Any business must be concerned with the long-term consequences of its actions.
Describe a specific situation in which a business might justifiably not be concerned with the long-term consequences of its actions. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a business must be concerned about the long-term consequences of its actions.
___
Businesses exist for an array of reasons. They may wish to fulfill consumer demand, ease the lives of people, and become a powerful entities and voices in society. Most importantly, they aim to make profits. Although many provide necessary services and products that allow people to survive in today's world, most make money to the detriment of the environment and human health. They should be compelled by governments to take measures to mitigate adverse long-term consequences to the environment and human health. Without taxation and regulation by governments, most industries would go about "business as usual" with free reign to pursue the highest profits possible.
While most industries contribute to environmental degradation, oil companies have gained a reputation for being the highest offender (at least in the public's consciousness). Highly publicized oil spills and their adverse effects on the environment (e.g., loss of wildlife, harm to fisheries, etc.) produced unpleasant, graphic images in Americans' minds. For instance, an investigation on the causes of the Deep Horizon oil spill of 2010 found that BP made several cost-cutting decisions resulting in the well explosion. These decisions include, among others, ignoring a failed pressure test and not plugging a pipe with cement. Failing to take precautions, indeed, was a reflection of BP's disregard for the long-term consequences of its actions.
Not only do such industries destroy the eco-system---they spread pollutants and chemicals that radically alter human beings' DNA and cause cancer. Such industries---which not only include oil companies-- inherently lack a social consciousness and therefore, need to be strictly regulated and taxed by their governments to mitigate their long-term adverse impacts on the environment and society. While an exact price cannot be put on these industries' harm to the environment, governments should refunnel tax money for environmental protection efforts. Granted, these efforts do not overcome or even cancel out the adverse actions of these industries.
Other industries are not known for their harmful environmental footprints but exploit human weakness to the detriment of their health. Companies selling unhealthy foods targeted towards children and those advertising alcohol and cigarettes are a few examples. Indeed, there is a reasonable argument to made that this is a capitalistic society where people have the freedom to buy any products they can afford. However, in a society beset by obesity and drug problems, governments should take responsibility to form policies that discourage businesses from exploiting the ignorance and recklessness of human beings. Again, such companies lack a social consciousness and will not take into account the long-term consequences of doing business without the intervention of public health advocacy groups and the government.
Ideally, all businesses should address the long-term consequences of their actions. This is especially in the case where their business leaves harmful footprints on the environment and human health. When businesses only harm themselves---and not others around them--they are not obligated by society to address long-term consequences. For instance, when a company employs people with poor customer service skills, they harm clients in the short-term. However, the long-term consequence of receiving a bad reputation in the community and then losing profits will only harm the business itself. While businesses may provide some good to society, like valuable services/products and jobs, governments and other groups must be present to keep them in check and hold them accountable for their adverse effect on the environment and human health.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Success in Business is often due to the Mistakes of others
In business, success is often due to the mistakes of others.
Describe a specific situation in which success in business might not be due to the mistakes of others. Discuss what you think determines when success in business is the result of the mistakes of others.
___
Achieving success in business usually entails determination, skill, and plain luck, among other factors . Success, of course, can signify many things. It may be measured by profits, longetivity, quality of services, extent of social utility, long-term positive impact on a community, etc. Businesses recognized as "successful" exhibit several of these indicators of success--those of which usually go hand in hand. Most importantly, however, businesses achieve success as a result of the mistakes of others. These are the past mistakes and lessons learned by the businesses' leaders and trial and error that have led to "best practices" followed by various industries.
The success of a business often depends on leadership. Leaders determine the culture of a company, plan the business trajectory, and make key decisions under pressure. Employees, of course, are also integral to success but leaders ultimately determine what direction the company takes. Indeed, people are not born as effective leaders---they cultivate their ability to lead through life experiences, education, and mistakes. Through experiences working for other businesses, leaders adapt their current practices based on what has worked and has not worked in the past. They learn from the mistakes of their superiors and strive to apply lessons in their own businesses. Many take risks that could either adversely affect the company or result in extremely high profits. It is only through experience and mistakes that these leaders are able to gauge what type of risks are in the best interest of the company.
Most industries, furthermore, have developed "best practices"--or proper processes that businesses follow to achieve desired outcomes. These "best practices" were not established overnight but rather through time. The standard processes resulted from the trial and error of several companies in various stages of their lifetimes. Indeed, many companies in the past that have contributed to the knowledge of "best practices" have not survived due to their mistakes. Current businesses, however, can profit from the accumulated knowledge of an industry and its lessons from the past.
Some businesses, however, have experienced success merely from pure luck--that is, they came into auspicious circumstances by being at the right place and at the right time. They did not necessarily gain success due to the mistakes of others. This can be exemplified by the substantial profits realized by dot com companies in the early 2000s. For example, many were able to make an initial public offering of its stock and raise a lot of money even though they have never made a profit. Granted, most of these companies dissolved as quickly as they had gained success. But a few businessmen were able to cash out and secure their profits before the bubble burst. While pure luck in certain circumstances resulted in windfalls, history and experience shows that a company's long term success hinges on more substantive factors, such as leadership abilities and business acumen--both of which are developed through the mistakes of others.
Describe a specific situation in which success in business might not be due to the mistakes of others. Discuss what you think determines when success in business is the result of the mistakes of others.
___
Achieving success in business usually entails determination, skill, and plain luck, among other factors . Success, of course, can signify many things. It may be measured by profits, longetivity, quality of services, extent of social utility, long-term positive impact on a community, etc. Businesses recognized as "successful" exhibit several of these indicators of success--those of which usually go hand in hand. Most importantly, however, businesses achieve success as a result of the mistakes of others. These are the past mistakes and lessons learned by the businesses' leaders and trial and error that have led to "best practices" followed by various industries.
The success of a business often depends on leadership. Leaders determine the culture of a company, plan the business trajectory, and make key decisions under pressure. Employees, of course, are also integral to success but leaders ultimately determine what direction the company takes. Indeed, people are not born as effective leaders---they cultivate their ability to lead through life experiences, education, and mistakes. Through experiences working for other businesses, leaders adapt their current practices based on what has worked and has not worked in the past. They learn from the mistakes of their superiors and strive to apply lessons in their own businesses. Many take risks that could either adversely affect the company or result in extremely high profits. It is only through experience and mistakes that these leaders are able to gauge what type of risks are in the best interest of the company.
Most industries, furthermore, have developed "best practices"--or proper processes that businesses follow to achieve desired outcomes. These "best practices" were not established overnight but rather through time. The standard processes resulted from the trial and error of several companies in various stages of their lifetimes. Indeed, many companies in the past that have contributed to the knowledge of "best practices" have not survived due to their mistakes. Current businesses, however, can profit from the accumulated knowledge of an industry and its lessons from the past.
Some businesses, however, have experienced success merely from pure luck--that is, they came into auspicious circumstances by being at the right place and at the right time. They did not necessarily gain success due to the mistakes of others. This can be exemplified by the substantial profits realized by dot com companies in the early 2000s. For example, many were able to make an initial public offering of its stock and raise a lot of money even though they have never made a profit. Granted, most of these companies dissolved as quickly as they had gained success. But a few businessmen were able to cash out and secure their profits before the bubble burst. While pure luck in certain circumstances resulted in windfalls, history and experience shows that a company's long term success hinges on more substantive factors, such as leadership abilities and business acumen--both of which are developed through the mistakes of others.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Objectivity in the Recording of History
In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to be objective in the recording of history. Discuss what you think determines when objectivity in the recording of history is possible and when it is not.
___
When public school teachers create lesson plans, they must follow guidelines set by national and state curriculum standards. Students use the same social studies text book for their grade level and therefore, all are inculcated in similar events of American history and accepted standards in civic education. Students are usually expected to accept the historical lessons as fact. However, the reality is that it is impossible to be completely objective in the recording of history. It is, therefore, important for teachers to teach students how to think critically about information that they come across and be aware that all analyses reflects the author's bias.
Just because recorded history cannot be completely objective does not mean it is false or tainted with errors. There is never one correct explanation for historical events and the analysis will always show (however subtle) the biases of the author. These may include, among other things, his family and educational background, consulted resources, and philosophical leanings. These biases are reflected in the analysis in myriad of ways---from what material he chooses to include and exclude, his choice in wording, etc.
A historian, however, can take steps to strive for objectivity. This can be done by first acknowledging his biases and points of views and then attempting to study and present all sides of an issue. It is, however, impossible to research, as well as write about all aspects of an issue. This fact per se shows how complete objectivity regarding historical events cannot be obtained. Certain news shows, such as NPR and PBS NewsHour, strive for a certain objectivity contrasting with material from the popular punditry shows. However, even NPR and PBS Newshour cannot be completely objective in their presentation of news (and in essence, history). The content they choose to present, for example, reflects a certain bias. Indeed, there exists degrees of what is considered more (or less) objective and NPR and NewsHour tend to rank higher than Fox News and CNN, for instance, in the "objectivity scale."
Granted, straight facts---such as dates and places of events---are considered objective recordings of history. No one, for example, can argue with the fact that the Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11 or that Nagasaki, Japan was the site ravaged by nuclear bombs during WWII. However, whether these events are included in textbooks or how these events culminated show the inherently subjective nature of the recording of history. What is recorded in textbooks, indeed, may pose significant implications for the future . Many may learn lessons and make decisions based on historical outcomes. Others choose to ignore history and make the same mistakes of the past. It is important, therefore, for historians, teachers, and journalists to understand their biases in presenting history and encourage their audiences to think critically for themselves when receiving information.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to be objective in the recording of history. Discuss what you think determines when objectivity in the recording of history is possible and when it is not.
___
When public school teachers create lesson plans, they must follow guidelines set by national and state curriculum standards. Students use the same social studies text book for their grade level and therefore, all are inculcated in similar events of American history and accepted standards in civic education. Students are usually expected to accept the historical lessons as fact. However, the reality is that it is impossible to be completely objective in the recording of history. It is, therefore, important for teachers to teach students how to think critically about information that they come across and be aware that all analyses reflects the author's bias.
Just because recorded history cannot be completely objective does not mean it is false or tainted with errors. There is never one correct explanation for historical events and the analysis will always show (however subtle) the biases of the author. These may include, among other things, his family and educational background, consulted resources, and philosophical leanings. These biases are reflected in the analysis in myriad of ways---from what material he chooses to include and exclude, his choice in wording, etc.
A historian, however, can take steps to strive for objectivity. This can be done by first acknowledging his biases and points of views and then attempting to study and present all sides of an issue. It is, however, impossible to research, as well as write about all aspects of an issue. This fact per se shows how complete objectivity regarding historical events cannot be obtained. Certain news shows, such as NPR and PBS NewsHour, strive for a certain objectivity contrasting with material from the popular punditry shows. However, even NPR and PBS Newshour cannot be completely objective in their presentation of news (and in essence, history). The content they choose to present, for example, reflects a certain bias. Indeed, there exists degrees of what is considered more (or less) objective and NPR and NewsHour tend to rank higher than Fox News and CNN, for instance, in the "objectivity scale."
Granted, straight facts---such as dates and places of events---are considered objective recordings of history. No one, for example, can argue with the fact that the Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11 or that Nagasaki, Japan was the site ravaged by nuclear bombs during WWII. However, whether these events are included in textbooks or how these events culminated show the inherently subjective nature of the recording of history. What is recorded in textbooks, indeed, may pose significant implications for the future . Many may learn lessons and make decisions based on historical outcomes. Others choose to ignore history and make the same mistakes of the past. It is important, therefore, for historians, teachers, and journalists to understand their biases in presenting history and encourage their audiences to think critically for themselves when receiving information.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Using Force to Maintain Social Order
A government's use of force to maintain social order is sometimes justified.
Describe a specific situation in which a government's use of force to maintain social order might not be justified. Discuss what you think determines when a government's use of force to maintain social order is justified and when it is not.
___
Governments employ force to varying degrees in order to maintain social order, as well as their hold of power. Specifically, they use law enforcement agencies, such as the police departments, National Guard, and DEA, to ensure that people obey the laws and act as responsible citizens. Such agencies employ force to detain and arrest suspects, quell riots, and prevent people from hurting others, among other reasons. However, in the United States, government use of force can be employed to a limited extent based on parameters established by Constitutional, statutory and case law.
Governments need to have the right to use force as a way to keep society running smoothly. Without the power of force, governments cannot effectively enforce laws and prevent a state of anarchy. Without the threat of physical force by law enforcement agencies, many people will be inclined to do as they wish in order to fulfill their selfish desires, such as trampling on the rights of other people. Of course, physical force includes a range of acts. Among the most implemented uses of force include temporarily detaining someone who has been suspected of a crime, frisking someone who might be carrying a weapon or placing someone in prison after being convicted of a crime. In other countries, the use of force may be considered extreme to Western eyes. In Singapore, for example, people are caned for vandalism. Those convicted of petty theft in certain Arab nations have their fingers cut off. In the United States, such uses of force would be considered violations of human rights.
The amount of force a law enforcement officer may use has been delineated through time in the courts. First, the US Constitution protects citizens from inappropriate government intrusion of their rights. These rights include, among others, freedoms of speech and religion, as well as protection for defendants from "cruel and unusual punishment." Use of force has also been limited in statutory and case law, which helped define what constitutes force violating citizens' rights. To put it simply, the more heinous the crime or higher the threat level posed by suspects, the more force police officers can use. In the case of convictions, the types of punishment that can be employed has been increasingly limited through the years due to constitutional interpretation.
Indeed, the threat of physical force is necessary to maintaining order in society. Given free rein, most people would not respect the laws of the land and would do whatever is necessary to fulfill their selfish desires. The presence of law enforcement agencies provides a check to people's base tendencies and helps them follow the laws and norms that hold society together. However, the legislative and judicial systems play significant roles in helping to limit the use of force and ensure that it does not amount to violations of democratic principles and human rights.
Describe a specific situation in which a government's use of force to maintain social order might not be justified. Discuss what you think determines when a government's use of force to maintain social order is justified and when it is not.
___
Governments employ force to varying degrees in order to maintain social order, as well as their hold of power. Specifically, they use law enforcement agencies, such as the police departments, National Guard, and DEA, to ensure that people obey the laws and act as responsible citizens. Such agencies employ force to detain and arrest suspects, quell riots, and prevent people from hurting others, among other reasons. However, in the United States, government use of force can be employed to a limited extent based on parameters established by Constitutional, statutory and case law.
Governments need to have the right to use force as a way to keep society running smoothly. Without the power of force, governments cannot effectively enforce laws and prevent a state of anarchy. Without the threat of physical force by law enforcement agencies, many people will be inclined to do as they wish in order to fulfill their selfish desires, such as trampling on the rights of other people. Of course, physical force includes a range of acts. Among the most implemented uses of force include temporarily detaining someone who has been suspected of a crime, frisking someone who might be carrying a weapon or placing someone in prison after being convicted of a crime. In other countries, the use of force may be considered extreme to Western eyes. In Singapore, for example, people are caned for vandalism. Those convicted of petty theft in certain Arab nations have their fingers cut off. In the United States, such uses of force would be considered violations of human rights.
The amount of force a law enforcement officer may use has been delineated through time in the courts. First, the US Constitution protects citizens from inappropriate government intrusion of their rights. These rights include, among others, freedoms of speech and religion, as well as protection for defendants from "cruel and unusual punishment." Use of force has also been limited in statutory and case law, which helped define what constitutes force violating citizens' rights. To put it simply, the more heinous the crime or higher the threat level posed by suspects, the more force police officers can use. In the case of convictions, the types of punishment that can be employed has been increasingly limited through the years due to constitutional interpretation.
Indeed, the threat of physical force is necessary to maintaining order in society. Given free rein, most people would not respect the laws of the land and would do whatever is necessary to fulfill their selfish desires. The presence of law enforcement agencies provides a check to people's base tendencies and helps them follow the laws and norms that hold society together. However, the legislative and judicial systems play significant roles in helping to limit the use of force and ensure that it does not amount to violations of democratic principles and human rights.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Public Figures and Privacy
A person who enters public life is necessarily forced to surrender some degree of personal privacy.
Describe a specific situation in which a public figure should not have to surrender personal privacy. Discuss what you think determines when a public figure's personal privacy ought to be surrendered.
___
In most supermarkets, the check-out counters are lined with magazine stacks feeding customers' appetite for celebrity gossip. Politicians' extra-marital affairs, actresses' weight gain/loss, and exotic destinations frequented by public figures provide entertainment to regular people who need relief from their mundane lives. People dream about becoming famous and recognized by complete strangers. However, they do not think about the compromises celebrities make in leading public life---such as giving up their privacy. Laws in the US make it difficult for these public figures to claim relief for defamatory actions taken by writers and publishers. While most of these celebrities enter public life knowing that they enjoy less privacy, they still deserve some degree of privacy to preserve their dignity as human beings.
Privacy is not stated as protected right per se in the US Constitution. However, court judges have deemed that privacy is implicitly protected by the Constitution through various amendments, as well as through case precedent. The government recognizes basic protections from intrusions on our physical selves, as well as certain personal information. A regular citizen may also bring defamation and libel suits alleging that certain people or the government has stated or written incorrect, harmful statements. Those deemed to be public figures---usually actors/actresses, politicians, and prominent business leaders---however, are held to a higher burden of proof. They must not only demonstrate the untruthfulness of he comment---they, unlike private actors, have to show that the defendant acted with malice, knowing that he was spreading lies or showing a reckless disregard for the truth. This higher burden of prove makes it more difficult for public figures to successfully sue on defamation.
Most celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that their privacy will be compromised. People will be curious about their lives beyond their livelihood. People--especially young fans---will view the celebrities as role models and emulate their dress, mannerisms, and all aspects of their personality. Despite an expectation for losing privacy, these public figures still deserve to maintain certain information to themselves and be free from unwanted intrusion. For example, it is inappropriate to attack and judge minor children of celebrities--unless, of course, these people make an effort to be famous through certain public actions. When Bill Clinton held office, some journalists showed bad taste by poking fun at the appearance of his minor-aged daughter. Meddling into the sexual affairs of celebrities usually should be off limits. However, if these affairs affect the public's trust of the figure---usually a prominent politician---there is some argument that he does not deserve privacy in this arena. A recent example includes revelations that a married Congressman, Anthony Weiner, used his public persona to draw in women and send lewd pictures online.
If celebrities were given the same proof of burden to successfully pursue defamation law suits, they would be earning much more above their regular salaries via the court system. These celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that they will have to compromise their privacy and have countless articles dedicated to them. They realize that the publicity will not always be positive news regarding their performance in movies or their accomplishments in office. Sometimes the news will be vile and even pry into their family and intimate relationships. As human beings, these public figures also deserve a certain extent of privacy and should be able to defend themselves against lies that are maliciously spread to hurt their reputation and livelihood.
Describe a specific situation in which a public figure should not have to surrender personal privacy. Discuss what you think determines when a public figure's personal privacy ought to be surrendered.
___
In most supermarkets, the check-out counters are lined with magazine stacks feeding customers' appetite for celebrity gossip. Politicians' extra-marital affairs, actresses' weight gain/loss, and exotic destinations frequented by public figures provide entertainment to regular people who need relief from their mundane lives. People dream about becoming famous and recognized by complete strangers. However, they do not think about the compromises celebrities make in leading public life---such as giving up their privacy. Laws in the US make it difficult for these public figures to claim relief for defamatory actions taken by writers and publishers. While most of these celebrities enter public life knowing that they enjoy less privacy, they still deserve some degree of privacy to preserve their dignity as human beings.
Privacy is not stated as protected right per se in the US Constitution. However, court judges have deemed that privacy is implicitly protected by the Constitution through various amendments, as well as through case precedent. The government recognizes basic protections from intrusions on our physical selves, as well as certain personal information. A regular citizen may also bring defamation and libel suits alleging that certain people or the government has stated or written incorrect, harmful statements. Those deemed to be public figures---usually actors/actresses, politicians, and prominent business leaders---however, are held to a higher burden of proof. They must not only demonstrate the untruthfulness of he comment---they, unlike private actors, have to show that the defendant acted with malice, knowing that he was spreading lies or showing a reckless disregard for the truth. This higher burden of prove makes it more difficult for public figures to successfully sue on defamation.
Most celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that their privacy will be compromised. People will be curious about their lives beyond their livelihood. People--especially young fans---will view the celebrities as role models and emulate their dress, mannerisms, and all aspects of their personality. Despite an expectation for losing privacy, these public figures still deserve to maintain certain information to themselves and be free from unwanted intrusion. For example, it is inappropriate to attack and judge minor children of celebrities--unless, of course, these people make an effort to be famous through certain public actions. When Bill Clinton held office, some journalists showed bad taste by poking fun at the appearance of his minor-aged daughter. Meddling into the sexual affairs of celebrities usually should be off limits. However, if these affairs affect the public's trust of the figure---usually a prominent politician---there is some argument that he does not deserve privacy in this arena. A recent example includes revelations that a married Congressman, Anthony Weiner, used his public persona to draw in women and send lewd pictures online.
If celebrities were given the same proof of burden to successfully pursue defamation law suits, they would be earning much more above their regular salaries via the court system. These celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that they will have to compromise their privacy and have countless articles dedicated to them. They realize that the publicity will not always be positive news regarding their performance in movies or their accomplishments in office. Sometimes the news will be vile and even pry into their family and intimate relationships. As human beings, these public figures also deserve a certain extent of privacy and should be able to defend themselves against lies that are maliciously spread to hurt their reputation and livelihood.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Offering Hope as a Politician
The surest way to political success is to offer hope to the voters.
Describe a specific situation in which offering hope to the voters might not lead to political success. Discuss what you think determines when offering hope to the voters will lead to political success and when it will not.
___
In November 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential race of the United States. He campaigned under the mantra of hope and change for a more positive direction in the United States. Obama successfully rallied the support of sectors of society that do not normally participate in politics---that is, youth and minorities. Even those who normally participate in politics were enthralled by his rhetoric and message for change in a society disillusioned by a seemingly never-ending war in Iraq. While his promise of hope helped him gain political victory, the lack of positive change into the middle of his term has left a majority of the populace disillusioned and looking to other potential presidential candidates in 2012. Indeed, a message of hope may draw in voters but the lack of positive change after a while in office will ruin the politician's chance to win another term.
The President is the most visible leader of the United States. However, the separation of powers ensures that other branches of government, including the legislature and the judiciary, provide a check against executive power. While others share power in running the country, the President is viewed by the citizens as being most responsible for the trajectory of their country. For example, economic shifts are attributed directly to the President, although the ups and downs are determined mostly by other factors not under the control of the administration. Furthermore, the President does not only make key decisions in conjunction with other branches of government---he is responsible for uplifting the people and using his charisma to spread high morale and encourage citizens to be patient during difficult economic and political times. All in all, people look to the President as a role model and father figure of our nation.
President Obama campaigned under a promise of hope and attempted to continue his message while in power. However, in the midst of a sluggish recession, 9.2% unemployment rates, and troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, people have become restless and unconvinced about hanging on to hope. Recent times have shown that citizens can hold onto hope for so long. Hope for change must be accompanied by positive change for people to trust their leader and continue re-electing him. While the economic situation may have been caused in part by decisions made under the previous administration, people expect results after two years of a new president. Unfortunately, the morale of the people has been low, especially since many have lost their jobs and more are afraid of losing their jobs. President Obama is now largely seen as a contributor, if not the cause, of a sluggish economy. While he attempts to fulfill his presidential role as the country's motivator, he slowly loses grip of his chances for re-election as the country fails to see positive results.
Indeed, a message of hope may help propel politicians into office. Obama not only promised changes in the political dynamics of the country by being more open to diplomatic efforts abroad---His unique background as an African-American man raised in Hawaii and Indonesia represented a symbolic change in the nation's trajectory. Youth, ethnic minorities and even members of the status quo rallied with him as a way to view a future of an integrated, more peaceful United States. While the promises of hope helped the term begin with a fresh lens and revived atmosphere, the seemingly lack of results in the mid-term threatens to kill the hope held by the nation and open way to new leadership in 2012.
Describe a specific situation in which offering hope to the voters might not lead to political success. Discuss what you think determines when offering hope to the voters will lead to political success and when it will not.
___
In November 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential race of the United States. He campaigned under the mantra of hope and change for a more positive direction in the United States. Obama successfully rallied the support of sectors of society that do not normally participate in politics---that is, youth and minorities. Even those who normally participate in politics were enthralled by his rhetoric and message for change in a society disillusioned by a seemingly never-ending war in Iraq. While his promise of hope helped him gain political victory, the lack of positive change into the middle of his term has left a majority of the populace disillusioned and looking to other potential presidential candidates in 2012. Indeed, a message of hope may draw in voters but the lack of positive change after a while in office will ruin the politician's chance to win another term.
The President is the most visible leader of the United States. However, the separation of powers ensures that other branches of government, including the legislature and the judiciary, provide a check against executive power. While others share power in running the country, the President is viewed by the citizens as being most responsible for the trajectory of their country. For example, economic shifts are attributed directly to the President, although the ups and downs are determined mostly by other factors not under the control of the administration. Furthermore, the President does not only make key decisions in conjunction with other branches of government---he is responsible for uplifting the people and using his charisma to spread high morale and encourage citizens to be patient during difficult economic and political times. All in all, people look to the President as a role model and father figure of our nation.
President Obama campaigned under a promise of hope and attempted to continue his message while in power. However, in the midst of a sluggish recession, 9.2% unemployment rates, and troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, people have become restless and unconvinced about hanging on to hope. Recent times have shown that citizens can hold onto hope for so long. Hope for change must be accompanied by positive change for people to trust their leader and continue re-electing him. While the economic situation may have been caused in part by decisions made under the previous administration, people expect results after two years of a new president. Unfortunately, the morale of the people has been low, especially since many have lost their jobs and more are afraid of losing their jobs. President Obama is now largely seen as a contributor, if not the cause, of a sluggish economy. While he attempts to fulfill his presidential role as the country's motivator, he slowly loses grip of his chances for re-election as the country fails to see positive results.
Indeed, a message of hope may help propel politicians into office. Obama not only promised changes in the political dynamics of the country by being more open to diplomatic efforts abroad---His unique background as an African-American man raised in Hawaii and Indonesia represented a symbolic change in the nation's trajectory. Youth, ethnic minorities and even members of the status quo rallied with him as a way to view a future of an integrated, more peaceful United States. While the promises of hope helped the term begin with a fresh lens and revived atmosphere, the seemingly lack of results in the mid-term threatens to kill the hope held by the nation and open way to new leadership in 2012.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Group v. Individual Work
Progress seldom comes from the deliberations of a group. Rather, progress most often comes from the creative thinking of individuals working alone.
Describe a specific situation in which progress might come from the deliberations of a group rather than the creative thinking of individuals working alone. Discuss what you think determines whether the deliberations of a group or the creative thinking of individuals working alone will result in progress.
___
One of the key goals pursued in the American education system is to socialize young people and give them the skills to be able to work in groups. The United States is more focused on individual---not communal--needs relative to other nations; however, the ability to work well with others is stressed as a way to achieve better results on a personal and professional level. In school, group work is often emphasized as a way for people to share ideas and come up with solutions that would not have been realized had members worked on an individual basis. Whether group work, as opposed to work done by individuals, results in more progress really depends on the quality of the people within the group. Important factors include each member's initiative, talent and ability to work effectively with others.
Sometimes group work will not result in progress. People often have the tendency to not work to their full capacity when other people in their group share responsibility for completing a project. They might assume that other members of the group will complete their share of the project. When most or if all members of the group carry this work mentality, the project will not be a success. In other cases, groups may be composed of members who are not intelligent or capable of thinking creatively. Even if they work well as a group, the results will still be of sub-par quality. On the other hand, a group composed of high quality people with both initiative and intelligence may come up with better results than if those same members would work on an individual basis.
Furthermore, some people work better on their own. Being part of a group may be a distraction to their innate creative forces. Time alone to contemplate and work on problems for these people may result in progress and the best solutions. Working in groups often poses challenges of veering off topic, interrupting thought processes, and certain individuals dominating the discussion and decision-making. Some people, however, work more effectively when around other people. They receive inspiration from hearing several ideas and can focus more on the task on hand with people having the same goals.
Whether group work or individual work results in "progress" really depends on the make-up of the members. Some people tend to be more effective on an individual basis and receive creative inspiration when having not to deal with the distraction of various members. Other people tend to slack off and rely on the initiative of the rest of the group whereas they would have taken more responsibility working alone. The group's progress also depends on the individual capabilities of members; a group composed of creative, hardworking people will most likely yield progress. As the old saying goes, a group is only as strong as its weakest link.
Describe a specific situation in which progress might come from the deliberations of a group rather than the creative thinking of individuals working alone. Discuss what you think determines whether the deliberations of a group or the creative thinking of individuals working alone will result in progress.
___
One of the key goals pursued in the American education system is to socialize young people and give them the skills to be able to work in groups. The United States is more focused on individual---not communal--needs relative to other nations; however, the ability to work well with others is stressed as a way to achieve better results on a personal and professional level. In school, group work is often emphasized as a way for people to share ideas and come up with solutions that would not have been realized had members worked on an individual basis. Whether group work, as opposed to work done by individuals, results in more progress really depends on the quality of the people within the group. Important factors include each member's initiative, talent and ability to work effectively with others.
Sometimes group work will not result in progress. People often have the tendency to not work to their full capacity when other people in their group share responsibility for completing a project. They might assume that other members of the group will complete their share of the project. When most or if all members of the group carry this work mentality, the project will not be a success. In other cases, groups may be composed of members who are not intelligent or capable of thinking creatively. Even if they work well as a group, the results will still be of sub-par quality. On the other hand, a group composed of high quality people with both initiative and intelligence may come up with better results than if those same members would work on an individual basis.
Furthermore, some people work better on their own. Being part of a group may be a distraction to their innate creative forces. Time alone to contemplate and work on problems for these people may result in progress and the best solutions. Working in groups often poses challenges of veering off topic, interrupting thought processes, and certain individuals dominating the discussion and decision-making. Some people, however, work more effectively when around other people. They receive inspiration from hearing several ideas and can focus more on the task on hand with people having the same goals.
Whether group work or individual work results in "progress" really depends on the make-up of the members. Some people tend to be more effective on an individual basis and receive creative inspiration when having not to deal with the distraction of various members. Other people tend to slack off and rely on the initiative of the rest of the group whereas they would have taken more responsibility working alone. The group's progress also depends on the individual capabilities of members; a group composed of creative, hardworking people will most likely yield progress. As the old saying goes, a group is only as strong as its weakest link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)