Some dishonesty is necessary to keep a friendship strong.
Describe a specific situation in which some dishonesty is not necessary to keep a friendship strong. Discuss what you think determines whether or not some dishonesty is necessary to keep a friendship strong.
___
People around the world carry different perceptions of what constitutes an offense against moral (or religious) law and whether that action is absolutely unacceptable in any situation. Dishonesty is commonly cited as a cardinal sin but can be justified by many as an appropriate action depending on the purpose. Young children learn from parents, teachers, and Pinocchio that one should never lie. However, as these children grow up, they realize that being dishonest is sometimes necessary to be accepted socially and more specifically, to keep friendships strong.
People have seemingly infinite thoughts running in their mind when interacting with others. When encountering new people, they focus mostly on physical features and the overall vibe detected from the person. When dealing with friends, thoughts are often deeper due to a greater amount of information about the person. While one may regard his friend very highly, he will be aware of the faults and weaknesses. An ideal friendship consists of two people who can be completely honest with each other and not be afraid about hurting feelings. However, a majority of friendships cannot be sustained in a utopia of absolute honesty. The reality is that most people cannot stand being criticized or told things that hit at their fragile egos. When a woman asks her friend if her jeans make her look fat, the friend will usually say that she looks perfectly fine despite thinking otherwise. People want to be with those who make them feel good all the time. A person that cannot tell white lies or withhold truthful comments will not be able to maintain friendships.
Dishonesty is not necessary to keep a friendship strong in a case where the "receiver" of the truth is well grounded and truly confident in himself. This type of person is not the least affected by judgment of his looks and abilities and in fact, appreciates being told the truth about himself no matter how ugly that truth is. Unfortunately, this type of person is rare and most people will learn that their friends lack the self-assuredness to deal with the truth.
Of course, friendships are not kept strong with any type of dishonesty. Lies meant to cause harm or told without regarding the best interests of the friend can kill the friendship. There exist white lies, however, that are told to save the friend from an embarrassing situation. Indeed, one can question how true or strong a friendship is if friends feel the need to be dishonest (even in the most superficial context) in order to continue the friendship.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Responsible use of Power= Greater Power
In politics, the responsible use of power is rewarded with greater power.
Describe a specific situation in which the responsible use of power might not be rewarded with greater power. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the responsible use of power will be rewarded with greater power.
___
Prominent leaders of nations can greatly impact the lives of their constituents. They make key decisions, such as deciding where public funds should be appropriated and enacting laws that ideally serve to protect citizens from harm. Unfortunately, not all politicians enter office to act in the public's best interests. They use their power to enrich themselves and their associates and amass control over resources without regard to the needs of the poor. However, in countries with more transparent systems of government, politicians are often rewarded with greater power through re-election when the people believe that they are using their power in a responsible way.
Government corruption exists in every nation--developed and developing countries alike. The extent of corruption, as well as the people's tolerance for it, varies, and undoubtedly, developed countries do not face the endemic corruption plaguing poorer countries. When a politician is perceived as honest and makes decisions according with the needs and desires of the people, his constituents will likely re-elect him. The opportunity to serve more years in office usually adds to the credibility of the politician, as well as the accompanying privilege of more power. These politicians are also able to take on leadership positions among their fellow lawmakers by serving in special committees and leading negotiations.
In developed nations, the people are more likely to find out about abuse of political power and will emphatically take measures to make sure the politician pays for his crime. When a politician misappropriates public funds, he ends up in jail. Furthermore, countless politicians have also been forced to resign or punished in the polls when their sexual misconduct has been revealed. These same allegations of adultery, "sexting," and flings with teenagers would probably gain little notice in developing countries that deal with leaders who steal public funds and associate with drug kings. However, in nations such as the US, even sexual misconduct is viewed as an irresponsible use of power and offending leaders find their political futures destroyed upon media revelations.
In developing nations, the responsible use of power is often not rewarded with greater power. This is due to the endemic nature of corruption in the system. The abuse of power is plainly accepted (by both leaders and constituents) as a normal occurrence in political affairs. Politicians may enter office with the magnanimous intention to bring the people out of poverty. Eventually, they find that surviving in office and even protecting their own physical safety means paying off the "right" people and accepting bribes. A politician that does not play the game of corruption finds himself unable to maintain his position. In these nations, voters suffer from lack of basic needs that they do not have the wherewithal or desire to challenge the system. In most cases, leaders are able to suppress any factions of opposition to their system through threat of jail time or physical harm.
Ideally, the responsible use of power is rewarded with greater power. Constituents see that the leader is acting in their best interest and then they, therefore, re-elect him back to office. Granted, voters cannot observe all actions of the politicians and the latter may get away with some misuse of power. Therefore, the reward of greater power may have a lot to do with the perception of the politician in the eyes of voters--not necessarily whether he is, in fact, using power responsibly. Furthermore, in some nations, the responsible use of power is not encouraged due to a culture of corruption where the powerful can rightfully take any means to protect their power.
Describe a specific situation in which the responsible use of power might not be rewarded with greater power. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the responsible use of power will be rewarded with greater power.
___
Prominent leaders of nations can greatly impact the lives of their constituents. They make key decisions, such as deciding where public funds should be appropriated and enacting laws that ideally serve to protect citizens from harm. Unfortunately, not all politicians enter office to act in the public's best interests. They use their power to enrich themselves and their associates and amass control over resources without regard to the needs of the poor. However, in countries with more transparent systems of government, politicians are often rewarded with greater power through re-election when the people believe that they are using their power in a responsible way.
Government corruption exists in every nation--developed and developing countries alike. The extent of corruption, as well as the people's tolerance for it, varies, and undoubtedly, developed countries do not face the endemic corruption plaguing poorer countries. When a politician is perceived as honest and makes decisions according with the needs and desires of the people, his constituents will likely re-elect him. The opportunity to serve more years in office usually adds to the credibility of the politician, as well as the accompanying privilege of more power. These politicians are also able to take on leadership positions among their fellow lawmakers by serving in special committees and leading negotiations.
In developed nations, the people are more likely to find out about abuse of political power and will emphatically take measures to make sure the politician pays for his crime. When a politician misappropriates public funds, he ends up in jail. Furthermore, countless politicians have also been forced to resign or punished in the polls when their sexual misconduct has been revealed. These same allegations of adultery, "sexting," and flings with teenagers would probably gain little notice in developing countries that deal with leaders who steal public funds and associate with drug kings. However, in nations such as the US, even sexual misconduct is viewed as an irresponsible use of power and offending leaders find their political futures destroyed upon media revelations.
In developing nations, the responsible use of power is often not rewarded with greater power. This is due to the endemic nature of corruption in the system. The abuse of power is plainly accepted (by both leaders and constituents) as a normal occurrence in political affairs. Politicians may enter office with the magnanimous intention to bring the people out of poverty. Eventually, they find that surviving in office and even protecting their own physical safety means paying off the "right" people and accepting bribes. A politician that does not play the game of corruption finds himself unable to maintain his position. In these nations, voters suffer from lack of basic needs that they do not have the wherewithal or desire to challenge the system. In most cases, leaders are able to suppress any factions of opposition to their system through threat of jail time or physical harm.
Ideally, the responsible use of power is rewarded with greater power. Constituents see that the leader is acting in their best interest and then they, therefore, re-elect him back to office. Granted, voters cannot observe all actions of the politicians and the latter may get away with some misuse of power. Therefore, the reward of greater power may have a lot to do with the perception of the politician in the eyes of voters--not necessarily whether he is, in fact, using power responsibly. Furthermore, in some nations, the responsible use of power is not encouraged due to a culture of corruption where the powerful can rightfully take any means to protect their power.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Art as enhancing the Quality of Human Life
The arts do not significantly enhance the quality of human life.
Describe a specific situation in which the arts might significantly enhance the quality of human life. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the arts significantly enhance the quality of human life.
___
The creation of art is possibly unique to human kind. Art has been primarily a vehicle of self expression and interpretation of the world through a certain lens. Some art has also been said to exist for no particular reason at all---it just IS. Indeed, art cannot be whittled down to a single purpose in the presence of human kind. It is not a basic need on par with water, food and shelter; however, it can serve to enhance the quality of human life by adding deeper meaning and experiences in living.
Art cannot significantly enhance the quality of human life when a human is struggling to survive. For example, if a man learns he will be indefinitely stuck in a deserted island, what would he wish to bring with him? He will want food, a filter to purify water, materials to build shelter, etc. The stranded man will not be thinking about surrounding himself with beautiful pieces of art. He will not be composing sonnets or choreographing a jazz number. Humans are born with the instinct of survival and in a situation that requires us to contemplate our mortality, we are most likely not considering loftier concepts, such as art and beauty.
When human beings need not worry about survival, art may take a part in significantly enhancing the quality of life. Indeed, art can add beauty to otherwise mundane lives by challenging creators (as well as audiences) to view ordinary things in front of us in a different light. The process of creating art also provides a sort of catharsis to those who need to express themselves and share their views of the world. Art also forms part of people's culture and those who appreciate art can elicit interesting information on how a group of people viewed their lives. In a society, such as the United States, where most people spend their time wasting away in routine jobs just to pay the bills, art can provide a sort of relief and change in life. Especially in developed nations where survival is not at issue, art can add a certain joie de vivre.
Granted, art comes in a myriad of forms and they are not all equal. Some art that has survived through history (e.g., Mona Lisa) carries with them a sort of mesmerizing aura that attracts viewers from around the world and even inspires the creation of new art. Other art may appear to lack technique and provoke statements, such as "I could have painted that myself and I'm not even an artist!" As said many times before, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. While a certain work of art may cause life changing perceptions in one viewer, the same piece to another person might as well be a grain of sand on a beach. People will be affected by art in different ways and it is essential for societies to encourage the creation of art as way to potentially enhance life experiences.
Describe a specific situation in which the arts might significantly enhance the quality of human life. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the arts significantly enhance the quality of human life.
___
The creation of art is possibly unique to human kind. Art has been primarily a vehicle of self expression and interpretation of the world through a certain lens. Some art has also been said to exist for no particular reason at all---it just IS. Indeed, art cannot be whittled down to a single purpose in the presence of human kind. It is not a basic need on par with water, food and shelter; however, it can serve to enhance the quality of human life by adding deeper meaning and experiences in living.
Art cannot significantly enhance the quality of human life when a human is struggling to survive. For example, if a man learns he will be indefinitely stuck in a deserted island, what would he wish to bring with him? He will want food, a filter to purify water, materials to build shelter, etc. The stranded man will not be thinking about surrounding himself with beautiful pieces of art. He will not be composing sonnets or choreographing a jazz number. Humans are born with the instinct of survival and in a situation that requires us to contemplate our mortality, we are most likely not considering loftier concepts, such as art and beauty.
When human beings need not worry about survival, art may take a part in significantly enhancing the quality of life. Indeed, art can add beauty to otherwise mundane lives by challenging creators (as well as audiences) to view ordinary things in front of us in a different light. The process of creating art also provides a sort of catharsis to those who need to express themselves and share their views of the world. Art also forms part of people's culture and those who appreciate art can elicit interesting information on how a group of people viewed their lives. In a society, such as the United States, where most people spend their time wasting away in routine jobs just to pay the bills, art can provide a sort of relief and change in life. Especially in developed nations where survival is not at issue, art can add a certain joie de vivre.
Granted, art comes in a myriad of forms and they are not all equal. Some art that has survived through history (e.g., Mona Lisa) carries with them a sort of mesmerizing aura that attracts viewers from around the world and even inspires the creation of new art. Other art may appear to lack technique and provoke statements, such as "I could have painted that myself and I'm not even an artist!" As said many times before, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. While a certain work of art may cause life changing perceptions in one viewer, the same piece to another person might as well be a grain of sand on a beach. People will be affected by art in different ways and it is essential for societies to encourage the creation of art as way to potentially enhance life experiences.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Abuse of Technology
Technology may be increasing faster than our ability to use it wisely.
Describe a specific situation in which a new technology might not be beyond our ability to use it wisely. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a new technology can be used wisely.
___
Since the beginning of time, human beings have invented tools to adapt to their environment. Inventions, such as the use of fire and hunting tools, helped people survive in settings lacking warmth and vegetation. Humans also created weapons to defend their land from those seeking to take over. Inventions of today's age have taken on a new dimension with the wide availability of the internet. Unlike the basic tools concocted by early inhabitants, the digital technology of today's world do not serve humans' basic needs, such as nourishment and shelter---they, however, allow people to improve their quality of life by providing efficient ways of completing work and daily tasks. These new tools (as well as old tools), however, can be abused to the point that some people are really better off without them.
The internet has greatly facilitated globalization--or rather, the shrinking of our world where physical distance and boundaries become erased. People from opposite sides of the world can interact with each other on real time with a click of a button. In the last five years, social networking sites, such as Facebook, have virtually become staples in the lives of young adults in developed countries. Facebook has allowed people to connect with others in an unprecedented way---from long-lost relatives and high school classmates to random people in the street. While these connections may help build relationships and networking opportunities, Facebook has been misused by many members. Some have developed an addiction to the site, spending an inordinate amount of time reading updates of "friends" and stalking profiles. Instead of completing useful daily tasks, they fill their minds with useless information and become intrigued by the daily activities and thoughts of others who provide them with no real value. In a sense, people have used Facebook to replace real interactions with people and distract themselves from important tasks.
The internet has also been abused in a myriad of other ways. People have profited by taking advantage of human weakness in running gambling, prostitution, and pornography sites. Others see it as an opportunity to steal money and run scams. Indeed, all communication technologies that have preceded the internet (e.g., telephone, pager, television, radio, etc.) have been used for these same base purposes. All these technologies carry value in allowing more people to communicate with each other and spread information in a more efficient way. As the concept of yin and yang illustrates, there is a bad that accompanies every good.
One way to help people use technology wisely is through education. For instance, teenagers can be shown how social networking sites can be abused to the point of affecting their studies. Schools can focus on inculcating "values" in students and teaching them how to defend themselves from negative influences in life. The government and the FCC might be able to step in and regulate more activities in the web. Granted, free speech activists will take issue with this. However, someone or some entity should be taking steps to prevent people from abusing the internet to further their base purposes.
In viewing the ways technology has been misused, it is important not to forget about its positive effects and contributions to human life. For example, the internet has helped people organize their finances and effectively conduct honest businesses. People who are educated and understand how to use the internet to enhance their lives will, of course, benefit from greater advances in the technology. However, it is inevitable that new technologies will be used in malevolent ways. Some people in the world lack self-discipline or a conscience to do the "right" things in life. It is important, however, to not allow concern for the actions of bad apples to stifle innovators' abilities to create new technologies in the service of human kind.
Describe a specific situation in which a new technology might not be beyond our ability to use it wisely. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a new technology can be used wisely.
___
Since the beginning of time, human beings have invented tools to adapt to their environment. Inventions, such as the use of fire and hunting tools, helped people survive in settings lacking warmth and vegetation. Humans also created weapons to defend their land from those seeking to take over. Inventions of today's age have taken on a new dimension with the wide availability of the internet. Unlike the basic tools concocted by early inhabitants, the digital technology of today's world do not serve humans' basic needs, such as nourishment and shelter---they, however, allow people to improve their quality of life by providing efficient ways of completing work and daily tasks. These new tools (as well as old tools), however, can be abused to the point that some people are really better off without them.
The internet has greatly facilitated globalization--or rather, the shrinking of our world where physical distance and boundaries become erased. People from opposite sides of the world can interact with each other on real time with a click of a button. In the last five years, social networking sites, such as Facebook, have virtually become staples in the lives of young adults in developed countries. Facebook has allowed people to connect with others in an unprecedented way---from long-lost relatives and high school classmates to random people in the street. While these connections may help build relationships and networking opportunities, Facebook has been misused by many members. Some have developed an addiction to the site, spending an inordinate amount of time reading updates of "friends" and stalking profiles. Instead of completing useful daily tasks, they fill their minds with useless information and become intrigued by the daily activities and thoughts of others who provide them with no real value. In a sense, people have used Facebook to replace real interactions with people and distract themselves from important tasks.
The internet has also been abused in a myriad of other ways. People have profited by taking advantage of human weakness in running gambling, prostitution, and pornography sites. Others see it as an opportunity to steal money and run scams. Indeed, all communication technologies that have preceded the internet (e.g., telephone, pager, television, radio, etc.) have been used for these same base purposes. All these technologies carry value in allowing more people to communicate with each other and spread information in a more efficient way. As the concept of yin and yang illustrates, there is a bad that accompanies every good.
One way to help people use technology wisely is through education. For instance, teenagers can be shown how social networking sites can be abused to the point of affecting their studies. Schools can focus on inculcating "values" in students and teaching them how to defend themselves from negative influences in life. The government and the FCC might be able to step in and regulate more activities in the web. Granted, free speech activists will take issue with this. However, someone or some entity should be taking steps to prevent people from abusing the internet to further their base purposes.
In viewing the ways technology has been misused, it is important not to forget about its positive effects and contributions to human life. For example, the internet has helped people organize their finances and effectively conduct honest businesses. People who are educated and understand how to use the internet to enhance their lives will, of course, benefit from greater advances in the technology. However, it is inevitable that new technologies will be used in malevolent ways. Some people in the world lack self-discipline or a conscience to do the "right" things in life. It is important, however, to not allow concern for the actions of bad apples to stifle innovators' abilities to create new technologies in the service of human kind.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The Strength of a Democracy depends upon each Citizen's Respect for the Ideas of Others
The strength of a democracy depends upon each citizen's respect for the ideas of others.
Describe a specific situation in which the strength of a democracy might not depend upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others. Discuss what you think determines when the strength of a democracy depends upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others.
___
Leading democratic nations, such as the United States, espouse democracy as the highest ideal in governance where citizens are treated equally with each having a say in decisions affecting the community. This is accomplished in a system where citizens (upon reaching adulthood) have the right to vote for their representatives and elections are determined by the majority. Indeed, upholding this type of system entails each citizen respecting the ideas of others. Citizens acknowledge that there are several paths to go about solving problems and that options considered most feasible or agreeable by the community will reach the representative. He or she will then vote accordingly with the constituents' wishes. A society where citizens do not respect each other's differing ideas are plagued with violence and filled with people who fear expressing personal opinions.
In a democracy, decisions are most often made by majority rule. That is, governments--through decisions made in the legislature-- act on options most palatable to the majority of the citizens. Granted, this type of system stifles the will of the minority and this might be conceived as a democracy's lack of respect for ideas of the minority. However, these ideas still receive an extent of respect in a democracy in that people usually do not fear for their lives after expressing an unpopular opinion. True democracies encourage different opinions to float around and be debated in public and private forums. In contrast, people of many authoritarian nations are regularly killed (by the government and private citizens) for being activists and expressing dissenting beliefs.
Nations are more likely to flourish when people can express their ideas without recrimination. More ideas and different ways of thinking encourage national debate. When people intelligently argue with each other about their points of view, they refine their arguments and perhaps reach new realizations and better ways to solve community problems. When only certain viewpoints can be expressed, a nation's development is hindered; people are unable to reach outside the box and fully participate in a debate that could use contributions from sharp, innovative minds.
The freedom of speech---which necessarily entails the government's and each citizen's respect for ideas of others-- serves to strengthen a nation. Unpopular opinions may enter the public forum and citizens may support or reject these thoughts by personally participating in the debate, voting for leaders who reflect their views, supporting advocacy groups through donations, among other things. In general, democracies have more to gain when people can express what they wish so long as those ideas do not harm others.
Describe a specific situation in which the strength of a democracy might not depend upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others. Discuss what you think determines when the strength of a democracy depends upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others.
___
Leading democratic nations, such as the United States, espouse democracy as the highest ideal in governance where citizens are treated equally with each having a say in decisions affecting the community. This is accomplished in a system where citizens (upon reaching adulthood) have the right to vote for their representatives and elections are determined by the majority. Indeed, upholding this type of system entails each citizen respecting the ideas of others. Citizens acknowledge that there are several paths to go about solving problems and that options considered most feasible or agreeable by the community will reach the representative. He or she will then vote accordingly with the constituents' wishes. A society where citizens do not respect each other's differing ideas are plagued with violence and filled with people who fear expressing personal opinions.
In a democracy, decisions are most often made by majority rule. That is, governments--through decisions made in the legislature-- act on options most palatable to the majority of the citizens. Granted, this type of system stifles the will of the minority and this might be conceived as a democracy's lack of respect for ideas of the minority. However, these ideas still receive an extent of respect in a democracy in that people usually do not fear for their lives after expressing an unpopular opinion. True democracies encourage different opinions to float around and be debated in public and private forums. In contrast, people of many authoritarian nations are regularly killed (by the government and private citizens) for being activists and expressing dissenting beliefs.
Nations are more likely to flourish when people can express their ideas without recrimination. More ideas and different ways of thinking encourage national debate. When people intelligently argue with each other about their points of view, they refine their arguments and perhaps reach new realizations and better ways to solve community problems. When only certain viewpoints can be expressed, a nation's development is hindered; people are unable to reach outside the box and fully participate in a debate that could use contributions from sharp, innovative minds.
The freedom of speech---which necessarily entails the government's and each citizen's respect for ideas of others-- serves to strengthen a nation. Unpopular opinions may enter the public forum and citizens may support or reject these thoughts by personally participating in the debate, voting for leaders who reflect their views, supporting advocacy groups through donations, among other things. In general, democracies have more to gain when people can express what they wish so long as those ideas do not harm others.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Nations that Resist New Approaches to Solving Social Problems
Nations often resist new approaches to solving social problems.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation did or might attempt to solve a social problem with a new approach. Discuss what you think determines when a new approach would be the best way for a nation to solve a social problem.
___
Developing nations are plagued with a multitude of social problems-from malnutrition and lack of natural resources to suppression of civil rights and widespread violence. It is very difficult to solve these issues--which are often inextricably related---and most of these nations will likely stay impoverished through time. More wealthy and stable nations give humanitarian aid and start programs to improve human capacity and development in these nations. Unfortunately, nations often grow dependent on these foreign handouts and do not take serious measures to solving systemic social problems.
Part of the reason why developing nations seem resistant to new approaches in solving social problems is that they are usually run by corrupt leaders. These leaders horde available funds for themselves and associates and/or refunnel money in ways that do not benefit the general population. In almost all developing nations, leaders and a few business owners lead incredibly luxurious lifestyles while most of the citizens struggle to survive each day. Some of these leaders may enter office with the sincere desire to bring many out of poverty; however, corruption may be so endemic in the system that these leaders cannot help but tangle themselves in corrupt deals to maintain their power and influence. When leaders lose focus as to what would best serve the people, they cannot even begin to take the first steps to alleviate social problems in society.
Some developing nations and their people have become so dependent on handouts from wealthier countries that they do not come up with their own innovative ways to solve social programs. Indeed, food donations by USAID and other such organizations are designed to help the most impoverished people of developing nations. Often, however, corrupt leaders reserve this aid for supporters of their political parties and not necessarily for those really needing help. Unfortunately, regular handouts from wealthier nations cause governments of developing nations to become dependent and not invest properly on their people---for instance, on education and programs that would develop their citizens' ability to help themselves.
In rich and poor nations alike, citizens struggle with the problem of bureaucracy and red tape in government. Paperwork and decisions move slowly through the system. Since they do not operate on a for-profit basis, workers have less incentive to be as responsive and accountable as their private sector counterparts. Government workers also need to follow certain procedures when doing their work, which often contributes to the red tape. For all these reasons, it is difficult for governmental departments to plan and implement new approaches to solving social problems.
As long as corruption remains endemic, nations cannot begin to tackle their wide range of social problems. In order to implement new approaches to improving the state of the nation, a government must somehow rid itself of corruption to divert funds in ways that invest in the education and development of regular people. Furthermore, wealthier nations should take measures to ensure that their aid reaches the most vulnerable people and also consider alternative ways (i.e., other than handouts) to help people help themselves.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation did or might attempt to solve a social problem with a new approach. Discuss what you think determines when a new approach would be the best way for a nation to solve a social problem.
___
Developing nations are plagued with a multitude of social problems-from malnutrition and lack of natural resources to suppression of civil rights and widespread violence. It is very difficult to solve these issues--which are often inextricably related---and most of these nations will likely stay impoverished through time. More wealthy and stable nations give humanitarian aid and start programs to improve human capacity and development in these nations. Unfortunately, nations often grow dependent on these foreign handouts and do not take serious measures to solving systemic social problems.
Part of the reason why developing nations seem resistant to new approaches in solving social problems is that they are usually run by corrupt leaders. These leaders horde available funds for themselves and associates and/or refunnel money in ways that do not benefit the general population. In almost all developing nations, leaders and a few business owners lead incredibly luxurious lifestyles while most of the citizens struggle to survive each day. Some of these leaders may enter office with the sincere desire to bring many out of poverty; however, corruption may be so endemic in the system that these leaders cannot help but tangle themselves in corrupt deals to maintain their power and influence. When leaders lose focus as to what would best serve the people, they cannot even begin to take the first steps to alleviate social problems in society.
Some developing nations and their people have become so dependent on handouts from wealthier countries that they do not come up with their own innovative ways to solve social programs. Indeed, food donations by USAID and other such organizations are designed to help the most impoverished people of developing nations. Often, however, corrupt leaders reserve this aid for supporters of their political parties and not necessarily for those really needing help. Unfortunately, regular handouts from wealthier nations cause governments of developing nations to become dependent and not invest properly on their people---for instance, on education and programs that would develop their citizens' ability to help themselves.
In rich and poor nations alike, citizens struggle with the problem of bureaucracy and red tape in government. Paperwork and decisions move slowly through the system. Since they do not operate on a for-profit basis, workers have less incentive to be as responsive and accountable as their private sector counterparts. Government workers also need to follow certain procedures when doing their work, which often contributes to the red tape. For all these reasons, it is difficult for governmental departments to plan and implement new approaches to solving social problems.
As long as corruption remains endemic, nations cannot begin to tackle their wide range of social problems. In order to implement new approaches to improving the state of the nation, a government must somehow rid itself of corruption to divert funds in ways that invest in the education and development of regular people. Furthermore, wealthier nations should take measures to ensure that their aid reaches the most vulnerable people and also consider alternative ways (i.e., other than handouts) to help people help themselves.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Businesses and their concern with Long-term Consequences
Any business must be concerned with the long-term consequences of its actions.
Describe a specific situation in which a business might justifiably not be concerned with the long-term consequences of its actions. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a business must be concerned about the long-term consequences of its actions.
___
Businesses exist for an array of reasons. They may wish to fulfill consumer demand, ease the lives of people, and become a powerful entities and voices in society. Most importantly, they aim to make profits. Although many provide necessary services and products that allow people to survive in today's world, most make money to the detriment of the environment and human health. They should be compelled by governments to take measures to mitigate adverse long-term consequences to the environment and human health. Without taxation and regulation by governments, most industries would go about "business as usual" with free reign to pursue the highest profits possible.
While most industries contribute to environmental degradation, oil companies have gained a reputation for being the highest offender (at least in the public's consciousness). Highly publicized oil spills and their adverse effects on the environment (e.g., loss of wildlife, harm to fisheries, etc.) produced unpleasant, graphic images in Americans' minds. For instance, an investigation on the causes of the Deep Horizon oil spill of 2010 found that BP made several cost-cutting decisions resulting in the well explosion. These decisions include, among others, ignoring a failed pressure test and not plugging a pipe with cement. Failing to take precautions, indeed, was a reflection of BP's disregard for the long-term consequences of its actions.
Not only do such industries destroy the eco-system---they spread pollutants and chemicals that radically alter human beings' DNA and cause cancer. Such industries---which not only include oil companies-- inherently lack a social consciousness and therefore, need to be strictly regulated and taxed by their governments to mitigate their long-term adverse impacts on the environment and society. While an exact price cannot be put on these industries' harm to the environment, governments should refunnel tax money for environmental protection efforts. Granted, these efforts do not overcome or even cancel out the adverse actions of these industries.
Other industries are not known for their harmful environmental footprints but exploit human weakness to the detriment of their health. Companies selling unhealthy foods targeted towards children and those advertising alcohol and cigarettes are a few examples. Indeed, there is a reasonable argument to made that this is a capitalistic society where people have the freedom to buy any products they can afford. However, in a society beset by obesity and drug problems, governments should take responsibility to form policies that discourage businesses from exploiting the ignorance and recklessness of human beings. Again, such companies lack a social consciousness and will not take into account the long-term consequences of doing business without the intervention of public health advocacy groups and the government.
Ideally, all businesses should address the long-term consequences of their actions. This is especially in the case where their business leaves harmful footprints on the environment and human health. When businesses only harm themselves---and not others around them--they are not obligated by society to address long-term consequences. For instance, when a company employs people with poor customer service skills, they harm clients in the short-term. However, the long-term consequence of receiving a bad reputation in the community and then losing profits will only harm the business itself. While businesses may provide some good to society, like valuable services/products and jobs, governments and other groups must be present to keep them in check and hold them accountable for their adverse effect on the environment and human health.
Describe a specific situation in which a business might justifiably not be concerned with the long-term consequences of its actions. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a business must be concerned about the long-term consequences of its actions.
___
Businesses exist for an array of reasons. They may wish to fulfill consumer demand, ease the lives of people, and become a powerful entities and voices in society. Most importantly, they aim to make profits. Although many provide necessary services and products that allow people to survive in today's world, most make money to the detriment of the environment and human health. They should be compelled by governments to take measures to mitigate adverse long-term consequences to the environment and human health. Without taxation and regulation by governments, most industries would go about "business as usual" with free reign to pursue the highest profits possible.
While most industries contribute to environmental degradation, oil companies have gained a reputation for being the highest offender (at least in the public's consciousness). Highly publicized oil spills and their adverse effects on the environment (e.g., loss of wildlife, harm to fisheries, etc.) produced unpleasant, graphic images in Americans' minds. For instance, an investigation on the causes of the Deep Horizon oil spill of 2010 found that BP made several cost-cutting decisions resulting in the well explosion. These decisions include, among others, ignoring a failed pressure test and not plugging a pipe with cement. Failing to take precautions, indeed, was a reflection of BP's disregard for the long-term consequences of its actions.
Not only do such industries destroy the eco-system---they spread pollutants and chemicals that radically alter human beings' DNA and cause cancer. Such industries---which not only include oil companies-- inherently lack a social consciousness and therefore, need to be strictly regulated and taxed by their governments to mitigate their long-term adverse impacts on the environment and society. While an exact price cannot be put on these industries' harm to the environment, governments should refunnel tax money for environmental protection efforts. Granted, these efforts do not overcome or even cancel out the adverse actions of these industries.
Other industries are not known for their harmful environmental footprints but exploit human weakness to the detriment of their health. Companies selling unhealthy foods targeted towards children and those advertising alcohol and cigarettes are a few examples. Indeed, there is a reasonable argument to made that this is a capitalistic society where people have the freedom to buy any products they can afford. However, in a society beset by obesity and drug problems, governments should take responsibility to form policies that discourage businesses from exploiting the ignorance and recklessness of human beings. Again, such companies lack a social consciousness and will not take into account the long-term consequences of doing business without the intervention of public health advocacy groups and the government.
Ideally, all businesses should address the long-term consequences of their actions. This is especially in the case where their business leaves harmful footprints on the environment and human health. When businesses only harm themselves---and not others around them--they are not obligated by society to address long-term consequences. For instance, when a company employs people with poor customer service skills, they harm clients in the short-term. However, the long-term consequence of receiving a bad reputation in the community and then losing profits will only harm the business itself. While businesses may provide some good to society, like valuable services/products and jobs, governments and other groups must be present to keep them in check and hold them accountable for their adverse effect on the environment and human health.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Success in Business is often due to the Mistakes of others
In business, success is often due to the mistakes of others.
Describe a specific situation in which success in business might not be due to the mistakes of others. Discuss what you think determines when success in business is the result of the mistakes of others.
___
Achieving success in business usually entails determination, skill, and plain luck, among other factors . Success, of course, can signify many things. It may be measured by profits, longetivity, quality of services, extent of social utility, long-term positive impact on a community, etc. Businesses recognized as "successful" exhibit several of these indicators of success--those of which usually go hand in hand. Most importantly, however, businesses achieve success as a result of the mistakes of others. These are the past mistakes and lessons learned by the businesses' leaders and trial and error that have led to "best practices" followed by various industries.
The success of a business often depends on leadership. Leaders determine the culture of a company, plan the business trajectory, and make key decisions under pressure. Employees, of course, are also integral to success but leaders ultimately determine what direction the company takes. Indeed, people are not born as effective leaders---they cultivate their ability to lead through life experiences, education, and mistakes. Through experiences working for other businesses, leaders adapt their current practices based on what has worked and has not worked in the past. They learn from the mistakes of their superiors and strive to apply lessons in their own businesses. Many take risks that could either adversely affect the company or result in extremely high profits. It is only through experience and mistakes that these leaders are able to gauge what type of risks are in the best interest of the company.
Most industries, furthermore, have developed "best practices"--or proper processes that businesses follow to achieve desired outcomes. These "best practices" were not established overnight but rather through time. The standard processes resulted from the trial and error of several companies in various stages of their lifetimes. Indeed, many companies in the past that have contributed to the knowledge of "best practices" have not survived due to their mistakes. Current businesses, however, can profit from the accumulated knowledge of an industry and its lessons from the past.
Some businesses, however, have experienced success merely from pure luck--that is, they came into auspicious circumstances by being at the right place and at the right time. They did not necessarily gain success due to the mistakes of others. This can be exemplified by the substantial profits realized by dot com companies in the early 2000s. For example, many were able to make an initial public offering of its stock and raise a lot of money even though they have never made a profit. Granted, most of these companies dissolved as quickly as they had gained success. But a few businessmen were able to cash out and secure their profits before the bubble burst. While pure luck in certain circumstances resulted in windfalls, history and experience shows that a company's long term success hinges on more substantive factors, such as leadership abilities and business acumen--both of which are developed through the mistakes of others.
Describe a specific situation in which success in business might not be due to the mistakes of others. Discuss what you think determines when success in business is the result of the mistakes of others.
___
Achieving success in business usually entails determination, skill, and plain luck, among other factors . Success, of course, can signify many things. It may be measured by profits, longetivity, quality of services, extent of social utility, long-term positive impact on a community, etc. Businesses recognized as "successful" exhibit several of these indicators of success--those of which usually go hand in hand. Most importantly, however, businesses achieve success as a result of the mistakes of others. These are the past mistakes and lessons learned by the businesses' leaders and trial and error that have led to "best practices" followed by various industries.
The success of a business often depends on leadership. Leaders determine the culture of a company, plan the business trajectory, and make key decisions under pressure. Employees, of course, are also integral to success but leaders ultimately determine what direction the company takes. Indeed, people are not born as effective leaders---they cultivate their ability to lead through life experiences, education, and mistakes. Through experiences working for other businesses, leaders adapt their current practices based on what has worked and has not worked in the past. They learn from the mistakes of their superiors and strive to apply lessons in their own businesses. Many take risks that could either adversely affect the company or result in extremely high profits. It is only through experience and mistakes that these leaders are able to gauge what type of risks are in the best interest of the company.
Most industries, furthermore, have developed "best practices"--or proper processes that businesses follow to achieve desired outcomes. These "best practices" were not established overnight but rather through time. The standard processes resulted from the trial and error of several companies in various stages of their lifetimes. Indeed, many companies in the past that have contributed to the knowledge of "best practices" have not survived due to their mistakes. Current businesses, however, can profit from the accumulated knowledge of an industry and its lessons from the past.
Some businesses, however, have experienced success merely from pure luck--that is, they came into auspicious circumstances by being at the right place and at the right time. They did not necessarily gain success due to the mistakes of others. This can be exemplified by the substantial profits realized by dot com companies in the early 2000s. For example, many were able to make an initial public offering of its stock and raise a lot of money even though they have never made a profit. Granted, most of these companies dissolved as quickly as they had gained success. But a few businessmen were able to cash out and secure their profits before the bubble burst. While pure luck in certain circumstances resulted in windfalls, history and experience shows that a company's long term success hinges on more substantive factors, such as leadership abilities and business acumen--both of which are developed through the mistakes of others.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Objectivity in the Recording of History
In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to be objective in the recording of history. Discuss what you think determines when objectivity in the recording of history is possible and when it is not.
___
When public school teachers create lesson plans, they must follow guidelines set by national and state curriculum standards. Students use the same social studies text book for their grade level and therefore, all are inculcated in similar events of American history and accepted standards in civic education. Students are usually expected to accept the historical lessons as fact. However, the reality is that it is impossible to be completely objective in the recording of history. It is, therefore, important for teachers to teach students how to think critically about information that they come across and be aware that all analyses reflects the author's bias.
Just because recorded history cannot be completely objective does not mean it is false or tainted with errors. There is never one correct explanation for historical events and the analysis will always show (however subtle) the biases of the author. These may include, among other things, his family and educational background, consulted resources, and philosophical leanings. These biases are reflected in the analysis in myriad of ways---from what material he chooses to include and exclude, his choice in wording, etc.
A historian, however, can take steps to strive for objectivity. This can be done by first acknowledging his biases and points of views and then attempting to study and present all sides of an issue. It is, however, impossible to research, as well as write about all aspects of an issue. This fact per se shows how complete objectivity regarding historical events cannot be obtained. Certain news shows, such as NPR and PBS NewsHour, strive for a certain objectivity contrasting with material from the popular punditry shows. However, even NPR and PBS Newshour cannot be completely objective in their presentation of news (and in essence, history). The content they choose to present, for example, reflects a certain bias. Indeed, there exists degrees of what is considered more (or less) objective and NPR and NewsHour tend to rank higher than Fox News and CNN, for instance, in the "objectivity scale."
Granted, straight facts---such as dates and places of events---are considered objective recordings of history. No one, for example, can argue with the fact that the Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11 or that Nagasaki, Japan was the site ravaged by nuclear bombs during WWII. However, whether these events are included in textbooks or how these events culminated show the inherently subjective nature of the recording of history. What is recorded in textbooks, indeed, may pose significant implications for the future . Many may learn lessons and make decisions based on historical outcomes. Others choose to ignore history and make the same mistakes of the past. It is important, therefore, for historians, teachers, and journalists to understand their biases in presenting history and encourage their audiences to think critically for themselves when receiving information.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to be objective in the recording of history. Discuss what you think determines when objectivity in the recording of history is possible and when it is not.
___
When public school teachers create lesson plans, they must follow guidelines set by national and state curriculum standards. Students use the same social studies text book for their grade level and therefore, all are inculcated in similar events of American history and accepted standards in civic education. Students are usually expected to accept the historical lessons as fact. However, the reality is that it is impossible to be completely objective in the recording of history. It is, therefore, important for teachers to teach students how to think critically about information that they come across and be aware that all analyses reflects the author's bias.
Just because recorded history cannot be completely objective does not mean it is false or tainted with errors. There is never one correct explanation for historical events and the analysis will always show (however subtle) the biases of the author. These may include, among other things, his family and educational background, consulted resources, and philosophical leanings. These biases are reflected in the analysis in myriad of ways---from what material he chooses to include and exclude, his choice in wording, etc.
A historian, however, can take steps to strive for objectivity. This can be done by first acknowledging his biases and points of views and then attempting to study and present all sides of an issue. It is, however, impossible to research, as well as write about all aspects of an issue. This fact per se shows how complete objectivity regarding historical events cannot be obtained. Certain news shows, such as NPR and PBS NewsHour, strive for a certain objectivity contrasting with material from the popular punditry shows. However, even NPR and PBS Newshour cannot be completely objective in their presentation of news (and in essence, history). The content they choose to present, for example, reflects a certain bias. Indeed, there exists degrees of what is considered more (or less) objective and NPR and NewsHour tend to rank higher than Fox News and CNN, for instance, in the "objectivity scale."
Granted, straight facts---such as dates and places of events---are considered objective recordings of history. No one, for example, can argue with the fact that the Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11 or that Nagasaki, Japan was the site ravaged by nuclear bombs during WWII. However, whether these events are included in textbooks or how these events culminated show the inherently subjective nature of the recording of history. What is recorded in textbooks, indeed, may pose significant implications for the future . Many may learn lessons and make decisions based on historical outcomes. Others choose to ignore history and make the same mistakes of the past. It is important, therefore, for historians, teachers, and journalists to understand their biases in presenting history and encourage their audiences to think critically for themselves when receiving information.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Using Force to Maintain Social Order
A government's use of force to maintain social order is sometimes justified.
Describe a specific situation in which a government's use of force to maintain social order might not be justified. Discuss what you think determines when a government's use of force to maintain social order is justified and when it is not.
___
Governments employ force to varying degrees in order to maintain social order, as well as their hold of power. Specifically, they use law enforcement agencies, such as the police departments, National Guard, and DEA, to ensure that people obey the laws and act as responsible citizens. Such agencies employ force to detain and arrest suspects, quell riots, and prevent people from hurting others, among other reasons. However, in the United States, government use of force can be employed to a limited extent based on parameters established by Constitutional, statutory and case law.
Governments need to have the right to use force as a way to keep society running smoothly. Without the power of force, governments cannot effectively enforce laws and prevent a state of anarchy. Without the threat of physical force by law enforcement agencies, many people will be inclined to do as they wish in order to fulfill their selfish desires, such as trampling on the rights of other people. Of course, physical force includes a range of acts. Among the most implemented uses of force include temporarily detaining someone who has been suspected of a crime, frisking someone who might be carrying a weapon or placing someone in prison after being convicted of a crime. In other countries, the use of force may be considered extreme to Western eyes. In Singapore, for example, people are caned for vandalism. Those convicted of petty theft in certain Arab nations have their fingers cut off. In the United States, such uses of force would be considered violations of human rights.
The amount of force a law enforcement officer may use has been delineated through time in the courts. First, the US Constitution protects citizens from inappropriate government intrusion of their rights. These rights include, among others, freedoms of speech and religion, as well as protection for defendants from "cruel and unusual punishment." Use of force has also been limited in statutory and case law, which helped define what constitutes force violating citizens' rights. To put it simply, the more heinous the crime or higher the threat level posed by suspects, the more force police officers can use. In the case of convictions, the types of punishment that can be employed has been increasingly limited through the years due to constitutional interpretation.
Indeed, the threat of physical force is necessary to maintaining order in society. Given free rein, most people would not respect the laws of the land and would do whatever is necessary to fulfill their selfish desires. The presence of law enforcement agencies provides a check to people's base tendencies and helps them follow the laws and norms that hold society together. However, the legislative and judicial systems play significant roles in helping to limit the use of force and ensure that it does not amount to violations of democratic principles and human rights.
Describe a specific situation in which a government's use of force to maintain social order might not be justified. Discuss what you think determines when a government's use of force to maintain social order is justified and when it is not.
___
Governments employ force to varying degrees in order to maintain social order, as well as their hold of power. Specifically, they use law enforcement agencies, such as the police departments, National Guard, and DEA, to ensure that people obey the laws and act as responsible citizens. Such agencies employ force to detain and arrest suspects, quell riots, and prevent people from hurting others, among other reasons. However, in the United States, government use of force can be employed to a limited extent based on parameters established by Constitutional, statutory and case law.
Governments need to have the right to use force as a way to keep society running smoothly. Without the power of force, governments cannot effectively enforce laws and prevent a state of anarchy. Without the threat of physical force by law enforcement agencies, many people will be inclined to do as they wish in order to fulfill their selfish desires, such as trampling on the rights of other people. Of course, physical force includes a range of acts. Among the most implemented uses of force include temporarily detaining someone who has been suspected of a crime, frisking someone who might be carrying a weapon or placing someone in prison after being convicted of a crime. In other countries, the use of force may be considered extreme to Western eyes. In Singapore, for example, people are caned for vandalism. Those convicted of petty theft in certain Arab nations have their fingers cut off. In the United States, such uses of force would be considered violations of human rights.
The amount of force a law enforcement officer may use has been delineated through time in the courts. First, the US Constitution protects citizens from inappropriate government intrusion of their rights. These rights include, among others, freedoms of speech and religion, as well as protection for defendants from "cruel and unusual punishment." Use of force has also been limited in statutory and case law, which helped define what constitutes force violating citizens' rights. To put it simply, the more heinous the crime or higher the threat level posed by suspects, the more force police officers can use. In the case of convictions, the types of punishment that can be employed has been increasingly limited through the years due to constitutional interpretation.
Indeed, the threat of physical force is necessary to maintaining order in society. Given free rein, most people would not respect the laws of the land and would do whatever is necessary to fulfill their selfish desires. The presence of law enforcement agencies provides a check to people's base tendencies and helps them follow the laws and norms that hold society together. However, the legislative and judicial systems play significant roles in helping to limit the use of force and ensure that it does not amount to violations of democratic principles and human rights.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Public Figures and Privacy
A person who enters public life is necessarily forced to surrender some degree of personal privacy.
Describe a specific situation in which a public figure should not have to surrender personal privacy. Discuss what you think determines when a public figure's personal privacy ought to be surrendered.
___
In most supermarkets, the check-out counters are lined with magazine stacks feeding customers' appetite for celebrity gossip. Politicians' extra-marital affairs, actresses' weight gain/loss, and exotic destinations frequented by public figures provide entertainment to regular people who need relief from their mundane lives. People dream about becoming famous and recognized by complete strangers. However, they do not think about the compromises celebrities make in leading public life---such as giving up their privacy. Laws in the US make it difficult for these public figures to claim relief for defamatory actions taken by writers and publishers. While most of these celebrities enter public life knowing that they enjoy less privacy, they still deserve some degree of privacy to preserve their dignity as human beings.
Privacy is not stated as protected right per se in the US Constitution. However, court judges have deemed that privacy is implicitly protected by the Constitution through various amendments, as well as through case precedent. The government recognizes basic protections from intrusions on our physical selves, as well as certain personal information. A regular citizen may also bring defamation and libel suits alleging that certain people or the government has stated or written incorrect, harmful statements. Those deemed to be public figures---usually actors/actresses, politicians, and prominent business leaders---however, are held to a higher burden of proof. They must not only demonstrate the untruthfulness of he comment---they, unlike private actors, have to show that the defendant acted with malice, knowing that he was spreading lies or showing a reckless disregard for the truth. This higher burden of prove makes it more difficult for public figures to successfully sue on defamation.
Most celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that their privacy will be compromised. People will be curious about their lives beyond their livelihood. People--especially young fans---will view the celebrities as role models and emulate their dress, mannerisms, and all aspects of their personality. Despite an expectation for losing privacy, these public figures still deserve to maintain certain information to themselves and be free from unwanted intrusion. For example, it is inappropriate to attack and judge minor children of celebrities--unless, of course, these people make an effort to be famous through certain public actions. When Bill Clinton held office, some journalists showed bad taste by poking fun at the appearance of his minor-aged daughter. Meddling into the sexual affairs of celebrities usually should be off limits. However, if these affairs affect the public's trust of the figure---usually a prominent politician---there is some argument that he does not deserve privacy in this arena. A recent example includes revelations that a married Congressman, Anthony Weiner, used his public persona to draw in women and send lewd pictures online.
If celebrities were given the same proof of burden to successfully pursue defamation law suits, they would be earning much more above their regular salaries via the court system. These celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that they will have to compromise their privacy and have countless articles dedicated to them. They realize that the publicity will not always be positive news regarding their performance in movies or their accomplishments in office. Sometimes the news will be vile and even pry into their family and intimate relationships. As human beings, these public figures also deserve a certain extent of privacy and should be able to defend themselves against lies that are maliciously spread to hurt their reputation and livelihood.
Describe a specific situation in which a public figure should not have to surrender personal privacy. Discuss what you think determines when a public figure's personal privacy ought to be surrendered.
___
In most supermarkets, the check-out counters are lined with magazine stacks feeding customers' appetite for celebrity gossip. Politicians' extra-marital affairs, actresses' weight gain/loss, and exotic destinations frequented by public figures provide entertainment to regular people who need relief from their mundane lives. People dream about becoming famous and recognized by complete strangers. However, they do not think about the compromises celebrities make in leading public life---such as giving up their privacy. Laws in the US make it difficult for these public figures to claim relief for defamatory actions taken by writers and publishers. While most of these celebrities enter public life knowing that they enjoy less privacy, they still deserve some degree of privacy to preserve their dignity as human beings.
Privacy is not stated as protected right per se in the US Constitution. However, court judges have deemed that privacy is implicitly protected by the Constitution through various amendments, as well as through case precedent. The government recognizes basic protections from intrusions on our physical selves, as well as certain personal information. A regular citizen may also bring defamation and libel suits alleging that certain people or the government has stated or written incorrect, harmful statements. Those deemed to be public figures---usually actors/actresses, politicians, and prominent business leaders---however, are held to a higher burden of proof. They must not only demonstrate the untruthfulness of he comment---they, unlike private actors, have to show that the defendant acted with malice, knowing that he was spreading lies or showing a reckless disregard for the truth. This higher burden of prove makes it more difficult for public figures to successfully sue on defamation.
Most celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that their privacy will be compromised. People will be curious about their lives beyond their livelihood. People--especially young fans---will view the celebrities as role models and emulate their dress, mannerisms, and all aspects of their personality. Despite an expectation for losing privacy, these public figures still deserve to maintain certain information to themselves and be free from unwanted intrusion. For example, it is inappropriate to attack and judge minor children of celebrities--unless, of course, these people make an effort to be famous through certain public actions. When Bill Clinton held office, some journalists showed bad taste by poking fun at the appearance of his minor-aged daughter. Meddling into the sexual affairs of celebrities usually should be off limits. However, if these affairs affect the public's trust of the figure---usually a prominent politician---there is some argument that he does not deserve privacy in this arena. A recent example includes revelations that a married Congressman, Anthony Weiner, used his public persona to draw in women and send lewd pictures online.
If celebrities were given the same proof of burden to successfully pursue defamation law suits, they would be earning much more above their regular salaries via the court system. These celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that they will have to compromise their privacy and have countless articles dedicated to them. They realize that the publicity will not always be positive news regarding their performance in movies or their accomplishments in office. Sometimes the news will be vile and even pry into their family and intimate relationships. As human beings, these public figures also deserve a certain extent of privacy and should be able to defend themselves against lies that are maliciously spread to hurt their reputation and livelihood.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Offering Hope as a Politician
The surest way to political success is to offer hope to the voters.
Describe a specific situation in which offering hope to the voters might not lead to political success. Discuss what you think determines when offering hope to the voters will lead to political success and when it will not.
___
In November 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential race of the United States. He campaigned under the mantra of hope and change for a more positive direction in the United States. Obama successfully rallied the support of sectors of society that do not normally participate in politics---that is, youth and minorities. Even those who normally participate in politics were enthralled by his rhetoric and message for change in a society disillusioned by a seemingly never-ending war in Iraq. While his promise of hope helped him gain political victory, the lack of positive change into the middle of his term has left a majority of the populace disillusioned and looking to other potential presidential candidates in 2012. Indeed, a message of hope may draw in voters but the lack of positive change after a while in office will ruin the politician's chance to win another term.
The President is the most visible leader of the United States. However, the separation of powers ensures that other branches of government, including the legislature and the judiciary, provide a check against executive power. While others share power in running the country, the President is viewed by the citizens as being most responsible for the trajectory of their country. For example, economic shifts are attributed directly to the President, although the ups and downs are determined mostly by other factors not under the control of the administration. Furthermore, the President does not only make key decisions in conjunction with other branches of government---he is responsible for uplifting the people and using his charisma to spread high morale and encourage citizens to be patient during difficult economic and political times. All in all, people look to the President as a role model and father figure of our nation.
President Obama campaigned under a promise of hope and attempted to continue his message while in power. However, in the midst of a sluggish recession, 9.2% unemployment rates, and troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, people have become restless and unconvinced about hanging on to hope. Recent times have shown that citizens can hold onto hope for so long. Hope for change must be accompanied by positive change for people to trust their leader and continue re-electing him. While the economic situation may have been caused in part by decisions made under the previous administration, people expect results after two years of a new president. Unfortunately, the morale of the people has been low, especially since many have lost their jobs and more are afraid of losing their jobs. President Obama is now largely seen as a contributor, if not the cause, of a sluggish economy. While he attempts to fulfill his presidential role as the country's motivator, he slowly loses grip of his chances for re-election as the country fails to see positive results.
Indeed, a message of hope may help propel politicians into office. Obama not only promised changes in the political dynamics of the country by being more open to diplomatic efforts abroad---His unique background as an African-American man raised in Hawaii and Indonesia represented a symbolic change in the nation's trajectory. Youth, ethnic minorities and even members of the status quo rallied with him as a way to view a future of an integrated, more peaceful United States. While the promises of hope helped the term begin with a fresh lens and revived atmosphere, the seemingly lack of results in the mid-term threatens to kill the hope held by the nation and open way to new leadership in 2012.
Describe a specific situation in which offering hope to the voters might not lead to political success. Discuss what you think determines when offering hope to the voters will lead to political success and when it will not.
___
In November 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential race of the United States. He campaigned under the mantra of hope and change for a more positive direction in the United States. Obama successfully rallied the support of sectors of society that do not normally participate in politics---that is, youth and minorities. Even those who normally participate in politics were enthralled by his rhetoric and message for change in a society disillusioned by a seemingly never-ending war in Iraq. While his promise of hope helped him gain political victory, the lack of positive change into the middle of his term has left a majority of the populace disillusioned and looking to other potential presidential candidates in 2012. Indeed, a message of hope may draw in voters but the lack of positive change after a while in office will ruin the politician's chance to win another term.
The President is the most visible leader of the United States. However, the separation of powers ensures that other branches of government, including the legislature and the judiciary, provide a check against executive power. While others share power in running the country, the President is viewed by the citizens as being most responsible for the trajectory of their country. For example, economic shifts are attributed directly to the President, although the ups and downs are determined mostly by other factors not under the control of the administration. Furthermore, the President does not only make key decisions in conjunction with other branches of government---he is responsible for uplifting the people and using his charisma to spread high morale and encourage citizens to be patient during difficult economic and political times. All in all, people look to the President as a role model and father figure of our nation.
President Obama campaigned under a promise of hope and attempted to continue his message while in power. However, in the midst of a sluggish recession, 9.2% unemployment rates, and troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, people have become restless and unconvinced about hanging on to hope. Recent times have shown that citizens can hold onto hope for so long. Hope for change must be accompanied by positive change for people to trust their leader and continue re-electing him. While the economic situation may have been caused in part by decisions made under the previous administration, people expect results after two years of a new president. Unfortunately, the morale of the people has been low, especially since many have lost their jobs and more are afraid of losing their jobs. President Obama is now largely seen as a contributor, if not the cause, of a sluggish economy. While he attempts to fulfill his presidential role as the country's motivator, he slowly loses grip of his chances for re-election as the country fails to see positive results.
Indeed, a message of hope may help propel politicians into office. Obama not only promised changes in the political dynamics of the country by being more open to diplomatic efforts abroad---His unique background as an African-American man raised in Hawaii and Indonesia represented a symbolic change in the nation's trajectory. Youth, ethnic minorities and even members of the status quo rallied with him as a way to view a future of an integrated, more peaceful United States. While the promises of hope helped the term begin with a fresh lens and revived atmosphere, the seemingly lack of results in the mid-term threatens to kill the hope held by the nation and open way to new leadership in 2012.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Group v. Individual Work
Progress seldom comes from the deliberations of a group. Rather, progress most often comes from the creative thinking of individuals working alone.
Describe a specific situation in which progress might come from the deliberations of a group rather than the creative thinking of individuals working alone. Discuss what you think determines whether the deliberations of a group or the creative thinking of individuals working alone will result in progress.
___
One of the key goals pursued in the American education system is to socialize young people and give them the skills to be able to work in groups. The United States is more focused on individual---not communal--needs relative to other nations; however, the ability to work well with others is stressed as a way to achieve better results on a personal and professional level. In school, group work is often emphasized as a way for people to share ideas and come up with solutions that would not have been realized had members worked on an individual basis. Whether group work, as opposed to work done by individuals, results in more progress really depends on the quality of the people within the group. Important factors include each member's initiative, talent and ability to work effectively with others.
Sometimes group work will not result in progress. People often have the tendency to not work to their full capacity when other people in their group share responsibility for completing a project. They might assume that other members of the group will complete their share of the project. When most or if all members of the group carry this work mentality, the project will not be a success. In other cases, groups may be composed of members who are not intelligent or capable of thinking creatively. Even if they work well as a group, the results will still be of sub-par quality. On the other hand, a group composed of high quality people with both initiative and intelligence may come up with better results than if those same members would work on an individual basis.
Furthermore, some people work better on their own. Being part of a group may be a distraction to their innate creative forces. Time alone to contemplate and work on problems for these people may result in progress and the best solutions. Working in groups often poses challenges of veering off topic, interrupting thought processes, and certain individuals dominating the discussion and decision-making. Some people, however, work more effectively when around other people. They receive inspiration from hearing several ideas and can focus more on the task on hand with people having the same goals.
Whether group work or individual work results in "progress" really depends on the make-up of the members. Some people tend to be more effective on an individual basis and receive creative inspiration when having not to deal with the distraction of various members. Other people tend to slack off and rely on the initiative of the rest of the group whereas they would have taken more responsibility working alone. The group's progress also depends on the individual capabilities of members; a group composed of creative, hardworking people will most likely yield progress. As the old saying goes, a group is only as strong as its weakest link.
Describe a specific situation in which progress might come from the deliberations of a group rather than the creative thinking of individuals working alone. Discuss what you think determines whether the deliberations of a group or the creative thinking of individuals working alone will result in progress.
___
One of the key goals pursued in the American education system is to socialize young people and give them the skills to be able to work in groups. The United States is more focused on individual---not communal--needs relative to other nations; however, the ability to work well with others is stressed as a way to achieve better results on a personal and professional level. In school, group work is often emphasized as a way for people to share ideas and come up with solutions that would not have been realized had members worked on an individual basis. Whether group work, as opposed to work done by individuals, results in more progress really depends on the quality of the people within the group. Important factors include each member's initiative, talent and ability to work effectively with others.
Sometimes group work will not result in progress. People often have the tendency to not work to their full capacity when other people in their group share responsibility for completing a project. They might assume that other members of the group will complete their share of the project. When most or if all members of the group carry this work mentality, the project will not be a success. In other cases, groups may be composed of members who are not intelligent or capable of thinking creatively. Even if they work well as a group, the results will still be of sub-par quality. On the other hand, a group composed of high quality people with both initiative and intelligence may come up with better results than if those same members would work on an individual basis.
Furthermore, some people work better on their own. Being part of a group may be a distraction to their innate creative forces. Time alone to contemplate and work on problems for these people may result in progress and the best solutions. Working in groups often poses challenges of veering off topic, interrupting thought processes, and certain individuals dominating the discussion and decision-making. Some people, however, work more effectively when around other people. They receive inspiration from hearing several ideas and can focus more on the task on hand with people having the same goals.
Whether group work or individual work results in "progress" really depends on the make-up of the members. Some people tend to be more effective on an individual basis and receive creative inspiration when having not to deal with the distraction of various members. Other people tend to slack off and rely on the initiative of the rest of the group whereas they would have taken more responsibility working alone. The group's progress also depends on the individual capabilities of members; a group composed of creative, hardworking people will most likely yield progress. As the old saying goes, a group is only as strong as its weakest link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)