Protecting our Boaders Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Protecting our Boaders - Term Paper Example In a 2010 CBS poll, a plurality of 32% of Americans graded the US with a â€Å"C† in its ability to protect against terrorist attacks. The same poll found that 55% of Americans thought that more comprehensive screening procedures in airports would be â€Å"Somewhat Effective† in stopping future terrorist attacks on airplanes. Furthermore, 74% supported the use of full body scan machines in airports (PollingReport.com). These polls show that Americans are concerned with how the government handles security in airports and are indeed supportive, in general, of increasing that security in order to reduce the overall threat of terror attacks to American travelers. The overall issue is that airports serve as one form of US borders, and Americans are aware of the threats posed from outside US borders by those traveling alongside US citizens. Americans see it as a basic function of their government to secure their borders in this arena through airport security. According to a R AND Corporation report, the relationship between airports and borders is extensive. This report notes that the US has more than 100 international airports, and they see a great volume of activity as over 88 million passengers pass through these points of entry each year. Airports have a number of stakeholders involved, including government agencies such as the TSA as mentioned, along with the Department of Homeland Security as well as the financing provided by state and local governments. Other stakeholders include the private companies that are responsible for ticketing, transportation, and those companies whose employees travel using airlines. In this sense, American interests in international airports are at the government level, in the private sector, as well as at the personal level for each individual who chooses to fly. Thus, security or a lack thereof in airports can affect citizens economically, as well as create personal conveniences or conflicts, and can affect citizens p olitically in their approval of political parties’ stance on airport security and how effective those in office are at handling it. (Riley) The importance of airport security to Americans also is a social issue, as it demands a political correctness and sensitivity to the rights of citizens and even non-citizens who pass through security checkpoints. There is often a delicate balance in providing staunch security while respecting travellers, and this is where the debate primarily rises. Government agencies produce long lines, are accused of profiling, and tend to invade what is usually considered personal space, yet also strive to avoid such results in order to satisfy travelers (Roston). As stated, these practices affect Americans daily as they travel, and help shape public opinion on the necessity and effectiveness of increased security. When these invasive measures become better-known for their inconvenience then for their utility, debates rises on what changes are needed and whether security is more important than privacy. Both security and privacy are valued by Americans on a personal level and as a political value, and thus a conflict is born. The specific approaches to security come in many forms. The U.S. Federal Air Marshall Service was instated in 2003, and places trained agents on

Leadership in Organisations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Leadership in Organisations - Essay Example Good leaders are in a position to establish suitable decisions that direct the attainment of their objectives. This is because of the existing effectual communication skills, self-confidence, and the capability of managing others (Badaracco, 2006, p. 47-55). The author continues to argue that a society cannot be alienated from good leadership (Badaracco, 2006, p. 47-55). Leadership has been linked to the shape and outcome of a society since what the leaders do is replicated to what the members of the society will do as well. 2.0. Monologues in V Act 4, Scene 1, lines 227-281 2.1. Summary of monologue From the monologue, it is evident that Henry the king is willing to send his soldiers to the battlefield. With his ability to disguise himself as a commoner, it is difficult for the common people to see and recognize him. This he does by borrowing a dirty old cloak that he uses to move around (Shakespeare 2007, p.108). He is also seen to claim to be a kinsman of Fluellen though he despis es him as a captain. His leadership qualities allow him to consult the common soldiers about the war (Shakespeare 2007, p.108). Despite the fact that the soldiers were doubtful about the king’s ability to lead them to war, King Henry is quick to motivate his soldiers to go to the battlefield under his leadership. Some of the soldiers like Williams also questioned the justification of the war with France. Despite Henry’s leadership skills in being in constant communication with the soldiers, Williams, just like any ordinary person would, questions the king persistently and argues that if they die and leave their windows, it would be unforgivable for the king (Shakespeare 2007, p.109). However, the king responds by saying that he would be responsible for any death of his soldiers as it was their responsibility to guard the nation. Since a leader is bound to face all manners of rejection, Henry is not worried but defends himself from Williams. It is after the bitter excha nges between the king and the Williams that the soldiers leave for the battlefield (Shakespeare 2007; p.110). 2.2. Analysis of monologue Looking at Henry V act Act 4, Scene 1, lines 227-281, Henry’s hidden dialogues with his warriors reveals the close relationship between the king and ordinary man who are the soldiers. In this scene, the author presents different types of voices that talk in Henry V exposing how every soldier interacted with Henry, therefore, adding a contemporary dimension to the comprehension of the difficult emperor. Henry’s discussions with his soldiers feature the team spirit between leader and his subordinate, and this promotes a common understanding between the two groups (Shakespeare 2007, p.110). Henry knew that he was the same as the other common people. The only difference was that he was a leader, and he interacted with them in a free manner without threatening them. In the monologue, Henry described the unpleasant tasks of power, which bot h separate and exposed the king, where all the subjects give the impression of putting all their uncertainties, worries, and responsibility to the king’s shoulders.