Aspects of individuals Essay Example for Free

Aspects of individuals Essay The study of the aspects of individuals who become Presidents is a rich field with many different perspectives. Scholars utilize many different factors in determining two basic ideas about the presidency. Those ideas are the characteristics needed to become the President and the characteristics needed to do a good job being president. One of the perspectives of presidential research is the psychological perspective. Using this perspective, scholars claim to be able to identify some characteristics of â€Å"successful† presidents. There are many difficulties attached to this concept. The first is that, from a psychological perspective, the sample pool is extremely small, another is the ambiguity attached to the notion of applying personality traits to person based on their entire lives, and the final difficulty is in evaluating the presidency in terms of success. In trying to determine what personality traits are most amenable to becoming president, scholars are limited by the simple fact that there have only been 44 presidents, and of those, only 43 were ever elected (President Ford was an appointee to Replace Nixon). Also, when examining personality traits of a pool of individuals, it is important to control for factors other than personality that may be contributing factors. This further limits scholars because all presidents to date have been male, all but one have been white, none have served or been elected below the age of 42, and nearly all of them came from privileged socioeconomic circumstances. As all of these demographic elements can have significant impact on personality, it is difficult to associate personality alone with any commonalities noted in this group. A second difficulty in assessing personality as a function of presidential success lies in the study of personality itself. In the field of psychology there are dozens of tests, measures, and categories that can be used to type an individual. One of the problems with these measures is that they rely, at least in part, on self-reporting. Thus, for any president who has never participated in such an evaluation (most of them), and attribution of traits or categories of personality would be speculation at best. Further complicating the issue is attempting to discern whether a President’s behavior either in or out of office is consistent enough across his life to be considered a personality trait. Scholars have only the reports of the Presidents themselves and their contemporaries to make that determination. Political scientists, therefore, cannot have much ground to associate personality traits with presidential success. The field of personality study is sufficiently ambiguous that, given the small sample of presidents, nearly any conclusion can be supported by some evidence. In addition, a scholar would run into the question of causation when determining the Presidents’ personality. If, for example, a President is deemed to be decisive based on their conduct in office, the question would remain as to whether that trait was a result of being President when many critical decisions had to be made, or whether the President was always decisive. Even if scholars could quantify personality traits on a consistent basis, presidential performance is even more difficult to quantify. A President may be judged a success or failure on any one of a number of categories. Even the Presidents’ career path offers differing notions of success. One segment of Presidential success is the ability to be elected or re-elected. A second is their performance while in office. A third might be their conduct and life after the presidency. Scholars have picked and chosen the criteria for a successful president, but those choices are largely self-fulfilling, and often, beyond the control of the Presidents. Presidential performance is predicated on the historical context more so than any other job. A President who was, for example, very conservative fiscally could gain the reputation as a â€Å"good† President when economic times are flush (as with Coolidge in the 1920s) and a President with the same ideals and personality could fail miserably if conditions were different during their presidency. i. e. Hoover) The Illustration of Coolidge and Hoover brings to light another problem with evaluating the performance of a President. Although he presided during an economic boom, Coolidge was in fact responsible for the policies that led to the financial crisis which began in Hoover’s Administration. In contrast, Hoover was given a window of barely four years to â€Å"fix† a depression that he neither caused nor was chosen to deal with. A further point is that the president who is credited for ending the crisis may have been nothing more than the fortunate beneficiary of a huge worldwide conflict that would have stimulated the economy regardless of who was in the White House. Unfortunately, one of the most popular ways of assessing presidential success is on the basis of popularity polls. This is unfortunate for a number of reasons. Most notably, those who respond to those polls are relying on incomplete information. The average citizen may be able to identify Abraham Lincoln, for example, as the President who preserved the union, but few could identify James K. Polk as one of the few Presidents in history to have kept all of his campaign promises (including the promise that he not seek a second term). Depending on the measure of performance applied, the â€Å"most popular† Presidents can actually be among the worst. For example, if foreign policy success were the measure, George Washington, an avowed isolationist, John F. Kennedy, whose actions embroiled us in Vietnam, and Bill Clinton, whose administration failed to capture Osama Bin Laden after a 1993 attack on the World Trade center might be ranked among the worst. In contrast, Richard Nixon (opened talks with China, achieved Detente with USSR) was probably among the best. Even in the abstract, it is difficult to identify personality traits that would make an effective president. The job changes on an almost daily basis, and the actions and behavior of the president must be flexible enough to deal with new situations and a near-constant air of crisis. Most historians and presidential scholars admit that it takes at least a generation or two after the presidency to even begin to evaluate its success, and doing so on the basis of personality traits is extremely problematic. Question 2 The Modern presidency is a result of over two hundred years of trial and error with respect to the use of power. Over the time of the nation’s history, the Presidential usage of power has varied from near-inertia, to near-dictatorial powers. In the modern era, the Presidency has become increasingly powerful. Using the tools of command of the Armed Forces, executive orders, and political influence, the Modern president is now a political creature totally different from that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, and while not necessarily in keeping with democracy, the modern Presidency is much better equipped to deal with crises than a Presidency as viewed by the framers of the Constitution. The President exercises much authority in foreign policy through his command of the armed forces. The congressional check on this power by the president is twofold. First, congress issues forma declarations of war, and second, it provides the money needed for extended military actions. Modern trends have completely neutralized both of these checks. In the first case, the United States does not need to formally declare a state of war in order to send troops into combat. In Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places, the US has entered combat without a formal declaration of war. The second check, the so-called â€Å"power of the purse† has been neutralized by modern politics. If congress refused to fund a military effort, they would be painted as being â€Å"against the troops† and would face political repercussions. Thus, politically and practically, the Modern president has nearly unilateral control over the military. This, while not the intention of the Framers, is not necessarily a bad thing. Modern technology causes events around the world to happen much more quickly than in years past, requiring, at times, quicker responses than one is likely to get from Congress. The ability of the President to react unilaterally to military crises is a necessary development in response to a changing technological and geopolitical circumstance. The modern President has made a habit of circumventing the proper law-making processes through the use of executive orders and agency regulations. Since the executive branch is meant to enforce the laws of Congress, it is left with the power to formulate a mode of enforcement that suits its own interpretation of the intent of the law. Again, this goes well beyond the intention of the framers of the Constitution, who feared exactly this sort of power invested in a single individual. Fortunately, modern government being as large and cumbersome as it is, not all policy decisions are made directly by the President. A vast majority of them are made by underlings following general guidelines of the administration. This practice has made it so domestic policy in particular does not reflect necessarily to will of Congress. Historically, the President has used executive orders to circumvent the constitution, going so far in recent years as to deny citizens certain protections provided in the Bill of Rights. This practice is neither new nor unique among Presidents. From the time of Abraham Lincoln, presidents have used the exigency of war as justification for ignoring the Constitution. At times, it seems that this mode of lawmaking is actually advantageous, given the partisan bickering that accompanies Congressional lawmaking, and, again, in times of crisis, when quick, rational action is needed, Congress is better off outside the loop. The modern President also uses his role as head of the Political party to exercise policy control. Particularly if his party controls the majority of Congress, he may make his law-making wishes known and receive a good deal of support in Congress for his initiatives. Using his veto authority, he can make sure that policies contrary to his parties’ views do not become law, unless met with overwhelming support from both sides. This practice is more in keeping with the intention of the framers. Congress can still overrule the President if there is sufficient sentiment that a given law is necessary, but, for the most part, the modern President sets lawmaking priorities for a friendly Congress. This is in keeping with the Ideal of democracy in only a limited way. The people choose the President through the means of the Electoral College, but have very limited input into policy once that decision is made. The framers set thins up intentionally in this manner because they feared direct democracy. They only went so far as to allow the people to choose their representatives in the hopes that they would pick able people who could exercise their own judgement in determining the best interests of the nation. The unilateral nature of the Presidency has had mixed results in modern history. It has allowed the nation to respond quickly in crises such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the First Iraqi War, but has also sent us into ill-advised military actions in Vietnam, Central America, Africa, and the Second Iraq War. The power of the presidency was utilized well to handle crises such as the attacks on the world trade center, but not as well in response to some natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. On the whole, it seems that it is better to have the ability to act quickly in the modern world, than not be able to do so. However; it is in the nature of reality that the first response to a problem is not always the best one, and some issues require deliberation and time to solve. If a president recognizes these facts, and acts accordingly in the appropriate situations, he or she can be a very effective leader while honoring the spirit of Constitutionality. Question 3 The Modern Presidency has become a centralized and politicized position, more so than in any other era. More than any time historically, citizens cast their vote for one of two parties, relying on their platforms to indicate how they will conduit the government. As a result, the Presidency has become the centralized embodiment of principles that appeal to the mainstream of political thought. This politicization was not what the framers intended, but the centralization has served the nation reasonably well in practice. In the modern era, scrutiny on presidential candidates is extremely close and getting closer and closer. Since the first televised debates in 1960, unprecedentedly large numbers of people have been privy to the record, reputation and history of presidential hopefuls. This forces the candidate to be careful to articulate viewpoints in a manner that will be least offensive to the most people. Part of this dynamic is the fact that those with more radical viewpoints, no matter which side of the political spectrum they lie, have a disproportionately loud voce in modern media to support or decry a given candidate. If a candidate is unfortunate enough to offend one of these groups, he or she is facing opposition from an extremely well-funded, vociferous group. Because of this, political hopefuls, particularly presidents have to be, or at least appear, to be politically moderate. This engenders an environment where the politically moderate become the primary pool from which candidates are selected. The result has been, in recent elections, that barring an extremely charismatic candidate, the choices are so near each other politically as to be nearly indistinguishable. The elections of 2000 and 2004 are examples of this phenomenon. The absence of a charismatic challenger made it impossible for the voters to distinguish between the candidates, resulting in one of the closest elections in history in 2000, and one of the poorest-attended elections in 2004. The Framers of the United States Constitution did not envision a two-party system when they designed the government. Nevertheless, one quickly developed, first in the debate for ratification of the Constitution, and later around the principles of federal power. Although the foundations of the various parties have varied historically, the two-party system has remained in place for most presidential elections. The modern era may be witnessing a major change in the party system. One of the parties suffered a severe defeat in the 2008 election cycle and appears to be reevaluating its platform. If the party chooses to embrace the more extreme portions of their platform, it could lead to the creation of a new centralized party, which would draw support from the more moderate elements of the two major parties. A large amount of institutional inertia has been set against this development, but there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, nor is such an event unprecedented in the history of American politics. These developments illustrate a move from the extremism that had dominated politics since the beginning of the Cold War. More and more individuals are becoming sensitive to the voice of reason, cooperation and compromise, which weakens the position of the radical groups, and limits their ability to influence policy or elections. While it is important and permissible for these radical opinions to be heard, it is equally important that be considered from an even-handed and rational perspective, which is what a centralized president offers. Centralization of the Presidency is more in keeping with the notions of Democratic government than politicization. The more people whose viewpoints are represented by the President, the more democratic the government. A centralized presidency philosophically meshes with the majority of citizens. This observation is circular in nature. Absent compelling events such as war, the a majority of voters will embrace a more moderate candidate, and thus, candidates will endeavor to be more moderate in order to court such votes. Politicization is a positive thing in the political process. It allows all viewpoints to be aired and discussed. Centralization of the presidency is also a positive thing because a moderate president will be more likely to make pragmatic choices, rather than ones based in dogmatic ideals with little relationship to reality. Additionally, a moderate president is more likely to act in interests that mirror those of the majority of citizens. Thus, a moderate, or centralized presidency is good for both the execution of government, and the promotion of democracy.

The Apostle Paul Essay -- Religion, New Testament

Harris calls Paul â€Å"the most influential apostle and missionary of the mid-first-century CE church and author of seven to nine New Testament letters† (H G-33). It would be quite an accolade to receive such recognition, but what makes it even more remarkable is that Paul, or Saul, (Saul was his Judean name and Paul was his Roman name (footnotes B 1943)) originally persecuted the ekklesia or â€Å"church†. Paul went from persecuting the ekklesia or â€Å"church† to being its â€Å"most influential apostle and missionary†. Why and how did Paul make such a drastic change? The answer to the question can be found in various books of the New Testament including some of the letters that Paul wrote. This answer also aids in the explanation of how and why Paul argue with the Ioudaioi. Ioudaioi was the name given to the people of Judah after Alexander the Great conquered Judah in 333 BCE. Judah was originally one of the twelve tribes of Israel, and was the name for the southern kingdom after Israel split in 922 BCE after the death of King Solomon. The term Ioudaioi is often mistranslated from Greek as Jews. In contrast, it should be properly translated as Judeans. The Ioudaioi came from or lived in the land of Judea (Ioudaia). Paul never claimed to be Judean (or an Ioudaios in Greek), but rather identified himself as an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin and as a former Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). The Pharisees were one of the four major political parties that came into to being after the Hasmoneans claimed the position of High Priest, around 150 BCE. They were the largest party and had great influence over the Ioudaioi on issues of religion; they accepted the Tanakh and oral Torah as necessities to be followed (H 301). In addition to being a Pharisee... ...rdance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures†. On the road to Damascus, Paul received a calling to become â€Å"an instrument whom [YHWH] chose to bring my name before Gentiles [ethne or â€Å"nations†] and kings and before the people of Israel† (Acts 9:15). The Ioudaioi or Judeans would be considered as part of the people of Israel. Therefore, Paul had the responsibility to persuade the Ioudaioi that justice and salvation come about through Jesus Christ alone (Romans 5:12-21). A lot of the Ioudaioi believed that justice is obtained through following nomos or â€Å"law or custom†. Paul debated with the Ioudaioi in order to successfully persuade them to believe his viewpoint. This was done by means of his three missionary trips (H G-33) and by him writing letters to the ekklesia in various cities.

Greys Anatomy

Sharon Lan ENG 104 Terry Bening 22 May 2012 The Anatomy of Grey When times get tough and the only way to survive is to keep fighting, there are two choices: either you sink or you swim. At least that’s the mentality that belongs to the young, soon-to-be medical doctors in the 2005 TV series Grey’s Anatomy.Already having 8 seasons of surgical miracles, everlasting camaraderies, problematic love triangles, and life-threatening decisions, Grey’s Anatomy portrays a â€Å"dramedy† which focuses on a highly intellectual group of interns, residents, and attendings that strive to one-up each other in order to rank as the best, save the lives of patients, and keep the reputation of Seattle Grace Mercy West Hospital. Nonetheless, many of the characters constantly struggle to keep up with these responsibilities because of the difficulties in keeping their personal and professional lives apart.Of this group of surgeons, Grey’s Anatomy mainly revolves its plotli ne around the main character and protagonist Meredith Grey who is initially introduced as a young intern who is consistently expected to live up to her mother’s legacy. The show also introduces Isobel Stevens, Derek Shepard, Preston Burke, her mother Ellis Grey and many of the other doctors that Meredith works with. Ellis Grey, who was a world-renowned surgeon, never believed that Meredith had the capability of being good enough to succeed as a surgeon.Trying to deviate away from only being known as â€Å"Ellis Grey’s daughter†, Meredith, throughout the series, continues to find her strengths and weaknesses as she proves to herself and everyone else that she can ultimately become an even greater surgeon than her mother was. Grey’s Anatomy is truly an inspiring television drama that serves as a positive influence among its viewers. By illustrating the realities of life, this show motivates others to cling onto hope in times of desperation, to see mistakes as a part of life, to forgive and forget, and lastly to deal with life’s unexpected surprises.Grey’s Anatomy has a positive influence among its viewers because it essentially portrays that anybody can get through their hardships with the right amount of hope. Dr. Isobel Stevens in the episode â€Å"A Change Is Gonna Come† states, â€Å"It's not childish to hold on to hope. It's actually hard, very, very, hard. † In the show another one of Meredith’s coworkers, Dr. Isobel Stevens, also known as Izzie, represents one of the biggest believers of hope on Grey’s Anatomy.After she discovers that she’s diagnosed with Stage IV metastatic melanoma, which is a common form of skin cancer, Izzie switches from being a doctor at Seattle Grace Mercy West Hospital to being a patient with only a 5% chance of surviving with her condition. However, knowing that her survival rate was slim, Izzie worked up the courage to ask Dr. Derek Shepard, head of neu rosurgery, to operate on her tumor and in the end her surgery was a success.Another example of how hope is seen in this show is when Meredith Grey is accidently pushed off the ledge into the ocean and struggles to reach the surface of the water yet tries to drown at the same time. Meredith’s mother, Ellis Grey quotes in the episode â€Å"Some Kind of Miracle†, â€Å"I raised you to be an extraordinary human being, imagine my disappointment when I wake up after 5 years and discover that you’re no more than ordinary. † With her mother’s harsh words continually repeating in her head, Meredith initially gives up and loses hope.While flat lining in the hospital, Meredith wakes up in her â€Å"afterlife† and discovers that her mother only called her ordinary so that she would always try to be the best. In the scene of the afterlife, her mother tells Meredith to â€Å"keep going† and reassures her that she’s â€Å"anything but ordina ry†. Ultimately Meredith regains her hope and uses the reassuring words from her mother to find her breath. Grey’s Anatomy shows that in times of desperation and hardships, all you need to do is cling onto hope. The show also illustrates the truth of realities by portraying that mistakes are simply a part of life.Exemplifying in the show that mistakes happen, Dr. Izzie Stevens follows her instincts and cuts Denny Duquette’s (a patient she fell in love with) LVAD wire with intent to move him up the heart donor list. At first with his condition, Denny is moved up the list; however, his condition quickly begins to worsen which causes him to die. Ultimately regretting what she had done, Izzie blames herself for what had happened to the man she loved. In addition, another example representing that mistakes are a part of life is shown when Dr. Derek Shepard made an honest mistake in surgery resulting in the death of a man’s wife.In the episode â€Å"An Honest M istake† the husband snaps at Derek quoting, â€Å"Stop saying you’re sorry, you killed her, you’re a murderer†¦ † Being accused for an accidental mistake, Derek ultimately decides to take a leave from being a doctor because he discovers that the number of the patients he’s saved was significantly lower than the lives he killed unintentionally. Grey’s Anatomy displays that no matter how hard we try to avoid them, mistakes are simply just a part of life. â€Å"We have to make our own mistakes. We have to learn our own lessons. We have to sweep today's possibility under tomorrow's rug until we can't anymore.Until we finally understand for ourselves what Benjamin Franklin meant. That knowing is better than wondering†¦ And that even the biggest failure, even the worst most intractable mistake, beats the hell out of not trying† (Meredith Grey in â€Å"If Tomorrow Never Comes†). Grey’s Anatomy also teaches a valuable l esson to forgive and forget the people who have done us wrong. In some episodes, specifically â€Å"The Heart of the Matter†, we can see not only betrayal among friends but also among family; however, the show portrays that in the end, wrongdoings are ultimately forgiven.Meredith’s relationship with her father, Thatcher Grey, was torn apart when he walked out of her life when she was 5 years old. Having no respect for her, he slaps Meredith in front of her coworkers because of a complication in surgery that led to the death of her stepmother. Only seeming to come back for medical needs, Thatcher one day comes to the hospital begging Meredith to donate a portion of her liver to him because his alcoholism makes him unable to be put on the donor list.The show ultimately shows that having the strength to forgive people who have done us wrong and forget the past is one of the realities in life that we must face. Meredith eventually agrees to help her father out and essentia lly releases all the grudges that she had. â€Å"Forgive and forget†¦When someone hurts us, we want to hurt them back. When someone wrongs use we want to be right. Without forgiveness old scores are never settled, old wounds never heal and the most we can hope for is that one day we’ll be lucky enough to forget†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Meredith Grey).Last but not least, Grey’s Anatomy professes that life has a way of steering us in directions that we don’t want to take, but the only way to react to life’s unexpected surprises is to deal with them. In the episode â€Å"Deny, Deny, Deny†, Meredith Grey quotes, â€Å"Sometimes reality has a way of sneaking up and biting us in the ass. † The whole show portrays a message that the most ironic and unforeseen situations can happen to just about anybody. Ellis Grey’s life, along with everybody’s lives, was altered when they found out that the world’s most renowned surgeon had Alzhei mer’s and could no longer share her medical knowledge.Furthermore, after being shot in his arm, Dr. Preston Burke, known as the countries most prestigious cardiothoracic surgeon, discovered that his injury caused a hand tremor, which causes his hand to shake thus making him unsteady to perform surgery. In the end, his condition led him to take an absence of leave from being a doctor and ultimately his life steered onto a different path. â€Å"Bones break. Organs burst. Flesh tears. We can sew the flesh, repair the damage, [and] ease the pain. But when life breaks down, when we break down, there's no science, no hard and fast rules. We just have to feel our way through. Meredith Grey mentions in the episode â€Å"Here Comes the Flood†, that life can throw anything at us and the only way to survive through it is to deal with it. All in all, Grey’s Anatomy serves as a positive impact on society in which it teaches us about the realities of life. This inspiring sho w portrays that having enough hope and faith will help us survive during tough times and it also motivates viewers to view mistakes as lessons to be learned. Through all the hardships of life, the show also demonstrates the importance of forgiveness and to never to give up no matter what direction life takes us.Grey’s Anatomy illustrates the truths of life by implying that we shouldn’t always expect happy endings and easy pathways because the people that endure through the toughest struggles are the ones who are the happiest. Works Cited Grey, E. (Performer) (2007). Some kind of miracle [Television series episode]. In Rhimes, S. (Executive Producer), Grey’s Anatomy. Stevens, I. (Performer) (2007). A change is gonna come [Television series episode]. In Rhimes, S. (Executive Producer), Gre'ys Anatomy. The Mark Gordon Company. Grey, M. (Performer) (2005).Deny,deny,deny [Television series episode]. In Rhimes, S. (Executive Producer), Gre'ys Anatomy. The Mark Gordon Company. Grey, M. (Performer) (2008). Here comes the flood [Television series episode]. In Rhimes, S. (Executive Producer), Gre'ys Anatomy. The Mark Gordon Company. Shepard, D. (Performer) (2009). An honest mistake [Television series episode]. In Rhimes, S. (Executive Producer), Grey’s Anatomy. The Mark Gordon Company. Stevens, I. (Performer) (2007). A change is gonna come [Television series episode]. In Rhimes, S. (Executive Producer), Grey’s Anatomy. The Mark Gordon Company.

The Security Agency Surveillance And Cyber Attacks

Communications Security April M. Walker American Military University Communications Security Communications Security is critical to preventing adversaries from obtaining information traversing the internet. With today’s technology just about all information is being transmitted via the internet or phone lines or mobile radios. This can be anything from credit card payments for online purchases to classified secret level or above information for military operations. The technology involved in the area evolving crypto systems such as KG-175s, emissions security or TEMPEST requirements protecting emanations, physical security like ensuring material is accounted for, and transmissions security or protecting information from interception. To support the ever growing technology there is specific equipment and storage requirements for network traffic and voice traffic. There is even equipment devised just to manage and account for the encryption devices on the network. The companies and organizations overseeing communicati ons security include the National Security Agency, General Dynamics, and the Committee on National Security Systems. Finally there are global implications for communications security. National Security Agency surveillance and cyber attacks are among the most relevant concerns in today’s communications security. First discussed will be the technology involved in the area. Technology in communications security is ever evolving. The need for improvingShow MoreRelatedCybercrime Is A Serious Issue1444 Words   |  6 PagesWhat are the main risks to cyber security and are states or non-state actors the main challenge? Word Count 1188 Cybercrime is a serious issue that the international community faces today, with risks such as theft, espionage, surveillance and sabotage, a very real and accessible threat exists. Cyber security can be defined as a cyber activity that may threaten the security of a system or its information (Threat report 2015). There are various state and nonRead MoreThe Threat Of Cyber Security1351 Words   |  6 Pageseven to the point in which a single cyber-attack can cause the death of millions of people. For that reason, cyber security has become one of the most important matters for many countries. There is no doubt that the United States is one of the most technologically advanced and more powerful countries in the world and for that same reason it instantly becomes one of the main target of cyber-attacks. In order to maintain the country safe and defend against attacks, the government of the United StatesRead MoreCyber Security Is A Needed Profession Essay1123 Words   |  5 PagesCyb er Security is a needed profession that affects all different sizes of companies due to a wide variety of different types of threats like malicious codes like illegal young adult content, malware, and spyware to computer viruses. Malware can be very serious that they have the ability to easily erase the whole entire computer to non dangerous easy fix like email viruses. We need cyber security to stop the numbers of threats around the world. There have been unprecedented rise in cyber attacks andRead MoreA Country Description Of Japan Essay1604 Words   |  7 Pagesthe country s economy and its energy infrastructure, and tested its ability to deal with humanitarian disasters. Prime Minister Shinzo ABE was re-elected to office in December 2012, and has since embarked on economic and security reforms. Part II- Political and Security Topics Topic 1: Counterterrorism Japan is implementing a variety of measures under the â€Å"3 Pillar Foreign Policy† which was formulated in 2015 in response to the terrorist incident regarding the murder of Japanese citizensRead MoreThe Nsa Spying Is A Major Issue1077 Words   |  5 Pagesin massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of the domestic communications and communications records of millions of ordinary Americans since at least 2001. Since this was first reported on by the press and discovered by the public in late 2005 ( Cole 4). EFF has been at the forefront of the effort to stop it and bring government surveillance programs back within the law and the Constitution. News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been interceptingRead MoreSurveillance Program Unethical Use Of Computer1628 Words   |  7 Pagesunethical use of computer? There has been a case similar to that situation when the US government used national security surveillance programs for the intent to protect Americans from terrorism and cyber-attacks. These surveillance programs were initiated by NSA to spy on telecommunication data and the internet activities. However, these programs were created for the purpose of maintaining the security of people. These programs are effective tools to confront the terrorist threat that the government beenRead MoreAmerica Needs The Patriot Act Essay1262 Words   |  6 Pagesviolates their right to privacy, and does little to ensure national security. However, this was not the intention of the Bush Administration, who passed this law. One week after September 11, 2001, the Patriot Act, a law that was meant to strengthen national security, was signed by the Bush Administration to ensure that no terrorist attack would ever harm the lives of more Americans. The Patriot Act gave federal law enforcement agencies what they needed to mount an effective and coordinated plan to stopRead MoreEssay On Cybersecurity Breaches1033 Words   |  5 Pagestechnology, which results in more vulnerability to cyber-attacks including cybersecurity breaches. Today, the world continues to experience inordinate cases of cybersecurity meltdowns. There is a rapid growth in complexity and volume of cyber-attacks, and this undermines the success of security measures put in place to make the cyberspace secure for users. Cyber-attacks on both private and public information systems are a major issue for information security as well as the legal system. While most statesRead MoreAmerica And Its Homeland Security Online Essay1587 Words   |  7 PagesAmerica and Its Homeland Security Online Abstract: Everyday security is provided by the states and federal government. These tasks get more difficult as new technology introduces itself. Cybersecurity is one of the most popular security sectors in today’s world. There is not only cyberbullying going on in the world. Terrorism can be planned and sent from person to person over the internet. People’s identities are being stole to help carry out these terrorist acts and this is just the being of itRead MoreGovernment Surveillance Should Not Be A Better Medium Between Liberty And Security1093 Words   |  5 PagesGovernment Surveillance The fight to obtain a happy medium between liberty and security continues to be a hard fought game of Tug-of-War. Considering the profusion of various opinions and ideas on the subject of government surveillance there will never be a solution that will satisfy everyone but there is one that will satisfy the majority. There are many logical rationales on the proper course of action whether it is in favor of the National Security Agency (NSA), against them, or a whole other