Oil Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Oil - Essay Example Oil is the world’s biggest industry. It has often been referred to as the â€Å"black gold† and the devils excrement. Oil is found in the world’s most democratic and well governed countries such as Norway and Canada and also in some of the most autocratic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Nigeria (Roberts, 2004). In countries like Ghana and Nigeria, oil has become a curse. When oil was being mined in Ghana, the local people hoped for a better living standard and an improved sanitation. Everyone in Ghana was very excited and waited anxiously for the mining of oil for the first time in the country. They hoped that Ghana would be able to break the â€Å"curse† that had been associated with the mineral. This event only saw a few getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The same problem faced its neighbor Nigeria which is the largest crude producer in the continent. There was such a big gap between the rich and the poor because of corruption in the oil industry in Nigeria (Roberts, 2004). Oil on the other hand has had a positive influence to all the countries that have mined it. Despite all the negative impacts of oil, countries have been able to develop and upgrade their infrastructure. Third world countries have been able to export their oil to developed countries and have been able to use this to put up infrastructure like roads, schools and even hospitals. Oil has been referred to as ‘power’ in terms of its influence in political dominance and control. Oil is needed in order to grow food, put up infrastructure, manufacture food and transports them to the market and to advance technology. However, it lubricates both national and international politics. The following are some of the reasons that make oil such a powerful political force in the world today. We need oil every day in order to survive. Oil is universal and it is cheaply available, we do have other sources of energy such as electricity but there has not been any other

Stereotypes of Teenagers Essay Example for Free

Stereotypes of Teenagers Essay Stereotype: Ster ·e ·o ·type, [ster-ee-uh-tahyp], noun, verb- a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly. Teenager: teen ·ag ·er, [teen-ey-jer], noun- a person between the ages of 13 and 19 inclusive. How could these two words, so opposite in meaning, make so much sense when put together? Being a teenager doesn’t just define your age, it classifies you into a pre-determined stereotype where people see you differently; you are no longer â€Å"that sweet Jenny girl who lives down the street†, you are now a reckless teenager who is clawing at a chance to rebel or throw a raging Project X worthy party. In our immature years ranging from around 12-18, teenagers are generally seen as being rowdy, irresponsible, and sneaky, and generally speaking, these assumptions are pretty accurate, based on how many times we’ve been grounded from our parents. However, not all adolescents fall into this classification of being â€Å"young, wild, and free†; I am the exact opposite of what someone my age is expected to be- I pride myself on being responsible, trustworthy, and just a better person all around. I try my hardest to stay out of the typical stereotype of a â€Å"teenager†, and I think I do a pretty good job at it. One thought that is generally associated with the facade of teenagers are parties- everything about them. Throwing parties, attending parties, getting wasted at parties, getting caught at parties, or maybe even getting arrested at parties. Whenever a boy or girl at my school says something like â€Å"my parents are going out of town for a week on vacation†, nine out of ten times the responding question will be along the lines of â€Å"are you going to have a party? † or â€Å"nice, what address can I tell people to come to? †. So, adolescents like to have fun, but usually it’s to a dangerous extent. Even dating back to middle school, I can recall old stories of Halloween parties getting busted by cops because some parents forgot to lock their liquor cabinets, and the kids wanted to get a little rowdy. But that’s just an innocent eighth grade party- today, you can take it to even more extreme levels with the high school parties, which almost always includes marijuana or other deadly drugs. So why do teenagers like to participate in these activities, when they normally only end in turmoil? Throughout my high school career, I have not attended many parties, which I do not have a problem with. I am not the kind of person who wants to publicly humiliate myself by getting drunk just so I can have a â€Å"good† time. I have witnessed numerous accounts of teenagers being sent away to private schools, or being thrown out of the house by participating in these â€Å"typical high school activities†. But why do you need narcotics and liquid courage to be a fun person to hang out with on a Friday night? You don’t, you’re just fooling yourself. Another place teenagers are stereotyped and looked down upon is in a working environment. When something goes wrong, the excuse is â€Å"oh, they’re just a teenager, they don’t know any better†. But some of us do know better. There is a popular television show on the TLC network called Restaurant Stakeout; this show is a prime example of teenagers, taking advantage and putting forth a bad effort at their work place. Willie Degel is a well-known respected restauranteur and restaurant owner. He goes in to struggling restaurants and places hidden cameras in the work place where he watches the employees as they handle their customers and shift responsibilities. Most of the time, the cameras focus on the poor performing employees, such as the ones who yell at customers, throw things at them, spill food, treat people with disrespect, or lie to their managers. More often than not, these irresponsible workers just happen to be teenagers. But is anyone really surprised at this behavior? After all, you would never see the oh-so-mature adult treating another adult with straight up disrespect, would you? Well certainly not without good reason. I work in a bakery and have witnessed my current boss, Dee, handle situations with the same kind of mindset that a teenager would have. When a customer was rude and impatient with one of my co-workers and caused too much unnecessary drama, Dee thought it would be nice to give that customer a taste of her own medicine†¦by throwing a cake right in her face. Was this the mature thing to do? Not necessarily, and certainly not from any rational adults point of view. But logically thinking, all of these â€Å"rational adults† were once â€Å"immature teenagers† at one point, right? Maybe we never do grow completely out of our child-like mindsets. The only thing worse than grown-ups acting like teenagers are when teenagers fulfill the stereotype that is thrust upon them. I used to work at Five Guys Burgers and Fries, where I saw incorrect handling of problems and situations by my fellow teenage coworkers. When someone was unhappy with their meal, the employee wouldn’t handle the situation themselves, but instead hand it off to someone else, which was usually me. I didn’t always enjoy dealing with the angry guests, but it taught me how to handle unhappy people in a positive way, which has helped me now in my current job and the other social aspects of my life as a whole. Teenagers have mastered the art of one thing: lying. Well, for the most part anyways. We think we are so good at lying that we can hide almost anything from our parents. Sometimes, this works. Other times, you get caught in your lie, and you end up getting in lots of trouble. My mother, for example, is excellent at telling when I am fibbing to her, and she will call me out on it. This has taught me to just be an honest person, and not to do things that would result in me lying about where I am or what I am doing. Other teenagers at my school however have mastered the art of lying and sneaking around, and basically can get away with anything if they wanted to. If a boy wants to sneak out to go buy alcohol and get drunk, he knows just what to tell his parents to make them believe differently. If a girl wants to go to a party and hang out with a guy her parents don’t approve of, she just has to say the usual â€Å"I’m sleeping over at Jessica’s tonight†. These lies and dishonesty are what helps create the stereotype of untrustworthy and dishonest teenagers- we think we can get away with everything and we are invincible, when in reality we’re just adolescents who don’t know any better. Why have teenagers changed so much over time that now being classified as a â€Å"teenager† automatically has a negative connotation with it? I’m sure when my parents were teenagers, they were probably looked down upon too, but not in this much of an immature and irresponsible light as adolescents today are. Why have the times changed so much that because I am a teenager, I am automatically looked at as being an irrational, disrespectful, sneaky party animal? When I am not like that at all? I wouldn’t say I am trying to completely break the stereotype for my age group, but I am definitely trying to change it so people don’t view me in that negative way. So those two little words that fit together so perfectly are going to be attached with a negative connotation for many more years to come, as the stereotyping of teenagers are just going to become deeper as the actions we do become worse and worse. As we grow older and move on to have children of our own that will grow into these crazy adolescents, where will we draw the line with them? Why kind of people will they turn out to be? What will be considered socially acceptable for their age group by the time they are in high school? If we keep heading in the direction we are now, it worries me to know what our future generations have in store.

Canadian Senate Analysis

Canadian Senate Analysis The current government of Canada has remained in place since the British North America Act, 1867, which established the Parliament for Canada to be comprised of three parts: the Crown, the Senate, and the House of Commons.[1] Unique to Canada’s government, which is based on the Westminster Parliamentary System, is that the upper house of parliament, or the Senate, is comprised of unelected officials. For a large portion of Canada’s history there has been a debate concerning the Senate, largely concerning its unelected officials. While there has consistently been a discussion on if the Senate should be changed, Canada’s political parties cannot agree on if this change should be a reform of the Senate or its abolishment. In recent years this debate has been revitalized due to scandals concerning senators, Stephen Harper’s commitment to reform the Senate, and the Supreme Court ruling on what would need to be done to reform the Senate. While it is understandab le that some may want to push for the Senate to be abolished, this is much too drastic of a step for Canada to take and should not be taken just for simplicity’s sake. Democracies function and exist on mechanisms that help balance the power of the governing bodies to ensure that no one body or official has too much power and abolishing the Senate before attempting to reform it would give the House of Commons too much power. Prime Minister John MacDonald’s words are often used in explaining what the Senate does when he said that they are â€Å"the sober second thought.†[2] The reasoning for this is that by having politicians that are concerned for the long term stability and integrity of Canada and its laws and not concern themselves about being reelected and the perpetual campaign or about politics. Essentially they can give their full attention to being the check on the House of Commons. In addition, section 54 of the Canadian Constitution states that bills which deal with any aspect of money, including appropriating revenue or creating or removing a tax, must originate from the House of Commons.[3] What this then causes, because most bills deal with issues of revenue or taxes in some manner, the vast majority of bills come from the House of Commons, which creates a unique dynamic between the two houses.[4] The dynamic that is crated is an uneven balance between the two in terms of the am ount of work that is done. The House of Commons is the primary body that creates legislation and the Senate largely provides review and second thought on the issues addressed in legislation. While this may be the original thought, there are flaws to it. Many ideas on how to change the Senate have been proposed over the years, but to understand the current debate the most it is best to look at what each major political party current proposes. Currently the common discourse about the Senate is divided into three areas: main the status quo; keep the Senate, but reform it; or abolish the Senate in its entirety. Political parties of Canada have often differed on how the Senate should be approached and dealt with along the three lines. The New Democratic Party (NDP), especially in recent years, has been vocal proponents of abolishing the senate. The NDP has even gone as far as creating a website to promote the idea of abolishing the Senate, citing its unelected nature and high costs as reasons for it to be abolished.[5] The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has taken a different route and has attempted to reform it. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party attempted to create a system whereby senators would be elected by the provinces for nine years.[6] The legislation that proposed this came in 2011, but the constitutionality of this effort immediately came into question and went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court responded in 2014 when it ruled that any Senate reform must go be approved by at least seven provinces and half of the population.[7] The Liberal Party has not been as loud as the others, but did eject the senators that were part of the Liberal Caucus and released a statement declaring their support for reform of the Senate and the ejection of the senators from the caucus is the first step.[8] Each of the major political is in favor of some change to the Senate, which is a reflection of the opinion of Canadians. In addition to the political parties siding on the Senate being altered in some way, a majority of Canadians are in favor of some sort of change. According to a poll by Angus Reid conducted in April of 2015, 86% of Canadians are in favor of a change.[9] However, while an overwhelming majority of citizens are in favor of a change, there is a deep divide on what kind of change should exist. In the same poll by Angus Reid, 45% of Canadians are in favor of a reformed Senate while 41% are in favor of the Senate being abolished entirely.[10] Just as with the political parties, this mirrors the debate and contention between the political parties on exactly what should be done. Compared to the 2013 poll by Angus Reid on the same topic, in a year filled with news about scandals concerning senators, 50% of Canadians were in favor of abolishment vs. 43% for reform.[11] This shows, like with many topics, the interest and concern of people will differ a lot depending on how senators are conductin g themselves and how the Senate is functioning. The reason why the vast majority of criticisms that have been leveled against the Senate are about its unelected senators is because that is its biggest flaw. While it can be argued that removing the time consuming process of elections it gives senators a different set of priorities to focus on the work of Parliament, this is the exact reason why it is bad. By being selected rather than elected, senators are then beholden to those that choose them rather than the citizens of Canada. This then means that if a senator does not do a good job, or do the job at all, according to Canadians, it is a difficult process to get rid of them. Since these senators are then beholden to those that choose them, this creates a dangerous mechanism for internal party politics whereby those that are actually selected to be a senator may not be deserving of the position. On the contrary, as the NDP accuses the Conservative Party of doing, those that do work for the party or the Prime Minister may end up a s a senator as a favor.[12] The Senate is an undemocratic and authoritarian instrument that has to be reformed. Regardless of the scandals that have occurred or if the senators take advantage of their position, the critical point is there exists a need for senators to be elected. In the overall discourse, the idiosyncrasies of reform matter little as long as the process towards elections. What the Conservative Party proposed is a good step and is not a bad way to reform the Senate. An important part of this proposal that should be in all other proposals is that senators should have a longer term than those in the House of Commons. This is to help preserve some of the original motivations for the creation of the Senate, which is to have senators think about and be concerned for the long term integrity and development of Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party’s efforts to reform the Senate have been described as failures, but they actually began one of the most important steps to changing the Senate: discovering the process. The Supreme Court ruled that reform or abolishment of the Senate cannot be done unilaterally by the House of Commons, which caused the Conservatives to cease their efforts and Prime Minister Harper to say that the ruling â€Å"leaves [them] with little choice† but to abandon their efforts.[13] Contrary to what Stephen Harper may say, the Supreme Court’s ruling gives the Conservatives and all of Canada reason to pursue reform and creates the parameters of how. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to reform the Senate, at least seven provinces would need to approve in addition to half of Canada while abolition would require unanimous consent.[14] Although this is a daunting process, if we take into account that 86% of Canadians want change, i t is not impossible. While this 86%, when broken down accounts for 45% that are for reform and 41% that are for abolition, it can be assumed that many of those that want abolition would much favor reform rather than no change in the event that a vote was given to the general population. Overall, the strengths and arguments for reform outweigh those of abolition. In addition to paving the way on how reform of the Senate must occur, the Supreme Court also gave a strong argument for reform over abolition: it is easier. While there may be arguments to be made for to having a unicameral parliament and abolishing the Senate, this path is too far to go without attempting reform first. If we are to accept that a bicameral legislature and Senate is part of our cultural heritage and that it does have merit in providing a check and balance to the actions of the House of Commons, there should at least be some effort to preserve it with reform. Some of the criticisms that have been used against the Senate including the significant cost to taxpayers compared to the lack of work can be rectified with reforming and making senators elected officials. By becoming elected officials, they are then accountable to the people that elected them into office and can easily be voted out if th ey do any work or their work is not sufficient to their electorate. While there many strengths to reforming the Senate, there does exist problems that must be considered. The first, and possibly biggest, obstacle in regards to reforming the Senate is its inability to create bills concerning the allocation of revenue or use of taxes. Already this creates a great hindrance on the work of the Senate and is one of the reasons why the Senate does not produce nearly the same amount of bills as the House of Commons. If the event of serious efforts and progress to reform the Senate, it would have to be addressed if the Senate would be able to create bills concerning money or if the restriction would remain in place. On one hand, the removal of such restriction would encourage senators to produce more bills, but would diminish the role and authority of the House of Commons Insight into this can be drawn from Australia’s Parliament, which has an elected Senate, but still requires all money bills to begin in the House of Representatives, which is the low er house of the Australian Parliament.[15] This causes the same imbalance that occurs in Canada’s Parliament where the House of Representatives produce the vast majority of bills while the Senate produces much less, but gets to spend much more time in committee work.[16] When looking at the overall discourse and benefits presented by reforming the Senate, it is something that should be pursued by Canada. The Senate still plays an important role by providing committee work, which the House of Commons often does not have enough time to do, and provides a needed balance. However, an unelected Senate is an artifact of an old system of government that must be updated to become more democratic. While there are strong arguments to be made for abolition, it should not be considered before at least attempting to reform. In addition, it is easier to reform rather than abolish so it is rational to at least turn the Senate into something Canadians want before losing it forever. References A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada. A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada. Accessed April 27, 2015. Abolish the Senate. Roll up the Red Carpet: Its Time to Abolish the Senate. Accessed April 29, 2015. Angus Reid. Future of the Senate: Majority of Canadians Split between Abolishing, Reforming the Red Chamber. Accessed May 3, 2015. CBC News. Canadas Senate: Sober Second Thought. CBCnews. July 9, 2010. Accessed April 25, 2015. Cody, Howard. Lessons from Australia in Canadian Senate Reform. Canadian Parliamentary Review. Accessed May 3, 2015. Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. Legislative Services Branch. Accessed April 26, 2015. Fine, Sean. Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection. The Globe and Mail. Accessed April 29, 2015. Parliamentary Institutions. Parliamentary Institutions. Accessed April 25, 2015. Trudeau Leads on Senate Reform: Liberal Leader Takes Concrete Action to Remove Partisanship and Patronage from the Senate. Accessed May 3, 2015. [1] Parliamentary Institutions, parliamentary Institutions, accessed April 25, 2015. [2] CBC News.,Canadas Senate: Sober Second Thought, July 9, 2010, accessed April 25, 2015. [3] Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, Legislative Services Branch, accessed April 26, 2015. [4] A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, accessed April 27, 2015. [5] Abolish the Senate, Roll up the Red Carpet: Its Time to Abolish the Senate, accessed April 29, 2015. [6] Sean Fine, Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection, The Globe and Mail, accessed April 29, 2015. [7] Sean Fine, Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection, The Globe and Mail, accessed April 29, 2015. [8] Trudeau Leads on Senate Reform: Liberal Leader Takes Concrete Action to Remove Partisanship and Patronage from the Senate, accessed May 3, 2015. [9] Angus Reid, Future of the Senate: Majority of Canadians Split between Abolishing, Reforming the Red Chamber, accessed May 3, 2015. [10] Angus Reid, Future of the Senate: Majority of Canadians Split between Abolishing, Reforming the Red Chamber, accessed May 3, 2015. [11] Angus Reid, Future of the Senate: Majority of Canadians Split between Abolishing, Reforming the Red Chamber, accessed May 3, 2015. [12] Abolish the Senate, Roll up the Red Carpet: Its Time to Abolish the Senate, accessed April 29, 2015. [13] Sean Fine, Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection, The Globe and Mail, accessed April 29, 2015. [14] Sean Fine, Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection, The Globe and Mail, accessed April 29, 2015. [15] Howard Cody. Lessons from Australia in Canadian Senate Reform, Canadian Parliamentary Review, accessed May 3, 2015. [16] Howard Cody. Lessons from Australia in Canadian Senate Reform, Canadian Parliamentary Review, accessed May 3, 2015.

The Lord of the Rings :: essays research papers

In The Fellowship of the Ring, the Protagonist is Frodo Baggins, a hobbit from the Shire who becomes the Ring-bearer. The Antagonist is Sauron, the Dark Lord that forged the One Ring to take over Middle-Earth. In the fellowship, aside for the ring-bearer, are three other hobbits, Samwise Gamgee, Peregrin Took and Meriadoc Brandybuck, three of Frodo’s closest friends. There is also Gandalf, the wizard; Legolas Greenleaf, son of the Elf King of Northern Mirkwood; the dwarf Gimli, son of Gloin; Aragorn, son of Arathorn, and heir to the throne of Gondor; and Boromir, oldest son of the Steward of Gondor. They all have some talent or purpose in aiding Frodo in the quest. Gandalf is a powerful wizard, second to only Saruman the White. Legolas is an elven archer with a true aim. Gimli wields a powerful axe in battle and is a great craftsman. The true King of Gondor hasn’t yet re-claimed his throne but spends his time protecting and aiding the fellowship members. Boromir, next in line to be the Steward of Gondor, doesn’t always seem trustworthy. However, as time passes he forms a bond with the ‘Halflings’ (the hobbits) and is very protective of them. It is also quite useful for them to have two such humans, strong and tall, they both are a great help. The book takes place in different parts of Middle Earth during the â€Å"Third Age†. The mood is often quite tense with suspense and a sense of doom. They are in constant danger, always being watched or hunted. The hobbits leave their precious homes and travel through the Old Forest to get to Bree, where they meet Aragorn and he aids them in their journey. All five later leave for Rivendell and the mood is quite tense with the Black Riders hunting them down. On the way, they stop at Weathertop, where Frodo is, unfortunately, stabbed with a Morgul blade. Luckily, they all get to Rivendell safely with the help of Glorfindel, an elf. Once there, Frodo is given time to heal before Lord Elrond summons a council and the fellowship is formed with nine members. The fellowship continue on their quest to get rid of the ring and were forced to trudge through Caradhras in order to avoid ‘the dark and secret way’. However, they were forced to take that path, after being forced off Caradhras, through the Mines of Moria where it is believed that Gandalf had â€Å"fallen into shadow† in their escape.

Character and Stories

Out of the many stories that we have to compare, the best would have to be The Candide and Dante’s Inferno. There are many different ways that you can compare these two similar stories. The most obvious comparison from the beginning would have to be religion. Both of these stories begin with a man that has some type of issue or tries to decide how to deal and question religion. Another way to compare these stories is how both stories were controversial at the time because of their religious meanings.Dante’s inferno was extremely controversial because of the fact that it described hell in such a detailed way and painted a vivid picture for such a negative place. Candied was controversial because of the way it concluded. Since both of these stories had to do with religion it makes sense that it would have controversy. Most stories that have to do with religion in one way or another have some sort of controversy with them.There are too many people that have many different beliefs and ideas of what religion is for it not to be one of the more controversial storylines. Another way to compare both of these stories is by noticing the fact that both Dante and Candide both end up having mentors or people that help them guide them through the story. This is another connection that religion brings together Virgil as a guide to help him travel through hell. In Candide, Pangloss helps Candide travel through his journey as well.This is a common theme in stories that have to do with religion because a lot of religious stories deal with a person either not believing or having trouble finding religion and using a guide or a mentor having their own connection to religion. For example, Pangloss was a philospher that had many strong theories about religion. On Dante’s inferno Virgil was an pagon so he was deeply connected in the religion to help the main character to understand and help himcome to a conclusion about what his conflict is and how to solve it. Bo th stories also had very elaborate sexual scenes.In Candide, Pangloss contracted syphilis from a chambermaid named Panquete. In Dante’s Inferno the second circle was designed for people who committed lust crimes while on earth. I believe that different sexual partners were not accepted and were also frowned upon making these acts known in both stories helped signify what people believed was right or wrong. I believe some of the issues that they had would be replaced that we find wrong in our society or magnified so that religion can help separate what is accepted and what is not. For example, I believe if it as this day and age that people’s sexual orientation would play a much bigger role in Dante’s inferno. Also, in both stories there are multiple people that meet throughout the story that all have different outlooks on life, religion, and philosophy. I believe this helps to make the story more enjoyable so the main character does not only have one idea to bel ieve in. it also makes the story more realistic by making the main character choose between different people to trust or different people to help him guide him through the story.

Cultural Experience Essay Restaurant essays

Cultural Experience Essay Restaurant essays Visualize entering a massive two-story restaurant with decorative designs seen from every corner of the room. Distinct sounds of the maracas and other instruments can be heard throughout each section of the buildings triangular architectural design. A friendly waitress then greets the whole family with a warm and friendly smile. While seating arrangements are being made, the whole family stares in awe due to the very stunning displays surrounding the caf. While patiently waiting for the meal to arrive, dazzling hand-painted murals, wall tile mosaics, and conga barstools, portraying the daily life of a local Cuban, soon capture the whole familys attention. They noticed that the entire interior walls of the caf are splashed with very stylish, but yet extravagant colors. Shades of light blue, bright yellow, and neon green surround every corner of the room, bringing forth a sense of beauty, and at the same time excitement throughout the Cuban caf. And just when the family starts to conve rse with one another, about the intricate designs inside the restaurant, the friendly waitress soon arrives with the delicious meal in hand. This past weekend, my whole family took a long, deserved vacation to Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. We eagerly agreed to try out, Bongos Cuban Caf, a Cuban restaurant located at the heart of Downtown Disney. The atmosphere of Bongos Cuban Caf was bright, colorful, and very entertaining. The restaurant did a wonderful job depicting Cuban life and culture. The loud but yet enjoyable Latino music heard throughout the building compliments the cafs vibrant interior. The exterior was a delightful site indeed that was dominated by the massive two-story pineapple-shaped adobe structure that fills the skyline of Downtown Disney with glamour. For our entrees we chose Pescado ($12, listed under "Specialties") and Artesano Chicken ($12.30, ...