Meat packing industry Essay Example for Free

Meat packing industry Essay Introduction America’s fast food industry was founded by self made man who took risk, worked hard, some not even going to collage. Today the industry relies on a low-paid and unskilled workforce, where a handful are able to rise up the corporate ladder, while the vast majority lack fulltime employment, receive no benefits, and end up quitting after a few months. The fast food industry prospered over the last 30 years because minimum wage was lowered, marking was directed at children, federal agencies meant to protect workers and consumers ended up working for the companies, and corporations worked with congress to oppose laws that didn’t help them. The â€Å"American world view† is embodied in fast food because it takes advantage of those who don’t know any better. Chapter 1 The element of car based restaurants like the ones started in Southern California encouraged the spread of fast food because they had good food, became successful, and were very popular among young people. Chapter 2 Disney and Kroc were similar because they both used science to sell their products, made up famous mascots to sell products and both focused selling to kids. They were different because Disney founded his company, and Kroc bought his, they sold different products, and Kroc wasn’t involved in politics, while Disney was. Their companies cooperated when McDonald’s agreed to sell Disney toys and Disney agreed to allow McDonald’s in Disneyland. The fast food industry started with billboard ads to attract kids and evolved to adverting every where, from TV, to the internet, to school hallways. They also make the restaurants themselves fun for kids with play places and selling toys so they want to go more, and even as adults bring their own kids. Personally, I don’t think it is ethical to advertise in schools because it fast food is unhealthy and kids should be learning that, not that the burgers at McDonald’s get and A in taste. Chapter 3 Most employees of fast food restaurants ate teenagers because most are willing to work long hours with little pay. Fast food corporations relentlessly stop their workers from unionizing by doing things like integrating workers with information about a possible union with lie detectors, or closing locations with unions and opening new locations near by. Working conditions at fast food restaurants are unsafe. Typical dangers the employees face ate slips, fall, cuts, burns, and robberies. Problems are dealt with by increasing security with cameras or more parking lot lights. If I worked at a fast food restaurant and I injured my self, I might not tell my manager because I could loose my job because they could blame me for the injury. Chapter 4 The advantages of starting your own business is if it is successful, you could get a lot of money, not to mention you are your own boss so no one besides the government tells you how to run your business. The disadvantages are the business could be unsuccessful and you could loose a lot of money. The advantages of working for someone else are you do not have to make too many tough decisions. The disadvantages are you will not make as much money as your boss, and you may not like your boss for whatever reason. Some legal issues that fast food franchises have been involved in are the Coble’s Bill which makes franchises obey the principles other companies follow. The Subway fast food franchise was involved in the SBA which helps restaurants by giving them government funds. Subway got involved and made it so they would get extra money. Chapter 5 Family farms are disappearing because industry farms take all the business and close family farms because they have no one to sell to. there are only a few small potato farms left because industries take up all the land and business. The take-over of agricultural farms effects communities because local farms go out of business and communities become dependent on the corporate farm. Chapter 6 Development and fast food farms take land and effects cattle pastures because there is less land for the cattle to graze. Since most cowboys and ranchers have gone out of business, they have become irreverent in today’s culture. The government set up the Sherman Antitrust Act and a congressional investigation in the meet packing industry to help ranchers. Later, the Reagan administration allowed the top four meat packing firms to merge and they took over the cattle markets. Corporate domination affected family farms by forcing them to work for them or go out of business. Self-reliance is still a viable goal for Americans, but has become very difficult because of big corporations. The fast food industry makes chicken farmers work for them or they would get no business. In farm culture, the land is a tangible connection to the past, meant to be handed down and not sold. To native Americans, the land meant life and prosperity. In traditional Irish culture, the land is a link to past generations and to loose the land meant to fail your relatives. Their concept of land is similar to the American concept. Chapter 7 The demands of the fast food industry changed towns by making is so almost everyone ends up eating fast food because the industries are aloud to put their restaurants wherever they want and advertise as much as they want until the town’s economy runs on the fast food restaurants. Chapter 8 Meatpacking is dangerous because of the machines and rarely cleaned cutting tools. Since a meatpacking manager’s bonus is based in part on injury rate, many injuries go unreported and the worker is either given an easer job to takes time off to recover. Chapter 9 The meat packing and meat processing industry has been a spreader of disease because the animals are not screened well enough or sick workers spreading disease on the animals. After reading about the pathogens in hamburger meat, I am concerned about food poisoning in fast food. E. coli is not common in restaurant food, but is likely to be in hamburger meat. Chapter 10 Many Americans are obese because of lack of information and improper food laws. Fast food probably plays a big part in obesity because it provides unhealthy food to almost every where. Americans are probably more obese than other countries because fast food started here. Fast food companies increase the size of their meals to effect the calorie count look better for the per serving part. This effects American health because it is misguiding and you eat more than you thought you were going to. People in other countries do not want fast food because they have seen its effect on America. Epilogue The free market Schosser talks about leaves workers unprotected with little interference from the government. In the quote, Schosser is referring to the free market. I agree to what Schlosser says on 216. I believe the government needs to work harder to protect both the workers and consumers of fast food. At the end of the Epilogue, the author remedies his criticisms with the fact that it is a persons choice to eat want. Afterword Mad Cow disease is a disease that slowly destroys the brain and can be spread through hamburger meat. It can be controlled by feeding cows grass instead of corn and hormones, and inspecting the meat better. Cattle get infected by it because they stand in the dung of an effected cattle. It is a very serous threat to humans.

Persident Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) :: Biography Biographies

Biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Roosevelt was born at his family’s estate at Hyde Park, in Dutchess County, New York on January 30,1882. He was the only child of James Roosevelt and Sara Delano Roosevelt. James Roosevelt was a moderately successful businessman, with a variety of investments and a special interest in coal. He was also a conservative Democrat who was interested in politics. His home overlooking the Hudson River was comfortable without being ostentatious, and the family occupied a prominent position among the social elite of the area. Sara Delano, 26 years younger than her previously widowed husband, brought to the marriage a fortune considerably larger than that of James Roosevelt. The Delano family had prospered trading with China, and Sara herself had spent some time with her parents in Hong Kong. So, Franklin was born into a pleasant and sociable home, with loving wealthy parents. Roosevelt’s parents sent him off to school in 1896. They selected Groton School in Massachusetts, which had a reputation as one of the finest of the exclusive private schools that prepared boys for the Ivy League colleges. Young Roosevelt was a good student, popular with his fellow students as well as with his teachers. Roosevelt moved to New York City, where he entered the Columbia University Law School in 1904. Although he attended classes until 1907, he failed to stay on for his law degree after passing the state examinations allowing him to practice law. For the next three years he was a clerk in a prominent law firm in New York City, but the evidence is clear that he had little interest in law and little enthusiasm to be a lawyer. Well before he finished his work at Columbia, young Franklin Roosevelt had married his distant cousin Anna Eleanor Roosevelt. They had been in love for some time and were determined to marry in spite of the opposition of Franklin’s mother. The bride’s uncle, President Theodore Roosevelt, was present at the ceremony in New York City on March 17, 1905. Five of their six children grew to maturity: Anna, James, Elliott, Franklin, Jr., and John. The chief problem faced by the young couple during the early years of their marriage was Sara Roosevelt’s possessive attitude toward her son. Eleanor’s forbearance mitigated this situation, but the problem remained for many years. Roosevelt entered politics in 1910, when he became a candidate for the New York State Senate in a district composed of three upstate farming counties.

Diversion in the Criminal Justice System Essay

Diversion has been known to be called, â€Å"the easy way out†, or â€Å"a slap on the wrist†, but diversion entails more than an offender saying, â€Å"They got an easy way out†. According to the book diversion can be a type of rehabilitation, â€Å"The National Academy of Sciences defines it as â€Å"any planned intervention that reduces an offender’s criminal activity† (Walker 2008, pg 251). Most criminal activity is done by people from the ages of 14 and 24. The main goal of rehabilitation programs is to reduce crime sooner than later the book refers to it as, â€Å"planned intervention program, that might include counseling, education, job training, or some other program† (Walker 2008, pg 251). Diversion is meant to help keep people out of the criminal justice system; due to the fact most of them are not violent offenders. It refers to people that are not a serious threat to society, but made a wrong choice and it is their first time of fending. Using diversion, the courts hope that it will not only keep people out of the criminal justice system, but it will help them, rehabilitate them, or try to resolve the problem. It also is an additional way to keep from overcrowding jails, courts, and any kind of correction institution. In doing this the courts can focus on more serious offenders. According to the text book, â€Å"diversion is a planned intervention with a treatment component and the goal of getting offenders out of the criminal justice system as early as possible† (Walker, 2008,pg.262). In diversion the offender is given a jail sentence as in â€Å"11/29† if the offender does not commit any more crimes then they will be expunged from the criminal justice system and then they will have a clean record. However, if they recommit a crime, they will have to serve 30% of their original given jail time. For example- 30% of â€Å"11/29† in jail, would  be 109 days. When given diversion, the offender is usually given probation as well. With probation the offender usually has a class that he/she has to attend that is part of their rehabilitation process. According to the peer reviewed journal, â€Å"Probation and Diversion: Is There a Place at the Table and What Should We Serve states that, â€Å"Three times as many offenders participate in probation and/or diversion programs than incarcerated. Probation and diversion programs are considered â€Å"alternative† punishments, and public policy has not focused on how to strengthen community corrections. New developments on targeting specific behaviors through the use of theoretical models of supervision can improve outcomes, or at least delay further offending?† (Taxman, 2010). Probation is a way to stay in touch with the offender, by having them come in and have meetings with their probation officer. The reasoning for this is to keep the officer up to date with the offender and the offender’s progress. They make sure that the offender is doing everything they are suppose to do, paying court cost, trying to find a job, not getting in any more trouble, and to just make sure the offender stays on top of their priorities. The classes and programs are meant to help the offender in many ways such as; realizing that they made a mistake and to see how they could possibly better themselves, or whether it’s hanging out with a different crowd, or just saying â€Å"NO Thanks†. Diversion has been around for centuries. According to the text book, â€Å"Diversion was one of the great reforms of the 1960s† (Walker, 2008, pg.262). This statement backs up some of the history behind diversion. A article concludes more information about the history of diversion, â€Å"The concept of diversion of juveniles from the juvenile justice system has a long history in the scholarly literature as well as in federal juvenile justice policy. The theoretical background of diversion is based on the â€Å"labeling† principles dating back to Tannebaum (1938). The scholarly debate was further developed by the research of Becker (1963) as well as Lemert (1951). Becker (1963) argued that labeling by certain social groups in power have a detrimental effect on juveniles. The work of Lemert (1951) discussed the effect of secondary deviance of juveniles that were processed through the juvenile justice system and contributed to the argument that the system, instead of help ing, may actually contribute to further delinquent acts of  juveniles† (Marsh, 2005). This makes complete sense why this would be thought of in the way it was. Tannebaum, Becker, and Lemert were all right in the idea that juveniles should be dismissed from the criminal justice system, to be given another chance. They also said that if juveniles were not dismissed from the criminal justice system that â€Å"labeling† could take affect very easily. If a juvenile is proven guilty an certain crime, that could essentially lead the individual to living up to their â€Å"label† and lead them to commit more deviant acts. This is why they try to give them another chance and treat them with a diversion program of some sort. An additional quote from text book states that, â€Å"Commission gave it strong endorsement in 1967, and in the 1970’s an estimated 1,200 diversion programs were established† (Walker,2008,pg.262). Given this information one could conclude that during the 1960’s the criminal justice system was establishing more of a variety of ways to help people and trust them with a second chance. The text book does explain that this was not the â€Å"first† form of diversion, â€Å"Historically, many offenders were diverted from the criminal justice system at an early age. Police officers routinely chose not to arrest someone even though there was probable cause, and prosecutors dismissed the cases when prosecution would not serve the â€Å"interest of justice†. We call this old diversion† (Walker, 2008,pg. 262). Police officers have been practicing diversion for a long time. They trusted that the offender would not recommit once they had been caught once, considering it was their first time, or they only committed a minor crime. However, the diversion that is used today is more of a modern approach. Programs are offered, that instills goals in people, and is managed by a professional staff that offers assistance and treatment. According to Taxman, â€Å"These models are important since they help provide a meaning to the core practice of diversion/supervision programs—face-to-face contacts. Moving away from generic contacts to ones that are focused on specific behavior holds promise in elevating the value and importance of probation and diversion programs in correctional policy and practice†(Taxman,2010). This is how program and treatment are today. The professional workers are more involved and tuned in to their clients’ problems. All of this is to try to keep people out of the criminal justice  system. The more people that are kept out of the system, the better off the system will be. Diversion puts that fear into someone, because they know if they mess up again then they have to serve 30% of their jail time. Diversion is meant to act not only as a â€Å"second chance†, but also a deterrent to not commit future crimes. Has diversion been proven to help people? Everyone is different and diversion helps some people and for others it does not work. For the people it does not work out for, are usually trying to ride out the system, getting in trouble, getting longer probation sentences, according to a academic journal, â€Å"Developing restorative practice: contemporary lessons from an English juvenile diversion project of the 1980s.† states that, â€Å". As a result, the projects quickly became skilled in negotiating solutions in the interests of, and according to the wishes of those affected, while also enabling young people to acknowledge their own responsibilities and to take action accordingly. These successes have not been built upon effectively† (Smith,425-438,2011). In this sense diversion has not been successful; the people that were involved in this research had not taken diversion seriously and had been irresponsible for the actions they had taken. On the other hand, some peopl e do take it seriously and it has been proven successful. Diversion can be tough, according to an article concerning diversion programs, â€Å"Maryland’s diversion program for alcohol-impaired drivers (i.e., PBJ) allows a driver to plead guilty or nolo contendere, or to be found guilty in a criminal proceeding but have judgment stayed pending completion of a probationary period. Conditions of probation may include participation in treatment, an alcohol education program, selfhelp groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous), and/or the ignition interlock license restriction program. Drivers who violate the terms of probation (including having another alcohol-related offense) may have the original charge reinstated and be further prosecuted for violating probation† (Ahlin). This is an example of a diversion program, it explained the proceeding s and the conditions that went along with the program and what would happen if the  offender failed to participate successfully. It also explained that in doing the following treatments that go along with the program are considered â€Å"self help† groups, like Alcoholics Anonymous and this can be a way to help someone while they are under probation and eventually help them be expunged out of the criminal justice system in the near future. Diversion programs are initially a way to help individuals make better choices in the future, and to have hope in the offender that he/she learned their lesson the first time. Another time of diversion program is called Adolescent Diversion Program (ADP). This program is based on juveniles. This particular program is to help juveniles be more involved and it emphasizes on community service work. The article states, â€Å"a community centered paradigm where students are taught to work with communities to better understand contexts surrounding a social problem, as opposed to merely volunteering to provide a service to a community. The Adolescent Diversion Project (ADP), which has been operating for over 30 years, demonstrates critical community service through the type of relationship built between students and the local community† (American Journal of Community Psychology, 2010). This program focuses on young adults and to try to steer them away from crime by having them do community service work and be more involved. An article inquires that, â€Å"Diverting juvenile offenders from the traditional juvenile justice system has been influenced by various theories but most prominently, labeling theory and differential association theory. Differential association theory’s basic premise is that through association with deviant groups, individuals are more likely to become deviant themselves. Juveniles incarcerated with other juvenile offenders will interact and are more likely to join deviant groups† (Marsh 2005). This is a good reason why the ADP program deals and focuses on juveniles. If more attention is paid to young adults and they are stopped right when they get in trouble it could be a factor in reducing crime, because if they are stopped and corrected while they are young, they will not commit when they get older, or possibly age out of it. People debate whether diversion and diversion programs work, in the sense of reducing further crime and deterring people from recommitting according to an article, â€Å"Scholars have examined which types of sanctions are more likely to reduce recidivism and have found that punitive approaches such as conviction or jail do not significantly deter future incidents of DWI  (Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Wheeler & Hissong, 1988; Yu, 2000)† (Alhin). In this quote it explains that jail time, or convictions do not always work as a â€Å"deterrent† for the offender when he/she gets out of jail. Due to this, they will have to use other significant deterrent applications, or at least try them. They could use probation as a deterrent instead of putting everyone in jail. Putting everyone in jail causes a big overcrowding issue and some people they put in jail are not huge criminals, they may have just committed a minor crime. However, by putting them in jail they could â€Å"learn† how to be a criminal and when they get out, they could potentially commit crime. The article extends to explain how the deterrence theory could work in this situation, â€Å"Consistent with deterrence theory (Beccaria, 1764/1963), swift license sanctions such as suspension and revocation have been shown to reduce DWI recidivism (Ross, 1991; Yu, 1994; but see Yu, 2000), and less punitive, treatment-based sanctions can also reduce recidivism among drivers with an alcohol disorder (Taxman & Piquero, 1998)† (Alhin). This quote states that by using the deterrence theory, revocation has been proven to reduce DWI recidivism. It also says by using more â€Å"treatment† based corrections could help the offenders not recommit drinking and driving. If the offenders can receive help with drinking intensively, or get help with drinking and driving, this could keep people out of jail and also save lives by not having peo ple out on the road drinking and driving. Diversion has been around for a very long time, and over the years there have been many studies, researches, and experiments done to try and understand what the most effective way to make diversion programs work. There have been several people that have conducted studies to see what they could encounter on the subject of diversion. One group an author states was, â€Å"Kammer and Minor (1997) evaluated a program that intervened in cases of juveniles ages 11 to 18 years charged with status or low-level delinquent offenses and no prior record. The program was 16 months long and only handled 12 offenders at a time. Of the 86.2% (N = 81) who graduated, 67% were rearrested during the evaluation follow-up. Of the juveniles originally arrested for status offenses, those that recidivated were charged with delinquent acts† (Marsh 2005). This statistics are just from one study, but over half of the offenders were rearrested, so this complies that their study on diversion programs were not successful enduring that when juvenile offenders receive diversion, in their study over half were arrested again. However, an academic article states â€Å"Although much research has been conducted to test diversion methods, few have taken advantage of true field experimental conditions (Campbell, 1969; Severy & Whitaker, 1982). Unfortunately, utilizing true experimental designs in the juvenile justice setting can have serious political implications† (Severy & Whitaker, 1982). Yet the absence of a control group design prevents testing from a baseline. The methodology of the current project allowed the comparison of the groups to each other and the comparison of the different treatment interventions to a baseline control group† (Marsh 2005). In the quote it explains that when research is not done in the field, using expe riments with offenders could lead to trouble when it comes to trying to understand diversion and its effectiveness. This is an important part of research, because one is learning through the actual offenders and studying their ways of doing things. In addition the author states, â€Å"One of the most significant issues raised by diversion was the â€Å"net-widening† effect of this type of program. In an evaluation of 11 California diversion projects, Bohnstedt (1978) found that one half of the 3,871 clients served would not have been processed by the system if court diversion programs were available† (Marsh 2005). Another study conducted encountered juveniles and the use of tobacco. The juveniles that were caught using tobacco were given options of different punishments, â€Å"Juveniles cited for use of tobacco were given the option of going to court, paying a fine, or attending a single 2 ½-hour diversion course that discussed the harms of tobacco use† (Marsh 2005). Most of the juveniles chose to pay the fine instead of attending the class. The article intended that this study the juveniles that attended the class and the juveniles that paid the money had no change in behavior, or attitude. However, the juveniles that paid the fine, they were proven to have lower tobacco usage. With having this knowledge, one now would know that using the right kind of treatmen t is very help when doing research in diversion based programs, because if something is off, or missing it could through the whole experiment off. Another issue that was brought up is having diversion everywhere in the United States, because the overcrowding  in jails is one of the biggest, money rackets U.S. citizens and the government deal with. If diversion programs were offered everywhere then it could possibly cut down on the incarceration rates in the United States, â€Å"Treating youth in the community diversion is seen as a way to reduce further involvement with the juvenile justice system. The idea has been particularly intriguing because of its added benefit of relieving an overburdened judicial system† (Whitaker, Severy, & Morton, 1984, pp. 175-176) (Marsh 2005). If diversion was used more often and courts were able to keep more people out of jail by using diversion programs, it would cut down on the tax payers that pay for people to stay in jail and possibly help the people get rehabilitated. Diversion is a good idea for first time offenders and helps them steer clear of trouble, if they actually follow the rules and do not recommit any offenses. Diversion programs have been proven to help people, but it has also been proven to not show any difference in the offender’s actions. I believe that aging out of crime has a lot to do with juvenile offenders and even adult offenders. However, it is a personal choice whether, or not t hey choose to learn their lesson by completing diversion programs and move forward with their lives. References Ahlin, E. M., Zador, P. L., Rauch, W. J., Howard, J. M., & Duncan, G. D. (2011). First-time DWI offenders are at risk of recidivating regardless of sanctions imposed. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 137. Patrick, S., & Marsh, R. (2005). Juvenile diversion: Results of a 3-year experimental study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), 59-73. Smith, Roger. Contemporary Justice Review, Dec2011, Vol. 14 Issue 4, p425-438, 14p; Abstract Taxman, Faye S.. Victims & Offenders, Jul-Sep2010, Vol. 5 Issue 3, p233-239, 7p; Abstract Walker, Samuel. 2011. Sense and Nonsense about Crime, Drugs, and Communities. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Seventh Edition. 251-263.

Conjugate the French Verb Entendre (to understand)

Entendre  is a  regular -re verb  that follows distinct, predictable conjugation patterns. All -er  verbs share the same conjugation  patterns in all tenses and moods. Generally speaking, there are five major categories of verbs in French: regular -er, -ir, -re; stem-changing; and irregular. The smallest category of regular French verbs is  -re verbs. Entendre  Is a Regular er Verb To use  -re verbs, remove the  -re ending from the infinitive, and youre left with the stem.  Conjugate the verb by adding the -re endings shown in the table below to the verb stem. The same applies to entendre. Note that the conjugation table below includes only simple conjugations. It does not include compound conjugations, which consist  of a form of the auxiliary verb avoir and the past participle entendu. The Most Common -er Verbs These  are the most common regular -re verbs: attendre  Ã‚  to wait (for)dà ©fendre  Ã‚  to defenddescendre  Ã‚  to descendentendre  Ã‚  to hearà ©tendre  Ã‚  to stretchfondre  Ã‚  to meltpendre  Ã‚  to hang, suspendperdre  Ã‚  to loseprà ©tendre  Ã‚  to claimrendre  Ã‚  to give back, returnrà ©pandre  Ã‚  to spread, scatterrà ©pondre  Ã‚  to answervendre  Ã‚  to sell Entendre:  Meanings   The most common meaning of the French verb  entendre  is to hear, but it can also mean:   to listen toto intend (to do something)to meanto understand (formal) In the pronominal form, sentendre  means: reflexive: to hear oneself (speak, think)reciprocal: to agree, to get alongidiomatic: to be heard/audible, to be used Entendre: Expressions   Entendre is used in many idiomatic expressions. Learn how to hear about, intend to, attend mass and more with expressions using  entendre. entendre parler de... to hear (someone talking) about...  entendre dire que...  Ã‚  to hear (it said) that...entendre la messe   to hear / attend massentendre raison   to listen to reasonentendre mal (de loreille gauche/droite)  Ã‚  to not hear well (with ones left/right ear)entendre les tà ©moins  (law)  Ã‚  to hear the witnessesà   lentendre,  Ãƒ   tentendre,  Ãƒ   vous entendre   to hear him/her talk, to hear you talkà   qui veut entendre   to anyone who will listendonner à   entendre (à   quelquun) que...   to give (someone) to understand / the impression that...faire entendre raison à     to make someone see sense / reasonfaire entendre sa voix   to make oneself heardfaire entendre un son   to make a soundse faire entendre (dans un dà ©bat)   to make oneself heard (in a debate)laisser entendre (à   quelquun) que...     to give (someone) to understand / the impression that...Ce quil faut entendre tout de mà ªme  ! (informal)   The things people say!Entendez-vous par là   que... ?   Do you mean / Are you trying to say that... ?Faites comme vous lentendez.   Do what  you think is best.Il / Elle nentend pas la plaisanterie. (old-fashioned)   He / She cant take a joke.Il / Elle nentend rien à  ...   He / She doesnt know the first thing about...Il / Elle ne lentend pas de cette oreille.   He / She wont accept that.Il / Elle ne veut rien entendre.   He / She just wont listen, doesnt want to hear itIl / Elle ny entend pas malice.   He / She means no harm by it.Il / Elle va mentendre !   Im going to give him / her a piece of my mind!Jai dà ©jà   entendu pire !   Ive heard worse!Je nentends pas cà ©der.   I have no intention of giving in.Je vous entends.   I understand, I see what you mean.On entendrait voler une mouche.   You could hear a pin drop.Quentendez-vous par là   ?   What do you mean by that?  Quest-ce que jetends ?   What did you say? Did I hear you correctly?... tu en tends !   ... you hear me?!sentendre à   (faire quelque chose)  (formal)   to be very good at (doing something)sentendre à   merveille   to get along very wellsentendre comme larrons en foire   to be thick as thieves (to be very close, get along extremely well)sy entendre pour (faire quelque chose)   to be very good at (doing something)cela sentend   naturally, of courseEntendons-nous bien.   Lets be very clear about this.Il faudrait sentendre !   Make up your mind!Je my entends ! Il sy entend  ! etc.   I know what Im doing! He knows what hes doing!Tu ne tentends pas !   You dont know what youre saying! Simple Conjugations of the Regular French -re Verb Entendre Present Future Imperfect Present participle j entends entendrai entendais entendant tu entends entendras entendais il entend entendra entendait nous entendons entendrons entendions vous entendez entendrez entendiez ils entendent entendront entendaient Pass compos Auxiliary verb avoir Past participle entendu Subjunctive Conditional Pass simple Imperfect subjunctive j entende entendrais entendis entendisse tu entendes entendrais entendis entendisses il entende entendrait entendit entendt nous entendions entendrions entendmes entendissions vous entendiez entendriez entendtes entendissiez ils entendent entendraient entendirent entendissent Imperative (tu) entends (nous) entendons (vous) entendez