Read the above article and answer the following questions:
Article 1: Republic vs Democracy
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06brooks.html
1.What are some ways that the Constitution restrains the people? Why would the people ever agree to restrain themselves?
2. How often have you heard someone talk about “the will of the people”? Will people be likely to restrain their passions if they believe the will of the people is the highest authority?
3. Brooks says that aversion to debt “has clearly been overcome.” Why does he say this? Do you agree? Explain.
Article 2: U.S. Effort to Remove Drug CEO
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283283851626952.html
1. Why do you think government officials are trying to force out the Forest CEO over Forest’s violation?
2. What is the difference between holding a company responsible for violating the law and punishing its CEO?
3. Is a CEO responsible for everything that his company does or is the owner or Board of Directors responsible? Explain.
4. Why does government have so much power over what drugs the poor and elderly use? Should it use its power in the way that the article describes?
5. Will government’s actions against Forest’s CEO lead to fewer violations of the law by drug companies? Explain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Article 1
ReplyDelete1.)limited 1st amendment rights, Domestic tranquility.
2.)when a common goal is found among people, that group of people will through tension and compromise ban together and hopefully achieve that common goal.
3.)says people care and pay more for their wants and urges,rather then necessities and well being for yourself and others.
Article 2
1.)To set an example for other drug companies.
2.)the higher up officials of the business have more decision influence therefore should be held accountable, rather then a lower worker just doing what they were told to do.
3.)No, decisions are approved by the board which makes them equally responsible.
4.)the govt. has their own executive branch called the food and drug administration(FDA) which regulates drugs. yes if it benefits the people and the well being of the company for it employees.
5.)Yes, other companies will be more mind full of their actions and boundaries.
1. The constitution can limit our rights, our first amendment rights especially in schools and work places.
ReplyDelete2. People wont stop doing what they want to do unless put in jail or unless they can bring it out from within themselves.
3. We do what we want, that is exactly why we are in debt. I pretty much agree.
-----------------------------
1. So the drug comanies will do the same .
2. To punish a CEO isnt as extreme as the whole company. But the CEO is the top dog, so whatever he/she is doing must be done by the people in that company.
3. The board and CEO are in the same boat. The Board just clarifies and comes to an agreement with the CEO.
4. I feel that the government needs to watch what drugs are being used by all people. The FDA needs to make sure that all workers/employees are equally observed.
5. I feel that now this is in the 'open' or more than it was before, other companies will be conscientious of what they are doing.
Article Uno:
ReplyDelete1. An example of how we are restrained is that there are restrictions of presidential candidates. We are restrained to prevent ANARCHY!!!
2. I hear that phrase literally everyday. And yes.
3. He said that statement because he was being interviewed and that was his response to the question. Also he was referring to many generations ago and how they did not want to use debt because they would feel like freaks and give away their independence. I agree.
Article Dos:
1. I was unable to access this fine web page for I am not, and do not plan on being, a Wall Street Journal recipient. I am dearly sorry for the inconvenience and I will discuss the matter with you on a later determined time and place.
Your Pal,
Ian Sellers
1. The constitution can limit our rights, and some people may think it is safer or better that way.
ReplyDelete2. Some people will not stop standing for what they believe in until punished.
3. We are in debt because we are selfish and greedy, I agree.
1. To set an example.
2. Because being high in a business you are more responsible for things that go on.
3. No because the board let it happen.
4. Because the FDA regulates drugs. Yes if it is really for the betterment of the people.
5. Yes, because other companies will have seen what can happen.
Article 1
ReplyDelete1. The constitution limits some first amendment rights. If there was no order within the people, then there would be no structure or forward progress in America.
2. I hear that term often. Hopefully people will realize that they need to work together to accomplish their goals instead of fighting over who was wrong.
3. People have become hopeless and will spend money that they don’t have in order to get what they want.
Article 2:
(i couldnt access this, but i'll try to answer it anyways ._. )
1. So other drug companies can learn from their mistake.
2. Punishing the CEO only punishes those who have power to make decisions.
3. They are both equally responsible.
4. The FDA tries to help regulate drugs and food equally (i dont know what the article said)
5. Yes, other countries know that if they screw up, then the FDA is coming after them.
Article 1
ReplyDelete1. The constitution can limit our rights, especially our first amendments rights in schools and in the work place. Limiting these rights helps to prevent disorder and keep our country functioning.
2. People will not change what they do just because the will of the people is the most important, humans are by nature (in most cases) self centered and will continue to do what is good for them.
3.We are in debt because todays society has brought a sense of money being the ruling force and people think they can buy whatever they want whenever they want. I completely agree.
Article 2
(It won't let me see the article but I'll answer the questions the best I can)
1.So the drug companies can see that there are consequences for their actions.
2. Punishing the business would punish everyone related to the company, whereas punishing the CEO just punishes the person who did the wrong doing.
3.No, the CEO is not solely responsible. There are other people higher up who over see his or her actions.
4.The FDA helps regulate the drugs. Yes it benefits the people.
5.Yes, it will help other companies see that there are consequences.
Article 1:
ReplyDelete1.One way is that you must be 21 to drink alcohol. And because it is for the good of our country.
2.I think most will, in order to follow the law. This way the will put their passions aside.
3.In a way I must agree, it's hasn't been overcome. But people have learned to deal with it.
_______________________________________________
Article 2:[I could NOT access this page, only a preview]
1. To set examples for other drug companies.
2. A company typically would pay a fine or penalty. A CEO is usually left wityh nothing or possibly sent to prison.
3.I think they are both responsible, however the CEO should always be responsible for the Board's Decision.
4.Because the Government thrives on power! And it can benefit the people.
5.No, Companies will continue to make mistakes. And do illegal things. Sadly it's just how our world is.
Article 1
ReplyDelete1. The constitution limits our first amandment rights. Expecially when they think it is in time of clear and present danger. Also in school and in the work place they can be limited.
2. I dont think that people will ever stop doing what they want to do. In most cases people are selfish and if they do not get punished for their actions they will keep doing them until they do get punished.
3.We are in debt because people are very greedy and want everything. I do not think that the people have overcome debt but today since we are so far into debt as a country people have learned to deal with it becuuse in a sense it has become normal
i can not see the article...this and the one directly above are Mavis
ReplyDelete