Recent orders
First Man on the Moon and its Effects on Society
First Man on the Moon and its Effects on Society
Baumann Bruno
Institution
First Man on the Moon and its Effects on Society
For centuries, man looked up to the sky and fanaticized that he would walk on the moon. In 1969, Neil Armstrong set the first human footprint on the moon after a successful Apollo 11 voyage (Crawford, Baldwin, Taylor, Bailey, & Tsembelis, 2008). This event marked a feat to an enduring dream that inspired man to expand further space explorations. Innovative technologies and medical discoveries enhanced and changed from fantasy to reality after the mission to the moon. Today, many nations engage in space explorations for economic benefits, scientific discovery, and national security concerns. The successful mission to the moon inspired a belief in human capital in the face of challenges, opened further opportunities for explorations, and fueled competition among nations in the modern world.
Man’s successful landing on the moon had an emotional effect on the society. The mission gives people pride and positive perspective on their inherent abilities to achieve success in any undertaking. The emotional consequence of space exploration emerges in the quest by people to disregard their limitations and explore the horizons for the infinite opportunities available in other planets. Modern science seeks to explore the unknown to find solution to medical, social, and economic problems despite the costs of conducting research on these issues, both on earth and through space expeditions (Steyaerta & Katzb, 2004). Space explorations to the moon and popular planets like mars serve as a unifying force and raise the belief in people’s individual and collective ability to succeed in their endeavors despite the emerging challenges.
Space explorations open up numerous opportunities for financial and knowledge gain. Explorers and space entrepreneurs make a living by providing new information for space research and facilitating space travel, respectively. NASA and private jet companies, like Virgin Atlantic, continue to develop new space crafts that are convenient and reliable for space travel. These companies make huge profits and continue to grow in popularity because of the increase in the number of space enthusiasts. Space explorations not only offer financial opportunities but also help man to solve the problem of limited resources on Earth (Steyaerta & Katzb, 2004). The solar system has abundant space and mineral resources that can help humanity, for example, the iron and radon found on Mars, coupled with the discovery of the capacity of this planet to support life, can help solve the problem of mineral scarcity and population boom on Earth.
World superpowers, developed, and developing nations engage in technological, medical, and political competition akin to the Space Race. This popular race pitted America versus the Soviet Union in the quest to achieve superiority over Solar System explorations (Crawford, Baldwin, Taylor, Bailey, & Tsembelis, 2008). President Kennedy inspired American explorers to counter the Soviet’s dominance of space activities by a passionate speech that inspired enthusiasm and hope to all Americans. The speech did not go in vain because Armstrong, an American explorer, set the first human foot on the moon a decade later. Soviet explorers and those from other nations took this development as a challenge and inspiration to propel their space activities until their citizens landed on the moon. The rivalry among nations on issues such as foreign policy, military influence, medical research, and space exploration continue today.
The successful voyage to the moon motivated man to believe in the inherent capacity to endure challenges, provided new opportunities for exploration, and fueled rivalries among nations in modern civilization. People passionately recount the voyage to the moon and get inspiration to prevail over all obstacles in their quest to achieve success in all their activities. Space exploration opens up numerous opportunities for financial gain and research that help solve problems on Earth. The enduring modern political, economic, and military rivalries among nations resemble and derive from the Space Race.
References
Crawford, A., Baldwin, E., Taylor, E., Bailey, A., and Tsembelis, K. (2008). On the Survivability and Detectability of Terrestrial Meteorites on the Moon. Astrobiology, Volume: 8 Issue 2: 242-252.
Steyaerta, C. & Katzb, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, Volume 16, Issue 3, 2004, pages 179-196.
Federal Intervention in State Matters
Federal Intervention in State Matters
Name
Institution Affiliation
Federal Intervention in State Matters
Elections
Those of the conventional perspective are of the idea that the federal government plays a small role in elections and campaigns. Although states have authority in numerous aspects of campaign and elections in comparison, a more focused look shows that the federal government has steadily increased its influence in campaigns and elections for the past half-century. Combined, lots of Congressional committees and federal agencies could take part in federal elections under the current law (Weinstein-Tull, 2015).
Congress today is but a multifaceted combination of traditional oversight obligations and new ones when it comes to election fields. When reports came out suggesting foreign interference during the 2016 elections cycle, with apprehension over the issue reoccurring in the future, the profile of activities surrounding the elections in Congress has significantly been raised. The attempt by Russia to infiltrate the US elections is construed by state and local election officials to provide an excuse for the Federal government to take unlimited control over the electoral process. The federal government has included the elections as part of its national critical infrastructure and claims that special attention is warranted.
Although the FBI which is leading this process has a legitimate claim the federal government has increased control over elections and if this new infrastructure is implemented the federal government will go to the extent of taking over obligations of the states such as the location of polling sites. By doing so, the federal government would jeopardize what has been the nation’s best security. The electoral system has been highly decentralized which means manipulating the voting process on a large scale is not possible using cyber-attacks because a national system for which to attack does not exist.
What might be giving this claim by federal agencies power, is the activities of states online. Having individual systems makes it impossible for hackers to manipulate votes. However, states are progressively posting election data online. This information includes lists of voters and preliminary vote counts, which makes it increases the susceptibility of the elections at the very least being disrupted. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should, however, help with the security of elections and not to dictate how states run them. Working with critical infrastructure should not be through regulation but rather voluntary partnerships. These partnerships include information sharing, taking community opinion, determining what they want, and collaborating with them to provide the information.
The Department of Homeland Security providing technical services has nothing to do with taking over state control over major aspects of the election like deciding the location of the polling sites. Furthermore, state election officials have been following the procedures that the DHS is proposing for years such as testing voting systems and only additional help is necessary. Although state electoral bodies also want additional funds with the new infrastructure, it is clear that the designation of critical infrastructure does not accompany additional funds.
Redistricting
America bases its democracy on fair representation and the central idea that the government has the obligation of accountability to the people. The interest of the people are carried by Congress and state legislatures, the voters select members of these bodies in a system that is transparent and competitive. In short, the system allows the people to express their policy and political preferences. Redistricting is one issue that ensures that voters are able to enjoy their rights. It is the process by which boundaries to congressional and state legislature are drawn. All representatives in the United States are as well state legislators come from political areas divided to form districts. These boundaries are drawn every ten years after the national census. The federal government mandates that districts should have equal populations and must not divide on the basis of race.
However, redistricting has been facing a huge problem in the name of gerrymandering. When state legislators have the power to conduct legislative redistricting, they can use this process to alter district lines in a bid to raise their election prospects and influence outcomes (Manheim, 2013). This is contrary to the purpose of the state legislature where redistricting commissions are expected to draw district lines in the effort to make them easier to understand and ensure that every citizen receives fair treatment in all aspects of exercising their democracy and ensuring consistency. The federal constitution requires states to comply with certain guidelines associated with population and anti-discrimination. For congressional redistricting, states should ensure that the population in these districts is as equal as possible. Legislative districts for state legislators should be considerably equal (Webster, 2013). In addition to these rules, states are allowed to define their own redistricting criteria.
The intervention of the federal government on the issue of redistricting has not been there enough to avoid the malpractices that alter the decisions of the people. These malpractices go by the name gerrymandering and as mentioned, is the practice of drawing district boundaries to generate partisan advantages (Stephanopoulos & McGhee, 2015). The advancement in technology in particular in the past decade has turned the art of altering district boundaries into some form of science. This has then enabled some parties to deny others a guaranteed win during elections.
Because of the autonomy given to states on the issue of redistricting, the lack of intervention by the federal government has been nothing but adequate. For instance, is a state or city population creates this trend of voting for one party, it is only obvious the majority of other elected officials in that area belong to the same party. However, gerrymandering can allow districts to be drawn in a manner that gives the minority party more seats.
It does not make any sense that district boundaries do not follow some geographical lines such as county borders or a river. Gerrymandering does the opposite and creates boundaries with people that are more likely to vote for one party. The district boundaries cut across established geographical borders and form inexplicable shapes whose only purpose is to raise partisan advantage. It does not make sense to allow people with direct interests to deal with the issue of redirecting; it would be wise if the federal government exerted a little more control on this issue
Education
Considering that, most policies on education entail which part of education governance the federal government should stay away from. The brooking institution initiated a public conversation on what areas and activities where the federal government should intervene. Changes in the administration including the appointment of Betsy DeVos to head the education department as secretary will mean alterations in the offing under this new leadership, which is contrary to government administration as it lied towards free market forces, which, in this case, cover for-profit charter institutions and vouchers (Hansen, 2017).
A lot has been documented saying that the federal government should stay away from education and its governance. Federal policy has evolved since after the revolutionary war starting with the Tenth Amendment in 1791 that gave states powers that were not reserved for the federal government, which among many others was education. Then came the civil rights movement which was a significant force in the period when the involvement of the federal government was intensified with landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
The federal government should assume a supporting role when it comes to the topic of education (Baron, 2016). These roles include ensuring that no child is denied the basic right to education or discriminated on the basis of health, disability, gender, race, ethnicity or any other panned status. The federal governments should also be expected to fund the education department to facilitate access for students that are highly in need including but not limited to those from very poor backgrounds and with disabilities. It should also support research and development, the collection and distribution of information on the quality and scope of the country’s education system (Harris, 2016). This information is necessary for informing policy and practice at local as well as state levels. Aligning itself with its limited capacity and exclusive advantages, the federal government should support the development and environments that ensure continuous improvements of local and state education systems.
In summary, the federal government’s role is ensuring that the right to free and high-quality education for all K-12 students is not infringed and their civil rights are upheld by ensuring the resources for those in dire need are available as informed by public data and high-quality research. The federal government supporting and not supervisory role entails the provision of infrastructure for states, districts and schools to aide them in the continuous improvement of their efforts.
References
Baron, K. (2016, December 16). Finding a Balance for the Federal Role in Education Policy. Retrieved from https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/blog/finding-a-balance-for-the-federal-role-in-education-policy/
Hansen, M. (2017, January 13). Education insiders reflect on policy implications of Trump Administration. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/01/13/federal-education-policy-under-the-trump-administration/
Harris, D. N. (2016, December 21). Memo: Improving the federal role in education research. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/12/23/memo-improving-the-federal-role-in-education-research/Manheim, L. M. (2013). Redistricting litigation and the Delegation of Democratic Design. BUL Rev., 93, 563.
Stephanopoulos, N. O., & McGhee, E. M. (2015). Partisan gerrymandering and the efficiency gap. U. chi. l. Rev., 82, 831.
Webster, G. R. (2013). Reflections on current criteria to evaluate redistricting plans. Political Geography, 32, 3-14.
Weinstein-Tull, J. (2015). Election Law Federalism. Mich. L. Rev., 114, 747.
First Impression. The truth behind guessing others thoughts and feelings is enhanced by the need to anticipate others needs a
First Impression
Name of the Student:
Name of the Institution:
The truth behind guessing other’s thoughts and feelings is enhanced by the need to anticipate others’ needs and desires through interactions. The ability and skills of correctly determining what somebody is thinking at a particular time disregards the background, but depends on the accuracy of interpersonal perception. Difference in accurate perceptions among people is therefore an important factor when discussing impression formation. Research reports indicate that women are more empathically accurate than men. However, this paper seeks to discuss and uncover the social and interpersonal elements that help in predicting accurate empathic accuracy.
According to Laurent and Hodges (2008), the difference in interpersonal judgment in terms of predicting what others think can be well explained by the roles associated to each gender. More than a number of reasons, the study of others begins with self-study since self- monitoring is positively related to accuracy of empathic judgment. Laurent and Hodges are convinced that women are more empathically accurate than men since women have higher levels of femininity and are often stereotyped as very expressive, communal and interdependently oriented than men. In this case, the roles played by women in the society are consistent with the wellbeing of others. The feeling of compassion for another person, characteristic of women, is a direct component of impression formation. To accurately have an impression of one’s thoughts, familiarity with issues of contention is very vital. The communal orientation is one of the strong identities of women occasioned by their roles in the society, thereby giving them great links for accurate empathic prediction.
Chan, et al. proposes that gender is a factor in interpersonal perception, normally associated with performance of tasks across different domains which to great extent systematically determine other’s impressive personality. They argue that interpersonal perception of the first impression is consistent with accuracy of empathetic prediction. Their research found out that female perceiver’s first impressions are more accurate than that of male perceivers. Despite the fact that the difference in the ability to discern and understand the unique personality characteristics of others is very minimal between men and women, averagely, females have greater normative accuracy and formed first impressions of others to perceive their personality traits and characteristics. This corresponds more strongly compared to the ability of men to perceive other’s personal traits and characteristics. Therefore, gender is strongly associated with interpersonal sensitivity, whereby females demonstrate higher degree of interpersonal sensitivity than men. The determining factor in this case is the accuracy of the first impression of personality. However, there is little or no difference in distinctive accuracy of perceiving the difference in a person from a normal person.
to Huma (2010), the ability of forming first impression of a particular person between men and women to make judgment of their personality characteristics is the main highlight. The society has created common differences in gender and this has led to specific roles of men and women. However, despite the roles, people still have unique abilities, particularly of mental judgment of others normalcy. These unique traits make some people, of particular gender, to have some abilities to perform tasks better than others. Impression accuracy is an ability associated with women that explain their cognitive strength of empathy. Huma (2010) acknowledges that a photograph experiment to judge perception accuracy between men and women found out that men and women were accurate in recognizing the depicted emotions. However though, female could distinguish all the facial expression in the photograph, men on the other hand having problems of distinguishing anger and fear. In this particular case, it comes out clearly that first point accurate judgment using facial impressions is very difficult for most men compared to women counterparts.
The above three articles have common points about gender differences particularly in mental judgments or state of others in the society. They all support the fact that women have strong ability of accurate empathy of others compared to the male counterparts. They also agree that roles associated with women in the society give them an upper hand for accurate empathy since these roles makes them communal, social, and interdependently oriented.
Some of the assertions of the three articles are however not true, particularly considering the modern society. The logical truth about the modern world, with the modern civilizations, women plays far more different roles than they played in the ancient times. Women can stand dependently and have all the privileges that were accorded to men in the ancient times, for instance authority among others, which distract them from the supposedly communal roles. More than that, with the equity stance of women in the current society, the ability of empathetic judgment of others may be shared among men and women. It is therefore true that comparing the ancient times and the modern times, the re-definition of the roles played by the men and women in the society cannot be the soul measurement of the reason why women are more empathically accurate than men. Moreover, cognitive power is unique characteristic, which can either be naturally acquired or artificially acquired. It may therefore depend on the level of education and interests particularly in the field of psychology of the mind that can substantiate the differences in the level of one’s empathic accuracy.
References
Laurent, M.S. and Hodges,D.S. (2008). Gender Roles and Empathic Accuracy: The Roles of Communion in Reading Minds. Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, USA.
Huma, B. (2010).Gender Differences in Impression Formation. Journal of comparative research in anthropology and sociology. University of Bucharest, Romania. Vol 1(1): 57-72