blog 3!!

Teachers do not get enough credit as they should. The ones that should be running the world are teachers, and the ones who get paid the most should be teachers. Yes, an obvious reason why doctors get paid a lot is because they save the healths and the lives of many people. Just because that is an obvious reason, why can't people dig deeper and look more into other jobs and how they are impacting the world? For every homework assignment and project turned in, means the teacher has to grade that. For every class we enter, means every class and lesson that teacher has to prepare. For every e-mail received, means every answer the teacher has to give. For every brain muscle used to raise our hands as student and ask questions, means the same for the teacher to answer the question. Ultimately, for every hour spent as a student, means the same for the teacher. Sometimes students underestimate and do not give enough credit to the teachers because we either think they gave us an unreasonable grade, gave us too much homework, or did not call on you when you raised your hand. However we have to realize that most teachers do everything they do for a reason. They do not give homework just to do it, they do it because it helps their lesson plan and they obviously put a lot of time and effort into it, so they expect that in return. As a student I mainly think of myself and my teacher when I am in the class room. In other words, I worry about myself and how I do, and my relationship and interactions with the teacher. I definitely listen to what other people in the room have to offer, and I respect and like them, but I would assume every student in the class also thinks about themselves. But in reality there are 20 (or however many students) and one teacher. I think that teachers should get more credit than they do because they are being humane people every day of their lives. It is often enforced that your should pick a profession that you love and enjoy. I would think teachers do find pleasure in what they are doing, but it is also a generous choice to be a teacher. What I mean by that is teachers spend most hours of their day in order to help students, which is just such a nice thing to do. They spend their time making sure we understand things, and without teachers we would not get far in life. We need more experienced and more educated people to pass on wisdom to future generations in order to "keep up" society, and that is what teachers are doing. They are working with us to learn both life lessons and textbook lessons. Teachers are donating their time and energy into helping other people. I think that sports players for example get more attention than they should. I agree sports are fun to watch, and watching sports is engaging and social. But why is it fair for someone who is not helping the world in any way when there is so much help needed to get paid millions of dollars a year? Sports players obviously do work hard but I feel like people are getting paid for talents, and not for the impact they are making on other people. Personally I would rather get paid millions of dollars for playing a sport I love for a living. That is the obvious, selfish, and ideal option, which is why I think teachers are so great because they are not being selfish at all in fact they are being benevolent, smart, and helpful.

blog 2 (12-14-11)

What are one's values as a leader? I think that there is a major controversy between being loved and being feared. Loving a leader is harder, more forced/fake, and comes with lots of effort. Whereas, fear is more personal, honest, and ideal. Love is temporary, but fear is permanent. To love a leader, the leader has to keep providing and giving to people, but is that real love? I think that sort of relationship is not honest and is not morally correct. Ideally, you should be generous because you want to, not because of how people will think of you. However, in most cases, people do things and give things in order to fulfill and satisfy their reputation. It is hard to give and maintain a solid reputation, and it seems that most people would rather drop the giving component, and save their reputation. An effective leader would probably favor their reputation over what is best for their people. On the other hand, a good leader would keep giving even if it was secretive and unknown in your reputation. As a leader your goal should be for people to owe you, not for you to owe them. What does generosity mean? Generosity a lot of the time is financially related, and in regards to the government, generosity and giving means giving citizens money and not expecting much in return. As a leader this is a tough decision because you sometimes have to choose between satisfying yourself or your people. Occasionally you have to "give" without giving, meaning you have to give your time and effort without physically giving money or possessions. On the flip side, sometimes you tell people you are giving and you try to get them on their side, without actually doing anything kind, productive, or beneficial. When you give to your people, as in money, than eventually you slowly start to lose money, which results in taxing people. Taxing people means angry people who get pissed at the leader who taxed them, so being generous bites you in the back. Therefor as a leader you would rather be feared than loved because loved is something you have to keep up and it both hard on the individual and on the people, but being feared is forever, and requires less effort and less stress.

blog 1 (12-13-11)

Legitamecy vs Legalism:

Legitamecy is ultimately the reasons for someone to rule. It does not have to be justified reasons, but the people need to accept those reasons. Legitimacy is determined by the level in which you are a good person. In most cases, people will listen to a leader because they agree with their morals and their ideas. But legiatemcy just refers to the ability for a ruler to make his people accept him, and follow him. That’s where the difference between a good leader and efficient leader comes into play as well. A good leader might have morally acceptable and admirable reasons for ruling, but an efficient leader makes sure his people accept what he believes- he gets them on their side. Legalism is stricter than legitamecy and people must abide by the rules in legalism or else there will be consequences and punishments. The leaders promise to keep their followers safe and provide for them, as long as they support and respect the authority. Personally, I feel like legalism is more of a typical way of life than legitimacy. Legitimacy is like the road less traveled, and the route that takes a critical thinker and caring leader. Legalism seems to be more of a rule based system, and legitamecy seems to be more based on reasons and acceptance. Why do people listen to leaders? What expectations are placed on citizens based off of the leaders? There is a difference between the way people act under legalism and under legitimacy. With legitimacy the people might base their evaluations and accepatance of leaders based off reasons for leading. Whereas in legalism, people simply follow rules because that is what they expected to do, and they do not question those rules because they know there will be severe punishments. People vote for leaeders for the reasons they want to rule, in other words people vote for a president because that president wants to lead and they want to make change. Citizens also listen to leaders for more basic reasons, such as because they do not want to go to jail, which would be a consequence to not abiding by laws. There are similarities and differences between legalism and legitimacy, but overall legitimacy is influenced on reasons for leading and legalism is based on what is legal and what are the rules.

blog 3 (12-7-11)

When population increased, it had mostly positive effects on society. Work/jobs became more productive because each job was filled with more employees. The more people at a job meant better work, because as the number of people increased, the ideas and the quality of those ideas improved. More people also meant more opinions, more knowledge, and more people to finish a job in a quicker amount of time. A raise in population also resulted in less isolation between one another. When there was a larger population than it was harder for people to separate themselves from each other, and disregard themselves from society. When there was an abundance of people, than they were almost forced to interact and benefit from one another. The government, the environment, and food supply were three things that were hard to control when the population rose. Food was a hard variable to control because just because there was enough food in the world whether it was from farming/agriculture, or industries/productions, the food does not get distributed fairly or evenly.  The environment is something that will always be present for as long as we can see, and it is up to the humans living in the environment to treat it how they want, and use it to their advantage. Better ways of efficiently and fairly using land were introduced when the population increased because when the population was significantly higher than before, issues regarding the environment almost demanded to be solved. In other words, without organizing the environmental situations, it would be hard for people to function and sustain life. Along with growth population, the privacy and the advancements in agriculture were two apparent topics that arose with a larger population count. As for government, “feudalism” was introduced. Feudalism at its’ core was a government with no organized state. After one government collapsed, such as Charlemagne’s empire, whose responsibility was it to step up? In the feudal system, a “count” was a individual man who worked to build up his strength and confidence against other counts. Counts attempted to become superior within the lesser lords in the area. Ultimately, the lord and vassal system manifested itself and a lord protected his vassal and assured him land. If a vassal died young, the lord took over and slowly inherited what the vassal had. Feudalism spread throughout Europe, and once the French Revolution began, after that Germany elected a king. Different forms of government throughout history learned from each other and impacted one another. Especially in feudalism, no one was sovereign and the lords and vassals benefited from one another by motivating each other and splitting work. 

blog 2 (12-6-11)

Pericles was asked to give a speech at a commemoration of a death of a soldier in the Athenian battle, and his speech was an example of how he was an effective leader. What he did first in his speech was both relate to the audience, and get them on their side. An effective way to do that in a speech is explain how you understand them and empathize for them, and truly why they should follow you. Pericles mentioned how speaking at event like that was a lose-lose situation, because you either underwhelm the audience, or overwhelm them; it is always impossible to find a balance. He further explained how just because someone is an eloquent speaker, does not mean they have the right intentions or the right ideas. On the reverse, just because someone is not a fantastic public speaker, does not mean they care any less for a person, or are intending to insult anyone. Pericles then continued to speak about why being proud about our ancestors is beneficial in all aspects of leading, and also how they are all united. In order to motivate his followers, he convinced them to be proud about their history and past, in order to pursue and go forward on things. An important element to being a leader is to give a reason why your people should continue and battle onward. Another vital component to being a leader is to enforce how everyone is together, and the leader is not much higher than an ordinary person. Pericles implemented in his people that they should want to fight because their ancestors had a proud past, and they should continue that tradition in order to motivate themselves and their comrades. Pericles was an effective leader because he gave humane and smart  reasons behind all his intentions, and for everything he asked his people to do. To continue, Pericles then convinced his audience that they are just great. He enforced that they should protect themselves because they are just so fantastic and fragile. I think this is both and good and a bad tactic. He went into explaining how his form of governing is one that everyone else uses as an example and admires, and others base their government off of his. This is important because it proves he is confident in himself and his leadership, and he does not follow other people, yet other people follow him because he is just that brilliant. He thinks/knows that he is fair, and excellent, and he strongly believes he is not the one to start the wars, he is the one to defend and let people come to him. I know his intentions were not to get cocky, although if you are an over confident leader, than your followers will go into a situation thinking they will succeed, and if they fail they might blame it on you. They might put the blame on you because you told them how great they were, and then when put into a real situation, they were not as great as you told them. However, I think that Pericles was an effective and intelligent leader, and his positive governing tactics overwhelm the things he needed to improve on, and that is not easily true for lots of leaders. Overall, Pericles was an exceptional persuader, had rational intentions, and he motivated his people.

blog 1 (12-5-11)

The whole metaphor regarding the Allegory of the Cave relates to leadership. I think that the people in the first row (tied up, who were like puppets) who when asked to describe a human, would say a shadow are being deprived from so many things. They are not getting exposed to "reality"; how to interact with other people, how to work with the environment, and how to overall function in society. The people above those chained to the wall are slightly more knowledge because they know the shadows are not real, and they are one step above the average citizen. The classification of individuals who have "more authority" can essentially be anyone, because almost anyone can be a leader. And this is where the role and the definition of leadership comes in. An effective leader would figure out a way to escape the false reality taking place in the cave. They would be able to think that extra thought, and go that extra step, where an average citizen would not begin to think. An effective leader would realize that that reality was not the most efficient, not the most beneficial, and not the most logical, therefore they would move toward enlightenment. Additionally, leadership comes in when the leader has the ability and the skills to convince and show people why they should move out of the cave, and better themselves into the leader's knowledge and perspectives. It takes not only an effective leader, but a good leader to accomplish something like that. Adolf Hitler was an effective leader, one could say, because he got thousands and thousands of people to follow him and move towards his view on life. He accomplished his goals to one extent, and was backed up by followers and listeners, so in that sense he was effective. He was not a morally acceptable or "good" leader because his reasons for his actions and opinions could not be justified or fully proven. A good leader needs to not only be sympathetic, but empathetic as well. Sympathetic means understanding, accepting, and feeling bad for another person. Empathetic means putting yourself into someone else's shoes and imagining how you would feel and what you would do in their situation- taking that extra step and making more of an effort. If one day someone, most likely a figure of authority, told you everything you had been doing and believing your whole life was completely uncivil and flat out wrong, what would you do? It would have to take a consistent, effective, and selling person to completely shift your life. An effective leader might barge in and tell you everything you are doing is wrong, and you need to change instantly, and they could succeed in altering your choices. However, a good leader would move at a steady pace, explain to you why their way is better than yours using a solid balance of facts, knowledge, plus their views/ideas. Not only does that good leader explain why his new way of doing things would be better for you, but why it would positively benefit the society, and how it would make society run smoother. Along with leaders, ordinary citizens play a big role in this whole situation. The amount of power reserved for the citizens, affected the superiority and authority given to the leaders. Some people would say citizens and your place in society is hereditary because if you are born into a wealthy family and your parents are well known and respected, then you are better off, and have more of a potential to be successful. On the other, it is partly the leaders responsibility to cut of these distinctions and instead unify their people. Citizens also affect the leaders because the citizens are the ones who get to choose what makes up a good leader, and without the followers, than there would be no leaders. Just like Socrates displayed, a good leader needs to be both charesmatic and studious.

blog 3 (12-1-11)

I think that the East German government felt the need to spy on authors, artists, and playwrights because they had a feeling that those people had information which had to do with the government. Whether the information was against the government or just about the government, the government wanted to know. Artists liked to express themselves, therefor the government thought they were expressing negative views and ideas on the government, which would then spread to other people. Artists, playwrights, and authors influence people, and the government did not want people views and opinions to be shifted because of that. The government wanted to be assured and convinced that the power belonged to them and not the artists or authors. A government should want to be the top leaders and should want their citizens to listen to them, however they should not worry so much about people's opinions because they should already be confident. Dreyman was convinced that he was safe and private in his house, however he was being bugged and spied on by the government. They did this in order to imprison and capture citizens. Once they spied on certain citizens and developed "relationships" with them, they could pull secret information out of them.  They knew how to target people and they knew how to force things out of people, yet the government sometimes executed their missions immorally.

I think that the government does need a "shield and sword. In some ways that helps keep the government in order and in power. However when you go so far as to bugging someones house, spying on their every move, threatening people, and firing people than it is not okay, and that becomes not even protecting or shielding anymore but rather invading. A sword and a shield for the government keeps the government balanced because it is both an attacking force and a safety force. They can protect their people, and go after their people as well. A government does need a protective and attacking force in order to be "effective" because they need to learn how to control both sides of the spectrum in all situations. A sword and shield needs to be unanimous and encouraged throughout the entire government as a unit, not one specific group or an individual person. The government as a whole should be known as the sword and shield because they work together in order to progress and succeed and no work or load should be placed on one person. I think that the sword in this situation should be used against non-citizens of Germany in this case, and not against comrades in the government but rather against other countries and enemies. Lastly, if a dilemma got to the point where lots of people were trying to overthrow the government than they can start monitoring citizens in order to help everyone. They should not spy on their citizens for unjust and unnecessary reasons. The government should be role models to their citizens, meaning they should not be secretive, untruthful, or plot against their own nation. Ultimately you need solid evidence and reasons to invade someones house and privacy. In this movie the Stasi went to the extreme, but was it all in order to benefit their country?