Answer:
At 3 months, Indira smiles when her father talks to her.
Explanation:
Marks explains that we have been made to believe that conflict is bad and compromise is good. He describes this as a vision that is too simplistic to be upheld by the nations of the world. Marks says it will be difficult to determine whether conflict is good or bad if we do not understand the people involved in the conflict, the cause and the strategy involved in the conflict.
He said compromise, contrary to general belief, can be harmful if it does not protect the vulnerable and the dis-empowered.
Marks gave an example of a United Nations agency that collaborated with the federal and local governments, television company, and even a multinational soda company in order to address the problem of poor sanitation in schools in India. This arrangement helped the corporation to promote their brands and products. Marks argued that, the United Nations were creating another problem while trying to solve one by promoting a soda company, knowing fully well that a large consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages increases the risk of obesity.
The mistake governments make, according to Marks, when they collaborate with industries is that they conflate the common good with common ground. They sacrifice the interest of the people on the alter of industrial collaboration.
By saying that governments should struggle or engage in conflicts with corporations, Marks means that the corporations always act to promote their commercial interests while government is saddled with the responsibility of promoting the common good, they should not leave this responsibility while trying to go into relationship with the corporations.
I have had cause to go into conflict with a police officer in my state because he demanded a bribe from me despite having all my driving particulars. I shouted at him and promise to report him to the authority if he did not desist from that practice. he became scared and allowed me to go.
Answer:
Reasons for irrational behaviour : Political brand name establishment in favour of candidate, enhancing brand loyalty towards.
More knowledgable public : Would value candidate working on real development, rather than mere brand name.
Explanation:
Political elections are determined by the public's impressions of the candidates rather than the candidates' views on the issues.
Reason(s) of such irrational voting behaviour could be : The candidate having established a personal brand image of himself/ herself, specially in a particular community group. This makes the people of the community being 'brand loyal' towards their candidate, irrespective of his or her ideologies. It is also possible to make that political personality (candidate) an important part of 'national image' or 'community leader image', which reinforce support for the candidate, irrespective of person perception and attitudes.
If public were more knowledgeable about factors that affect person perception and attitudes : The political support would not be based on lineaged political brand names. It would rather be earned on the basis of candidate's performance for socio - economic, political upliftment. This would give power in the hands of deserving politicians & create a message that 'real work' & not just 'name' is needed to gain political success
