Skip to main content

Home/ contemporary issues in public policy/ Group items tagged Rights

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Taylor Rofinot

Stone: Chapter 14 Rights - 21 views

i believe that we do have rights but that they are not equal. like I said in class although we have our inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not everyone has the full e...

started by Andrew Rothans on 01 Dec 11 7 follow-ups, last by Taylor Rofinot on 03 Dec 11
Amanda Garcia

The Road to Serfdom - Readers Digest, April 1945 Condensation - 7 views

www.barefootsworld.net/serfdom.html

shared by Amanda Garcia on 24 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 24 Sep 12
       
      I understand the connection he is trying to make between slavery and socialism but which is better or easier and less expensive for a government to run? I think that our "free democracy" is just a cheaper version of slavery which according the the article is one and the same as socialism.  I feel like our government has found that efficiency point where people here are paid just enough to do what we want them to without having to actually care about the well being of the workers.  Think about what it took for an american slave owner to keep his or her slave working.  They had to make sure that the slave had a place to sleep, cloths, enough food to make sure they could do all the work they were asked to to.  Today nobody worries about how their gardner or house cleaning is living, they pay them just enought to do teh work you asked and then they go back to wherever they can afford to live and eat what they can with the small amount of money they made from cleaning or mowing as many houses and lawns as the time in one day would let them.  I am not saying that I am pro slavery I am just asking the question, which one provides more for the work?
  • we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 25 Sep 12
       
      Why would we want to produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for? Wouldn't we want what we have been working each and everyday for? Wouldn't we want what's best for us and not the complete opposite?
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 26 Sep 12
       
      This also relates to "history repeats itself". I agree with the above. We are striving so hard to get to the oposite that we end up doing precisely what we didn't want to do.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 26 Sep 12
       
      Basically like Oedipus Rex
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 28 Sep 12
       
      I think the "history repeats itself"  idea is spot on for what he was trying to say. And above that as well why would we producing the very opposite of what we have been striving for it does not fit in the grand scheme of things.
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree that " history repeats itself". However, Kayla sawoski has a point about production, why would we go backwards.The problem was not the economy. It was fear. Fear was the main factor that lead to the production of this book(article). I simply do not find Friedrich's logic plausible. Clearly he has underestimated the United States ideology views towards a free economy. The United States is unifted as a nation based on princles of "Free Marktet based economy". He has underestimated the secular purpose of America and market exchange.
  • Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 25 Sep 12
       
      Having our own private area where we can go and express ourselves is very important. Humans need a place where we can be free to do as we please in the privacy of our own homes without society watching our every move. A means of privacy is very important to have generated in our government. 
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 26 Sep 12
       
      we sort of contradict this idea of private property because we invite people to come onto our property a lot of the time. For example, if you have a party you are inviting people you don't even know onto your property. There is no such thing as absolute privacy as the police have the ability to come into your home with a court order. There are ways around and reasons for everything.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 28 Sep 12
       
      I think this is true. I believe our generation is to worried about the means of freedom that we don't have that we forget the majority things that we do have. Private property is definitely one of the most important guarantees considering we are able to have our own home and everything we want belong in it without government interfering. 
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree with this statement. I think that our generation has forgotten the guarantee of freedom through private property because we live in a time where government tells us where we can build, what we can build and when we can build. The government also has the power to take away our property. When I was growing up I saw this first hand when many of my neighbors were forced out of their homes so that government buildings could be put up. Yes, they were compensated but they freedom of private property was taken from them.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 28 Sep 12
       
      i agree with both of these statements. I believe that it is important to have privacy generated in our government, but i also agree that it's not entirely true. 
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 28 Sep 12
       
      I think the line between privacy and public property has become very blurred in today's age. Not only that but I also agree with Alexis in that there no such thing as absolute privacy, except maybe in our own minds. Especially with the emergence of technology such as the internet and computers; whatever we do on there, there are people who could probably access it, no matter how cryptic or private we make it.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 28 Sep 12
       
      The private property issue is a tough one, especially when it comes to whether or not the government has the right to tell someone they have to sell their house/business for the sake of city planning. On one end, there is something incredibly unjust about telling someone they MUST sell their property for whatever you are going to offer them, and they can take the compensation or leave it, but either way they loose their property. This seems like a flagrant violation of their right to property. But at the same time, the government has an obligation to do what is best for the city, and if something needs to be built for the good of all, then I understand why they would feel like they have a right to make someone leave their home. But does the fact that it is for the "common good" make it ok to violate someone's constitutional rights? In this case, I would say no, but it is an interesting dilemma.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 29 Sep 12
       
      strong statement and so relevant. freedom is questioned all together not only with private property
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of "society" as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 27 Sep 12
       
      This statement after the private property statement above is important as people need private property in order to make decisions that are best for themselves, individually. If all the power is put into society as a whole, then some poeple will not be happy as the power rests with "society" or a single person. Individuals need to have the chance to conduct their own business and to be free, so that society as individuals have power over themselves and not be forced into something that they do not want. They might have to go along though as they are dependent on the powerful for their economic wellness in society.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 28 Sep 12
       
      Also when power is put into the hands of society there seems to be a chaos factor that grows. Yes, we need our privacy, but we also need governemnt regulation to keep complete chaos from happening.
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 28 Sep 12
       
      Going off what Lauren said, that society needs a chance to have power. This sounds a lot like what we talked about last class in that the powerful people are powerful because they can manipulate society into believing they have a chance but really the fate is already planned out. But as long as society believes they have an option chaos will not break out. 
  • Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the gravest threat to freedom
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 27 Sep 12
       
      I find this to be true as socialism puts the power of individuals into the hands of "society" or one individual, which takes away each individual's freedom to decide what they want to do personally and that means each individual loses their freedom to advance in the world (as they choose what they want for themselves and not society as a whole), instead of being at the same level as everyone else of that society.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree, socialism would be a grave threat to freedom. It gives away an individual's right to be free and weaken the power of the people.
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 28 Sep 12
       
      A lot of the people around me who are against Obama like to claim that he is a socialist, and they say it like its a bad word. What they are really saying is that they feel as though he is threatening their freedoms.  After reading this article, I can see what they mean, but that doesn't mean that I agree with them.
  • Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 27 Sep 12
       
      So basically socialism is aiming at taking away the freedom of the people to act as individuals by trying to get to them by taking care of their financial needs. The socialism idea may seem nice right then and there because it provides a sense of security, but the freedom taken away by not being able to decide how to deal with your private property in the long run, in my opinion, is a bigger deal than that sense of security for now.
  • They do not realize that to strive for socialism produces something utterly different - the very destruction of freedom itself.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 27 Sep 12
       
      This is interesting how the very society you try to improve is actually harmed when societies advance toward socialism. This can relate to the everlasting desire to improve and/or change our societies. However, when an advancement to socialism is made, society is harmed by the increasing lack of liberty. You think people would realize the harm that they are bringing to themselves. Perhaps they are too blinded by their negative connotations of other societies that socialism seems appealing since it differs from most other governments. 
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 28 Sep 12
       
      I think that most people are unaware of this fact and it should be made know. Most people want to have the most freedom that they can, however, they think they can have socialism as well. If people were to be shown the effects that socialism has and how it indeed destroys freedom, then people would start to have different views of the subject. 
  • "Friedrich Hayek has written one of the most important books of our generation."
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 28 Sep 12
       
      its funny how the two quotes about the book differ so greatly. at first it is called "sad and angry little book" but then 4 days later by the same newspaper, but different writers said "Friedrich Hayek has written one of the most important books of our generation" its amazing how the second review cause the book to sell so many more copies 
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree, public media usually changes it's mind and once it does, the general public agrees too.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 28 Sep 12
       
      I wonder if anyone noticed the sudden change of opinion from the New York Times? Isn't there some kind of editor to prevent stuff like that from happening?  
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Sarah and Caitlin. The general public are like lemmings. They can't really think on their own until someone says otherwise. And I think that is one of the problems we have today in society as well. No one really knows what is going on because they follow what they hear over and over again, as each opinion changes. 
  • "One of the Most Important Books of Our Generation."
  • while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 28 Sep 12
       
      Its interesting to me that people could find socialism a good idea when in comparison with democracy. Just this line makes me nervous to be in a socialist country.  
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 28 Sep 12
       
      This sentence strikes me as odd because they consider both democracy and socialism to be seeking equality just in different ways. Democracy is clearly seeking freedom and socialism seeking power and control. It is interesting to think that they both seek equality among there people where in reality is socialism really producing equality?
  • the book eventually sold at least 230,000 copies in the U.S. Hayek went on a U.S. lecture tour, including prestigious places like Harvard University, and he decided he rather liked being a lightning rod for freedom.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 28 Sep 12
       
      This goes back to what Caitlin said about how the book changed from being widely unknown, to doing a complete 180 and becoming highly popular and getting such high attention from places such as Harvard University. Hayek also decided that he would use his publicity to not only his advantage, but the advantage of others.
  • Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies. They cannot produce agreement on everything - the whole direction of the resources of the nation. The number of possible courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by proceeding step by step and compromising at each point, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 28 Sep 12
       
      It's quite crazy how relevant this passage is to our modern congress in the United States. I think it is quite apparent that our current congress has not been working towards maximum efficiency. Congress has reached a point where one own's political party has become far too polarizing.  But can congress truly work as a planning agency? Not all congressional histories have been wrought with inefficiency. As the Civil Rights Bill of the 1960s and the surplus of the 1990s demonstrate, congress does have the distinct power to work in way that can produce a common good for all Americans. I still believe in the democratic system. I still feel that, given the right circumstance, our congressional system can produce a level of good for the American people. Its not the system that's broken. Its the politicians that refuse to compromise that is harming us. 
  • it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody
    • Benjamin Chavez II
      Benjamin Chavez II on 28 Sep 12
       
      Not only would it not satisfy anybody but it would also require a lot of transaction costs.  It would simply be a waste of time.
  • by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but infinitely heightened. An amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 28 Sep 12
       
      This statement is completely true and speaks to the importance of the dispersion of power. Centralized power blinds the holders to the needs of whom they have power over and taken power from. No single unit can possess the knowledge what is best for a society. Partly because the needs of the people within that society have variations among themselves and the greater power has no insight to those needs. The socialistic approach denies the people to which the power is held over their right to their personal liberties. Denying a group of people the right to autonomy creates resentment and distaste which steers away from allowing opportunity to peoples' "good life".
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Miss Jensen, the socialistic leader might be attempting to 'plan' what's best for society, but often doesn't have an unhindered view of what's actually happening/what's best for the people.
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 28 Sep 12
       
      Hahahah. Churchill loses at everything.
    • jackmcfarland12
      jackmcfarland12 on 28 Sep 12
       
      Fascinating that in a country of free speech where all most forms of protest and talk can be tolerated people were so against publishing a book that thought differently. Perhaps they were afraid to endorse a dangerous idea like this because they were still so afraid of a "Red Scare" like reaction?
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 29 Sep 12
       
      yeah I agree. I think people were afraid of controversy. crazy though how this book ends up being a huge hit. like it says some friends worked wonders for the book, and now rather than being controversial it is considered one of the most important books written. 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 28 Sep 12
       
      This does not make any sense to me. Why should we produce the opposite of what we have been wanting to achieve. I believe that we should work towards our goals in life.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 28 Sep 12
       
      Hayek appears to be saying that with the "economic planning" the hope is that everyone will be happier and more production will be realized, but that the opposite is what happens..
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 28 Sep 12
       
      I dont think that democracy and planning are two clashing ideas.  I think that they can coexist peacefully without the idea that either one can be an obstacle for the other.  
  • planners must create power
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 28 Sep 12
       
      but appear powerless..
  • It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking
  • In the hands of private individuals, what is called economic power can be an instrument of coercion, but it is never control over the whole life of a person. But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery.
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 07 Oct 12
       
      I think the argument he is making is a strong and interesting one. I've never quite heard it put like this but I can't say that I disagree with him at all. The former may be nothing but the better of two evils, which is not particularly desired, but the latter in this instance would be an envelopment of something much worse. 
  • gina Hogrefe on 26 Sep 12
     
    This article is a lot to digest because of the socialism analysis. The author suggests that going to a socialistic system would insinuate getting rid of freedom. Essentially socialism is a dictator party for the people that would abolish the monopolies that control the economy. The authors solution to socialism/ fascism is to re-embrace and exercise our constitutional rights.
  • madison taylor on 28 Sep 12
     
    I would agree with the part where he said that private property is our most important guarantee of freedom. By being able to own our own property and do with it as we please and there is really noone that can take it away from us once we own it we have the ultimate right to freedom right there.
Sarah McKee

Questions on 100 Years of Human Rights by Eric Henderson - 11 views

I don't necessarily know if there was a trend. I more think that there are certain decades where there are more good and some that are mostly bad. Something I found really interesting was that the ...

Rights

started by Eric Henderson on 04 Dec 11 2 follow-ups, last by Sarah McKee on 05 Dec 11
shane paulson

Stone Chapter 14-Rights Questions by Shane Paulson - 16 views

1) What are some concepts that help us to distinguish what is a positive right and what should be considered a normative right? Is there a grey area? Are there some normative rights that should be ...

question

started by shane paulson on 01 Dec 11 no follow-up yet
madison taylor

Edge: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt - 9 views

www.edge.org/...haidt08_index.html

shared by madison taylor on 01 Oct 11 - Cached
  • The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 01 Oct 11
       
      It would be hard for democrats to abandon their commitment to social justice because that is their foundation. That is their experience because it is rooted philosophically in the concept of equality.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      I agree. Because it is rooted in their philosophy, they could never be Democrats and not agree with social justice.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 03 Oct 11
       
      Haven't they given up their commitment to social justice? Historically they have attempted to be the protectors of civil liberties yet as long as Obama has president he has made no attempts to repel legislation like the patriot act which infringes on our privacy rights and with no opposition to this position from the right there is no one to protect them.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 04 Oct 11
       
      there is no one to protect who? Democrats? HE ACTUALLY said he would, but he did not He acually extended the Pariot Act because on May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions. Plus, there are far more important things going on right now for him to be worried abou repealing the patriot act!
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 04 Oct 11
       
      The foundation of the democrats is to strong and they would never be willing to change their philosophy and what the have stood for, for over hundreds of years.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 10 Oct 12
       
      Of course, this statement seems to true it goes without saying. The basis of being a Democrat is social justice and a lot of politics focuses around that. However, I do think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say they'd lose their souls. I don't think it's impossible for a Democrat to go left, though.
  • they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      This comment may be very biased, but i completely disagree. I consider myself a Democrat, so this article seems non-factual to me
  • The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      again, i disagree. i think both political parties have dealt with candidates like such, not just one or the other
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 02 Oct 11
       
      I disagree with this assertion. Because it is a guiding principle of humans in general to try to rationalize their arguments after making an emotional choice, both parties follow the first rule of moral psychology.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      Lately this statement seems to be flipped around.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 03 Oct 11
       
      This assertion, along with the paragraph that preceded it, definitely rubbed me the wrong way. I feel that the only way to really measure morality is through the combination of both gut feelings and deciding what's logical, and then from there finding a happy medium upon which to base views. I feel that the author is placing much too heavy criticisms on Democrats, saying that they do not think about what they want in any way and only act upon their feelings, emotions and liberationist desires. There is an entire side to moral psychology in which conservatives utilize their feelings and desires as well, and I feel as though the author alludes to the claim of little to no emotional involvement in Republican policies.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 07 Oct 12
       
      It is very interesting how framing effects individuals of al backgrounds. I was surprised to read that even people who are educated and involved politically still get fooled by the framing effect. The fact that people stick to learning from news channels and online sources that share the same views shows that people's bias will grown and remain rather than lessen. If people learned from sources that had opposing views, they would learn new things rather than feeding themselves the biased information they already know and are used to hearing
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Oct 12
       
      What the heck is this guy talking about? FRD, Kennedy, and Obama are uninspiring and lacking/lacked a charismatic image? Jonathan is right when he says this statement should be flipped. Because Obama will always be more inspiring/charismatic over Romney..
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 10 Oct 12
       
      Well what I think the author is trying to say is that overall the messages of the Democratic party are much harder to get across to people on an emotional level. Even if Obama is charismatic, which I agree he is, it is hard for him to explain to people that spending money helps stimulate an economy when his opponent can more effectively tell people that spending is bad and debt is bad. At the debate we saw this. Romney was not specific at all about policies but he used emotional words and phrases when he summarized what he would do. That connects better with people as we see with the poll shifts after the debate. 
  • ...23 more annotations...
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      In general, i felt that this article was somewhat disorganized- i think it could've been more effective if it's arguements were better organized and more thoroughly referncing the arguement they are trying to make
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      I can see that, the topics definitely jumped around and it was a little hard to follow what they're overall goal was.
  • morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      "So long as he didn't serve the chicken to his friend after..." 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      I would like to "Like" both posts. If its morally wrong, then isn't harmful to whomever finds it morally wrong?
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      I started reading this paragraph and thought he might ask the chicken question.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 03 Oct 11
       
      I have this conversation in various classes and every time the chicken question is posed or one similar to it, the most interesting question was that of a man and a turtle.
  • First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      Irrational actors 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      I agree. The amount of decisions based on feelings is both startling and understandable. We have all been in situations where we probably acted rashly.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      We don't use logic to come to a conclusion, we use logic to explaining our conclusion.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 10 Oct 12
       
      This is true. As humans, we use our emotions to play a huge part in our decision; how it makes us feel, how it would make other people feel, etc. Logic is out of the mindset when emotions overrides everything. Unless you make a decision strictly based on science, emotions will always have a role in deciding what is right and what is wrong.
  • feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      What saddens me the most about this, is that as we have learned, no matter your study of policy and politics you are bound to be irrational and succumb to these same short comings. 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      Exactly my problem with politics these days. Too many of our decisions are based on "what do I feel", or "I don't feel that is right". One of the first courses in law school that students have to take teaches that in order to properly understand politics, you have to remove emotions from the equation and that they play no part in politics whatsoever.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      But they do, and I think they should. Emotions shouldn't rule us but emotions are a part of life and society and so they have to be a part of laws and politics as well.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 10 Oct 12
       
      This explains reasoning used when people encounter sticky or uncomfortable situations and need a way to cope with them. They will first use emotional reasons to defend why something may be wrong, yet in the end they see that based purely on need, it is the only means available.
  • Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      Using just these parameters, I could argue that Conservative positions could just as easily be trying to uphold the United States Constitution. I am not saying that I agree with everything said, just stating the holes in the argument.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 03 Oct 11
       
      This is just one of the statements he makes that doesn't make sense to me. He does not understand why I vote republican other than he thinks these 4 issues are important to me. He doesnt take into context everything, no one party is perfect and no one person has the views of one party. It is an imperfect system as will be, I vote republican because I believe in minimal government, more liberties and "smart" or no spending, and for nothing to impair the growth of the education system (limiting illegal immigration), those are my 4. I could be seen as a libertarian and am, but the democratic party does nothing for me, quite the opposite in fact
    • Tyler Schnorf
      Tyler Schnorf on 08 Oct 12
       
      I agree with the highlighted portion. We have to have some common ground when referring to polictics and morals. We are becomming so partison and split we have to unite on what we were founded on and what worked for so many years for our country.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 09 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Tyler. I feel that liberals are trying to bring us into the new times, but conservatives are pulling back so hard that there is a massive divide forming. We need to find common ground because this split is making it hard for us to bring our contry out of the hole it is trapped in.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree with the fact that a common ground needs to be achieved, but I must be realistic as I do not think that an agreement is hardly ever reached with minimal struggle between the two parties. I resent Haidt's glorification of conservatism on these issues. I do not think that Democrats nor Republicans have the fully appropriate approach to these issues. Ideally, both perspectives must be blended to create a 'morally rational' decision.  
  • a Millian society at its best would be a peaceful, open, and creative place where diverse individuals respect each other's rights and band together voluntarily (as in Obama's calls for "unity") to help those in need or to change the laws for the common good.
  • Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle.
  • Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.
    • alyssa Scheer
      alyssa Scheer on 03 Oct 11
       
      democrats, being more liberal than republicans, see the not so popular side of things. Republicans may offer a "Moral clarity" but thats because they are strict and play everything by the book. Democrats see more openly 
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 10 Oct 12
       
      What? " being more liberal than republicans, see the not so popular side of things". "Democrats see more openly". Ahhh
  • But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      Is it just me or do they describe voting republican like it's some sort of terrible disease. I sense a little bit of bias here.
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 03 Oct 11
       
      It's more than just a disease. It's described as being a genetic make-up. I think that is worse than being a disease because there isn't a cure for a genetic code.
  • I was a 29 year old liberal atheist who had spent his politically conscious life despising Republican presidents, and I was charged up by the culture wars that intensified in the 1990s.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 03 Oct 11
       
      Not surprised
  • Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across eras and cultures because they are about the same thing: performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals into a group.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 03 Oct 11
       
      this i found very ironic with the explicit divide drawn from church an state as a means of policy in itself and then how Durkneim's statement shows how even if it is said they are to be separate, the structure of society and the basis of any one faith have systematically been intertwined to meet a means of advancing any one collective's ideals. Its a presentation of faith and religion as a ends to a means of structure and justification to the way in which things are done in government and within the personal experience in defining which is the one right way to cultivate the beliefs of a majority and all things unrelated into a group. As its stated in this segment: a miracle.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Oct 12
       
      There have always been voters who vote for certain people or props based on their religious affiliation. I somewhat understand why people do this, but sometimes it's carried away. For example, one of my friends voting in this election is a devout catholic. She wasn't well versed in the issues and the candidates and so I encouraged her to research more before voting. She said she nearly agreed with EVERYTHING President Obama stood for, but she will still be voting for Romney JUST because of his stance on abortion. I totally get it if you believe in something, whether it's divine or just emotional but this seems a bit ridiculous to me.  
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 10 Oct 12
       
      Being a christian I base my vote off what I believe and Morals, and I think thats totlly resonable. If there was a dem who could fix america Id vote for him. Back when Reagan ran both repubs an dems loved him. People went off who would do better for the country, despite what party they were from. Sad that its complete opposite these days. I am far right because of what I believe in, romney stands for those also and is a business man. But yes some people get carried away, overall I wish people were more educated on what there looking for in a president
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree, I'd say I'm a religious individual. Politically for me, it all depends on which candidate can fix the country. The two political parties become biased against one another. Democrats criticize the Republicans, and Republicans do the same. This is the sad fact of today's politics, it's hard to agree on something. Improving America is our priority and voters should consider that.
  • Why are grasshoppers kosher but most locusts are not?
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 07 Oct 12
       
      The beginning of this  text seems like a biased attempt to make sense of republicans. Haidt makes it seem like republicans are illogical and only carry o their republican ideas because of tradition. His article gets interesting when he talks about the experiments and how a majority of the people found harmless acts to be wrong. This shows that many people react without thinking, they react based on their emotions. 
  • In short, I was immersed in a sex-segregated, hierarchically stratified, devoutly religious society, and I was committed to understanding it on its own terms, not on mine.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 09 Oct 12
       
      This is good perspective to gain; if you go even deeper into this persons research, you would have to see how different cultures see political ideologies differently.
  • Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 09 Oct 12
       
      This is interesting that the students went against their emotions and feelings to say that it was not wrong because the actions did not hurt anyone. This is interesting because human beings are irrational in nature as they base their opinions with morals off their emotions and feelings with disgusts, so these experiments are very interesting to take note of.
  • My first few weeks in Bhubaneswar were theref
  • morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 09 Oct 12
       
      I rally like this definition of morality.  I think that is considers most peoples goal despite having different morals.  I say most because I cant try to say that i know every set of moral standards held by each individual on this planet.  But i think that this is a very non discriminating definition of what morals are really for and it takes away the maliciousness of some morals by giving them a goal of grater good. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 10 Oct 12
       
      i also like this definition of morality, i think it shows what morality means and in a way can describe a good reason as to why republicans vote the way they do and why they like the morality that republicans have to offer. 
  • "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 09 Oct 12
       
      This could be taken a long way by applying it to today.  You could say that the government in raising taxes for the one percent in order to prevent unhealthy and harmful lifestyles for those less privledged.  Just a thought.
  • If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 10 Oct 12
       
      This article was quite unsettling to me, but at least the author admits at this point that democrats need to see that the other side of the political aisle is not composed of senseless individuals. I wish more people in both political parties would realize this. Our us vs them mentality that we often have in politics can often harm our ability to see other's morals for what they are. 
  • Drew Westen points out that the Republicans have become the party of the sacred, appropriating not just the issues of God, faith, and religion, but also the sacred symbols of the nation such as the Flag and the military.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Oct 12
       
      I get extremely annoyed when republicans claim to be the party of "faith and patriotism". Since when does being a liberal make you less patriotic than being a conservative? This is something that has become something of an epidemic for the GOP over the past few decades. I guarantee you that you cannot find ONE SINGLE speech spoken by a republican politician that does't reference God or freedom. 
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 10 Oct 12
       
      Welcome to the game of politics. If you have ever seen Fox News they believe that the Bible and Constitution are the two most patriotic items in America. And if a Democrat does not mention one or the other, or both, they get slammed for their unpatriotic ideals. I wish everything was based on rational policy making, but we do not live in that world. We live in the world where taking out "under God" in the pledge will make national headlines as an attack on religious freedom. Which is ridiculous if you think about it. Religious freedom would be "under ..." fill in whatever you believe.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 10 Oct 12
       
      I think that this article was not  all encompassing.  Haidt decided to use psychology of Republicans on social issues to make a broader statement of why people vote Republican.  While this could be true for why Republicans vote a certain way on social issues, I don't think that he can make that full jump to conclude about the broader issue of conservative voters.  In addition, his examples and statements provided little evidence to prove that his conclusions were actually true.  Haidt can come up with a philosophy that sounds reasonable but that in itself is not enough evidence to prove a point.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 10 Oct 12
       
      I think only a few number of conservatives would actually fit into this idea of what he thiks a republican is.
  • anonymous on 03 Oct 11
     
    It says in this article that conservatism is a partially heritable personal trait, but I was told in highs school that people learn their political preferences mostly through what they were taught by their families (political socialization). This idea goes very well with the nature/nurture debate. I used to wonder about what made something sacred; was holy water holy just because someone blessed it? Mr Haidt's idea that "Sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns" makes a lot more sense. By the way, holy cheese comes from holy cows. Holy cows come from India!
  • ...5 more comments...
  • shane paulson on 03 Oct 11
     
    I agree in which the most influence in people's political preferences come directly from their families. A person tends to sway to the side in which their parents take, because that's what they are taught from the beginning.
  • Kiera Murphy on 03 Oct 11
     
    Due to the lack of hard, truthful facts and the biased wording I don't believe that Conservatism is a heritable personal trait. If we step away from stereotypical ideologies that we have towards Republicans and Conservatives, we can see that most views stem from the environment they grow up in and how involved they are in the political realm of things. I also believe that beliefs stem from your young adult years and you grow into forming your own opinions. Once someone has fully come into their own they are able to form their own opinions that aline with being labeled as a Conservative, a Republican, a Liberal or a Democrat or a Moderate.
  • Eric Henderson on 03 Oct 11
     
    I agree with you Kiera, there were very few hard and factual pieces of information, therefore, I could not make a ture judgement on this piece. Generally speaking, I do believe that one's political ideologies come from conditioning throughtout early teenage days through young adulthood. After that, they can form their own opinions then becoming apart of whatever party they wish
  • Lauren Petta on 03 Oct 11
     
    I do agree with Felicia. Social justices is the basis of the democratic party. It is what attracts many to it. If politicians were to abandon these ideals then it could be fatal to their party's future success.
  • cj_woldanski on 03 Oct 11
     
    I agree that this article was not a very well thought out piece. It was a little all over the place and in most areas for me, hard to grasp. But there are a lot of things in this article that I did not like. It seemed to me that this article is more of an attack on conservative beliefs. I am a Libertarian but I always vote Republican because I belief in many conservative ideas. I belief that more power should be constituted with the states and each state should get to run their state how they choose. I belief that taxes should always be low for everyone and that the government should not just spend our taxpayer money they way they seem is the most beneficial to us. I believe that the wars abroad are pointless and that the real war that we should be focusing on is our national defense on our border with Mexico. I believe in following the Constitution and not sidestepping and trying to change the Constitution that I have seen most Liberals in the government do. I don't care what someone's political stance is, just don't be a douche about something when you disagree with someone.
  • Emily Shandorf on 09 Oct 12
     
    It is fascinating to try to understand why people vote one way and other people vote another way. Republicans seem to offer simple solutions of "moral clarity" which are easy to understand and like. It is easy to like their positions-who wouldn't! The article talks about morality and the author discusses his research. He gives some very dramatic examples of situations (people eating their dog, using the American flag to clean their toilet) to provoke us into thinking about how we feel. These are all really good questions-and they do not have easy answers. He mentions that when people have "gut feelings" they do not use their heads to think about things clearly. This is true and I am like this, too! Morality also depends on culture. In some cultures it might be acceptable to eat dog! He talks about his trip to India and how he gradually came to like people who were very different from him. This is how he lost his "righteous passion" and how he, in my opinion, became more human. This is the most important point of the article to me: you can respect someone else's opinion even if you do not agree. The author calls the Republican party a "sacred" one and the Democratic a "profane" one. I think this is a good way of putting it because Republicans talk about big issues like God and religion and the Democrats talk about society and its problems. I also reflected on the national motto of the American flag: "e pluribus unum (from many, one) and think that both parties should promote this.
  • gina Hogrefe on 10 Oct 12
     
    Freedom of speech and the freedom to practice your beliefs is what seperates the USA from France. However you cannot impose religion it is the bases of why church and state must remain seperate. If the church slips into the state that is over riding our constitutional rights.
Tavish Dunn

The emerging moral psychology | Prospect Magazine - 10 views

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...theemergingmoralpsychology

shared by Tavish Dunn on 04 Sep 11 - Cached
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 04 Sep 11
       
      I had to read this a couple times to see what it was getting at but it's saying that we don't use reason to decide what is right and wrong. We use it after we have decided what is right or wrong to prove to others or ourselves that it is right or wrong.
  • For most people thinking about the Footbridge Problem, emotion wins out; in a minority of others, the utilitarian conclusion of maximising the number of lives saved.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 04 Sep 11
       
      I just keep thinking about how it shouldn't be up to me to decide if these people live or die. I know this isn't the point of the moral dilemma but still.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 05 Sep 11
       
      I agree. I feel as though its not our choice to make. Would we be morally remiss if we did nothing?
  • ...32 more annotations...
  • counterbalancing
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 04 Sep 11
       
      I find it interesting that our body has a counterbalancing system. We are constantly in conflict with ourselves. Instinct or reason. I suppose some people are stronger on one side or the other, in general they are more instinctual or more logical. I find myself taking a very long time to make decisions. I wonder if these means my sides are more even. Are our sides laid out for us in our genes or do we become more strongly one side do to outside influences?
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 05 Sep 11
       
      Or maybe as we gain more knowledge about life in general, our actions become more influenced by our social interactions. I.e. nature vs. nurture...sort of
  • harm intended as the means to a goal is morally worse than equivalent harm foreseen as the side-effect of a goal.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 04 Sep 11
       
      How are these different?
  • ucially
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 04 Sep 11
       
      Reading these, I don't think I agree with them but I wonder if put to the same questions my results would turn out similar. It's hard to judge, looking in from the outside.
  • what counts as a legitimate moral concern
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 07 Sep 11
       
      The idea of supporting illegal immigration in terms of taking jobs away from Americans can be a tricky slope. There are many moral issues wrong with this but when you consider the steps that were taken by many illegal immigrants to gain access to this country it is mind boggling. Though it seems harmless supplying jobs to Illegal immigrants, the jobs that are taken away from Americans, the lack of money that is able to go to schools that in turn supply illegals with education. It all depends on what side of the picket fence you are looking through.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 04 Sep 11
       
      I always thought most people thought pretty similarly on this but as I see more and more I can tell they don't. In the news paper this past week there was an article talking about passing something that would make it mandatory to use E-Verify. This would "open up millions of jobs for American workers" but in doing so it would take away jobs from Illegal immigrants. And yes, they're illegal immigrants but that is putting millions of people trying to support their families out of work. I personally think this is morally wrong but obviously there are many people who disagree with me.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 05 Sep 11
       
      I find this interesting. The utitlitarian view is often use by people who rather not think in depth about their decisions. Because making the best decision for the majority is not always the best decision. Sometimes the majority decision will cause more harm to more people but because it has the idea of majority most people think it is the best option. Personally, I could never push a man infront of car to save people. My conscience would not let me do that. Five people being saved would not confirm my decision of killing one person!
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 06 Sep 11
       
      the issue with illegal immigrants is separate than the issue of jobs for american workers. they do have a domino effect on eachother and that is only because the illegal immigrants are not american citizens. would it be morally right to choose an illegal immigrant for a job over an american citizen just because the immigrant has a family that they alone need to support? what if the american citizen has a family? yes it is wrong to leave behind anyone with a family that needs financial help but does that mean its wrong to help our own. just trying to look at both sides of the argument.
  • On the one hand is a negative emotional response elicited by the prospect of pushing a man to his death saying “Don’t do it!”; on the other, cognitive elements saying “Save as many people as possible and push the man!”
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 05 Sep 11
       
      Pushing the man is murder, plain and simple.  If the word "murder" was used, people may respond differently.
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 07 Sep 11
       
      This idea of framing can also be applied to the two situations. Maybe there could be a drastic change in opinion if pulling the lever to kill one man was considered murder while pushing him was only considered to be collateral damage.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 06 Sep 11
       
      I think this article does an excellent job at delving into the question of rational versus emotional morality, and then attaching a practical importance to understanding the difference between the two, as well as where you stand on particular issues.  All in all, very well written and very fascinating.
  • Our powers of reason, in this view, operate more like a lawyer hired to defend a client than a disinterested scientist searching for the truth.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 06 Sep 11
       
      this is a good simile to represent the main belief of the article's author; it helps put things in somewhat simpler terms
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 07 Sep 11
       
      This is a great viewpoint used to show how the studies had been done but shows the true reasoning as to the goals of the people writing the article and the bias.
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 06 Sep 11
       
      since the "nature" of human morality is being scrutinised by "natural Sciences" does that mean our human morality is no longer natural or what it shoudl be?
  • , moral verdicts derive from the application of conscious reasoning, and moral development throughout our lives reflects our improved ability to articulate sound reasons for the verdicts
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 07 Sep 11
       
      that is interesting that this presents it in a sense of behavioral mapping determined by the outcome of the many people and ideals we encounter and the positive and negative experiences on set by what we share with them. its like political socialization, of how we develop our ideals, its just a matter of what we happen to be experienced to and how human nature innately reacts to our triumphs and failures
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 06 Sep 11
       
      does this mean morality is no longer affected by emotions only reason and analysis? moral verdicts should be decided on reason and emotion not conscious reasoning alone.
  • most people intuitively felt that incestuous sex is wrong, but when asked why, many gave up, saying, “I just know it’s wrong!”—a phenomenon Haidt calls “moral dumbfounding
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 06 Sep 11
       
      i will play devils advocate and say, morals change from person to person. to some incestuous sex is wrong, most disagree. but who is to decide if it should be stamped as immoral?
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 06 Sep 11
       
      Polygamy...an overwhelming amount of people say this is "wrong"...but is it really hurting anyone? TLC aired a show called "Sister Wives". This may not be a completely accurate view of polygamy in America...but do we really think children are endangered by this practice? Or are we marking something as immoral because it is different....
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 07 Sep 11
       
      I do agree with Magen that morals do change from person to person. There are some that are similar from person to person, but I do think that there are some that are different. It is really dependent on how they are brought up as children. That is the goal of parents, to instill morals in their children, and to let them find their own over time.
  • used functional magnetic resonance imaging to map the brain as it churns over moral problems
  • increases activity in brain regions located in the prefrontal cortex that are associated with deliberative reasoning and cognitive control (so-called executive functions
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 06 Sep 11
       
      so is it rational or emotion? brain activity is seen in the prefrontal cortex isnt that where emotions are coontrolled and triggered? morality is decided through conscious reasoning of emotions on the issue
  • “harm intended as a means to an end is morally worse than equivalent harm foreseen as the side-effect of a goal.”
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 06 Sep 11
       
      consciously and purposely causing harm is immoral. and an accidental harm on someone due to the pursuit of a goal is fine
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 07 Sep 11
       
      What about the story of Oedipus? I feel like even though there are intended actions, its said that the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. I do agree that its morally worse to intend harm, however I do have to respectfully disagree, in that accidentally harming someone is fine.
    • Kiera Murphy
      Kiera Murphy on 06 Sep 11
       
      I agree that morality is definitely a social phenomenon!! Where we live and the type of environment we were raised in has a tremendous amount of effect on what we see as right or wrong. To relate this back to policy, lawmakers have to look at the idea of morality to decide whether a law would stand ethical in a community, city or state. This has something to do with the fact that different states have different laws due to the societies outlook on ideals. Cities or states develop their own idea of what is going to work and what laws need to be put in place in order to create a stable community. To relate in to our very own Cal Lu life...we can look at dorm life. Each dorm room has their own set of rules they put in place, based on their morals and values, that helps them live in harmony. It's a fairly simple concept. 
  • the highest stages of moral development are reached when people are able to reason about abstract general principles, such as justice, fairness and the Kantian maxim that individuals should be treated as ends and never as means.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 06 Sep 11
       
      The words "justice" and "fairness" mean nothing in this context. What people view as "just" or "fair" can vary widely from culture to culture and person to person.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 07 Sep 11
       
      I agree with Lauren's point. I find it very interesting how the article brings into light what it means to define these terms of being just and morally fixated in what is told to us to be right and wrong. In regards to where we come to adopt these views. Just like in politics with the political socialization of developing views from close spheres of influence it puts the hard perspective of what these worths are in places worth their own salt of a hardened community. Take the instance of places attributed to different forms of government opposed to the civilization we know here, compared to Cuba, North Korea, Russia and the communist region of China, values are looked at very differently in that the bridge ultimatum of kill one to save many others, may not even be viewed as difficult as it may prove necessary for a gambit of progress. also to stir the pot up a bit I had a point I wanted to add that I felt the article only skimmed but didn't explore of morality. Please feel free to add thoughts, I find this actually really interesting reading, responding, adding and considering other people's points on these articles. The question of morality I had to add was that often how is it that we go about doing things in life. do we choose and say and do certain things because it makes us feel good about ourselves or because we know it is the right thing to do in terms of a career and how we sometimes plan an endeavor map of piety for a life in hopes of receiving our dues for good deeds in response to what it means for what we believe in. subconsciously or fully aware how does that come into play and where do you think that originates from? perhaps somewhere as intrinsic as the very origin of what ti defines to be moral determined by our place and upbringing in the world?
  • So even when explicit reasons appear to have the effect of changing people’s moral opinions, the effect may have less to do with the logic of the arguments than their power to elicit the right emotional responses. We may win hearts without necessarily converting minds
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 07 Sep 11
       
      Winning hearts without converting minds is definitely a difficult thing to do... but it is a form of manipulation. I do believe that people come into arguments, discussions, etc. with their own moral opinions, but due to a slight amount of manipulation (whether the person manipulating is sneaky about it or not) the opinion can change. So, this could lead to a new question... is manipulation, especially in this sense, immoral? Should people just let others have their own opinion and NEVER question why (knowing that "they can't come up with any compelling reasons")?
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 07 Sep 11
       
      No one can say what is morally worse or better than something else. It makes sense that people are trying to make universal "principles" about how to think morally, but no one really can. I agree with some of these, but I do not agree with the fact that there is a test that measures moral senses. 
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 07 Sep 11
       
      I love the notion of people so against a new ideal as new age as gay rights. more of the old world ideals of religions and upbringings shows something new "invading" these old world realms of comfort and it scares people. If its so against their religion I love how the notion of faith is them forced upon others who are doing things viewed "wrong." faith is something believed in and felt within the individual. Wouldn't they want it to stay exclusive and worry about their own advances than waste time and be belligerent in trying to keep their own fears away of something other than their way of life from being accepted? I was baptized roman catholic, maybe only been to church a handful of times, but think of many of those teaching in regards to what kind of people are enforcing them as if their means of happiness is the key for everyone else. People are afraid to come out and honestly reflect that in ideals such a this, sure it conflicts between people, but not one way is always right. other things equal or disregarded, down to the simple notion of being happy, if you're happy, you're happy.
    • Mangala Kanayson
      Mangala Kanayson on 07 Sep 11
       
      We could only have such universal "principles" if we shared the same underlying philosophy. Mao's Little Red Book?
  • derive not from our powers of reasoning, but from an evolved and innate suite of “affective” systems that generate “hot” flashes of feelings when we are confronted with a putative moral violation.
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 07 Sep 11
       
      I believe the author is suggesting that society has previously dictated what a "moral violation" is. So "hot flashes" occur whenever these previously stated morals are violated. If that is the case then no powers of reasoning are required beyond that point
  • Thankfully, neuroscience gives some cause for optimism. Philosopher-cum-cognitive scientist Joshua Greene of Harvard University and his colleagues have used functional magnetic resonance imaging to map the brain as it churns over moral problems , inspired by a classic pair of dilemmas from the annals of moral philosophy called the Trolley Problem and the Footbridge Problem. In the first, an out-of-control trolley is heading down a rail track, ahead of which are five hikers unaware of the looming threat. On the bank where you’re standing is a switch that, if flicked, will send the trolley on to another track on which just one person is walking. If you do nothing, five people die; flick the switch and just one person will die .
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 07 Sep 11
       
      For those who chose a side what happens when you change the situation to you becoming a martyr and saving 5 lives instead of sacraficing another?
  • Yet the research on moral intuitions suggests that changes in the network of affective responses elicited by the thought of gays—driven by increased exposure to positive portrayals of gays in the media, for example—are likely to have been crucial to increasing acceptance.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 07 Sep 11
       
      Does that mean that moral inclinations are more influenced by cultural exposure than biological factors? How do chemical processes such as brain activity work with external forces to shape a person's morality?
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 07 Sep 11
       
      I find this to be a common argument for for most controversial topics such as gay marriage and abortion. No one can set a standard for it so depending on your beliefs, many people just say, "Because I know its wrong" or "because god says so". 
  • Moral Sense Test
  • These weird but essentially harmless acts were, nonetheless, by and large deemed to be immoral.
    • tania markussen
      tania markussen on 17 Oct 11
       
      I don't know if I think the first scenario was as immoral as the second one. I also don't have a real argument as to why I think it is immoral, but I just find it very creepy.
  • judgements are based on intuitive, emotional responses, and that con
  • cj_woldanski on 07 Sep 11
     
    Personally, I had a hard time understanding the article because it did not really spark my interest but with that being said certain parts actually opened my eyes. The part where the author discuss how we choose with our emotion first then decide second with reason came as a complete shock to me. As many of the other people in the studies I too agreed that it was ok to kill one person to save four or five. I did not think about it at the time because I was not using my reasoning skills. Of course the first thought that I had in my mind was to yell at the workers to get them off the tracks. But if you did not do that and you choose either path they offered, how could you live with yourself knowing that you killed one person or multiple people with one movement?
  • Eric Arbuckle on 07 Sep 11
     
    I find it interesting how scientific understanding of how the human mind computes and solves problems continues to evolve. To me, asking to push the man to his death to save the five other people is an indisputable no. I feel it should be that man's decision to sacrifice himself for others. However; I am not in complete understanding where this decision of mine came from. Is it reasoning? Or is it morality? Or morality then reasoning?
  • shane paulson on 08 Sep 11
     
    This situation comes down to the individual in the heat of the moment. Depending on a person's emotions, they will either choose the logical solution or the solution that will make them feel emotionally correct. In most cases, people tend to think with the emotional side rather than logic and reason.
Matt Nolan

Question on Hans Rosling: New Insights on Poverty and Life Around the World. - 24 views

Money is important to have in order to have a strong government and prospering nation. Money opens the doors to more development and more opportunities for the country. In order for a country to be...

started by Claudia Rios on 11 Oct 11 9 follow-ups, last by Matt Nolan on 13 Oct 11
Courtney Sabile

Timeline: 1920s - YES! Magazine - 0 views

www.yesmagazine.org/...timeline-1920s

shared by Courtney Sabile on 03 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • In 1924, the Society for Human Rights in Chicago becomes the country's earliest known gay rights
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      It has taken almost 100 years to get the ball rolling for gay rights, only now are we getting to gay marriage, and there is still plenty of rights to still get.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 05 Dec 12
       
      It's amazing how far back the fight for gay rights was. Since it was the 1920's, there were a lot of social liberal customs like woman donning short hair and short dresses. The 20's always fascinated me, especially reading The Great Gatsby.
  • Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 grants all Native Americans the rights of citizenship, includin
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      As far as Native Americans go, it took the US way too long to grant them citizenship, especially after we stole their lands and displaced some of them indefinitely, and wronged many generations of Native Americans.
Matt Nolan

Questions: The Story of Power (2:45 class) - 31 views

The people that gain power are either those who have the drive and the heart to become successful people, and who are willing to make sacrifices in order to become successful. The other type of peo...

started by anonymous on 27 Oct 11 8 follow-ups, last by Matt Nolan on 28 Oct 11
Devon Meredith

President Obama's Executive Power Grab - Newsweek and The Daily Beast - 3 views

www.thedailybeast.com/...ma-s-executive-power-grab.html

shared by Devon Meredith on 30 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • if a legislative proposal fails, find an executive order or administrative directive to replace it.
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 30 Oct 12
       
      This can be very dangerous and disruptive to our system. It's unfortunate, because I can why both sides are doing what they are doing, for what they both believe are the right reasons. The President is crossing a lot of borders when he decides to act like this against Congress's will, but when there's an impasse, what else can he do but take action in other ways? And the Congress disagrees with all of his proposals and thinks they would be detrimental to our nation, so what else can they do but stonewall them? Both parties might do better to come to a mutual agreement, but since that has failed to be an option I understand why Obama feels the need to bypass Congress, whether it is right or wrong. 
    • Tyler Schnorf
      Tyler Schnorf on 31 Oct 12
       
      I agree with this. Loalty to polictical parties is starting to get in the way of getting important things done in congress. Politicians have to start working togehter more efficiently or else our country is going to suffer becuase we cant get anything done in a time of need.
    • haakonasker
      haakonasker on 02 Nov 12
       
      I agree with both Amanda and Tyler. It is extremely important that politicians work together to get stuff done. It doesn't help to only be loyal to your political party, you need to create a solution that fits the best for all. Some political questions are hard to work on because the views on them are completely different. Some examples are gay rights and taxes. The view on these are completely different, so to make a solution that fits both would be very difficult. But other political questions needs to be worked on together, then more would be done. That is what this country really need.
  • “I just couldn’t do any more revenue,”
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 31 Oct 12
       
      I thought the reason Boehner dropped the deal was because of a last minute disagreement him and the president had. Or is this pointing at that exact reason? 
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 02 Nov 12
       
      I really like reading these Diigo posts and finding out the information that is never, or rather rarely seen in the news. You barely see direct quotes like this when politicians have clueless and instances when we remember that they're only human and have moments of weakness.
  • These guys are willing to let the country go into default rather than negotiate a compromise
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 01 Nov 12
       
      This is definitely the major problem today as parties are just pitted against eachother.. They will not budge on a matter that another party supports, which is really unfortunate for our country, one where we definitely need the parties to work together. We need people to step up from both sides and actually compromise to get something done that is good from our country instead of holding back and getting nothin beneificial done. Its sad that the President has to go around Congress to get something done when there should be compromise that both sides can agree with.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 01 Nov 12
       
      I agree. There is no way anything is going to get solved if the parties don't start copromising. No matter what president is in power, if the parties are pitted against each other nothing will get solved.
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 01 Nov 12
       
      I agree with the two comments above, instead of being completely against the other party.. we should be able to negotiate in order to find a compromise that better suits both parties desires. If they were able to do this... some of our countries problems would be better off and solved by this point. 
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 02 Nov 12
       
      Yeah, but none of people on both parties have the courage to not do what their peers are doing, to compromise and negotiate. No one wants to be the one that gets blackballed and have people against them. But I do agree that this is a problem. I don't really find that there is a solution to this problem though; I don't think anyone is just going to start negotiating at any given moment. They're too polarized and most to all of them are worried about the repercussions to do something about it.
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 02 Nov 12
       
      I think this shows the sad truth that now political parties can not do anything without having some kind of back lash from their fellow members or worse, the media. They all have to follow in line and do not get t speak out as much because change the way people view them may make them what to vote them out of their office.So we are stuck in this gridlock where no one can do anything.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 02 Nov 12
       
      Polarization is definitely an issue in US politics today. It's like, they'd rather jeopardize the country rather than compromise. I feel like the two sides spend way too much time demonizing each other rather than actually looking at the issues at hand. It's more about which party holds the most power now than it is about the country's well-being.
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 02 Nov 12
       
      I agree that this is a major problem. It is important for the two parties to work together because otherwise none of the problems are going to get solved. It seems like they care more about winning the argument against their opposing party than they do about solving the problem in the way that will be the most beneficial for the people that are affected by the problem. I agree with Karina that each party is mostly concerned with gaining the most power as opposed to solving the problems in the best way.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 02 Nov 12
       
      There are some things that could be understood that the republicans would not want passed, but to block every thing is just going to cause more problems. They have to start compromising with each other and if they do not want a specific thing passed they should focus on that specific issue. The President though has no right to go completely around congress no matter what.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • But now the president was doing something that he’d previously deemed impossible, and that Congress had repeatedly forbidden: singlehandedly granting relief to an entire category of young immigrants, as many as 1.7 million people, who’d otherwise be subject to deportation.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 01 Nov 12
       
      How can he singlehandedly do this? I thought with checks and balances he couldn't do anything without approval from the other two branches?
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 02 Nov 12
       
      Although I think what he did was great and I agree with the DREAM act, I find it scary that he had the power to do this by himself. I don't believe it was the correct way to go about things.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 02 Nov 12
       
      I do agree with Justina what he did was great I aswell agree with the dream act, i also thought he coldnt do anything without the approval from the oth 2 branches .. this musyt have not been the correct way to do things
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 02 Nov 12
       
      The other two branches work very slow in comparison to what the president can do.  At one point in this article it does say that people are trying to restrain his power by filling constitutional complaints about the president, but with all of his recent appointments to the Supreme Court, they won't do anything with them.  There is literally no one policing him so he just gets to do whatever he wants.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 02 Nov 12
       
      I think that there should be a better way to limit the power of the president. He should not be able to do what he wants. And i also agree with the dream act.
  • “reject[ing] the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold”
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 02 Nov 12
       
      This is somewhat true in the sense that Obama did not go through the lengthy process required to pass laws or other proposals. Instead, he just passed them on his own. He lacked the patience of waiting through the process which was set up to ensure fairness, equality, and promote checks and balances
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 02 Nov 12
       
      I agree. What is the point in having separation of powers if the Commander in Chief is going to maneuver around them? The logic behind Montesquieu's model of government was to avoid any one branch from gaining too much power. Unfortunately, the president has been moving toward what Montesquieu feared most, too much exercised power in one branch.  
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 02 Nov 12
       
      I agree with you guys but he also doesn't have support from Congress.  Anything he does try to push through gets shot down immediately.  Unfortunately he almost has to resort to passing it on his own to get anything done, however I do feel that it obviously has to go through the proper way instead of not using the checks and balances 
  • then that is going to lead to a constant dead end
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 02 Nov 12
       
      If everything is always going to lead to a constant dead end, then we wont get anything done. There's has to be cooperation for us to progress.
  • spewing coals
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 02 Nov 12
       
      I would be as well, the key to a good democracy is working together, as they seemed to have been doing. Low blow by Boehner to back out last second after so much deliberation. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 04 Nov 12
       
      It does seem like a low blow that Boehner made yet when there are so many issues and nothing is being changed, I feel like after a while I would be fed up as well. Change does take time but the amount of time it has taken for there to be change now seems very large. 
  • anted to remind Obama’s team that whatever they did next, they had to do it in a way that preserved the integrity of the White House,
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 02 Nov 12
       
      They have done neither, and the fact that his own VP thinks his actions are wrong sends a terrible message to the people in this country and makes him seem like he is better than every other policy maker out there.  The system is in place for a reason, and he is completely disregarding America and our values as a people. 
  • Congress
  • and the relationship between them
    • Phillip Delgado
      Phillip Delgado on 02 Nov 12
       
      Obama should not be going over congress like this. The point of our checks and balances system is so that no one branch has too much power. I could understand if it was during a time of war but that's not where we are right now. Maybe it is Obama who should compromise.
  • But what he’s not going to do, if Congress refuses to act, is sit on the sidelines and do nothing. That’s the path he’s taken.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 02 Nov 12
       
      Although this may appear to be a frightening and disproportionate grab of power, at least he stepped up and did what he had to do. Our political system operates in the waters of partisanship because that is what is supposed to be most representative of and appealing to the American public. But when the bipartisanship of this country presents as a barrier to democracy and a game played by both sides, nobody is served, not the public and not those responsible for setting democracy into action. The president's decision to make the "executive power grab" was forced by Boehner and his party, and props to Obama for having the guts to push back against the bipartisan game. 
  • what could Obama do without Congress
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 02 Nov 12
       
      Without congress Obama has been struggling to get things done, leaving only few policies Obama could push through. Like lowering the interest rates, so homeowners could keep their homes.  
  • Emily Shandorf on 02 Nov 12
     
    Obama is just trying to achieve a comprehensive immigration reform. This article speaks about President Obama deciding to act on his own because of his failed attempts to work with the Republican Congress. I agree that President Obama must act alone now because he has tried his best to work with the Republicans. I believe that this is the best strategy because this is what he was elected to do by the people that voted for him. I believe that the country needs to take action on important issues; one of these is the Dream Act-a law that gives immigrant children the chance to become citizens. I believe that this article shows how the political system is paralyzed when we have a Democratic President and a Republic Congress. Obama has tried to compromise, but the Republicans have not given him a chance. They would rather fight just to oppose him than do what is right for the country. I hope that, as the title of the article states, this changes the way Washington works----for the better!
madison taylor

PublicAffairs Books: THE POLITICAL BRAIN - 8 views

www.publicaffairsbooks.com/...display

shared by madison taylor on 01 Oct 11 - Cached
  • The first goal transcends any given candidate: to define the party and its principles in a way that is emotionally compelling and tells a coherent story of what its members believe in—and to define the other party and its values in ways that undermine its capacity to resonate emotionally with voters.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 01 Oct 11
       
      This part of this article reminds me of the past article about the con artist. Basically candidates are getting people to believe in their cause. The candidates have to be "emotionally compelling" to draw people in. It was the same way with the con artist because he played to the victims' emotions in order to get his reward. So in order to appeal to people candidates have to be a bit sneaky.
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 02 Oct 11
       
      i agree with the previous statement. i also thought of the previous article and how they must play mindgames with society. it is basically stating that they need to live a life that isnt them for people to "like" them or vote for them. this makes you think twice about everything anyone does, from politics to just daily life conversations.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      I must agree that this paragraph is very reminiscent of the Framing articles. It suggest in-group cohesion, using emotion to convince of value, and implies irrationality. 
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 09 Oct 12
       
      Although I thought the exert was good, I didn't find it to be eye opening or thought provoking. I didn't think that anything in it was truly groundbreaking. Wasn't this all common knowledge? I think that everyone is aware (concisely or not) that how we vote is majorly based on emotions. But I also think that this article gives too much credit to many voters. So many people get so stuck on party lines that it almost seems irrelevant who the candidates are and how people feel about them. Many voters that I have talked to could not be convinced out of voting for their parties candidate even if he or she was completely unqualified.
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Justina, The article gives too much credit to many voters. I feel like I learned a lot of this when I was in high school government. We know why people vote one way or the other. And the thing about playing the victim was not suprising people are more likely to vote based on their emotions even if it is not the better canidate.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 10 Oct 12
       
      That seems to be what most politicians are these days, con artists. They play on these 4 attack points and people will vote for them even if they're inept and not properly representing the American people. That's a reason I didn't like the last paragraph, because it tells voters those are the four things they should look at, as opposed to the issues.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 10 Oct 12
       
      Everyone hates the political system, and yes its totally flawed and bias but candidates do what they need to put across points and portray emotions. But yes too much credit is given to voters. their lack of political knowledge is their fault. People are so passionate about politics yet they don't teach themselves enough to actually know about issues. anyways yes most of the article was common sense, for most of us anyways.
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 10 Oct 12
       
      We are emotional creatures. It makes sense that political figures define principles based upon emotion. Both parties are selling a story to the voter. Within the content, emotional issues, such as religion, are used to persuade voters to commit to there political cause. I want to be a person who is factually persuaded, but I'm human. I dictate a political policy based upon my own moral compass. The book mentions that we are emotionally bound to political issues. Additionally, this topic can also mesh with a future article. Is there a need for political scientist if the majority( not all but most) of people vote on issue based upon moral judgment. I find this interesting, because when I here about politic issues from the public I almost laugh on how factually incorrect they are. Is there even a need for statistics if we chose to dismiss the facts. My view is that we need facts, fact are important but politicians on both parties need to stop appealing to voters emotionally and express statistical content of there political ideologies. Example, The first presidential debate between Obama and Romney was a good debate in my opinion because there appeared to steer away from religion (Despite civil religion)and focused on issues.
    • haakonasker
      haakonasker on 10 Oct 12
       
      I partly agree with Justina Cooney. To much credit is given to the voters. I do think that a lot of people is aware of that how we vote is based on emotions, I do also think on the other hand that a lot of people is not aware of that. They do not think that it is emotions that lead them to vote for a specific candidate, even though it is.
    • Phillip Delgado
      Phillip Delgado on 11 Oct 12
       
      The four things voters need to decide are not concrete by any stretch of the imagination. All of these ideas change once the representative takes office. If you expected the president to measure up to these for ideas, than every president would fail. Voting for any president is taking a huge risk. It's like gamboling in Vegas. I believe the better way to decide who to vote for is to look at former president's terms. A far right republican has a great chance of becoming moderate once in office.
  • an effective campaign is to maximize positive and minimize negative feelings toward its own candidate, and to encourage the opposite set of feelings toward his or her opponent
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 01 Oct 11
       
      During class, when the Rick Perry campaign video was mentioned, I got curious. So I watched it, and this is the definition of what Perry is trying to do. He is trying to encourage negative feelings towards Obama, through his campaign.
    • Kaitlyn Guilbeaux
      Kaitlyn Guilbeaux on 03 Oct 11
       
      Good point Xochitl, I think that is what most (if not all) political compaign ads try to do.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 03 Oct 11
       
      I believe that almost every Politician incorporates this mechanism into their campaign. For them to be successful and have supporters they have to state what makes them better than the next Politician and the best way to do that is to express the positive qualities they have and at the same time point out the negative qualities in their opponents.
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 03 Oct 11
       
      In addition to what Valencia says every Politician needs to do, (going back to last classes discussion) they also manipulate and con people into thinking that they are better than the other candidates. They make promises they can't keep and say things they don't mean in an attempt to get us to vote one way or the other. 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 10 Oct 12
       
      i think this is a key concept because all candidates want to sway their voters to their side. They need to make themselves look better and the other candidate look not as qualified for the job. This is how a candidate will win peoples votes and an election.
  • can't possibly keep up with all the data required to know which aspects of which bills are likely to yield results conducive to their values and interests and which
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 01 Oct 11
       
      This goes back to the idea that citizens take shortcuts, and are not ignorant.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      Xochitl, I agree that heuristics play a role in our actions  but I must say the majority of people are ignorant and rely on those shortcuts for all political decision making. 
  • ...22 more annotations...
  • The most important feelings are gut-level feelings,
    • alyssa Scheer
      alyssa Scheer on 03 Oct 11
       
      i agree with this statement. Most important feelings can be your gut feelings. They are your instincts acting for you and usually are right. The candidates have a better chance of getting the position if they have a good "vibe" about them
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 03 Oct 11
       
      i do agree, instincts are everything, we rely on them for any decision we make but when it comes to politics we may have a first instinct about a candidate or a policy and make a judgement based on a first impression or glimpse because our "guts" tell us to, shouldnt we make more of an informed decision when it comes to the future of our government? with any issue in politics you cant simply go with your gut we need to make an educated deision
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 09 Oct 12
       
      I kind of agree with this statement as yes people need to have a good feeling about their politicians and everything, but politicians can be very sly sometimes in the way they present themselves. Sometimes we cannot tell that a person is being a fake, so that first gut feeling is great and everything, but not always reliable. Especially with politics as the statement above said because we need good people in office, so we need to make decisions with more information than gut feelings.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree that the feelings play a big part in which side you choose. I don't think many people will side with you if you're giving off a bad vibe. This is how many people make decisions regarding everyday issues as well. 
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree. People are going to vote for the candidate that has persuaded their gut feeling that they are the right choice. But I also agree with Lauren that politicians can come off as being able to change our future for the better, but in the end may not follow through after they have been elected as president. We can't always know that our gut feeling is going to be the right one. 
  • Trickle-up politics is as valid as trickle-down economics.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      *tee hee hee*
  • and to define the other party and its values in ways that undermine its capacity to resonate emotionally with voters
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      so basically what they try to do is bring themselves up by putting the other political party down...which when you think about it, comes to be very immoral
  • Although the media tend to be disinclined to play much of an educative role in elections (other than to inform voters of who's winning or losing at any particular point in time),
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      i partly disagree with this statement. There are certain TV channels which tend to "attack" certain political parties/candidates, and this can prove fatal for those viewers who do not quite know how to decifer it.
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 03 Oct 11
       
      I do agree that certain networks attack candidates or parties but that doesn't mean the networks are educating the public about policies... Only attacking the opposition and occasionally using their policies to do it.
  • This is the first goal of any campaign because the way voters experience the party is the first influence on the way they will experience the candidate.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 02 Oct 11
       
      This illustrates the idea that people take shortcuts when making political decisions. Most voters will not look into the arguments for a candidate's stance on issues with detail but will have their opinions shaped at least partially by their preconceptions of the party.
    • Jacqueline Ramsay
      Jacqueline Ramsay on 03 Oct 11
       
      I agree with this statement; political parties are the dominating drive of individuals to vote for a candidate, regardless of the candidate's personal stance. Since the party itself has the greatest influence over voters, most efforts are spent focused on the party. 
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 10 Oct 12
       
      I also agree with this statement because being a candidate is a physical representation on what that specific party is all about. Despite the candidate's personal opinions he/she must represents the parties views as best he/she can.
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 03 Oct 11
       
      This is interesting as we see it in play every day in politics. In order to gain the approval of the voters we see politicians, in a sense, giving the polis what they want. They tend to shape their ideologies and views on certain issues, in the moment to capture their intended audience. If you can get the polis to relate to you then you can in essence "win their vote."
  • Both men, as challengers, associated themselves with hope.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 03 Oct 11
       
      Interesting because "hope" is a word that has many definitions. Everyone, or mostly everyone, would define "hope" differently and display very mixed understandings of what "hope" is really pertaining to. I feel both candidates used "hope" because as Americans we understand "hope" to be a very Americanized way of thinking, for instance, "American Hope." Very much the same as Obama used "change."
  • government is smaller.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 03 Oct 11
       
      Interesting because this is the basis of the Republican Party in today's campaigns.
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree the democratic party has changed their platform significantly since 1996. 
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 03 Oct 11
       
      This is the kind of thing that makes me kinda sick about politics. The ambiguity of it all, and how the candidates try to pick the brains of their constituents dance these fine lines.  If a candidate would just stand up there and tell the American people what he thought was right and what was wrong, and why, it would be so refreshing.  The problem is, those kind of people don't get elected...
  • managing positive and negative feelings should be the primary goals of a political campaign
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 03 Oct 11
       
      This is how I always felt of the ideal means of a reform to the process of choosing a candidate and a general approach to issues of policy in america.  Its more of what they stand for to how they stand for the people rather than presenting that yes, they will have agreeing terms within the people of their political party but presenting that there is not one main means of appeal for all. coming from different faiths, economic situations and nationalities, the appeal to all is not realistic and in the awareness of that more compromise can be made and the retrospective of the state of affairs can be seen for people to be complacent with any step, minuscule or otherwise, towards a policy that works to accommodate all and be okay knowing in order to all share part of the policy "pie" people need to take cuts to divide it evenly as many would rally to include as many as possible. Rather it'd be best to know that it will not be full to what people request and a means to manage that is just as vital as enacting any one particular policy
  • create an overall judgment of the expected utility of electing one candidate or the other
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 08 Oct 12
       
      So is this trying to suggest that as more people vote for a particular candidate it changes the ethos of the candidate and the way people look at them?
  • In general, the goal is to convince voters that your candidate is trustworthy, competent, empathic, and capable of strong leadership, and to raise doubts about the opposition along one or more of these dimensions
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 09 Oct 12
       
      I know that this is an important goal and everything as campaigning is about strategy to make your candidate look the best, but can't we see politicians actually just come striaght out with no hidden agenda or goals like this... Just focus on the issues, and actually say what they think will truly help this country, not just what they think the people want to hear.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 10 Oct 12
       
      This tactic makes it so the voters view a candidate as an ideal one who is trustworthy while at the same time, attacks the opponent by raising doubts. Many factors come in to play when looking at a candidate's personal characteristics such as appearance.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 10 Oct 12
       
      despite our debt Americans want real hope. By displaying confidence, honesty, and a presidential look, it eases americans fear.
  • associations tend to hold more sway with voters than judgments about a candidate's particular traits (as
  • The second goal of an effective campaign is to maximize positive and minimize negative feelings toward its own candidate, and to encourage the opposite set of feelings toward his or her opponent.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 10 Oct 12
       
      If a candidate is overly negative towards another candidate they could lose a lot of followers. Others would look at that and wonder they are being so disrespectful to each other. They would lose interest in the candidate. Nobody likes to be around an overly negative person. It just ends  up bringing themselves down. I personally, would rather have a positive candidate who is uplifting and kind. 
  • This is the first goal of any campaign because the way voters experience the party is the first influence on the way they will experience the candidate.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 10 Oct 12
       
      I think that the first goal of any political campaign is to lay the facts straight; tell the people exactly what you plan to do then follow through. I think more people should think about which option is more beneficial to the whole community instead of making decisions solely based on part affiliation.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 10 Oct 12
       
      Positive feelings toward a candidate can benefit the other candidate a lot. If they are respectful towards each other they can gain followers. If they are not kind to each other they can lose support from others which will have terrible results. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 10 Oct 12
       
      The Presidential Debate was a good example of how true this statement is. When Romney made a claim that Obama did not agree with, Obama would pucker his lips in disgust, and then try to fight back with a bigger statement. Having respect for the other candidate shows a lot about your character. 
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 10 Oct 12
       
      Totally agree. Small things like that show your character. When both candidates show that they are working towards the good of the country, it  brings us together rather than divides us even more.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 10 Oct 12
       
      Agreeing with what you have to say, when the small things like having good character during a political race is more effective then stabbing one another back and forth with statements. The citizens want to see that both candidates are running a honest, positive race. For at least it is nice to see when the candidates respect eachother
  • It's fine to engage on the issues and offer specific policies. There is plenty of time for that in a campaign. But candidates should use policy positions to illustrate their principles, not the other way around.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 10 Oct 12
       
      This actually makes a lot of sense. People tend to be pretty emotional beings, so to associate oneself with a positive attribute and one's opponent with a negative one is logical.  Not everyone understands politics, not everyone has the patience to understand politics. But they like feeling good. They like hope. By giving people what they want in this area, you're forming a rather strong foundation.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Karina, we never like to view an opponent similar to ourselves, we think of them as your strict opposite. As far as politics, there are plenty of people that just treat it like a popularity contest more than wanting to be informed and take that time from other activities. They just want that feeling of safety.
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 10 Oct 12
       
      I think the four things  a voter needs to know really boil down to just one: will this person represent ME, what I want and what I would do?
  • it is higher still than the more "rational" goal of presenting voters with cogent arguments for a set of policy prescriptions
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 10 Oct 12
       
      In a democratic society, it would seem that this goal would be more in the forefront of the main goals of a campaign. This is the reason many people steer away from politics, because its...politics. There are too many strings attached. It is as if the government is scared of people being well informed because that means that people's opinions aren't as easy to "sway" or "control" or convince. Many would agree that knowledge is power for an individual. In the eyes of a leader in the government, if the people under the government have knowledge, the power is stripped from the government. As much as a candidate wants voters to feel like he/she is on the same level as them by trying to emotionally relate and be likable by the voters, he/she frames themselves by withholding potentially, mind-changing knowledge. This is how a candidate/ government official hold power, is by withholding knowledge from the people. 
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 10 Oct 12
       
      Everything that Drew Westen states in this excerpt is extremely true.  I have heard my parents discuss the different candidates' views on issues and debating how much they agree or not.  The way that candidates present themselves and their views will heavily influence whether or not a voter votes for them.  They need to relate the best they can to the voters to ensure their votes. 
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 10 Oct 12
       
      Whether we think it or not, the way we vote trickles down to our gut-level feelings. People tend to rely on their gut feeling more than they think.  Whether it is something as small as not walking down a dark alley or or whether to go all in in a poker hand, it all goes down to what our "gut feels."   The way we vote is no different, if one does not agree with a parties principles, than they will not vote for that person.  If we feel some way about a candidate, ew will not vote for them.  We can do all of this research about a candidat, but if something does not fit or does not feel right, we are more likely to vote for the other candidate
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 10 Oct 12
       
      I feel like these are all pretty obvious ideas, everyone wants to generate positive feelings about their party and its goals.
  • Lauren Petta on 03 Oct 11
     
    This reminds me of what we were talking about with framing and how things such as emotions and values contribute to people's choices and mind-sets. I would agree with mike in saying that it does imply irrationality to some extent.
  • Mitchell Burris on 05 Oct 11
     
    I appreciated the last part of the article where it laid out how the things voters should consider about a candidate before going to the voting booth. It seems a reasonable way to approach the quagmire of issues and clutter that surround politics and political races. I also appreciate what John Buchanan above was saying. I wish we had candidates like that as well.
  • gina Hogrefe on 10 Oct 12
     
    Ron Paul 2012.
Karina DaSilva

Timeline: 1960s - YES! Magazine - 0 views

www.yesmagazine.org/...1716

shared by Karina DaSilva on 03 Dec 12 - Cached
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 03 Dec 12
       
      The 1960's can be seen as a time when the country cared the most about human rights. The timeline shows how the country advocated for women's rights, a healthy environment through the Clean Air Act in 1970, and in human rights through the establishment of the Peace Corp. The country also made strides in civil rights, with Martin Luther King Jr. delivering the "I Have a Dream" speech, and winning a nobel peace prize. The country also protested the war, burning draft cards, having anti war demonstrations, and so on. The wanted to save lives and not have them lost in a war that they did not support.
  • Equal Pay Act of 1963 makes it illegal to pay a woman less than a man receives for the same wor
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 03 Dec 12
       
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that nowadays, white women get around 79 cents to a man's dollar. And that's white women. 
elliott reyes

Chimp Fights and Trolley Rides - Radiolab - 13 views

www.radiolab.org/...chimp-fights-and-trolley-rides

shared by elliott reyes on 07 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • "inner chimp"
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 07 Sep 12
       
      My inner chimps name is bubbles?
  • waitin
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 07 Sep 12
       
      i disagree
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 08 Sep 12
       
      That's really interesting! In highshcool, I only heard the first 5 minutes of this, but to hear about the stuff like how the brain uses different regions to say yes or no was interesting! The whole psychology aspect of this is really cool.
  • ...4 more annotations...
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 09 Sep 12
       
      I found that it was very interesting how quickly they dismissed the idea that parents instill some of the qualities into their children. In my opinion someone has to stimulate the children to succumb to the evolutionary inner chimp. Even though when the younger chimps couldn't decide who got the branch, then the older ones had to intervene and teach them how to properly act. In the same way parents intervene when their child can't seem to figure out the proper way to share during their play date. The evolutionary aspect seems to be proven fairly well but from previous knowledge we all know that from birth we do not have that innate sense of right and wrong. Your inner chimp has to grow and mature before being able to sense right and wrong. 
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 10 Sep 12
       
      Exactly. What kind of environment one grows up and, and the types of influences one gains throughout one's life should be able to play a big factor in how they act. We learn these things.
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 10 Sep 12
       
      I thought it was great how they took an incredibly abstract concept such as morality and put it to the scientific test. It suggests that morality may be instilled according to upbringing and environment but is inherently biological. It takes what is generally considered to be subjective and makes it predictable within our species (with a few outliers), for reasons we can't even quite understand. Which means that evolution dictates many of our ideas of right and wrong. 
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 10 Sep 12
       
      I thought it was interesting that when the brain was looked at when asked the trolley questions that so much changed and different parts started to light up. How people saw the two deaths a different when they had to ask themselves about "personally killing" someone versus just pulling the switch
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 10 Sep 12
       
      The brain really battles itself and really shows how people get to what is right and what is wrong can be more than just moral ,but biological as well.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 10 Sep 12
       
      To me personally i found it interesting that the two trolley stories both ended with someone being killed, but the what one person had to do were on the opposite ends. Its fascinating to see how when ask which option they would chose most people said pulling the lever even though it still ended in the same result which is a death of one person. I agree in the statement above that the brain when making decisions is not only based on morals but also biological. To me the fact that our morality might not have come from they way us humans grow up and our surroundings but instead from our basic inner chimp bring forth the question of if our morals play any part of decision making.
  • The most interesting possibility is that the brain may have more than one way to handle complex decisions. I'd have to say that at this point science can't say much beyond that when it comes to morality and ethics. Morality and ethics are constructs we come up with to try and put some order into personal actions both on an inter-personal level and in larger groups and societies as a whole.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 12 Sep 12
       
      kjsdfwbfwefndfad
  • Emily Shandorf on 09 Sep 12
     
    If found interesting the fact that people don't feel as shamed of pulling a lever to save five people and kill one instead of pushing the person over the train. The people in the interview think that pulling a lever is better because they wouldn't feel as much guilt as pushing the person down from the trolley. Even if we all know that both are not great solutions. The gut feeling called as "inner chimp" I like how they say that moral sense is a unique and special human quality. Maybe we should ask ourselves what it really is. How the human brain works of different people is also very interesting I find because many people think differently and are ashamed of what other people think or would choose. Out of competition comes morality. We already have a sense of right and wrong when we are born, even before our parents can tell us. Basic primate morality understands the effect of pushing a person off, in this case, the trolley. The "inner chimp", which is "act of deep goodness". this is all connected to the 10 commandments, especially the one "thou shall not kill " Everything is always for a reason. Same story Killing your own baby or saving a village. I find it interesting how people would choose to kill their own baby and therefore save themselves and the rest of the people who live in the village. Others instead are very contrary because they say that a baby is God's gift. Everything now can evolve around having the inner strength for doing things like killing your own baby. I wonder if people that say that they would kill their own baby have actually the inner strength to do it. Actions speak louder than words. I think that it is also different when you have to decide to kill your own baby or save a village especially when you don't have one because you don't really know how it feels to be a parent and have a gift from God that not everyone can rece
Gaby Ramirez Castorena

Bystanders to Genocide Questions- Bethany Petersen - 25 views

Well, I think that every single country holds a moral responsibility to protect the human rights of those around the world. That being said, yeah I think that as a leading power in the world, the U...

started by Bethany Petersen on 03 Dec 11 3 follow-ups, last by Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 06 Dec 11
shane paulson

Questions on Rosling's New Insights On Poverty - 20 views

I agree with Sharena in a way that culture, while important, is not necessary for growth in development and to rise out of poverty. Naturally, it seems as if economic growth would be at the top of...

started by Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 11 Oct 11 8 follow-ups, last by shane paulson on 12 Oct 11
Kayla Sawoski

Can we bridge the worlds of theory and policy? | Stephen M. Walt - 1 views

walt.foreignpolicy.com/...the_cult_of_irrelevance

shared by Kayla Sawoski on 16 Oct 12 - Cached
  • And let's not forget that tenure isn't granted to allow a life-time of self-indulgent scholarship, but to allow scholars to take risks in their research and to confront controversial subjects without fear of coercion
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 16 Oct 12
       
      This is an important fact as some would worry that teachers could get more laid back and not as helpful with job security, but it is nice to know that those who really love teaching still force the fact and that they are allowed to have security while helping with real world issues. I believe that the academic side really needs to force the fact that political science is important as it can help society.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 17 Oct 12
       
      Yes, too many people take tenure as a time to relax and take vacation, when they should really use it as an expiramental time to offer a side or solution to controversies without the fear of being unsupported. It would be difficult for anyone to not take advantage of their tenure.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 17 Oct 12
       
      Many academic leaders take tenure as a time to adventure and relax because they now feel safe that no one will take their job away. In my opinion this time should be used to further use their experience in education to deeper their knowledge in their specific subject since technically no one can take their job away for no apparent reason
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 17 Oct 12
       
      well i didnt know the deffinition of a tenure till now and honestly i do belive some teachers use that to in a way change either there classrooms or even the way they teach they may relax if not just give grades since they know the system so well. but this isnt a bad thing for teachers they know the cant lose there job so why worry i feel they take this time as a way to teach in away that the school will approve but without actually being told what to teach and how to teach.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 16 Oct 12
       
      I think that Mr. Walt has it sort of right, at some point the research that is done in Academia becomes self indulgent of the scientist, they are just feeding their own curiosity rather than actually finding answers to questions held my many people and instead just a few who live their lives in the same area of academics and therefore have the same interests.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree, but what does it honestly mean anyways.  The percentages for finding something statistically significant in the social sciences are 5% or below.  Political Science is so difficult to understand that they give them that much leverage to be right or wrong. In addition, the variables that they evaluate could have little or nothing to do with the point they are trying to make and in the end no one even really cares.
  • For political scientists, that ought to mean using our knowledge to address important matters of concern in the real world, and to contribute to the broader public discourse on these topics
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 17 Oct 12
       
      Theres so many hot topics right now. Being a poli sci major I totally feel its my duty to know real world topics and address serious matters. Same thing to teachers like the article said, that's a responsibility we hold. Face issues many dont want to talk about
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 17 Oct 12
       
      I feel like people should make 'important matters of concern in the real world' known to them. It should be all people alike's responsibility (not only political science majors) to educate themselves on these matters so they could have a say and to think for themselves. These matters affect our own lives, educated or not. Therefore, it makes sense to at least be educated on some important matters that pertains to our interests or what we think would affect us most.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Shannon. Although it is definitely the responsibility of those of us who study politics to be current and educated on all big issues, it is also the responsibility of the general public. I find it so sad that high school students (at least in Oregon) are only required one government and economic class while many other subjects were required every year. It shows where society places priority when in reality every single one of us is affected politics everyday in our lives. I remember when I first started studying political science at UO one of my professors showed a video they had made asking college students around campus who the vice president was or if the could name a single measure on the ballet or who the governor or senators were in Oregon and the majority of them could not answer a single question. Drawing it back to the reading I think it is because we have not done the greatest job of bridging the gap between theory and what is happening so people get so disconnected. It is up to us who study political science to understand the theories but make it interesting and applicable to real world issues.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 17 Oct 12
       
      Political Scientists should address more important matters to inform society. Society needs to be more informed about political matters and things going on in our country. If society is not informed, our country can not function correctly. 
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Even worse, anyone who does engage the real world gets derided for doing "policy analysis" and younger scholars who show an interest in this sort of activity are less likely to be taken seriously and less like to rise within the profession. What sort of incentive structure is that?  
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 17 Oct 12
       
      Taking this statement hand in hand with how "our fellow citizens have a right to expect us to...use our knowledge to address serious issues", it makes me wonder if this is a sort of cycle. For sure, it seems like it's all influenced by society and norms, but I have to wonder if why it is so "silly" for scholars to get involved with policy analysis when they are basically doing their job?
  • a self-fulfilling world-view
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 17 Oct 12
       
      I don't get how it is self-fulfilling though... 
  • gina Hogrefe on 16 Oct 12
     
    Great article post! The tenure system is a solution to old problems. It is a system that rewards research over good teaching. Like the article suggests that most of the tenure research is irrelevant to real world problems. The tenure system needs to be abolished for a number of reasons.
Flavio Guzman

Bystanders to Genocide - Samantha Power - The Atlantic - 5 views

www.theatlantic.com/...304571

shared by Flavio Guzman on 29 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • And most crucial, what could the United States have done to save lives?
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 29 Nov 12
       
      I don't think anything could have been done. By Clinton's reaction he obviously had more important things on his plate than those being killed off in Rwanda. This is saddening and sickening. There was such a big hype about "Kony 2012" and yet nothing was done about this?
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 02 Dec 12
       
      I think this raises the question about a country's responsibility to other nations. Clinton may have had many priorities, but does that mean we can simply ignore other country's concerns? I think that every time period is going to have a different mood toward foreign policy. There are times when we can only focus on ourselves and others where we should do more for other countries. Regardless, there is an emotional/moral obligation to help others/other countries in need. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 03 Dec 12
       
      The question shouldn't be "what could have the United States have done to save lives?" but "what could the Clinton Administration have done to save lives?". When citizens elect the president they put all trust and knowledge in what decisions he will make. America made its choice to elect Clinton and so we should be able trust that he will make the decision. 
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 03 Dec 12
       
      I agree that there probably wasn't much that Clinton could have done to help. On the other hand i find it hard to believe that he had no idea that it was going on. Sure there might have been more important things going on that pertained to him but i feel like if that many people were being slaughtered it would stand out. It wouldn't be something to just pass over. 
    • haakonasker
      haakonasker on 03 Dec 12
       
      There was not any Country in the world that did anything while the genocide took place. I think that the world sometimes turn their back against big issues that goes on. Especially in Africa. The genocide in Darfur, Sudan is another newer example on how the United States and the rest of the world turned their back against, also the starvation of millions of people in Eastern Africa that have been going on the last couple of years, manly in Somalia. I agree with Tori, on that Clinton did know what was going on in Rwanda, but did not act upon it. This is what the world do a lot of times. If a Country is not going to benefit financially or for their own countries security, they will not do anything about the problem.
  • s. It reveals that the U.S. government knew enough about the genocide early on to save lives, but passed up countless opportunities to intervene.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 02 Dec 12
       
      I think the U.S. needs to step it up. The president is too worried about intervening with the "wrong" countries because he is concerned about losing trust or priveleges with other countries. This cowardice to step up and do the right thing has killed hundreds of thousands of people. I personally talked to a survivor of the genocide mentioned above and the terror he and his famil went through is not okay. The U.S. government also fails to announce the Armenian Genocide as the president does not want Turkey to put the U.S. on their bad side. People should take a step back and look at what is happening to the world around them. Although it may be more pragmatic to make certain decisions, the morality and "rightness" should also be a key role as we are all humans and have a level of compassion and urge to do the right thing and help others in their time of need. It would have been right o defend the Tutsis who were a minority and could not defend themselves. 
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 03 Dec 12
       
      So many signs or insights of information were given were given to the us, yet because the "genocide" word was used the US stayed out of it, aside from sending UN troops. United States policy resembled "outta sight, outta mind". many, if not all lives could have been saved
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 03 Dec 12
       
      I agree that this was not okay. This statement of the U. S. knowing enough about the genocide but just merely passing up the many opportunities to help puts the U. S. in a bad light. Like Alexis said, the president was so concerned with the alliances he has made with countries in the world that he basically sat back and let the genocide happen. It is so sad to think that so many people lost their lives or lost those whom they loved and that this country could have taken steps to stop this, but didn't. This article puts the U. S. and Clinton in a particularly bad light, as it should for what happened. 
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 03 Dec 12
       
      I agree as well. Clinton should have paid more attention to this issue. By passing it up, it gave him an unfavorable image. He was the President, and other countries around the world see his actions through all of America. It was a poor action to not be able to intervene with the genocides.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      I'm not really sure if I agree that we should have intervened, or that I blame Clinton... I think that it's hard to really make that claim, to say that the President should have been on top of things and intervene in a  genocide. It is very dangerous to just leap into a country and try and tell them what to do... we would be painting a target on our back, and might even create a war in that manner. I know that we knew about it and we could have done something, but that doesn't mean we were the only country, just Clinton got caught holding all of the cards and was blamed for not taking action. Being President would be too difficult for me, foreign affairs are very tricky business...
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 03 Dec 12
       
      It's sticky business. It's hard to just intervene in other countries internal affairs. Who are we to judge and patronise their culture. What we have defined as genocide is not necessarily what the Utuu call it. Perhaps that basic sense of what is mass killing does not ring in their heads. It's just a fact that is considered differently by different societies and cultures. Maybe an ethnic cleansing or simply just a cleansing to better their society. And who are we to enforce what our ideas I what's better onto them?
  • In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 03 Dec 12
       
      super interesting genocide, one that I have researched deeply. Super interesting because this genocide wasnt two different lands, they shared everything aside from the title of hutu and tutisi. It was people murdering their own people
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 03 Dec 12
       
      What else could President Clinton have done? This is the question that many find debatable. Is the duty of the United States to protect other nations in times of genocide. Honestly I think that many didn't not know how bad the genocide was at first but as time went on more and more died, which called for more nations to step in and help. Clinton was taking a huge risk if he put his country into the mix of the genocide. Oddly enough I don't think that there was much he could personally do and so I think he made a good choice in just staying out of it, even though it may not be the most moral thing to do.
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 03 Dec 12
       
      Even if he did send troops into Rwanda, it's very difficult to know who you are fighting against. Also the president would have to endure the consequences of looking like a bully to other nations. Sometimes staying neutral is the easiest way out of it and that is the direction the president choose. 
    • Devin Haerle
      Devin Haerle on 11 Dec 12
       
      It was a lose-lose situation. If the US intervened other nations in the region might twist US actions into those of the bully, the oppressor, even if they were well-intentioned, and moving more troops into the region may have only served to escalate the situation and bog the US down in yet another costly and likely unpopular war. Proponents of intervention often seem to overlook the economic and psychological cost of war. If the US stood by, its citizens and others would accuse the government of a lack of action on important issues. Clinton's actions were no doubt well-rehearsed and he assuredly recieved advice on the situation from the cabinet, advisors, et cetera- few Presidents act alone- and he did what was seen as in America's best interest.
  • A few years later, in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 03 Dec 12
       
      I found the last part of this sentence to be really true. I did not know about this at all but it seem like it should have been a bigger deal and someone needed to step in and help. I do not see how it could have been so easily ignored. So many people died for no reason at all it just seems crazy it was not in the media or in our history books now.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 03 Dec 12
       
      This is the most shocking and interesting aspect of foreign policy; that is how we choose our battles. The excuse that we had no idea what was happening really does not cut it but I do understand that many things are weighed out when making decsions like whether or not to get involved in other countries problems. I wonder how people make decisions to refrain from interviening and keep from the media mass genocides like this incident in Rwanda.
  • "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 03 Dec 12
       
      I get the impression that it is far more likely for a government to take action over something if it is made public. The Tutsi genocide is far less known than say, the Holocaust. People don't know about what is going on, therefore they don't ask questions. Once people start raising questions, however, I feel like that's when a lot of politicians start making a "stand".
  • Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 03 Dec 12
       
      I think that this is pretty horrible. For people to ruthlessly kill this many people is just unbelievable. Something should have been done to stop this. I think that the fact that Clinton knew about this and did nothing to stop him make him slightly guilty. Its like someone watching a murder and just walking away and not helping while its happening. And i think it made Clinton look bad as well as America.
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 03 Dec 12
       
      I think that this is an extremely sad story to be told. People really need to be more informed about this kind of thing. If more people were informed then I think the government would be more inclined to step in and help. Well the government is supposed to work that way. But someone in one of the later comments mentioned Kony 2012 in which many people did make a statement about and the government still didn't step up to the plate. Not only was the Clinton administration made to look bad, they also could have easily changed their image.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 03 Dec 12
       
      The US government's semi-imperialist use of its military in recent years is out of control, but what we SHOULD be using our military for, outside of protecting out homeland, is to eradicate genocides like this.. here's an idea, let's stop deposing foreign leaders just because they don't like us, and start worrying about mindless killing. gameplan -set.
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 11 Dec 12
       
      How is it possible that this was allowed to happen? thats more than half a million lives lost and yet it took years for someone to write about it. If this had happened in any developed country we would have known this was going to happen before it even happened. These are the issues that all goverment should be worried about fixing now, not other things such as oil.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 03 Dec 12
       
      I think that this is pretty horrible. For people to ruthlessly kill this many people is just unbelievable. Something should have been done to stop this. I think that the fact that Clinton knew about this and did nothing to stop him make him slightly guilty. Its like someone watching a murder and just walking away and not helping while its happening. And i think it made Clinton look bad as well as America.
  • Why did the United States not do more for the Rwandans at the time of the killings?
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 03 Dec 12
       
      What else could President Clinton have done? It's hard to get involved in something so far from us. Rwanda is on the other side of the world and it is hard to stay in contact. We only know what is going on from stories and pictures being shared with the U.S. I feel like if the United States got involved it possibly could have made it worse. Clinton was put in a tough place and all the pressure was put on him. I think there were things that maybe could have happened to help but it was a difficult place to be in. 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 04 Dec 12
       
      I think the U.S did do somethings as far as sending military aid to protect people. besides that i don't know how much more the United states could have done to help. We sent soldiers over who had much more pwerful weapons than the hutu extremists and so the hutu usually stayed away. The U.S could not do much more at the time of it happening
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 03 Dec 12
       
      In retrospect, we as Americans look at the Rwandan genocide and think about how we could have saved people. But would we really do anything different in a similar situation today? Look at Syria. There is violence there similar to the situation in Rwanda. But we are not getting involved. We are far to retrospective and not proactive. 
  • portrayed (and, they insist, perceived) the deaths not as atrocities or the components and symptoms of genocide but as wartime "casualties"—the deaths of combatants or those caught between them in a civil war.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 03 Dec 12
       
      this is so interesting, it kind of echoes what we've been learning about with the polis, that in it politicians can take Truth and kind of turn it in a way that helps them..
  • most efficient killing spree
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 07 Dec 12
       
      This phrasing here really bothers me. Saying that this event was "efficient" makes it sound as though it was a good thing. This genocide was horrific. That's a much better word to describe it, than efficient. 
  • gina Hogrefe on 29 Nov 12
     
    This article informed me about the genocide in Rwanda. I have done investigations of the genocide in Darfur and Sudan because George clooney and his father were jailed for protesting and I wanted to know why the media brought more attention to an actor and not a country that is killing itself. Genocide is mass murder and it is unfortunate that if there are no incentives for America or other countries to help then they turn a cheek. Notice how USA invades countries where oil is plentiful. This to me explains USA avoidance to act on humanitarian issues like this.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 29 Nov 12
     
    I feel that we should have done something to help what was hapening overseas, but at the same time where does our role as the "international police" end? It is sadly coming to the point where if there is an international issue and the US is not involved then it looks like we are not doing our job of protecting. Yes we should have helped the genecide, but the issue was not with our country so why are we being criticized? I am not saying that we should not of helped, only that is it not fair to question the character of the US
  • Emily Shandorf on 02 Dec 12
     
    The article describes the mass killing of approximately 800,000 people in Rwanda, East Africa, in 1994. Two ethnic groups were in competition with each other: the Hutu people and the Tutsi people. The Hutus massacred the Tutsi population brutally, trying to eliminate it completely. The rest of the world did nothing to help. We learn something very terrible: that the US was a bystander too genocide. It was sad to read how President Clinton did not even want to help out or respect the situation. Actually, it was ignored. He did not have any interest in stopping the genocide and he stood by as many deaths were occurring. Genocide is a serious crime-the worst possible. One population was trying to eliminate another by terribly violent means. People are asking themselves how it is possible for a country like the United States not to know about it. I, myself, wonder how the President of the United States cannot know the details. Why did he show no interest at all? I think the reason is that he and the United States simply did not want to get involved. That is why he issued the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgement" Another issue I found interesting was the fact that the policymakers declared the deaths as "casualties" and war deaths. Were they ashamed into admitting that it's partially the US fault that ignored this problem that affects everyone? Was this a way to create a kind of distance between the terrible violence and the typical political situation in another part of the world? At the end of the article the writers says that policymakers don't want to talk about suffering because it affects them and it shows one's "rational" arguments are weak. To me, this means that very often countries and political leaders do not want to risk anything by taking a stand or making a strong decision. It is easier not to do anything -- and apologize for it later! It makes me think that we need strong, intelligent
Amanda Garcia

Patashnik, E.M.: Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are Enacted. - 1 views

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search

shared by Amanda Garcia on 03 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Why do certain highly praised policy reforms endure while others are quietly reversed or eroded away?
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 03 Dec 12
       
      Some forms of policy reforms are seen as more critical and need sudden attention. The ones that pass are the most important ones and they need to be used immediately in the United States government. The reforms that are eroded away are probably ones that need less attention and require less government assistance. I think overall there is a tremendous effort invested in enacting policy reforms. 
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 05 Dec 12
       
      I think that the policy reforms that do not receive immediate attention could be less important or they could be of great importance but also great debate. The two parties may be in complete disagreement and give the opposing party a hard time when trying to propose or pass a policy. Often, when a party opposes an issue, they will make it extremely difficult for the policy to pass and it may erode away. 
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 05 Dec 12
       
      The policies with high praise are the important ones. Those are the ones that the two parties were able to compromise on and put into action. They are also the ones that are important to help keep the nation running smoothly. The ones that are reversed are more likely than not counterproductive for the country. Those eroded away are unimportant and probably bad policies. They won't solve any problems that are at the top of the list right now.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 07 Dec 12
       
      Important policies are the ones that should receive the most attention. Policies that both parties agree on are the ones that should be implemented right away. When looking at national policy vs. state policy, the national policy will most likely get more attention. For policies that erode over time, I think it's because people start caring less about those policies, especially if there's other policies that interest them more.
    • haakonasker
      haakonasker on 07 Dec 12
       
      I agree with all of the above. I think that the policies with high praise are the important ones. They should be dealt with at first, hand get handled. After these are handled, it is important to take care of the less urgent ones. Even though the ones that pass are the most important ones, it is important not to forget any of the other ones. All policies affect some people, so it is important to take care of each one.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 07 Dec 12
       
      Obviously the policies with high praise mean that it was the kind of policy people were looking for and wanted/needed at the time. Just because a policy does not get a huge amount of praise it does not mean it is not good policy or needed it just is not something people are worried about at the time or feel is irrelevant to them when maybe it is not.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 07 Dec 12
       
      Highly praised policy reforms endure because they seem to be more important over the others. Like what Marichal showed us in class, there are so many reforms listed online. He read a random one and no one knew or really cared what the policy bill was about. It's all about narrowing down the priorities. The extras aren't necessary.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 07 Dec 12
       
      Although it may seem highly cynical, the policy reforms recieve publicity based on who is backing them, why they are backing them and how much money the people backing the issue has. The only exception may be controversial issues but at the same time those controversies many times are shaped by the media how the policy is portrayed. One example that is coming to my mind is the issue of natural gas and hydraulic fracking.
  • tells us how policy designs help shape the long-term sustainability of general-interest reforms
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 05 Dec 12
       
      This is an idea that is not perpetuated in policy, which has been a reason that supports the idea of history repeats itself. It repeats itself because constituents of the policy makers are short term minded and want policies that will positively effect them in their lifetime, here, and now. People are not willing to sacrifice some of their habits for the benefit and success of a future policy. People are typically not in favor of huge change, fearing that uprooting things that they know will effect their lives more negatively than positively. It sounds like this book is a wonderful read to get people more on board with understanding and supporting policy that helps "shape long-term sustainability of general-interest reforms". 
  • He argues that the reforms that stick destroy an existing policy subsystem and reconfigure the political dynamic.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 06 Dec 12
       
      Is he arguing that all reforms destroy policies? That seems to be an overstatement. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 07 Dec 12
       
      I believe that this is very much an overstatement and a loud-mouth opinion. Yes reforms that stick could destroy all policy but the opposite side of that is that they could totally change the aspects of the policy in a positive manner. If this is the case, then this statement would need a lot more evidence to back up how these reforms could be so destructive. 
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 07 Dec 12
       
      I don't think that the statement being made here is entirely true. Not all reforms are going to ruin and destroy an existing policy subsystem. Some reforms may actually strengthen the existing policy and make it more productive and functional. 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 07 Dec 12
       
      I disagree with this statement as well. I think reforms can be good for a country. I do not see how they can destroy our policy subsystem. We should be making changes as our system changes. 
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 07 Dec 12
       
      As what everyone else is saying, this statement seems a bit ridiculous in terms of how real policy in enacted. Yes, there is the term "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But really, should policy makers never really institute reforms that remain prominent in terms of influencing the policy subsystem? As with many aspects of policy, it depends on the situation. There are certain reforms that do, in fact, leave a lasting positive impact. It is rash to think that all reforms are destructive in this sense.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 07 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Brandon, reform should come when our current system is no longer working as efficiently as we would like it to, it shouldn't be something viewed as negative. Times change, people change, policy should be changing too.
    • Devin Haerle
      Devin Haerle on 11 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Brandon and Brandon. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it;" but that is assuming current pollicy is not broken. The purpose of reform is to mend policy that is obsolete, nonfunctional, or immoral. Ideally, all reform has a positive impact.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Most books focus on the politics of reform adoption, yet as Eric Patashnik shows here, the political struggle does not end when major reforms become enacted.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 06 Dec 12
       
      I think that this is very good as I believe that a lot of the politics or issues we hear about come when it is being debated on whether to pass certain reforms or not. They show how and why each reform should come into place or adopted,but I think that this is very interesting to show what happens after a reform has actually been adopted. To show how effective it is based off a certain decision and arguments that led to the approval of the certain reform. I think that this book would be very itneresting to see how each reform actually helps reshape policy or how they might just fade out and why certain ones do as said in the next sentence.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 06 Dec 12
       
      I agree. Just because the reforms are passed, not many really go in depth to see how the reform is adopted into everyday life.  We perform and settle a lot of debates over these reforms, but when they actually pass, no one is for sure about what happens after. This book would be interesting to do a quick-read over to see what happens after a reform is passed; will it do what people voted for it to do, or will it disappoint people and just crash out.
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 06 Dec 12
       
      I agree with both the statements above, as I am curious to see what happens to the reforms after they are implemented, how society takes the, if they really are all that they are said to be when trying to pass them. I don't think we see enough of that, and it would better our knowledge of if they live up to what they are said to be. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 07 Dec 12
       
      This statement is true in which when reforms are passed they do not become enacted. This brings up the question: are the reforms that our government puts into place really effect our everyday lives or shape our policy? Most reforms I feel get pushed aside after the hype is over with and no one hears about them afterwards and how they are implemented. If we knew about each reform place in policy we would be more knowledgeable as citizens in this country about how our government works/ operates. 
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 10 Dec 12
       
      I think it is funny how it talks about Ronald Reagen and how he created a revolutionary tax policy, yet in an indirect way, we are having issues with the middle east because of Reagen. He was the one to supply them with high tech weapons. I do think that what Reagen stands for is important, but he is kind of the root of our issues with the middle east.
  • Reforms at Risk debunks the argument that reforms inevitably fail because Congress is prey to special interests, and the book provides a more realistic portrait of the possibilities and limits of positive change in American government.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 07 Dec 12
       
      It is often easy to blame Congress for giving in to special interests, mostly due to our great tendency to hold others accountable when something does not work. However, Congress is really like a group of book writers, constantly being pressured of what to put into their works, disagreeing among each other about how to write a better metaphor, and having to deal with the ridiculous publishing process all while trying to please a large audience of subscribers.  
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 07 Dec 12
       
      That's an interesting view, that first comment there. I wonder if there is a way that would help decrease the power of special interests over congress; why is it that congress is so beholden to these lobbyists? Is it simply because they help them get re-elected? If only the lovely electorate of America didn't vote for candidates based on the flashiness of their advertisements, just think what a great country we could be..
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 10 Dec 12
       
      With a position in politics there can only be expected such high scrutiny, with so many different opinions they can't expect everyone to be pleased by the decisions they make. 
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 12 Dec 12
       
      I like this. Instead of simply and continuously throwing the blame about, it provides realistic and progressive solutions to our political dynamic problems. That's forward thinking for a change. 
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 07 Dec 12
       
      This is difficult to ensure because one never knows for certain if a policy reform is the right thing to do for the public before it is enacted.  It may seem like the right reform but who knows until it is proven and actually in use with the public?
Amanda Garcia

Timeline: 1910s - YES! Magazine - 1 views

www.yesmagazine.org/...1711

shared by Amanda Garcia on 03 Dec 12 - Cached
  • In 1913, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns work toward the passage of a constitutional amendment to give women the vote. The group is later renamed the National Women's Party.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 03 Dec 12
       
      Loving this website, alice paul was amazing, and did so much more than people know for women's rights
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      I remember talking about Alice Paul and the NWA for weeks in my US History class, she was a true pioneer for women's rights, and set the path for equality.
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 03 Dec 12
       
      I have to say, I love this picture. It's so accurate and it's a shame more educated women like Paul and Burns didn't realize it before. It's a shame this picture had to be drawn to prove a point at all. 
  • Tyler Schnorf on 05 Dec 12
     
    It is crazy to think that women have only been able to vote for about a hundred years now. America has come along way in one century. I only hope that with such rapid progress we can continue in the right direction.
Kayla Sawoski

Are political parties growing more unified? - 4 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...l-parties-growing-more-unified

shared by Kayla Sawoski on 30 Oct 12 - No Cached
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 30 Oct 12
       
      Yes the parties are more unified, but with their own group. Government cannot be successful like this. Yes each party must look over its own interest, but at the same time they must also look over the good of everyone as a whole, even if it means comprimising.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 02 Nov 12
       
      i agree I would not consider it to be completely a good thing that parties become more unified within themselves. I think both parties should start to become more alike in issues within the country. They have to come together if we want anything to get done in our country.
  • The parties, in short, are extremely unified, to an unprecedented degree.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 01 Nov 12
       
      So this article is trying to say that the parties within themselves for more unified now? like they are agreeing within themselves more? I guess that is beneficail- better than fighting within your own party- but I think the really issue is that both parties need to get better at working together and that will be truly significant.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 02 Nov 12
       
      I think that it also needs to be less about political party affiliation and more about the issues.  What are these issues that they are voting on? what kinds of policies are each of these proponents trying to put in place? They may just be horribly written laws that will be of no use to the people or give way to much control to different people.  The issues are much more important that the party system and people have forgotten this.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 02 Nov 12
       
      I agree, the issues should be considered over what the party's stances are. It's important to pay attention and fix the issues posing America today. If there is disagreement, there will never be a solution.
  • they have more sharply defined, and sharply distinct, viewpoints than they once did. Democrats and Republicans are now, he writes, “ideologically coherent to the point where they make even Europe’s parliamentary parties look muddled by comparison.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 01 Nov 12
       
      They are becoming so polarized that nothing will be able to be accomplished when things do come up.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 02 Nov 12
       
      I think that because they are becoming so polarized that they should think logically and make decisions based on what is best for the country.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 02 Nov 12
       
      they are polarized they have become so polarized that no decesions will be made logically when issues do come up.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 02 Nov 12
       
      I think it is dangerous when any person or group of people, especially political parties, become so engrossed in their beliefs and so hard-set against anyone who opposes them that they cease to consider balance, moderation, and complexity of issues. No one political ideology is completely correct, and, as in everything in life, it is important for us to have some balance, cooperation, and collaboration. Political parties need to stop just trying to get votes and start focussing again on what is best for the people, and what is best for us is not a Senate than is so divided it can't get anything done.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 02 Nov 12
       
      This polarization may cause some serious issues down the road. Since both parties have a good amount of differences on certain issues it is very possible that no legislation will be passed because it was proposed by the other party. Even is the legislation is whats best for our country I doubt that both parties will come to an agreement on anything.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 02 Nov 12
       
      Agreeing with Kevin I also think that polarization will cause major problems in our country. If both sides can't come together to make decisions and pass legislation to better our country than that will in the end hurt the people of our country. Being compared to Europe's parliamentary parties really does say a lot about how much our two parties don't care for each other and would rather not work together for the better of the people and the country.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 02 Nov 12
       
      Well, of course polarization is a terrible thing! Nothing is able to get done! The gridlocks in congress with all of the filibusters won't allow for any change or progress. We are simply stuck. But why is it? I believe it is completely, well mainly, the people's fault, our fault. The first problem is that not enough people go out o vote. Only half the country votes in the presidential election, significantly less in congressional and local elections. So who votes? Only the extremely polarized PEOPLE vote. Only they care about politics so passionately that they are willing to put away time for voting. Politicians, either challengers or incumbents need to be in the job in the first place in order to make any changes. In order to get the job, the candidates appeal to their extremely polarized voters. So congressional action is directly affected by the people they represent, the people that voted for them. So I believe the only way to fix this problem is for more people that are not polarized vote, so they bring the radical outliers inward so the candidates have an incentive to compromise.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Poole and Rosenthal also put out “party unity” scores which measure how frequently members vote with their parties on key issues.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 02 Nov 12
       
      The parties seem to be sticking together more so than they ever have before. Instead of having a few Democrats vote Republican, or vice versa, what is happening now is that they vote within the party, making the two different parties even more polarized. This can cause a multitude of problems, and has, seeing as little can be done when parties are unwilling to budge on an initiative that may be proposed by their counter part.
    • Benjamin Chavez II
      Benjamin Chavez II on 02 Nov 12
       
      Because of these stats on parties "sticking together" and becoming less willing to budge, is it necessarily fair to blame Obama or even just presidents in general for not getting things done when there is a divided government in office?  Then I guess the question becomes what are voting for?  Someone who can compromise with the other party best to get things done?
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 02 Nov 12
       
      Alright, so I get that this article is pointing out that within their own parties, people are starting to get along more. But I can't help but think that maybe this has to do with how polarized the two main parties are right now. It's like they're both so set in their ideologies that the thought of compromise is way out there.
  • in recent years they’re grown more ideologically coherent than the Republicans.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 02 Nov 12
       
      I find this counter-intuitive to what we see in the current congress on the federal level. Right know we think of the Republicans as all united under social and fiscal conservationism (ie. The Reagan Ideal). Democrats are seemed to be more varied, with blue dog democrats, progressives, moderate liberals, and the like all mixed in. However, on further analysis, this party unification makes sense. The Iraq war and the rise of President Obama seems to have had a unification effect among Democrats as a whole. Democrats feel united under the "hope and change" ideal that Obama gives. Meanwhile the Republicans seem to have split between middle-right and far right, with little in-between. This change will no be permanent though. As long as our democracy is how it is, there will be different waves of unification. 
  • ideologically coherent
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 02 Nov 12
       
      We have talk about this is class a little bit. The message that each party is throwing out there is so distinct that now when you look at any problem you know what each side would feel about it. Discussions seem to be short with regards to making changes because no one wants to budge or sacrifice a little bit. The other interesting thing is how few undecided people there are in the country during this election. People are hardwired to vote for their party they will not even look at the alternative. Hopefully things change and we either are able to work together or maybe a third party emerges with fresh ideas and gets everyone involved again.
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 02 Nov 12
       
      I do not necessarily think that the parties are getting that much alike.  I think that they are making more and more compromises to get what they want.  
  • If the standard deviation is bigger, the party is less unified. If it’s smaller, the party is more unified.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 02 Nov 12
       
      The larger the group and the more opinionated they are, it is harder to keep more unified with the same opinion. If the issue is smaller, the party is more unified and set on what they believe. They are more likely to get there interests displayed because they have come together as a group to influence policy. 
  • Finn Sukkestad on 02 Nov 12
     
    I feel like the parties have become very unified because of the southern democrats being replaced now since Clinton. I think that it will become a problem because each side is very stubborn about policy making and therefore remain pretty stagnant most of the time and I think that this will stay until as a party they are recognized as one that is willing to compromise.
1 - 20 of 85 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page