Recent orders
The “Truth about Lying” By Judith Viorst
The “Truth about Lying” By Judith ViorstViorst discusses four types of lies in this essay. Explain each in your own words.
Trust-keeping lies- these are lies that a person tells for the sake of the protection of their friends and to keep their trust. Protective lies are told because the truth is deemed destructive. Peace-keeping lies help a person to keep peace for example getting late and saying it was jam. Social lies keep our social life intact.
Which types of lies are most “serious”?
Protective lies are usually considered serious because a person can be destroyed by the truth. For example if a nurse realizes that the health of a patient if failing they may lie to them so that they may continue fighting and maybe recover, however if the patient is told the truth they are likely to give up very fast and maybe die faster.
What does Viorst mean by “Watergate lies” in paragraph 44? What is you’re feeling about this level of trust-Keeping lies?
Watergate lies are the lies one tells so that they may cover up something wrong that they did. For example a person may steal money but in cover up claim that it was a loan. Trust-keeping lies are very difficult because the person who is being protected may be in danger especially in the issue of adultery. A person may go out with other men and for the sake of the trust the word does not get to the husband and she contracts diseases.
According to Viorst, what is the relationship between lying and her own self-image?
Even though lying helps to keep order in many ways and in many places she does not support lying and she states that it can only be used as a last resort. This is because when a person lies there is always a feeling that a person has cheated themselves and therefore there is no way they will be at peace with themselves.
In what ways is lying a moral problem?
Lying is a moral problem in that inasmuch as its desires are pure sometimes it leads to negative image and consequences which at times might be fatal. The immorality of lying also comes in the way a person feels when they are discovered that they were lying. Therefore even though it is a preventive measure to protect others it is a destructive force.
Why do people respond in so many different ways to the issue of lying?
The issue of lying is complicated and therefore different people have different views about lying. A very little percentage is unable to lie and a very large percentage of individuals lie on purpose while a very little percentage always tell lies. Therefore depending on the situation and the person involved lying can have different faces.
Based on your experience, what are the principal consequences of lying? Do the negative consequences outweigh the positives for you, or is the reverse true? Explain your answer in as much data as possible
From my past experiences lying is a very demanding activity and the consequences are varied. However the consequences begin with the self whereby there is always a feeling of inadequacy. This feeling goes to the other people around you and then keeps on spreading. However sometimes lying can be catastrophic. When a lie is detected and there is proof that a person was lying the lying becomes catastrophic and it has very negative effects on all the people involved.
How do you feel about lying? Does your opinion vary according to the types of lies you tell? Why? Explain your answer in detail.
Lying can be okay depending on the type of lie I have to tell. The level of a lie being wrong or being right is determined by the magnitude of the lie and what effect it can cause to the person being lied to, for and the person lying. Therefore some types of lies are completely okay while others need a very intense moral reasoning before telling them.
Vicrst starts by summarizing her conclusions about lying. Is this an effective beginning” Explain your answer.
Yes it is an effective beginning. This is because her summary tells the audience of what she is talking about and what to expect. With this in mind the reader is able to relate to the story even more closely and deeper at different levels and stages of the essay. The opinion of the narrator is also important so that she is not crucified for presenting information in a certain manner.
In this essay, Vicrst works with both division and classification as she arranges lies into several distinct categories. Write down the main subdivisions of her classification system then under each category state the examples she cites. Do all her examples support the appropriate classification? How has she organized these categories?
The work is properly organized regarding the categories of the lies which she discusses and how these sub-categories are discussed, explained and examples given in each and every category. All her examples support the stated category of lies and the order in which the categories are arranged is also a proper organization since she begins with the most common lies.
Who do you think is Viorst’s intended audience? What specific verbal clues in the essay, help you reach this conclusion?
The intended audience of Viorst is colleagues and friends. Most of the examples of lies presented in the essay are just about friends and there is a mention of a colleague in the Watergate lie. Therefore the desire is to help friends and those people close to each other question and realize how lying a dangerous issue is.
Notice that the author repeats the question ‘What about you?” several times. What effect does this repetition have on your response to the essay?
The repetition what about you brings the feeling of wanting to reflect on how I would have handled a specific part of the essay if I was the one writing and at the same time the questioning of myself of what I would have done in that incidence. For example every time she gives an example I imagine myself being in the shoes of that person and therefore the question is whether I would have lied or not.
The 2021 Midwives Strike Pay Equity Issues in New Zealand
The 2021 Midwives Strike: Pay Equity Issues in New Zealand
Student’s Name
Course Number and Name
Instructor’s Name
Due Date
The 2021 Midwives Strike: Pay Equity Issues in New Zealand
Introduction
Although New Zealand established the foundations to amending gender pay inequalities about fifty years ago, many women in the country are still reported to endure gender-based pay differentials. The government of New Zealand often premised economic and employment reforms to ensure future gains but most of the reforms were not delivered (Parker & Donnelly, 2020). Moreover, some public policy changes were enacted in some of the sectors within the economy but still, there is a prevalence of skill shortages, low wages, and low productivity growth. Despite the many studies and reports concerning gender-based pay differentials, labor market issues are still being reported as well as a lack of consensus on employment relations concerning broadly based solutions.
Key Issues on Pay Equity Debate and Available Research
Like other workers in New Zealand’s healthcare sector, midwives were promised a deal on “pay equity” which was not part of their employment agreement. According to the unions and government of New Zealand, this deal will considerably increase the midwives’ pay to levels relative to professions dominated by men with the same responsibilities (New Zealand Nurses Organisation, 2021). Decades after this deal was promised, it is still under negotiation and whether or not it will lead to a considerable pay increase is not clear. Another major concern for midwives such as doctors and nurses is the low staffing levels in healthcare institutions placing both patients and workers alike at risk. About two years ago, midwives decided to protest over deteriorating conditions and low pay. The factor that persuaded the midwives to settle for the 3% per year minimal pay increase in addition to back-pay and lump sums was the Midwifery Workforce Accord that the government and MERAS signed (New Zealand Nurses Organisation , 2021). According to Peters (2021), the government of New Zealand made promises to improve training, retention, and midwives’ recruitment. But since then, the staffing situation has worsened. Peters (2021) reported that there are thirty three vacant positions in the maternity services of Wellington region. That is approximately 1 in 4 jobs, there are approximately two hundred vacancies countrywide.
The rally held in Wellington had several midwives and some supporters addressing the crowd in a quest for better staffing and pay. One of the protesters stated that a barista earns much more than a recently graduated midwife. Considering that midwives are responsible for lives, they have a huge responsibility which does not reflect in their pay. The escalating struggles that workers go highlights the new to create new organizations: rank-and-file committees, every party in parliament, and politically independent unions. In a research study by Thomas (2021), these committees should not accept the lie that fixing the crisis that the healthcare sector is facing is too expensive for the government to afford. Thomas (2021) states that this committee should seek to connect healthcare workers with workers in education sector, public transport, and other areas facing understaffing, low wages, and deteriorating conditions. The Socialist Equality Group is calling on workers in New Zealand to fight for socialist programs that would urgently prepare the country’s system of healthcare. Such programs would address the existing needs of healthcare workers and would also help to withstand outbreaks of diseases in the future. Peters (2021) states that the government should redirect the billions of dollars directed to the wealthy in society in the form of quantitative easing, bailouts, and tax cuts to build new hospitals, repair crumbling infrastructure, and employ more workers in the healthcare sector.
Solutions Proposed
The findings of a study conducted by Parker & Donnelly (2020) found that historically and relatively, the current gender pay gap in New Zealand is small. But despite the progress that the government has apparently made, the gap has not closed fully which signals an ongoing discrepancies between men’s and women’s experience of paid work (Parker & Donnelly, 2020). As highlighted by an analysis conducted by Zorn (2020), the regulatory changes that the government enacts overtime do not always have an impact on pay equity in a progressive and unidirectional fashion. Whereas national laws remain significant overtime to address and evade issues involving pay equity, institutional mechanisms have emphasized pay equity application in workplaces vary in character, impact, and extent amid dynamic conditions. Zorn (2020) states that this is an indication of the need for a close context-sensitive examination and equity aims conceptualization and perpetual pursuit.
The ministry of health through the Health Minister announced that negotiation should commence between district health boards and healthcare workers. The negotiation should involve overdue pay equity claims which according to the minister, is expected to cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars (Thomas, 2021). In addition, the Ministry of Health stated that the pay equity claim that the government launched three years ago aimed to correct all pay discrimination based on gender. In addition, the Cabinet approved the mandate for funding negotiation by the board to meet the agreement cost. After negotiation, the pay equity agreement would be the most significant settlement of pay equity ever seen in New Zealand (Thomas, 2021). The Minister of Health acknowledged that midwives are being underpaid and it is the reason the Health Ministry agrees to meet pay equity. First, the officials were instructed to confirm any possible undervaluation based on the health workers’ gender and then find comparable jobs, after which the equity gap should be quantified.
The second proposed solution by the Ministry of Health is the intention of the government to hire additional health workers. The number of workers that hold yearly practicing certificates has increased by about 10% since 2017 (Thomas, 2021). Based on the current number of healthcare workers, it is projected to grow to over 63,400 in 2021 and to over 64,600 by end of next year.
Favorable Solution
The priority of the Health Ministry is to lift the wages of the lowest paid midwives. The government can achieve the lifting of wages by settling the equal pay claims (New Zealand Nurses Organisation , 2021). This must happen as soon as possible and the achieved settlement should be maintained. That way, similar positions occupied by males in the private sectors not subject to pay restraint do not leave them behind and end up widening the gender pay gap once more. Midwives deeply care about their wellbeing, equity issues, and workload. The government is expected to address such issues and parties can reach agreeable solutions.
References
New Zealand Nurses Organisation . (2021, August 17th). Nurses withdraw strike action after lockdown declared. https://www.nzno.org.nz/resources/policy_analyses_and_reports/pid/4779/ev/1/categoryid/20/categoryname/industrial-action
Parker, J., & Donnelly, N. (2020). The revival and refashioning of gender pay equity in New Zealand. Journal of Industrial Relations, 62(4), 560-581.
Peters, T. (2021, August 15th). New Zealand midwives strike over low pay and understaffing. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/08/16/nzmi-a16.html
Thomas, B. W. (2021, August 17th). Nurses, hospital midwives call off strikes after Covid-19 lockdown announced. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300384513/nurses-hospital-midwives-call-off-strikes-after-covid19-lockdown-announced
Zorn, R. (2020, October 19th). Nurses and health workers agree to keep moving. nzno.org.nz: https://www.nzno.org.nz/resources/policy_analyses_and_reports/pid/4779/ev/1/categoryid/27/categoryname/pay-equity
The 2000 US Presidential Election
The 2000 US Presidential Election
Name
Institution
The 2000 USA Presidential Election
The 2000 USA presidential election was a competitive race that comprised of the Democratic candidate Al Gore and the Republican nominee George W. Bush. Al Gore was the then vice president, and he was a competitive candidate who gave Bush a hard time to win the election. George Bush was the governor of Texas and the son of the former president George H. W. Bush. This gave him a higher competitive advantage in the presidential election because his father was a popular figure in the United States. The incumbent Democratic president Bill Clinton was not eligible to serve another term, and his vice president Al Gore secured the Democratic nomination without struggling. On the other hand, Bush was the Republican nominee, and he contended with Senator John McCain in the nomination. Despite the contentious battle in the nominations, Bush secured the Republican nomination, and he became the party’s presidential flagbearer. Third party candidates were present, and the most prominent one was Ralph Nader.
The campaigns were vigorous, and the candidates sold out their manifestos to the people to secure their votes. George Bush decided to choose the former Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, as his running mate while Al Gore chose Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate in the election. The two presidential candidates concentrated on the domestic issues like tax relief, the budget, as well as the reforms for social indemnity programs. Furthermore, the contestants emphasized on foreign policy because they understood the significance of the issue on the American economy. Bill Clinton and Al Gore did not campaign together because of the Lewinsky scandal that had occurred two years before the 2000 election. This was a deliberate decision and a strategic one because they knew that campaigning together could spur a mixture of reactions amongst the voters. They had to put their relationship apart to manipulate the voters to vote for the Democratic candidate.
Bush narrowly won the 2000 presidential election that was held on November 7th. He managed to gain 271 electoral votes compared to Al Gore’s 266. The Florida results did not satisfy the candidates, and they proceeded to the courts to settle the disagreement. Florida comprised of 25 electoral votes and this case was to decide the winner of the presidential election. A recount happened in there, and an uncommon event occurred where the winner got fewer popular votes compared with the loser. The court’s decision in the Bush v. Gore case terminated the vote recounts in Florida and awarded George Bush the victor of Florida’s votes. This granted him the presidential victory, and the people appreciated the court’s decision and accepted the outcomes of the vote recount. The manual vote recount in the state of Florida might have given a different result from what the court decided in its verdict.
George Bush’s presidency was ascertained by five conservative justices of the U.S Supreme Court. The 2000 presidential election is understood to be the closest election in American history where several hundred votes in Florida determined the winner of the tight contestant out of more than one hundred million votes cast in the United States. Bush’s victory was suspicious because the Supreme Court of the country decided to terminate the manual vote recount that could have given different results (Fiorina et al., 2003). Al Gore’s supporters were not happy with the decision because they believed that it was a biased verdict that was influenced by both internal and external factors. Gore’s fans thought that the presidency was rigged and the son of the former president had the upper hand in the judicial activism. He was the first president in the US to lose the popular vote, and this marked another starting point of the U.S history.
Bush’s presidency led the first unified Republican government yet the networks indicated that Al Gore had won the Florida votes. Before the results were announced Gore has tried to persuade Bush to concede defeat, but the winner had not been declared. This shows that Al Gore was confident that the recount would yield positive results that would see him announced the winner of the presidential election. Many might say that he was too ambitious and he did not realize the weight of the competitor. Bush was declared the victor of the election after the court’s decision to stop the manual recount of Florida’s votes (Gibson et al., 2003). Gore emerged the winner of the popular vote which showed the first inversion of the electoral and popular poll since the year 1888. This indicates that the election was very competitive as the winner won by a slight margin of votes after the Supreme Court’s decision.
Al Gore out powered George Bush in the popular votes as he managed to secure five hundred thousand more votes. This was the most controversial election in American history, and it consisted of intelligent and experienced aspirants who had the knowledge on national and international issues (Brady, 2004). The voters rated the candidates to assure that they elect the appropriate president who would have a significant value to the U.S economy. Those that focused on the growth and development of the country’s economy preferred Al Gore over Bush because they understood the intensity of the situation (Price & Stroud, 2005). Bill Clinton had subjected Americans to a long and painful scandal between 1998 and 1999. This might have spurred voters to cast a ballot for Bush because the previous administration was characterized by increased suppression and economic breakdown. Al Gore’s best decision was rejecting to run on the Clinton record. Clinton had been involved in some scandals, and his record was not good hence, Gore decided to run on his own to avoid losing voters on the Clinton record.
The Bush campaign team did an excellent work because they managed to portray their presidential aspirant as a capable and robust leader while at the same time criticizing their opponents and addressing them as untrustworthy candidates. After the election, disputes emerged over the accuracy and dependability of election technology because there were incidents of butterfly ballots and punch card voting machines. In such a poll, the credibility of the election team must have been questioned because of some of the errors and inaccuracy that were reported. The Gore campaign team and that of Bush appealed the decisions of the Supreme Court to favour each side, but Bush emerged the victor after a competitive presidential race and hard courtyard battles regarding the election.
Conclusion
In my opinion, Bush’s victory was controversial because the justices favoured him during the verdict. It is notable that most of the judges had been appointed by Republican presidents and this might have impacted on the decision-making process. The decision should have waited for the completion of the vote recount to identify the real winner of the presidential election. Furthermore, Jeb Bush was the governor of Florida during the recount period. No proof of wrongdoing was reported, but I think that he might have helped his brother to secure the presidency. Most justices ruled in favour of George Bush because they were biased and had been given their job by presidents who were from the same party. It was important for Gore to accept defeat but he disagreed with the ruling of the United States Supreme Court. The decision was biased and limited the success of Al Gore who had already won the popular vote.
The 2000 presidential election remains to be the closest in American soil, and it marked the first poll to be ruled by the US Supreme Court. George Bush secured the presidency as an embattled president as many people not only in the US but also internationally questioning his validity. The president did a great job in uniting the country, and he appeared to be a significant figure during his administration as the US legitimate president. The election was vigorous and sturdy as the contenders sold their manifestos to the US citizens with an effort to secure their trust and votes. The poll was conducted in a legal manner despite the strange incidents that occurred. The Supreme Court should, however, consider assessing and analyzing an election process before making such a ruling. The ruling on the 2000 presidential election showed a lot of biases and incompetence in that judicial system. They should have allowed the completion of the vote recount to identify the legitimate winner of the controversial election.
References
Brady, H. E. (2004). Data-set observations versus causal-process observations: The 2000 US presidential election. Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, 267-272.
Fiorina, M., Abrams, S., & Pope, J. (2003). The 2000 US presidential election: Can retrospective voting be saved?. British Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 163-187.
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2003). The Supreme Court and the US presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise?. British Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 535-556.
Price, V., & Stroud, N. J. (2005). Public attitudes toward polls: Evidence from the 2000 US presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(4), 393-421.