What did you learn? What did you not learn? What surprised you? What suggestions do you have for next year? How can the professor improve? What are you taking with you? What did you use?


          What I've learned from the LEAD class is that interaction between communities and organizations can help build leadership for individuals. The class showed me the importance of communities and leadership by demonstrating through models or figures in life as well as communicating our ideals as a representation of a community. Though there were barriers between students in ideas and social statuses, but the common goal of wishing to succeed and becoming a leader created community. In this I've felt like an experimental group becoming into a community to achieve independent goals. What surprised me was the freedom of expression and the professional management of each individual vocalizing other's opinion and the reception of their responses. 

         The suggestion for next years is that I would recommend them to socialize, interact, and get to know each other very well to create study groups/ social group for fun. The professors are fine in my opinion, but it never hurts to interact more in such as ice breakers or sharing ideals.

           Though in the end, I ended up taking knowledge from the class as well as understanding the environment of the communities development and actions to accomplish its and the individual's personal goal. I personally used this in Enc 1101 when discussing discourse communities and how it came about and I personally used these knowledge to feed myself in to understanding the world and exchanging ideas to become much more open-minded. 

Blog: What have you been involved with this semester? How have you seen yourself becoming a leader in your organizations? Where do you want to lead next? How will being a member of these organizations develop you as a leader?

            This semester I have been involved in a LEAD committee(Random Acts of Kindness), wrestling team, and lots of events held by public and LEAD. I have imagined myself to be a leader in these types of communities by either being successful on the mat or to become resourceful in the committee. I personally want to lead next in the wrestling team by becoming a better wrestler. Organizations such as Random Acts of Kindness will teach me the joys of giving and help develop characteristics that reflects kindness in my character. Being a member of both organizations will help me to develop character by working together and progress even if there are discomforts or non conjoined ideas. Though in wrestling, the tough conditioning will help me become a better leader by leading through examples and toughening me mentally. It is through participating in many of these events it helps me to manage my time wisely to experience and create rich moments in life.  

                

Who do you influence? What is your sphere of influence? Can you broaden it to enact more social change? How? How can influence be dangerous and helpful as a leader?

As an individual, those who’ve kept in contact on social sites or in real life are those who the individual’s influences affect. There are two categories of influences that can be carried out by the websites, and that includes social websites and official websites. Social websites such as Facebook are personal profile or blogs than can be a personal tool to carry out one’s influence with statuses to friends/family. Official websites is a tool for carrying out specific purposes and targets a specific crowd that has a similar interest. I influence friends, family, and acquaintances of work/school mainly.

                To broaden the social influences, one has to sell their image and story to enact social change. It is the use of social media or the words of mouth to increase the influence of social change.

                Influences can be dangerous and helpful as a leader for it carries out the visions and purposes of each leader. Hitler’s purpose was to expand the country into an empire, but he did that by connecting Germany’s frustration to fulfill his purpose to expand the power of Germany. Through this he was the first elected dictator in history and created destruction in the future for mankind. On the other hand, it is through influences that Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. carried out their visions of equality for a better future. In the end it is through influences that propels social changes and becomes a deciding factor to help these visions to become true. 

After watching the third presidential debate there are repetitive style of argument styles of the debates. After watching the presidential debates there are some questions that arise from confusion or contradictions after the debate. I realize that President Obama have discussed some issues with half true facts as well as readdressing the past/situation every time Romney had finished discussing his main views. President Obama pinpoints the flip-flopping that presidential nominee Mitt Romney and discusses the flaws of his arguments. Also, president Obama tries to sell his story even more with the foreign policies by trying to have other nations to get involve to decrease the nuclear arms of Iran to keep the pressure. 

On the other hand,  it seems that Mitt Romney didn't have his usual fire-like enthusiasm like the past two debates. Mitt Romney became a bit of a more yes-man and agreed with president Obama on some occasions, though maybe because it was from a negative feedback from the population. Romney's style of argument pinpoints the fact that the change Obama proposes haven't been effective and the rates of unemployment been bigger than ever. He even criticized the tour that Obama had around the middle east countries had made U.S viewed as weak by his lack of reactions. 

Both candidates seem to repeat the jabs that have been previously made before with a different context and content in the debate. There was nothing major in either speeches that made me want to join to either's side immediately, but it is through my background and the benefits I would make from either's standpoints that encourages me to vote.

Reading the “Social Changing Model” has changed my perspective of viewing the presidential debates. My feedback of the presidential debates is that the debates were much better in addressing the problems in some cases. Though President Obama seems to have a lot of sources to back him up and that’s due to the help of expertise of his staff from his cabinet and the white house. These sources backed him up against foreign affairs and trade as well as job growth. Presidential nominee Romney attacks successfully by comparing these numbers to other eras of job depression and so forth. President Obama is bashed upon the job growth rate and the health bill that he has passed. The job growth rate being too slow will basically lead U.S. into a greater deficit and Romney voices his opinions that it will be great harm to the U.S. The health bill is a great option for the lower classes, but Romney says that people who don’t work will leach off the rich. Romney’s scenario is very valid and relates to those who work earnestly and are successful.

               President Romney has to deal with a lot of personal images and values that the some parts of society do not accept. Romney often has to deal with the image of being a corrupt CEO and flip flopper, and in this debate Romney gets heated and sometimes voices his complaint that much of Obama’s campaign money is spent on negative ad upon Romney. Reason being I believe I’ve seen a greater impact and rage that Romney has shown in this presidential debate.  I believe that if Romney wants to win he needs to be much calmer and not fall into President Obama’s games. Whereas Obama needs to again direct his problems in a clear sense instead of making a story, it is great to voice the reason why such problems are being addressed. But being direct has its charm on the people as well. Again I’d rather vote third party if I didn’t have to choose the lesser evil. 

What do you think leaders need to implement change? Is change always necessary? How do you know when things need to changed? How do you get other leaders to buy into your change?

                The leaders on both sides need social influences in congress as well as other areas in government, social groups, and different layers of chain of command in society. They need people’s interest and support to implement change in the country. In this country, James Madison was afraid of factions or groups would have too much power and overthrow the government in “Federalist Paper 10.” The way a situation or change is caused by is the people whom reports the problem and addresses the solution through a cyclical process. So if the leaders were to have the people’s support and interest the lower chains of government would have less of a problem addressing the solution. Obama’s health care consumed a lot of time because there were gridlocks and less support in the government. In this way he needs social influences as well as expert power.

Change isn’t always necessary, but it is the most favored option when nothing is going well. Change is really needed when things are desperate at times or when things are unstable in the country or organizations. If people are demanding change and the leader runs out of solution than it is time for change before the citizens change it for the leaders.

                The best solution to get other leaders attention into buying change is by appealing him through logistics. Though the problem would be the credit and accountability on my behalf would have to be appealing as well. Decisions in the past and the credibility that one creates from the past helps significantly in one’s resume thus that is why resume is heavily looked upon as well as character. As a leader he must use his tone of ethos and logos to buy in the people to follow such change on his part. Leaders are always looking for solutions if it is superior to their model and though they take credit, profits are shared between all the associated members that help create the change.

                

My reaction to the presidential debate is mixed with a bit of disappointment and doubtful after watching the debate. Prior to watching this debate governor Romney's ideas seem very contradictory that leads me to be doubtful. Mr. Romney's behavior or the style of his argument is very aggressive, such aggressiveness that seems like a hot-headed person in my opinion. This attack style may be favorable to some people because of their frustration in president Obama's decision and plans. In my opinion there are other ways to address the commentator and not cut off the commentator.

On the other hand, listening to president Obama's argument style seemed very dull and non direct. Often times Mr. Obama creates an imagery and revelation to why he supports such causes for his health care and other ideals. The reason why such argument style seems very unfavorable, because this doesn't address the solution for the economic problem. The way he addresses his reason for such support is to tell a story and indirectly boast of his characteristics.

I personally wish there was a greater selection of nominees for the presidential election. But I'll make sure my vote counts and choose the "lesser" evil like most would say.