Common Sense in Politicians

The primary requirement for a successful politician is common sense.
Describe a specific situation in which a politician might need an asset other than common sense to be successful. Discuss what you think determines when politicians need common sense in order to achieve success and when they do not.
___

Every organization needs an effective leader to nurture team work among employees and meet certain objectives and goals. Some leaders may be responsible for a few people; others, such as politicians, represent large communities and therefore, tend to deal with more complicated issues . For example, politicians are confronted with an array of conflicting interests within their communities and must make difficult decisions regarding which problems to solve and where to focus their priorities. To handle these responsibilities, successful politicians need to possess several qualities, including common sense above all things.

A person may have studied years on end and possess multiple degrees from prestigious universities; however, she will still face obstacles in trying to promote positive changes in the real world if she lacks common sense--or the ability to resolve common problems that have a simple solution. A leader possessing common sense can envision problems from a practical point of view that can be explained to and understood by his constituents. In contrast, some people who have been enclosed in an ivory tower lose the ability to view problems from a realistic point of view, often developing theories that have no practical relevance outside academia. While great politicians have the ability to process esoteric knowledge and theories, they also can place themselves in the position of the regular Joe and analyze problems from a common-sense perspective.

Common sense, of course, is not the only asset a successful politician possesses. He must also have the discipline to work toward goals and have extraordinary "people skills" to attract and maintain support. These leaders must also be able to analyze problems on an intellectual level and clearly explain ideas and proposals to different types of audiences. Indeed, the positive assets of a successful politician are seemingly endless. No one, of course, is perfect and can achieve the ideal standard of a "successful politician." Even those considered extraordinary leaders exhibit personal weaknesses that can ruin their careers.

Common sense will always be needed by a politician to be effective in his job. They are voted into office to make positive changes in the community and a lack of common sense for solving problems will prove to be a huge liability. Voters will realize when a politician fails to approach his work from a practical standpoint and will, therefore, punish him at the polls.

Right to Privacy in the Workplace

Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace.
Describe a specific situation in which an employee should not have the same right to privacy in the workplace as outside it. Discuss what you think determines whether or not employees should have the same right to privacy inside the workplace as they do outside it.
___

Given the advances in technology, employers have the ability to monitor virtually every aspect of their employees' jobs. For instance, they can listen into and track telephone calls, read all emails written from company-owned computers, and check websites visited throughout the day. Indeed, working for someone else entails giving up a degree of privacy. Employers have various reasons for monitoring their employees--including their need to ensure that work is being done efficiently. However, employers should balance their monitoring activities and employees' basic rights to privacy. Indeed, a complete lack of privacy in the workplace could lead to the diminished morale of employees and lack of mutual trust.

Most employees realize that they will need to give up some privacy in order to work in an office. However, they should have the right to know exactly how they are being monitored. Employers ideally should hand out a document detailing their monitoring activities and ask for the consent of employees. Furthermore, employers should honor a common-sense, basic right to privacy that need not be detailed on paper. For instance, videotaping bathroom stalls, hacking into employees' personal cell phones, and accessing genetic and psychological testing would be considered as pushing the boundaries.

Employers feel compelled to monitor workers mainly because of a need to protect the organization. In order to maximize profits, they must make sure that employees are making responsible use of time and company resources. Employers are also well aware of the common problems that organizations in general face with regard to internet use in the office---i.e., temptations to view pornography, surfing social networking sites, etc. Employees, of course, have the full right to access these types of web pages on their own time using their personal computers.

Employers have the responsibility to make sure their organizations are run in the most efficient manner possible. Monitoring employees' use of technology is an especially important task in running an office, especially given the well-known ways employees abuse internet usage. However, employers must be sure to maintain a balance of its monitoring activities and the employees' need to feel trusted. One way to maintain trust in the office is for the employer to advise the employees on what information they have access to, as well as the reason for collecting certain data. Indeed, monitoring employees in an extensive way could lead to the dangers of low morale in the workplace and resentment over being micro-managed.

Is Violence ever Justified as away to Resolve Disputes?

Violence is never justified as a way to resolve disputes.
Describe a specific situation in which violence might be justified as a way to resolve disputes. Discuss what you think determines whether or not violence is justified as a way to resolve disputes.
___

Throughout time, humans have often settled disputes through violence. The use of violence is sometimes characterized as an uncivilized means to solve problems. That is, those who are uneducated may use violence because they lack the communication skills and intelligence to solve problems in a non-violent manner. However, even sophisticated entities, such as governments of the developed world, regularly use violence to accomplish their goals. Indeed, history has shown that violence usually begets more violence and therefore, it should never be justified as a way to resolve disputes.

Human are essentially animals underneath it all. Throughout history, education and the development of a positive environment have been used to "refine" humans. Specifically, humans can be taught how to control their instinctual urges, including the tendency to harbor violent thoughts. While some still believe that violence is a necessary evil, certain cultures and communities have successfully rejected violence for the most part. They have learned to cultivate the art of communication and diplomacy as a way to resolve disputes.

Throughout time, nations have established mechanisms, such as United Nations, to solve problems without resorting to violence. They acknowledge the devastating effects of World Wars and want to do everything possible to prevent the recurrence of past atrocities. However, these nations still find violence (i.e., war) as an ultimate solution--sometimes because the enemy does not believe in diplomacy as an effective tool. All organized entities have a desire to survive and sometimes need to act in self defense. Of course, using "self defense" as a justification for committing a violent act treads a gray line. For example, many would reject the notion that a pre-emptive war, such as the one waged on Iraq by the US in 2003, is a justified act of self defense. Indeed, it is difficulty to judge as to what point a nation is in its right to use violence to protect itself.

Perhaps in the future, violence will be viewed as a vestige of bygone days when humans did not possess empathy and sufficient communication skills to solve problems. In certain places, societies have made significant improvements in reducing violence. They have established mechanisms, through law and order, that discourages the use of violence, and encouraged cultural values of peace and harmony.

Who Exercises Political Leadership?

The exercise of political leadership is limited to those holding office.
Describe a specific situation in which the exercise of political leadership might not be limited to those holding office. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the exercise of political leadership is limited to those holding office.
___

Running a government in an effective manner requires strong political leadership. In the United States, both elected and appointed officials take charge of the most important decisions that greatly influence their constituents' quality of lives. While officials holding office exhibit tangible forms of political leadership, other entities of society---including the media and powerful special interest groups and corporations-- have the clout to influence the direction of politics. However, the power to make changes ultimately lie in the hands of those holding office.

People holding office are vested with powers that shape the course of their communities. For instance, they determine the priorities of their constituents, which interests to attend to, where to allocate funds, etc. Many decisions regarding public space and matters can be traced to a certain official holding office. In a democracy, elected politicians are held accountable for their actions by the people and elections usually serve as a referendum on the leadership abilities of the incumbent. Although appointed officials are not elected, they are often accountable to an elected official who answers to the people. Both elected and appointed officials, therefore, must exercise their political leadership in a way that takes into account the wishes of their constituents.

While officials in office formally exercise political leaderships, other sectors of society can pull strings, so to speak, and influence decisions of the politicians. For example, the media plays a crucial role in checking the power of the people in office. Specifically, it reports on the official's actions in office and helps mold readers' opinions on politicians' job performance, as well as what issues to pay attention to. The media, undoubtedly, plays a huge role on electoral outcomes and therefore, politicians place high importance on their relationships with media executives and editorial decision makers. Furthermore, special interests and corporations often influence political decisions. Officials may be indebted to these groups and count on them for future votes; their overwhelming desire to maintain power leads them to make decisions that are in favor of their benefactors.

Indeed, political leadership is exercised mainly by those holding office. They ultimately decide what issues to prioritize and how to vote. They also--ideally-- answer to the best interests of their constituents. The reality of the political atmosphere, however, is that politicians usually place high value in getting re-elected and therefore, vote in line with the interests of powerful groups that can keep them in power.

Leaders following the will of the Majority

Great leaders follow the will of the majority.
Describe a specific situation in which a great leader might not follow the will of the majority. Discuss what you think determines whether or not great leaders follow the will of the majority.
___

The Forefathers of the United States laid the foundation for a system of government that honors the will of the majority. Each citizen ( viz. white, male and landholding) would be entitled to vote for leaders who would represent them in government; those voted into office would be responsible for listening to their constituency and making sure that their thoughts are taken into account in the decision making process. Indeed, leaders are responsible for following the will of the majority. However, great leaders possess open minds and recognize that the majority may support ideas that are counterproductive to the nation's best interests.

Politicians are elected to represent the people and they are responsible for taking into account the will of the majority. The will of the majority usually--but not in all cases-- reflects what works best for the nation as a whole. In the case of the United States, majority rule takes into consideration the opinions of "regular" people in society--not just those of the rich and powerful. In autocratic nations, however, all power and decisions are made by a small circle of leaders who are not chosen by the people and therefore, are not accountable to their needs.

In a pure majority-rule system, there exists the danger of repressing the rights of minority populations. For instance, following the majority's interests may subject minorities to second-class citizen status where they cannot express themselves fully and ensure that their fundamental needs are met. In the United States, the Forefathers included the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to serve as a counterweight to a majority-rule system. For example, minority populations can use the Bill of Rights as legal support for infringements of protected rights. Indeed, nations implementing a majority-rule system should provide mechanisms to protect minorities and prevent actions stemming from mob mentality---or actions taken by the majority on the basis of emotion and not reason.

Real leaders have a vision as to what will best serve the nation as a whole and therefore, are able to think analytically about the will of the majority. If they recognize that the will of majority is based on misguided desires, great leaders are able to put politics aside and stand up for what they believe is honorable and right. For example, in times of national economic crisis, the citizens will find a scapegoat to blame for all their problems--in this case, the illegal immigrants from Latin America. Especially in the last year, citizens have rallied for legislation to address the serious problems of illegal immigration; however, some of the actions taken have seem to be motivated more by hate and not by a rational sense of solving the problems. Great politicians recognize when the will of the majority is based on emotion and they do their best to allay or resolve their concerns without feeding into the negative energy.

Great leaders should understand the wishes of the people but in certain cases, take action that may upset the majority. They need to be cognizant of the our history where minority populations have been persecuted and make sure that to encourage citizens to view situations from a rational point of view rather than from pure emotion. Leaders not only decide what actions to take on behalf of the people; they are also able to clearly explain the basis of their decisions and convince others to agree with their reasoning.

Tell me Lies, Tell me Sweet Little Lies

In a democracy, the government is never justified in lying to its citizens.
Describe a specific situation in which the government, in a democracy, might be justified in lying to its citizens. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the government, in a democracy, is ever justified in lying to its citizens.
___

In a democracy, the government needs to be accountable to its citizens. That is, public officials have an obligation to explain their decisions to the people so as to avoid corruption. When the government is caught lying to the people, it destroys any trust that people have in its leaders. For the government to run smoothly, the people must respect the institution and have faith that public officials will be totally transparent with their actions. This reasoning follows that the government is never justified in lying to its citizens. However, the vulnerability of the government to internal and external threats may sometimes justify lying for the purpose of maintaining a functioning institution.

When people elect their representatives, they expect the leaders to represent their best interests. Arguably, it is in the people's best interest to be informed about government actions and have the power to speak up when their needs are not met. The people communicate their opinions in different way---e.g., via the media and election season. When a government tells lies, citizens are hidden from the full picture of their leaders' actions and lack crucial information which can influence future votes. Indeed, a democracy flourishes when citizens become empowered in the midst of full and free information.

When caught in a lie, the government's credibility suffers. Following the US intervention in Iraq in 2002, the media characterized the Bush administration as having lied to the people. Specifically, the Defense Secretary addressed the United Nations (and American people) about the US need to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Whether this information was based on lies or just honest mistakes will probably never be determined. Nevertheless, the fact that WMDs were never found became a scar on the Bush administration and people's overall confidence in their government. In extreme cases, people's mistrust of government leads to an eruption of chaos and at times, revolution.

Governments have different motivations for lying. For instance, most people would think it is inexcusable to lie in order to hide the misuse of funds and corruption schemes. Lies are also made with the intent to ensure the security of nation. Truths can undoubtedly be used by enemies to destroy the nation. Truths can also cause people to panic--bringing the nation to an ungovernable state. Indeed, the government even runs whole departments based on "mistruths," such as the CIA. It is probable that lies told/truths hidden by the government, however, helped prevent occurrences of terrorist attacks on the homeland in the last decade.

A democracy is ideally a transparent form of government where people can trust in its leaders to represent them well. The government, however, finds itself in situations where lying to the people will help prevent chaos and national disasters. While the government might be justified in telling certain lies, there must be in place some type of mechanism that minimizes these instances. In general, government officials should strive to be as transparent as possible to maintain their credibility and help keep the nation running smoothly.

The Effect of the Plurality of Opinions in a Democratic System

The plurality of opinions in a democratic system often leads to political deadlock.
Describe a specific political situation in which the plurality of opinions might not lead to deadlock. Discuss what you think determines whether or not an abundance of opinions will lead to political deadlock in a democracy.
___

Democracy is a political system in which the government must remain accountable to the citizens. Politicians compete for the vote of citizens and should make decisions in a way that serves the best interests of the people. In order to ensure that the citizens' needs are met, the government encourages the free flow of information and thoughts. Oftentimes, the plurality of opinions prevents timely decision-making. However, the founding forefathers designed the system in a way that slows down the legislative process so that all feasible solutions to a problem can be analyzed in a thoughtful manner.

Pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, citizens have the right to free speech and can vote during elections. Since all Americans (save prisoners and minors) can freely express themselves, their representatives in Congress also reflect the plurality of opinions. In contrast, authoritarian states maintain one set of political opinions characterized as absolute truths. When varied opinions are represented in Congress, it is often difficult to compromise and come up with timely decisions. For instance, the recent debt ceiling debates reveal how differing opinions lead to political deadlock. Congress eventually presented a compromise but only during the eleventh hour while facing credit-rating downgrades and threats of further economic repercussions.

In the current political atmosphere, citizens do not support politicians who compromise. For example, during the 2010 Congressional primaries, politicians running on a center platform found themselves defeated by the more fundamentalist wing of their party. With ideological differences among politicians so stark these days, it is no surprise that Congress seems unable to compromise and produce changes that benefit America as a whole.

Congress, however, has not always been so partisan and unwilling to work with each other. For instance, major reform has tended to be bipartisan in the last half century; the Social Security Act of 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 all passed with solid support from the two parties. On the other hand, the 2010 Health Reform Act was deeply partisan and still faces huge opposition by the conservatives. No doubt, the internet and popularity of political pundits have played huge roles in influencing the "unworkable" dynamic facing Congress these days. Constituents are more aware of how their representatives vote and are better equipped to keep them accountable to their wishes. Politicians are well aware that their popularity in polls will slip due to compromising with the other side; therefore, they take hard-line stances that show their utmost dedication to party platforms regardless of whether they help the nation move forward in a healthy manner.

In a democratic system, the plurality of opinions is valued as a means of forming solutions that serve the best interests of society. When a government values freedom of speech, different thoughts and opinions serve to play off one another with the goal of finding optimal solutions. However, when people are hard set on their opinions and refuse to allow any type of compromise, it is difficult to make progress. Politicians, with such insular mindsets, fail to fulfill their responsibilities to solve the nation's problems. While their varied opinions are valuable for a well-rounded analysis of the issues, politicians should keep in mind the end goal of making government accountable to the needs of the people.

Do the Rich have a Responsbility to help the Poor?

The rich have a responsibility to help the poor.
Describe a specific situation in which the rich might not have a responsibility to help the poor. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the rich have a responsibility to help the poor.
___

During tough economic times, the problem of the widening income divide becomes more apparent. As the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, the United States will find face accompanying socio-economic implications. The poor will find themselves with even less resources and fewer opportunities to break into the middle class. They experience more disillusionment and are more likely to commit crimes. If the poor are left behind without any sort of help, society becomes more broken as a whole. It is arguable whether or not the rich have the moral responsibility to help the poor. However, they should help the poor, at least, to serve their own best interests. The US government recognizes the societal benefits of supporting the poor and thus, receives funds from the rich through its progressive taxation policies.

From a purely selfish point of view, the rich should support efforts to raise the poor's quality of life. There exists a direct link between crime and poverty; that is, those who are unemployed or who do not receive adequate education are more likely to commit crimes. When the rich support the schooling of poor youth, society becomes somewhat of a safer place for both rich and poor people alike. While rich people may not give money directly to the poor, the United States government enforces a policy that takes a higher proportion of funds from the rich to subsidize programs that benefit the poor, such as a public school system and welfare programs. When the poor are not given a hand to rise above their situation, most will continue on with the cycle of poverty and some will fall into a life of crime to make ends meet or because they do not know any better.

Undoubtedly, the rich control the industries of a nation and hire other people to help them make profits. While there remains a need for unskilled, minimum wage workers, the advances in technology and growing competition in the marketplace demands more of an educated workforce. If the rich continue contributing funds through taxes, they allow more people to advance professionally and help contribute to their businesses. With more effective workers who can think analytically, rich people can raise their profit margins and continue to develop businesses that keep up with a changing world.

However, government programs supporting the poor should be designed in a way to help people help themselves, so to speak. For example, direct handouts that allow people to have as many children they want and buy their groceries for an indefinite amount of time will create a culture of dependence. On the other hand, free education and work training will often help people become independent and achieve a sense of pride in their own accomplishments. The funds of the rich should not enable dependency on the government and the rich are in their every right to complain about programs that promote moral hazard. Especially in a time of growing scarcity and an uncontrolled deficit, the rich have the responsibility to take on the leadership to help determine where their funds could be best directed to nurture a more safe and productive nation.

In an ideal situation, the rich should feel the obligation to give back to society by helping the less fortunate. However, if they rose to their situation through honest, hard work, it is hard to tell them where their funds should go. If the rich want to be part of a working society, they need to respect government policies that keep the nation safe and able to compete in the world. This entails paying their fair share of taxes to fund programs that allow poor people to become independent and contribute to a healthy society.

A Politician's True Beliefs are displayed during a Crisis

A politician's true beliefs are displayed during a crisis.

Describe a specific situation in which a politician's true beliefs might not be displayed during a crisis. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a crisis will bring out a politician's true beliefs.
___

Recent polls show that Congress hit record-low approval ratings. In addition to its inability to reverse the economic woes of the country, our nation's politicians appear to put politics above working across party lines to solve problems. Indeed, voters elect these politicians to move the nation forward in the right direction; they cannot make decisions, however, on a timely and sound manner if hindered by red tape and fighting across the aisle. While it may take politicians a seemingly long time to accomplish certain tasks, the occurrence of a national crisis forces them to think quickly and make decisions in a more timely manner. In this case, a politician's true beliefs are often displayed during a crisis.

In the case of a national crisis, people's lives and money are put at stake. Politicians find themselves under increased pressure to alleviate the situation and return the nation to "good times." Indeed, during a crisis, the priorities of politicians--particularly their need to get re-elected-- are revealed by their decisions regarding fund appropriation. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, key decisionmakers were chastised for their slow reaction to the crisis. Only the media and its images of people in dire situations forced action. The victims of Hurricane Katrina--largely poor and black-- did not constitute a population that had political clout and some have noted that this reality influenced the type of federal response to the disaster.

The ongoing economic crisis of the nation has also highlighted the politicians' overwhelming wish to maintain power. Given the growing deficit, Congress has been forced to make huge cuts to spending and also find ways to generate new revenue. The Democrat and Republican platforms on how to solve the deficit problem reveal how political pandering to constituents has been prioritized over working together to reach sustainable solutions. While the Democrats prioritize entitlements and extending unemployment benefits, the Republicans insist on maintaining tax cuts for the rich. These platforms do not show per se that Democrats empathize with the plight of the poor and that Republican think that only the rich should be taken into account. They do reveal, however, that both parties push policies that help them gain votes and maintain support from their likely constituencies.

At times, a politician's true beliefs might not be displayed during the beginning of national crisis. This was especially seen in the couple of weeks following 9/11. The overwhelming shock experienced by the nation as a whole unified citizens and it seemed as if everyone put aside their politics and differences. Americans saw themselves as being attacked by a common enemy and realized that they needed to support all of the administration's efforts to protect them from future terrorist acts. Politicians also reflected this national unity and seemed averse to political squabbles during such a sensitive moment. Once the dust settled, however, politicians returned to their partisan bickering and politics as usual.

In general, national crises reveal where politicians' priorities lie--that is, the intense need to be re-elected. These crises often involve taking action in a quick manner by deciding who receives help and resources. It would be ideal for our nation's leaders to make decisions based on what is best for the nation as a whole. However, their political survival entails pleasing constituents and formulating arguments in a way that "appears" to be in the best interest for the nation.

A Political Endorsement can be as Harmful as it is Helpful

Receiving a political endorsement can be as harmful as it is helpful.
Describe a specific situation in which receiving a political endorsement might not be harmful. Discuss what you think determines when political endorsements are harmful and when they are helpful.
___


The process of getting elected into office involves a coordinated effort by a campaign staff. They help the candidate make strategic decisions, including what platforms to focus on and which populations to target. The staff also arranges publicity for the candidate and focuses on making his image palatable to voters. Part of managing the publicity efforts include deciding what to do about endorsements for the candidate. Some endorsements may benefit a campaign by adding credibility to the candidate. However, others may be harmful by linking negative aspects of the endorser to the candidate himself.

Certain endorsements can prove to be a boon to a campaign--especially if they are made by powerful individuals and institutions. When people have confidence in a respected endorser, they will trust its political judgment. These types of endorsements are especially beneficial to candidates who are relatively unknown to voters and do not leave a long paper trail. The same situation can be applied to competing in the job market. When an employer receives hundreds of applications, he will pay particular attention to recommendations made by co-workers and friends. The average Joe with a referral will usually have a leg up over the Harvard graduate without personal support.

Endorsements do not only add credibility to the candidate--they also open doors to other donors, email lists, etc. For instance, when an organization like the New York Times endorses a candidate, its thousands of faithful subscribers may be greatly influenced and vote accordingly. Among these readers include rich people who may be also compelled to donate and influence other organizations to dedicate resources to the campaign.

Endorsements, however, can also prove to be harmful. Voters have the tendency to link any negative aspect of an endorser to a candidate himself. Sometimes candidates cannot control who endorses them and the campaign staff will try to veer attention away from an unwelcome endorsement. For example, when Gary Hart wrote an opinion endorsing Barack Obama in 2008, the latter's campaign staff did not bring attention to it. Although Gary Hart was a rather successful Senator and even a frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primaries of the 1980s, his image became marred by a sex scandal. Obama's campaign could not afford to be linked to another Democrat not espousing "family values." Furthermore, a campaign staff will also not publicize endorsements from individuals or entities who have expressed controversial views and statements.

It is, indeed, a strategic choice for a campaign staff to publicize or downplay political endorsements. Voters tend to associate a candidate with the views and record of the endorsers. Even when a campaign chooses to highlight a recommendation, they still run the risk of the endorser saying something in the future that may jeopardize a candidate's chance for winning. Nevertheless, a campaign staff may find that the benefits of having the recommendation outweigh the possibility of missteps made by the endorser.

We Learn more by our Mistakes than by our Successes

We are educated more by our mistakes than by our successes.
Describe a specific situation in which someone might be educated more by success than by mistakes. Discuss what you think determines whether or not one learns more from mistakes than from successes.
___

Many of us are taught not to be afraid of making mistakes in life. It is said that through those mistakes, we grow as people and learn how to improve the situation. In contrast, we can learn from our successes but we usually will continue in the same direction to maintain the positive situation. However, only certain type of personalities will be educated more by mistakes than successes. That is, those who are resilient and not easily defeated during difficult times will more often eventually profit from making mistakes.

We can learn more from our mistakes because we are forced to reassess the situation and make changes to turn the situation around. For instance, if a student receives a bad grade on a test, he may be determined to strive for higher scores in the future. When he thinks about future implications of a poor transcript and re-evaluates his priorities, he will make changes in his life to make way for better scores. These changes may include modifying study habits, quitting his part-time job, etc. When a person is determined to reach a goal after making a mistake, he often learns something useful in the process. On the other hand, being successful shows that one is already doing the "right thing" and does not need to change. More determined personalities, however, will be able to continue making changes (even after experiencing success) in order to keep up with an evolving environment and avoid stagnation.

Experiencing mistakes and being able to overcome them also makes one more confident to face future obstacles. Those who experience only a success in a consistent basis may be easy thrown off when their luck changes. They may become devastated by even slight failures. In effect, their change in morale and new defeatist attitude lead them on a path to more failures in life. On the other hand, those who can look failure straight in the eye will not feel overwhelmed and take positive steps to overcome a bad situation.

Granted, there are situations when the mistakes made are so profound that one cannot turn a situation around. For instance, this might occur in a case where an oil company makes the mistake of not taking precautions to mitigate disaster and resulting fatalities. The executives' concern for saving money then results in the loss of human life and permanent environmental degradation. As a result, the public loses confidence in the business due to the bad publicity surrounding the executives' greed and poor judgment. In scenarios resulting in such devastating consequences, it is difficult for someone to learn from their mistakes since there seems to really be no way out.

Indeed, certain types of people are unable to learn from mistakes due to, perhaps, arrogance or weak will. Mistakes for these people are not seen as opportunities to grow. Rather, they are ignored by hard-headed people that refuse to make changes in life or viewed as permanent obstacles by those who are easily defeated. Mistakes can teach lessons to those willing to receive them; however, it is essential that one who learns from failure be mindful of their future actions so not commit the same mistakes again.

Is a Politician's Public Image more Important than his Ideas?

A politician's public image is more important than his or her ideas.
Describe a specific situation in which a politician's ideas might be more important than his or her public image. Discuss what you think determines when a politician's public image might be more important than his or her ideas and when it might not.
___

When politicians are voted into office, they are expected to move forward an agenda benefiting their constituency. They make numerous promises on the campaign trail and promote a type of government working for the best interests of the people. A politician's ideas continue to be important once sitting in office but his public image often becomes the most crucial factor in being re-elected. However, ideas become more important than public image in the case that a politician wants to create radical change and introduce news ways of thinking in the public consciousness.

Politicians are most effective in office (as opposed to out of office) with their considerable amount of power. To stay in office, they must maintain an image palatable to average Americans. This is generally seen as a traditional family man with who believes in God. For example, candidates tarred by a sex scandal or rumored to not hold Judeo-Christian beliefs will have a difficult time voted into office. As a result, many politicians need to pay extra attention to how they present themselves in public. Their ability to work effectively with opposing parties or propose creative ways for resolving problems often do not carry as much weight as the image of politicians' "moral" standing within the community.

Of course, ideas play some importance in one's electability and a politician's government philosophies get scrutinized by the press and academics. However, most Americans do not really care too much for the implications of ideas. They are satisfied making judgments based on 30-second sound bites. Rather, they want someone in office who they could see themselves having a beer with. For example, several presidents in the last few decades have been chosen not for their ideas and brain power but for their likeability among a common crowd. Presidents Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush have been judged by most to be intellectually inferior to their election opponents; however, they ended up victorious due their palatable public image.

Most politicians go into politics with the intention of staying in power --i.e., being re-elected. In this case, image becomes paramount. However, there are others who enter politics mostly to promote their ideals. Third-party presidential candidates are examples of politicians who perhaps care more about their message than their image and electability. These candidates tend to be a bit radical and espouse ideas not in line with most American people. However, their ideas enter the public consciousness and in some cases can affect status quo down the line. Ross Perot is an example of a third-party presidential candidate whose ideas surrounding small government became influential with Tea Party politicians leading the polls today.


Indeed, whether a politician's image is more important than his ideas depend on the goals of the politician. If the politician wishes to maintain power, he must be cognizant of the image he displays in public and make himself likeable to regular Americans. Ideas become more important than image in the case where a politician hopes to make profound change in government. While he may not be successful in running for office, his ideas receive an amount of publicity that may create changes in the status quo.

Laws as an Effective Means of Achieving Social Change

Laws are not an effective means of achieving social change.
Describe a specific situation in which a law might be an effective means of achieving social change. Discuss what you think determines whether or not laws can effectively bring about social change.
___

Advocacy groups employ different ways to achieve their desired social change. They mobilize affected parties and the public at large by bringing wide publicity to the issue. They consult academics and experts to study and analyze their issue as a way to strengthen their case. They also lobby congress to suggest new laws or amend existing ones. While establishing a certain law may provide a backbone for social change, the law--as it exists alone--does not transform society in a way desired by proponents. Rather, advocacy groups must continue seeing that the law is regularly enforced and actively used to support actions of social change.

Existing alone, laws do not provide an effective means of achieving social change. Some laws are merely symbolic and do not really carry any legal weight. They exist in the books but people cannot really sue under them. For example, the Bill of Rights would be ineffective if people could not refer to their freedoms in a court of law to support claims for an injunction or damages. Indeed, the 5th and 14th amendments allow people to use the courts as a way to enforce their rights. Without its legal weight, the Bill of Rights could not effectively protect citizens. Key social movements of history, including the prohibition of slavery and greater speech protections for protestors, would probably not have as much effect today if it were not for citizens' abilities to use the Bill of Rights in court.

Laws per se do not provide an effective means of achieving social change. However, they can make some difference in the path toward change. For example, case law may be useful in supporting a lawsuit that seeks social change. Lawyers refer to case precedent---or cases adjudicated in the past--in analyzing issues. When a judge in the appropriate jurisdiction rules favorably on a case, lawyers can use this precedent as foundation for their arguments. The accumulation of case law, indeed, can lead to significant rulings that provoke social change.


In order for laws to be an effective means of achieving change, they must be regularly enforced and recognized by the legal community. Some laws are merely symbolic and really have no effect in the world. Others carry legal weight and can be used to protect one's self from violations. Indeed, there should exist a community or powerful organization advocating for the social change that helps ensure laws are respected by police and courts.

Celebrities and the Right to Privacy

Celebrities, having sought fame, lose their right to privacy.
Describe a specific situation in which a celebrity should not lose the right to privacy. Discuss what you think determines whether or not celebrities should lose their right to privacy.
___

The obsession with celebrity and the Hollywood lifestyle are hallmarks of twenty-first century American culture. Paparazzi constantly follow stars and regular people buy the magazines to follow their everyday moves and private relationships. Many women have plastic surgery to look more like celebrities and even mimic their manner of dress and talk. Indeed, celebrities, having sought fame, lose their right to privacy. They are fully aware of the culture's fixation with Hollywood and realize the costs of seeking fame. Even the Constitution makes it more difficult of celebrities to seek damages for invasion of privacy. Of course, there still exists some legal limits as to how far a celebrity's privacy can be invaded.

Celebrities realize that taking part in high-featured films and attending star-studded events will increase their fame and desirability in the media. They also raise their chances to take part in more prominent roles in the future. Celebrities realize that growing their careers will necessarily involve increasing interest in their private lives. Many celebrities also go out of their way to seek fame by releasing sex tapes and making themselves readily available for paparazzi shots. Of course, these types of celebrities should have absolutely no expectation of privacy. Other famous people exhibit more dignity and respect for themselves by avoiding unneeded attention. However, many aspects of their lives are still deemed fair game, including where they go out to share dinner with their loved one and where they happen to shop for groceries.

The Constitution makes it more difficult for celebrities (as opposed to private citizens) to sue on the basis of libel and defamation. If a smut magazine wrongly links an actress to her co-star, she will not be successful in claiming damages in court. Specifically, she has the additional burden of proving malicious intent of the authors. Regular citizens, on the other hand, need not prove this burden to sue successfully. The law, however, still grants celebrities basic privacy rights. For example, paparazzi may not enter the private homes or cars of celebrities.


Indeed, Americans should realize that their deified celebrities are people who have feelings and faults. They also have children they want to protect and wish to be treated with the basic dignity that every human being deserves. Some magazines have crossed this line by taking shots of children and even chasing cars. Paparazzi are also known for climbing walls and trespassing on private property to get "money" shots of stars sunbathing in the nude. These types of privacy invasion should not be tolerated and expected by celebrities. Unfortunately, Americans feed the demand for these pictures and are more likely to support publications that show stars in revealing positions. As spying and communication technologies improve, celebrities will find their privacy being compromised in more ways.

Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime

A nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation's foreign aid might justifiably not be directed to help those countries that help themselves. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.
___


In a period of economic hardship, citizens of wealthy nations question why their strained budgets continue to make room for foreign aid. As the government slashes its jobs by the thousands, many insist that aid to developing countries should be halted or placed in the backburner. However, wealthy nations do not aid poor countries for purely humanitarian reasons. Rather, there exist quid pro quo agreements that help advance the donor's various economic and national security interests. While donors can benefit greatly from giving foreign aid, they still must make sure that the resources go to countries that help themselves. When operating a system that encourages corruption and/or dependence, donors cause great harm to the receiving countries.

It is well known that foreign aid often does not reach those who really need it. Indeed, the majority of poor nations are ruled by corrupt leaders that end up hording the aid for their personal enrichment. Donor countries are aware of this problem but do not do much to resolve it because the corrupt leaders are the decision-makers that can help expand markets and also influence domestic policies. Wealthy nations, however, should help further transparency in these countries by minimizing corruption in government. By turning a blind eye to the mishandling of aid, donor countries further the corruption problems.

Donor nations should make an effort to make sure they give a "hand up" not "hand outs." For instance, if the donor nation continually gives out bags of food on a consistent basis, receiving countries will become dependent and not make enough efforts to develop their own industries. These bags of food also skew the economic balance in the receiving country by putting farmers out of work and adversely affecting local industries. Instead of giving hand outs, donor nations should promote development programs that help local people build knowledge and skills to become independent and compete in the world.

Granted, wealthy nations should feel obliged to give aid in certain cases regardless of whether the receiving country takes steps to help themselves. From time to time, sudden, major natural disasters strike and leave millions without food and water. Governments cannot handle the overwhelming demand for aid and wealthier countries step in to support humanitarian efforts. The Haiti earthquakes and Asian tsunamis in the past decade are examples where wealthier people of the world and governments exhibited their magnanimity and sincere concern for the victims.

In times of sudden national disasters, foreign aid is essential in preventing the death of millions of victims. Foreign aid, however, serves more purposes than purely humanitarian ones and can help wealthy nations influence policies in their favor, among other things. These donor nations should, however, be cognizant of the effect that the aid has in receiving countries. They should ensure that the aid reaches those who really need it and verify that receiving countries are doing their part by taking real responsibility for their own problems.

Teachers must Accept Responsibility for Student Failure

Teachers must accept partial responsibility for the failure of any of their students.
Describe a specific situation in which a teacher might justifiably not accept some responsibility for the failure of a student. Discuss what you think determines whether or not teachers should accept some responsibility for the failure of one of their students.
___


For the past decade or so, the quality of American schools has increasingly drawn scrutiny. Student scores in math and reading in most states have dropped relative to other countries in the world. Americans fear that the abilities of students in rising economic powers, such as China and India, have surpassed those of the United States. In effect, the legislature has passed several laws in attempt to raise standards in American schools. For example, the "No Child Left Behind" act has focused on teachers and the need to make them more accountable to student performance. In a sense, the reforms force schools and teachers to accept partial responsibility for the failure of any of their students.

To an extent, teachers should accept some responsibility when the students fail. The concept of "failure," of course, can be subjective. Each class has different structures of grading---for instance, what qualifies as a B in one class may be an F in another class. Federal reforms have attempted to level the playing field by holding schools and students to the same standards. Namely, national standardized testing helps judge whether schools and teachers are doing an adequate job. The failure of students on the test has resulted in schools not receiving funding and teachers being fired. In a sense, it is important for teachers to know whether their students are meeting standards. By taking responsibility for student failure, a teacher can start to modify his teaching style and reach out to at-risk students in order to improve future results. By not accepting responsibility, a teacher become complacent and feel that there is absolutely nothing she can do to positively affect a student's future.

Granted, there are some cases where a teacher might not justifiably accept some responsibility for a student's failure. It can be argued that the failure of some urban schools to meet national standards is a systemic problem. Teachers cannot be blamed in these cases where a number of obstacles stand in the way of student academic success. Some of these factors include poor family environment, endemic drug use in the community, lack of respect for education in a cultural setting, etc. All these obstacles converge and essentially ensure that children will not become productive members of society. Undoubtedly, there is not a lot that teachers can do to intervene in this downward spiral.

While there may exist "hopeless" cases, teachers would better serve their students if they take responsibility for their student's failure. Teachers may not have the ability to motivate an at-risk kid to attend college and receive a degree. However, they can nurture practical life skills that might just prevent them from joining a gang or selling drugs. Just the simple act of showing that they care may make even a slight difference in the future of children who have been neglected their whole lives. Indeed, a system that allows teachers to just sit back and accept failure in their students further contributes to America's downfall and inability to compete in the world economy.

Following a Hunch as a Researcher

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.
___

In American high schools, students are introduced to research methods in science classes. These guidelines encourage them to solve problems in an objective, disciplined manner--as opposed to a random, unfocused study of subjects. However, as a student advances in his scientific career, he realizes that creative solutions to solving research questions may involve following one's intuition and stepping outside the boundaries of the common methodology. Following one's hunch to arrive at a solution can be applied not only to academic research but to problems in the real world.

There is merit in following established methodology in conducting research. An array of scientists throughout time have established best practices for what works in the laboratory. Their experience and guidelines help move forward the research of today's scientists. Indeed, applying lessons from the past entails discipline and thorough examination of the question at hand. In particular, the trusted "scientific method"--a template of inquiry involving systematic observation, hypothesis, experiments, etc.--has been used by researchers for hundreds of years to solve various questions.

The scientific method has served as a general guideline for going about research but it is a fluid process; sometimes luck and hunches play significant roles in new discoveries. That is, use of the creative mind allows a researcher to go where no other has gone before. Merely following the exact paths taken in the past will not allow the researcher to come upon a new discovery. This statement can be applied to other areas of life where taking great risks may result in greater outcomes (or if unlucky, a worse outcome). Following a hunch and veering off a common path may result in some ridicule from peer researchers but there may be a chance to stumble upon a new discovery.


Indeed, successful researchers do not limit themselves to proven methodologies. Of course, they have mastered what is known as the best practices and have proven to be disciplined and painstaking in their research. However, they possess an entrepreneurial spirit in that they are not afraid to follow their intuition and follow a path toward new discoveries.

Does Praise teach Better than Criticism?

Praise teaches better than criticism.
Describe a specific situation in which praise might not teach better than criticism. Discuss what you think determines whether praise or criticism teaches better.
___


News articles have brought attention to certain characteristics of American children growing up in the 1980s and 1990s. Namely, they have been described as coddled and self-absorbed--unable to take criticism, not so resilient during hard times and perhaps more susceptible to depression and drug abuse. These characteristics have often been partly attributed to a cultural focus on raising self esteem in classrooms and recognizing the "uniqueness" of each child. Indeed, praise can prove effective in reinforcing positive behavior; however, children need constructive criticism in order to understand the true nature of their abilities and also build "thicker" skin to withstand challenging situations.

Praise has the effect of encouraging people to pursue endeavors they believe they excel in. Praise often helps release a burst of energy in people--motivating them to continue deserving the positive words lavished on them. In reality, no one enjoys having their faults pointed out but most everyone appreciates genuine positive reinforcement. Especially for people (e.g., the 1980s/1990s children) not accustomed to criticism, praise often is more effective in maintaining positive behavior. The praise, however, must be genuine and not given solely for the sake of raising self esteem. One given underserved praise will eventually become disillusioned and upset upon learning how his abilities really fair against others.

Criticism may teach better if given in a constructive manner. The way to give criticism is sort of an art that most people have not mastered. The criticism, for instance, should not directly strike at the ego but should be worded in a way that is sensitive and encourages positive change in a person. Criticism given in the wrong manner may ruin relationships of trust and even cause the receiver to act out in perverse ways. This art of giving constructive criticism grew out of the movement to raise self esteem in 1980s/1990s school children; however, many parents and teachers felt too protective of the children's feelings and failed to give out useful criticism to assist them in entering the harsh real world.

Praise often teaches better than criticism in that people readily receive positive words. Especially if unaccustomed to criticism, people will often shut down when they feel personally attacked. Indeed, a dose of criticism is necessary of everyone to gain perspective on their abilities and behavior. Too much praise and no criticism encourages over-inflated egos and an inability to handle challenges in life.

Government should not regulate scientific research?

The government should not regulate scientific research.
Describe a specific situation in which the government should regulate scientific research. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the government should regulate scientific research.
___

Part of what has helped push the United States to the forefront is its leadership in innovation and research. In this democratic nation, citizens are encouraged to break scientific boundaries and pursue interests that improve the quality of human life. Regulation of scientific research by the government should be minimized in order to foster the spirit of innovation that defines America. However, some regulations are necessary in order to ensure public safety and national security.

One may view attempts at government regulation of scientific research with a skeptical eye due to the ubiquitous influence of special interests. Laws and regulations of the United States are sometimes proposed and passed as a result of lobbying efforts by powerful interest groups. These groups may not represent the best interest of the American public and they often can buy the votes of lawmakers who create policy and regulations. Some scientists may find themselves unable to move forward with research due to regulations pushed forward by these special interests groups. Indeed, it is important to evaluate the purpose of proposed regulations created by groups that do not necessarily represent the public interest.

Regulating scientific research may also pose constitutional questions. A government's attempt at limiting research might infringe on a scientist's first amendment rights in certain circumstances. For example, the government may be acting improperly if it is trying to prohibit the growth of knowledge in an area of research. As alluded to in the previous paragraph, government officials may be receiving support from private industries and therefore represent their interests in pushing forward (or preventing) regulations.

The government is responsible for protecting the public and therefore, needs to set basic regulations on scientific research. For instance, vulnerable citizens should be protected from being used as human guinea pigs and certain guidelines exist to ensure that these people are aware of their rights. Scientists also may not conduct research in a way that causes environmental degradation. While the research itself may not cause any harm, the government might have a right to prevent projects that pose potential threats to the public.

There are several scientific areas that have been subject to controversy---among those include stem-cell research, genetically modified foods, and in vitro sex selection. The public has various opinions on how involved the government should be in regulating and funding such research. In the United States, citizens differ on the role of government and how far its power should extend. Most agree that the government should intervene in cases where scientific research pose an imminent threat to citizens. Its ability to regulate beyond that, however, may be questioned by citizens who believe in a "limited" government.

Only after coming to know another culture can a person truly begin to understand its people

Only after coming to know another culture can a person truly begin to understand its people.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to understand a people without knowing about their culture. Discuss what you think determines when knowing another culture is necessary for understanding its people.
___

Members of a community learn from each other through repeated interaction and through time, they develop a "culture"---or set of shared values, goals, and practices. In order to understand a community, one must get to know their culture. This is best accomplished actually living among the people for an extended period of time. Of course, one may glean aspects of a community's culture through textbooks and documentaries. However, it is impossible to fully understand a culture unless one has personal experience integrating into the community, as well as approaching it with an open mind.

By living amongst the people of a community, one gains a more nuanced understanding of the culture. For instance, by attending religious ceremonies, parties, and family gatherings, the outsider can interact with members and feel--not just see--what they value in life. They can observe what they prioritize as a community by understanding the type of work they do to make a living and what they do for diversion purposes. A community, for instance, may highly value their relaxation time while another may be run by a clock and the need to accumulate wealth. A community's conception of time, indeed, can truly be understood only if living in the community.

"Knowing" a culture involves fully integrating into a community. This entails, among others, speaking the community's language and being able to communicate directly with various members. Oftentimes, there may be certain ideas and sentiments that cannot be fully expressed in translation and having the ability to speak directly with members can offer valuable insights about a people. Integrating within a community also involves living in similar conditions as those of the members. For instance, if an American expat continues living a life of luxury among the African tribe he is purporting to study, he will not fully understand any struggles and conditions that motivate members to live life in the way that they do.

There have been numerous examples in history where outsiders have imposed their will on a group without truly understanding important cultural factors. For example, European powers in the 1960s partitioned Africa in a way that satisfied their own interests; that is, by placing rival tribes in the same country and splitting up friendly clans. The problems of genocide and famine that ravage Africa today are partly due to poor planning in the part of the European powers. They failed to understand the African people by ignoring cultural aspects that perhaps would have had great influence in the direction of the continent.


If one is truly interested in learning about a community, he will one way or another try to understand the culture. Granted, one may learn about people through studying textbooks describing history, geography and other facts. This, however, is a superficial understanding of a people since communities consist of much more than hard facts. Culture encompasses more nuanced aspects of a community. Often, aspects of culture cannot be adequately described in words but rather, can best be "experienced" through direct interaction with the people. Furthermore, one must also approach the other culture with an open mind and recognize one's own biases before making judgments.

A Popular TV Show reveals more about a Nation than an Editorial Page

A popular television show reveals more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper does.
Describe a specific situation in which a popular television show might not reveal more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper would. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a popular television show reveals more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper does.
___


Television as a tool of mass communication has undoubtedly reached a wider audience than newspapers. The average Joe is naturally more attracted to the colors and visual images offered by TV whereas the plain, written word of newspapers requires more attention in order to understand a message. One need not be a genius to comprehend an editorial page of a newspaper; however, this section attracts more educated people with interests about the substantive issues that affect the nation. Popular television shows, on the other hand, draw in people from all educational, economic and racial backgrounds. Therefore, popular television shows, as opposed to editorials, tend to reveal more about the people of a nation--specifically, their interests and desires.

A popular television show and an editorial page of a newspaper have different motives when communicating messages. The former, in addition to expressing creative impulses, aims to amass profits. In order to stay on the air, the show must attract as many people as possible and therefore, show them what they want and are interested in. The latter usually does not strive toward making money--rather, it is a forum where leaders in a community as well as the occasional civic-minded citizen can air out their thoughts and perhaps affect public opinion and policy. Indeed, both mediums reveal different types of information about a nation's people--however, the popular television show will probably better reflect the concerns and desires of the average citizen.

People turn to a popular television show and editorial page of a newspaper for different reasons. Television, in general, offers people the opportunity to sit back on their chairs and unwind from the drudgery of hard work and daily life. In the United States, average people are enchanted with popular culture (i.e., Hollywood and extravagant living) and prurient material. Popular television shows often cater to these interests and therefore, reflect people's aspirations. Granted, these shows may also develop and encourage these interests in the people but they would not do so unless they know that their material will definitely attract widespread attention. On the other hand, editorials usually aim to educate and enlighten readers with subjects that go beyond sex, violence and pop culture. Often, subjects involving an intellectual tilt are of no interest to the average American.

Television shows, indeed, reveal more about what most people of a nation care and think about. One can extrapolate the psychology of citizens as a whole and their desires through analyzing a popular show. However, a nation is not only made up of people and culture. A nation is also run by a government and powerful interests that affect policies influencing people's every day lives. Indeed, popular television shows usually do not provide analysis or deep coverage of the nation's policies and international relations. Editorials, on the other hand, reflect the two cents of educated people regarding these issues that might also affect the lives of every day Americans. In this sense, editorials can reveal a lot about a nation. However, one can probably receive a more insightful picture of what drives people, as well as the future direction of a nation, by tuning into the most popular television shows.

Does Progress often Complicate as much as it Simplifies?

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.
Describe a specific situation in which progress might simplify more than it complicates. Discuss what you think determines whether progress complicates or simplifies.
___


The old adage "The more you know, the more you know you don't know" often proves true when making progress toward completing a task. As one embarks on a path of tackling a problem, he often finds that there are even more layers to the onion. For example, he is more capable of viewing the problem at hand from a broader perspective and can take into account contingencies that may occur down the road. Indeed, progress often complicates as much as it simplifies when the task affects the well being and money of several people or groups.

Problems on a national or international scale usually become more complicated as "progress" occurs. This is due to the fact that there exists a wide range of interests demanding a certain outcome. Sometimes the problem is a zero sum game where one person's (or group's) gain will involve another's loss. As these groups attempt to solve a given problem, new problems and conflict arise. There also may be unintended consequences adverse to the interests of those making "progress." Complications arising from progress may be seen in the United States' efforts to combat enemies abroad. For example, the government successfully staved off the communist threat during its 30-year cold war with the Soviet Union. However, the US supported anti-communist groups in Afghanistan that gave birth to the prominent terrorist organizations of today. Al Qaeda, among other organizations, established itself partly with help of US funds and materiel during the Cold War.

Another example of "progress" leading to complications involve the US counter-insurgency campaigns abroad. In Iraq, for instance, the US toppling of Sadaam Hussein seemed to be mark of progress--freeing the Iraqi people from a repressive dictator and giving the people a chance to form a democratic government. Bush congratulated the military in its progress while standing behind a "Mission Accomplished" banner but Americans then realized that the task of nation building involved more complications for the Iraqi future. This includes, among others, conflicts regarding the power vacuum, threats of Iran and continued sectarian violence. Indeed, when lives and especially economic interests are at stake, "progress" often does not follow a linear path towards simplicity.

Indeed, progress made at a more micro-level will more often simplify than complicate. This is especially true in the case of individuals completing every day, mundane tasks, including homework and chores. Making progress in these tasks often helps simplify one's life--not just in freeing up a person's schedule but in providing a sense of ease in one's mind. Most people, however, procrastinate and are unable to make timely progress on these small tasks. By delaying one's progress, existing problems become more burdensome and complicated.

Whether "progress" simplifies or complicates depends on the gravity of the task. When the problem involves several people with lives and money at stake, progress made will often lead to a realization of further problems to tackle. People or groups will often present conflicting interests which complicates the path toward completing a certain task. However, when individuals make progress in completing personal and less-complicated goals, they often find that their lives become a bit more simple rather than complicated.

Laws deriving from Rational Thought rather than Emotion

The best laws derive from rational thought rather than emotion.
Describe a specific situation in which a good law might derive from emotion rather than rational thought. Discuss what you think determines when the best laws derive from rational thought and when they derive from emotion.
___


In the United States, the passing of a bill into law is often a long, drawn-out process. The proposed bill is passed through different committees within the House and Senate where lawmakers debate its merits/downsides and make recommendations for revision. Most often than not, a given bill may be tabled, rejected or vetoed. Citizens often complain about how painstakingly slow it is for Congress to make decisions but the Forefathers designed lawmaking in a way that encourages debate and prevents haste decisions based on emotion. Indeed, the best laws derive from rational thought. However, sometimes it may be better for Congress to bypass the usual drawn out process when a certain law helps save lives or prevents imminent harm.

In general, the best laws are created in a process that involves thorough debate and analysis among the sharpest minds in the country. If the lawmaker is not well-versed in the subject of the proposed law, he or she will have the time to investigate what path best serves the country through independent research and consultations with experts. The process will also involve objective study of the utility and effects of the law conducted by non-partisan groups. Constituents will also have a chance to voice their support and objections to the proposed law in public forums. Such a process of thorough contemplation, of course, takes time and extra resources. However, the best way to come up with an "optimal" law is to support a system that encourages debate and hard-hitting analysis.

Many laws throughout history, however, have been passed based on emotion--and not on rational thought. Fear-based emotions felt by the populace may pressure lawmakers to act quickly. These laws are often passed in the wake of national tragedies or perceived dangers affecting the US. For example, some of these laws include those passed following a widely-reported school shooting or act of terrorism. Constituents are justifiably worried about the repeat of such atrocities and demand that their representatives immediately take measures to prevent future casualties. These laws may be based on good intentions but often, they probably do not make good policy. They may be overreaching in nature--trampling on the constitutional rights of innocent citizens, for instance. Another example of laws made based on emotion involves those of the anti-immigration variety. Immigrants often serve as scapegoats during times of national economic downturns and may be adversely affected by certain laws passed.

Indeed, there are instances when passing a law based on emotion may be good policy. First, the proposed law is urgent and will help prevent people from suffering imminent harm. Laws based on emotion are most likely to go through the legislative chambers quicker than those that are fiercely debated among lawmakers. Also, laws based largely on emotions might actually end up being good policy where the net benefits overcome the downsides. The results could be analyzed after the law has been in effect for a certain amount of time. However, it is more prudent to devote resources and studies to a bill before it is passed because this might prevent harmful consequences and save the government money from future lawsuits.

Politicians and their Promises

The way to achieve political success is to promise people that their lives will be better.
Describe a specific situation in which the way to achieve political success might not be to promise people that their lives will be better. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the way to achieve political success is to promise people that their lives will be better.
___


When a nation struggles with an economic crisis, its citizens feel the effects in various ways. They lose their jobs, struggle with paying the bills and mortgage, and experience an overall low morale. While people have mostly blamed Wall Street bankers for the financial meltdown, they have looked to politicians to resolve the problems and set the country on the right path. Specifically, in 2008, American citizens became mesmerized with the charismatic senator, Barack Obama, and voted for him as president. He campaigned under the mantra of change and in a sense, promised to "revolutionize" the ways of Washington and bring the country out of its economic misery. Two years later, the United States is struggling with a 9.2% unemployment rate with no tangible sign of future improvement. Indeed, a politician may initially be successful by promising people that their lives with will be better; however, if those promises are not followed up with positive results, citizens will veer off to another candidate come election time.

Politicians who wish to compete against incumbents gauge the temperature of the constituents and analyze what issues push their buttons. Specifically, the candidate attempts to take advantage of what upsets voters and how they can offer a viable (if not better) alternative at the polls. The last few years have been especially chaotic given the economic crisis and wars being fought in several fronts. In 2008, voters became disillusioned with the seemingly never-ending wars and the accompanying thousands of men dying in uniform. They looked to Obama as a representation of diplomacy and answer for ending the wars. Indeed, he partly based his campaign on his opposition to the Iraq war and placing emphasis on diplomacy as a means of conducting our foreign affairs. Obama served as a conduit of change in several levels--as reflected by his campaign messages, his racial background, etc.

When the Obama administration appeared less and less capable of bringing down defense spending, as well as turning the tide on economic ruin, a movement of "Tea Party" politicians burgeoned and were voted into office. These Tea Party members broadened the conversation of the US financial problems by focusing on "big government" and overspending as the culprit. They successfully painted a picture of Obama and the democrats as profligate politicians who are leading the country down the wrong path by further exacerbating the country's economic woes. The Tea Party voice has been quite influential in highlighting this year's deadline to raise the debt ceiling and encouraging debate regarding the size of government and implications of US economic policy for future generations. Indeed, candidates will always look to the incumbent's weak points and then claim to offer solutions to people's problems.

Politicians may win elections after promising to improve their constituents' lives; however, they must follow through on those promises in order to find continued success in office. When a politician fails to provide results in a given time, voters become disillusioned and look elsewhere for a solution to their problems. Candidates who successfully position themselves as "different" from the failing incumbent may then be given a chance to improve a dire position. Indeed, politicians are not solely responsible for a nation's path; for instance, cyclical economic fluctuations and powerful private actors and businesses may greatly influence how citizens experience life. However, politicians---especially the President-- are the most visible actors in the nation and citizens will inevitably attribute success and failures in their personal lives to these elected officials. For this reason, people will listen carefully whenever candidates make grand promises to improve their lives.

Do these Jeans make me look Fat?

Some dishonesty is necessary to keep a friendship strong.
Describe a specific situation in which some dishonesty is not necessary to keep a friendship strong. Discuss what you think determines whether or not some dishonesty is necessary to keep a friendship strong.
___

People around the world carry different perceptions of what constitutes an offense against moral (or religious) law and whether that action is absolutely unacceptable in any situation. Dishonesty is commonly cited as a cardinal sin but can be justified by many as an appropriate action depending on the purpose. Young children learn from parents, teachers, and Pinocchio that one should never lie. However, as these children grow up, they realize that being dishonest is sometimes necessary to be accepted socially and more specifically, to keep friendships strong.

People have seemingly infinite thoughts running in their mind when interacting with others. When encountering new people, they focus mostly on physical features and the overall vibe detected from the person. When dealing with friends, thoughts are often deeper due to a greater amount of information about the person. While one may regard his friend very highly, he will be aware of the faults and weaknesses. An ideal friendship consists of two people who can be completely honest with each other and not be afraid about hurting feelings. However, a majority of friendships cannot be sustained in a utopia of absolute honesty. The reality is that most people cannot stand being criticized or told things that hit at their fragile egos. When a woman asks her friend if her jeans make her look fat, the friend will usually say that she looks perfectly fine despite thinking otherwise. People want to be with those who make them feel good all the time. A person that cannot tell white lies or withhold truthful comments will not be able to maintain friendships.

Dishonesty is not necessary to keep a friendship strong in a case where the "receiver" of the truth is well grounded and truly confident in himself. This type of person is not the least affected by judgment of his looks and abilities and in fact, appreciates being told the truth about himself no matter how ugly that truth is. Unfortunately, this type of person is rare and most people will learn that their friends lack the self-assuredness to deal with the truth.


Of course, friendships are not kept strong with any type of dishonesty. Lies meant to cause harm or told without regarding the best interests of the friend can kill the friendship. There exist white lies, however, that are told to save the friend from an embarrassing situation. Indeed, one can question how true or strong a friendship is if friends feel the need to be dishonest (even in the most superficial context) in order to continue the friendship.

Responsible use of Power= Greater Power

In politics, the responsible use of power is rewarded with greater power.
Describe a specific situation in which the responsible use of power might not be rewarded with greater power. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the responsible use of power will be rewarded with greater power.
___


Prominent leaders of nations can greatly impact the lives of their constituents. They make key decisions, such as deciding where public funds should be appropriated and enacting laws that ideally serve to protect citizens from harm. Unfortunately, not all politicians enter office to act in the public's best interests. They use their power to enrich themselves and their associates and amass control over resources without regard to the needs of the poor. However, in countries with more transparent systems of government, politicians are often rewarded with greater power through re-election when the people believe that they are using their power in a responsible way.

Government corruption exists in every nation--developed and developing countries alike. The extent of corruption, as well as the people's tolerance for it, varies, and undoubtedly, developed countries do not face the endemic corruption plaguing poorer countries. When a politician is perceived as honest and makes decisions according with the needs and desires of the people, his constituents will likely re-elect him. The opportunity to serve more years in office usually adds to the credibility of the politician, as well as the accompanying privilege of more power. These politicians are also able to take on leadership positions among their fellow lawmakers by serving in special committees and leading negotiations.

In developed nations, the people are more likely to find out about abuse of political power and will emphatically take measures to make sure the politician pays for his crime. When a politician misappropriates public funds, he ends up in jail. Furthermore, countless politicians have also been forced to resign or punished in the polls when their sexual misconduct has been revealed. These same allegations of adultery, "sexting," and flings with teenagers would probably gain little notice in developing countries that deal with leaders who steal public funds and associate with drug kings. However, in nations such as the US, even sexual misconduct is viewed as an irresponsible use of power and offending leaders find their political futures destroyed upon media revelations.

In developing nations, the responsible use of power is often not rewarded with greater power. This is due to the endemic nature of corruption in the system. The abuse of power is plainly accepted (by both leaders and constituents) as a normal occurrence in political affairs. Politicians may enter office with the magnanimous intention to bring the people out of poverty. Eventually, they find that surviving in office and even protecting their own physical safety means paying off the "right" people and accepting bribes. A politician that does not play the game of corruption finds himself unable to maintain his position. In these nations, voters suffer from lack of basic needs that they do not have the wherewithal or desire to challenge the system. In most cases, leaders are able to suppress any factions of opposition to their system through threat of jail time or physical harm.

Ideally, the responsible use of power is rewarded with greater power. Constituents see that the leader is acting in their best interest and then they, therefore, re-elect him back to office. Granted, voters cannot observe all actions of the politicians and the latter may get away with some misuse of power. Therefore, the reward of greater power may have a lot to do with the perception of the politician in the eyes of voters--not necessarily whether he is, in fact, using power responsibly. Furthermore, in some nations, the responsible use of power is not encouraged due to a culture of corruption where the powerful can rightfully take any means to protect their power.

Art as enhancing the Quality of Human Life

The arts do not significantly enhance the quality of human life.
Describe a specific situation in which the arts might significantly enhance the quality of human life. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the arts significantly enhance the quality of human life.
___

The creation of art is possibly unique to human kind. Art has been primarily a vehicle of self expression and interpretation of the world through a certain lens. Some art has also been said to exist for no particular reason at all---it just IS. Indeed, art cannot be whittled down to a single purpose in the presence of human kind. It is not a basic need on par with water, food and shelter; however, it can serve to enhance the quality of human life by adding deeper meaning and experiences in living.

Art cannot significantly enhance the quality of human life when a human is struggling to survive. For example, if a man learns he will be indefinitely stuck in a deserted island, what would he wish to bring with him? He will want food, a filter to purify water, materials to build shelter, etc. The stranded man will not be thinking about surrounding himself with beautiful pieces of art. He will not be composing sonnets or choreographing a jazz number. Humans are born with the instinct of survival and in a situation that requires us to contemplate our mortality, we are most likely not considering loftier concepts, such as art and beauty.

When human beings need not worry about survival, art may take a part in significantly enhancing the quality of life. Indeed, art can add beauty to otherwise mundane lives by challenging creators (as well as audiences) to view ordinary things in front of us in a different light. The process of creating art also provides a sort of catharsis to those who need to express themselves and share their views of the world. Art also forms part of people's culture and those who appreciate art can elicit interesting information on how a group of people viewed their lives. In a society, such as the United States, where most people spend their time wasting away in routine jobs just to pay the bills, art can provide a sort of relief and change in life. Especially in developed nations where survival is not at issue, art can add a certain joie de vivre.


Granted, art comes in a myriad of forms and they are not all equal. Some art that has survived through history (e.g., Mona Lisa) carries with them a sort of mesmerizing aura that attracts viewers from around the world and even inspires the creation of new art. Other art may appear to lack technique and provoke statements, such as "I could have painted that myself and I'm not even an artist!" As said many times before, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. While a certain work of art may cause life changing perceptions in one viewer, the same piece to another person might as well be a grain of sand on a beach. People will be affected by art in different ways and it is essential for societies to encourage the creation of art as way to potentially enhance life experiences.

Abuse of Technology

Technology may be increasing faster than our ability to use it wisely.
Describe a specific situation in which a new technology might not be beyond our ability to use it wisely. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a new technology can be used wisely.
___


Since the beginning of time, human beings have invented tools to adapt to their environment. Inventions, such as the use of fire and hunting tools, helped people survive in settings lacking warmth and vegetation. Humans also created weapons to defend their land from those seeking to take over. Inventions of today's age have taken on a new dimension with the wide availability of the internet. Unlike the basic tools concocted by early inhabitants, the digital technology of today's world do not serve humans' basic needs, such as nourishment and shelter---they, however, allow people to improve their quality of life by providing efficient ways of completing work and daily tasks. These new tools (as well as old tools), however, can be abused to the point that some people are really better off without them.

The internet has greatly facilitated globalization--or rather, the shrinking of our world where physical distance and boundaries become erased. People from opposite sides of the world can interact with each other on real time with a click of a button. In the last five years, social networking sites, such as Facebook, have virtually become staples in the lives of young adults in developed countries. Facebook has allowed people to connect with others in an unprecedented way---from long-lost relatives and high school classmates to random people in the street. While these connections may help build relationships and networking opportunities, Facebook has been misused by many members. Some have developed an addiction to the site, spending an inordinate amount of time reading updates of "friends" and stalking profiles. Instead of completing useful daily tasks, they fill their minds with useless information and become intrigued by the daily activities and thoughts of others who provide them with no real value. In a sense, people have used Facebook to replace real interactions with people and distract themselves from important tasks.

The internet has also been abused in a myriad of other ways. People have profited by taking advantage of human weakness in running gambling, prostitution, and pornography sites. Others see it as an opportunity to steal money and run scams. Indeed, all communication technologies that have preceded the internet (e.g., telephone, pager, television, radio, etc.) have been used for these same base purposes. All these technologies carry value in allowing more people to communicate with each other and spread information in a more efficient way. As the concept of yin and yang illustrates, there is a bad that accompanies every good.

One way to help people use technology wisely is through education. For instance, teenagers can be shown how social networking sites can be abused to the point of affecting their studies. Schools can focus on inculcating "values" in students and teaching them how to defend themselves from negative influences in life. The government and the FCC might be able to step in and regulate more activities in the web. Granted, free speech activists will take issue with this. However, someone or some entity should be taking steps to prevent people from abusing the internet to further their base purposes.

In viewing the ways technology has been misused, it is important not to forget about its positive effects and contributions to human life. For example, the internet has helped people organize their finances and effectively conduct honest businesses. People who are educated and understand how to use the internet to enhance their lives will, of course, benefit from greater advances in the technology. However, it is inevitable that new technologies will be used in malevolent ways. Some people in the world lack self-discipline or a conscience to do the "right" things in life. It is important, however, to not allow concern for the actions of bad apples to stifle innovators' abilities to create new technologies in the service of human kind.

The Strength of a Democracy depends upon each Citizen's Respect for the Ideas of Others

The strength of a democracy depends upon each citizen's respect for the ideas of others.
Describe a specific situation in which the strength of a democracy might not depend upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others. Discuss what you think determines when the strength of a democracy depends upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others.
___


Leading democratic nations, such as the United States, espouse democracy as the highest ideal in governance where citizens are treated equally with each having a say in decisions affecting the community. This is accomplished in a system where citizens (upon reaching adulthood) have the right to vote for their representatives and elections are determined by the majority. Indeed, upholding this type of system entails each citizen respecting the ideas of others. Citizens acknowledge that there are several paths to go about solving problems and that options considered most feasible or agreeable by the community will reach the representative. He or she will then vote accordingly with the constituents' wishes. A society where citizens do not respect each other's differing ideas are plagued with violence and filled with people who fear expressing personal opinions.

In a democracy, decisions are most often made by majority rule. That is, governments--through decisions made in the legislature-- act on options most palatable to the majority of the citizens. Granted, this type of system stifles the will of the minority and this might be conceived as a democracy's lack of respect for ideas of the minority. However, these ideas still receive an extent of respect in a democracy in that people usually do not fear for their lives after expressing an unpopular opinion. True democracies encourage different opinions to float around and be debated in public and private forums. In contrast, people of many authoritarian nations are regularly killed (by the government and private citizens) for being activists and expressing dissenting beliefs.

Nations are more likely to flourish when people can express their ideas without recrimination. More ideas and different ways of thinking encourage national debate. When people intelligently argue with each other about their points of view, they refine their arguments and perhaps reach new realizations and better ways to solve community problems. When only certain viewpoints can be expressed, a nation's development is hindered; people are unable to reach outside the box and fully participate in a debate that could use contributions from sharp, innovative minds.

The freedom of speech---which necessarily entails the government's and each citizen's respect for ideas of others-- serves to strengthen a nation. Unpopular opinions may enter the public forum and citizens may support or reject these thoughts by personally participating in the debate, voting for leaders who reflect their views, supporting advocacy groups through donations, among other things. In general, democracies have more to gain when people can express what they wish so long as those ideas do not harm others.

Nations that Resist New Approaches to Solving Social Problems

Nations often resist new approaches to solving social problems.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation did or might attempt to solve a social problem with a new approach. Discuss what you think determines when a new approach would be the best way for a nation to solve a social problem.
___

Developing nations are plagued with a multitude of social problems-from malnutrition and lack of natural resources to suppression of civil rights and widespread violence. It is very difficult to solve these issues--which are often inextricably related---and most of these nations will likely stay impoverished through time. More wealthy and stable nations give humanitarian aid and start programs to improve human capacity and development in these nations. Unfortunately, nations often grow dependent on these foreign handouts and do not take serious measures to solving systemic social problems.

Part of the reason why developing nations seem resistant to new approaches in solving social problems is that they are usually run by corrupt leaders. These leaders horde available funds for themselves and associates and/or refunnel money in ways that do not benefit the general population. In almost all developing nations, leaders and a few business owners lead incredibly luxurious lifestyles while most of the citizens struggle to survive each day. Some of these leaders may enter office with the sincere desire to bring many out of poverty; however, corruption may be so endemic in the system that these leaders cannot help but tangle themselves in corrupt deals to maintain their power and influence. When leaders lose focus as to what would best serve the people, they cannot even begin to take the first steps to alleviate social problems in society.

Some developing nations and their people have become so dependent on handouts from wealthier countries that they do not come up with their own innovative ways to solve social programs. Indeed, food donations by USAID and other such organizations are designed to help the most impoverished people of developing nations. Often, however, corrupt leaders reserve this aid for supporters of their political parties and not necessarily for those really needing help. Unfortunately, regular handouts from wealthier nations cause governments of developing nations to become dependent and not invest properly on their people---for instance, on education and programs that would develop their citizens' ability to help themselves.

In rich and poor nations alike, citizens struggle with the problem of bureaucracy and red tape in government. Paperwork and decisions move slowly through the system. Since they do not operate on a for-profit basis, workers have less incentive to be as responsive and accountable as their private sector counterparts. Government workers also need to follow certain procedures when doing their work, which often contributes to the red tape. For all these reasons, it is difficult for governmental departments to plan and implement new approaches to solving social problems.

As long as corruption remains endemic, nations cannot begin to tackle their wide range of social problems. In order to implement new approaches to improving the state of the nation, a government must somehow rid itself of corruption to divert funds in ways that invest in the education and development of regular people. Furthermore, wealthier nations should take measures to ensure that their aid reaches the most vulnerable people and also consider alternative ways (i.e., other than handouts) to help people help themselves.