYZ School was carried out after a mini election at the school.
This mini election also prepared eligible student voters for the September elections.
We agree with school Principal Sir John when he said-^ triangleleft It a new initiative because we are having our national election this year. We wanted to empower students to independently think of those who they
wish to lead the school, the teachers don't have any say at all." Students nominated their own form captains and the whole school nominated six students to be school heads. They were given three weeks to campaign. They put up their own posters and organised classroom campaigns.
Every recess and lunch break they were given a chance to talk to students on why they should be elected as Head Boy or Head Girl. For these students becoming a prefect is a great way to end time at the school, and is a massive advantage for them in the future.
Research shows that many successful business people held positions of responsibility while they were at school, and school prefect looks great on anyone's curriculum vitae (CV).
For the voting students they listened to all campaigns by the aspiring six candidates for the top prefect posts - Head Boy and Head Girl. They were given the right to vote for the best candidate and there was no interefence from anybody.
The Head Boy, Roseru Naiwasetawa, admitted to the Fiji Sun that he had campaigned hard to get the top prefect post.
"My campaign team put up posters around the school telling the students of what I'll do for them if they vote for me as head boy of the school," he said
Don't you think other schools should follow LMS way in the selection of their head prefects next year? In many schools teachers select prefects and students have to accept their selection.
Surely students should have a say in the selection of their leaders because they would be their representatives to the teachers.
Answer:its five miles to the store and that’s too far to walk .
Explanation: i get it right..
<span>Bonaparte was regarded by all of Europe except France as a megalomaniac cruel tyrant - until about 1812. By the end of that year, there was a powerful anti-Bonaparte opposition developing in France also. The carnage that accompanied his reign/rule/administration came to be feared and hated by the French themselves once the glorious days of repeated victory were passed. Unfortunately, the French and the Allies through the Congress of Vienna were unable to provide a viable and credible alternative head of state, so that Napoleon-nostaglia returned within 10 years of his death.
However, Bonaparte did introduce innovations not only in France but throughout Europe and the western world, and they are noteworthy. First, he provided a rational basis for weights and measures instead of the thousands of alternative measures that had been in use for centuries. We call it the Metric System and it works well in all of science and technology, and in commerce except in USA and a few other places.
Second, he introduced an integrated system of civil and criminal laws which we call the Napoleonic Code. Some parts of it have been problematical (notably the inheritance laws) and need reforming, but it has stood the test of 200 years, and is well understood. Even the later monarchies and republics in France continued to use the Code; so well was it thought out.
Third, he introduced the Continental System of agriculture and free trade between (occupied) nations. It remains as a model for the European Union and worked well in its own day. Even the Confederation of the Rhine, which led to the creation of the Zolverein and then to a unified Germany, was based on Bonapartist principles. I don't think the Germans or anyone else is willing to recognise this intellectual debt today.
Fourth, he promoted French science and learning which had been damaged so badly by the Revolution. Medicine, chemistry, physics, astonomy and economics were all encouraged so that French higher education became a model for the century - to be emulated by any modern country with pretentions to culture.
Despite all these, Bonaparte was a mass murderer; of the French as well as other peoples in Europe. He engaged in military campaigns, backed by an elitist philosophy, to extend French hegemony and can be recognised today in all that was wrong with Nazi domination of Europe and now in USA plans for the domination of the rest of the world.
For a short time, he was a military and administrative success but his legacy was one of poverty, defeat and a distrust of the French. He seemed to offer a glorious change to French history, in which the French became winners of wars. In reality, he was just another winner of battles but, ultimately, he confirmed the French experience of losing every war in which they have engaged. Such a pity for a man of potential and flair, but his early success simply went to his head and he seemed to believe that he was invincible and omnipotent. That's a good definition of a megalomaniac, don't you think?</span>
Answer:
You put him back together i think...
Explanation:
if he is puzzled appearantly he is cut into peices, juss like a puzzle so you'll put him back together.....if thats even possible.....
The main idea is the evasive beauty of nature, but also purposeful human intrusion upon nature. The clues are: a man who went to the wilderness for the sheer pleasure of capturing a beautiful natural scene of a wild creature; the deer's mistrust and frightfulness. Eventually, both of them, the man and the deer, got away - the deer ran into safety, and the man went back to civilization with a photo of the deer.
Yes, it is about a photo that is very important to the author, for the reasons I've explained.
The last line implies that the author had captured and tamed the wilderness, if only for a single moment.
