Almost all humans to a certain extent are dissatisfied with the limited availability of resources, but if you're speaking from an academic point of view, it would be Economists, since they study choices made from this limited availability.
Answer: mistreatment of animals
After the Cold War ended, promoting the international spread of democracy seemed poised to replace containment as the guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy. Scholars, policymakers, and commentators embraced the idea that democratization could become America's next mission. In recent years, however, critics have argued that spreading democracy may be unwise or even harmful. This paper addresses this debate. It argues that the United States should promote democracy and refutes some of the most important arguments against U.S. efforts to spread democracy. After a brief discussion of definitions of democracy and liberalism, the paper summarizes the reasons why the spread of democracy— especially liberal democracy— benefits the citizens of new democracies, promotes international peace, and serves U.S. interests. Because the case for democratization is rarely made comprehensively, the paper explicates the arguments for why democracy promotes liberty, prevents famines, and fosters economic development. The logic and evidence of a democratic peace are also summarized, as are the ways in which U.S. security and economic interests would be advanced in a world of democracies. These benefits to U.S. interests include a reduction in threats to the United States, fewer refugees attempting to enter the United States, and better economic partners for American trade and investment. The paper then turns to a rebuttal of four prominent recent arguments against the benefits of spreading democracy: (1) the claim that the democratic peace is a myth; (2) the argument that the process of democratization increases the risk of war; (3) arguments that democratic elections are harmful in societies that are not fully liberal; and (4) claims that "Asian values" can undergird polities based on "soft authoritarianism" that are superior to liberal democracies. The paper argues that these recent critiques of U.S. efforts to promote democracy have not presented a convincing case that spreading democracy is a bad idea. The internationa spread of democracy will offer many benefits to new democracies and to the United States. The democratic peace proposition appears robust, even if scholars need to continue to develop multiple explanations for why democracies rarely, if ever, go to war. The evidence on whether democratization increases the risk of war is mixed, at best, and policies can be crafted to minimize any risks of conflict in these cases. The problem of "illiberal democracy" has been exaggerated; democratic elections usually do more good than harm. The United States should, however, aim to promote liberal values as well as electoral democracy. And the "soft authoritarian" challenge to liberal democracy was not persuasive, even before the Asian economic turmoil of 1997 and 1998 undermined claims for the superiority of "Asian values." These are one of the reasons why they should promote democracy aboard
Answer: A. Bias
Explanation: Rumsfeld is saying that the media is portraying it in a negative light, which is the media’s point of view. This can alter their view and understanding of events and actions taken by the government/government officials
Your questions pertain to the "Interest Groups" segment of the Annenberg-Learner series, <em>Democracy in America.
</em>Crusader was an artillery system being developed by the US military, being built by a company called United Defense. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to go in a different, more streamlined and cost-efficient direction with the military. But Rumsfeld's plan to cancel the Crusader program ran into problems with the "iron triangle" of the army itself, the defense industry (represented here by the United Defense company), and members of Congress who challenged the cancellation of the project.
Members of Congress came to the defense of the Crusader project by United Defense both for the sake of jobs in home districts and because they saw the plans to cancel Crusader as a quick decision from the top (the Secretary of Defense) without proper consideration and analysis by other members of government.
In the end, a compromise was worked out in which the full Crusader project was ended, but the contractor, United Defense, retained $475 million dollars to continue development of the Crusader's cannon. So the "iron triangle" lost this particular battle, in a sense, but maintained power in the ongoing "war" over how defense spending is decided.
