Celebrities, having sought fame, lose their right to privacy.
Describe a specific situation in which a celebrity should not lose the right to privacy. Discuss what you think determines whether or not celebrities should lose their right to privacy.
___
The obsession with celebrity and the Hollywood lifestyle are hallmarks of twenty-first century American culture. Paparazzi constantly follow stars and regular people buy the magazines to follow their everyday moves and private relationships. Many women have plastic surgery to look more like celebrities and even mimic their manner of dress and talk. Indeed, celebrities, having sought fame, lose their right to privacy. They are fully aware of the culture's fixation with Hollywood and realize the costs of seeking fame. Even the Constitution makes it more difficult of celebrities to seek damages for invasion of privacy. Of course, there still exists some legal limits as to how far a celebrity's privacy can be invaded.
Celebrities realize that taking part in high-featured films and attending star-studded events will increase their fame and desirability in the media. They also raise their chances to take part in more prominent roles in the future. Celebrities realize that growing their careers will necessarily involve increasing interest in their private lives. Many celebrities also go out of their way to seek fame by releasing sex tapes and making themselves readily available for paparazzi shots. Of course, these types of celebrities should have absolutely no expectation of privacy. Other famous people exhibit more dignity and respect for themselves by avoiding unneeded attention. However, many aspects of their lives are still deemed fair game, including where they go out to share dinner with their loved one and where they happen to shop for groceries.
The Constitution makes it more difficult for celebrities (as opposed to private citizens) to sue on the basis of libel and defamation. If a smut magazine wrongly links an actress to her co-star, she will not be successful in claiming damages in court. Specifically, she has the additional burden of proving malicious intent of the authors. Regular citizens, on the other hand, need not prove this burden to sue successfully. The law, however, still grants celebrities basic privacy rights. For example, paparazzi may not enter the private homes or cars of celebrities.
Indeed, Americans should realize that their deified celebrities are people who have feelings and faults. They also have children they want to protect and wish to be treated with the basic dignity that every human being deserves. Some magazines have crossed this line by taking shots of children and even chasing cars. Paparazzi are also known for climbing walls and trespassing on private property to get "money" shots of stars sunbathing in the nude. These types of privacy invasion should not be tolerated and expected by celebrities. Unfortunately, Americans feed the demand for these pictures and are more likely to support publications that show stars in revealing positions. As spying and communication technologies improve, celebrities will find their privacy being compromised in more ways.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime
A nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation's foreign aid might justifiably not be directed to help those countries that help themselves. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.
___
In a period of economic hardship, citizens of wealthy nations question why their strained budgets continue to make room for foreign aid. As the government slashes its jobs by the thousands, many insist that aid to developing countries should be halted or placed in the backburner. However, wealthy nations do not aid poor countries for purely humanitarian reasons. Rather, there exist quid pro quo agreements that help advance the donor's various economic and national security interests. While donors can benefit greatly from giving foreign aid, they still must make sure that the resources go to countries that help themselves. When operating a system that encourages corruption and/or dependence, donors cause great harm to the receiving countries.
It is well known that foreign aid often does not reach those who really need it. Indeed, the majority of poor nations are ruled by corrupt leaders that end up hording the aid for their personal enrichment. Donor countries are aware of this problem but do not do much to resolve it because the corrupt leaders are the decision-makers that can help expand markets and also influence domestic policies. Wealthy nations, however, should help further transparency in these countries by minimizing corruption in government. By turning a blind eye to the mishandling of aid, donor countries further the corruption problems.
Donor nations should make an effort to make sure they give a "hand up" not "hand outs." For instance, if the donor nation continually gives out bags of food on a consistent basis, receiving countries will become dependent and not make enough efforts to develop their own industries. These bags of food also skew the economic balance in the receiving country by putting farmers out of work and adversely affecting local industries. Instead of giving hand outs, donor nations should promote development programs that help local people build knowledge and skills to become independent and compete in the world.
Granted, wealthy nations should feel obliged to give aid in certain cases regardless of whether the receiving country takes steps to help themselves. From time to time, sudden, major natural disasters strike and leave millions without food and water. Governments cannot handle the overwhelming demand for aid and wealthier countries step in to support humanitarian efforts. The Haiti earthquakes and Asian tsunamis in the past decade are examples where wealthier people of the world and governments exhibited their magnanimity and sincere concern for the victims.
In times of sudden national disasters, foreign aid is essential in preventing the death of millions of victims. Foreign aid, however, serves more purposes than purely humanitarian ones and can help wealthy nations influence policies in their favor, among other things. These donor nations should, however, be cognizant of the effect that the aid has in receiving countries. They should ensure that the aid reaches those who really need it and verify that receiving countries are doing their part by taking real responsibility for their own problems.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation's foreign aid might justifiably not be directed to help those countries that help themselves. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.
___
In a period of economic hardship, citizens of wealthy nations question why their strained budgets continue to make room for foreign aid. As the government slashes its jobs by the thousands, many insist that aid to developing countries should be halted or placed in the backburner. However, wealthy nations do not aid poor countries for purely humanitarian reasons. Rather, there exist quid pro quo agreements that help advance the donor's various economic and national security interests. While donors can benefit greatly from giving foreign aid, they still must make sure that the resources go to countries that help themselves. When operating a system that encourages corruption and/or dependence, donors cause great harm to the receiving countries.
It is well known that foreign aid often does not reach those who really need it. Indeed, the majority of poor nations are ruled by corrupt leaders that end up hording the aid for their personal enrichment. Donor countries are aware of this problem but do not do much to resolve it because the corrupt leaders are the decision-makers that can help expand markets and also influence domestic policies. Wealthy nations, however, should help further transparency in these countries by minimizing corruption in government. By turning a blind eye to the mishandling of aid, donor countries further the corruption problems.
Donor nations should make an effort to make sure they give a "hand up" not "hand outs." For instance, if the donor nation continually gives out bags of food on a consistent basis, receiving countries will become dependent and not make enough efforts to develop their own industries. These bags of food also skew the economic balance in the receiving country by putting farmers out of work and adversely affecting local industries. Instead of giving hand outs, donor nations should promote development programs that help local people build knowledge and skills to become independent and compete in the world.
Granted, wealthy nations should feel obliged to give aid in certain cases regardless of whether the receiving country takes steps to help themselves. From time to time, sudden, major natural disasters strike and leave millions without food and water. Governments cannot handle the overwhelming demand for aid and wealthier countries step in to support humanitarian efforts. The Haiti earthquakes and Asian tsunamis in the past decade are examples where wealthier people of the world and governments exhibited their magnanimity and sincere concern for the victims.
In times of sudden national disasters, foreign aid is essential in preventing the death of millions of victims. Foreign aid, however, serves more purposes than purely humanitarian ones and can help wealthy nations influence policies in their favor, among other things. These donor nations should, however, be cognizant of the effect that the aid has in receiving countries. They should ensure that the aid reaches those who really need it and verify that receiving countries are doing their part by taking real responsibility for their own problems.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Teachers must Accept Responsibility for Student Failure
Teachers must accept partial responsibility for the failure of any of their students.
Describe a specific situation in which a teacher might justifiably not accept some responsibility for the failure of a student. Discuss what you think determines whether or not teachers should accept some responsibility for the failure of one of their students.
___
For the past decade or so, the quality of American schools has increasingly drawn scrutiny. Student scores in math and reading in most states have dropped relative to other countries in the world. Americans fear that the abilities of students in rising economic powers, such as China and India, have surpassed those of the United States. In effect, the legislature has passed several laws in attempt to raise standards in American schools. For example, the "No Child Left Behind" act has focused on teachers and the need to make them more accountable to student performance. In a sense, the reforms force schools and teachers to accept partial responsibility for the failure of any of their students.
To an extent, teachers should accept some responsibility when the students fail. The concept of "failure," of course, can be subjective. Each class has different structures of grading---for instance, what qualifies as a B in one class may be an F in another class. Federal reforms have attempted to level the playing field by holding schools and students to the same standards. Namely, national standardized testing helps judge whether schools and teachers are doing an adequate job. The failure of students on the test has resulted in schools not receiving funding and teachers being fired. In a sense, it is important for teachers to know whether their students are meeting standards. By taking responsibility for student failure, a teacher can start to modify his teaching style and reach out to at-risk students in order to improve future results. By not accepting responsibility, a teacher become complacent and feel that there is absolutely nothing she can do to positively affect a student's future.
Granted, there are some cases where a teacher might not justifiably accept some responsibility for a student's failure. It can be argued that the failure of some urban schools to meet national standards is a systemic problem. Teachers cannot be blamed in these cases where a number of obstacles stand in the way of student academic success. Some of these factors include poor family environment, endemic drug use in the community, lack of respect for education in a cultural setting, etc. All these obstacles converge and essentially ensure that children will not become productive members of society. Undoubtedly, there is not a lot that teachers can do to intervene in this downward spiral.
While there may exist "hopeless" cases, teachers would better serve their students if they take responsibility for their student's failure. Teachers may not have the ability to motivate an at-risk kid to attend college and receive a degree. However, they can nurture practical life skills that might just prevent them from joining a gang or selling drugs. Just the simple act of showing that they care may make even a slight difference in the future of children who have been neglected their whole lives. Indeed, a system that allows teachers to just sit back and accept failure in their students further contributes to America's downfall and inability to compete in the world economy.
Describe a specific situation in which a teacher might justifiably not accept some responsibility for the failure of a student. Discuss what you think determines whether or not teachers should accept some responsibility for the failure of one of their students.
___
For the past decade or so, the quality of American schools has increasingly drawn scrutiny. Student scores in math and reading in most states have dropped relative to other countries in the world. Americans fear that the abilities of students in rising economic powers, such as China and India, have surpassed those of the United States. In effect, the legislature has passed several laws in attempt to raise standards in American schools. For example, the "No Child Left Behind" act has focused on teachers and the need to make them more accountable to student performance. In a sense, the reforms force schools and teachers to accept partial responsibility for the failure of any of their students.
To an extent, teachers should accept some responsibility when the students fail. The concept of "failure," of course, can be subjective. Each class has different structures of grading---for instance, what qualifies as a B in one class may be an F in another class. Federal reforms have attempted to level the playing field by holding schools and students to the same standards. Namely, national standardized testing helps judge whether schools and teachers are doing an adequate job. The failure of students on the test has resulted in schools not receiving funding and teachers being fired. In a sense, it is important for teachers to know whether their students are meeting standards. By taking responsibility for student failure, a teacher can start to modify his teaching style and reach out to at-risk students in order to improve future results. By not accepting responsibility, a teacher become complacent and feel that there is absolutely nothing she can do to positively affect a student's future.
Granted, there are some cases where a teacher might not justifiably accept some responsibility for a student's failure. It can be argued that the failure of some urban schools to meet national standards is a systemic problem. Teachers cannot be blamed in these cases where a number of obstacles stand in the way of student academic success. Some of these factors include poor family environment, endemic drug use in the community, lack of respect for education in a cultural setting, etc. All these obstacles converge and essentially ensure that children will not become productive members of society. Undoubtedly, there is not a lot that teachers can do to intervene in this downward spiral.
While there may exist "hopeless" cases, teachers would better serve their students if they take responsibility for their student's failure. Teachers may not have the ability to motivate an at-risk kid to attend college and receive a degree. However, they can nurture practical life skills that might just prevent them from joining a gang or selling drugs. Just the simple act of showing that they care may make even a slight difference in the future of children who have been neglected their whole lives. Indeed, a system that allows teachers to just sit back and accept failure in their students further contributes to America's downfall and inability to compete in the world economy.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Following a Hunch as a Researcher
A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.
___
In American high schools, students are introduced to research methods in science classes. These guidelines encourage them to solve problems in an objective, disciplined manner--as opposed to a random, unfocused study of subjects. However, as a student advances in his scientific career, he realizes that creative solutions to solving research questions may involve following one's intuition and stepping outside the boundaries of the common methodology. Following one's hunch to arrive at a solution can be applied not only to academic research but to problems in the real world.
There is merit in following established methodology in conducting research. An array of scientists throughout time have established best practices for what works in the laboratory. Their experience and guidelines help move forward the research of today's scientists. Indeed, applying lessons from the past entails discipline and thorough examination of the question at hand. In particular, the trusted "scientific method"--a template of inquiry involving systematic observation, hypothesis, experiments, etc.--has been used by researchers for hundreds of years to solve various questions.
The scientific method has served as a general guideline for going about research but it is a fluid process; sometimes luck and hunches play significant roles in new discoveries. That is, use of the creative mind allows a researcher to go where no other has gone before. Merely following the exact paths taken in the past will not allow the researcher to come upon a new discovery. This statement can be applied to other areas of life where taking great risks may result in greater outcomes (or if unlucky, a worse outcome). Following a hunch and veering off a common path may result in some ridicule from peer researchers but there may be a chance to stumble upon a new discovery.
Indeed, successful researchers do not limit themselves to proven methodologies. Of course, they have mastered what is known as the best practices and have proven to be disciplined and painstaking in their research. However, they possess an entrepreneurial spirit in that they are not afraid to follow their intuition and follow a path toward new discoveries.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.
___
In American high schools, students are introduced to research methods in science classes. These guidelines encourage them to solve problems in an objective, disciplined manner--as opposed to a random, unfocused study of subjects. However, as a student advances in his scientific career, he realizes that creative solutions to solving research questions may involve following one's intuition and stepping outside the boundaries of the common methodology. Following one's hunch to arrive at a solution can be applied not only to academic research but to problems in the real world.
There is merit in following established methodology in conducting research. An array of scientists throughout time have established best practices for what works in the laboratory. Their experience and guidelines help move forward the research of today's scientists. Indeed, applying lessons from the past entails discipline and thorough examination of the question at hand. In particular, the trusted "scientific method"--a template of inquiry involving systematic observation, hypothesis, experiments, etc.--has been used by researchers for hundreds of years to solve various questions.
The scientific method has served as a general guideline for going about research but it is a fluid process; sometimes luck and hunches play significant roles in new discoveries. That is, use of the creative mind allows a researcher to go where no other has gone before. Merely following the exact paths taken in the past will not allow the researcher to come upon a new discovery. This statement can be applied to other areas of life where taking great risks may result in greater outcomes (or if unlucky, a worse outcome). Following a hunch and veering off a common path may result in some ridicule from peer researchers but there may be a chance to stumble upon a new discovery.
Indeed, successful researchers do not limit themselves to proven methodologies. Of course, they have mastered what is known as the best practices and have proven to be disciplined and painstaking in their research. However, they possess an entrepreneurial spirit in that they are not afraid to follow their intuition and follow a path toward new discoveries.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Does Praise teach Better than Criticism?
Praise teaches better than criticism.
Describe a specific situation in which praise might not teach better than criticism. Discuss what you think determines whether praise or criticism teaches better.
___
News articles have brought attention to certain characteristics of American children growing up in the 1980s and 1990s. Namely, they have been described as coddled and self-absorbed--unable to take criticism, not so resilient during hard times and perhaps more susceptible to depression and drug abuse. These characteristics have often been partly attributed to a cultural focus on raising self esteem in classrooms and recognizing the "uniqueness" of each child. Indeed, praise can prove effective in reinforcing positive behavior; however, children need constructive criticism in order to understand the true nature of their abilities and also build "thicker" skin to withstand challenging situations.
Praise has the effect of encouraging people to pursue endeavors they believe they excel in. Praise often helps release a burst of energy in people--motivating them to continue deserving the positive words lavished on them. In reality, no one enjoys having their faults pointed out but most everyone appreciates genuine positive reinforcement. Especially for people (e.g., the 1980s/1990s children) not accustomed to criticism, praise often is more effective in maintaining positive behavior. The praise, however, must be genuine and not given solely for the sake of raising self esteem. One given underserved praise will eventually become disillusioned and upset upon learning how his abilities really fair against others.
Criticism may teach better if given in a constructive manner. The way to give criticism is sort of an art that most people have not mastered. The criticism, for instance, should not directly strike at the ego but should be worded in a way that is sensitive and encourages positive change in a person. Criticism given in the wrong manner may ruin relationships of trust and even cause the receiver to act out in perverse ways. This art of giving constructive criticism grew out of the movement to raise self esteem in 1980s/1990s school children; however, many parents and teachers felt too protective of the children's feelings and failed to give out useful criticism to assist them in entering the harsh real world.
Praise often teaches better than criticism in that people readily receive positive words. Especially if unaccustomed to criticism, people will often shut down when they feel personally attacked. Indeed, a dose of criticism is necessary of everyone to gain perspective on their abilities and behavior. Too much praise and no criticism encourages over-inflated egos and an inability to handle challenges in life.
Describe a specific situation in which praise might not teach better than criticism. Discuss what you think determines whether praise or criticism teaches better.
___
News articles have brought attention to certain characteristics of American children growing up in the 1980s and 1990s. Namely, they have been described as coddled and self-absorbed--unable to take criticism, not so resilient during hard times and perhaps more susceptible to depression and drug abuse. These characteristics have often been partly attributed to a cultural focus on raising self esteem in classrooms and recognizing the "uniqueness" of each child. Indeed, praise can prove effective in reinforcing positive behavior; however, children need constructive criticism in order to understand the true nature of their abilities and also build "thicker" skin to withstand challenging situations.
Praise has the effect of encouraging people to pursue endeavors they believe they excel in. Praise often helps release a burst of energy in people--motivating them to continue deserving the positive words lavished on them. In reality, no one enjoys having their faults pointed out but most everyone appreciates genuine positive reinforcement. Especially for people (e.g., the 1980s/1990s children) not accustomed to criticism, praise often is more effective in maintaining positive behavior. The praise, however, must be genuine and not given solely for the sake of raising self esteem. One given underserved praise will eventually become disillusioned and upset upon learning how his abilities really fair against others.
Criticism may teach better if given in a constructive manner. The way to give criticism is sort of an art that most people have not mastered. The criticism, for instance, should not directly strike at the ego but should be worded in a way that is sensitive and encourages positive change in a person. Criticism given in the wrong manner may ruin relationships of trust and even cause the receiver to act out in perverse ways. This art of giving constructive criticism grew out of the movement to raise self esteem in 1980s/1990s school children; however, many parents and teachers felt too protective of the children's feelings and failed to give out useful criticism to assist them in entering the harsh real world.
Praise often teaches better than criticism in that people readily receive positive words. Especially if unaccustomed to criticism, people will often shut down when they feel personally attacked. Indeed, a dose of criticism is necessary of everyone to gain perspective on their abilities and behavior. Too much praise and no criticism encourages over-inflated egos and an inability to handle challenges in life.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Government should not regulate scientific research?
The government should not regulate scientific research.
Describe a specific situation in which the government should regulate scientific research. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the government should regulate scientific research.
___
Part of what has helped push the United States to the forefront is its leadership in innovation and research. In this democratic nation, citizens are encouraged to break scientific boundaries and pursue interests that improve the quality of human life. Regulation of scientific research by the government should be minimized in order to foster the spirit of innovation that defines America. However, some regulations are necessary in order to ensure public safety and national security.
One may view attempts at government regulation of scientific research with a skeptical eye due to the ubiquitous influence of special interests. Laws and regulations of the United States are sometimes proposed and passed as a result of lobbying efforts by powerful interest groups. These groups may not represent the best interest of the American public and they often can buy the votes of lawmakers who create policy and regulations. Some scientists may find themselves unable to move forward with research due to regulations pushed forward by these special interests groups. Indeed, it is important to evaluate the purpose of proposed regulations created by groups that do not necessarily represent the public interest.
Regulating scientific research may also pose constitutional questions. A government's attempt at limiting research might infringe on a scientist's first amendment rights in certain circumstances. For example, the government may be acting improperly if it is trying to prohibit the growth of knowledge in an area of research. As alluded to in the previous paragraph, government officials may be receiving support from private industries and therefore represent their interests in pushing forward (or preventing) regulations.
The government is responsible for protecting the public and therefore, needs to set basic regulations on scientific research. For instance, vulnerable citizens should be protected from being used as human guinea pigs and certain guidelines exist to ensure that these people are aware of their rights. Scientists also may not conduct research in a way that causes environmental degradation. While the research itself may not cause any harm, the government might have a right to prevent projects that pose potential threats to the public.
There are several scientific areas that have been subject to controversy---among those include stem-cell research, genetically modified foods, and in vitro sex selection. The public has various opinions on how involved the government should be in regulating and funding such research. In the United States, citizens differ on the role of government and how far its power should extend. Most agree that the government should intervene in cases where scientific research pose an imminent threat to citizens. Its ability to regulate beyond that, however, may be questioned by citizens who believe in a "limited" government.
Describe a specific situation in which the government should regulate scientific research. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the government should regulate scientific research.
___
Part of what has helped push the United States to the forefront is its leadership in innovation and research. In this democratic nation, citizens are encouraged to break scientific boundaries and pursue interests that improve the quality of human life. Regulation of scientific research by the government should be minimized in order to foster the spirit of innovation that defines America. However, some regulations are necessary in order to ensure public safety and national security.
One may view attempts at government regulation of scientific research with a skeptical eye due to the ubiquitous influence of special interests. Laws and regulations of the United States are sometimes proposed and passed as a result of lobbying efforts by powerful interest groups. These groups may not represent the best interest of the American public and they often can buy the votes of lawmakers who create policy and regulations. Some scientists may find themselves unable to move forward with research due to regulations pushed forward by these special interests groups. Indeed, it is important to evaluate the purpose of proposed regulations created by groups that do not necessarily represent the public interest.
Regulating scientific research may also pose constitutional questions. A government's attempt at limiting research might infringe on a scientist's first amendment rights in certain circumstances. For example, the government may be acting improperly if it is trying to prohibit the growth of knowledge in an area of research. As alluded to in the previous paragraph, government officials may be receiving support from private industries and therefore represent their interests in pushing forward (or preventing) regulations.
The government is responsible for protecting the public and therefore, needs to set basic regulations on scientific research. For instance, vulnerable citizens should be protected from being used as human guinea pigs and certain guidelines exist to ensure that these people are aware of their rights. Scientists also may not conduct research in a way that causes environmental degradation. While the research itself may not cause any harm, the government might have a right to prevent projects that pose potential threats to the public.
There are several scientific areas that have been subject to controversy---among those include stem-cell research, genetically modified foods, and in vitro sex selection. The public has various opinions on how involved the government should be in regulating and funding such research. In the United States, citizens differ on the role of government and how far its power should extend. Most agree that the government should intervene in cases where scientific research pose an imminent threat to citizens. Its ability to regulate beyond that, however, may be questioned by citizens who believe in a "limited" government.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Only after coming to know another culture can a person truly begin to understand its people
Only after coming to know another culture can a person truly begin to understand its people.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to understand a people without knowing about their culture. Discuss what you think determines when knowing another culture is necessary for understanding its people.
___
Members of a community learn from each other through repeated interaction and through time, they develop a "culture"---or set of shared values, goals, and practices. In order to understand a community, one must get to know their culture. This is best accomplished actually living among the people for an extended period of time. Of course, one may glean aspects of a community's culture through textbooks and documentaries. However, it is impossible to fully understand a culture unless one has personal experience integrating into the community, as well as approaching it with an open mind.
By living amongst the people of a community, one gains a more nuanced understanding of the culture. For instance, by attending religious ceremonies, parties, and family gatherings, the outsider can interact with members and feel--not just see--what they value in life. They can observe what they prioritize as a community by understanding the type of work they do to make a living and what they do for diversion purposes. A community, for instance, may highly value their relaxation time while another may be run by a clock and the need to accumulate wealth. A community's conception of time, indeed, can truly be understood only if living in the community.
"Knowing" a culture involves fully integrating into a community. This entails, among others, speaking the community's language and being able to communicate directly with various members. Oftentimes, there may be certain ideas and sentiments that cannot be fully expressed in translation and having the ability to speak directly with members can offer valuable insights about a people. Integrating within a community also involves living in similar conditions as those of the members. For instance, if an American expat continues living a life of luxury among the African tribe he is purporting to study, he will not fully understand any struggles and conditions that motivate members to live life in the way that they do.
There have been numerous examples in history where outsiders have imposed their will on a group without truly understanding important cultural factors. For example, European powers in the 1960s partitioned Africa in a way that satisfied their own interests; that is, by placing rival tribes in the same country and splitting up friendly clans. The problems of genocide and famine that ravage Africa today are partly due to poor planning in the part of the European powers. They failed to understand the African people by ignoring cultural aspects that perhaps would have had great influence in the direction of the continent.
If one is truly interested in learning about a community, he will one way or another try to understand the culture. Granted, one may learn about people through studying textbooks describing history, geography and other facts. This, however, is a superficial understanding of a people since communities consist of much more than hard facts. Culture encompasses more nuanced aspects of a community. Often, aspects of culture cannot be adequately described in words but rather, can best be "experienced" through direct interaction with the people. Furthermore, one must also approach the other culture with an open mind and recognize one's own biases before making judgments.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to understand a people without knowing about their culture. Discuss what you think determines when knowing another culture is necessary for understanding its people.
___
Members of a community learn from each other through repeated interaction and through time, they develop a "culture"---or set of shared values, goals, and practices. In order to understand a community, one must get to know their culture. This is best accomplished actually living among the people for an extended period of time. Of course, one may glean aspects of a community's culture through textbooks and documentaries. However, it is impossible to fully understand a culture unless one has personal experience integrating into the community, as well as approaching it with an open mind.
By living amongst the people of a community, one gains a more nuanced understanding of the culture. For instance, by attending religious ceremonies, parties, and family gatherings, the outsider can interact with members and feel--not just see--what they value in life. They can observe what they prioritize as a community by understanding the type of work they do to make a living and what they do for diversion purposes. A community, for instance, may highly value their relaxation time while another may be run by a clock and the need to accumulate wealth. A community's conception of time, indeed, can truly be understood only if living in the community.
"Knowing" a culture involves fully integrating into a community. This entails, among others, speaking the community's language and being able to communicate directly with various members. Oftentimes, there may be certain ideas and sentiments that cannot be fully expressed in translation and having the ability to speak directly with members can offer valuable insights about a people. Integrating within a community also involves living in similar conditions as those of the members. For instance, if an American expat continues living a life of luxury among the African tribe he is purporting to study, he will not fully understand any struggles and conditions that motivate members to live life in the way that they do.
There have been numerous examples in history where outsiders have imposed their will on a group without truly understanding important cultural factors. For example, European powers in the 1960s partitioned Africa in a way that satisfied their own interests; that is, by placing rival tribes in the same country and splitting up friendly clans. The problems of genocide and famine that ravage Africa today are partly due to poor planning in the part of the European powers. They failed to understand the African people by ignoring cultural aspects that perhaps would have had great influence in the direction of the continent.
If one is truly interested in learning about a community, he will one way or another try to understand the culture. Granted, one may learn about people through studying textbooks describing history, geography and other facts. This, however, is a superficial understanding of a people since communities consist of much more than hard facts. Culture encompasses more nuanced aspects of a community. Often, aspects of culture cannot be adequately described in words but rather, can best be "experienced" through direct interaction with the people. Furthermore, one must also approach the other culture with an open mind and recognize one's own biases before making judgments.
A Popular TV Show reveals more about a Nation than an Editorial Page
A popular television show reveals more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper does.
Describe a specific situation in which a popular television show might not reveal more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper would. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a popular television show reveals more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper does.
___
Television as a tool of mass communication has undoubtedly reached a wider audience than newspapers. The average Joe is naturally more attracted to the colors and visual images offered by TV whereas the plain, written word of newspapers requires more attention in order to understand a message. One need not be a genius to comprehend an editorial page of a newspaper; however, this section attracts more educated people with interests about the substantive issues that affect the nation. Popular television shows, on the other hand, draw in people from all educational, economic and racial backgrounds. Therefore, popular television shows, as opposed to editorials, tend to reveal more about the people of a nation--specifically, their interests and desires.
A popular television show and an editorial page of a newspaper have different motives when communicating messages. The former, in addition to expressing creative impulses, aims to amass profits. In order to stay on the air, the show must attract as many people as possible and therefore, show them what they want and are interested in. The latter usually does not strive toward making money--rather, it is a forum where leaders in a community as well as the occasional civic-minded citizen can air out their thoughts and perhaps affect public opinion and policy. Indeed, both mediums reveal different types of information about a nation's people--however, the popular television show will probably better reflect the concerns and desires of the average citizen.
People turn to a popular television show and editorial page of a newspaper for different reasons. Television, in general, offers people the opportunity to sit back on their chairs and unwind from the drudgery of hard work and daily life. In the United States, average people are enchanted with popular culture (i.e., Hollywood and extravagant living) and prurient material. Popular television shows often cater to these interests and therefore, reflect people's aspirations. Granted, these shows may also develop and encourage these interests in the people but they would not do so unless they know that their material will definitely attract widespread attention. On the other hand, editorials usually aim to educate and enlighten readers with subjects that go beyond sex, violence and pop culture. Often, subjects involving an intellectual tilt are of no interest to the average American.
Television shows, indeed, reveal more about what most people of a nation care and think about. One can extrapolate the psychology of citizens as a whole and their desires through analyzing a popular show. However, a nation is not only made up of people and culture. A nation is also run by a government and powerful interests that affect policies influencing people's every day lives. Indeed, popular television shows usually do not provide analysis or deep coverage of the nation's policies and international relations. Editorials, on the other hand, reflect the two cents of educated people regarding these issues that might also affect the lives of every day Americans. In this sense, editorials can reveal a lot about a nation. However, one can probably receive a more insightful picture of what drives people, as well as the future direction of a nation, by tuning into the most popular television shows.
Describe a specific situation in which a popular television show might not reveal more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper would. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a popular television show reveals more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper does.
___
Television as a tool of mass communication has undoubtedly reached a wider audience than newspapers. The average Joe is naturally more attracted to the colors and visual images offered by TV whereas the plain, written word of newspapers requires more attention in order to understand a message. One need not be a genius to comprehend an editorial page of a newspaper; however, this section attracts more educated people with interests about the substantive issues that affect the nation. Popular television shows, on the other hand, draw in people from all educational, economic and racial backgrounds. Therefore, popular television shows, as opposed to editorials, tend to reveal more about the people of a nation--specifically, their interests and desires.
A popular television show and an editorial page of a newspaper have different motives when communicating messages. The former, in addition to expressing creative impulses, aims to amass profits. In order to stay on the air, the show must attract as many people as possible and therefore, show them what they want and are interested in. The latter usually does not strive toward making money--rather, it is a forum where leaders in a community as well as the occasional civic-minded citizen can air out their thoughts and perhaps affect public opinion and policy. Indeed, both mediums reveal different types of information about a nation's people--however, the popular television show will probably better reflect the concerns and desires of the average citizen.
People turn to a popular television show and editorial page of a newspaper for different reasons. Television, in general, offers people the opportunity to sit back on their chairs and unwind from the drudgery of hard work and daily life. In the United States, average people are enchanted with popular culture (i.e., Hollywood and extravagant living) and prurient material. Popular television shows often cater to these interests and therefore, reflect people's aspirations. Granted, these shows may also develop and encourage these interests in the people but they would not do so unless they know that their material will definitely attract widespread attention. On the other hand, editorials usually aim to educate and enlighten readers with subjects that go beyond sex, violence and pop culture. Often, subjects involving an intellectual tilt are of no interest to the average American.
Television shows, indeed, reveal more about what most people of a nation care and think about. One can extrapolate the psychology of citizens as a whole and their desires through analyzing a popular show. However, a nation is not only made up of people and culture. A nation is also run by a government and powerful interests that affect policies influencing people's every day lives. Indeed, popular television shows usually do not provide analysis or deep coverage of the nation's policies and international relations. Editorials, on the other hand, reflect the two cents of educated people regarding these issues that might also affect the lives of every day Americans. In this sense, editorials can reveal a lot about a nation. However, one can probably receive a more insightful picture of what drives people, as well as the future direction of a nation, by tuning into the most popular television shows.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Does Progress often Complicate as much as it Simplifies?
Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.
Describe a specific situation in which progress might simplify more than it complicates. Discuss what you think determines whether progress complicates or simplifies.
___
The old adage "The more you know, the more you know you don't know" often proves true when making progress toward completing a task. As one embarks on a path of tackling a problem, he often finds that there are even more layers to the onion. For example, he is more capable of viewing the problem at hand from a broader perspective and can take into account contingencies that may occur down the road. Indeed, progress often complicates as much as it simplifies when the task affects the well being and money of several people or groups.
Problems on a national or international scale usually become more complicated as "progress" occurs. This is due to the fact that there exists a wide range of interests demanding a certain outcome. Sometimes the problem is a zero sum game where one person's (or group's) gain will involve another's loss. As these groups attempt to solve a given problem, new problems and conflict arise. There also may be unintended consequences adverse to the interests of those making "progress." Complications arising from progress may be seen in the United States' efforts to combat enemies abroad. For example, the government successfully staved off the communist threat during its 30-year cold war with the Soviet Union. However, the US supported anti-communist groups in Afghanistan that gave birth to the prominent terrorist organizations of today. Al Qaeda, among other organizations, established itself partly with help of US funds and materiel during the Cold War.
Another example of "progress" leading to complications involve the US counter-insurgency campaigns abroad. In Iraq, for instance, the US toppling of Sadaam Hussein seemed to be mark of progress--freeing the Iraqi people from a repressive dictator and giving the people a chance to form a democratic government. Bush congratulated the military in its progress while standing behind a "Mission Accomplished" banner but Americans then realized that the task of nation building involved more complications for the Iraqi future. This includes, among others, conflicts regarding the power vacuum, threats of Iran and continued sectarian violence. Indeed, when lives and especially economic interests are at stake, "progress" often does not follow a linear path towards simplicity.
Indeed, progress made at a more micro-level will more often simplify than complicate. This is especially true in the case of individuals completing every day, mundane tasks, including homework and chores. Making progress in these tasks often helps simplify one's life--not just in freeing up a person's schedule but in providing a sense of ease in one's mind. Most people, however, procrastinate and are unable to make timely progress on these small tasks. By delaying one's progress, existing problems become more burdensome and complicated.
Whether "progress" simplifies or complicates depends on the gravity of the task. When the problem involves several people with lives and money at stake, progress made will often lead to a realization of further problems to tackle. People or groups will often present conflicting interests which complicates the path toward completing a certain task. However, when individuals make progress in completing personal and less-complicated goals, they often find that their lives become a bit more simple rather than complicated.
Describe a specific situation in which progress might simplify more than it complicates. Discuss what you think determines whether progress complicates or simplifies.
___
The old adage "The more you know, the more you know you don't know" often proves true when making progress toward completing a task. As one embarks on a path of tackling a problem, he often finds that there are even more layers to the onion. For example, he is more capable of viewing the problem at hand from a broader perspective and can take into account contingencies that may occur down the road. Indeed, progress often complicates as much as it simplifies when the task affects the well being and money of several people or groups.
Problems on a national or international scale usually become more complicated as "progress" occurs. This is due to the fact that there exists a wide range of interests demanding a certain outcome. Sometimes the problem is a zero sum game where one person's (or group's) gain will involve another's loss. As these groups attempt to solve a given problem, new problems and conflict arise. There also may be unintended consequences adverse to the interests of those making "progress." Complications arising from progress may be seen in the United States' efforts to combat enemies abroad. For example, the government successfully staved off the communist threat during its 30-year cold war with the Soviet Union. However, the US supported anti-communist groups in Afghanistan that gave birth to the prominent terrorist organizations of today. Al Qaeda, among other organizations, established itself partly with help of US funds and materiel during the Cold War.
Another example of "progress" leading to complications involve the US counter-insurgency campaigns abroad. In Iraq, for instance, the US toppling of Sadaam Hussein seemed to be mark of progress--freeing the Iraqi people from a repressive dictator and giving the people a chance to form a democratic government. Bush congratulated the military in its progress while standing behind a "Mission Accomplished" banner but Americans then realized that the task of nation building involved more complications for the Iraqi future. This includes, among others, conflicts regarding the power vacuum, threats of Iran and continued sectarian violence. Indeed, when lives and especially economic interests are at stake, "progress" often does not follow a linear path towards simplicity.
Indeed, progress made at a more micro-level will more often simplify than complicate. This is especially true in the case of individuals completing every day, mundane tasks, including homework and chores. Making progress in these tasks often helps simplify one's life--not just in freeing up a person's schedule but in providing a sense of ease in one's mind. Most people, however, procrastinate and are unable to make timely progress on these small tasks. By delaying one's progress, existing problems become more burdensome and complicated.
Whether "progress" simplifies or complicates depends on the gravity of the task. When the problem involves several people with lives and money at stake, progress made will often lead to a realization of further problems to tackle. People or groups will often present conflicting interests which complicates the path toward completing a certain task. However, when individuals make progress in completing personal and less-complicated goals, they often find that their lives become a bit more simple rather than complicated.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Laws deriving from Rational Thought rather than Emotion
The best laws derive from rational thought rather than emotion.
Describe a specific situation in which a good law might derive from emotion rather than rational thought. Discuss what you think determines when the best laws derive from rational thought and when they derive from emotion.
___
In the United States, the passing of a bill into law is often a long, drawn-out process. The proposed bill is passed through different committees within the House and Senate where lawmakers debate its merits/downsides and make recommendations for revision. Most often than not, a given bill may be tabled, rejected or vetoed. Citizens often complain about how painstakingly slow it is for Congress to make decisions but the Forefathers designed lawmaking in a way that encourages debate and prevents haste decisions based on emotion. Indeed, the best laws derive from rational thought. However, sometimes it may be better for Congress to bypass the usual drawn out process when a certain law helps save lives or prevents imminent harm.
In general, the best laws are created in a process that involves thorough debate and analysis among the sharpest minds in the country. If the lawmaker is not well-versed in the subject of the proposed law, he or she will have the time to investigate what path best serves the country through independent research and consultations with experts. The process will also involve objective study of the utility and effects of the law conducted by non-partisan groups. Constituents will also have a chance to voice their support and objections to the proposed law in public forums. Such a process of thorough contemplation, of course, takes time and extra resources. However, the best way to come up with an "optimal" law is to support a system that encourages debate and hard-hitting analysis.
Many laws throughout history, however, have been passed based on emotion--and not on rational thought. Fear-based emotions felt by the populace may pressure lawmakers to act quickly. These laws are often passed in the wake of national tragedies or perceived dangers affecting the US. For example, some of these laws include those passed following a widely-reported school shooting or act of terrorism. Constituents are justifiably worried about the repeat of such atrocities and demand that their representatives immediately take measures to prevent future casualties. These laws may be based on good intentions but often, they probably do not make good policy. They may be overreaching in nature--trampling on the constitutional rights of innocent citizens, for instance. Another example of laws made based on emotion involves those of the anti-immigration variety. Immigrants often serve as scapegoats during times of national economic downturns and may be adversely affected by certain laws passed.
Indeed, there are instances when passing a law based on emotion may be good policy. First, the proposed law is urgent and will help prevent people from suffering imminent harm. Laws based on emotion are most likely to go through the legislative chambers quicker than those that are fiercely debated among lawmakers. Also, laws based largely on emotions might actually end up being good policy where the net benefits overcome the downsides. The results could be analyzed after the law has been in effect for a certain amount of time. However, it is more prudent to devote resources and studies to a bill before it is passed because this might prevent harmful consequences and save the government money from future lawsuits.
Describe a specific situation in which a good law might derive from emotion rather than rational thought. Discuss what you think determines when the best laws derive from rational thought and when they derive from emotion.
___
In the United States, the passing of a bill into law is often a long, drawn-out process. The proposed bill is passed through different committees within the House and Senate where lawmakers debate its merits/downsides and make recommendations for revision. Most often than not, a given bill may be tabled, rejected or vetoed. Citizens often complain about how painstakingly slow it is for Congress to make decisions but the Forefathers designed lawmaking in a way that encourages debate and prevents haste decisions based on emotion. Indeed, the best laws derive from rational thought. However, sometimes it may be better for Congress to bypass the usual drawn out process when a certain law helps save lives or prevents imminent harm.
In general, the best laws are created in a process that involves thorough debate and analysis among the sharpest minds in the country. If the lawmaker is not well-versed in the subject of the proposed law, he or she will have the time to investigate what path best serves the country through independent research and consultations with experts. The process will also involve objective study of the utility and effects of the law conducted by non-partisan groups. Constituents will also have a chance to voice their support and objections to the proposed law in public forums. Such a process of thorough contemplation, of course, takes time and extra resources. However, the best way to come up with an "optimal" law is to support a system that encourages debate and hard-hitting analysis.
Many laws throughout history, however, have been passed based on emotion--and not on rational thought. Fear-based emotions felt by the populace may pressure lawmakers to act quickly. These laws are often passed in the wake of national tragedies or perceived dangers affecting the US. For example, some of these laws include those passed following a widely-reported school shooting or act of terrorism. Constituents are justifiably worried about the repeat of such atrocities and demand that their representatives immediately take measures to prevent future casualties. These laws may be based on good intentions but often, they probably do not make good policy. They may be overreaching in nature--trampling on the constitutional rights of innocent citizens, for instance. Another example of laws made based on emotion involves those of the anti-immigration variety. Immigrants often serve as scapegoats during times of national economic downturns and may be adversely affected by certain laws passed.
Indeed, there are instances when passing a law based on emotion may be good policy. First, the proposed law is urgent and will help prevent people from suffering imminent harm. Laws based on emotion are most likely to go through the legislative chambers quicker than those that are fiercely debated among lawmakers. Also, laws based largely on emotions might actually end up being good policy where the net benefits overcome the downsides. The results could be analyzed after the law has been in effect for a certain amount of time. However, it is more prudent to devote resources and studies to a bill before it is passed because this might prevent harmful consequences and save the government money from future lawsuits.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Politicians and their Promises
The way to achieve political success is to promise people that their lives will be better.
Describe a specific situation in which the way to achieve political success might not be to promise people that their lives will be better. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the way to achieve political success is to promise people that their lives will be better.
___
When a nation struggles with an economic crisis, its citizens feel the effects in various ways. They lose their jobs, struggle with paying the bills and mortgage, and experience an overall low morale. While people have mostly blamed Wall Street bankers for the financial meltdown, they have looked to politicians to resolve the problems and set the country on the right path. Specifically, in 2008, American citizens became mesmerized with the charismatic senator, Barack Obama, and voted for him as president. He campaigned under the mantra of change and in a sense, promised to "revolutionize" the ways of Washington and bring the country out of its economic misery. Two years later, the United States is struggling with a 9.2% unemployment rate with no tangible sign of future improvement. Indeed, a politician may initially be successful by promising people that their lives with will be better; however, if those promises are not followed up with positive results, citizens will veer off to another candidate come election time.
Politicians who wish to compete against incumbents gauge the temperature of the constituents and analyze what issues push their buttons. Specifically, the candidate attempts to take advantage of what upsets voters and how they can offer a viable (if not better) alternative at the polls. The last few years have been especially chaotic given the economic crisis and wars being fought in several fronts. In 2008, voters became disillusioned with the seemingly never-ending wars and the accompanying thousands of men dying in uniform. They looked to Obama as a representation of diplomacy and answer for ending the wars. Indeed, he partly based his campaign on his opposition to the Iraq war and placing emphasis on diplomacy as a means of conducting our foreign affairs. Obama served as a conduit of change in several levels--as reflected by his campaign messages, his racial background, etc.
When the Obama administration appeared less and less capable of bringing down defense spending, as well as turning the tide on economic ruin, a movement of "Tea Party" politicians burgeoned and were voted into office. These Tea Party members broadened the conversation of the US financial problems by focusing on "big government" and overspending as the culprit. They successfully painted a picture of Obama and the democrats as profligate politicians who are leading the country down the wrong path by further exacerbating the country's economic woes. The Tea Party voice has been quite influential in highlighting this year's deadline to raise the debt ceiling and encouraging debate regarding the size of government and implications of US economic policy for future generations. Indeed, candidates will always look to the incumbent's weak points and then claim to offer solutions to people's problems.
Politicians may win elections after promising to improve their constituents' lives; however, they must follow through on those promises in order to find continued success in office. When a politician fails to provide results in a given time, voters become disillusioned and look elsewhere for a solution to their problems. Candidates who successfully position themselves as "different" from the failing incumbent may then be given a chance to improve a dire position. Indeed, politicians are not solely responsible for a nation's path; for instance, cyclical economic fluctuations and powerful private actors and businesses may greatly influence how citizens experience life. However, politicians---especially the President-- are the most visible actors in the nation and citizens will inevitably attribute success and failures in their personal lives to these elected officials. For this reason, people will listen carefully whenever candidates make grand promises to improve their lives.
Describe a specific situation in which the way to achieve political success might not be to promise people that their lives will be better. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the way to achieve political success is to promise people that their lives will be better.
___
When a nation struggles with an economic crisis, its citizens feel the effects in various ways. They lose their jobs, struggle with paying the bills and mortgage, and experience an overall low morale. While people have mostly blamed Wall Street bankers for the financial meltdown, they have looked to politicians to resolve the problems and set the country on the right path. Specifically, in 2008, American citizens became mesmerized with the charismatic senator, Barack Obama, and voted for him as president. He campaigned under the mantra of change and in a sense, promised to "revolutionize" the ways of Washington and bring the country out of its economic misery. Two years later, the United States is struggling with a 9.2% unemployment rate with no tangible sign of future improvement. Indeed, a politician may initially be successful by promising people that their lives with will be better; however, if those promises are not followed up with positive results, citizens will veer off to another candidate come election time.
Politicians who wish to compete against incumbents gauge the temperature of the constituents and analyze what issues push their buttons. Specifically, the candidate attempts to take advantage of what upsets voters and how they can offer a viable (if not better) alternative at the polls. The last few years have been especially chaotic given the economic crisis and wars being fought in several fronts. In 2008, voters became disillusioned with the seemingly never-ending wars and the accompanying thousands of men dying in uniform. They looked to Obama as a representation of diplomacy and answer for ending the wars. Indeed, he partly based his campaign on his opposition to the Iraq war and placing emphasis on diplomacy as a means of conducting our foreign affairs. Obama served as a conduit of change in several levels--as reflected by his campaign messages, his racial background, etc.
When the Obama administration appeared less and less capable of bringing down defense spending, as well as turning the tide on economic ruin, a movement of "Tea Party" politicians burgeoned and were voted into office. These Tea Party members broadened the conversation of the US financial problems by focusing on "big government" and overspending as the culprit. They successfully painted a picture of Obama and the democrats as profligate politicians who are leading the country down the wrong path by further exacerbating the country's economic woes. The Tea Party voice has been quite influential in highlighting this year's deadline to raise the debt ceiling and encouraging debate regarding the size of government and implications of US economic policy for future generations. Indeed, candidates will always look to the incumbent's weak points and then claim to offer solutions to people's problems.
Politicians may win elections after promising to improve their constituents' lives; however, they must follow through on those promises in order to find continued success in office. When a politician fails to provide results in a given time, voters become disillusioned and look elsewhere for a solution to their problems. Candidates who successfully position themselves as "different" from the failing incumbent may then be given a chance to improve a dire position. Indeed, politicians are not solely responsible for a nation's path; for instance, cyclical economic fluctuations and powerful private actors and businesses may greatly influence how citizens experience life. However, politicians---especially the President-- are the most visible actors in the nation and citizens will inevitably attribute success and failures in their personal lives to these elected officials. For this reason, people will listen carefully whenever candidates make grand promises to improve their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)