Our Previous Samples

In Othello’s soliloquy to the Duke and council, through his shift into verse, he is able to portray his sincerity and sureness in his love for Desdemona, and persuade the council that he won Brabantio’s daughter fairly and truly. Othello begins by addressing the council before which he is accused, graciously calling them “potent, grave, reverend…noble…masters” (1/2). This submissive diction clearly emphasizes Othello’s position in the discussion, as he places his judges above him. However, this is also an example of Othello’s masterful speech work, as he shows his reverence we also understand that he wishes to sway them in his favor. In order to further achieve this, he consents to the claims made by Brabantio saying “that I have ta’en away this old man’s daughter / It is most true” (4/5). Although it may seem that Othello is confessing to the crime, he is actually stringing on the council and winning them over to his side of the argument by then claiming that “my offending / Hath this extent, no more” (5/6). In this manner, Othello disregards Brabantio’s claims, saying that he has simply wed his daughter, and in that he has stolen her, but he has not used any tricks or magic to get her.

Othello’s next part of the speech further develops his masterful display of language as he claims that he cannot speak beautifully because he only knows war and battle. He claims that his language is “rude” and “little bless’d with the soft phrase” (6/7) yet the reader can clearly see that he is manipulating language in a masterful way in order to win over the council. Othello then discusses his war prowess, yet in a way that doesn’t boast his actions, but instead makes it seem as if it was a curse-for because of it, he cannot speak much about “this great world” (11). Through his battle and war diction, Othello manages to slyly bring up that he is indeed a war veteran, and perhaps cause an idea of heroism and bravery to come up within the council, which oppose the idea that Brabantio wants to cause with his attack against Othello. Overall, he manages to use his war-time as a way to show that he does not possess the knowledge to sway Desdemona with anything except pure love, and to sway the council into his favor by making them remember that he is a war hero.

Othello ends by slandering Brabantio’s claim as he says that he will “deliver / of my whole course of love; what drugs, what charms, / what conjuration and what mighty magic, (15-17). Thus Othello rebounds Brabantio’s attack against him, for he has just explained that he has no way of being able to truly do those things, but instead, he has only used what he does know-war, battle, and his stories to win Desdemona.

A crisis is usually a negative distribute of emotions. When we prevent negative energy from manifesting, the balance is kept. Although it is difficult to maintain constant awareness at all times. The tragedy of Othello, written by William Shakespeare, presents the main character Othello, as respectful, honorable, and a dignified man, but because of his insecurities and good nature, he is easily taken advantage of and manipulated by his peers and alleged friends. The dynamic of Othello's character significantly changes as the play evolves. The contrast is most prominent from the beginning of the play to its conclusion, switching from being calm and peaceful to acts of uncontrolled rage. Othello's motivation in the play appears to be his love and concern for his wife, which ironically, ends up being his downfall in the end. Being too passionate about something or someone, can sometimes override one's good judgement. Too much passion can bring about ever-lasting consequences and regrets. When put into a tense, specific situation, individuals usually won't make wise choices. That is ultimately what happen with Othello's character.

Love is one of the most powerful emotions a human being can experience. In the beginning of the play, Othello exhibits behaviors that would lead one to believe that he is a respected and honorable man, but that quickly changes as his heart gets the best of him. Initially, Othello and Desdemona's relationship was everything that was desired in a marriage: mutual respect, passion, empathy and loyalty. However, while feelings of love and compassion circulate within the happy couple, their surroundings were filled with bitterness and paranoia. The differences that separated Othello and Desdemona do not disturb them, but are starkly obvious and unnerving to the judgmental citizens of Venice. Even though it was certainly rare in the 16th century for couples to have such disparities in age, social position and race, none of these differences diminished how Othello and Desdemona felt for each other, yet each spurred obstacles that threatened their relationship. While Othello and Desdemona are separated by a considerable age gap, it has never hindered their blossoming romance – at least until such a gap is exploited by Iago. A successful relationship is a relationship built on trust. It seems that as Othello loses his trust for Desdemona, the strength and love between the pair begins to diminish. Their commitment to each other despite the unusual circumstances of their marriage should serve as a model of virtue for other relationships both in their era and in modern society. It is incredibly unfortunate that something so pure could be plunged into ruin by a conniving advisor, yet Iago’s actions reveal that within any relationship lies latent insecurities and anxieties. While Othello and Desdemona thrived in spite of disparities in age, social position and race, their relationship was ultimately crippled by something much more commonplace yet infinitely more dangerous: a lack of trust.

From the beginning of the play, the friction between Iago and Othello was evident. Othello promoted Michael Cassio to be his lieutenant, a promotion which infuriated Iago as Iago had pleaded lieutenancy; it is at this point in the play that Iago holds onto his anger wanting to seek revenge. To get vengeance on Othello, Iago sees Othello's love for Desdemona as a weakness of his character and sets a trap for the guiltless Desdemona by planting a seed of doubt into Othello`s naive mind. At frequent events of the play Iago kept highlighting these doubts eventually causing Othello’s mental state to deteriorate. This is visible as Othello goes from speaking like a courageous leader to a man reduced to madness by Iago's insinuations about his wife’s infidelity. The elegance and control of Othello’s speech changes radically as his emotional state deteriorates, he begins to stammer, his sentences are broken and questions everything he thought was true. This is a consequence of his own weakness as Othello shouldn’t have been so credulous to believe Iago in the first place. However, Othello being naive to the manipulation of Iago is not entirely his fault as Iago was very cunning and sharp when making sure that people saw him as ‘honest Iago’ and not for the Iago that holds his true intentions. The final moments of Desdemona and Othello`s lives shows how Othello lets Iago controls his emotions. Othello stands above Desdemona while she`s sleeping convincing himself on why Desdemona must die. Othello almost abandons his intent to kill her but changes his mind as he believes “she must die, else she'll betray more men” which can be linked to another flaw of Othello`s which is vanity as he's ashamed by the fact that he was in a marriage where a love failed. When news travels that Desdemona is dead Othello discovers that Iago had set everything up and that Desdemona was innocent all along. He then does the most honorable thing that he can possibly think of and strips himself from life.

In conclusion Othello's jealousy is the one flaw that brings him down the most as he had succumbed to the pernicious influence of revenge which was embodied by the character of Iago. If Iago hadn't been so manipulating and Othello so naive, the event in which resulted in the downfall of Othello could have been avoided; the reason for his downfall ultimately lies with weakness of his character. Othello has, simply, encased Desdemona in alabaster. He has formed an opinion of her from which she is unable to break free. Because he has so strongly locked her into his state of mind he is unable to think of him in any other way. She is so high up on the pedestal that he puts her on that he is unable to see who she truly is. This is Othello’s failing. By making her too powerful, too divine, any minor fault is a glaring defect to her immaculate surface. Then at the first flaw, she becomes low and nothing, and he needs to return her to her former glory. He fails to see her love through her alabaster covering; and that inevitably is what causes his destruction.

The contemporary world refers to the present time, the current era in which we live. It encompasses the social, cultural, economic, and political realities of the modern age. The contemporary world is characterized by rapid technological advancements, globalization, interconnectedness, and evolving social dynamics. However, this is all we can say in response to the question 'what is contemporary world?' This essay will assess whether or not the modern world in which we currently live in could actually be due to how we acted and lived in the past. This will involve evaluating if the spread and improvement of agriculture of today emerged from hunter-gatherers whilst also considering if we are the cause for the change in the contemporary world as well as whether having a feudal system of ranks and power has made a difference to today’s world.

While the contemporary world is rooted in the past, it is not solely determined by it. The present is shaped by historical events, cultural traditions, and the legacies of the past, which have laid the foundation for the current state of affairs. Historical developments, such as political revolutions, scientific discoveries, social movements, and cultural shifts, have all influenced and shaped the contemporary world.

Changes in Agriculture and Feudalism in Modern World 

Agriculture has developed significantly since it first started to emerge around 10,000 years ago across the world with practices such as rice cultivation. This was one of the main ways of growing such food like grains due to it being a simple process as well as being cost-effective. This was as large quantities were able to be produced at one time as well as being labour-saving for the people producing it. However, by consistently cultivating rice on the same plot of land, this has been likely to cause damage to the soils as it leads to degradation. Through this knowledge, farmers currently sometimes use fertilisers or pesticides on their crops like rice yet are still damaging the soils after the crops are harvested. “When the spread of agriculture began to increase, agriculturists showed a remarkable ability to adapt their practices to local environmental conditions”. Many of the adaptations were due to the agriculturists having to alter how their land originally was so they could have more space to grow a variety of crops such as maize and wheat. This was mainly done through the act of deforestation. Due to hunter-gatherers removing trees to make way for more land, this has continued into the present day mainly due to the rise in population and the range of diet where “approximately 18.7 million acres of forest are cut down each year, where the land leftover is then mostly used for cattle farming and palm oil production”.

Feudalism was a ranking system that was mainly used and present during 12th-14th Europe where people in society were placed into different ranks based on how much power they had over others which were mainly established on the economy and a person’s individual wealth. Weingast states that the “land represented the means to power, wealth and security,” meaning that those who had more money were able to obtain the better land which was then mainly used for military and fighting purposes. However, during the mid-14th century, the Black Death was spread throughout Europe which caused the majority of the lower class to become infected. As they died, there was nobody to assist the wealthy, causing the feudal system to become abolished and people living more equally of each-other. Today however, some parts of society have moved on from feudalism due to the difference in the ways that people are living, mainly relating to agriculture as the majority of land which is bought by agriculturists nowadays is used for commercial and cattle farming. This means that the world we live in today is not due to how the people of society acted in the past as it is not the same as what it used to be. As demonstrated by Hirst, “in a feudal society, status is based on land ownership.” While this may have been true in the Middle Ages of Europe, in the present, it is just predominantly based around how much wealth a person has amassed as shown in the diagram below. The diagram shows the percentage of adults who earn a specific amount of money and how much of the whole world’s wealth they actually own based from 2018. Regardless of how feudalism is based on, there is still a clear divide between social classes because of their economic status and their financial assets. To a certain extent, some parts of feudalism can still be seen today such as when land is used for subsistence farming in which only small amounts of crops are grown specifically for the individual and their family and not for commercial use or profits.

Conclusion

The contemporary world is a product of both the past and the choices we make in the present, as we navigate the challenges and possibilities of our rapidly evolving global society. however, there are still aspects of the past which have continued into the present world, for instance how aboriginals and hunter-gatherers used to farm in the past has shaped how we currently farm due to using similar practices. On the other hand, not all events in the past has changed the world today due to how people are placed in humanity as people are still being judged and put into classes which are based upon their level of power and wealth, meaning that our contemporary world may not be seen as a product of the past.

There are main reasons this topic has become an issue, one of them being we are not preparing our children for a modern future. As was mentioned in the video our schooling system hasn’t changed for hundreds of years. British author, speaker, and international advisor Ken Robertson has mentioned “Education is modelled in the interests of the industrial age and in the image of it”, meaning we still have the industrial age mentality. All students do at school is sit down and listen to instructions, But in today’s world we can’t get very far on instructions, our modern era values people who can be creative and communicative.

We are born with curiosity, we begin to wonder about the sky, the stars, what makes the world go round. But as we progress through junior high school all of this curiosity gets crushed, throughout school we learn through facts and memorization. Kids start to believe memorization is knowledge but it isn’t. The reason this continues to be an issue is because no one understands the meaning of exams, we are simply regurgitating information and forgetting it afterwards. This wont stop being an issue because our exam ways won’t change, they will continue to test students on their memorization and not their understanding. I feel there needs to be a change in policy relating to this issue because people are beginning to stray away from harder courses. Often when students have the option of choosing a course, they will choose something they see to be easy because that’s an easy pass. But when you enter the process of life what’s rewarded is tenacity and your urge to take on challenges. But in our system now it urges students towards the easier way just to satisfy the expectations.

Something else I’d like to say is, students now focus too much on grades and less on what they’re learning. I know this because as a student I am so fixated on grades and scholarships that I don’t care about what I am learning, I simply care about the results I’m getting. They say school is to prepare our students for the future, but as I said earlier literally nothing has change for hundreds of years, how are we preparing for the future if we are learning like the past. One teacher stands in front of 25 students with different strengths and different needs teaching them the same things the same way, but we don’t need 25 of the same students. Every single person on this earth deserves a chance of creativity.

Works Cited

1. Robinson, K. (2006). How schools kill creativity. TED Conferences LLC. https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_creativity/transcript?language=en
2. Kim, Y., & Saxberg, B. (2017). Five principles for unlocking the potential of personalized learning. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/five-principles-for-unlocking-the-potential-of-personalized-learning
3. Darling-Hammond, L., & Rothman, R. (2011). Teacher and leader effectiveness in high-performing education systems. Alliance for Excellent Education. https://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/TeacherEffectivenessReport.pdf
4. The Aspen Institute. (2010). The learning matrix: Connecting education policy to practice. The Aspen Institute.
5. Graham, C. R., Borup, J., & Smith, N. B. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher candidates' technology integration decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 530-546.
6. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358-389). Jossey-Bass.
7. Sheehy, K. (2018). Creative collaboration: Schools create better outcomes by working together. American School Board Journal, 205(7), 24-27.
8. Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin Press.
9. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
10. Coates, K., & Morrison, D. (2017). The future of skills: Employment in 2030. Pearson.

Table of contents

1. A Group
2. B Group
3. C Group

It doesn’t matter how smart or talented you are, or if you come from a rich family, you are the total sum of the people you spend your time with. They can either push you to try new things and excel, or they can bring you down, teach you bad habits and essentially put a damper on your successes. There’s a saying that goes, “Your net worth is correlated to your network.”

To explain this scientifically, your brain is made of up of neurons, cells that transmit nerve impulses, that control all kinds of activities in your body, both physically and psychologically. There are special kinds of neurons, called mirror neurons, which fire up whether you yourself are doing a certain action, or whether you’re observing someone else do it. So basically, you get the same feeling when you watch someone do something just as if you were doing it yourself. So, think of your group of friends, if they complain a lot, you will too.

If they can’t manage to save money, or eat a lot of junk food, or smoke, you’ll mimic their bad behavior. And just the opposite is true, as Robert Kiyosaki states in his book, Rich Dad, Poor Dad, “If you hang out with a group of successful, positive-minded individuals who believe in taking responsibility for their lives, you will move to become a proactive individual who shapes his/her future. If you hang out with a bunch of pessimists who believe the world is out to get them and there is nothing worthwhile, you will start descending into the negative whirlpool at some point, even if you are initially a positive individual”.

So how do you know whether the people around are helping you become the version of yourself? Here’s what you should do. Make a list of the people closest to you in your life with whom you see on a daily basis and spend most your time with. Place each person into 1 of the following 3 categories:

A Group

These are the people in your life who are constantly pushing you to do and be better. They’re supportive of your choices as well as your mistakes because they know your weaknesses and know how to comfort you when the chips are down, and also what to do to help you get back up. They may even know how to market your skills by helping you expand your network. And they, themselves, are successful and motivated people because they share your goals and ambitions.

B Group

The ‘B Group’ is where you’ll find friends that are almost ‘A Group’ but aren’t there quite yet. They still have some self-development and growth to work on, but, at the same time, they’re supportive of your drive and determination.

C Group

Also known as the blood-suckers, these people will whisper your successes while loudly publicizing your failures. They seem to be so good at pinning you down in a harsh cycle of self-destruction. They’re the ones who usually blame everyone else for anything that goes wrong in their lives, and think people are out to get them.

The famous Greek philosopher and teacher, Epictetus, said, “The key is to keep company only with people who uplift you, whose presence calls forth your best.” and long before him, the Father of Western Philosophy, Aristotle, believed that friendship is made of up 3 factors, “Friends must enjoy each other’s company, they must be useful to one another, and they must share a common commitment to the good.” So take a good look at the people you surround yourself with every day and decide whether they’re helping or hurting you. If it’s the latter, don’t be afraid to start distancing yourself from them. Don’t cut them off completely; just spend less time with them. Then go out and find people who raise you up, encourage and support you.

Though the previous days of weather reports had announced that harsh winds followed by a storm would be surrounding the capital city of Wellington, at 8:40am April 9 the Wahine still took route. A weather report on the 8th of April stated that there were strong winds that were only going to get worse as the days go on. Because storm warnings were normal to sail through for the Wahine the report was overlooked and not taken into serious account, what the crew didn't know is that cyclone Giselle was going to clash with a southerly front over Wellington Harbour creating New Zealand's worst storm ever to be recorded. The warning signs were not only erred by the crew onboard the vessel but also by the crew onshore. Though these people are not able to predict the future by ignoring the warning signs and taking sail they have not taken into account the consequences that were to be faced in less than 24 hours. This was only one of many mistakes made that caused this tragedy to occur.

Yearly inspections by the Marine Department of the Government of New Zealand were done to check that the safety conditions aboard the vessel was up to date. Stating that all life jackets aboard can be suited to both adult and child was their second mistake. Before the disaster three consecutive annual inspections in 1966, 1967 and 1968 had taken place, after the disaster the reliability of the safety inspection laws were challenged as after the incident it was found that the cause of death for many children was in fact drowning caused from the oversized and impractical life jackets supplied on the ship. After this unfortunate turn out of deaths due to oversized life jackets the inspection laws were changed resulting in smaller, appropriate sized life jackets so children were provided with safety equipment that would give them a chance of survival.

This disaster has also shown the government that Wellington Harbour needed more facilities for water rescues. Old rescue and tug boats used to help the Wahine were helpless as they were too old

and not strong enough to make any progress in the rescue of the Wahine. After the disaster a ration decision was made and Wellington upgraded all rescue equipment, purchasing numerous tug boats and and a rescue boat for incidents such as this one.

Berthing fees were cut to reduce the cost and save money, because of this the was more flooding on the boat which caused the vessel to list and then capsized due to the unstability .

This Wahine Disaster could have been prevented or at the very least reduced in wreckage and deaths if the inspection laws and safety equiptment was efficent and effective. After this accident New Zealand has been taught many valuble lesson inThough the previous days of weather reports had announced that harsh winds followed by a storm would be surrounding the capital city of Wellington, at 8:40am April 9 the Wahine still took route. A weather report on the 8th of April stated that there were strong winds that were only going to get worse as the days go on. Because storm warnings were normal to sail through for the Wahine the report was overlooked and not taken into serious account, what the crew didn't know is that cyclone Giselle was going to clash with a southerly front over Wellington Harbour creating New Zealand's worst storm ever to be recorded. The warning signs were not only erred by the crew onboard the vessel but also by the crew onshore. Though these people are not able to predict the future by ignoring the warning signs and taking sail they have not taken into account the consequences that were to be faced in less than 24 hours. This was only one of many mistakes made that caused this tragedy to occur.

Yearly inspections by the Marine Department of the Government of New Zealand were done to check that the safety conditions aboard the vessel was up to date. Stating that all life jackets aboard can be suited to both adult and child was their second mistake. Before the disaster three consecutive annual inspections in 1966, 1967 and 1968 had taken place, after the disaster the reliability of the safety inspection laws were challenged as after the incident it was found that the cause of death for many children was in fact drowning caused from the oversized and impractical life jackets supplied on the ship. After this unfortunate turn out of deaths due to oversized life jackets the inspection laws were changed resulting in smaller, appropriate sized life jackets so children were provided with safety equipment that would give them a chance of survival.

This disaster has also shown the government that Wellington Harbour needed more facilities for water rescues. Old rescue and tug boats used to help the Wahine were helpless as they were too old

and not strong enough to make any progress in the rescue of the Wahine. After the disaster a ration decision was made and Wellington upgraded all rescue equipment, purchasing numerous tug boats and and a rescue boat for incidents such as this one.

Berthing fees were cut to reduce the cost and save money, because of this the was more flooding on the boat which caused the vessel to list and then capsized due to the unstability .

This Wahine Disaster could have been prevented or at the very least reduced in wreckage and deaths if the inspection laws and safety equiptment was efficent and effective.

Table of contents

1. Introduction
Investigation
2. Literature Review
Data CollectionConstruct
3. Conclusion

I am intrigued by the abundance of companion animals present in the hands of youths around me, and hence, would like to investigate as to how pet ownership influence youths’ social-emotional development in Singapore. In order to do so, I researched for articles detailing similar studies or experiments conducted previously by professionals from digital libraries and the Internet. I also sent out a questionnaire to Singaporean youths between the ages of fifteen to sixteen to collect raw data, which i then organized to be more presentable, and summarize the information. After collating sufficient data and information from my literature review and personal data collection, I analyzed and found the key points that pertained to my investigation. This allowed me to conclude at the end of my investigation that pet ownership affects Singaporean youths’ ability to empathize and self-rely, degree of loneliness and level of diligence.

Introduction

Pets are domestic animals kept for companionship, and are something that is not foreign to Singaporeans. In fact, most Singaporeans have owned at least one pet in their lifetime, be it a dog, a hamster, or even a frog. Every day we see people of all ages walking their dogs around the neighborhood. Almost every shopping center and mall in the country has a pet store, where pet food, pet toys, or sometimes even the pet itself can be purchased. Hence, it is evident that pets have been integrated into part of the community and society in Singapore. I have observed that nowadays, many youths in Singapore own pets or have intention of pet ownership. This sparks my interest. Adolescence is a crucial life phase due to its contribution to our quality of health and emotional well-being . However, common knowledge of youth development have been limited to their relationships with other human beings. Pet ownership is also very common, but not something looked deeply into. Hence, I am interested in assessing if pets bring any benefits towards the lives of adolescents. More specifically, I want to study the effect owning a pet has on the psychological development of emotional intelligence in youth. Hence, my inquiry question is How does pet ownership influence youths’ social-emotional development in Singapore?

Investigation

To conduct my inquiry effectively, I have planned to undergo three steps; research, collate and conclude. Firstly, I will search for and look at articles detailing similar studies or experiments conducted previously by professionals. These articles will be sourced from the internet through the usage of appropriate search engines such as Google Scholar and digital libraries such as JSTOR.

I will gather information from these articles, find relevant points that can to aid me in my investigation, and summarize the information. Secondly, I will conduct my own collation of raw data. I will do so by surveying youths that both have and have not owned pets. I will then organize the data such that it is presentable, allowing greater ease for me to analyze it. I will then summarize the information I have gathered through the questionnaire.

Lastly, based on my literature review and the data I collected to answer my inquiry question, I will arrive at an understanding. I will then form a well-developed conclusion based on that understanding and conclude my inquiry.

Literature Review

From reviewing the articles and reports I have sourced from digital and physical libraries, it is evident that pet ownership in youths adversely benefits their emotional health. For instance, according to Rhoades (2015), pet owning youths reported fewer symptoms of depression and loneliness than their non-pet owning peers. It is also proven that social development is also linked to pet ownership, but only if the youths have been in the presence of these companion animals since a young age. No effects of pet ownership on social measures were found in 13 - 18-year-old adolescents, but children who scored higher on the attachment to pets scale also show significantly higher scores on empathy scales. Self- reliance and independent decision skills are also higher in these children. Hence, a youth that has been owning a pet since little would have undergone these developments in their social domain.

Data Collection

On the 8th of May 2018, I sent out a questionnaire to the Year 3s and 4s in St Joseph's Institution and my associates that are of the same age group in other secondary schools. The questionnaire consisted of two parts; a personal information form and a presentation of a handful of situations whereby surveyees have to choose the option that reflects their reaction the best, similar to an emotional quotient (EQ) test. In the personal information form, the surveyees’ age, gender, family background and experience regarding pet ownership was recorded. This allowed me to categorize the data such that I could eliminate all other factors that are related to socio-emotional development in youths, and compare the results solely based off their pet ownership status. I then analyzed the different responses I received from 57 respondents, and made a few crucial discoveries Firstly, youths who have had experienced pet ownership are more willing to engage themselves in the midst of a conflict in order to find a solution. In the questionnaire, the following situation was presented; you've taken a group of 4-year-olds to the park, and one of them starts crying because the others won't play with her.

A greater percentage of respondents who have never owned a pet chose to stay out of it, while most of those who had spent time with a companion animal before chose to talk to the crying child and help her to figure out ways to get the other kids to play with her. Hence, it can be inferred that pet ownership aids youths in developing the willingness to discuss a problem or in order to find a solution. Secondly, pet ownership instigates better perseverance and failure management in teenagers.

In the questionnaire, the following situation was presented. Imagine you are an insurance salesman calling prospective clients. Fifteen people in a row have hung up on you, and you are getting discouraged. Respondents who have experience with pets mostly chose to reassess what they are doing wrong and try something new. Only a handful of them chose to give up and call it a day, or consider a new line of occupation.

Another situation that was presented was: Assume you had hoped to get an A in one of your subjects, but you have just found out you got a Con the midterm. A lower percentage of youths who have owned companion animals chose to give up on the subject compared to that of those who have not. Therefore, it can be seen that pet owners do not give up as easily compared to their peers who lack the experience. However, not all effects of pet ownership on youths’ social-emotional development are positive. Pet owners also seem to be less diligent in pursuing proficiency in recreational activities.

For some time now, you have wanted to return to playing the musical instrument you learned to play when you were younger. You have finally gotten around to practicing again, and want to make the best use of your time was presented in the questionnaire. All of the respondents who chose the option to only practice when they are in the mood are pet owners, while majority of those who have not owned pets chose to pick pieces that are beyond their current ability but can be mastered with diligent effort. Hence, based off the questionnaire, it can be inferred that pet ownership causes teenagers to be less diligent in co-curricular activities. Apart from these few situations, six other situations were also presented. However, the socio-emotional trait being tested is evenly spread out among both youths that own pets and those that do not, so i cannot make a fair comparison based on these responses, and can only conclude that the presence of companion animals has no effect on youths’ developments of these character traits.

Construct

After analyzing my literature review and data collection, I have come to the conclusion that pet ownership influence youths’ social-emotional development in Singapore in four aspects; empathy, self-reliance, loneliness and diligence. Firstly, pet owners are more empathic and benevolent. They are more willing to step in to help out in situations where others would feel unwilling to and rather mind their own business. Secondly, they are also more self-reliant and able to cope well with setbacks. They do not give up easily when encountering difficulty and are able to make independent decisions on how to push on. Adolescents that have experience owning pets are also less prone to feeling lonely, partially because they have the company of their companion animal, and less likely to fall into depression.

Lastly, they are less diligent than their peers when pursuing prowess in personal recreation. This could be due to them being accustomed to spending their free times with their pets instead of other recreational activities, so when faced with the choice to pursue these activities, they would rather use their time to keep their pets company. After coming to this conclusion, I decided that for my product, I will produce a brochure that details the findings of my investigation. This brochure will be able to inform youths who are contemplating pet ownership the benefits and disadvantages this decision could have on their socio-emotional ability, and would hopefully be able to aid them in making a well-informed choice that they will not regret, since placing the life of another being into your hands is a huge commitment.

Conclusion

The greatest limitation I faced was that I had not conducted any interviews. I had previously intended to interview youths that either own or do not own pets and professionals in the fields related to my study. However, I had not done so as I could not find any of my schoolmates that were willing to be interviewed, mostly due to it being the examination period, and could not get in contact with any of the professionals. I also feel that I am to be blamed for this, as I may have been too idle in pursuing interviewees.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Due to the lack of interviews, I am unable to collect more data, and my investigation had to be mainly based around my literature review and survey responses. I also had a lower amount of responses to my questionnaire than I had originally expected. This could be due to two reasons: either I sent out my questionnaire a little too late or not many people were interested in my topic to bother responding. Although the low amount of responses gave me the chance to diligently go through each response, I was not able to collect enough data to make as many definite conclusions as I had expected to. This was also a factor that led to my investigation having to be mainly based around my literature review and survey responses, and my conclusion not being as backed up as I had wanted them to be.

The definition of political correctness says, “The term political correctness is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.” Political Correctness is idealistic at best, but the problems with these ideas come from those who use to it censor others. If our representatives are forced to censor themselves to make sure they do not offend any groups of people is not good for our freedom of speech, but the people speaking choose whether they want to use politically correct language. But the problem arises when people are forced to speak in a way that does not represent their true beliefs in fear of risking their electability, credibility, and future opportunities to speak their mind.

The current culture around the Politically Correct (PC) movement is predatory, the people pushing for this language are using their perceived outrage to mute the argument of those they do not agree with. It is a failure of the first amendment if we allow our language to be moderated by those who seek only to further their own political agenda. The issue is apparent; the university can control who is speaking, where they are able to speak on campus, and if they are able to speak at all. Many universities with these rules lean liberal, making it extremely difficult for conservative speakers to be allowed on those campuses.

Extreme members of the PC Movement are calling for legal regulation of language that causes distress in person or a group of people. One author believes the enactment of laws to limit our freedom of speech is a concerning proposal, but it is unlikely any laws will be put into place as it goes against the constitution. The First Amendment states that “Congress should make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” But the enforcement of political correctness does not originate from law, instead it is the rules and regulations in areas that support the concept of political correctness. Many workplaces, universities, and private organizations utilize a “speech code”, which are any rule of regulation that limits, restricts, or bans speech beyond the legal limitations of freedom of speech. Speech codes can be well meaning, but the first amendment has its limitations already that protect the legal rights of others from hate speech, true threats, incitement, and other extreme language. Speech codes aim to limit an individual’s freedom of expression and the vague terms of the rules are concerning as depending on their application they could be abused. Many of these policies ban offensive language and/or disparaging remarks. These speech codes can and have been abused to limit many protests/demonstrations to free speech zones or outside the campus. Many of these protesters need to request permission beforehand to demonstrate on campus, which can be accepted and denied at the discretion of the University. The FIRE Foundation, or Foundation for Individual Rights in Education says:

If universities applied these rules to the letter, major voices of public criticism, satire, and commentary would be silenced on American campuses, and some of our greatest authors, artists, and filmmakers would be banned. These codes also lead students to believe they have an absolute right to be free from offense, embarrassment, or discomfort. As a result, other students begin the compromise of self-censorship.

A student’s college years are some of his/her most formative years. A student’s interactions with other students, speakers, and the protests he or she witnesses will shape his or her political alignment, attitude, and character. Conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos are constantly being banned or interrupted and shut down by so-called Social Justice Warriors (SJW or SJWs) who protect the ideas of those who they agree with, but are immediately triggered by even the presence anyone who disagrees with their ideas on things like gender and racial equality. If your do not allow your views to be challenged, then maybe they aren’t worth upholding. By not allowing a discussion, they are effectively censoring any views that do not align with their own under the guise of eliminating what they find offensive. As the FIRE foundation said, “… these codes lead students to believe they have an absolute right to be free from offense” and in a perfect world that would be true. But the world is far from perfect, and in order to have a healthy discourse not all parties will agree with one another. It is extraordinary to think a person could be removed from a college campus for saying something another person found offensive. What is the limit of such a rule? The current implementation of these rules makes it extremely difficult for college students to have a healthy discord without fear of “offending” the other party. The choice to be offended is a vague one, these “easily-triggered, privileged people are trying to turn society to a giant safe space”.

As for safe-spaces, or “a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm,” they are beginning to pop-up all over the country. These safe-spaces aim to protect the easily offended. Safe spaces can be an asset for many minorities to come together and air their grievances in the safety of their peers. But the expectation that safe-spaces should be mandatory or universal shows how extremely privileged the PC movement is.

Most of the actors in the PC movement are minority, liberal, college students. They are the ones who protest to disinvite those speakers they do not agree with, they are the ones who police the language we can use, they are the ones that are core of the issues. But the real issue, is the administration that gives into the demands of the PC movement. Allowing their students their safe-space is one thing, but relatively harmless in practice, allowing them a place to gather and feel safe. Rooms full of their peers, no challenges to their views, essentially an echo chamber of politically correct propaganda. Coddling these young adults with safe-spaces, banned speakers, and defenses of PC culture allows them to feel validated that they are the victim. When truly, they are the bullies. The number of people that have had their careers ruined by this easily offended subset of the population is large enough to start considering removing these outrageous protections for these peoples. Once these students graduate from these universities, they enter the real world, which is unlike any of their unrealistic expectations.

They are all such bleeding-heart liberals that are so violently against any belief that isn’t their own, and they will use any means of furthering their own agenda. Their successes set a dangerous precedent that they are the right side of the argument, which could not be further from the truth, the PC movement is a manipulative, dangerous movement which threatens the livelihood of those who appose it, up to and including the first amendment.

Destructive Ways on How Political Corruption Affects Brazil

Fogel depicts that “Political corruption in Brazil dates back to the time of Vargas and has since become a customary practice amongst state leaders”. The South American state has a population of over 200 million and as such is observed to have relevance in the global arena, but according to Jenkins corruption-related charges and convictions have destroyed the state's repute. Corruption is defined by Transparency International as the misuse of power bestowed on an individual for personal benefits. So the main question is “How political corruption affects Brazil?” the essay states that Brazil is one such state that has constantly been plagued by corruption and the effects have deterred the state's ability to develop.

According to Labrador, from the beginning of 2014, Brazil has encountered several corruption probes including state leaders and members from large corporations. Corruption has been said to complicate the efforts to revitalize the country's economy during its largest downturn in more than a century. Labrador depicts that to examine corruption from a state perception, the foundation will be fundamentally political. The explains that the term corruption is generally considered a critical issue and usually refers to the abuse of public office, as a result, politicians impart with public power refuse to be branded as being corrupt.

To understand the effects of corruption and how it is handled will be vital in indicating several theories that have been used to explain and mitigate corruption prevention over the last two decades. One specific theory that the article highlights is the 'principal-agent' theory, said to probably be one of the more influential theories in understanding corruption. According to this theory, corruption derives within the public sector based on the individual in charge, and the failure to monitor government entities. This creates a principal-agent liaison between the government and its administration in which agents unify to be involved in the corrupted act as the benefits seem to outweigh that of being sincere. On the other hand, theory such as the game theory explains the prevalence of public sector corruption by using economic literature to justify the reason public officials engage in corrupt decisions. The analysis from this theory indicates that, while some individuals fear the repercussion from engagement others have no disinclination to engage. The Understanding from these two theories is relatable, however, other recent theories have been developed to provide a better understanding as to why corruption exists.

According to United Nations Office on drugs and crime the collective action theory has emerged as a more contemporary alternative to explain why corruption continues despite being illegal. This theory plunges further than the traditional theories, by emphasizing the significance of factors such as trust and individual perception of others. According to the article, the theory depicts that the action of an individual result in the perceived action of another thus systemic corruption becomes a collective problem. The writer explains that the constant practice of corrupt acts eventually becomes a social norm. Nevertheless, despite the various collective explanation for corruption, it remains an unsolved and prevalent issue in many states including Brazil. 

Transparency International depicts that “Corruption has remained one the major impediments to achieving economic development in Brazil”. This literature will highlight how corruption factors including bribery, nepotism, and clientelism have robbed Brazil of its potential to develop. Firstly, The Legal Information Institute defines bribery as “the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any element to influence the individual usually holding a position bearing public or legal duties”. The act of bribery usually is beneficial to the individual seeking personal favor and the individual granting the favor, as both will benefit from participating in the act. It is to be noted that, bribery defers from the customary legal practice and institutes a crime against both the receiver and the offeror.

In the case of Brazil, bribery has placed the country on the global map in what is classified as one of the biggest corruption cases of all time. The case was investigated by the Brazilian federal police in 2014 and is known as 'operation car wash', this case highlighted the largest money laundering and anti-corruption scheme in the States history. The operation is said to have lasted a decade and the result of the investigation has exposed high financial irregularities in the largest state-own company, Petrobras. The act of bribery was evident, as prominent contractors would pay an inducement to senior state executives and other public agents to acquire overpriced billion-dollar contracts. The effects of bribery affect state development and particularly the most vulnerable citizens as state resources are shared and misused among individuals from the societal hierarchy.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, bribery constitutes several negative effects on development including the misappropriation of state resources, delays in public service, increase cost, and inadequate public infrastructure. In Brazil, highlights that the quality of Brazilian infrastructure is unwarranted. The author further indicates that when compared to states with a similar level of socio-economic development, Brazil ranks well below the average level: Brazil ranks 123 out of 140 countries in terms of quality of overall infrastructure: 121 out of 140 countries in terms of quality of the roads, 98 in railway infrastructure, 120 in port infrastructure, and 95 in air transportation infrastructure. The effects of bribery have had a serious impact on Brazil's ability to improve in infrastructural development and indicates a clear cause for concern.

Secondly, is Nepotism. “Nepotism is a method of showing favoritism to associates and family members”. Nepotism involves the use of one's power to offer favors including job placement while disregarding an individual level of qualification. Nepotism in the public sector according to the author, has become an unaccepted but uncontrolled practice that goes against the expectation of the population who believes public workers should be selected based on merit and not favoritism. Some of the negative effects that nepotism contributes to development including discouragement amongst workers which may result in underemployment within a state; the fear of being demoted or dismissed if the issues are highlighted to be addressed; loss of productivity, as recipients of favoritism are usually not experienced in the job area assigned; the inability of senior staff to be promoted; and the inability to reprimand favorites. These effects of nepotism are a clear indication of a nonproductive organization and as such are not beneficial to the development of the state.

According to Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro, “It was not an act of nepotism when he nominated his son Eduardo to be ambassador to the United States”. This however was far from what many Brazilians thought, for them, it was a clear case of nepotism. To prove that it was not a case of nepotism, a study was done to establish the legality of the act and the results indicated that top-ranking appointments do not constitute nepotism. To complement this finding, in 2008 the Supreme Court barred nepotism ruling that it does not apply to political appointments. Notwithstanding this decision, the public believes the act constitutes nepotism as traditionally, appointments to these positions were either appointed to career diplomats or political appointees. About some appointments Sanchez indicates how donors to the Trump presidential campaign have been appointed as ambassadors compared to the appointment of Krishna R. Urs, the US ambassador to Peru, who is an expert in foreign service with over three decades of experience. These appointments highlight the difference in the selective process and it is clear where the act of nepotism prevails. Sanchez in the article stated that “it doesn’t matter how qualified the president son is, accepting an ambassadorial position will be seen as a baffling indication of nepotism”.

Nepotism as a corruption factor is not sufficiently researched and as such there are a limited number of cases highlighting the issue. Nevertheless, it still exists as a major corruption issue undermining the development of Brazil's economy in that citizen with the level of expertise to aid development is often left unemployed or underemployed.

Finally, clientelism as a corruption factor is defined by Goldsmith as a complicated type of relationship between political representatives and their supporters. The ties between the two are usually rooted based on the ability of the supporter to receive material gifts, in return for these items, the supporter must ensure the political representative garners enough supporters to be successful in retaining the position. This is a political game that is not only prevalent in Brazil but is a global phenomenon amongst political representatives.

Nichter depicts that “Politicians often buy votes with freedom”. Vote buying was never prohibited in Brazil and as such politicians were never reprimanded for it as it was seen as a norm and not an illegal act of corruption. In the 1990s however, the issue became pressing and over one million Brazilians signed a petition against vote-buying, resulting in the state's first national law to not only mitigate the act but also to intensely amplified prosecutions for clientelism throughout Brazil elections. In the years that follows, clientelism resulted as the main reason for the removal of over one thousand Brazilian politicians from office. Nichter depicts that, law 9840 eliminate Brazilian politicians to buy votes with immunity and the risk of being prosecuted was significantly increased. Despite the attempt to reduce clientelism as a factor of corruption, many Brazilians enjoyed the benefits of clientelism. It is therefore evident that the practice of corruption in governance includes both citizens and government officials and as such lack of development will most times affect the vulnerable who are not privileged to political ties and affiliation.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

To conclude, it is evident that the factors of corruption including bribery, nepotism, and clientelism have robbed Brazil of its potential to develop. Bribery has resulted in Several developmental issues currently affecting Brazil including infrastructural development and lack of social and educational amenities; nepotism has resulted in mal-practices and low efficiency in state organization further resulting in the breakdown of Brazil's ability to form economic relationships with other states; and final the act of clientelism as created mistrust amongst citizen and government, thus resulting in constant protest due to inequality in the distribution of government resources.

References

• Federal Public Ministry. (2019). Summary Report of Evaluation and Results Car Wash Operation Task Force. Ministério Público Federal no Paraná, 2-3.
• Fogel, B. (2019). Brazil: Corruption as a Mode of Rule. The North American Congress on Latin America .
• Forgues-Puccio, G. F. (2013). Existing practices on anti-corruption . EPS-PEAKS services, 2.
• GAN Integrity Inc. (2022). What is Nepotism? .
• Goldsmith, D. W. (2002). Clientelism, Patrimonialism and Democratic Governance:An Overview and Framework for Assessment and Programming. U.S. Agency for International Development, 2.
• Jenkins, E. (2019). 10 FACTS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN BRAZIL. THE BORGEN PROJECT.
• Labrador, C. F. (2018). Brazil's Corruption Fallout. Council on Foreign Relations.
• Library of Congress. (2018). Federal Supreme Court Prohibits Nepotism in All Three Branches of Government.
• Nichter, S. (n.d.). Vote Buying in Brazil: From Impunity to Prosecution. Latin American Studies Association.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.). Taking bribery out of business.
• Reuters Staff. (2019). Brazil's Bolsonaro says nominating son as ambassador to U.S. is not nepotism.
• Rossi, J. L. (2018). Development Challenges in Brazil . Inter-American Development Bank .
• Safina, D. (2015). Favouritism and Nepotism in an Organization: Causes and Effects. ScienceDirect, 632-633.
• Sanchez, W. A. (2019). US-Brazil Relations and Concerns over Nepotism in Brasilia. The Institute on Religion and Democracy.
• The Legal Information Institute (LII). (n.d.). Bribery.
• Transparency International. (2019). BRAZIL: SETBACKS IN THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORKS.
• Transparency International. (2022). WHAT IS CORRUPTION?
• United Nation Office on drugs and crime. (2019). Theories that explain corruption. Public Sector Corruption.
• WEBZINE, U. (2014). Chronic Clientelism, Brazilian Style. THE PERSPECTIVE.

Modern Political Ideas in Machiavelli’s The Prince

Machiavelli’s The Prince presents many political ideas that are still relevant in modern politics. He argues on topics such as whether it's better to be loved or feared, whether to be generous or stingy, and how virture can be manipulated. Machiavelli references well known figures of literature and history to drive several of his points such as Caesar, Achilles, and Alexander VI. Although these essays from The Prince were meant to serve as advice for princes back in Machiavelli’s day, he presents political ideas that are aligned with modern conservatives, and these ideas are still very much seen today.

One of Machiavelli’s arguments is that it is better to be stingy than to be generous. Although he agrees that liberalty can earn earn you a good reputation, “the generosity that earns you that reputation can do you great harm” (1610). He argues that a prince with the reputation of liberality will “immediately be labelled a miser” if he decides to stop his generous ways (1610). He also believes that it is not in the public interest for a prince to be generous, because this will result in higher taxes in order to fund the prince’s donations, while a more stingy prince is able to keep taxes down because he isn’t spending as much.

As such, Machiavelli believes that stinginess, not generosity, will ultimately give you a reputation of generosity. The two sides of this argument—liberality and stinginess—can be easily aligned with modern liberal and conservative beliefs, respectively. Machiavelli’s idea of donating money and being generous very much resembles a liberal tax plan—higher taxes that fund welfare programs, which provide for the poor. Machiavelli, however, aligns himself with a more conservative tax plan, believing that higher taxes will “rob his subjects,” and lower taxes are for the greater good (1611). Machiavelli does seem to have strong support for conservative economics, and this is an idea still applies today.

Another topic that Machiavelli covers is whether it’s better to be feared or loved. He explains that it is better to be feared, because men will serve a prince that they love “so long as the danger is remote” (1612). However, Machiavelli continues, “when the danger is close at hand, they turn against you” (1612). Machiavelli strongly believes that it is better to be feared than to be loved, but he also makes a big point on being feared but not hated. He says that a prince can avoid hate by keeping his hands off of his citizens’ property and shedding blood only when necessary. Here it is clear that Machiavelli is in support of the death penalty, but he says that it should only be carried out with “a strong justification and manifest cause” (1612).

However, Machiavelli doesn’t provide any more elaboration on what would be such an act that can be justified with the death penalty. This is where the debate still lies today, as there are many different perspectives on where to draw the lines between the crimes that are punishable by death and those that are not. This debate involves many different variables, including the age and mental state of the criminal, the context of the situation, and plenty of other factors. However, there is a larger debate on whether or not to even have a death penalty at all, and it is clear that Machiavelli is in support of such a penalty.

Machiavelli’s own justification of the death penalty as a punishment is that “men are quicker to forget the death of a father than the loss of a patrimony” (1613). Perhaps property was worth much more back in Machiavelli’s time, but this idea that life is worth less than property may not apply in today’s society. Nonetheless, Machiavelli continues to align himself with the modern conservative in asserting his belief in a death penalty.

There are some non-partisan ideas that Machiavelli presents in his essays. Machiavelli says that it is not worthwhile actually being virtuous, a prince only needs to appear virtuous to his subjects. This is because he believes a prince “cannot possibly exercise all those virtues for which men are called ‘good’” (1614).

A prince must be willing to “do things against his word” sometimes in order for his own best interest and the best interest of his state. Machiavelli also claims that princes should only keep their word when it is their best interest. He says that “a prince will never lack for legitimate excuses to explain away his breaches of faith” (1614). He essentially says that a prince must be a great liar, because “men are so simple of mind, and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived” (1614).

These two points—on appearing virtuous and keeping promises—are very much an issue in modern politics. Almost every politician in office has broken promises before, and the president gets the most flack for not keeping their word. Many politicians do their best to appear virtuous, despite having a skeleton in the closet. Some politicians have gone out of their way, lying and performing unethical acts in order to hide some “non-virtuous” acts of their past.

Notable examples of this would be Nixon and the Watergate Scandal, or Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, but these are examples where their efforts have failed. Machiavelli’s ideas about lying and appearing virtuous are also seen on presidential debates. Each candidate will try to expose the others and find cases where someone has gone back on their promises, but each candidate accused of lying will always manage up an excuse or counterclaim, and in the end, one of them will end up in office.

Conclusion

Machiavelli’s timeless ideas in The Prince are still very much relevant in the modern political scene. He presents his thoughts on whether it’s better to be stingy or generous, and whether it’s better to be loved or feared. Through these essays, Machiavelli comes off as what would be considered a modern conservative. His thoughts on lying and virtuosity are still a major concern with modern politicians, because most of them are seasoned deception artists trying to appear more virtuous than they actually are. Machiavelli has surpassed the boundaries of time with his political ideas, and despite writing about how a prince should run his kingdom, many of his beliefs are still held with the politicians that run their countries.