pacemaker Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 -Clicked- Voters should not be concerned about a political candidate’s personal life. Citizens of democratic countries have the right to vote for a political candidate and/or party that they feel is suitable to lead their country. During times of elections, political candidates make various efforts to convince voters about their abilities as a leader. Many political candidates make various promises on different matters including health care, employment, education, foreign trade, tax cuts, community based programs and much more. As such, a voter should only be concerned with the professional life of a political candidiate and not his/her personal life. As a voter, it is the citizen’s responsibility to carefully asssess the ability of the candidate to be a good leader and a good communicator, thereby being one who is best fit for the job. Just as employers are not allowed to look at personal life matters of a job applicant, personal life matters of a political candidate should not be used by voters to assess the abilities of the candidate. For example, Dr. Manmohan Singh is the current Prime Minister of India who holds a PhD in political science and economics from Harvard University. Prior to taking on the role as the Prime Minister of India, he served as a Minister of Finance. During that time, he was able to demonstrate his ability to be a great leader and one who is truly concerned about the well being of the nation as a whole. Therefore, his past performance serves as a better indicator of his abilities and voters should be concerned with such professional aspects of his life. In contrast, it is not always necessary for voters to primarily base their decision on the political candidate’s professional life and to ignore his/her personal life. The chararcter of a political candidate within his/her personal life and how they deal with their family and friends can be a great reflection of the abilities of the candidate. Moreover, it can also help voters to connect with political candidate on various levels of similarity. For example, Stephen Harper is the current Prime Minister of Canada who is also a father of two young children. During the recent elections, the media portrayed him as being a family oriented man who greatly cared for his children and wife. As such, this allows voters with young children and families to connect with the candidate. When Harper made promises regarding increased funding for public school boards across the country, voters may be able to assess his abilities to deliver on that promise on the basis that he also has young children currently enrolled in public schools. Furthermore, this illustrates that Harper cares for his own children as well as the children of other Canadians and the issue of improved education is highly important to him. Given that, it would seem likely to a voter that if elected, Harper would be more likely to deliver on his promise. Therefore, voters can use a political candidate’s personal life to further assess his/her ability to be a good leader and to deliver on the promises made. In conclusion, citizens of a democratic country have the right to make their own choices. In terms of political choices, citizens have the equal say with regards to whom they wish to see as a leader for their region. This right to equal say and freedom of choice can be exercised on various levels including local, provincial and federal. As a voter, one should be primarily concerned with the political candidate’s professional life and his/her abilities to lead the country forwards as well as work in the best interests of the citizens. This is especially true where professional life matters of a political candidate are a better indicator of his/her abilities to lead the nation. This was clearly seen in the example of Dr. Manmohan Singh, current Prime Minister of India who served the country as a Minister of Finance prior to being elected as the Prime Minister. His good track record as a Minister of Finance should be evaluated by the voters as it serves as a better indicator of his abilities to be a good Prime Minister. On the other hand, it may be okay for a voter to assess a political candidate’s ability as a leader based on his/her personal life when the candidate’s personal characteristics allow voters to connect with the candidate on an equal level. This was clearly seen in the example of Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper who is seen as a family man that many other Canadians can connect with. In this case, Canadians can see Harper as another fellow citizen of the country who is also going through a similar process of raising a familiy. Note that this does not promote discrimination of any form but rather allows Canadians to better assess the candidate as a person and to conncet with the candidate on a personal level. Thanks PastaInhaler!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimming_in_the_rain Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 -clicked- Students should study only what naturally interests them. Describe a specific situation in which students might study something other than what naturally interests them. Discuss what you think determines when students should study what naturally interests them and when they should not. In the past several decades, there has been a tremendous increase in the collective human knowledge-base, due to increase in research and development. With the overwhelming areas of studies, ranging from the age-old medicine and engineering to the more recent fields such as nanotechnology and robotics, it can often be difficult to decide what to study. Ultimately, students should pursue a field of study that naturally interests them. If a student pursues his/her passion, then they will be motivated to successfully complete their studies. They will enjoy their program because they are interested in it. At the University of Toronto, there are a vast number of programs that a student can enrol in such as Music, Arts, Science, and Engineering. Students are encouraged to pursue whichever area that interests them. On the other hand, when a student is attending high school there are certain requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to graduate. Since obtaining secondary school education is mandatory by law in Ontario and much of the Western world, often students have to study something other than what they are interested in. For example, according to the Ontario secondary school curriculum, in order to graduate a student must complete a credit of English in each of the four years. A student cannot obtain their secondary school diploma unless they meet this requirement. Even though a student may despise the study of English, they must study it in order to obtain their secondary school. Similarly, in Ontario, if an individual desires to study medicine he must complete at least 3 years of undergraduate education before he can enrol in medicine. Often there are certain requirements that a student must complete in order to eligible for the program of their desire. Thus, there are times when a student has to study something other than what interests them in order to achieve a future goal. Therefore, a student should study what naturally interests them however, they should be mindful of certain requirements. Sometimes they will have to study something that is not to their pleasing but is necessary because it is required, such as English in high school. It is a requirement that they must fulfill in order to achieve their future goals. Thus, a student should ultimately pursue an area that interests them but they should also be prepared to study something that they not be interested in but is part of the requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -clicked- Thanks for doing this! ______________ Governments have a responsibity to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. The government of any country has a two-fold responsibilty: two ensure the proper functioning of the state and the well-being of its constituents. By electing politicians to represent them, citizens expect the government to protect the people's interst. One of these interests is provisions of necessary services. Necessary services are those that are required for the proper functioning of society, such as waste management, water treatment, and postal service. Disruption in such services would result in wide-spread problems for the numerous citizens in a society. Many of these services are contracted or administered by private non-government companies. When it comes to the safety of citizens, it is imperative for the government to regulate companies that provide necessary services. Following the E. coli outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario and other more recent outbreaks, the government was held responsible for not sufficient regulating these water treatment facilities. The outbreak resulted in many hospitalizations and even a few deaths. Regulation of companies becomes essential where public safety is concerned. On the other hand, when a necessary service providing company does not affect aspects of public safety, the government does not have a responsibity to regulate companies. Companies may make changes that are necessary for its growth and development and government regulation may at times hinder this development. For the past several weeks, workers of Canada Post, the nations postal service, have been on strike in order to have the company meet their demands. Although this has caused major disruptions in this essential service for hundreds of thousands of citizens, the government has not pressured the company to give in to the demands and resume service. Though disruptions in the postal service has caused a great deal inconveniences for society, it does not pose significant risks to public safety. Thus, it such a situation it is not the government’s responisbilty to regulate the company. The government has a responsibity to ensure the well-being of its citizens. But it also has the responsibility to promote the development of the nation’s economy. When non-government companies provide necessary services to citizens, sometimes the government bears the responsibity to regulate them. This is generally the case when the company provides services that have a direct impact on the health and wellbeing of the public. Disruption in services such as water treatment and waste managed may pose a significant threat to public safety and so companies providing these services need to be regulated. On the other hand, disruption in postal service, does not pose a risk to public and so is not the responsibility of the government to regulate them. Thus, the government should regulate companies that provide necessary service when the safety of the public is involved. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Although the Walkerton example is good, the agency that is responsible for water sanitation is the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission. It is a branch of the municipal government, and is a governmental public works or department. It is not considered a company. Some graders may be aware of that the government and not a company is responsible for clean drinking water, some may not. But, it would be safe to assume that most public services are run by governmental agencies or branches, and that most essay graders could be aware of this. That said, it would be possible for the grader to reduce your mark because the example does not coincide with the prompt (PUC not being a company). This is what would be deemed a gray area. The Canada Post example is okay since the Canada Post Corporation is a Crown Corporation (a company) under the Corporations Act. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -clicked- Only those politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals. Describe a specific situation in which a politician might achieve a political goal without compromising. Discuss what you think determines when politicians should compromise to achieve a political goal. In a democratic society, politicians are elected by citizens of the country to represent them. Once elected politicians must perform their duties well and maintain a positive public image in order to re-elected in the next term. In order for politicians to achieve their political goals, they must learn to be able to compromise in certain situations. Politicians must be able to appease their constituents if they are to are to achieve their goals. Since politicians are held accountable to their constituents who often have diverse expectations it is important to be diplomatic and have an understanding for compromise. Indeed, when President Obama introduced the Healthcare Reform Act, there was severe backlash by the Republicans and without compromise this change would not have been possible. In the democratic society, where the politicians must balance demands of many, compromise is essential. However, there are times when a politician may achieve their political goals without compromise. In societies governed by dictators, who do not hold themselves accountable to their constituents, indeed one'a political goal can be accomplised by an iron fist as opposed to compromise. A prime example is evident in the recent crisis of the Middle East. Libyian President Omar Khaddifi has ruled the country with for numerous years, clearly without having to compromise. In a society, where the leader does not hold himself accountable to the people, they can acheive their goals without compromise. Nonetheless it is important to realize, such politicians will sooner or later fall. As what happened to Egypt's President Mubarak shows that dictators who do not compromise will achieve their goal but only for a certain time. Whether politicians must compromise to achieve their goals depends on the type of society they live in. If it is a democratic society where they are held accountable to the public than indeed compromise is essential. However, in a dictatorship, the politicians can achieve their goals without compromise. Nonetheless it is important to understand that although a dictator can forcibly achieve their goal in the short run, in the long run it cannot be sustained and sooner of later they will fall from their position of power. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity, but lacking in depth in some areas. For the first example, you will need to explain the Healthcare Reform Act in more detail. What happened with it? How did Obama concede to the demands of his constituents, and how was this demonstrated? Were there amendments or alterations to the Act for the purposes of appeasing the constituents? In the second paragraph, it is probably best to omit the Mubarak example. It tends to weaken the aims of task#2 and it makes the essay unbalanced. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -clicked- Of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on public opinion. Media is a vital part of society as it connects citizens to each other by allowing us to pass on information from one person to another. It comes in a variety of forms such as newsprints, books, radio, and most importantly, television. Television is by far the most popular form of media nowadays and thus, has a global audience. As such, it has the strongest influence on public opinion. With this knowledge, it is of no surprise that politicians, during times of election, make use of television advertisements in favour of their platform. The ability to convey a message to thousands around the world is a powerful and effective form of communication to influence public opinion. In fact, this is the primary reason why early election results are broadcasted on tv before any other form of media. For example, in the Canadian Federal election of 2011, early poll results broadcasted on television showed that the Liberal party had lost several seats and were falling behind to the ever growing popularity of the NDP. Thus, it can be expected that citizens who had supported the Liberal party and now witnessing the poor poll results of their party may be swayed to vote for their “second best choice.” If this scenario were to be extrapolated to hundreds of citizens, election results may take drastic turns. It is in this way that television can affect public opinion. In order for television to convey an influential message, it must be broadcasted at the correct time so as to impact a greater audience. Primetime shows are aired at specific times to target a specific group of people. For example, cooking shows such as Rachel Ray are aired prior to dinner time to target stay at home mothers, while major news channels air during dinner to target the family, while still others, such as mature comedy talk shows air later at night to target the older population as opposed to children. Without proper broadcasting times, influential messages will not be conveyed effectively and the intended influence to the public will be greatly diminished. This case was evident during the Stanley Cup Playoffs. During the playoffs, millions of fans tuned in to watch it on television during the specific air times. During these times, activity among other channels such as late night news decreased substantially. As a result, intended messages to be conveyed during those times were drowned out due to the conflicting air times with the Stanley Cup. As can be seen, television is the strongest forms of media in todays society and as such, harbours great influence on public opinion. However, this impact is dependenant on the time the message is broadcasted. Television will have its strongest impact when it is aired during peak times of interest such as broadcasting campaign advertisements during times of election. However, it will have the least impact when it is aired at a time conflicting with other forms of media that attract greater interest from the audience, such as a Stanely Cup final. It is for this reason, the goal of attracting and influencing a greater audience, that various shows pay big money for specific air times. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Proficiency in responding to tasks #1 and #3. However, the ideas in paragraph #2 may create some tension for task#2. You emphasize time of day, and type of message broadcasted (and type of audience broadcasted to). This can detract from your intended purpose of showing how television might not have the strongest influence on public opinion. Moreover, your explanation of the Stanley Cup Playoffs was not adequate in illustrating this idea. Was there an election during the Stanley Cup Playoffs, at which time, the political messages sent via television were drowned out by the sports event? This is what the grader will likely be thinking about since you referred to this idea in task#3 ["it will have the least impact when it is aired at a time conflicting with other forms of media that attract greater interest from the audience, such as a Stanley Cup final."] I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Four tasks? I thought there were only three, what are the four tasks? Fourth, not usually mentioned explicitly: Provide an example to illustrate your understanding of the prompt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 --clicked A business that creates a great product is sure to succeed. It can be said that the main goal of any business is to make profit. As a result, success of a business is a measure of how much profit they gain and this profit is directly related to how great of a product they sell. The greatness of a product can be defined by various criteria such as, but not limited to, its practicality, price, and look. The more appealing a product is to the public, the more revenue a business will gain and thus the more successful it will be in its market. A prime example of this is the introduction of Apple’s first 3G iPhone into the cellular phone market. This product was one of the first smartphones to have been made and allowed individuals who owned it to be able to perform various tasks from their phone alone simultaneously. Email, online browsing, gaming, reading, and watching movies were among the few things that this product could do. Its ability to perform so many functions and multitask , yet still perform its basic role as a phone, appealed to the market. Apple’s stock rose dramatically while other cellular companies such as Research In Motion fell behind. As can be seen, a great product such as Apple’s iPhone generated lots of profit for Apple and thus, is one of the main products that results in Apple’s success. However, a great product does not always lead to success of a business. For example, in the recent episode of Dragon’s Den, a television show in which entrepreneurs pitch their product to 5 self-made multi-millionaires in hopes of receiving funding from them to take their product to a greater market for more profit, a product known as Kick-Spike received great praise from the “Dragons.” Kick-Spike was the first golf shoe every made to have retractable spikes on the bottom of the shoes as opposed to the permanent metal spikes that are on golf shoes nowadays. The inventors were asking 1 million dollars in funding in return for 10% of the profit. Funding was granted due to the uniqueness and attractibility of the product for golfers. Unfortunately, this product never took off due to problems in negotiations with other endorsers in addition to the high costs of producing the product. As can be seen, despite the great appeal of this product, it never succeeded due to factors such as feasibility. Evidently,to determine whether a great product will be successful or not does not depend entirely on the product itself. Instead, various other factors must be taken into account such as feasibility. Large companies, such as Apple, can afford to make great products without the risk of economic feasibility due to its large revenue from other products. However, new businesses that want to enter the market are limited by economic feasibility as can be seen by the Kick-Spike example. Despite its great appeal as a product, the costs to produce it out weighted the profits it could gain. Thus, this business would not be successful. thanks alot You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. For the first example, Apple iPhone, it would be good to improve a sentence mentioning how the phone sold well (and was even sold out at launch). Then tie this in to Apple shares and investor interest. You may want to mention the cheap cost of labour and materials in constructing the iPhone. I remember watching that episode of the Dragon's Den. You introduced the concept of "feasibility" near the end of the essay. It would be good to clarify this concept, especially as it relates to the Kick-Spike. What does feasibility have to do with cost of production versus the iPhone? It is implied, but should be stated explicitly. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -clicked- The primary concern of a business is to maximize the physical safety of its employees. Since industrial revolution in 19th century, people have been able to enjoy a plethora of new products with new techniques and manufacturing machines. This eventually has led to increased demand for labour. In many cases, employers did not initially realize the adverse effect of the work and this resulted in harming their employees. Nowadays, the main responsibility of a business is to maximize and secure the overall health of its employees. In Japan during 1960s, workers in a chemical factory started to develop unusual symptoms. Their bones started to deform and their newborn babies had numerous birth defects. The employers of the company were not aware of the adverse effect of chemicals that workers inhaled everyday and therefore were not concerned with shielding the workers from the harm. After scientific analysis on the chemicals, employees were given masks and other protection equipment. Thus, a business should assure the physical safety of its employees when the harm is clearly known. However, there are other instances where the primary concern of business is not guarding physical safety of its employees. The primary duty of a security company, for example, is to protect its clients’ safety at the expense of its employees’ safety. If the safety of the employees were to be the primary concern, the business would not attract the clients and would fail as a result. The voluntary nature and the purpose of the job let the company set its primary goal to maximize its clients’ overall health rather than its employees’. Therefore, whether or not the primary concern of a business is to secure its employees’ physical safety depends on the awareness of the harm caused by the work and the inherent nature of the job. If the harm is known and the purpose of the job does not involve putting the employees at risk, like in manufacturing factories, the physical safety of the employees should be assured by the employers. However, there will always be certain professions, such as security guards and police officers in which the safety of the workers must be put at risk due to inherent nature of the job. It is only with the inherent nature of the job that putting physical safety of employees at risk is justified. Thank you! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. You could strengthen your essay by selecting another example for task#1. It seems that if the business were concerned primarily with the safety of its workers, it would have done a hazard analysis of the work site. Perhaps, you can find an example where there is a joint health and safety committee that is focussed on setting safety standards based on thorough research and analysis of working conditions. In this other example, safety should already be established, and there are few or minimal workplace injuries or fatalities because of the safeguards undertaken by the employer. Task#2 could be explained in more detail to give greater clarity and depth of thought. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -Clicked- ...trying a slightly different format. Hopefully it went okay. I really appreciate the feedback! Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. * Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks.* Explain what you think the above statements means.* Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life. A key feature of a scientific mind is a sense of curiosity and a strong desire to understand the world. Indeed, scientific inquiry has led to innumerable achievements and advancements in fields that touch every area of human life. Unfortunately, many atrocities have been committed in the pursuit of scientific inquiry. During WWII, Nazi scientists experimented on concentration camp prisoners. The scientists had little regard for their subjects lives. The experiments were often very painful and frequently lethal. When these experiments can to light after the war, there was a public outrage. This led to the formation of rigorous ethical guidelines for scientific experiments. The key feature of these ethical guidelines is the sanctity of human life. Today, human experimental participants can be assured of their safety. Indeed, in science today, human safety takes prescendence over scientific inquiry. However, life is fragile and many activities contain a certain element of risk. Human curiosity has led to the exploration of many dangerous areas. The exploration of space can be seen as a key example of human scientific inquiry. Much has been learned through the space program. Unfortunately, space exploration is very risky and there can be deadly consequences. Indeed, the space shuttle Challenger explosion resulted in the instantaneous death of the entire crew. Despite this risk, the space program continues. In this situation, the threat to human life is an unfortunate, but acceptable component of scientific inquiry. A key determinant of whether the risks from scientific inquiry to human life are acceptable is the source of the threat or harm. Clearly, it is unacceptable to have safety compromised by a human agent, as was the case with the Nazi scientists. A modern experiment would be unable to gain the approval of the ethics board if the participants were subject to bodily harm or excessive risk. If, however, the threat comes from an external agent, such as a potential deadly equipment malfunction, the risk to human life is more acceptable. Human beings are very curious, and this drive to explore and understand is one of greatest features of the species. This exploration carries with it a certain risk. The thirst for scientific inquiry needs to be tempered with a respect for human life. With this in mind, experiments should be ethically governed and no unnecessary risks should be taken in quests of exploration and discovery. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. The ideas in the final paragraph may provide a bit of an imbalance to the essay. It makes the essay one-sided in favour of the prompt. This serves to weaken the essay overall as it detracts from the purpose of the essay. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -clicked- Thanks PastaInhaler! Voters should not be concerned about a political candidate’s personal life. In a democracy' date=' voters are often interested in electing a political candidate with whom they are able to relate and connect, as well as share similar goals and hopes for the nation. Voters, who are citizens of the nation, should make informed decisions when voting for a political leader. As a result, it is important to understand the politician's views and goals. However, political candidates' personal lives often should not play a role in judging their competence. As voters and citizens of a nation, we should not focus on qualities or values that have minimal external influence on the welfare of citizenry. For instance, the personal beliefs and spirituality of a leader are unique to each individual and should therefore not be a concern for citizens. Tony McGuire, while running for 2007 Ontario General Elections, did not affiliate with a religious faith. His personal belief and spirituality does not influence the way in which he would lead the province and make decisions. As a result, this should be a minimal concern for voters during elections. Although voters should often not be concerned about a political candidate's personal life, there are instances when citizens should in fact assess a candidate's personal life. Qualities that reflect a leader's competence, such as responsibility, trustworthiness and other values shared by society, should play a role in judging a candidate. For instance, Barack Obama, as a president of a powerful nation, is often praised for his publicly-exposed family life, which demonstrates that he is a loving and caring individual. As citizens and voters, we often appreciate these qualities because they reflect socially desirable behavior. Society generally agrees upon such beliefs. Consequently, voters should be concerned about a political candidate's personal life when it reflects their qualities of a representative of the nation. People often argue whether or not a political candidate's personal life should play a role in voters' decisions during elections. Under certain circumstances, such as the personal beliefs and spirituality of a candidate, should not a concern for citizens. Each individual has the right to their beliefs that have no external influence on the nation's welfare and prosperity. However, when the candidate's personal life, such as family life, reflects their qualities as a leader and someone whom citizens trust, voters are justified in considering personal life as a measure of competency. Therefore, voters should not be concerned about a political candidate's personal life when it does not dictate how the leader would govern the country. Conversely, qualities that reflect how the nation would be led should be a concern.[/quote'] You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. You may mention and explain the issue of competency in the first example. This will strengthen the essay overall. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -clicked Thanks again! Greatly appreciate your help Great leaders are born' date=' not made. [/b']Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which great leaders are made, not born. Discuss what you think determines whether great leaders are born or made. In a democratic nation, politicians are often considered leaders and role models who govern a country and ensure its welfare and prosperity. Some politicians are portrayed as being "natural" leaders, or possessing innate qualities of a leader. In other words, some great leaders are deemed to have been born with characteristics that define a leader. As representatives of a nation, citizens often rely on political leaders to act in the country's best interests, even if this means challenging the status quo. Pierre Trudeau, Canada's 15th Prime Minister, may be considered to have been born a great leader. He not only transformed the nation's political system, but also fought for equality and human rights that had been neglected for many years. Being innovative and challenging society's norms in hopes of ensuring better living conditions for all citizens, Trudeau helped establish the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights have now become an integral aspect of Canadian culture. As a result, Trudeau can be considered to be born a great leader as he pursued positive change against society's existing circumstances. Although some leaders may be considered to be born, some influential figures in fact suggest that great leaders are made. The "making" of a leader can be thought of as being shaped by society while growing up following the existing norms. In cases where political leaders try to govern and maintain a nation's current values and welfare, they can be regarded as following the traditional rules. Stephen Harper, Canada's current Prime Minister, is a great example of maintaining the nation's current status, and representing a leader who was not born but rather made. He has been shaped by society in that he follows the existent values and does not challenge status quo. As a result, he is a leader who has been made by society, as opposed to a figure who constantly strives for positive change and thus be considered born a leader. Political leaders represent the nation as well as its citizenry. Some leaders challenge the existing conditions of a nation and strive to shape a more successful and secure nation. In other words, they may be considered innovative. Such leaders,, such as Trudeau, may be considered to be born great, rather than made great by society. Conversely, some leaders try to maintain the current status of a nation and do not challenge present circumstances. These figures may be regarded as following the existing rules and norms, who have been shaped by society. As a result, great leaders who question and oppose existing conditions and strive for positive change in order to improve the overall welfare of a nation suggests that they are born great. On the other hand, leaders who merely obey the existing situation, yet hope to maintain the welfare of a nation, are considered to be made great. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Granted, this prompt is a bit harder to work with, you have relevant examples. However, there is an issue with how you use your examples to argue your points. For the first task#1, you failed to show how Trudeau was born a great leader. In order to do so, you must establish either that he had certain innovative and rebellious traits at a young age; or you can take another angle of attack, and argue how the traits that Trudeau had could not be learned in school, or through training, or any other external way. You need to show how his traits are innate, if not, then explain how innovation or a rebellious approach is indicative of an innate leadership ability. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -clicked-Thanks for doing this! I have been having trouble with this section and really appreciate your help. The essential aim of law should not be to punish, but to assure fairness for all. Describe a specific situation in which the essential aim of law might be to punish rather than assure fairness for all. Discuss what you think determines whether the essential aim of law should be to punish or to assure fairness for all. Historically, the law was administered by a ruler who heard the complaints and quarrels of his citizens and provided a ruling on the matter. Nowadays, the law is administered by a legal system, which involves lawyers, judges, witnesses, and various levels of courts. Similar to its historical roots, the modern legal system allows individuals to bring forth their complaints or problems with fellow citizens and have an unbiased judge settle the matter. Although the law administers fines and penalties, the primary aim of the law should not be to punish but rather to provide fair and equal opportunity. In Ontario, if the police fine a person for improper driving, the individual has the right to take matters to the court if they believe they are innocent. The individual has the opportunity to present their case to an unbiased judge who can then decides who is correct in the matter. If the purpose of the law was simply to punish then there would be no opportunity to present your case. Thus the purpose of the law is not to punish but to assure fairness. However, sometimes the law is administered in order to punish the individual. When a crime against humanity has been committed, the law is used to punish the perpetrator. For those affected by such crimes, punishment is the only the means of providing justice. For example, the execution of Sadaam Hussain, was conducted as an act of justice for the thousands of Iraqi citizens he killed as part of his regime. For many of the victim’s families, this was the only means of providing a sense of justice and closure. In cases of serious crimes where there is little ambiguity in regards to the perpetrator of the crime, the law’s primary function is to punish the perpetrator. Ideally, the law should be administered to provide fairness in the system and the opportunity to bring one’s case to an unbiased judge. Hence in day-to-day civil cases, the law functions to be fair to all parties. However when the legal system is faced with a crimes against humanity, it primary function becomes to punish the criminal and provide justice to the victim’s families. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. You may wish to tie in the first example with the second a little more. To do so, you would introduce the idea of different levels of crime. Maybe a traffic violation is not so bad, as compared with a crime against humanity. The part where you wrote: (where there is little ambiguity in regards to the perpetrator of the crime) should be removed as it confuses the conclusion you drew from the example. Perhaps you should write more along the lines of (In serious crimes where a man commits mass murder of many innocent people, the...) I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -Clicked- Thanks PastaInhaler for marking my essays. Your comments and feedback have been really helpful. Any radical social transformation has long term negative effects. Social transformations tend to occur when a huge group of individuals agree on a different ideology than the one held in the past. Additionally, it also has the potential to affect a huge group of individuals. The term radical refers to a form of change that is large scale or greatly significant. Therefore, a radical social transformation would be one that results in a large scale, significant change within a social context. As such, any significant social change tends to result in long term negative effects. For example, in the early 1900’s, thousands of Chinese men were recruited to Canada as a form of cheap labor for the establishment of the Canadian Railroads. These hard working men left their own country and family behind with the hope of being able to earn a decent living and to later reunite with their family. However, soon after the completion of the railroad, this large subgroup of Chinese men was seen as competition and threat for the white men in Canada, with regards to the job market. As a result, those that decided to stay in Canada were required to pay a head tax for their family members staying in China. Moreover, early laws also made family reunification exteremely difficult for these individuals. Thus, such social transformations in traditional Canadian thinking that took place between the start and finish of the Canadian railroad has led to long term negative effects for the families of these Chinese workers. As such, radical social transformations can result in long term negative effects. In contrast, it is not always necessary for radical social transformations to lead to long term negative effects. Gandhi and the independence of India is an excellent example where radical social transformations took place, resulting in long term positive effects. Major changes were seen in the way in which citizens of India were governed. This change was of a positive nature as it allowed freedom and independence for citizens to further pursue their lives. In other words, they were no longer oppressed by the British authorities and were free to make their own decisions. As such, they were also able to prosper and flourish in various different sectors and fields including research, education, science, engineering, industry and many others. Today, more than 60 years after its independence, India is considered to be one of the major countries and economic hotspots in the world. This illustrates that Gandhi’s non-violent revolution served as a catalyst that led to radical social transformation within India and this change later triggerred long term positive effects that are still evident today. In conclusion, a significant social transformation has the potential to affect a great number of individuals. A radical social transformation may lead to long term negative effects if such changes take place against the views and interests of society. This was evident in the example of the Chinese railroad workers that were forced to pay head tax for their relatives in their homeland and the Canadian law at the time prevented family reunification for these workers. On the other hand, a radical social transformation would not necessarily lead to a long term negative effect if it takes place in accordance with the viewpoints of the individuals within the given social context and is intended to be for the interest of the society. This was clearly seen in the example of the Gandhi’s revolution and independence of India where a radical social transformation took place within the country and resulted in long term positive effects. Thanks once again You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. It is a little unclear how the head tax law created long term negative effects. You will need to elaborate more on that to strengthen your essay. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 <clicked> In politics, one's friends and one's enemies are often the same. Describe a specific political situation in which one's friends and one's enemies might not be the same. Discuss what you think determines whether or not one's friends in politics are also one's enemies. For most countries in the world, it is indeed true that one's enemies and one's friends are the same but there are some exceptions. In the above prompt however, the term enemies is described in a vague manor. An enemy is best defined as a country that is seen to be a threat to another. Furthermore, the prompt is summerized to say that a country can be initially seen as enemy and later seen as a friend. In the case of the british empire, many countries were colonialized under british rule. Often, laws were passed in britian and inforced in the colonies with little or no say in how the laws affected the colonies. Additionally, the colonies were taxed heavily by the empire leading to the acts of the british being called "taxation without reputation". Over time, the coloniies grew tired of the mistreatment and began to take the british empire as a common enemy. They began a fight for independance and after deligent effort, were free from british rule and took the name as the United States. Ironically, decades later, after the attacks of 9/11, Britian and the United States acted as allies in the fight again terrorism. President Bush was heavily supported by Tony Blair in going into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction. In this case, the British were seen initally as enemy but later as a friend. However, in the case of neutrality, this is not true. A neutral country is one that has no enemies at all, They are restricted from forgeign war and often are mediators of peace. An example is Swedean. Sweaden is a country known for being neutral from many decades and has mediated talks of peace keeping and has allowed for places where treaties can be signed. Sweadan has no enemies because it has no oppinion or stance when it comes to inposing foreign policy on other countries. Neutral counties are to refran from even having a military and therefore, the dichotomy of enemies and friends often being the same is unraveled. Sweadan has no enemies, only friends. So a distinct line can be drawn between when a country has enemies and friends that are the same. For most counties, such as in the case of the US and Britian, enemies can flip flop between being an allie and being a fo. Often it depends of foreign policy and international relationships that become sour. However, if a country is neutral, it has no international postion other than as peacekeeper. Sweadan has no enemies and has never gone into war against another country. Overall, it is indeed natural for the impression of an enemy to change and to be seen as a friend later. But if a country as no enemies at all, then there is no changing of impression. Thanks pastaman. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. Problems with integration and coherence of ideas. Task#1 was not adequately addressed. It does not seem evident that the prompt corresponds to a chronological separation of a political friend and a political enemy, whereby an enemy becomes a friend. The example of Sweden does not adequately address task#2. It follows that task#3 was also not adequately addressed. I feel this essay will be scored a: JK/LMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bored Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -clicked- Hey, This is my first essay. Took me exactly 25:44 minutes. Our Understanding of Human Events is always influenced by personal Bias. From the time animals learnt to think, there is always something known as the consciousness within them. This consciousness is the reason why humans are able to store and process lots of information and react to that information. This is the one skill that makes us more advanced then the organisms of the past. But naturally, with this ability to think and store information, comes bias in interpreting events in our every day life. Obviously not all the humans think alike. What makes each human different apart from the DNA code are the life skills that they are thought while they are growing. These values and morals have great impact on the interpretation of events. I remember at one time, I was visiting a third world nation. While I was on a public bus, a man came and sat down beside a woman. The expression on this woman's face was that of a deeply insulted person. She got up that very moment and started to find another spot. At first this was very strange to me, however, later I thought that this is because the man 's and the woman's values and morals are different. The story reminds us all that everyone's interpretation is based on our own understanding of values and morals. The woman thought that she was being harassed when the man came to sit beside her. The woman in my story eventually sat down at a seet beside another woman. She was keen on not sitting beside another man. Had this even happened in a western society, it would not have been considered so insulting to the woman. THis is because her values are much different then of those living in a conservative society of a third world nation. The values and morals of an individual always influence their interpretations of events. When extreme events occure to a human, such as a murder or a rape, everyone in the world no matter where they grew up will precive it as a crime. Though the extent of this crime and the expected punishment for this crime will always vary from one person to the next, but it will be a crime nontheless. The important fact to take note of is that certain events of the human life are always labelled the same by all the humans in the world. When a baby is born, emotions of joy usually erupt from most of the human population. When a genecide happens, emotions of sadness for the dead and anger for the tyrent are usually observed by most of the people in the world. Therefore it can be concluded that the amount of influence conducted by human bias directly depends on the event. If the event is an important event such as birth or murder, then it will be precieved with similar interpretations. However if the event is not as important, then the values and morals of the human will have great impact on the interpretation of that individial. The end some questions: is it ok that I used "I" in the essay? is that a problem as it is with most essays and papers that we do for school? also, I feel like I am being too nerrow minded.. Im not thinking about the bigger picture when it coems to these promts.. do you think that is the case here? Thanks in advanced for your response Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan19 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 ---Clicked---- In politics, the responsible use of power is rewarded with greater power. In a democratic society, the people vote for those political canditates whom they feel would best represent them in the government. Those who are successfully elected have a responsibility to use the power consildated in this manner to serve the will and wishes of the people in society. Since the power ultimately lies in the hands of the people, and their ability to elect representatives into the government, if a political candidate does not make changes in governmental policies that reflect the people, this individual will lose the vote of the public – thus losing power. Thus, when a political candidate uses the power bestowed upon him or her with utmost responsibility - that is to reflect the will on the society, he or she is rewarded with greater power. For example, Steven Harper was elected as the Prime Minister of Canada for the term 1994-1998. During the time he served, he made sweeping changes in Canadian policy which reflected the wishes of Canadian people of the time, implementing economic policies which removed domestic companies from direct competition from foreign companies, and increasing a larger proportion of the federal budget to develop better educational standards. Many of the Canadian people were happy with his time in the office, and felt that he acted responsibly, making adequate use of his powers to make changes in the Canadian policy which best represented the wishes of the people. He was considered one of the Great Prime Ministers of Canada for the time in office, and was rewarded, as he was revoted into office as Prime Minister for a second term, serving from 1998-2002. There are instances; however, when a political candidate may make not use his power responsibly, and may still be rewarded with greater power. Irresponsible actions are those which do not follow the will of the people in society, and are heavily attested. For instance, during 1992, Pierre Elliot Trudeau served as the Prime Minister of Canada. In September of 1993, there was a threat to Canada by a terrorist group, the Quebecois, which threatened the lives of Canadian citizens. Using his political power, Mr. Trudeau revoked the Canadian Charter of Rights, which protected the freedoms and values of Canadian citizens. Many people saw this as an irrational and impulsive decision, which violated their rights as human beings. Although many citizens of Canada thought that Trudeau had abused his power initially, they later came to see that his decision was appropriate. Redacting the Charter of Rights, he was able to search and find out many members of the Quebecois party, arrest them, removing many citizens from harm and danger. In doing so, many Canadian citizens came to respect his decision, and he was heralded as a great leader. In the upcoming election, he was re-elected into power as a result of this. Therefore, whether or not the responsible use of political power is rewarded with greater power depends on whether there is an imminent threat to the citizens of a nation. In the case of Steven Harper, he served his candidacy in a time where there was no threat to the Canadian people, and thus his responsible use of his power garnered him more power, as he was re-elected as a prime minister. On the other hand, if there is a threat to the citizens of a country, the leader may irresonsibily use his or her power to better serve the people, best scene in the instance of Pierre Elliot Trudea, and his neutralization of the terrorist threat in 1993. ---Clicked---- Those who own land have the right to do with it as they choose. Freedom is the epitome of many modern day democratic societies, such as Canada and United States. The laws of these sovereign nations allow citizens of the country to excercise their own freedom. Not suprisingly, those who own property rights in this nation have the freedom to do what they choose with the land. One example of this occurs in Canada, during 1977, when a farmer, Willy Stamos, who owned a large piece of land decided to build a industrial size slaughterhouse, which had mechanized technology to mass produce and slay baby cows to accommodate new, and increasingly popular food taste and trends - veal. Many animal-rights activist in Canada protested against the building of such structures, claiming that the industrial process were inhumane in their treatment of the baby cows, and that such processes would dehumanize society in killing. They sought to appeal to the government to prevent the farmer, Stamos, from building such. After careful consideration of the protestors' argument, the government had not ruled in favour of the animal-rights activist, citing that the practices peformed under Stamos's land were not under violation of any of the Canadian laws, and did not detract or affect the public resources of surrounding areas. There are instances; however, when those who own property should not have the freedom to choose what they should do with their land. When the activity that is committed under on owner's land directly and detrimentally affects the ecological processes surrounding the area, then the freedom bestowed to an individual to do whatever they want on that piece of land should be revoked. Farmers in New Mexico of the United States had been using their land for agriculture. With technological breakthroughs, and the development of nitrogen rich fertilizers, in 2004, these farmers began heavily fertilizing their crops, in hopes of higher and richer crop yields. Although they did achieve these results, the effect on the environment was disasterous, as excess fertilizer was proven in subsequent studies to run off into ground water, and then into the surrounding lakes. This lead to the process of eutrophication, where the marine life in these lakes became devoid of life. Various activities surrounding the water were affected, such as the fishing industry, and many people living near the lakes complained, as a layer of dead black algae covered the surface of the lake changing the beautiful scenery to an ugly sight. In this case, when the citizens of the surrounding area complained to the US government, this result in a government intervention, which then swiftly enacted a policy which prevented farmers from using copious amounts of fertilzer on their land. In this instance, since the activities of the farmers affected and detered the activities of those using public property, the lake, they were restricted in their freedom of what they could do on the property they owned. Therefore, the ability of an individual to freely do whatever one chooses on their property depends on whether or not these activities performed affect the surrounding public resources. In the instance of the farmer Stamos, the slaughterhouse did not adversely affect any public resources adjacent to the property, and thus was not prohibited. In the farming incident in New Mexico; however, the use of fertilizers had a detrimental effect on the community, polluting the waters, and affecting the usage of a public resource. Thus, since this usage affected others to a considerable degree, government intervention was necessary to restrict the freedom of activities of the farmers on that land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubagirl Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 -clicked- To be effective, government officials must have completely crime-free pasts. One reason that government is so important in today’s society is that it provides guidelines, or laws, by which its citizens may live. The government and its officials ensure that these laws remain intact and are followed so that order may be kept. Government officials such as political leaders and elected representatives can be equated to law enforcers in an indirect way, as they are responsible for creating the laws and making sure that they are enforced. Since these officials are responsible for creating and maintaining the laws of a particular nation, it follows that they should be expected to uphold these laws in their own lives as much as any other citizen. Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, is a good example of an elected official who has upheld the laws at all times. His success at the polls can be attributed partly to the image that he portrays to Canadians—one of honesty, hard work, and most of all, respect for the laws of his nation. As a leader, it is Prime Minister Harper’s responsibility to uphold the laws just as any citizen would, as it provides a good example for fellow Canadians. It is for this reason that Stephen Harper is rarely questioned in his ethics—he conducts himself according to the law and as such, is respected by his people. Although it is an elected official’s responsibility to maintain the law at all times, there are exceptions. Barack Obama, the President of the United States, has openly admitted to using cocaine, an illegal stimulant, in the past. Despite the electorate’s knowledge of this blatantly illegal activity, he was still elected as President and is very much respected by his nation for his morality and his ethical conduct. Barack Obama is an example of a political leader who has not always obeyed the laws of his nation but is still an effective leader. The fine line between these two leaders may lie in the fact that President Obama did not participate in illegal drug use during his time as an elected official. Although criminal activity is not excusable at any time, it can be argued that a politician should only be held accountable for his actions during the time of his leadership. Government officials should be responsible for their actions, but only when these actions are representative of the leader as a leader, and not as a person. The quality of a leader should not be judged on past mistakes, but rather on his ability to uphold his duties to the law as a responsible leader. President Obama is a fine example of a fit leader who has completely upheld his duties to the law as a President, which is all that anyone can ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 -Clicked- Voters should not be concerned about a political candidate’s personal life. Citizens of democratic countries have the right to vote for a political candidate and/or party that they feel is suitable to lead their country. During times of elections, political candidates make various efforts to convince voters about their abilities as a leader. Many political candidates make various promises on different matters including health care, employment, education, foreign trade, tax cuts, community based programs and much more. As such, a voter should only be concerned with the professional life of a political candidiate and not his/her personal life. As a voter, it is the citizen’s responsibility to carefully asssess the ability of the candidate to be a good leader and a good communicator, thereby being one who is best fit for the job. Just as employers are not allowed to look at personal life matters of a job applicant, personal life matters of a political candidate should not be used by voters to assess the abilities of the candidate. For example, Dr. Manmohan Singh is the current Prime Minister of India who holds a PhD in political science and economics from Harvard University. Prior to taking on the role as the Prime Minister of India, he served as a Minister of Finance. During that time, he was able to demonstrate his ability to be a great leader and one who is truly concerned about the well being of the nation as a whole. Therefore, his past performance serves as a better indicator of his abilities and voters should be concerned with such professional aspects of his life. In contrast, it is not always necessary for voters to primarily base their decision on the political candidate’s professional life and to ignore his/her personal life. The chararcter of a political candidate within his/her personal life and how they deal with their family and friends can be a great reflection of the abilities of the candidate. Moreover, it can also help voters to connect with political candidate on various levels of similarity. For example, Stephen Harper is the current Prime Minister of Canada who is also a father of two young children. During the recent elections, the media portrayed him as being a family oriented man who greatly cared for his children and wife. As such, this allows voters with young children and families to connect with the candidate. When Harper made promises regarding increased funding for public school boards across the country, voters may be able to assess his abilities to deliver on that promise on the basis that he also has young children currently enrolled in public schools. Furthermore, this illustrates that Harper cares for his own children as well as the children of other Canadians and the issue of improved education is highly important to him. Given that, it would seem likely to a voter that if elected, Harper would be more likely to deliver on his promise. Therefore, voters can use a political candidate’s personal life to further assess his/her ability to be a good leader and to deliver on the promises made. In conclusion, citizens of a democratic country have the right to make their own choices. In terms of political choices, citizens have the equal say with regards to whom they wish to see as a leader for their region. This right to equal say and freedom of choice can be exercised on various levels including local, provincial and federal. As a voter, one should be primarily concerned with the political candidate’s professional life and his/her abilities to lead the country forwards as well as work in the best interests of the citizens. This is especially true where professional life matters of a political candidate are a better indicator of his/her abilities to lead the nation. This was clearly seen in the example of Dr. Manmohan Singh, current Prime Minister of India who served the country as a Minister of Finance prior to being elected as the Prime Minister. His good track record as a Minister of Finance should be evaluated by the voters as it serves as a better indicator of his abilities to be a good Prime Minister. On the other hand, it may be okay for a voter to assess a political candidate’s ability as a leader based on his/her personal life when the candidate’s personal characteristics allow voters to connect with the candidate on an equal level. This was clearly seen in the example of Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper who is seen as a family man that many other Canadians can connect with. In this case, Canadians can see Harper as another fellow citizen of the country who is also going through a similar process of raising a familiy. Note that this does not promote discrimination of any form but rather allows Canadians to better assess the candidate as a person and to conncet with the candidate on a personal level. Thanks PastaInhaler!! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Proficiency in responding to the tasks. Your essay will be strengthened if you are able to comment on Dr. Singh's personal life, perhaps something somewhat negative in his past that is overshadowed by his proficiency in politics. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQ/RST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 -clicked- Students should study only what naturally interests them. Describe a specific situation in which students might study something other than what naturally interests them. Discuss what you think determines when students should study what naturally interests them and when they should not. In the past several decades, there has been a tremendous increase in the collective human knowledge-base, due to increase in research and development. With the overwhelming areas of studies, ranging from the age-old medicine and engineering to the more recent fields such as nanotechnology and robotics, it can often be difficult to decide what to study. Ultimately, students should pursue a field of study that naturally interests them. If a student pursues his/her passion, then they will be motivated to successfully complete their studies. They will enjoy their program because they are interested in it. At the University of Toronto, there are a vast number of programs that a student can enrol in such as Music, Arts, Science, and Engineering. Students are encouraged to pursue whichever area that interests them. On the other hand, when a student is attending high school there are certain requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to graduate. Since obtaining secondary school education is mandatory by law in Ontario and much of the Western world, often students have to study something other than what they are interested in. For example, according to the Ontario secondary school curriculum, in order to graduate a student must complete a credit of English in each of the four years. A student cannot obtain their secondary school diploma unless they meet this requirement. Even though a student may despise the study of English, they must study it in order to obtain their secondary school. Similarly, in Ontario, if an individual desires to study medicine he must complete at least 3 years of undergraduate education before he can enrol in medicine. Often there are certain requirements that a student must complete in order to eligible for the program of their desire. Thus, there are times when a student has to study something other than what interests them in order to achieve a future goal. Therefore, a student should study what naturally interests them however, they should be mindful of certain requirements. Sometimes they will have to study something that is not to their pleasing but is necessary because it is required, such as English in high school. It is a requirement that they must fulfill in order to achieve their future goals. Thus, a student should ultimately pursue an area that interests them but they should also be prepared to study something that they not be interested in but is part of the requirement. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity, but lacking in depth in some areas. For the first example, it would be helpful if you provide a reason why a student might pursue studies in something that naturally interests them. e.g. Why would someone who likes Music go into Music? (It is implied that the argument is not a circular one). I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 ---Clicked---- In politics, the responsible use of power is rewarded with greater power. In a democratic society, the people vote for those political canditates whom they feel would best represent them in the government. Those who are successfully elected have a responsibility to use the power consildated in this manner to serve the will and wishes of the people in society. Since the power ultimately lies in the hands of the people, and their ability to elect representatives into the government, if a political candidate does not make changes in governmental policies that reflect the people, this individual will lose the vote of the public – thus losing power. Thus, when a political candidate uses the power bestowed upon him or her with utmost responsibility - that is to reflect the will on the society, he or she is rewarded with greater power. For example, Steven Harper was elected as the Prime Minister of Canada for the term 1994-1998. During the time he served, he made sweeping changes in Canadian policy which reflected the wishes of Canadian people of the time, implementing economic policies which removed domestic companies from direct competition from foreign companies, and increasing a larger proportion of the federal budget to develop better educational standards. Many of the Canadian people were happy with his time in the office, and felt that he acted responsibly, making adequate use of his powers to make changes in the Canadian policy which best represented the wishes of the people. He was considered one of the Great Prime Ministers of Canada for the time in office, and was rewarded, as he was revoted into office as Prime Minister for a second term, serving from 1998-2002. There are instances; however, when a political candidate may make not use his power responsibly, and may still be rewarded with greater power. Irresponsible actions are those which do not follow the will of the people in society, and are heavily attested. For instance, during 1992, Pierre Elliot Trudeau served as the Prime Minister of Canada. In September of 1993, there was a threat to Canada by a terrorist group, the Quebecois, which threatened the lives of Canadian citizens. Using his political power, Mr. Trudeau revoked the Canadian Charter of Rights, which protected the freedoms and values of Canadian citizens. Many people saw this as an irrational and impulsive decision, which violated their rights as human beings. Although many citizens of Canada thought that Trudeau had abused his power initially, they later came to see that his decision was appropriate. Redacting the Charter of Rights, he was able to search and find out many members of the Quebecois party, arrest them, removing many citizens from harm and danger. In doing so, many Canadian citizens came to respect his decision, and he was heralded as a great leader. In the upcoming election, he was re-elected into power as a result of this. Therefore, whether or not the responsible use of political power is rewarded with greater power depends on whether there is an imminent threat to the citizens of a nation. In the case of Steven Harper, he served his candidacy in a time where there was no threat to the Canadian people, and thus his responsible use of his power garnered him more power, as he was re-elected as a prime minister. On the other hand, if there is a threat to the citizens of a country, the leader may irresonsibily use his or her power to better serve the people, best scene in the instance of Pierre Elliot Trudea, and his neutralization of the terrorist threat in 1993. ---Clicked---- Those who own land have the right to do with it as they choose. Freedom is the epitome of many modern day democratic societies, such as Canada and United States. The laws of these sovereign nations allow citizens of the country to excercise their own freedom. Not suprisingly, those who own property rights in this nation have the freedom to do what they choose with the land. One example of this occurs in Canada, during 1977, when a farmer, Willy Stamos, who owned a large piece of land decided to build a industrial size slaughterhouse, which had mechanized technology to mass produce and slay baby cows to accommodate new, and increasingly popular food taste and trends - veal. Many animal-rights activist in Canada protested against the building of such structures, claiming that the industrial process were inhumane in their treatment of the baby cows, and that such processes would dehumanize society in killing. They sought to appeal to the government to prevent the farmer, Stamos, from building such. After careful consideration of the protestors' argument, the government had not ruled in favour of the animal-rights activist, citing that the practices peformed under Stamos's land were not under violation of any of the Canadian laws, and did not detract or affect the public resources of surrounding areas. There are instances; however, when those who own property should not have the freedom to choose what they should do with their land. When the activity that is committed under on owner's land directly and detrimentally affects the ecological processes surrounding the area, then the freedom bestowed to an individual to do whatever they want on that piece of land should be revoked. Farmers in New Mexico of the United States had been using their land for agriculture. With technological breakthroughs, and the development of nitrogen rich fertilizers, in 2004, these farmers began heavily fertilizing their crops, in hopes of higher and richer crop yields. Although they did achieve these results, the effect on the environment was disasterous, as excess fertilizer was proven in subsequent studies to run off into ground water, and then into the surrounding lakes. This lead to the process of eutrophication, where the marine life in these lakes became devoid of life. Various activities surrounding the water were affected, such as the fishing industry, and many people living near the lakes complained, as a layer of dead black algae covered the surface of the lake changing the beautiful scenery to an ugly sight. In this case, when the citizens of the surrounding area complained to the US government, this result in a government intervention, which then swiftly enacted a policy which prevented farmers from using copious amounts of fertilzer on their land. In this instance, since the activities of the farmers affected and detered the activities of those using public property, the lake, they were restricted in their freedom of what they could do on the property they owned. Therefore, the ability of an individual to freely do whatever one chooses on their property depends on whether or not these activities performed affect the surrounding public resources. In the instance of the farmer Stamos, the slaughterhouse did not adversely affect any public resources adjacent to the property, and thus was not prohibited. In the farming incident in New Mexico; however, the use of fertilizers had a detrimental effect on the community, polluting the waters, and affecting the usage of a public resource. Thus, since this usage affected others to a considerable degree, government intervention was necessary to restrict the freedom of activities of the farmers on that land. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. There is an issue with task#2. You described how Trudeau abused his power by revoking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is an example of how someone who did not use power responsibly was rewarded with more power. It does not satisfy the requirement: "Describe a specific situation in which the responsible use of power might not be rewarded with greater power." Also, I believe you were referring to the FLQ and not the Bloc Québécois. The FLQ were not active in 1993. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bored Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 -clicked- forgot to click.. so I clicked twice and made it my home page lol Hey, This is my first essay. Took me exactly 25:44 minutes. Our Understanding of Human Events is always influenced by personal Bias. From the time animals learnt to think, there is always something known as the consciousness within them. This consciousness is the reason why humans are able to store and process lots of information and react to that information. This is the one skill that makes us more advanced then the organisms of the past. But naturally, with this ability to think and store information, comes bias in interpreting events in our every day life. Obviously not all the humans think alike. What makes each human different apart from the DNA code are the life skills that they are thought while they are growing. These values and morals have great impact on the interpretation of events. I remember at one time, I was visiting a third world nation. While I was on a public bus, a man came and sat down beside a woman. The expression on this woman's face was that of a deeply insulted person. She got up that very moment and started to find another spot. At first this was very strange to me, however, later I thought that this is because the man 's and the woman's values and morals are different. The story reminds us all that everyone's interpretation is based on our own understanding of values and morals. The woman thought that she was being harassed when the man came to sit beside her. The woman in my story eventually sat down at a seet beside another woman. She was keen on not sitting beside another man. Had this even happened in a western society, it would not have been considered so insulting to the woman. THis is because her values are much different then of those living in a conservative society of a third world nation. The values and morals of an individual always influence their interpretations of events. When extreme events occure to a human, such as a murder or a rape, everyone in the world no matter where they grew up will precive it as a crime. Though the extent of this crime and the expected punishment for this crime will always vary from one person to the next, but it will be a crime nontheless. The important fact to take note of is that certain events of the human life are always labelled the same by all the humans in the world. When a baby is born, emotions of joy usually erupt from most of the human population. When a genecide happens, emotions of sadness for the dead and anger for the tyrent are usually observed by most of the people in the world. Therefore it can be concluded that the amount of influence conducted by human bias directly depends on the event. If the event is an important event such as birth or murder, then it will be precieved with similar interpretations. However if the event is not as important, then the values and morals of the human will have great impact on the interpretation of that individial. The end some questions: is it ok that I used "I" in the essay? is that a problem as it is with most essays and papers that we do for school? also, I feel like I am being too nerrow minded.. Im not thinking about the bigger picture when it coems to these promts.. do you think that is the case here? Thanks in advanced for your response Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 --clicked-- Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please the voters, not on what is best for the country. In a democratic society, their constituents vote politicians into power. Thus, it is of no surprise that during election time, candidates strive to introduce, reinforce, or dismantle policies that may or may not please their voters in order to gain their support. A prime example of this occurred during Steven Harper’s run to be Prime Minister of Canada. Since its original enactment by Brian Mulroney, the GST has caused much disapproval among Canadians. Even Jean Chretien had tried to remove it during his time as Prime Minister- but without success. Capitalzing on this mass displeasement of the GST, during his campaign, Harper vowed to reduce the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from its original 7% to 6% and then eventually to 5%. This found favour amongst the majority of the Canadians and as a result, Harper was granted the privilege of being Prime Minister of Canada. However, despite pleasing the nation, his reduction of the GST had devastating effects on the Canadian budget. Economists have calculated that as a result of the GST cuts, Canada’s debt has risen by 10 billion to 50 billion dollars. This is a huge debt for the country, one that has still yet to be reconciled for. As can be seen clearly in this example, politicians who endeavor to please their voters may end up damaging the country. In contrast, there are times in which politicans put the welfare of their country above the desires of their voters. These politicans realize the greater good and the long term benefits to come for the country, as opposed to the immediate benefit of pleasing their constituents. A great example of this occurred just recenetly with the Conservative government introducing the “back to work bill” for Canada post workers. Canada post employees have been struggling to come to an agreement with its employer on a new set of guidelines regarding their wages and pension. Despite several talks, the union and Canada Post have not come to an agreement. As a result, its employees went on strike. Mail was no longer delievered and many businesses suffered because of it. There have been cases in which businesses even had to lay off workers because businesses were unable to get any income themselves due to the postal strike. The Conservative government recognized this situation as a catalyst to what could possibly lead to another economic recession and acted quickly. They introduced the “back to work bill” which caused much frustration amongst Canadians, especially Canada Post employees. The main reason for this is because the bill itself offered less than what the employees were asking for. In addition, employees argued that their freedom as workers and as union members were being curbed. Although this bill has still yet to be passed, its delay due to the opposition from the NDP party, it can clearly be seen that there are times when politicans look at the greater welfare of the country rather than only what pleases their voters. What determines whether politicans should prioritize the voters above the welfare of the country or vice versa, is dependent on the type and extent of consequences that will result. If the consequence is not immediate and can be reconciled for in the future, then pleasing voters over the welfare of the country may be plausible. In regards to Harper cutting the GST from 7% to 5%, although he placed Canada into 10 billion dollars more of national debt, this debt can be reconciled for in the future, as the Harper government is now doing. Its effects do not directly and immediately harm the nation of Canada and as such, pleasing the voters by reducing the GST brings more benefits than harm. However, if the consequence is immediate and devastating, such as a potential economic recession amidst all the economic turmoil occurring around the world already (European debt crisis), putting the country first above voters is more beneficial. This can be seen when the Conservative government introduced the “back to work bill,” despite huge outcry by Canadians, in order to protect the economy of Canada. It is a fine line that politicans walk on, pleasing voters or looking after the country, but it is these cruicial decisions that policians make, that will determine whether they are successful or not. thanks alot pasta! love the feedback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 --clicked--- An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present. History is an integrable part of our society and has become a foundation in which humanity has looked upon to solve problems of the present. Even in our daily life, we are taught to look at our past mistakes to learn how to improve in the future. Therefore, it is of no surprise that throughout humanity, many leaders have used their understanding of the past to solve problems of the present. Martin Luther King is an excellent example of this. King, a civil rights activist and leader, employed Ghandi’s philosophy of achieving goals through non-violent means. Having understood the past and realized how successful Ghandi’s techniques were in ultimately achieveing India’s independence through acts of civil disobedience as opposed to violence, King also advocated and employed this technique during his fight against black inequality and segregation. An iconic example of this are the events leading up to the Montgomery Bus Boycott in which a black woman, Rosa Parks, a supporter of King, refused to give up her seat to a white man in an act of civil disobedience- not violence. This event sparked the civil rights movement, led by King, and eventually, led to the end of black inequality and racial segregation. As can be seen, King’s understanding of Ghandi’s successful actions in the past, inspired him to follow Ghandi’s footsteps which ultimately led to him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his fight to end racial segregation. However, there are times when understanding the past does not help solve present day situations. When the current situation is vastly different past situations, employing previously used strategies only leads to failure. This can clearly be seen in the fight against the AIDS pandemic. AIDS, a worldwide pandemic, is a disease that targets and destroys the immune system of humans, leading to their death. This AIDS virus is nothing that medical researchers have seen before and thus, looking into the past will not help. In fact, looking into the past may even perpetuate the problem, as it is a result of past sexual practices, and even ongoing ones, that have led to rapid spread of AIDS. As can be seen, because this virus is so adaptive and different from viruses previously known, looking into the past offers no aid. Thus, researchers and scientists must rely on new technology and present day knowledge to find a cure. So then, when does society, or even individuals, rely on history to solve present day problems? This depends entirely on whether the situation in the past is relevant to the current situation. In the case of King and his fight for racial equality, his understanding of the Ghandi, who similarly also fought for the rights of his people, allowed King to be successful. Both Ghandi’s situation and King’s present situation had common threads, and as such, King’s employment of Ghandi’s philosophy aided him to achieve his goal. However, in contrast, AIDS is a disease that is one of a kind. Nothing like it has ever occurred in the past, so as a result, strategies used to combat viruses previously are of no use currently. Instead of looking at history, scientists must now develop new strategies of their own, in attempts to find a cure to stop this world wide pandemic. much appreciated as always Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliver Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 -Clicked- Thank you! There are times when an individual's private acts should become a public concern. Describe a specific situation in which an individual's private acts should not become a public concern. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the acts of an individual should become a public concern. In the modern society, the issues around privacy of individual members are treated importantly, as evident in privacy laws set up in many nations. Privacy includes personal information and daily activities of an individual. The privacy laws are generally established to secure the privacy of each member of the society. However, there are times when an individual’s daily actions need to be publicly monitored. Criminals with severe crimes, such as sexual assault, should be a common concern in the neighbourhood and need to be constantly monitored to prevent any potential damage to the community. For example, Canada has implemented Sex offender registry to protect each community from sex offenders. This registry contains and releases a list of sex offenders with their address to neighbours and encourages the neighbours to observe the offenders closely to effectively prevent any potential harm that could be done to the community. Therefore, an individual’s daily motions should become a public concern when the individual is deemed to be potentially harmful to the society. In contrast, an individual’s daily actions should not be a daily spotlight, if the individual does not cause any harm or damage to the community. Nowadays, there are many homosexual people in the neighbourhood. Some people have argued that the homosexual people can adversely affect the neighbourhood and should forbid gay marriages. However, unless these homosexual people have a history of crimes, they do not physically cause harm to any communities. Their sexuality plays no role in damaging the society and therefore should not be a public concern. In fact, their rights have been established in several nations, as evident in allowance of same-sex marriage in Canada. Pierre Trudeau once said “Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. Individual’s privacy rights need to be respected and should not become a public concern when the individual does not cause any harm to the society. The privacy of each member of the society is a complex issue. If an individual has a history of severe crimes, such as sexual assault, the person needs to be constantly monitored by the neighbourhood to prevent any potential damages. On the other hand, if an individual does not pose any harm to the community, the individual’s rights to enjoy privacy need to be secured. For example, though homosexual people have different sexuality from traditional measures, they do not damage the society and therefore their privacy needs to be respected. Ultimately, whether or not daily actions of an individual should be monitored is determined by the measure of physical harmfulness to the society. As depicted here, there are times when an individual should be monitored publicly but there are times when the opposite should occur as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTB14 Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 ---clicked--- (sweet initiative, thanks for showing me that) The best of kind of education encourages students to question authority. The aim of education is to provide students with knowledge and understanding of a given subject. The knowledge presents the subject's fundamental theorems and builds upon them to the necessary extent. Understanding is then tested by manipulating the material as taught, and assessing the students' ability to correctly apply knowledge. The best kind of education is one that gives students the freedom to pick apart a unified body of knowledge as it taught, such that understanding is fostered every step of the way and not only at the time of evaluation. But this freedom needs to be checked when the knowledge being presented is necessary for the students to initially grasp the system of ideas. Consider a fundamental mathematical theorem; for the students to understand and manipulate a family of functions, the theorem needs to be taught and adhered to. Even if advanced study will later allow for the theorem to questioned, it still has to be strictly taught first before any further understanding is possible. Thus, the extent to which the subject matter is grounded determines whether the education should give freedom to question authority or restrict it. All central theorems need to stay central because they lead into knowledge and understanding of everything else in the field of study. But the successive outworkings of those fundamental theorems can be questioned, especially the newer ones on the advancing frontier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.