Sunday, April 24, 2011

Can Wealthy Politicians offer Fair Representation to all People?

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.
Describe a specific situation in which a wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people. Discuss what you think determines whether a wealthy politician can or cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

___


In the last few years, people have expressed a general high disapproval of national politicians. They reserve terms, such as "elite," for politicians who are seemingly out of touch with the needs of the people. Namely, the "elite" label has mainly been use to denigrate wealthy politicians educated at prestigious institutions. It implies that these politicians cannot fairly represent ordinary people because they do not understand their common struggles. Parties have juxtaposed "elite" politicians with their alternative candidates, including the so-called soccer moms and regular Joe's who could better understand the people. Indeed, the electorate should not judge candidates solely on their abundance or lack of wealth. In order to bring in the most qualified people , the electorate should vote for candidates based on the whole context, including previous accomplishments and historical records.

Some have argued that in order to represent his constituents fairly, a politician should ideally share demographic characteristics with the people. This may include a background based on income, ethnic background, etc. For example, some believe that higher-income candidates will not understand the daily struggles of ordinary people and can only possibly protect the wealthy and big business. They maintain that the soccer moms and regular Joe's can offer new perspectives to Washington due to their personal experience as "regular people."

Indeed, there is merit in encouraging diversity in politics, the workplace and all institutions due to the new perspectives introduced into the environment. However, judging a person's fitness for office should not be solely based on few superficial characteristics, such as amount of wealth and one's gender or race. The voter should look beyond these labels of "elite" and "regular Joe" and instead evaluate what exactly they have accomplished in the past. For instance, have they proven success in their previous work running a company or serving the public interest? During the campaign trail, have they emphasized issues that click with the middle class? Indeed, there are different factors to consider in choosing the candidate that will best represent the people and that choice should not be made based on one's wealth.

Others argue that wealthy people cannot be fair representatives due to the fact that they bought their way into office. Granted, candidates need a lot of money to run for office and be elected. Those who can finance their own campaigns on an independent basis arguably do not have as much incentive to reach out to the people and businesses--therefore, not being sufficiently touch with voter's needs. On the other hand, a wealthy candidate could argue that he is not beholden to special interests and big business because of the fact that he did not have to solicit funds in the campaign. Indeed, a voter must not assume that wealthy candidates have not made efforts to reach out to voters and understand their needs.

Lack or abundance of wealth per se should not determine whether a candidate can fairly represent the people as a politician. Sharing demographic qualities with constituents may be a good indicator of the politician's understanding of the people's needs. However, voters should not equate superficial factors, such as amount of wealth, ethnic and gender background with competence and the ability to fairly represent the people. Candidates should be evaluated holistically based on previous accomplishments and projects.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Human Behavior as Guided Primarily by Self-Interest

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.
Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.

___

As humans, we are essentially animals at the core with most of our behavior driven by instincts---namely, the desire to survive and to propagate our genes. Consciously and subconsciously, our pursuits in life and daily behavior are formed around these instincts. However, some humans have developed beyond their instinctual tendencies and act in ways that seemingly are against their own self-interest and in the interest of others. These may be seen in certain altruistic deeds. Others also act against their own self-interest as a result of alteration in their brain chemistry due to drugs or mental illness. However, all humans, regardless of how developed they are on a civilized scale, are essentially driven by self-interest during the majority of their lifetime.

The instinct to survive drives us as humans to fulfill our basic needs of food, water, clothes and shelter. In poorer countries, people's daily activities are centered around survival and feeding their families. More developed nations, such as the United States, do not struggle with meeting basic ends and the people may pursue intellectual and recreational activities on a more frequent level. Of course, there still exists the self-interest of surviving but more in a level of increasing pleasure and diminishing hardship. All humans also are wired to propagate their genes and the mechanism of sex as a pleasurable activity helps facilitate this instinctual goal. The desire to reproduce, however, has been stifled in recent decades due to practicality concerns related to financial burdens of child care. However, family planning also furthers one's self interest due to the desire to have enough resources to ensure the survival of existing dependents.

At first glance, it may seem that mothers go against self-interest by being willing to give up their lives for their children's survival. However, this "sacrifice" really acts in the interest of the mother. Her ability to save her children would increase the chances of her genes surviving for more generations to come. Also, any type of altruistic deed performed by a person for his family members is a manifestation of self interest.

A person may help another through altruistic deeds and seemingly get "nothing" back in return. This might be perceived as acting against one's self interest. In reality, however, most people perform altruistic acts for reasons that can be traced back to self interest--i.e., the desire to raise one's own self esteem, look good in front of other people, expect payment in-kind for future purposes, receive a tax break, etc.

Indeed, some people have performed altruistic acts against their own instinctual desire to survive. This is seen in instances where a person gives up his life in saving a complete stranger. In this situation, the Samaritan is not acting in a professional capacity (e.g., fireman, body guard) and does not expect anything in return for his generous act. These instances are extremely rare as most people wish to ensure their own survival when they observe a stranger in a life-threatening situation.

People also act against their self interest due to abnormalities in their brain chemistry. For example, a person suffering from severe depression may commit suicide. Objectively speaking, the act of suicide goes against our animal instincts. However, from the point of view of the sick person, killing one's self is in his interest of ending suffering. Furthermore, self-destructive behaviors, such as drug abuse and other addictions, also run against self interest. The alteration in their brains prevents them from acting as a normal person who would ensure his own survival.


There are, indeed, a few examples of Samaritans acting against their own self-interest. However, humans, in general, center their activities and behavior around their self interest of survival. This does not only mean the survival of their own physical bodies but also the successful propagation of their genes.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Does a Country's Strength Increase in Proportion to its Freedoms?

A country's strength increases in direct proportion to its freedoms.
Describe a specific situation in which a country's strength might not increase in direct proportion to its freedoms. Discuss what you think determines when a country's strength will increase in direct proportion to its freedoms and when it will not.
___

A nation may qualify as "strong" when it demonstrates high economic stability, low crime, and leadership in innovation and technology. Nations that generally exhibit such factors allow its people to enjoy broad freedoms in all levels. The United States, currently seen as the world's strongest nation, bases its system on its Constitution---specifically the Bill of Rights which outline the various freedoms given to citizens. Without these freedoms, the United States would not have flourished during the late twentieth century. That is, freedom is an essential basis for economic and social growth in a nation.

In general, the freedom of speech, press and assembly allow people to freely express their thoughts (within certain limits) without government reprisal. The absence of fear encourages people to come up with new ideas and exchange information with each other. The plethora of information allows innovators and entrepreneurs to commercialize their protects and build new industries. Indeed, the economic growth resulting from the free flow of information helps strengthen a nation and its people.

Search for the freedom of religion drove the early Colonialist to separate themselves from the mother country, England. The ability to practice (or not practice) one's own religion allows people to think for themselves and not fear the government. Indeed, the ability to be true to oneself allows a greater trust and appreciation for a nation---especially, when juxtaposing a "free" system to those of other countries where people are stoned for expressing "sacrilegious" thoughts.

More controversially, some may argue that greater economic freedom results in a nation with higher quality of living standards. Economic freedom is generally thought to be system where citizens can pursue economic activity without interference from the government. This interference may take the form of tariffs imposed on certain imported goods to protect the domestic market. Some believe that "protectionism" stifles innovation by eliminating competitive pressures. It follows that the lack of innovation results in a weaker nation.

Broad freedoms for citizens can only make a country stronger in terms of greater economic output, lower crime and more innovation. Sometimes, though, a country may not become stronger in proportion to its freedoms. Certain freedoms are abused and influence people in an adverse way. This may include freedom to spread ideas that corrupt the minds of young people and lead them in the wrong direction. That is why it is essential to teach people how to distinguish good and bad information and to also promote proper parenting. However, the presence and free flow of bad information are not outweighed by the benefits of having a broad freedoms. More people will gain from having broad access to information and more opportunities to build innovative industries that strengthen a nation.

Leadership Involves Speaking out when Others Might Keep Silent

Leadership involves speaking out when others might keep silent.
Describe a specific situation in which leadership might involve keeping silent. Discuss what you think determines whether a leader should speak out or keep silent.
___

As a way to preserve the status quo, one should just sit back and remain silent. However, when a situation demands change, someone needs to take the lead and speak up to address problems. People who are delegated to voice their concerns are more likely fit to be leaders of an organization. Leaders must inherently have the ability to think about the need for change and communicate their strategy to others in the group in an effective manner. While competent leaders have the tendency to speak up about issues that affect their organization, at times it is prudent to stand back and keep silent.

Leaders are either chosen by the people or may make their way to the helm of an organization through their own will or self-assertion. In democratic organizations, leaders are expected to represent their constituents. That is, they serve as a voice of and for the people--promoting their concerns and acting as agents of needed change. In representing the people, leaders need to be fully aware of the issues that most affect their constituents and must be able to effectively communicate their plan of action in a public forum. Leaders are able to speak up in a way that motivates people to support their plans for action.

Effective leaders not only speak up for their constituents in general. They are able to recognize the concerns of minorities and vulnerable populations. When they are aware of an unjust situation, these leaders speak up as a way to draw attention to the issue and mobilize the rest of the constituents to support their call for change. Sometimes it is difficult for leaders to address the needs of a minority in an effort to be re-elected. But living in an era promoting social justice, leaders must often demonstrate sensitivity to minorities and those who are underrepresented in the system.

Leaders may find themselves in situations when it is best to not speak out. This may be seen when they do not want to associate themselves with a certain cause or they want to avoid the spotlight. Moderate leaders, in particular, who do not identify strongly with issues that divide party lines (e.g., gay marriage, abortion) choose not to speak up as a way to maintain neutrality. Furthermore, effective leaders do not always monopolize the podium. They realize the value in nurturing leaders among their constituents and allowing others to speak up as well.


Granted, any person can speak up about an issue. However, not everyone has a sense when it is best to speak up or to keep silent. Certain people, furthermore, can communicate their thoughts more effectively than others. These people tend to be leaders who people are drawn to and can identify with.

Can Good Intentions Justify Bad Actions in Politics?

In politics, good intentions cannot justify bad actions.
Describe a specific situation in which good intentions in politics might justify a bad action. Discuss what you think determines whether or not good intentions in politics can justify bad actions.
___

Politics is the process in which a group of people make, preserve and amend the laws under which they live. Politics exist in various spheres of life from government to the work place. Politicians (or those instituting laws) make decisions under different rationales and contexts. In the case of government, politicians make laws ideally with the interest of the greater good for their constituents and country. However good their intentions are, resulting bad actions cannot be justified.

The United States, in particular, has taken on the mission of spreading democracy and freedom in the world. That is the ostensible rationale for meddling into affairs of other countries. Granted, there are always accompanying reasons, including financial and security incentives. However, these other reasons seem quite self-serving and not as palatable to the ears of American people. In general, the government needs the moral support of the American people in order to intervene in other countries and potentially sacrifice young soldiers. The intention of spreading democracy and freedoms to those abroad per se sounds like a worthy cause.

However, several interventions in the name of democracy have ended up as bad "actions." The most recent one, the Iraq War, turned out to be a failure. The United States intervened with the intention of wiping out the threat of weapons of mass destruction and establishing a democratic government. Although the United States toppled the dictator and enemy, Sadaam Hussein, thousands of civilians and US soldiers have lost their lives. In the end, the United States never found the WMDs and the country continue struggles to help its citizens meet basic needs.

In the domestic front, the United States has been grappling with growing deficit and sluggish economy. Politicians want to keep showing their constituents that they are representing their interests by protecting entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. These programs are designed to be used as a crutch for people in case of hard times or old age. These programs are, indeed, valuable for taking care of the most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not sustainable as they stand---by adding tremendously to the deficit and inability of the United States to maintain a functioning government. Good intentions are behind funding entitlement programs but they do not justify its full funding.

While good intentions usually never justify bad actions, there are, of course, instances where the bad actions end up being the "right" decision in politics. For example, with the intention of overcoming partisan deadlock, politicians will compromise with the other side. This has been seen recently in the effort to balance the budget for the end of this fiscal year. Until the very last minute, the country was in danger of undergoing a federal shutdown. In order to keep the government up and running, politicians compromised and came up with a deal. Depending on one's point of view, the final budget was a "bad" action in that it fell short of reducing the deficit OR it cut several essential programs. While the action may be perceived as "bad," the intent to keep the government running justifies the budget agreement.


Indeed, politics is a game where tough decisions must be made. Politicians might publicly justify these decisions with worthy intentions. However, those intentions are often subjective and sometimes politicians do not reveal the full extent of their reasons. Bad actions usually cannot be justified by good intentions. However, in the interest of keeping the government running and moving things forward, one may be able to justify bad actions.

Should Freedom of Speech include Opinions Objectionable to the Majority of People

Freedom of speech should include acts or opinions that may be objectionable to the majority of people.
Describe a specific situation in which an act or opinion objectionable to the majority of the people should not be protected by the right to free speech. Discuss what you think determines when an objectionable act should be protected under freedom of speech.
___

The freedom of speech, as a cornerstone of American democracy, allows citizens the broad right to express thoughts and opinions without threat of government reprisal. In contrast to countries without this freedom, the United States prohibits the imprisonment of political critics and those expressing objectionable opinions. The freedom of speech encompasses not only verbal speech but nonverbal and symbolic speech, including among others, art, music, pornography, etc. While certain situations demand limits on this freedom, the right to express oneself should be kept as broad as possible in order to maintain an open society.

In general, the freedom of speech should include acts and opinions objectionable to the majority of people. Allowing discourse about controversial topics is a sign of a healthy, free society. The freedom to discuss objectionable ideas allows new modes of thought (whether harmful or helpful) to enter the American consciousness and challenge their traditional ideas. This may result in a more tolerant people that reserves judgment and allows people to argue their case in an open forum. Of course, people will have the freedom to agree or differ with those argument. These "objectionable opinions," in recent years, run the gamut from abortion to homosexual marriage. The ability to freely express different opinions on such topics allow the country as a whole to exchange ideas and make their own analyses.

Indeed, the Constitution places limits on the freedom of speech. These prohibitions include, among others, obscenity, sedition, fighting words and speech designed to incite an immediate breach of speech. The limited prohibitions on speech are mainly designed to maintain order in society and to protect the vulnerable members of society, including children and minorities. Granted, any act or opinion deemed objectionable by the majority of people may be argued successfully as part of the limited prohibitions on speech. That is why courts should be careful in penalizing people under these exceptions in order to preserve the integrity of our democracy. Charging people under the exceptions on a more frequent basis would lead our country to a path that stifles people from expressing their true opinions. This can be seen in countries, such as Iran and China, where political activists are thrown in prison or coerced to make false confessions on a regular basis.


The freedom of speech is one of the most important elements of a democracy. It allows people to openly disagree with government leaders and their actions. It, furthermore, allows people to debate in a public forum about controversial topics. Allowing the free exchange of information among people often leads to intelligent analyses about issues and perhaps better outcomes. Granted, harmful ideas may also enter the public consciousness. However, the ability for people to carry their own opinions and make individual analyses oftentimes will defeat those harmful ideas. Therefore, it is generally better to err on the side of allowing certain speech over suppressing it.

Effective Leaders Anticipate Future Problems

An effective leader must possess the ability not only to deal with current problems, but also to anticipate future ones.
Describe a specific situation in which a leader might be effective without anticipating future problems. Discuss what you think determines whether or not it is necessary for a leader to anticipate future problems.
___

Effective leaders are essential in moving forward organizations in a successful manner. These organizations run the gamut from small and large businesses to states and nations. The different type of organizations require specialized set of skills; however, the basic qualities of an effective leader are uniform across all spectrums. Some characteristics include, among others, the ability to work well with people, motivate others to complete company goals, and perform effectively under pressure. One other characteristic--the ability to anticipate future problems---is also essential for leading an organization.

Addressing only current problems without looking at the wider picture may bring problems in the future. Therefore, it is essential for leaders to be able to view a particular situation in its context--which may include background, short term, as well as long term implications. For instance, a businessman attempts to push forward a product in the most cost-efficient way possible. He must decide on quality, costs, and other factors. Some may choose to market lower quality products or bypass environmental regulations with the goal of increasing profits. When leaders solely dwell on the profit as the bottom line, major problems could occur in the future. This has recently been exemplified by the BP oil spill which devastated the Gulf area o f the United States. Leaders tried to save money and decided to not take certain precautionary measures that may have averted the accident.

Good leaders do not only take into account profit incentives. They also think carefully about how their actions may effect workers, the greater community and future generations. Oftentimes, taking into account the well-being of others and factors such as the environment will help companies save money, as well as their reputations, in the long term. Furthermore, leaders of big companies choose to engage in philanthropic work as a way to balance their profit incentives. They show their communities that they like to give back some of the profits they earned and show that they are morally responsible citizens.

In most cases, organizations will be best served by leaders that take a long term view of a situation. They not only think about present problems but also anticipate future ones. However, it may take a lot of time, effort, and money to anticipate and plan for future problems. Leaders, therefore, need to show that they can first take care of immediate problems. For example, leaders of nations need to ensure that the basic needs of their people (alimentation and shelter) are taken care of before investing in the future. However, once immediate needs are addressed, leaders must form a framework for taking into account more long-term and future issues.

A mark of an effective leader includes the ability to anticipate and address future problems. Leaders with a broad vision and the ability to analyze a situation from all angles will help avert disasters and improve the well being of future generations. However, there are situations when resources are tied up and the leader must address crucial short-term needs. In this case, he need not anticipate future problems until he solves the present problems.

How Studying other Cultures Increases our Understanding of our own Culture

By studying other cultures we increase our understanding of our own culture.
Describe a specific situation in which studying another culture might not increase the understanding of one's own culture. Discuss what you think determines when the study of another culture increases the understanding of one's own culture and when it does not.
___

Culture is comprised of a community's set of shared values, goals and practices. It is developed in time and passed from one generation to the next. Culture is a dynamic concept that allows for change due to different factors, such as the need to adapt to the environment and the exposure to other cultures. Developing an understanding for other cultures is essential in adapting to a global world where we increasingly need to interact with people of different backgrounds. Indeed, in the process of learning about others, we increase our understanding of our own culture.

Exposure to other cultures through study, travel and especially living in another country allows us to view our own culture from different lenses. First, we are able to better appreciate what our own culture has to offer. Oftentimes, when confined to a certain way of life without exposure to the outside world, we take for granted the good points of one's culture. This may include certain values, such as discipline, the drive to succeed and innovate, etc. Although the other culture might "lack" emphasis on certain values, it is still important to not judge and look at a system of values as subjective in nature.

Studying other cultures also allows us to learn new ideas and incorporate them to our own culture. The development of arts is an example where the influence of other cultures can help improve one's own creativity. The fusion of styles in cooking, art, dance and other disciplines has opened an array of possibilities and means of expression. Incorporating techniques and styles of other cultures often makes one's own cultural practice rich and dynamic. The ability to "borrow" from other cultures may be valuable in different aspects of life---including manner of government, interpersonal communication styles, and business practices.

Most importantly, the exposure to other cultures nurtures tolerance and an open mind. We increase our understanding of our own culture by viewing it as one of many cultures existing on earth. We learn that our values, goals and practices increasingly do not exist in a vacuum and are dynamic concepts that can be molded (for the better or worse) with exposure to other cultures. Merely reading about another culture will not increase understanding of our own culture. It is best to travel to other countries and even live amongst different people to really understand others and juxtapose their way of living with our own. It is essential, furthermore, to approach the study of other people with an open mind and without the idea that one's own culture is superior to others. By keeping an open mind, one allows himself to appreciate the beauties, as well as downsides, of another culture and in the process, enrich his own understanding of himself.

Do Democratic Governments provide Equal Opportunity for all Citizens?

A democratic government must provide equal opportunity for all citizens.
Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might not have to provide equal opportunity for all its citizens. Discuss what you think determines when democratic governments must provide equal opportunity for all citizens and when they need not.
___

Contrary to Thomas Jefferson's words, not all people are created equally. Some are born with more intelligence and beauty. Others happen to be blessed with competent and caring parents. A few are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and do not have to worry about finances for the rest of their lives. While reality shows that people are not born equally, our democratic system maintains the cornerstone of all being equal under the law. In the United States, for example, there exists respect for the rule of law and notion that all its citizens must be given equal opportunity. In an attempt to correct the country's discriminatory history, the government has institutionalized affirmative action policies in its process of hiring and promotion. While some might argue that this is a path toward providing minorities with equal opportunity, others will maintain that the policy is discriminatory toward the rest of the population who do not qualify for the program.

"Equal opportunity" is a term that connotes providing all citizens equal access to the nation's resources. For instance, all children have the right to free education in the United States for 13 years. People have the right to gainful employment and earn "fair wages" for the work that they perform. Other examples can be drawn from the US Constitution's Bill of Rights which provide a framework for the ways people must be treated equally.

In the late 20th century, the government began to apply affirmative action policies in its hiring and promotion process in government work. It has also, more controversially, been applied in government-funded university admissions. Recognizing its history of slavery and systemic racial discrimination, the government has attributed its past actions to the socioeconomic difficulties faced by blacks today . These minorities have fallen behind white (and now Asian-American) citizens in terms of finishing high school and completing a university degree. Black people, furthermore, make up a majority of people in prison or caught up with the legal system. In essence, affirmative action policies are a means of compensating for the past harm and propping up the minorities (specifically blacks and latinos) who tend to not achieve the standard of the American dream.

Those in favor of affirmative action policies maintain that the government owes minorities who have been discriminated against historically a chance to improve their situation in society. They say that special consideration in employment and higher education admissions will help the minorities rise and inspire others of the same racial and economic background. Some also emphasize that minorities are under-represented in the government and certain sectors and their presence and different perspectives will contribute to a productive, rich working or learning environment.

Those against affirmative action policies see the system as inherently discriminatory. First, people are being given special consideration simply by virtue of their skin color. In the case of higher education admission, they maintain that socio-economic status is, perhaps, a more appropriate way to distinguish people. Furthermore, some maintain that affirmative action policies send the wrong message to minorities---that they would be unable to succeed if it not were for the special consideration given solely because of their skin color. Affirmative action can have the affect of shutting out more capable and experienced applicants from the hiring pool. In a sense, this policy creates "unequal opportunity" for the rest of the population.

Given the fact that minorities have been institutionally discriminated against for several decades, the government has a compelling argument for using affirmative action policies for evening the playing field. However, the indefinite continuity of such programs make it more unequal as time passes by. It is safe to say that people cannot use the excuse of their socio-economic situation as a result of their grandparents being discriminated against by the government. Recent immigrants from several developing nations have demonstrated educational and vocational success after one generation living in the US. They have shown that people can rise from their situation---no matter how dire--with perseverance and hard work. Perhaps slowly phasing out affirmative action policies will provide equally opportunity to qualified minorities by showing that they, too, are capable of succeeding without special consideration from the government.

When Politicians turn Public Matters into Prviate Gains

Too many politicians turn public matters into private gains.
Describe a specific situation in which a politician might not turn a public matter into a private gain. Discuss what you think determines whether or not politicians will turn public matters into private gains.
___

People pursue work as politicians for a wide variety of reasons. A politician’s ostensible purpose is to serve the public by providing needed services and creating order in society. However, many enter politics for the different perks, which include power, fame and recognition. While people may start out their political life with altruistic intentions, they eventually learn how to adapt by playing the game of politics---which inherently involves balancing private and public interests. Essentially, a politician who wishes to maintain his seat as long as possible will play this game and realize that he finds himself turning all public matters into some aspect private gain.

The game of politics involves the pursuit of maintaining one’s relevance and influence in the political realm. Maintaining a healthy public image of competence and likeability is essential to keeping one’s job and increasing chances for re-election. Specifically, politicians need to think constantly about the implications of their words and voting record. Politicians may truly care deeply about the public issues they have resolved to conquer. However, when speaking publicly about the matter or taking action, they will always have the following thought in the back of their mind---how will my words or actions serve me in the quest to keep my job? Will the citizens see that I am protecting their interests and advocating for improved conditions? Indeed, skilled politicians have the gift of communication and will be able to use public matters in a way to not only help his community but in the interest of self-preservation.

Playing the game of politics not only involves pleasing constituents—it also requires politicians to work adroitly with other stakeholders, including fellow politicians. Skilled politicians know how to form relationships with their colleagues because they can use each other to exchange favors. That is, backing up a colleague in a certain issue results in a promise for future support in return. Politicians also need to take into account powerful actors and business owners in making all their decisions. They certainly do not want to step on the wrong feet and would rather build their rolodex for future endeavors.

Granted, the degree of private gain by politicians varies from situation to situation. Corrupt politicians will, for example, gain monetarily in their dealings through stealing from their people. Other politicians will be less insidious with their gain and hope for a better result in the polls by addressing public matters. To be fair, politicians are not the only type of people who seek private gain in performing their duties. It is human nature to think about one’s own well being in daily life. The interest of self-preservation (and also protection of one’s loved ones) can be undoubtedly found in a human being’s every action.
Advances in communication have led to a loss of personal privacy.
Describe a specific situation in which an advance in communication might not lead to a loss of personal privacy. Discuss what you think determines when advances in communication lead to a loss of personal privacy.
___

The advancement of communication technology in the late twentieth century has transformed our world in a revolutionary way. In particular, the ubiquity of the internet has made our world smaller. Only a century ago, it would take an ordinary citizen several weeks to relay a message to another person across the world. In contrast, one could reach any person and complete a financial transaction in real time with the stroke of a keyboard. Indeed, life has becoming easier in certain aspects due to the advancements of technology. However, as with all aspects in this world, there are downsides with every upside. One of the downsides involves the loss of personal privacy. However, the benefits of having the internet may outweigh this downside so long as computer experts and privacy advocates continue to develop ways to protect privacy of users.

The internet has become the medium of choice for conducting all sorts of transactions in everyday life; the possibilities for communication are limitless with regard to the internet. Many people now do their personal banking and finances via the web. One can pay rent by electronically wiring money to a landlord, buy any item in online shops, pay off a credit card, etc. Email has overtaken "snail mail" and most people can communicate their thoughts and messages for virtually no cost. Some organizations and businesses even recognize "electronic signatures" as way to save time and forgo the use of pen and paper. Indeed, buying stamps and envelopes has, for many people, become sort of an anachronism.

The fact that more and more transactions and tasks of daily life have been completed over the internet has led to loss of privacy. Some bad apples have used their technology savvy to take advantage of the availability of personal information online and steal from people. They have stolen identities to take over pin numbers, bank accounts and other people's belongings. Companies have also used personal information available to target ads toward internet users and increase possibilities of gaining new customers. These companies are not as pernicious as the identity thieves; however, their actions may be cause for concern to some internet surfers. Furthermore, there is the idea (or perhaps fact) that once something is placed in a search engine like Google, it can never be completely erased. If this is true, the internet could serve as a sort of magnified "paper trail." While this implication could lead to more successful crime solving, it could also result in permanently damaged reputations and no second chances for certain people.

The internet has, indeed, transformed our society in an unprecedented way. It has caused our world, in a sense, to shrink and open new avenues for the exchange of ideas. People, unlike in the near past, can contact each other with much ease and organize finances without leaving their home. However, the availability of personal information online has also led to a compromise of one's privacy. People may unknowingly release private information that could be used in a pernicious manner. The advancement of communication technology has undoubtedly made life easier in certain aspects; however, computer experts and privacy advocates should be fervently supported in order to help maintain the integrity of our privacy online.

When an Individual's Private Acts should become a Public Concern

There are times when an individual's private acts should become a public concern.
Describe a specific situation in which an individual's private acts should not become a public concern. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the acts of an individual should become a public concern.
___

The right of privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution. However, the 9th Amendment maintains that just because a certain right is not mentioned in the Constitution does not give government the liberty to trample on it. Courts, indeed, have set multiple precedents for a right to privacy through cases---the most famous of which include issues related to contraception, abortion and interracial marriage. In our democracy, the right of privacy is a cornerstone of the American way of life. However, an individual in certain situations cannot invoke the right of privacy in relation to his private acts. This is especially relevant where one's private acts have become a public concern.

Private acts can become a matter of public concern, especially in regards to society's interest in maintaining the public's safety. For instance, when a man is rumored to be abusing the neighborhood's children, the community has a right to alert families of a possible danger and pursue an investigation to seek justice. Sometimes private "none-acts" also may become public concern. When a neighbor fails to maintain his property and yard, the "none-act" could affect the value of surrounding homes and land. An unkempt property could also attract shady figures and drive away prospective buyers of nearby property.

A person who performs public services also should be held in a higher standard---which may cause their private acts to become a matter of public concern. For example, politicians are expected to uphold a high degree of virtue and honesty because the public has entrusted them with managing public coffers and making decisions that would benefit society in the whole. When a politician is caught in a dishonest financial controversy (e.g., not paying fair share of taxes) or failing to uphold familial duties (e.g., adultery), the public has a right to be concerned. The demonstration of a less than virtuous nature undercuts his reputation as a trustworthy public servant capable of performing his duties in a competent manner.

Private actions that have no impact on others and do not harm society should not be of public concern. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that the government could no longer punish an adult couple for engaging in consensual sodomy. Their private sexual acts have no impact on society as a whole and do not affect the community's safety. Whether a certain private act should implicate public concern is often difficult to determine; sometimes the courts have had to set their own guidelines that may be deemed arbitrary by society. The abortion debate with Roe v. Wade is an example of how government has attempted to outline when exactly an act of abortion becomes public concern. Based on a certain line of reasoning, the justices specifically lists a time cut-off when abortion ceases to be a wholly private act of the mother and rather a concern for the public.. In any given controversial issue, some people will differ with the courts as far as when a certain private act should become a public concern.

Furthermore, the government's guidelines to when private acts become public concerns are also
reflected by the defamation/libel laws. For instance, public figures who wish to file a defamation claim---that is, a lawsuit accusing another person or organization of spreading untrue claims about his person must meet higher standards to win a claim. Unlike persons deemed "private citizens," public figures must prove the additional requirement of " the intent of malice" in the part of the person or organization spreading the alleged lies. This higher standard that must be met by public figures is partly due to the fact that by virtue of their fame and involvement in the public sphere, they should expect more public scrutiny and will naturally be more vulnerable to the spread of "untruths."

Defining whether a private act becomes a public concern is a rather subjective exercise and the answers will vary from person to person based on their biases and philosophical backgrounds. However, a court or other authority figure may need to set guidelines in interest of maintaining order in society and upholding standards to protect vulnerable individuals.

Almost every Great Fortune is Made at the Expense of Others

Almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other people.
Describe a specific situation in which a fortune might be made without harm to other people. Discuss the principles you think determine whether or not fortunes are made at the expense of other people.
___


In the United States, the ever-increasing gap between the rich and poor has made daily headlines. This is especially in light of the economic melt down two years ago where many low and middle class people have experienced a drop in their quality of life. This gap is also a world-wide fact with the wealthiest 1% owning 40% of the global assets. These wealthy people have gained their fortunes in different ways---from innovators undertaking entrepreneurial actions to leaders stealing from their people. It is a widely held view that almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other people. While this is true in most cases, the amount of harm done to the "common" people depends on the way wealthy people have made their money.

Some of the wealthiest people in America include corporate executives/founders of successful companies. These companies often rely on less-skilled, lower-waged workers to keep the business up and running by providing manual labor and performing every day tasks. The executives, on the other hand, make key business decisions meant to increase the bottom line and protect investors. Much of the profits are concentrated in the hands of these decision makers, while the people in the bottom of the pyramid struggle to feed families and pay debt. In cases where the companies have outsourced jobs to developing countries, workers are paid even less due to lack of regulatory protection. Indeed, the million dollar executives paying workers a small amount are, in a sense, profiting at the expense of other people. However, a capitalistic system justifies this type of economic structure where people with mental horsepower, drive and some luck can make huge sums of money---even when paying their workers with hardly a living wage.

While some people gain their wealth by means of a great education/background and entrepreneurial endeavors, others receive their windfall by leading a resource-rich country in a corrupt fashion. Especially in oil rich nations, "kleptocracies" have been institutionalized to the point where it is quite normal to view dictators and families to siphon and hoard nation profits. The common people, in the meantime, do not receive benefits and struggle with problems of malnutrition and lack of education. These leaders may have received a great education and have the intelligence to make great fortunes by more "honest" means; however, they take the easy--and often accepted--way to enrich themselves and their families---by stealing from the people.

Some people believe that governments should redistribute the income in society as a means of gaining economic equality. This could be done in the form of taxing the rich using a disproportionately higher rate in comparison to that used for lower and middle income people. Opponents of income redistribution maintain that a system moving towards socialistic principles will stifle the creative ability of people and cause them to work less. Indeed, the promise of unlimited wealth may drive some people to push harder and think of creative ways to achieve their goals. Gaining wealth, no doubt, most often involves the efforts of other people---many of whom are paid very low wages. In a capitalistic (and democratic) system, children of these low-wage workers---if possessing intelligence and talent---could improve their position in society and also become wealthy. However, these stories of the American Dream/Rag to Riches are few and far between; more often, the rich become richer and poorer become poorer.

Punishing the Guilty According to the Nature of the Crime

The courts should punish the guilty according to the nature of the crime.
Describe a specific situation in which the courts might justifiably take circumstances into account when punishing the guilty. Discuss what you think determines whether the courts should consider the crime or other factors in order to decide punishment.

___

The goals in sentencing in the criminal justice system are multifaceted and vary according to the type of case. One goal is to protect society from dangerous acts that could be committed by the defendant in the future. Another is to rehabilitate the defendant to ensure a more positive path when released free into society. However, the main goals are retributive in nature--that is, the attempt to make the victim whole and punish the defendant in a manner that is fitting to his crime. The court, however, does not only view the act of crime per se in sentencing the defendant. It tries to gain a holistic understanding of the crime and evaluate whether any mitigating circumstances should affect sentencing. In order to seek justice in a case of a criminal act, the judge or jury should analyze the context of the crime in order to realize an outcome that will best serve society.

The retributive goal of the courts essentially involves mandating that the defendant compensate the victim for his wrongdoing. Sometimes the court cannot make the victim whole, such as cases where the victim is dead or has suffered permanent physical injury. The court cannot also allow punishment deemed excessively cruel--as laid out by the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Sometimes, however, the court will reduce punishment for a crime due to mitigating circumstances. One example includes the pleading of self defense. A defendant might harm a person because he was provoked in a way to defend his physical body and avoid grave harm or death. For instance, a man breaking and entering into a home runs the risk of being shot by the owner. This owner would probably not be held guilty in harming the burglar if he proves that shot the man because he feared for his life. In a case outside a man's "castle," courts will evaluate whether a defendant used only the amount of force necessary to keep him out of physical danger.

Some crimes normally deemed as murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter (carrying a lighter sentence) due to "Heat of passion" circumstances. One common example involves the scenario where a person finds his/her spouse engaging in adulterous acts and the person kills the spouse and/or partner. In order to successfully use this defense, the judge or jury member could understand how a reasonable person in the same situation would act in a similar manner. This same defense may also be used in a case where, for instance, a parent suddenly comes upon a person harming /molesting his or her child and subsequently shoots the abuser.

Courts also have recognized the mental insanity defense as a way of acquitting a defendant. This involves cases where a defendant is deemed to be clinically insane and not appreciate or understand the wrongness and nature of his crime. While the court may deem a defendant "not guilty" due to his mental condition, the dangerous person will be confined to a psychiatric hospital for an indefinite period of time. Those defendants not deemed clinically insane could also be assigned to a lighter punishment if his attorney is able to paint a picture of sympathy where his circumstances played a large role in his harmful actions

Indeed, courts not only look at the crime itself in determining sentencing---it will also listen to the defendant's arguments pointing towards mitigating circumstances. The judge or jury may or may not give heed to these defenses. However, it is the defense attorney's responsibility to explore all possible arguments to lessen or eliminate possible punishment for his client. In a system that views people as innocent before proven guilty, the court is obligated to hear multiple points of views of a case with the goal of seeking justice.

Politicians Voting According to their Beliefs Regardless of Agreement by Constituents

Politicians should vote according to their beliefs, without worrying about whether their constituents agree with those beliefs.
Describe a specific situation in which a politician should take into account the beliefs of constituents when voting. Discuss what you think determines whether politicians should vote according to their beliefs or those of their constituents.
___

Taking responsibility as a politician involves a fine balancing game. On one hand, he she attempts to please as many people as possible because the support of his constituents put him in office. He also seeks approval as a way to get re-elected for the next term. On the other hand, he would like to do what he feels what is right in side and will move the country forward in the best way possible. These goals are not necessarily contradictory but oftentimes, politicians may find themselves in the position of having to compromise their personal beliefs in order to satisfy his constituency.

In our representative government, the people vote for a representative to serve as their voice in the legislation of laws. Some people vote based on name recognition or popularity but others tend to vote for the politician who best reflects his own personal and political beliefs. When in office, the politician needs to take into accounts the interests of constituents who voted for him. Among these interests include improving the economic security of the people by protecting the major industries of his hometown and advocating for funding for needed infrastructure. Politicians should generally take the constituent's position on certain controversial issues that divide party lines. These heated issues include the death penalty, abortion and gay marriage; since those debates tend to be in the forefront of constituents minds, politicians should give heed to popular support or rejection of the issues.

Granted, people's personal beliefs are sometimes driven by nativist sentiments that hurt minorities and a politician with integrity will not support such legislation driven by hate---regardless of constituent support. A good politician will also take into account Constitutional principles in basing support of legislation. If he feels that his people support legislation antithetical to his interpretation of the Constitution, the good politician will not compromise his beliefs. Instead, using his ability to analyze the situation, he will successfully persuade his constituents to understand his point of view and the direction he is headed with the legislation.

Indeed, politicians face many difficult decisions and are pulled left and right due to the many interests they need to consider. The interests of his constituents certainly serve as his highest priority since they put him in the office in the first place and could also re-elect him for another term. When constituents' interests collide with his own beliefs, politicians often need to compromise his personal positions in order to represent the people fairly. However, the good politician also maintains his integrity and stands up for his own personal belief in a situation where people's support or rejection of legislation is mainly driven by fear and hateful sentiments.

Local Governments and Federal Interference

Local governments should be allowed to govern free of federal interference.
Describe a specific situation in which local governments should not be allowed to govern free of federal interference. Discuss what you think determines whether or not local governments should be allowed to govern free of federal interference.
___

In the late 18th century, the founding fathers of the United States established a federalist form of government--that is, a division of power between a central government and states/ local entities. The10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, in particular, specifies that all powers not expressly granted to the central government would be in the control of States. The Constitution lays out various powers under the purview of the central government, including, among others, the power to levy taxes and regulate interstate commerce. There is also an implied power which allows the central government to pass laws necessary to execute express powers. Some of the more controversial state rights, include decisions regarding the death penalty, gay marriage, assisted suicide and medicinal marijuana use. It is important for states to have certain rights free from federal interference; however, the central government helps states maintain a more equal footing with each other in regards to safety, education and environmental standards.

Federal government should be able to interfere with states in certain contexts. Maintaining high safety standards is one example where federal government can help protect citizens. In the 80s, the federal government funding for federal highways was contingent on whether states enforced a 21 yr old legal age for drinking. Without "coercing" states via its power to control the "purse", states would be less likely to comply with federal safety standards. The federal government also mandates educational standards in each states. While opponents of this type of interference maintain that local governments have a better understanding of their students and can best tailor curriculum according to unique needs, the federal standards are essential in attempting to create equality among the state educational systems. Without federal government interference, there is more of the danger that certain states will fall behind as far as graduation rates and be underprepared for higher education curriculum.

Those advocating the merits of non-interference with local and state government maintain that a smaller ruling body that is closer to the people is best equip to address unique needs. Certain controversial areas, including gay marriage and the death penalty, should probably be left for states to decide since people tend to have a common political/belief platform depending on their location. For example, coastal states tend to be liberal and will support gay marriage and reject death penalty; whereas southern states incline towards a conservative point of view. Granted, the danger with leaving states to decide controversial issues is that certain commonly-held prejudice beliefs will be reflected in the law and hurt minorities. In this case, the federal government could act as a check on legislation based on hate and fear.

Another argument for non-interference with local/state government is that the federal government is so far removed from states and cannot effectively oversee the 50 states. Furthermore, people do not want to deal with an even more bureaucratic federal government and its red tape. States have less people that they are accountable for and can process papers and move faster (ideally) than the federal government. When the federal government interferes, the State will need to follow more formalities/protocol in addressing problems--thereby, resulting in a longer, drawn out process.

Indeed, there exists many arguments for the interference and non-interference of federal government in state/local affairs. While state governments may have a better understanding of the needs and interests of its citizens, the federal government remains essential in making sure that states do not fall behind higher standards of education, safety and health.

Freedom of Speech Encourages Creativity

Creativity flourishes best in circumstances where freedom of speech is openly permitted.
Describe a specific situation in which creativity might flourish in circumstances where freedom of speech is not openly permitted. Discuss what you think determines whether or not freedom of speech encourages creativity.
___

In the mid-18th century, New England colonists rebelled against the British Crown in the fight for independence. Through the American Revolution, colonialists sought to establish a democratic society founded on certain freedoms. In the process of defining citizens' liberties by means of the Constitution, the freedoms of speech and press stood out as a cornerstone in maintaining a democracy. Indeed, allowing citizens to express themselves freely tends to foster exchange of diverse ideas and unlimited creative potential.

In general, an open society that encourages free speech gives people the means to connect with each other and share different ideas. With the free flow of information, individuals or groups can access and build upon the resources they need to develop their own ideas and creativity. Indeed, the untrammeled access to information via the internet and other media sources has played a huge role in allowing people to connect with others, take entrepreneurial risks and become innovators.

A government that restricts freedom of speech also tends to have a chilling effect on their people's ability to offer fresh solutions to the country's problems. It also prevents people from exploring new ideas and expressing themselves in creative ways by means of research and the arts. These repressive governments will often place people in jail for saying something in opposition to the current administration. The desire to stay alive and protect one's family discourages citizens from exchanging different ideas and publicly sharing new ways of thought.

While most people would not cross a government's restriction on speech in consequence, risk reprisal, sometimes repression unleashes the most creative forces. For example, a Chinese literary critic, Liu Xiaobo, won the Nobel Peace Prize this year for his fight against Chinese human rights abuse. In this case, the threat of imprisonment did not stifle Xiaobo's ability to express himself and he went on to gain international recognition for his activism. However, it is quite rare and only in exceptional cases that repressive regimes cause people to act creatively and persistently for change.

In order to support the growth and innovation, a society must encourage and allow for broad freedom of speech. Of course, this freedom must be qualified in a way that it does not permit minorities from being harmed (e.g., hate speech, slander). These limitations, however, work to protect vulnerable people of society and do not result in stifling a person's overall ability to share new ideas with others. Citizens allowed to express themselves freely will tend to seek others with similar goals in order to bring about certain change in society and develop innovations.

Granting Mercy as a Way to Serve Justice

Granting mercy is sometimes the best way for a judge to serve justice.
Describe a specific situation in which granting mercy might not be the best way for a judge to serve justice. Discuss what you think determines when granting mercy serves justice and when it does not.
___

According to the Old Testament adage, "An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," justice must be meted out through justly compensating the person who has been harmed. Essentially, this law of retaliation supports the notion that justice cannot be served unless the defendant is punished in a way that is equal to the harm he has committed. The New Testament then backs away from this notion through Jesus' advice of turning the other cheek when one is harmed. Justice, a concept that denotes fairness in society, is served in various ways according to the judicial philosophy of the judge. Some believe that a person must be always punished for wrong doing. In many situations, though, others maintain that granting mercy may be a more effective means in the end.

In a formal court setting, granting mercy to the defendant may serve justice in certain situations. This may involve cases where a petty crime has been committed by a first-time offender. The offender also must be sincerely sorry for his actions and views his time in court is a wake-up call. The act of being granted mercy and receiving a second chance may also be an extremely humbling and life changing experience for the defendant--setting him on a more positive path in life and allowing him to grant mercy to others in the future. In these cases, punishing the defendant may not serve justice to the defendant and society as a whole. For example, time in jail may further corrupt the defendant and set him on a pattern of dependence on others and the government. Indeed, granting mercy in the case of first-time offenders may help serve justice in specific scenarios.

Courts also grant mercy to a person judged to be clinically insane. That is, he or she is unable to fathom the wrongness of his or her action. His mental illness or deficiency prevents him from acting as a normal person of society who has a working conscience and can tell wrong from right. Courts may not let this person go free in society but will make sure he/she receives psychological care and guidance. This consequence, in legal terms, is not a punishment per se and such clinically insane people are deemed to be "not guilty" due to their mental condition.

Indeed, judges in the court of law are not the only people who have the power to grant mercy or mete out punishment. In an informal setting, people are harmed and the wronged party has the option to forgive or take some type of revenge. Oftentimes, granting mercy or the act of forgiveness may serve the interests of not only the offender but the wronged person. Holding a grudge or retaliating maybe more harmful ( in a psychological and emotional sense) in the end to the victim.

Oftentimes, granting mercy to an offender may not serve justice. This may hold true when the defendant is dangerous and being set free would not be in the best interest of society. An offenders also should receive punishment if he expresses no regret for his crime and/or is unlikely to change his delinquent behavior. Sometimes that offense is so serious (murder, molestation) in society's view that granting mercy is not even an option.

Justice, indeed, is a fluid concept that differs from person to person. In any given situation involving wrongdoing, people (and judges) will have varying opinions as to the right way to serve justice. Perhaps the best way to ensure justice (at least in the formal court setting) is to take into account not just the harmed person's interests but society's interests as a whole. By only considering the goal of making the wronged person whole, a judge may overlook any adverse effects to society in choosing a certain type of punishment.

Price is not Necessarily a Reflection of Value

Price is not necessarily a reflection of value.
Describe a specific situation in which price is an accurate reflection of value. Discuss what you think determines when price reflects value and when it does not.

___

According to economic principles, price is more likely to reflect value in a free marketplace that encourages competition. In cases of a monopoly, prices of a certain product or service surge tremendously. On the other hand, plethora of competitors can have the opposite effect of deflating prices. Perhaps economic and mathematical calculations can determine the "true" value of a product of service. However, in practical, real world terms, price is not an accurate reflection of value. Value, as a subjective concept, differs for each person and society and can waver depending on the place, fashion, economic situation of the times. One cannot designate an objective price for a product or service but the system of pricing items as an indicator of value is a necessary action in a world with scarce resources.

Indeed, price is not necessarily a reflection of value due to the fact that value is a subjective concept. What is valuable for one person may not be valuable to another. For instance, a hearty meal is more valuable to a starving child in Africa more than a privileged child who has his meals served to him at the same time every day. A famous example involves the tulips in Holland during the 1600s that sold at an unbelievably high price but suddenly collapsed. Indeed, even recent history with the housing market bubble demonstrates how prices can deviate greatly from the "intrinsic" value of an item. Indeed, prices of items go up and down depending on fads, need and multiple factors.

Many people would also argue that price cannot reflect value in terms of humans and human services. For example, adoptions involve exchange of money but adoptive parents would not say that their baby's value is reflective of its price. People sometimes buy life insurance as a way to ensure the financial security of their dependents in case of sudden death. The insurance companies place a value on the life due to certain risk and health factors but people would argue that the price is not an accurate reflection of the person's worth. Furthermore, most would assert that a person's salary is not necessarily reflective of their value in society. A common example is the pay of a exemplary teacher; he or she may not be paid huge sum but his or her services may be considered invaluable to students and society.

In the abstract, price does not necessarily reflect value. However, in a limited setting where one compares like items in a marketplace, one can often rely on pricing as a reflection of value. For instance, when one is shopping in a Walmart and looking for a frying pan, he or she can generally rely on the higher price as being more value. Of course, the term value may not only reflect quality but also name-brand recognition, origin, etc. Even in this limited setting, price still cannot reflect true value but rather comparative value.

In our present world, there are too many people and few resources; pricing items and services help organize society by providing a way to disburse resources. Those with more fortunate situations in life can afford to buy the higher priced and therefore, more "valuable" items. However, in the real world, the price of an item or service does not necessarily reflects value because value, as a subjective concept, differs for one person to the next.

Does Education Restrict the Human Mind rather than Freeing it?

Education serves to restrict the human mind rather than to free it.
Describe a specific situation in which education frees the human mind. Discuss what you think determines when education restricts the human mind and when it frees it.
___

Education is widely thought as the vehicle for a person to advance his or her status in society. That is, education can help people build skills and a strong foundation for surviving in a competitive place. Indeed, education serves other important purposes in society, such as molding children to respect the mores of society and guiding people in living their daily lives. Education, in general, is the process of transmitting accumulated knowledge or skill from one generation to another. While education is generally thought of as a means of freeing the human mind, it also can restrict creativity and free thought in certain circumstances.

Education comes in different forms. Informal education includes certain skills and belief systems passed on by parents to their children or from friend to friend. On the other hand, formal education takes place in a organized setting such as a school or university in which the purpose is for teachers to impart their knowledge of academic subjects to students. In most cases, increased education serves to strengthen one's ability to think critically about matters of daily life and also inspire creative thought. People can use their increased knowledge and skills to make wise decisions, gain employment and think outside the box. Generally, more exposure to diverse ideas and modes of thought can help a person keep an open mind and explore different ways of approaching problems.

However, education can also serve to limit the human potential, especially in cases where the educator stifles doubt and creative thinking. Sometimes students (or audiences) are led to believe that there is only one answer in approaching a problem. In other cases, people become tied to certain dogmatic thought that they feel they cannot challenge. They learn about details of certain belief systems and are afraid to cross the "boundary" by exploring other ways of thinking. This can often be seen in cases of religion and politics.

The ideal type of education serves to expand human potential by encouraging free thought, speech, and creativity. When passing on skills or knowledge, it is important for the educator to not claim the final word but rather encourage students to explore the subject on their own terms. Indeed, education is an integral stepping stone in the development of a human being. While it can be used for abusive purposes, it has mostly been used as a source of enlightenment and as a driver of society.

Does a Good Movie Usually Teach a Moral Lesson?

A good movie usually teaches a moral lesson.Describe a specific situation in which a good movie might not teach a moral lesson. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the quality of a movie depends upon its ability to teach a moral lesson.
___

Since the beginning of time, art has played an integral role in helping to define a culture in society. It not only reflects existing mores of a society--it also can serve to influence and even change people's minds and perceptions, thus having the potential to steer society as a whole in a certain direction. Art comes in different forms but the movie, in particular, has become the most influential medium of art in today's society. Its immense popularity is due to the more interactive nature of the medium---engaging the senses of sight and sound. In contrast, books and paintings oftentimes require audiences to use more of their imagination when encountering the work. As an accessible and appealing form of art, the movie has the means of influencing more people in society through their messages and images. While some movies aim to educate audiences, others exists to merely entertain, and many attempt to do both. Although many good movies teach a moral lesson, others may be deemed "good" regardless of their aim to educate or entertain.

Producers release movies for a wide variety of purposes. For example, some want to educate audiences about a certain time in history or a political matter. Others aim to teach a moral lesson---the values of kindness, generosity, and truthfulness. Producers of these types of movies hope to shed light in their audience members and perhaps influence their actions in daily life. A "good" movie has the power to move the audience and inspire deep thought and even action. A movie that has failed to touch audiences with the intended message could be deemed as unsuccessful.

However, some producers merely aim to entertain audiences. This includes slapstick-type of movies, action, and animation, among others. The movie's purpose may be to make audience members laugh at a series of jokes or astonish them with the latest developments in animation artistry. These types of movies, although lacking an educational or moral component, may still be considered "good." If they affect viewers in a way that they aimed to, then the movie could be thought of as a success.

Perhaps the best type of movie succeeds in both entertaining and educating audiences. Often successfully educating audiences involves making sure to include elements in the film that aim to attract their attention through witty lines and well-thought out sequences. However, one cannot judge a movie to be "good" based on whether it teaches a moral lesson. Rather a movie could be thought of as "good" by assessing the aim of the producer and seeing whether they successful affected the audience with the intent they hoped to produce.

Does a Government have the Responsibility to Regulate what is Broadcast over Public Airwaves?

A government has not only the right, but also the responsibility, to regulate what is broadcast over the public airwaves.
Describe a specific situation in which a government might not be justified in regulating what is broadcast over the public airwaves. Discuss what you think determines when a government is justified in regulating what is broadcast over the public airwaves and when it is not.
___

The First Amendment's freedoms of press and speech are cornerstones of American democracy. News organizations and journalists, for the most part, can investigate and report on government actions without physical reprisal. Individuals and groups may voice their opinions without fearing government threat. These freedoms of expression, however, are limited. For example, one cannot slander others or distribute child pornography. Indeed, the public airwaves (television and radio) are a means by which Americans can reach a mass audience and exercise their freedoms of press and speech. A government has the responsibility to regulate the airwaves as a way to protect society from prurient and harmful material. However, it cannot regulate the airwaves as a way to protect its hold of power and repress certain groups of society.

The government (through the FCC) is responsible for regulating content on the public airwaves. For instance, it does not allow prurient material to enter the general airwaves as a way to protect children. The FCC also protects younger viewers by not authorizing extremely violent material and vulgar language to be aired in daytime channels. Furthermore, the FCC is also responsible for regulating songs over the radio airwaves. Songs that contain offensive words and lyrics are usually "beeped" out although consumers are free to purchase the original content in a record store or online. Standards as to whether material is appropriate for the public airwaves may be worked out through the legislative or judicial process.

The government, however, is limited in how it may regulate the airwaves. It cannot, for instance, suppress public opinions as done in authoritarian countries. In a democracy, various and diverse opinions are welcome as a way to promote debate and encourage different solutions for problems. Citizens of a democracy are also free to publicly criticize their representatives and leaders. The FCC may not prevent these views from entering the public airwaves. Thus, radio and television presents multiple perspectives of current events and political matters.

Indeed, the government plays a significant role in protecting vulnerable members of society. It blocks material that could harm children or encourage violence. On the other hand, it may not repress opposing viewpoints on social and political questions that face the nation. In a democracy, the government needs to maintain a balance in protecting citizens while at the same time respecting freedoms of speech and press.

Political Freedoms are Best Appreciated in Countries where they do not Exist

Political freedoms are best appreciated in those countries where they do not exist.
Describe a specific situation in which political freedoms might be appreciated in a country where such freedoms do exist. Discuss what you think determines whether political freedoms are best appreciated in countries where such freedoms are denied or where they exist.
___

Political freedoms form a central feature of a democratic nation. These freedoms include, among others, free and fair elections, the right to vote for representatives, and the ability to express discontent with leaders without reprisal. When a democratic nation undergoes a period of relative peace and economic boom, the citizens tend to take political freedoms for granted by not exercising their right to vote. On the other hand, difficult periods of a nation---such as, economic downfall and crises of overall morale---tend to bring out more political activists within the general community that demand change. Citizens of authoritarian countries tend to appreciate the political freedom when educated about democratic systems or being exposed to such ideas through word of mouth and other sources of information, such as the internet.

In the United States, citizens tend to appreciate political freedoms during periods of crisis and discontent. In 2008, voters went to the polls and overwhelmingly voted for a Democratic president. They expressed wide discontent for foreign policy decisions (i.e., Iraq war and handling of War on Terror) of the sitting 2 yr term Republican president and voted in the name of "change." During the apex of the economic crisis two years later, voters came out in huge numbers and placed a Republican majority in the house. They also exercised their political freedom of voting to demand "change." Indeed, disaffection within the American citizens with sitting representatives tend to result in more voter turnout.

With the help of the internet and social media, citizens of non-democratic nations start to demand the right to exercise political freedoms. They learn through word of mouth and internet news about the possibility of affecting change in a system that has failed to serve them. They then congregate with other disaffected citizens and start revolutionary movements, such as that which occurred in Egypt during early 2011. Perhaps people in non-democratic countries would not demand political freedoms if it were not for the internet and mass-forms of communication. Just like in democratic countries, citizens of authoritarian nations do not appreciate the idea of political freedoms until their government system no longer meets their personal and social needs.

People tend to exercise political freedoms when they are discontent with their current situation and seek change. Citizens of democratic countries attempt to affect change in the ballot polls and form movements to spread their ideas. Those of authoritarian governments learn how being granted political freedoms could be a way to ease their suffering and realize a better future for their people. Indeed, social media tools have played a huge part in educating people in both democratic and authoritarian nations to exercise or demand political freedoms.

Financial Security as a First Priority in Life

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.
Describe a specific situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security.
___

Surviving in today's society requires exchanging money for goods and services. We first use this money to meet basic needs, such as housing, food and clothing. Extra finances can be used to purchase other items meant to increase our comfort and diversion in life. Most importantly, having more than enough finances is important as means of meeting emergency needs and other unexpected financial obligations. A person, in general, should seek financial security as a priority in life. Those who do not have families or dependents need not necessarily make financial security the top priority. However, those---especially with children---are morally obligated to seek financial security to meet their family's needs.

In the past, families could make ends meet by living on the land and bartering goods. Society developed in a way where people specialized in certain fields and money became an ubiquitous form of exchange. To meet basic needs nowadays, most people seek jobs that will provide them with financial security. This is especially paramount when obligated to take care of family members who cannot fend for themselves. In order to ensure that children also become financially stable, many parents attempt to save enough money to fund their schooling and college expenses. Indeed, when one chooses to bring new life into the world, he or she should seek financial security as the main priority.

People who come from moneyed families or who are expecting to be bequeathed a large sum of money need not think about financial stability so much---neither does a single person without dependents. He or she has more leeway as far as choosing work and following one's "passions." However, if he or she wishes to start a family someday, it is prudent to start saving and garnering enough funds to become financially stable.

Money has been referred to as the root of all evils. One can use money to commit evil or seek money to the point of stealing from others. However, money is a needed for a person to survive in an era that has largely done away with bartering and/or subsistence living. While single people and heirs/heiresses need not focus too much on financial security in order to survive, those with families are obligated to seek well-paying jobs that will meet the needs of their dependents.

Can Plans for Achieving Social Justice Succeed only when those Affected give their Approval?

Plans for achieving social justice can succeed only when those affected give their approval.
Describe a specific situation in which a plan for achieving social justice might succeed without approval by those affected. Discuss what you think determines whether or not plans for achieving social justice can succeed only when approved by those affected.
___

Movements toward social justice aim to ensure the equality of all people under the law. More often in undeveloped nations, there exist sectors of society treated as second-class citizens that experience violations of their human rights. These marginalized groups most often include women, children and elderly people. Groups from wealthier countries, such as NGOs from the US, attempt to provoke social change in regions populated by repressed people. These groups may succeed in promoting social justice in the short term by providing legal help, counseling, alimentation, and other types of aid. However, plans to make these changes are not sustainable in the long run without the active support of those affected.

Humanitarian aid groups assist marginalized sectors of society in a variety of ways. For example, some organizations support gender equality in regions where women are viewed as property of men. They provide legal and financial help to victims of domestic violence, influence families to send their girls to school and educate women about their human rights. The active involvement of outside groups may save many lives and inspire some people to achieve goals that, beforehand, did not seem possible. Indeed, these humanitarian groups introduce new ideas to women and provide a seed of hope for their future.

While the humanitarian groups may find success in alleviating some of the struggles of women, their biggest challenge remains achieving the sustainability of their programs. Groups often cannot stay indefinitely in their host regions to help the people. They must be able to change the mindset of the people---for example, by making women believe that they are truly equal to their husbands and should not tolerate abuse. However, victims have often suffered abuse for an extended period of time; they witness their mothers beat up and then expect the same treatment when they get married. Several obstacles prevent women from changing their mindset and expecting different outcomes---from cultural barriers, lack of financial resources, fear and intimidation, etc. On the other hand, if a humanitarian group successfully changes these women's conception about themselves and the world, there is a chance of achieving long term, sustainable change. These women will continue to demand equal rights and may also persuade peers and their own daughters to expect more from life.


Indeed, changing people's long-held beliefs remains to be a challenge in groups seeking social justice. It is easy to provide donated food and clothing or build shelters for people. It is difficult to get people to change habits and mindsets. In order to achieve true social justice, groups should aim to "plant seeds" in people's minds and inspire them to take action to make changes in their own life long after the groups leave.

Is the Public Swayed more by New Ideas than by Good Ones?

The public is swayed more by new ideas than by good ones.
Describe a specific situation in which the public might be swayed more by a good idea than by a new one. Discuss what you think determines whether the public will be swayed by new ideas or by good ones.
___

Living in a society driven by consumerism, many Americans go into debt to keep up with the Jones'. US society revolves around purchasing items to make one feel better---especially things that will make one look younger and wealthier. Ubiquitous ads on billboards, tv and the internet lure audiences to follow fads that promise something better in their mundane lives. Unfortunately, many people view "new" as "better" and buy into claims which often do not materialize into what has been promised. Indeed, once new ideas or fads have been worn out, the good idea will stand the test of time. However, as long as the consumer culture prevails, new ideas will hold sway over proven, good ideas.

New ideas are especially alluring to people because they often promise short cuts. People, in general, do not want to work for their goals. Dieting fads are a classic example of people being swayed by new ideas. Some companies promise potential clients that they can lose weight by continuing to eat what they want to without exercising---as long as they purchase and consume a certain pill. Many people who wish to lose weight do not want to do so using the only proven, albeit difficult way---that is, by eating less and exercising more. People's penchant for taking an easy route allows so-called diet pioneers to attract new clientele year after year.

The end of the 20th century also realized the popularity of mood-altering pills--short cuts for dealing with emotional pain. There was an upsurge in depression diagnoses among the US people and psychiatrists began prescribing anti-anxiety and depression pills, such as Xanax. Patients did not want to face their inner demons and viewed the pills as a way to escape reality and feel better. Many studies, however, point to adverse side effects of using chemicals to treat mental disorders and perhaps, long term side effects are yet unknown since these pills have not been in use for an extended period of time. Like diet pills, mood-altering pills are a quick fix. Undoubtedly, certain pills have been very beneficial in saving people's lives. However, one would not go out on a limb in stating that these pills have been abused and are not necessarily the best or healthiest solution to dealing with one's problems.


Perhaps people, in general, know what is best for them inside. However, new ideas and promises tend to be irresistible---especially if good ideas require perseverance and energy and new ideas provide a short cut. Some people are not easily swayed by fads but these constitute the minority of a population---people that are confident with themselves and realize that achieving a goal may require some hard work. However, in a consumer society where one is never good enough and could always use some improvement, people will always be encouraged to try the next best thing and buy into fads.

Caution in Financial Matters

It is always best to be cautious in financial matters.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be better not to be cautious in a financial matter. Discuss what you think determines whether or not it is best to be cautious in financial matters.
___

In 2008, the United States underwent a financial crisis that bordered on becoming another Great Depression. Several factors contributed to the crisis, including, among others, subprime lending. People that could not afford to pay mortgages were allowed to purchase homes left and right. Many of those in the lending chain, from big bankers to brokers and lenders, greatly profited from signing on subprime borrowers. Essentially, people's greed spurred on the subprime lending---contributing to a financial meltdown. In retrospect, many learned that it is wise to be cautious in financial matters. When people, in general, make irresponsible financial decisions, the culture transforms in a way that breeds financial crises. In a sense, a nation's financial responsibility begins with its people and their individual decisions regarding money.

Essentially, the subprime lending trend was a manifestation of the US consumer culture. Encouraged by ubiquitous ads, Americans felt the urge to keep up with the Jones'. This meant buying new cars, new houses, going on luxury vacations, etc.---mostly on credit. People, in general, were living lifestyles they could not readily afford. "More" equaled "better" and many disregarded financial responsibility to maintain appearances. When credit card companies and banks could no longer open up credit following the 2008 disaster, many people re-learned an old lesson---that is, it is best to be cautious in financial matters. This is especially true when one is responsible for the lives of others (i.e., family) and will need to set aside funds for college, emergencies, etc. Credit will not always be there to the rescue and one should be prudent when dealing with financial matters.

The need for individuals to be responsible for their own finances may be thought of a microcosm of our nation's financial accountability. In retrospect, the aggregate of people's actions can cause national crises. However, leaders in Washington are responsible for making certain decisions that can either exacerbate or mitigate national crises. One example includes taking action to lower our ever-increasing national deficit. Leaders should be cautious by not approving more programs left and right that contribute to the deficit. Indeed, the more we finance programs and projects, the more beholden we are to our lender, China.

On a individual level, one need not be cautious with financial matters if he or she has a nest egg so large that there really is no need to budget. However, most Americans are not in this fortunate position and need to be wary about spending frivolously or taking out credit to buy non-essential products. The nation, as a whole, should try to become more risk averse in order to avoid falling further into the deficit hole. In certain cases, making risky financial decisions can result in wealth in an individual or national levels. However, in the current atmosphere of recession and recovery, it is probably wiser to take a prudent approach in making financial decisions.

Television News should Present Both Sides of an Issue

Television news should be expected to present both sides of an issue.
Describe a specific situation in which television news might not be expected to present both sides of an issue. Discuss what you think determines when television news should be expected to present both sides of an issue and when it should not.
___

The freedom of the press plays an integral part of a democracy. In particular, news reporters and journalists serve as a check to the power of lawmakers/executors by informing citizenry about their actions. Citizens, in turn, can act on these reports by selecting who should represent them in the government and pressuring lawmakers to make certain decisions. Ideally, reporters should strive to be objective as possible when presenting news; that is, they should present various points of view on a certain event. That way, readers will have a chance to process a balanced perspective of an issue. In recent years, however, one-sided punditry has become very popular with audiences. Journalist, such as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, have risen in fame as they blatantly feed viewers with ideas that come from a limited perspective.

Before the rise of the internet, news sources were relatively limited; people received news from a few major television networks and newspapers. It could be argued, therefore, that it was more important back then for reporters to strive to present different sides of an issue. Television networks received a larger percentage of the population's attention (compared today); their audience did not have a wide range of news sources to choose from. In order for people to become well-informed and have the ability to objectively judge their government's actions, it was important for television networks to present the news in the most objective way possible.

In comparison, the citizenry today can choose from an unlimited amount of news sources. The internet has broadened the availability of news but people can still rely on television and printed sources for information on the world. Television reporters, due to the vast sources of news, have less of a responsibility to present both sides of an issue. In fact, one-sided punditry has become a very popular form of news. That is, certain news programs present only a conservative or liberal point of view of current events. They do not purport to be objective and blatantly serve as public relations for certain political parties. This form of news present guests who passionately advocate for their point of view and mainly attracts viewers who hold the same perspectives. On sided-punditry also provides television networks with a "cheap" way to attract viewers, while saving on costs required by presenting objective news (e.g., investigative reporting, overseas bureau reporting, etc.).

At times, news programs that present a limited view point purport to be fair and objective. This is very misleading and can do a disservice for viewers who wish to gain a full perspective of an issue. One-sided news programs should be upfront about their type of reporting by at least not claiming to be objective. Despite the wide availability of news sources today, some news programs still fortunately aim to provide viewers/listeners with different points of views. For example, NPR and PBS news hour often invite guests of opposing sides to debate the issues of the day. Viewers can make well-informed decisions about the issues by evaluating the various arguments and choosing the side the resonates most with them.

Despite the availability of various news sources, it is important for objective news reporters to attempt to reach wider audiences. A citizenry fixated on one-sided news will not have the opportunity to think for themselves and make "balanced" decisions about the political arena and their daily lives. They will confuse partisan punditry with actual news.Indeed, journalism organizations and training centers should continue to advocate for the "balanced" news format in order to ensure the strength of our people and democracy.