Skip to main content

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

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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
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.
Sean McCarthy

Uzodinma Iweala - Stop Trying To 'Save' Africa - 3 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2007071301714.html

shared by Sean McCarthy on 04 Oct 11 - Cached
  • Why do the media frequently refer to African countries as having been "granted independence from their colonial masters," as opposed to having fought and shed blood for their freedom? Why do Angelina Jolie and Bono receive overwhelming attention for their work in Africa while Nwankwo Kanu or Dikembe Mutombo, Africans both, are hardly ever mentioned?
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 04 Oct 11
       
      Now this is the question. It is not about why Americans are helping Africa, but it is about who are being highlighted as the faces of saving Africa. This is partly the media's fault, but it is also a guilt trip of Americans becasue of previous slavery and racism towards African Americans. Highlighting these people is a way to show reparations and the new and improve America. To show how white people are helping the poor Africans. However, this is unfortunate because some of these people do these things out of the kindness of their heart and not for the public hype. There is nothing wrong with helping those in a less fortunate space. Personally, I LOVE brangelina :)..Nevertheless, they are not the only ones helping those in Africa and Africans are not the only people who need help.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 04 Oct 11
       
      In today's society everything is about celebrities and what they do for the world. Bono and Angelina Jolie are an example of white people helping the poor Africans. I completely agree with Felicia on this one, people don't want to see someone of the same race who is just as poor trying to help someone, people want to see rich celebrities giving a helping hand because it motivates the people of the United States and around the world to try and help anyway they can. The celebrities are symbols of peace and bring the people together.
    • Kaitlyn Guilbeaux
      Kaitlyn Guilbeaux on 04 Oct 11
       
      I agree with Felecia that subconsciously, perhaps the media is placing the spotlight, and the 'halo', upon Bono and Angelina as a way to make up for the way that white people in the past have treated African Americans.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 05 Oct 11
       
      I agree with Felecia's statement. Celebrities are highlighted as the ones trying to "save" Africa as a way of generating hype for the issue, whether they are helping out of kindness or the desire for more fame. In addition to using this as a way for people to get rid of their feelings of guilt, people are motivated to give because they have placed celebrities on a pedestal. Many people give to a specific cause because they want to be like the celebrities they idolize and follow a trend rather than showing feelings of true kindness.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 05 Oct 11
       
      I agree with Felecia too!
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 05 Oct 11
       
      I agree with you Felicia. I feel that the focus is on people who are not African helping out, for the reasons you and others have pointed out. These famous celebrities get all this media for doing something with a country in need. However, the people who pay out of their own salaries to help everyone else around them, gets nothing, those people I feel are the ones really doing this for personal gain
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 05 Oct 11
       
      Felicia definitely hit the nail on the head here. I agree, and I find it a little bit unfortunate that Africa has gained the image of this disease ridden poverty stricken place due to the focus on celebrities and what they've done for this country. The media has a huge impact upon any movement or form of popular culture today, and I think the author makes a good point at the end when he states that Africa is framed as this place that needs "saving." Others feel sorry for Africa because of it, and a big deal is made of helping and being Africa's hero really, communication and maybe some alliances with other countries would be much more effective in helping Africa to come out of the vicious cycle of poverty it's been in since apartheid.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 05 Oct 11
       
      The framing heuristics of the hype of the celebrity influence of thinking celebrities are the vital sense of sincerity in actually trying to help where marketing typically is a guilt trip to advocate a cause for the sake of sales wether than the ideal is truly advocated. The severity of the heart of africa is drawn to be black and diseased where there are certain aspects of civility that africa actually has but is undermined to the sense of racial diversity.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 12 Oct 12
       
      Honestly its all part of politics.For decades the USA had gone back and forth on US policy and whether or not to intervene. Its unfortunate that Africans have this stigma attached to them as dying, and unable to help themselves at all. However stars and other white people have raised/donated mission to help them. I understand that white are portraying them a certain way but a lot of good have been done for those people.Media driven or not, I believe their is a true passion in most people to help people in Africa. Some intention may be dishonest but you can focus on the negative when trying to save lives.
  • It seems that these days, wracked by guilt at the humanitarian crisis it has created in the Middle East, the West has turned to Africa for redemption.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 04 Oct 11
       
      Oh, how much I love this statement! Truly selflessness is a flag we all fly, as we shout out about our altruism, in order to fulfill the selfish desire for recognition, and in this case, rectification.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 05 Oct 11
       
      This is truely a good statement, since I do believe that this is very true. Westernized countries just plain feel guilty about the situation in the Middle East, therefore they took to trying to "save" Africa to clear their guilt.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 05 Oct 11
       
      I do think a lot of people just do things like this to make themselves feel better but I think it's more related to them trying to justify the way they live. How much we have compared to others. I've never really thought of it in relation to the Middle East, I don't think I see the connection.
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 05 Oct 11
       
      I think that this could be attributed to a general trait that Western societies have in general... people need to help other people in order to, essentially, feel good about themselves. Yes, people may feel guilty about other situations, but I think that generally people need to do something to make themselves feel better, and that something, in this situation, tends to be "saving" Africa.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 05 Oct 11
       
      I have to comment, though it humors me you believe we are responsible for the middle east situation, I am not surprised. What is the "situation" in the middle east? How did we get there? What kind of beliefs do the radical Muslims have? And if we "messed" up the middle east and if it's our place to feel guilty, what was it like before?
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 05 Oct 11
       
      I have to agree with Sarah and Joette on this.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 05 Oct 11
       
      If we are reasonable for the situation in the middle east who says we are not responsible for the situation in africa. We have continued to pour more money to dictators to get resources like diamonds. Which they use to buy more weapons to repress the people. We then give money for aid to these communities but they have to either go through the dictator or the dictator himself just posts a heavy tax when the currency is converted to the local currency (which he has a law in place to require)
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 12 Oct 12
       
      This statement speaks so true to all Americans because even they can honestly say that we're all guilty of this. Whether it is the government or us as individuals, people do good things to feel good about themselves. 
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 12 Oct 12
       
      This is the epitome of what America had become. Actions to "help" others are taken out of personal guilt. The reasoning behind helping others, especially others, has lost meaning. It's as though people justify lending hand to others is because it's what they are supposed to do, rather than really wanting to.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 12 Oct 12
       
      I think this is also an example of the "white savior" mentality that a lot of people have, without even knowing.  Africa and its inhabitants are not seen as equals, but as things that could be saved with westernization. It's racism in a very subtle, but real, form. 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 12 Oct 12
       
      Everyone wants to help save africa, but there are so many other problems in other countries too. Like the drug war in mexico. Africa is not the only country in need. In fact there is still a lot to do in our own country to help others.
  • as emaciated as those they want to help.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 04 Oct 11
       
      Couldn't help but giggle at this.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 05 Oct 11
       
      haha me too, very interesting statement
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and "civilization."
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 04 Oct 11
       
      It is sad really. The West feels that it needs to industrialize, modernize, and stabilize developing nations - a goal which is objectively not plausible - and there is a definet focus on Africa. While many other developing nations receive aid, African countries are singled out and lumped into one group of "african", where s south east asian countries for example would be listed by their specific names. Africa is a large continent with a VAST array of cultures, languages, races, and governments. The nations of Africa differ greatly in their levels of modernity, and to assume that the governments of Africa are corrupt or unable to fix their domestic problems, is in a subtle way, racist and ethnocentric.
  • Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 05 Oct 11
       
      There is no doubt that Hollywood does tend to exploit people. But then again, what flashy business doesn't?
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 12 Oct 12
       
      I agree with this statement. The issues pressing onto Africa with starvation and warfare are used as simply entertainment background for cinema. Sure there is always a message with topics like this. Aid is important, but the pop culture attention drawing to Africa makes it seems like nothing is being solved at all.
  • There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans.
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 05 Oct 11
       
      Every time i see an ad or commercial about the white celebrities trying to "help Africa" a thought like this goes through my mind. I highly doubt that a celebrity with such high ratings in today's society truly wants to save Africa's poverty or starving people. I feel as if they do it more for the social attention and positive reputation rather than for their souls and well being.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 05 Oct 11
       
      I would not go so far as to say that all celebrities vie for attention by doing the "help Africa" stuff, but I would agree that a large majority do it. I don't really feel it is asserting cultural superiority or dominance as just being selfish in their own right.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 11 Oct 12
       
      I think it's really interesting how charity has become a social appeal. People don't donate because they want to help out, they donate because other people will think higher of them. A point this article is trying to make is that the publicity of "helping" is so overwhelming it almost takes away from the action itself. 
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 12 Oct 12
       
      I really agree with the above statement that people help now because they feel like everyone is and not because they are really into the cause and want to help. I think this is also why so many stars have their own foundation, they feel like more people have them then people who do not.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 12 Oct 12
       
      Does it really matter what inspires the help? As long as the people that need help get help that's what is most important. Help is help no matter how you look at it or the reasons behind it. 
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 12 Oct 12
       
      i think that it does matter. I don't think the people want others to pity them. Yes, they are receiving help but it is demeaning if people are going to help and have no passion for it. "here, take this because it will make me look good and i want to follow the trend." i don't think anyone would feel very good about getting that. 
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 12 Oct 12
       
      The basic premise that the author appears to be making is that of the egoism that we as "first-worlders" have in regards to Africa. The author feels that we do not help Africa typically out of genuine want to see good happen. but out of our own want to feel good about ourselves and have other perceive us as good people. Sometimes even when I do "good" things, I wonder if this is the case. Especially when I was applying for college. Did I do 200 hours of community service out of the goodness of my heart, or the want to get into a good college? The truth may lie somewhere in-between. 
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 12 Oct 12
       
      It is obviously a bit of both but I think how the media plays it, it leads us to lean towards the cultural superiority
    • Benjamin Chavez II
      Benjamin Chavez II on 12 Oct 12
       
      I understand how his "mood is dampened".  I can't stand when people feel they must talk about how amazing they are and what they have done. Whenever people do that it becomes evident that the reason they did whatever they did was to acquire more attention from others. "You have to speak to be heard, but sometimes you have to be silent to be appreciated".
  • True to form, the Western media reported on the violence but not on the humanitarian work the state and local governments -- without much international help -- did for the survivors. Social workers spent their time and in many cases their own salaries to care for their compatriots. These are the people saving Africa, and others like them across the continent get no credit for their work.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 05 Oct 11
       
      I think this is the main point of the article
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 05 Oct 11
       
      But isn't that the point, these people are helping just to help and the other people are often helping to gain media attention.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 11 Oct 12
       
      I would have to agree with this point of the article as the media will portray what they want the people to focus on. If the media does not believe that certain aspects of a situation will grab the people's attention then they will not show it, even though that point could be significant in pointing out the true heroes and their actions. I find this unfortunate as the article mentioned earlier that the media portrays celebrities that help, but why not the ordinary people, especially those of Africa. The media should really get to focus on the true aspects of a situation.
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 05 Oct 11
       
      I think it's important to note that all the media cares about is the bad things that happen. They only report how Africa needs to be saved but there is no information of all the good that is being done right now.
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 05 Oct 11
       
      i agree that the media only focuses on what they want us to see, not everything in africa is as terrible as the media may portray it to be. yes situations in other countries are extremely hostile but the media tends to focus and just the negative to gain sympathy and attention to that subject. the opinions are then skewed.
  • a sexy,
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 11 Oct 12
       
      Something about using this word doesn't seem appropriate in the context of people who are active. Whenever a writer uses this word, depending on its context, I usually think less of the author. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 12 Oct 12
       
      I dont understand why this word is used in this article, it doesn't seem to fit. I agree with the above person it makes me think less of the author. 
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 12 Oct 12
       
      I feel like this word was used in this article to represent the current generation. Our current generation is basically to the extent that sex sells. So the author was just probably trying to make it known. I think the word, 'sexy' also had to do with the fact that the author was talking about celebrities in relation to the main topic.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 12 Oct 12
       
      I also agree that this was a reasonable use of the word. The lovely irrational citizens of America are much more likely to get behind something that's trendy and "sexy". And that's exactly what the author is calling us out on. Many people arent (perhaps subconsciously) 'helping' out Africa out of humanitarian love, but because it has become trendy lately. you see "sexy" people helping out kids in Africa, and you want to be "sexy" like them.. I've done a terrible job explaining the use of this word, but hopefully y'all get what I'm trying to get at.
  • stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 11 Oct 12
       
      See, this is one of the problems with widepread media campaigns... they often give people the wrong idea about what is really happening and what is the real state of people. It won't be easy to integrate into campaigns, but people need to be aware of the big picture, not just segments of it. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 12 Oct 12
       
      I sometime catch myself falling into this trap as well, I get convinced by the media campaigns that africa is just filled with disease and starving people. 
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 12 Oct 12
       
      This is definitely a problem with media.  Obviously not all of Africa is as bad as we make it and it leads all of us to believe that everyone needs help.  It paints a different picture than what is actually going on.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 12 Oct 12
       
      Media blinds us from seeing the actual problem going on in Africa. I do find myself believing that these campaigns are true. The only focus on certain things that attract us to think the worst. This is a major problem in the social media campaigns
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 12 Oct 12
       
      I think that the major problem with these ad campaigns is that they only show poor run down villages. The towns that have actual success in their businesses are never shown. The play to society's emotions to raise revenues, which may or may not be helping. Although I'm sure there is corruption in Africa, the West may be trying a bit too hard to fix the problems. Social media leads society into believing they need to make a change radically, when a gradual change is probably going to help more. 
  • Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 11 Oct 12
       
      This statement could very well be true and if our country, along with others do not give them a chance how will we ever know if they can stand by themselves with good relations. I believe that it is just hard for us Americans to realize this point because we are a country that is used to helping when we believe someone needs it and it is hard to back off if you have seen they are in trouble.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 11 Oct 12
       
      I see where African is coming from, with all progress the western world sees as coming from powerful nations, when really there is quality work being done from the people of the nation themselves. If the western world keeps on crediting themselves for the progress made, it makes them feel like they have done all the work and makes them feel better about themselves for doing such quality humanitarian work. Though humanitarian work is absolutely helpful, more note should be taken to the work being done by the people themselves. 
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 12 Oct 12
       
      This is an interesting point. Maybe instead of trying to emulate the suffering of Africans, we can talk about the power they possess. By empowering the population, by providing life-sustaining support but not expecting glory in return, and by identifying African citizens as capable citizens of the world instead of a helpless population reliant on our generosity, the world will gain a bigger respect for Africa and its citizens will tap into this unprecedented growth.
  • pick out children to adopt in much the same way my friends and I in New York take the subway to the pound to adopt stray dogs.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 11 Oct 12
       
      This really illustrates the majority of the college liberals who say they want to save africa, I think that if we just gave the same sympathy that we give to africa to the destitute in our own country then more people would help because it would  bring that same fame and self fulfillment as someone who is making a difference for someone.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 12 Oct 12
       
      I don't think that this statement is really appropriate for the author to say. I also think that if they are trying to help those that need help then that should be respected.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 12 Oct 12
       
      We already have a picture in our mind that Africa is not the safest place to live but of course blood usually sells over the good things that happen over there. 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 12 Oct 12
       
      should it really matter what the motives are for people who are giving money and aid to Africa as long as it is helping and trying to make a difference?
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 12 Oct 12
       
      I don't think it should, but I think that what this author is trying to say is that people are trying to make a difference but it may not actually be helping the African cause.  However, this author is asking something of the media that they do not do in regards to other things besides Africa.  They don't ever report good things that people do, it's always about the bad, so the media isn't targeting Africa, they are targeting everything.
  • Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 12 Oct 12
       
      Just because parts of Africa are in poverty, doesn't mean that all areas are. Those people should still be acknowledged and recognized for the hard work they are doing. Some parts of Africa are actually capable of going far and are going to be very successful. People there still have the opportunity to make a change. 
  • News reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders, warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 12 Oct 12
       
      I never really understood why news does this. Why do you focus on the negative? I feel like society has become increasingly negative. But the negativity makes sense because when things become frustrating you get discouraged and give up. There needs to be a balance between negative and positive. When there is positive it is up lifting and gives people hope. The news shouldn't focus on just negative because that contributes to the discouraging factor.
  • ad campaign features portraits of primarily white, Western celebrities with painted "tribal markings" on their faces above "I AM AFRICAN" in bold letters.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 12 Oct 12
       
      A classic ad company ploy..
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 12 Oct 12
       
      I like the last line, "we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth." It's nice to think about ourselves in that light, and its an optimistic picture for the future, but what are we actually accomplishing and what are we falling short on?? Words can only go so far, sorry to be sort of hypocritical, but action must be taken if change is your goal.
  • magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back.
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 12 Oct 12
       
      In some cases celebrities are using the struggles of people in Africa and their help they are giving them as a publicity stunt. 
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 12 Oct 12
       
      Stuff like this bothers me. I am all for people wanting to help out in places that need it even if it is for self gratification and all of that. But the situations are much more complicated than the media leads people to believe. There are religious clashes in many of the central African countries and in the Northern African countries like Mali we are seeing Al-Qaeda and similar organizations set up Islamic radicalism. Feeding the poor and helping the people that are displaced by these things is not fixing the problem. And for the people who are saying the the US is just sending money to these countries and their 'corrupt dictators' is just wrong. We are trying to do much more than that. We have US Special Forces in many of these countries like Somalia, Mali, and many of the other central African countries. The US is putting some of our best soldiers in there to help the people. The media does not cover that part, they rather highlight the Pitt's and Clooney's. 
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 12 Oct 12
       
      I think part of the reason we only hear about what celebrities are doing is because we feel more connected to them than to people we have never heard of. Because we feel connected to them, publicists feel that we are more likely to respond to pleas for help from people we feel more connected to. 
  • Africa doesn't want to be saved
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 12 Oct 12
       
      African citizens just want to be seen as individuals that are equal to us, who have simply been born into more difficult circumstances, as opposed to some diseased animal that can only survive out of the goodness of some person's heart.. it's very similar to people who are crippled and are treated as less than human. this is kind of a reminder that we need to treat everyone as equally human, because we don't know what they're going through, we just know that they're people who deserve their same God-given rights.
  • shane paulson on 05 Oct 11
     
    I completely agree with Felicia. The media is the greatest influence on why these celebrity figures are the ones being spotlighted for the force behind helping out Africa. I think in many ways it is the media attempting to save these reputations of celebrities in order to keep the population of readers and listeners interested. People tend to be drawn to stories that they are familiar with or that they can relate to.
  • Edmund Garrett on 12 Oct 12
     
    Well, I do agree it is nice to give aid to Africa and the reason does matter. People that simply give money just to have his or her name announced that they did so is not the morally correct reason. You should just give cuz it's the right thing to do but nevertheless I would not stop sending money because of ill reasons. The reasons don't matter that much. We are saving people and if the ends outweigh the means then who cares.
Jason van Rijn

Dr. Marichal's Course Portals (2170) - 32 views

www.netvibes.com/pols208

shared by Jason van Rijn on 01 Sep 11 - No Cached
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 01 Sep 11
       
      I agree with this statement. Because this generation is exposed to the internet they have more conversations with each other, which complements the simply writing as well as writing being easier. With internet conversations being without emotions and physical connection, words can easily be interpreted in a wrong way. Which is why this generation writing may be simplier than previous generations. However, because of the informality of the internet they adapt to the misuse of words, which adds to the lack of proper grammer.
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 02 Sep 11
       
      With all due respect to Felecia, grammar is spelled incorrectly above. Nothing personal, just thought it was a pun and went along with the point you were making. I do agree, though, in a sense that it can force students to adapt to the misuse, but it also depends on the students themselves.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 19 Sep 11
       
      taking informalities one step further I feel the generation now and those younger turning in those that when it comes to social interactions, many are inept in something as simple as a personal conversation initiative. The times being crippling in the personal stake of matters in having face on conversations. rather than talk it out; its turned to text it out. speaking in generalities of course. not saying they aren't exceptions, but its an increasing trend of shutting out and believing what one reads rather than thinking it out with someone there of what they genuinely think.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 20 Sep 11
       
      I agree with Steve, I feel the younger generation has a harder time interacting with people and making conversation because everything is done electronically. You see more young people in society being shy or awkward around big crowds it is because of technology, nothing is personal anymore and I feel more people need to be willing to have a conversation and open up to people and engage in something they might not have much knowledge about because in the long run it will be better for your future and give you more opportunities to meet new people.
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 19 Sep 12
       
      I don't agree with any of you ---- JK
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 08 Sep 11
       
      It amazes me that 21st century medicine has yet to reach places such as Niger. In American and other 1st world countries death during childbirth is unheard of. I would think that with all of the volunteers and global programs these hospitals would at least have basic medicine. I am disgusted that this is still going on in such a developed world. These kinds of problems are being overlooked. Instead, the world is fighting over petty issues. I plan to have a career in healthcare and this article really has me thinking.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 10 Sep 11
       
      This is obviously true for mothers around the world. Not every woman that goes into birth have proper care, some women are faced with dire consequences and results. A pregnant woman walking an hour to deliver a baby seems crucial in today's society. However, it is not hard for me to believe or envision this because this is the way of the world. The poor are really poor and the rich are extremely rich. Where is the middle ground?
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 16 Sep 11
       
      it is racking for how a person feels about these circumstances especially thinking about it in the sense of how people feel about karma and would want themselves treated if in difficult circumstances themselves. gilt of western civilization and privilege. that middle ground is especially hard to break into with the polis, market relationship being differing in changes in one will often go into an effect with the other that will become a problematic notion itself later to others who question the notion of THAT particular policy.
  • ...59 more annotations...
    • Sabryna Aylard
      Sabryna Aylard on 12 Sep 11
       
      When reading this article, it was really unbelieveable about the conditions of the hospitals and how horrible healthcare is in third world countries. It showed how large a spectrum is from a thriving economic society to a undeveloped country.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 13 Sep 11
       
      Reading this article about the conditions in Niger makes me realize how blessed and fortunate we are here in the U.S. to have so many medical facilities and assistants to help and take of us in times of need. Just like it was mentioned in the article it seems like Niger was back in the middle ages where none of the resources we have today were available.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 15 Sep 11
       
      John Smith's books were all written around free market ideals. His book the wealth of nations describes that if people pursue their own interests, society will also benefit. I can agree with this statement in several ways. As seen in some fallen communist countries, if people do not have a private, personal good to work for, people are not generally willing to work as hard. Whereas if someone will receive self benefits/advancement they will be wiling to work harder to benefit society because of it. Once could also look at this from the standpoint that although the richest of people make more money than most could ever imagine, they are pumping millions of those dollars into the economy through job and good creation. So here, people are receiving self-benefits, but their companies are also benefiting the US economy. 
    • Sabryna Aylard
      Sabryna Aylard on 16 Sep 11
       
      I remember the day care experiment from another class. I always found it interesting that when you are given a fee of something, your morality goes unharmed since your paying it off.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 20 Sep 11
       
      I found this article to be very interesting. In my global issues class we had discussed specialization, and how specialization is more "efficient" (we also discussed efficiency). In this article they talked about how people are breaking down things like health into small,specialized aspects instead of looking at health as a whole- with many different contributing components. Was this done because it was more "efficient" in the world of study and research? It seems like there could be some sort of a connection, maybe the connection lies within the researchers themselves who are "specialists" in a particular study, so when doing research they do not take into account the later picture....
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 20 Sep 11
       
      Larger*
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 26 Sep 11
       
      In this article it says "...that if individual liberty is an ultimate end for human beings..." I found this to be very interesting because freedom is often looked so highly upon that it seems to be the very thing everyone strives for. It is true, freedom is a great thing, but can individual freedom be an ultimate end? We can't let people going around doing whatever they want. That is why we have laws- to create and maintain order within the polis. It is interesting to think though just how much individual freedom we can allow without ending overall peace and well-being within a society.
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 26 Sep 11
       
      For myself at least, I found that freedom was a means to an end and my personal favorite. I think people use freedom as a tool to find happiness and meaning within their own life. I agree that we have laws to attempt to solve the issues that arise between the differences and disagreements that we have within our society.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 26 Sep 11
       
      Freedom is every man's dream..For the longest freedom has praised by everyone who became a heroic figure . But the definition of freedom changes from person to person. Freedom can be happiness to one and it can mean to have the freedom of expression to another . Freedom is a word that portrays to a broad topic. In the article Isaiah Berlin says that…" it is a term whose meaning is so porous that there is little interpretation that it seems able to resist."
    • shane paulson
      shane paulson on 26 Sep 11
       
      I agree in a way that there is no clear definition of freedom.  It is not something that is universal to everyone, but it is based off the individual's standards.  For example, some who may have just moved to the United states from a foreign country may consider freedom as being able to speak their opinion, while a U.S. born citizen may consider freedom as something along the lines of choosing whether or not to wear their seatbelt.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 26 Sep 11
       
      This is the problem in washington: people can't find the "middle ground" or much less compromise.  The constant push and pull between positive and negative liberties will have scary consequences for the future of our nation.
    • shane paulson
      shane paulson on 10 Oct 11
       
      I agree and feel that the reason for this is because everybody naturally has different views and perspectives.  The right way to categorize in one's mind may vary to another individual.  This is why when we vote it is not unanimous but it is of the majority vote.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 19 Sep 12
       
      There is never going to be a "middle ground" anywhere, considering that every individual grows up with a different background, views, economic stance, etc.  
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 30 Sep 11
       
      I thought it was interesting that Simon Lovell studied so deeply into what makes a con man so successful. He explains that a con man is a good salesman, which seems pretty logical. I never thought deep into it though. He says that being a con man requires study of psychology and body language. I could see this helping, but does anyone really think con men go to such great lengths?? I feel like they just make good conversations and play into the wants of society
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 03 Oct 11
       
      This article is very bias. It talks about how republicans exploit information and use freaking techniques to trick americans. Don't ALL politicians do this? I just found it to be very interesting how the article began by putting blame on one side to make its ideas appear unreasonable. We discussed last week how "framing" is used across the board.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 05 Oct 11
       
      I kind of agree with this article. It is ridiculous that we have to use celebrities and crazy adds to grab people's attention and make them want to help. It's a "trend". If it's made cool and popular by celebrities and famous politicians people will jump on board. I guess though, these things are raising awareness. Before the ICU club appeared, most college and high school kids had no idea about what was going on in Darfur and other African countries. I feel like people should hold some kind of social responsibility to know major things that are happening in the world. But like we said in class the other day, people don't take this responsibility as a citizen of the world seriously, so I guess crazy adds and celebs have to be used to spread awarness.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 21 Oct 11
       
      Taking caution with "the rustle in the grass" is important because all to often we accept stories and patterns as true because of the titles associated with them and those who are giving us the information. 
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 24 Oct 11
       
      Personally, I agree with the whole "slidware" stunt. I think that by using Microsoft Powerpoint, Keynote, etc. people can hide the fact that their discussion lacks content. Sometimes pictures and phrases can be useful in guiding the discussion or providing examples. This is not always the case though. In high school one of my teachers pointed out in another student's powerpoint that he/she had no true analysis about the topic, but was attempting to cover that up with fancy fonts, catchy slogans, and lots of pictures. When I listen to a speaker I want to be sure that I am being given as much DATA as possible, and even more important RELEVANT DATA! I've even caught teachers using their power points to cover the truth that they were not prepared to present the lecture. 
    • shane paulson
      shane paulson on 24 Oct 11
       
      The author makes a good point in the fact that visual reasoning usually works more effectively when relevant information is shown side by side.  It is easier for a reader to understand the significance of something if they have something else to compare it to.  I think that is how policy is either passed or not passed, based on whether that significance is strong enough.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 28 Oct 11
       
      I thought the whole idea of the command and control functions was very interesting. I think, especially in public policy, they're both used together. When a piece of legislation is passed we don't really have much control over it (granted, we could protest, sign petitions, etc.), so we have to do as "they" say. That's the command function. The control function is also in use though. I think that in order to make something seem more appealing and in order to gain support politicians definitely re order the environment to fit their argument. We're kind of tricked by this....
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 30 Oct 11
       
      I thought that the dangerous memes talk was a interesting talk that gave a unique look into humanity and our ideas or memes. It seemed to me that a major point in his talk was to attempt in certain cases to approach ideas in a morally objective manner to determine if such an ideea is a good or bad thing for humanity. Overall I believe that he did a very fine job giving his talk while staying as objective as possible.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 03 Nov 11
       
      I think that political scientists are beginning to realize more and more than almost everything is significant when it comes to "social construction". We are all, to some extent, influenced by both internal and external factors. I find the idea behind specific groups to be very interesting. I have always noticed that there are many politically-based groups that strictly abide by one set of ideals. I always wonder why they refuse to wander outside of their established "zone" and who are what factors led them to believe those were the best ideals. Gender is especially interesting. I guess women tend to be more soft/gentle/emotional characters, so this is why their ideals lean a certain way. However, I wonder if things may be changing. It seems as though a long time ago women had an established place and role in society, so this could have influenced their thinking. Now though, women can and do do all of the same things that men partake in. I wonder if this influences them politically at all. I, for one, am not soft and probably not as emotional or sympathetic as some people think I should be. 
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 07 Nov 11
       
      This article is very interesting. I think it's weird how they were actually able to transform an educational institution by first changing the name. I think that people embrace names and that they can be somewhat empowering. If the name of something is relatable or refers to something grand then people tend to be more responsive. I think this is a kind of framing in which a name can shape an institution, how it works, and how it's members participate. 
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 11 Nov 11
       
      this line about power growing as well as the enemies list got me to thinking, when your power and influence get stronger and expand does that automatically cause you to gain a longer list of enemies and "haters" and do the enemies have reason other than jealousy for this animosity. is it really Jay-Z's fault that he is a powerful respected man?
    • shane paulson
      shane paulson on 18 Nov 11
       
      I agree in a way that power influences the audience and how well known you are.  It is only natural that amongst a large group there are going to be haters.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 18 Nov 11
       
      I can see both the pros and cons of this situation and always apply it to the legalization of marijuana in California. While I worry that legalization makes illicit drug use acceptable, we do see cases where drug use actually declines in the period after legalization. I don't really understand why this is, though, ...if something is legal it's not fun anymore?? I just think that, although it would be a good source of tax money, If marijuana is legalized people will still use it but I also think they will turn to other kinds of drug use which are much more serious. Whether we like it or not we know that a great amount of illicit drug use comes from marijuana use.  Tax Revenue or Possibility of more illicit drug use? I'm not sure which is better, or what would happen if drugs were legalized in America. In a variety of things, laws and regulations do not work in America as they do in foreign countries because we are so different, diverse, and seem to have overall different views on morals. 
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 05 Dec 11
       
      I think that, while it would be RIDICULOUS, if the administration had no idea what was going on in Rwanda, the third point is correct in some sense. It said "regardless of what it knew, there was nothing useful to be done. We see in a lot of unfortunate situations like this the only thing that is moderately useful that outsiders can do is to capture the leader- it times of chaos, it's not easy. This reminds me very much of the deal with Joseph Kony. Even though many countries have made a commitment to catch him if possible, it still hasn't happened and people are still being murdered.  I guess it comes with the power, but it still always surprises me that other countries judge us if we don't jump in to help EVERY situation in EVERY country at that VERY second....not to say that we shouldn't help people, but I think that too much is expected of the United States. We can't solve everyone's problems-- we can't even solve our own........
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 08 Sep 12
       
      Very interesting study. Evolution in the making causes us to have more mental battles within us when faced with difficult decisions, especially when associated with life, death, and murder. I would be like most in the trolley situation and pull the lever but not push the large man. However, in the second situation I would say that I would smother the baby to save the village. Now what I might do in reality could be the exact opposite, but as for hypothetical thought, those would be my conclusions. 
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 09 Sep 12
       
      Exactly! How would people simply know if something is wrong and fail to give a valid reason. If you know something is wrong or right, there should be a reason to support it.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 09 Sep 12
       
      "Moral dumbfounding" is a really interesting point in this article to me as it is true how people react to certain issues based on instincts. They react based on how they grew up with society, their background, and their upbringing. I think people should be discussing why they really think certain "social issues" are wrong, even if they do not hurt other people.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree completely, there are so many critical factors brought in that make bias towards one side.  There needs to be much more support and concrete evidence as to why a certain issue is morally wrong, not just a gut feeling.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 09 Sep 12
       
      After listening to this podcast, I would probably agree with most people about pulling the lever and not pushing the man, as it is more personal in some way. Then as for the baby, I do not think I could do that even if it did save more people. As for deriving from apes in that morality form, I am just not sure about that yet, as I believe the world around your upbringing plays a big role.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 10 Sep 12
       
      Taking snapshots of a brain would really help scientists better understand the way a brain works which can eventually lead to advances in society.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 10 Sep 12
       
      When reading what could be known as a controversial issue, we constantly ask ourselves "do we agree with that?". The scenarios explained in paragraph three of Hot Morality are the same. Yes, while the man purchasing a chicken and performing activities is odd, it isn't wrong and it is harmless. Topics like these are what causes discussions and also tests the morality of an issue. 
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 10 Sep 12
       
      Moal dumbfounding.   I think it's interesting that people that live today think that so many things are bad but do not know why.  When asked the question "why is it wrong?" many, after a deep thought, will say I don't know...  It just is.  We live in a society that knows that things are wrong but not why
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 14 Sep 12
       
      After reading this, you see how different countries around the world are and how difficult life is for people. It is extremely sad that the women have to go through so much when they have a baby. It isnt fair to them. They have a million more things that they have to be worried about and have to take care of themselves, unlike the women in Sweden. Hopefully one day, the way of living and surviving will be more equal all around the world.
    • laurenneiger
      laurenneiger on 19 Sep 12
       
      I believe that it is very true that even if humans give the same amount it feels more rewarding to give out of the goodness of our hearts than to be forced to.  People feel better about themselves if they are not forced, they make a compromise in their heads where if they give it will suddenly absolve them from all the other times they chose not to give. 
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think that it's ignorant of the way that modern day Americans think about how people give birth all around  the world.  It's crazy how different the medical care is in a country such as Niger as compared to America let alone Sweden.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 14 Sep 12
       
      It is crazy to see how simple medical and comfort needs cannot be met for the women in Niger. These women have to go through this painful childbirth and on top of it there babies have such a slim rate of survival. We take so much for granted.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 19 Sep 12
       
      Paying taxes is essential to the survival of our economy and the well-being of our society. When it comes to paying taxes, most people aren't happy about having to do so. However, people don't always realize that by paying taxes now, they are helping the country be better off later. The amount of taxes that have to be paid can be painful, but it is rewarding for the whole country.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 21 Sep 12
       
      I do not think that letting Clint Eastwood speak on Mitt Romney's behalf was such a bad idea. Maybe if Clint Eastwood were to support Romney maybe Romney can get the support of Clint Eastwood's fan base. However attacking another candidate's supporters is not the smartest idea. No matter who you support we are all Americans and should not be attacked in a presidential fundraiser. Furthermore I have heard of plenty of rich people avoiding taxes who are not Obama supporters. You can look at the election polls all you want all that really matters is the end result.  
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 24 Sep 12
       
      This is interesting for this experiment not only uses one's personal background and experiences but also their biological background.  A lot of diseases such as depression and whatnot can be passed down through the generations of family and I feel like a lot of people forget to that into consideration. 
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 24 Sep 12
       
      Being rich and successful throughout your life will, in the end, make you happy, but it does take some work to get there and you will have to experience hard times. It takes some "pain" to get to what makes us happy. You may be happy with the way things turned out and glad that you experienced the hard times to get to the good times.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 28 Sep 12
       
      It's interesting how he speaks of freedom as if it doesn't naturally come to us, but rather as something you earn.  He had to push the boundaries of the natural order to be able to successfully have the freedom he deserved and also wanted. 
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 08 Oct 12
       
      I would like to see some of this evidence he references (although I'm fairly certain it is included in his book), because I find this almost difficult to believe and, if it is true, quite frightening. I would not have been surprised if he said that it affects the politically informed some, but equally to the uninformed? That is a frightening thought. If being informed doesn't change how much it affects you, then what does? 
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 08 Oct 12
       
      If I understood this article correctly, I believe that Shanto Iyengar is right in every way.  Everything that society sees through media is framed to be viewed a particular way.  The media has the power to display information the way they want society to view the material.  This is how a lot of people form their opinions when it comes to government and policy issues.
    • Jason van Rijn
      Jason van Rijn on 08 Oct 12
       
      I think that framing is a real problem in relaying political information to the public and that if the populace had enough motivation and attention, it would be much more useful to require presidential candidates to put their ideas in an essay with graphs and supporting evidence. Debates just present a fraction of the information and  lead people to weakly supported opinions.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 10 Oct 12
       
      It's interesting how throughout this article the main point is letting the audience hear what they want to.  No matter what, there is going to be a bias towards your own political party; leaving the opposite candidate to hopelessly fight when the bias will still be stronger than the information supported. 
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 10 Oct 12
       
      It makes sense that people who are more adept to understanding another person's emotions are able to do so with the characters in the story. Seems like a redundant explanation if you ask me.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 12 Oct 12
       
      This is an excellent observation and is evinced by children's particular delight in and gravitation towards stories. Children lack very much personal experience in the world and in life, and so they are naturally drawn to stories to help the m make sense of and prepare for the real world. 
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 12 Oct 12
       
      I believe that the best classic stories are those orally told, for they tend to hold the most emotion and power beyond the person telling it.  They are passed down generation to generation and their stories never truly die. 
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 12 Oct 12
       
      This article is very eye-opening.  Most people do not think about the people that they are fighting for or trying to represent.  They do not think of the way they are presenting the people.  A lot of times, poorer countries are depicted as inferior and wealthier countries, such as the US, are depicted as superior.  When trying to help a poor country most people focus on the people that are "helping," like celebrities. Instead, the focus should be on the people that we are trying to help.
    • Jason van Rijn
      Jason van Rijn on 17 Oct 12
       
      I think it is unfair to cast political scientists as an impractical ivory tower elite. Theory is an important dynamic of any discipline, and political theory is still grounded in a potential application to improve society. There is a limited range of political ideas in practice and I think it is important to have highly specialized  people speculate on novel solutions to problems.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 26 Oct 12
       
      This is very interesting for it takes an approach that has nothing to do with religion but rather with evolution.  Many can say that these suspicions are used in regards with God and his doings but it's nice to see the other side in a scientifically proven way.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 29 Oct 12
       
      This is interesting for I am a very visual learner and it takes me a lot of different subjects to look at for me to be able to study and learn effectively.  Sometimes words aren't the most important but rather the way it sticks in your mind is what matters most.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 29 Oct 12
       
      this article/guide is an extremely helpful tool to help someone make sure that a presentation they are giving gets their point across.  These points will ensure that the audience is captivated and stays engaged in the presentation. 
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 02 Nov 12
       
      Being on opposite sides of the spectrum must be so difficult when there are so many ideas clashing together one certain issue.  however, it is the duty of our politicians to be able to set aside these issues and further bring something to the table for the whole of America.  Backing out of a deal last minute is pugnacious and disrespectful to Obama and to the others who would have benefited from this act.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 02 Nov 12
       
      In the past, political parties could be very diverse when major events occurred in the nation and would be more unified in the times without major events.  Being diverse is brought on because of decisions and policies that arise from the major events.  Being able to more unified makes things in the House and Senate run more smoothly.  As years have progressed, both the Republicans and Democrats, have become more unified through good and bad times in the nation.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 12 Nov 12
       
      This cannot raise scores or change the outlook of the community, but I think that this will help raise the spirits of the students attending that school and will help raise school pride to everyone in the community.  This is just the first step to pursuing a bright future for the students and society that they live in.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 12 Nov 12
       
      The people of Athens set an example for many countries centuries after their time.  The only way for a government to thrive and be successful is to use the resources given. These resources will allow the government to take opportunities that are given to them, as well as, learning from mistakes they made in certain decisions they made.
    • laurenneiger
      laurenneiger on 12 Nov 12
       
      I think this strategy was extremely interesting.  I personally would have never thought to take the action that they did.  I thought it was really interesting and a different way of going about a problem
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 16 Nov 12
       
      This is in conjunction to how corporations may have too much power.  Who should be the leader? Should there be one? A small group? A network? Who holds the ultimate power?
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 25 Nov 12
       
      Humans natural reaction when they are getting attacked is to form a bias.  There will always be a form of bias for most people have a hard time admitting that they are wrong and someone else is right.  Even in politics, one may agree with a democratic idea but won't admit it for they are republic.  We must all try our best to remain open-minded to all ideas to benefit everyone in our society.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 26 Nov 12
       
      This is definitely an invasion of privacy, although it may be effective.  People do have a tendency by nature to ignore such situations that make them uncomfortable though, leaving it to not be successful with many Americans. 
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 03 Dec 12
       
      I never knew, and I find it quite intriguing, that there was no border patrol until 1924.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 09 Dec 12
       
      I believe that standardization is easier said than done.  There is no such thing as a Utopian society for there are so many different views, believes, lifestyles, etc. that can affect a whole bigger picture in a much more complex manner.  Even if one does attempt to standardize, there will still be someone who disagrees and wants to cause, once again, another revolution.
    • Jason van Rijn
      Jason van Rijn on 10 Dec 12
       
      Unlike hard sciences, you cannot repeat an experiment many times with slight modifications to certain variables. Having some kind of model system to test theories is wishful thinking and impossible because of the infinite variables in social situations but it would just be nice to run simulations of certain welfare programs
  • Lauren Dudley on 09 Sep 12
     
    "moral dubfounding"
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.
Kayla Sawoski

Dan Dennett: Dangerous memes | Video on TED.com - 2 views

www.ted.com/...ennett_on_dangerous_memes.html

shared by Kayla Sawoski on 02 Nov 12 - Cached
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 02 Nov 12
       
      It is crazy how he talks about memes as viruses that infect people and influence others. Our ideas are not our own but are passed down by others and influenced. I think in the beginning when he is talking about evolution he is saying that human "evolution" is actually not benefitting us the same way an animal's evolution benefits it. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 04 Nov 12
       
      I think there is obviously a big distinction between how evolution affects humans and animals but Dan Dennett's ideas are definitely defined. Your statement about how our ideas are not only our own thought but influenced by others is a great statement because it is so true. 
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 02 Nov 12
       
      When he started talking about the fact that ideas became infectious, he totally captivated my attention. I see ideas in the same way; and the way he explained it made it so interesting! But when he got into the part about memes, I kind of got confused, since my frame of a meme is that of my generation, rather than what he was talking about. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 05 Nov 12
       
      I agree, I really like how he started out his presentation and seemed to follow along with what he was talking about, understood how ideas became so infectious. I started getting lost when he talked about memes. I didn't really understand memes in the first place, but the way he described it was not very interesting so it was harder to follow. He would randomly draw my attention back, like when he talked about celibacy and joked about no one it died out. 
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 05 Nov 12
       
      I agree to an extent. I think that ideas are passed down and influenced to an extent but there are also many new ideas. People have evolved in so many ways and that is partly because people come along with new and educated views. With great advancements in educations and technology people are able to have new ideas about things.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 05 Nov 12
       
      This is definitely a point I agree with. It seems as though he is saying that our ideas are not original, but a different version of someone else's idea. The meme subject was slightly confusing, and I lost track of what he was trying to say.
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 05 Nov 12
       
      I agree as well. Ideas are definitely infectious. I feel as if we are in a society that is so accustomed to that. We see something, a meme or not, that influences us to feel a certain way. We tend to pass these feelings towards others.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 04 Nov 12
       
      I really liked Dennett's metaphor about the ant and the parasite to explain how in humans, ideas can be like parasites in the way they develop and spread. I agree that spreading ideas can be harmful to other cultures that are not accustomed to them. It is easy for us to not acknowledge the impacts of our ideas on other cultures because we are already used to them. However, we must use realize our the potential impacts that our ideas can have on other cultures and societies. 
  • ...18 more annotations...
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 05 Nov 12
       
      When everybody's ideas are shared, they do act as parasites. Some people might be immune to them in the sense that it may not affect them directly, but to a different person it can have an impact on them, negative or positive. As humans, we pursue ideas that we feel are important or that make us happy.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 05 Nov 12
       
      agreed, however its human nature to share and create ideas. Government or american citizens definitely don't consider the effects that our decisions have. But anything potentially could be harmful, such as idea, speech, or actions.  I agree with you though most people might not see ideas as a bad thing, only because there blind any effects. 
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 05 Nov 12
       
      Humans are often blinded by ideas, as messr. Dennet pointed out. Ideas definitely aren't innately good or bad, even if the idea is sketch, but rather it's what people do with those ideas and how they capitalize on the emotion the idea incites.
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 05 Nov 12
       
      I really liked the point that he brought up when he said that when he say that "we are all responsible for our ideas . . .and there likely missuses". I feel like a lot of people take an idea and blow it out of the water and make the idea go much bigger then intend. We have to watch what we say because someone could take it in a different light.  
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 05 Nov 12
       
      I enjoyed the way he spoke about the spread of ideas and evolution of memes. Its relation to the spread of a virus is impressive and accurate in many ways. Viruses are dangerous agents which multiple quickly and can be considerably difficult to exterminate in some cases. The formation of a parasitic pathogen is an interesting comparison because, like an idea or meme, it does not need to ensure the survival of its host to remain in existence. He does a wonderful job of observing the similarities when he includes the fact that ideas, like viruses, do not rely on genetic transmittal for dissemination but rather, exist because we exist. As with any other infectious agent, an idea or a meme can be destructive, and may reverse or undermine our more self-preserving processes. 
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 05 Nov 12
       
      I find it interesting how most of the ideas that spread the most over the internet and through technology are the toxic ideas. The toxic memes establish a prominent position in our mind and that is what many focus on. We are the carriers of these toxic memes, much like the ant is of the fluke parasite.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 05 Nov 12
       
      I find it interesting how most of the ideas that spread the most over the internet and through technology are the toxic ideas. The toxic memes establish a prominent position in our mind and that is what many focus on. We are the carriers of these toxic memes, much like the ant is of the fluke parasite.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 05 Nov 12
       
      I really like Daniel Dennett and his movie the four horsemen, this was not his best performance speaking wise and he is definitely not the speaker that Christopher Hitchens was or Sam Harris is.  However, I like this talk, I like that he uses his knowledge of science to help explain the severity of the take over of the mind that these memes have on people just like the parasite he talkes about in the beginning. 
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 05 Nov 12
       
      Thoughts as a virus is an interesting way to look at things. However, I personally disagree. At least to me, ideas and thoughts are more of gene than anything. One that you can grow out of, but I feel like it's more accurate to say some of these things are passed down rather than "infected".
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 05 Nov 12
       
      The idea that certain ideas can spread and harm certain other people was an interesting one. We all like to think new ideas and progressive though as a good thing, but this TED talk presents a different view on the issue. Personally, I believe that cultures are ever evolving and sometimes new ideas are needed, even if there are growing pains. But these pains can also have a negative effect. A good example would be the Arab Spring in the last few years. Although it is objectively good that harsh dictators are taken out of power, new ideas can create an even more dangerous form of society. As with all of life, there is the good and the bad with this shift. 
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 05 Nov 12
       
      We are responsible for what we do with others ideas. We are responsible for the outcomes of how we implement the idea. He talks about the spreading of toxic ideas (memes) on a worldly scale but we can also see this a prevalent theme in politics, especially in this election. The motive of many of these campaign tactics is to see who can spread a toxic meme the fastest. People become wrapped up in this negative exchange which is influencing people (probably in the ways that they intend) for the wrong reasons. Reform is needed in the campaign process to bring things like elections and policy making back to the initial responsibility of government, to protect the people and make a good society for people to flourish. 
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 05 Nov 12
       
      I enjoyed that he used the idea of bugs infecting our minds. I personally hate bugs and i think that many of the ideas that are being spread by technology are like bugs, they're bad or harmful. His jokes were also entertaining but i could also relate and understand his message. 
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 05 Nov 12
       
      I really liked the comparison between the parasite in the ant and the ideas in a human, as I was watching this video I couldn't help but feel very compelled by his words, I think that his talk was a very accurate description of how things in the mind work. The concept that an idea can be a virus in the brain and take over is scary but true. I hate to make this reference, but I think that Inception is really based on that idea... his wife kills herself because the idea, or virus, says that her world is not real.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 05 Nov 12
       
      Personally, although I found many of his ideas, such as the danger of spreading certain ideas to other cultures, to be intriguing and, in some senses, true, I was very turned off by his flippant treatment of religion as a whole. I think it is simply ignorant and prideful to look at something, like religion, which has been an intrinsic part of humanity since the beginning of human history and which many very smart, well-educated people have held to, and to simply brush it off as an "infection of ideas." He came across, to me, as very disrespectful, narrow minded, and pompous. I think he had a lot of great ideas and he seems like a very smart man, but I think it is simply prideful to so easily disregard religion as a whole. Some of the most intelligent and well-educated people in all of human history have also been some of the most fervently religious, and I feel that Dennett injures his own argument by treating them so flippantly.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 05 Nov 12
       
      He has very strange trasitions between subjects. I like how he connects the infectious fluke to emotions that infectious to humans. Memes are very strange. There are different species, some that can be pronounced and some that can't. Why were memes feared? And why does "meme" now a days mean pictures with funny comments on them? Againt things repeat themselves no matter how much you try to keep them from happening again. I like how he says the way to fight memes is to inform yourself and fix it rather than just be mad about it. Very smart man.
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 05 Nov 12
       
      One thing that I really found interesting was when he said that people take ideas out of context. He said that people have to watch what they say because others might twist them into something completely opposite. An example of this would be my English class. In class we analyze book after book and sometimes it makes me wonder what if the author only meant what was said and not some analyzed piece that we came up with.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 05 Nov 12
       
      Dennet's TED Talk about comparing developing memes to viruses are interesting. However, I disagree because people today are exposed to media information and this creates new cultures and ideas. Sure they "retire" old customs, but life changes and with today's technology,
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 05 Nov 12
       
      (cont.) ...the pace is much faster and more accesible than ever before.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 05 Nov 12
       
      I am kind of confused by the TED Talk but I got the jist of what he was saying. I don't think ideas are just floating around i think that there are built within us and later discovered.
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 05 Nov 12
       
      I like that simple analogy to get across a pretty important point. We have now, with globalization, a pretty small world. Ideas are rubbing next to each other more and more. We see that now with the Middle Eastern ideas and ideologies and our ideologies of 'free' in the West. We have to be cognizant of how we approach these other cultures and societies because if we are not then we will continue to have the problems that we have today. Hopefully people will start to look more openly at other cultures and religions. To do that maybe we need to look at our own beliefs, we think that what we believe in is the right thing, maybe it is, but maybe it isn't. We can't just be critical of someone else just because they believe or live by a different code.  
    • Phillip Delgado
      Phillip Delgado on 05 Nov 12
       
      A meme is only dangerous because another meme told us. In his philosophy we as humans don't have independent thoughts but they are moldered together through life and experience. This is just a simple idea of norms and values.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 05 Nov 12
       
      I liked how he combined his philosophical ideas with science. I liked how he related sickness with ideas. He brought up a good point, technology does spread ideas more, either good or bad.  The 'toxic' ideas do wipe out a lot of important things, like culture and tradition depending on what information is being presented. I agree completely with Dan Dennett.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 06 Nov 12
       
      I thought that this TED Talk was very interesting. Dan is basically stating that we as humans are easily influenced from other ideas. We sometimes are influenced by toxic ideas that can hurt us. We need to change this and spread encouraging ideas instead. 
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 30 Nov 12
       
      I completely agree that we should be spreading encouraging ideas instead of degrading ones. Relating this to the political adds we were seeing so much of a few weeks ago, we need to focus on the positives more.
Flavio Guzman

Sample Chapter for Fung, A.: Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. - 2 views

press.princeton.edu/...s7762.html

shared by Flavio Guzman on 05 Nov 11 - Cached
  • Voices of minority, less educated, diffident, or culturally subordinate participants are often drowned out by those who are wealthy, confident, accustomed to management, or otherwise privileged.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 05 Nov 11
       
      This is true. Monorities are always left out of decision making. Those in power think that minorities do not know how to think critically and do not understand decision process. However, is it all about how smart we are? Or is it about making the best decision for the betterment of the polis? Minorities and people with low income bring something else to the table that the affluents dont. Diversity of ideas and polices is the best way for empowered participation to acually be empowered. Similar to the Hobson's choice- a list of options will already determine how people think and will make an option the only reaasonable possibility.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 06 Nov 11
       
      Certainly the minority has good ideas. If they are driven enough and generate support, they can get these ideas across. After all, it is said that seeming like the underdog is good for generating support in public policy. It is not all about how smart minorities are, it's about how their strategies work for gaining a strong influence.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 07 Nov 11
       
      This statement is true, I feel that minorities are left out because communities and schools want to keep traditions how they have been for hundreds of years. Minorities are left out of decision making because many times other minorities feel they are not receiving the same amount of attention and it becomes a problem for the whole community. Minorities and people with low-income bring new ideas and traditions to the community that are good for the community. What they are doing at Harembee Academy is good for the community and it shows how minorities are gaining power and showing the community that they are just as important as the people that have held the same traditions for years. Our communities need to be well-diversed and adopt the some of the same ideas from the community surrounded by Harembee.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 07 Nov 11
       
      Also, when excluding the minorities a lot of diversity is taken out of decision making and I found what we discussed in class, about how a diverse group will come to a better solution to a problem than a group of smart people from similar backgrounds and groups.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 07 Nov 11
       
      I agree with the example that we talked about in class. There is also a reference to Plato in this. In "The Republic" Plato says that tradesmen who are good at a trade think that because they are good at one thing, they are good at everything.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 07 Nov 11
       
      I agree that this statement is true. Generally those that are at the end of the pyramid do not get much say. People who have wealth, power, and an education tend to do very well, and their say if heard by others. Money has a lot of say in the matter and those who do not have much access to it, will suffer the inevitable consequences.
    • Kiera Murphy
      Kiera Murphy on 07 Nov 11
       
      I agree with the above quote and statements. Citizens are driven by the idea to live the "American Dream." People strive for success, and education and over everything making a lot of money. We are a economically driven society so we tend to associate power with money so naturally minority groups are factored out in terms of having a voice. I believe that it's crucial for these minority groups to have a voice because in reality they are effected by policy decisions just as much as anyone else, if not more. They should be granted the same benefits as a wealthier member of society when it comes to the generation and implementation of laws.The government should not decide who benefits from policy...policy should benefit the polis as a whole.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 07 Nov 11
       
      I agree with this statement. Minorities often get looked down upon when they bring an idea forth by the more privileged because they feel as if the minorities don't know anything because of their background. However just like we discussed in class it is the diversity of ideas put together that makes the best decisions.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 07 Nov 11
       
      I can see why he says that in the piece, the biggest motivator to listen is money. Look at presidential candidates as much as they need the first person he talks about to vote for them, they need to money, power and influence to run, they all fall under that category. Education is also an unbias world so someone who is less educated has taken it upon themselves to end up like that. Minorities yes this is true, it is extremely unfortunate for that to happen and it should never but is prejudice able to be solved in our country? we can only hope.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 12 Nov 12
       
      dont really feel like this statement is true, with our president there voices are definitely heard.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 12 Nov 12
       
      I do agree with the fact that money and wealth is a huge part in being successful and having a voice in the community, or world. But the whole "culture" issue has made progress. I am not saying that everyone is treated equally, because there are a lot of discrimination still going on. Like what Chelsea has said. with our president, there is progress, but for the most part there is still some unfairness going on.
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 12 Nov 12
       
      I agree that this statement is true. The voices of minority are considered less important when they shouldn't be. It's only fair when deciding on a solution to consider everyone's opinions. if you do this, then the solution will most likely be a better one because more voices are being listened to and more ideas are being bounced off each other to form the best possible solutions. Everyone is affected by these decisions and the Polis as a whole should get the benefits. I also agree that when you choose to ignore the voices of the minority, there is a diversity factor that is being taken out. I am not saying that the minority is going to have all the right answers, but I feel that everyone has a right to speak and be heard. These voices should at least be taken into consideration when making decisions that are going to affect them as well.
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 22 Nov 12
       
      I feel that this is sadly the truth in most of our country. Their are the few instances when these vocies are heard but never on a national level. Just ebcuase someone is in a less privilaged position doesn't mean they don't know whats best for them. In order for government to really work everyone must be heard.
  • When the self-regulation of local groups through deliberative norms and procedures fails, however, centralized methods should detect these outcomes and attempt to correct them.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 07 Nov 11
       
      This is the strength of how accountable autonomy is supposed to function. It balances a highly centralized rule where many people or groups do not have their interests heard and decentralized rule where small factions can easily gain control and ignore the interests of others. Finding a right balance between the two extremes would decrease their respective weaknesses, allowing more representation of people's interests.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 18 Nov 11
       
      I agree with tavish that the goal should be finding a middle position where we can take advantage of the pros of both while minimizing the cons.
  • In the months and years ahead, the parents and personnel of Harambee would attempt to advance their historical and cultural commitment to scholastic achievement through a variety of programs that included technology labs, prekindergarten programs, physical plant upgrading, curriculum changes, and a host of instructional innovations.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 07 Nov 11
       
      I think this is a good example for other underprivileged areas to take a more active role in their communities vs simply moving out as they gain more wealth or demanding the money take more money from other areas. More can be achieved by working together and fixing what is wrong in their areas.
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 07 Nov 11
       
      I agree with Tyler and I think it's great that instead of blaming others for their poor initial condition, they do something about it. I see a lot of people complain about their current status but rarely do I see any sort of follow-up in trying to improve the situation. I'm glad to see that there are at least some people who do try to improve.
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 11 Nov 12
       
      I think the fact that the community saw something they wanted to change and went ahead and made it their own project is really great. We do not see that very often anymore so the fact that someone did does make me feel better about how this could happen in another community that wants the same results.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 12 Nov 12
       
      Agreed. I feel like its a big pity party, times are hard no doubt but I see more people giving up than trying to make their neighborhoods and community's better. This is great that they did what they had to.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 12 Nov 12
       
      I think it is a good thing that the changed the name to give the school more value to both the community and faculty however, it doesn't change or help the school with money issues or test scores.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 12 Nov 12
       
      This is a great idea. I think that one thing that would help this country is tailoring curriculum to what would actually make students who stop after high school have a better chance at a successful career. I read a book once that explored why schools in inner cities are so unsuccessful and basically the reason he argued is that the information and system is so irrelavent to their lives that the students do not care to invest themselves. Maybe if our education system wasn't such a one size fits all system, and if our communities would fit schools to what would make their kids successful we would be able to make many more productive citzens for the world as it is today.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 12 Nov 12
       
      exactly. Much of what is taught in schools (especially history) is definitely tailored towards a white males. By adjusting the curriculum, you would definitely see more response from other groups.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 12 Nov 12
       
      I think that it is amazing that they decided amongst themselves that they were going to overhaul a school, and bring it up to par with its practices and teachings to match the name that they gave it. It is extraordinary when a group of people can selflessly come together and achieve such a feat.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 12 Nov 12
       
      I feel like it was the ambition of the people in the community that caused such a big change. This just shows that they didn't need to live in a rich neighborhood to feel safe. The citizens themselves do have an input on the change of their situation. The power of people coming together is amazing.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 12 Nov 12
       
      I completely agree with Justina. School systems often pressure schools to just produce high test scores, when in fact the thing that will help more people (especially in the inner city) is taking into account the curriculum that will best prepare the kids for a good future. This is where these decisions should be made, by local communities, as opposed to central planning by a federal government that has never lived in a place even similar to this.
  • ...17 more annotations...
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 07 Nov 11
       
      i am confused myself on why these twons were different than other unfortunate neighborhoods with school and crime issues. i decided it was the passion of the citizins of this town that took it to another level and could make the change that they wanted in order to benefit everyone.
  • In the months and years ahead, the parents and personnel of Harambee would attempt to advance their historical and cultural commitment to scholastic achievement through a variety of programs that included technology labs, prekindergarten programs, physical plant upgrading, curriculum changes, and a host of instructional innovations.
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 07 Nov 11
       
      Compared to other communities, tis community is workig together to better their situation rather than just their personal situations. By doing this, the whole community benefits rather than just one or two families. 
  • More ambitiously, residents sought physical improvements to make the park more useful, attractive, and inviting to legitimate users in the hope that they might drive out illegal ones.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 07 Nov 11
       
      I'm not really sure how changing the makeup of the park will drive "illegal users" out because "illegal users" normally would carry out their activities during times in which there were no other people around to judge and or prevent their behavior. Changing the park makeup would probably just change the timeslots that illegal users were at that specific park.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 07 Nov 11
       
      I agree but I feel that if a public place such as this one becomes commonly used for legitimate purposes it does have an dissuading affect on criminal use. A criminal is less likely to do the drug deals in the park if they know there a high chance that someone will see them, and if the park is used all day with occasional users at night, it makes it difficult to find a "timeslot" where the location is secure. I'm not fully disagreeing with you, but I am saying there is more to it. 
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 12 Nov 12
       
      I agree. I also think that this example connects to the one before in the sense that the community is taking the initiative to fix issues they feel strongly about and make it a better, safer place.  I think it is admirable how the residents cooperate with the police department and I think it will definitely drive the crime rate in the park down 
  • Finally, accountable autonomy potentially diffuses successful innovations quite rapidly to enable a kind of system-wide learning
  • In the crucial areas of public education and policing, the CPS and CPD reforms advance the central tenet of participatory democracy: that people should have substantial and equal opportunities to participate directly in decisions that affect them
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 10 Nov 12
       
      I find this very interesting as I think that this ia a good strategy. The strategy allows ordinary people voice their opinions about certain situations like the park or the school situations and actually know that their voices and opinions were heard. Where in other cities, when you call or say something and its not in a meeting form to be heard and discussed you may feel like it is just brushed under the rug. I think this is a great strategy like a town meeting in a way as it really is about helping the people and what affects them.
  • who actually participates? As with any scheme for civic engagement and direct democracy, success depend upon the character of actual participation.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 11 Nov 12
       
      When discussing all the great things a participatory democracy has to offer, we forget that not all neighborhoods are like Harambee and Lakeview. In other neighborhoods it is almost certain that not everybody is going to participate. The results are going to depend on those who do participate, but the results will affect the community as a whole. 
  • Liabilities such as parochialism, lack of expertise, and resource constraints may impair the problem-solving and administrative capabilities of local organizations relative to centralized forms.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 11 Nov 12
       
      Unfortunately, these liabilities inhibit real progress of organizations. It does not take very many of these bureaucratic mazes, (A.K.A. liabilities) to severely override the possible accomplishments of an organization's goal.
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 12 Nov 12
       
      I agree and unfortunately its true.  A lot more can get done without these "mazes" as you said.  We can be so progressive at times but at others, its near impossible to progress
  • Changing a name, of course, cannot itself raise test scores, make classes more orderly, build classrooms, or increase children's readiness for middle and high school
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 11 Nov 12
       
      by changing a name of the school offcourse your not going to change the way the students test score will go up, but it will sure motivate kids especially since the majority are black and they name the school HARAMBEE. AND SINCE PEOPLE WERE trying to attempt to advance their programs.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 12 Nov 12
       
      It is true that changing the name will not automatically raise test scores or increase a child's readiness for future instruction. However it will help just a little. I agree with Elliott maybe a simple name change will not only motivate the kids a little more but perhaps the teachers as well.
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 12 Nov 12
       
      I agree, with both the staments above along with what the article says about not improving test score etc by simply just changing the name. But it may result in further motivation that in time will benefit and help improve test scores. It is just not going to happen right away, it will take some time. 
  • These initiatives transformed the CPD and the CPS into the most participatory-democratic public organizations of their kind in any large American city.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 11 Nov 12
       
      Another reason why I feel that the CPD and CPS were so praised was because of their willingness to listen to their constituents. The people of the cities voiced their concerns, and by having the town government listen, they were able to accomplish progress and set a tone and standard for their schools and neighborhoods. 
    • Benjamin Chavez II
      Benjamin Chavez II on 12 Nov 12
       
      I agree with Tatiana; in addition to that, every action was for the most part efficient because there was no opposing force, (drug dealers, etc.) backing up there case (needing the money or something).
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 12 Nov 12
       
      This relates a lot to the Interest's chapter of what Stone is trying to say. We all can come together with our one specific interest and make an impact. The staff and community in this case, wanted the school to improve so they came up with strategies to make this  effective. Working together helped get their message out for people to see.  
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 12 Nov 12
       
      It is obviously a more effective way to get things done by forming group as more people can not only get things done faster, but also get the word out there quicker. The staff and community have set two solid components out to help solve their problem it just takes everyone collaboration to make it happen.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 12 Nov 12
       
      I think the best way to teach is to reach the students on a level they will understand.  If changing the curriculum to gear it towards issues that affect the students then I believe they will be more receptive to the learning environment, this would in turn increase the academics of a school.
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 12 Nov 12
       
      It makes sense that the group would be more effective at watching the park than the individual.  along wit hthe reasons that Devon stated there are more eyes on the same park. The more people watching the park, the more chance there is for someone to spot illicit or sketch activity.  These steps should be implemented in more places where there is a high level of illegal activity going on.
  • monthly open meetings with residents to discuss neighborhood safety issues. In these sessions, police and residents jointly select priority public safety issues and develop wide-ranging strategies to address them.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 12 Nov 12
       
      The idea of public meetings with police officers is an interesting ones. In Los Angeles, the only real "public" meetings are ones where officers give press conferences and then take a few questions after they are done speaking. But the idea of a dialogue between the police and normal citizens in a respectful matter is one that I think might work. People can talk about the issues they see relevant, and police can defend or re-invent themselves to meet some of the needs of the citizens (of course, not completely meet them; there will always be issues). I would love to see such a program used with the LAPD here in California. 
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 12 Nov 12
       
      I agree with what Brandon was saying. Having personal meetings between regular citizens and officers would be very effective. Connective discussions should be held over press conferences. That would bring out more of what the citizens have to say in order for the police to enforce a more secure, trustworthy community.
  • When factions inside a group dominate or paralyze planning processes, outsiders can step in to break through jams and thus enable the group to better accomplish its ends. When the indolence of these groups results in subpar performance, external interventions and sanctions can transform license to innovation and problem-solving.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 12 Nov 12
       
      This is exactly the idea of democracy, but I think the application falls short in that the "external interventions" view the groups as inhibitors to their plans instead of relying on these groups for guidance in creating the best policies. Elected officials of course want to please their constituents, but I feel the political field is jading when it comes to what is truly important. Instead of the importance of this democracy being fairness and creating the best for the people, the importance lies within who can play the best game and stay in power. The power triangle is upside down with the people having the littlest power in regards to being able to implement what is best for their community.
  • These community-policing arrangements form the institutional structure through which residents, police, city officials, and non-profit organizations rebuilt Lakeville's dilapidated park. Beat meetings created new spaces in which police and residents could together and develop a range of solutions addressing various problems at the park.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 12 Nov 12
       
      i think it's great that everyone came together to help rebuild the park. I'm not sure if the police and residents would be able to come to an agreement about solutions for the park. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 12 Nov 12
       
      I agree with Tori that it is great that everyone is coming together for the sole purpose of the park but in reality not everyone is going to get together.  Here each person participating has a different perspective in which they view the park itself. The policemen and the residents would have different views and so would the non-profit organizations. In the end they all aren't going to come to one conclusion and to agree on everything which can cause problems.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 12 Nov 12
       
      I think the examples of Harambee middle school and the community park are excellent illustrations of how, when you bring government down to more local levels, more is able to be accomplished. Obviously, this won't work for everything, but for many government actions, the closer the decision is to the people it affects, the more relevant and efficient it will be. Local governments are, in general, in a better position to understand the needs of the citizens in that area. Bringing the citizens in on the decisions and giving them more say in how things are done enables local governments to respond to the people's immediate needs and to take into account the complexities of their unique situation. National and state governments are obviously necessary, but I think that government would be far more efficient if more power was given to local governments and the people they represent.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 12 Nov 12
       
      I also agree that it's great to see that they were able to get through the obstacles and improve their school 
    • Phillip Delgado
      Phillip Delgado on 12 Nov 12
       
      The remodeling the park was a good idea. The way to beat the gang problem was spot on. They got rid of their privacy, therefor the gang members left because they had to privacy. This would not work in all areas. A gang filled area might just over take the new park, because the people who live there priorities are different.
  • They began with simple measures such as trimming tall trees to make the park's interior visible from the stree
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 12 Nov 12
       
      Trimming the trees was a smart and affordable way to help people see what was being done in the park. The criminals in the park probably had no idea the city was trimming the trees so they could see what was going on.  
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 12 Nov 12
       
      I also feel like this was a wise decision as Jeffrey said, because it was more of an affordable way to open up the park and have it look more accessible. Plus, this would help the crime rate lessen because crimes seem to occur when less people are around than with more. So, this simple action would prevent criminal activity efficiently.
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 12 Nov 12
       
      Trimming the trees was a smart and affordable way to help people see what was being done in the park. The criminals in the park probably had no idea the city was trimming the trees so they could see what was going on.  
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 12 Nov 12
       
      Trimming the trees was a smart and affordable way to help people see what was being done in the park. The criminals in the park probably had no idea the city was trimming the trees so they could see what was going on.  
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 30 Nov 12
       
      This really was an ingenious way to combat the criminal activity that was happening. Trimming trees is not only a cost effective way to handle the situation, but it benefits the residents of the area by beautifying the park and lowering the amount of criminal activity. 
  • cj_woldanski on 07 Nov 11
     
    Minorities from low income areas can have good ideas but getting them started takes a lot more time and effort than the when some powerful people want to do something. If the minority community really wants to get something done then they have to really step up their game and get the word out to the public. Influencing public opinion is the best way for change for a policy or in the community.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Mitchell Burris on 07 Nov 11
     
    It seems to me that a lot of effort is made to make sure that the voice of minorities is accounted for. Granted this isn't always straight from the mouths of the minorities in question but consideration is still given. There are a vast many different groups in America that could fall under the "minority" denomination and it is impossible to hear all of them. We often bend over backwards to accommodate some minority while ignoring the interest of the greater whole.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 11 Nov 12
     
    This article definately made me stop to think about how good we all have it here in America. Yes, we have our own problems with our education system, but at least we have a solid base of educating our citizens. We complain sometimes on how much of a hassel school is and how inconvienient it is at times, but just think if we were never able to have the opportunity. Our society would be completely different and the government could control us completely.
  • Emily Shandorf on 12 Nov 12
     
    the ones that are poor, don't have that much a stay, but the wealty ones do. It is like the pyramid, the ones on top are the people that have power/wealthy and can afford sending their children in a good environment and school, while at the end of the pyramind, there are the poor ones that struggle enough, just to see their children get a sort of education. Diversity is also a big part of the community, more people that are together will figure out a better solution, while the ones that think they are superior, won't succeed as well as they should of.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 13 Nov 12
     
    Minorities have way more influence than people think, especially in California. The California Dream Act is proof that minorities are not only influencial, but productive. They can actually get things done in the world of policy. Yes, not all minorities are as influencial as the ones is California, but they are proof that things can get done as a minority
Caitlin Fransen

Joanna Moorhead on the best country to give birth | Life and style | The Guardian - 18 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...healthandwellbeing.health

shared by Caitlin Fransen on 10 Sep 11 - No Cached
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 10 Sep 11
       
      obviously these statistics of new mothers dying is high because of a lack of medical insight and medicine as well as resources but if perhaps they do live through a childbirth are they aware of the now even higher chances of death during a 2nd or 3rd child birth?or is it just now a expected custom?
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 11 Sep 11
       
      i had the same questions in my mind while reading this, but i think if they have the proper medication and necessities to advance the process and outcomes of the childbirth in the first place, the survival rate of the 2nd and 3rd children will possibly increase as well.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 12 Sep 11
       
      it is sad to see that women in this country are not able to receive proper medical attention for their babies. Its not just the medical attention that is lacking, it is the transportation where is the transportation for these mothers? As a society we need to do something for these third world countries to receive the proper medical attention, changes need to be made and we all have to participate.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 12 Sep 11
       
      These are the stories that make me want to pursue a career in Public Health. It is absolutely ridiculous that mothers in Niger and all over impoverished Africa are forced to go through such a delicate procedure virtually on their own with only slightly trained caretakers, if they're lucky. Birth is the beginning of life, and no one's life should begin this way. Mothers' greatest joys should be the birth of their children, yet they clearly are unable to enjoy this process (or gain any positive feelings from it whatsoever) in any way due to poor conditions. The issue of economic inequality throughout the world is presented in a huge way by this article. If Swedish mothers-to-be can be given such fantastic care, mothers in Africa (and mothers everywhere, for that matter) should be able to receive just as much care. However, the overall key is education. All successful pursuits within governments begin with educated and well-trained personnel who can perform any and all necessary tasks pertaining to a position.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 12 Sep 11
       
      This article is quite ridiculous when you compare both countries as it should not be done. There are two many different situations that yes, it does show the differences between the two socieites and many of the problems but what can be done to change this? The infrastructure need sto updated and worked on but that is more complicated (and expensive) then anyone can understand for a 3rd world country. The United States often times takes situations like these into hand and tries to help the world solve its problems but you cant keep giving handouts, especially when we are already struggling to support our own country. Yes I think every child deserves to live and be born in a safe environment where they should be given the chance to succeed but we can not save everyone, we must be realistic, no matter how bad this sounds, it is the truth.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 13 Sep 11
       
      Along with what Marina said, the women in Niger do not get to enjoy the birth of their child. Instead they have to endure this immense pain, which may last for plenty of hours, and do so quietly. The process of childbirth is not pleasant, but it is a joyous moment for the mother. Nevertheless, they have to endure and then walk back to their home without getting any check-up after the labor. This problem is just leading to more problems for the mothers and newborns since the mothers endure about nine months and their newborn might die instantly. I think that the country should get not necessarily professionals, but sanitary facilities to move a step forward and cut down the statistic a bit more.
  • She was was born by caesarean section because of worries over a uterine scar, the result of previous surgery. It might have been fine, the doctors told her, but there was a risk it might rupture. "Why take that risk?" says Carmen, smiling
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 10 Sep 11
       
      i think this further emphasizes the difference in the care that each location chooses to dedicate to childbirth- one place doesn't care or seem to want to even try and deal with the risks of childbirth, whereas the other place is all about prevention and care
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 14 Sep 12
       
      I AGREE WITH GABY
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 10 Sep 11
       
      was this a nessessity or are the people being spoiled with this type of care. i understand care in a hospital is important but this may be overdoing it a bit.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      How is this overdoing it? It's best, if you can, to take all precautions. It's easier to take a precaution then to fix a problem after the fact. If there had been a complication she could have died or her baby could have died.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 12 Sep 11
       
      I think this may be overdoing it just a little bit, just because of my personal morals, but in their particular society, it is perfectly normal to avoid any risks whatsoever by way of a caesarean section. I personally was born this way, but this is only true because it was a danger to my health. This is the only instance in which I believe it is 100 percent acceptable to have a caesarean section performed.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 12 Sep 11
       
      I don't think that they are being spoiled. I think its odd to do a caesarean because of cosmetic worries. Since, I assume that is her reason for not wanting the uterine scar. But I definitely don't think its overdoing it. Personally, if I had the resources for everything to go the way I wanted, why not take advantage of it.
    • Lauren Frenkel
      Lauren Frenkel on 12 Sep 11
       
      Agreed. Why not take advantage of the available resources? When comparing the different types of care available it may seem a bit over the top how ever it is keeping women safe and comfortable. Although comfort is not a necessity, it is a luxury that other countries unfortunately do not have access to. Perhaps if more luxuries were provided then less deaths would occur for both women and infants.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 14 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Sarah, Jonathan, and Lauren. I think it's important to take advantage of all resources at all times, even more so if you can afford it. I don't think there is any way to "over-do" anything when it comes to health. With technology these days, it's best to keep moving forward and continue to find new ways for problems and situations that will happen for many years to come. Otherwise, all the money and time spent into doing health research will be put to waste. It's better to be safe than sorry.
  • ...52 more annotations...
  • he fertility rate, at 7.5, is among the highest in the world.
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 10 Sep 11
       
      thats because they dont have access to birth control of any kind including condoms and oral contraceptives.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      And currently it is the highest at 7.6.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 12 Sep 11
       
      I agree with Magen. The complete lack of knowledge in this area of the world is ridiculous. Many of the women would rather take risks than use contraceptives because of its too hard to get them or too expensive. Is it not easier to just say no? I can't imagine there are tv shows or billboards promoting sex in these parts of the world.
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 14 Sep 12
       
      I really don't think that the women have much of an option. They don't have the extra money to spend on contraceptives considering they probably can hardly feed their families. Also the women probably don't have the option to say no. Niger is culturally much different than where we live, probably using a more patriarchal system. The men dominate home life, saying no isn't practical. On top of all that if they don't have the money for decent healthcare, they also probably don't have the means to have television or billboards, especially in the villages that the article talks about.
    • Amanda Power
      Amanda Power on 10 Sep 11
       
      of course children are not going to live very long if they are not properley cared for and checked for diseases after they are born. They miss a treatment window and are unfortunatly killed by the diseases that could have been cured or even prevented.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 10 Sep 11
       
      furthermore, is this lack of aftercare due to the poverty in Niger, or the lack of importance that these people give to childbirth? or possibly both?
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      I can't imagine that it is do to a lack of importance of childbirth. Children are important in all societies or at least virtually all, I hate to say all. But it is programmed into our DNA, we take care of children, they are important for our survival and the survival of our species. I mean, maybe they have a slightly less important in Niger because Niger has the highest total birth rate in the world but I can not fathom a society that does not think of children as being important.
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 12 Sep 11
       
      I couldn't imagine that somehow only in Niger people didn't put an importance on child birth. I am led to believe that the lack of aftercare in Niger is indeed due to the amount of severe poverty. There aren't many doctors or nurses there trained in modern medicine, and those rare cases that a Nigerian citizen gets a scholarship to medical school, how likely do you think it is they'd want to return? I am not saying they hate their country or that none return, but to them it is a way out of poverty and to a better life
  • There is no aftercare, Insa explains: no midwife will check up on mother or baby, so Dahara will have to use her own judgment if there are any post-natal problems and seek help if and where she can
  • Niger is officially the most dangerous place on earth to have a baby: in May, a Save the Children report found that, of the 125 nations it surveyed, Niger was where childbirth was most likely to end badly. Statistically, Dahara, who is 26, has a one-in-seven chance of dying during her reproductive years as a result of a pregnancy-related complication or infection, or childbirth injury. Her baby son, lying here on the table, has a 15% chance of not reaching his first birthday and a one-in-six chance of not making it to the age of five. And Dahara is fortunate to have had the skills of a midwife like the cheerful Insa: across the country, only 16% of deliveries are attended by anyone with any training at all.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 10 Sep 11
       
      These statistics are obviously very concerning and eye-opening when it comes to comparing between childbirth here in the US and childbirth in places like NIger. However, I also wonder why these woman choose to go through so many risks in childbirth by having so many children. I understand that perhaps these woman and their families desire children on their behave, but why choose to have so many if the risks only dramatically increase? Is this for reasons of culture or mere wants on behalf of the family (ies)?
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 12 Sep 11
       
      I believe at least a part of the issue for countries like these are that they have serious lack of birth control. Many of these people are very uneducated and lack advice in these areas that our culture often takes for granted. Having a large family can also be a plus in their enviornment. More people, more workers and their children can help with work. Or if the parents become sick, they will have someone to look after them.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 14 Sep 12
       
      This show global inequality based on the statistics of survival of mom and baby. Niger clearly doesn't have the technology to make childbirth more efficient. In comparison to Sweden's hospital care, Dahara is left be the doctor to herself and her child, thus risking the life of her baby and of herself. The care in Niger seems cruel and unsafe , where as Sweden has midwives there for every step of the way. Everywhere in the world no matter what the country should have proper equipment and care for childbirth.
  • Until then, she, her partner Tommy Svedberg, 41 - who was at the birth and is now taking paternity leave to be involved in his daughter's first weeks - and Tess are staying at the hospital, in a large, hotel-like double room.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 10 Sep 11
       
      ...contrary to the other family, where the father won't even be involved at all in the early weeks of their baby's life
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 12 Sep 11
       
      I had no idea there was something called paternity leave. I thought that this was pretty cool. I think its pretty important that the father is there to help the mother deal with the newborn. This also might help prevent psychological problems with the mother.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 13 Sep 12
       
      I agree. I had no idea either but I think it's great that the father supports the mother. Child birth is a miracle but it can also come with extreme side effects and the support of a husband can be very helpful in these situations! 
  • Education, she says, is key. "If we could raise awareness of some of the health issues, we could save many lives,"
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 11 Sep 11
       
      While more advanced medical equipment would help deal with many issues new mothers face in delivery, help from people with actual training to help with deliveries would prevent several of the complications faced by new mothers giving birth.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think that the Save the Children people are doing a great job in doing the small part that they have in educating the women of Niger about even something so small as breast feeding.  I don't think that they have unattainable goals and if education is where the change needs to start then building up from there would do a world of difference for those women.
  • massage, a shower, acupuncture
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      During labor?
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 12 Sep 11
       
      Did not think that acupuncture was something performed in hospitals.
  • Because, it transpires, when you come into hospital to have a baby in Niger, your relatives come too: they sleep on the floor by your bed, they help look after you and your baby, and they are here, too, to donate blood if you have a postpartum haemorrhage - you only get blood if you bring your own donors.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      But they said that the father doesn't even come or deal with the child for the first few weeks or so. So, are these just people from the mother's side of the family?
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 14 Sep 12
       
      Maybe this speaks to gender roles and how they differ throughout the world? This seems to be perpetuating the female gender role as the primary care taker with babies, at least for the first part of life.
  • Of 2,600 babies born here last year, around one in six was dead at delivery or died soon afterwards. In addition, a total of 61 mothers lost their lives. This is shocking stuff: in Uppsala, where there are 4,000 births a year, two to three babies will die annually and one woman will die, on average, every seven years.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      I wonder how the US ranks in these statistics.
    • Kiera Murphy
      Kiera Murphy on 12 Sep 11
       
      This is extremely shocking. It's a shame that the technology here in the U.S. has been utilized for decades and other places in the world don't have the ability of access the advances necessary for survival. This idea pertains to more than just pregnancy and delivery. A majority of medical advances, such as medicine, is not available to the people who are in need. Letting people die when we have the resources to save their life, is not moral. I understand that because of financial reasons we can't save the world from all it's problems. But how odd is it that we can't even agree to have universal healthcare for our own citizens??
  • And then the wife gets worse and they say, well there's no point in taking her now, she's going to die anyway
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      Obviously men don't value women or children in Niger.
  • three weeks early and is slightly underweight
    • Amanda Power
      Amanda Power on 11 Sep 11
       
      if this situation were to happen in niger the baby would have died, and so would the mother if complications with the uterine scar (which would probably have not been seen) had risen.
  • Niger's women have to pay for the privilege of their substandard, inadequate services
    • Amanda Power
      Amanda Power on 11 Sep 11
       
      I think i would rather have my baby at home than walk all this way to be treated very poorly, possibly not have a midwife, and have to pay.
    • tania markussen
      tania markussen on 17 Oct 11
       
      The fact that the nigerian women have to pay for poor treatment where one in seven leads to death and where there is no medical equipment if anything goes wrong and no pain killers is very sad and feels very unfair.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 12 Sep 11
       
      This really resonated with me because I feel that it is such a strong comment on what the female population has achieved in the more advanced countries but does paint a picture of how far we are yet to come on a more global scale. I am curious as to where the 100% comes from and if the numbers prove to be completely true I would hope that the United States would strive to for this in regards to their female population, and on a broader scale the entire population to be as literate and educated as Sweden (China, Japan, etc.). While we are one of the most advanced countries in the world we still have a massive mountain to climb in relation to healthcare, education, and various other facets as a whole.
  • Sweden, by contrast, is one of the wealthiest economies on earth. Its people are healthy and well-fed, its shops well-stocked, its communications excellent and its women well-educated, with virtually 100% female literacy. More than 72% use modern contraception and the average age for a first birth is 29. The fertility rate is 1.7. It is, in every way, a happier and healthier place to be a woman.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 13 Sep 12
       
      It;s amazing what money and education can do to a community! 
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 12 Sep 11
       
      its very interesting to think of these notions of morality and personal motif in the definition of defining the line between the polis and the market when there are many limiting factors dissolving the two of them. where there is no gubernatorial sense of how to allocate resources to feed people; very little is any, and then the polis struggling to make ends meat and water of daily survival to bring into consideration that of others. certain things then become "nice problems to have" in western civilization when drinking water is abundant and famine is not an actuality as opposed to how it is in Niger where life to death is over, or under depending how you look at it, in regards to the access to something so crucial as clean water
  • To call the birth centre here basic is an understatement: to the western eye, from the outside, it resembles a neglected public lavatory
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 12 Sep 11
       
      This line was definitely powerful in my mind. It really contrasts the difference in quality of life between a first world nation and Niger. 
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 12 Sep 11
       
      "Why take that risk" - immediately made me cringe at the privileged healthcare that we are provided in first world nations in contrast to that which is provided in the third world.  
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 12 Sep 11
       
      Honestly, this makes me sick. I can't stand seeing nations unable to offer proper healthcare to their citizens and then over charging. Of course we see these fees in the US as well, but predominantly the average American can afford all basic medical expenses (this is not to say we shouldn't have true universal healthcare - because we should). It saddens me that the government of Niger can not properly regulate the industry or perhaps provide some sort of aid for mothers to be. While I understand their economy is lacking, which is a much greater issue at hand, it is truly disheartening to read about all the statistics in this article and realize those deaths were of real mothers who would have survived given proper care. 
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 12 Sep 11
       
      I really do wish that more people out there could read this type of article... it really is a reality check. It deeply saddens me to not only know this new information given to me about how it is in the world of Niger, but also to know that people like Carmen really do not know how good they have it. I myself have never truly been exposed to a type of environment like Dahara's, and I am so very thankful, but many people do not have the gratitude that I do for being raised in a generally clean and safe environment where people actually work for the well-being of children and where complications are minimal, and it bothers me to know that SO many people take it for granted. 
  • in Niger, birth is considered to be women's work and fathers keep their distance. The only piece of medical equipment in evidence in the entire centre is a plastic bowl into which Dahara has delivered the placenta.
  • Mothers in labour are looked after with every hi-tech advantage possible
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
       
      Shows a great difference in the ways women are treated in the two countries. It is to no surprise Niger, seeming to be a country still living in history and ancient Islamic beliefs, shows nearly no interest in the well being of women. Much like Afghanistan and other undeveloped Islamic countries.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 14 Sep 12
       
      Compared to Sweden, Niger is definitely less developed and less technologically advanced. Clearly, the Swedish people have more opportunities and are living in a flourishing area. 
  • Most of the mothers I talked to had had their first baby at 15 or 16 -one had had 11 babies before she was 25. Only 4% use modern contraception and not for cultural or religious reasons - many of the women I asked said they would welcome advice on spacing their children.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
       
      Seems to be common in old traditional Islamic countries.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 13 Sep 12
       
      This makes me really happy to be living in America.
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 14 Sep 12
       
      It's crazy how different cultures can be
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
       
      Sums up the reality and horrible differences between Sweden and a country like Niger.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 14 Sep 12
       
      A random razor blade? Seems to be an invitation for infection
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 14 Sep 12
       
      It probably is an invitation for infection, but they have no other options. Throughout the article they have said multiple times that they simply can't afford anything more efficient. In a small village like the one described they have a village attendant that has probably never had any formal training only figured some of the common things out through experience. 
  • It's 10am on a stiflingly hot Monday morning and I am in a delivery room with one of the unluckiest mothers on the planet. She is Dahara Laouali, and at the moment she is lying on a narrow, dusty hospital trolley pushing her baby into the w
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 12 Sep 12
       
      This is dumb.....
  • silence
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 13 Sep 12
       
      Why is this considered a tradition? Does anyone know why this is actually significant/symbolic for mothers in Niger? 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 13 Sep 12
       
      I have no idea, but i can only imagine how unpleasant that would be. I would like to know the answer to your questions as well.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 14 Sep 12
       
      Going through labor is a tough moment for all women. Not being able to speak or produce any type of noise would make it that much more unpleasant. 
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 14 Sep 12
       
      I wonder how and why this tradition started in the first place? Wonder what happens if the tradition is broken?
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 14 Sep 12
       
      Its interesting and quite saddening to see that the tradition is to endure labor in silence, especially when Nigerian mothers have so much less at their disposal, that they have to be strong when the health care is so weak... almost as though they are forced to compensate for Niger's lacking
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 14 Sep 12
       
      Interesting thought that its like they are "forced to compensate for Niger's lacking". It does kind  of seem that way. I wonder if the tradition comes out of that old saying of "children should be seen and not heard", but in this case its the women. 
  • that the messages aren't getting through
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 13 Sep 12
       
      Will it make a difference? These mothers seem very insistent on sticking to tradition; since they refuse to make any sound while giving birth to a child. I feel like some mothers would change their attitudes on breast-feeding, but others will want to commit to traditions. 
  • They scream, they shriek, they moan, they writhe: and they do it two to a room because there is no such thing as private delivery space. Nor for the most part is there any such thing as pain relief - a trip round the dispensary reveals empty shelves. Only women who have a caesarean are given anaesthetic.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 13 Sep 12
       
      It is horrible to hear about the agony that women have to go through in Niger to bring a new life into this world, a moment that should be joyous. It is astounding and I bet that many people are not even aware... we here in the United States take for granted our modern technology, safe environments, and the knowledge we have in order to have safe procedures, such as during childbirth. I hope that this changes soon in order to give these women somewhat of a relief.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 13 Sep 12
       
      I thought they had to be silent...?
  • harassed-looking midwives
  • "What makes us successful is that we put women at the centre of what we're doing,"
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 13 Sep 12
       
      This is a big difference between Niger and Sweden as Niger doesnt provide what should be necessities and the father is not apart of the birthing process, etc. In Sweden they realize how miraculous this process is, but also how precautious they need to be... I hope Niger can get sufficient funds and work on increasing their care of the women to give them some peace of mind about the labour process.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 14 Sep 12
       
      this is a better difference becasue sweden women have better care than Niger women niger women are poorer and cannot access the resources that sweden women have
  • A tale of two pregnancies: from a helicopter to a horse and cart
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 13 Sep 12
       
      This last section of the article best sums up the drastic contrast between the maternity care in Sweden and Niger.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 13 Sep 12
       
      What the lady from Sweden is going to experience is something that is realistic to me, But what the lady in Niger has to go through is unimaginable. I don't think i would want to have a child if the conditions were like that. They are definitely on opposite sides of the spectrum.   
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 14 Sep 12
       
      I find this comparison troblesome. The author of the website and the organization of, save the children, are framing an argument of two locations that are the best and worst places to bear a child. I ask the question why? Why would you want to construct an article about how different Niger mother-bearing is compared to Sweden. I could assume that most readers agree that there are problems in Niger that should be addressed. The cleaver ending " A tale of two pregancies: from a helicopter to a horse and cart" should not be the focus of this web-article. THE FRAMING IS ALL WRONG, I would advise the author or authors to express more solutions. Educations is the solution. Well is it? Education is the foundation but applying the skills is the " Different plant". Sweden learned how to reduce fatality rates of giving birth by learning from the past. While Niger is still living in the past. Conflicting time zones. Joanna Moorhead should have utilized her time efficently. Instead of tell a story that everyone already knows about. She should have helped the pregant women in Niger by getting the horses ready and pleading doctors in Sweden to donate there resourses in Niger. Know that would be time well spent.
  • I'll be able to phone the hospital with any worries and the midwives will come out to see me every day if I need them," she says.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 13 Sep 12
       
      This is the complete opposite of the situation that Dahara is in with her new born. Carmen has multiple resources available with simply a phone call, while Dahara has to solve any worries on her own or with the few resources in the village
    • jackmcfarland12
      jackmcfarland12 on 13 Sep 12
       
      In my sociology class we have been discussing the connections between social norms of genders and of different cultures. Whenever I picture a typical American childbirth i can always see the father nearby or helping in the delivery process, maybe even being one of the first to see the baby. In the Niger I guess the men see it as a totally female role until he can be used as labor, common in more underdeveloped communities.
  • placenta.
  • 16 Share
  • Niger is rated the world's poorest country by the UN. Around 14% of its under-fives are significantly malnourished (and in the aftermath of last year's crop shortage and in the face of another shortfall this year, that figure could soon be much worse). Less than half its population has access to safe water.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 13 Sep 12
       
      I think that this whole passage is another reminder of how great our country is. Although our country has issues deciding welfare and we aren't usually thought of to be given as many free benefits as a third world country, when you go to a hospital you are guaranteed cleanliness, proper medicine, and also a higher percentage that you and your baby will survive the birthing process. I think this in itself is just another obvious reason why the United States of America is such a great place to live and the opportunity to take advantage of all these great services. 
  • But there is more to the horrors of Zinder. Many of the women who come here will have travelled long distances, often in agony, to reach the hospital
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 14 Sep 12
       
      transportation is a serious issue for the many who dont have access to medical services, a mobile heath service should be developed so everyone can receive proper care  
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 14 Sep 12
       
      This does not surprise me at all. I do not expect many nations in Africa to have great health care systems. It shows that some people are just less fortunate due to their surroundings and resources.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 14 Sep 12
       
      It is  simply a difference in resources and medical expertise. Sweden has more money and an intricate health care system. It not only is the best country to give birth, it also has declining mortality rates and a large elderly population.
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 14 Sep 12
       
      This highlights the global inequality between countries such as Niger and Sweden. And it is sad because unless there is some sort of outside help Niger is stuck in a kind of loop. Child birth will always be hard and more dangerous in a country like that unless update their infrastructure, which is almost impossible because of the lack of money. If you scale this down and look at singular countries we have the same types of inequality problems that we see on a world scale. Many times low income families are left with fewer opportunities just as poor countries are. It is unrealistic for first world countries to pour money into everything from infrastructure, education and medicine, but since our world is becoming smaller and smaller maybe it would be advantageous to help in at least one area. 
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 14 Sep 12
       
      I agree with this point. This problem reminds me of the saying that you can give a man to fish and he can eat for one day, or you can teach the man to fish and he will always have food. there is a massive, widespread problem in Niger, as well as many other 'third world countries' that can't be fixed just by other governments supplying infrastructure or things of that nature. A widespread societal change is really necessary, but as to the best way to do that, that remains the question.
  • Dahara's husband has not been involved in the birth and is unlikely to play a big role in the early weeks with the baby
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 14 Sep 12
       
      If the woman had just given birth then she will be tired and not fully healed especially if she did get all the medical help she would have needed during the birth. She needs her husband's help so much right now and the fact that he is not helping and he's not expected to help is really just sad and could be part of the reason the children are not getting enough at a young age.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 14 Sep 12
       
      Considering that women in Niger are materially disadvantaged, I wonder what one does for a means of entertainment? Maybe this would lead to a more births? (or at least combined with the lack of contraceptives)
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 14 Sep 12
       
      Even though we are living on the same planet, ther are people who live on both sides of the spectrum, whether it be a healthy and sanitary life, or a filthy, hopeless one.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think this really highlights the difference between privileged society and those who are not so privileged. The fact that there is both physical and cultural limitations placed on these women makes me wonder if this plays a direct role in their state. Not that it has to do with all of it of course, but it might be an important factor.  Either way, comparing the situations between Sweden and Niger, it really does make one think whether what is going on in Niger could be considered an extreme of how bias can have an indirect on the welfare of its people (example: women are often illiterate, yet there is a call for more educated midwives)
  • What is needed now is an emphasis on preventing deaths in babies, especially those in the early days and weeks of life.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 14 Sep 12
       
      We can introduce as many medical technologies as possible, but what is really needed is a fundamental change in the thought of the mothers of Niger. In such a rural area, this is obviously not easy.  How can policy makers with an eye on international health make a shift towards prenatal and postnatal emphasis on health? In a country with isolated pockets of civilization are present, it is not possible to introduce a hospital or medical center that is in a convenient location for all mothers. This obviously creates an inherent inequality in these mother's ability to give birth to healthy children. The most that we can do is focus on education: As in, teaching these women the importance of vaccinations and sticking to a specific health-based regime.  We far too often underestimate the important of education on even items that, to us, seem to be common sense. Every culture is naive to certain aspects of other culture. And as strange as it sounds, it is worthwhile to try to make a fundamental changed in Nigerian culture to try emphasize health. 
  • Carmen's chance of dying as a result of childbirth over her lifetime is one in 29,800 (Dahara's, remember, was just one in seven). The risk of Tess dying in her first year is one in 333. In Sweden, 100% of births are attended by a skilled, trained midwife.
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 14 Sep 12
       
      The dramatic difference of these statistics is really sad. Losing a child is one of the hardest things things a parent has to go through. I personally know someone who lost a baby who was only 6 months old; the parents were so heart-broken for so long. In Niger, the mothers, as the fathers don't seem to be around during this time, have to go through this all the time. This is so depressing. 
    • Phillip Delgado
      Phillip Delgado on 14 Sep 12
       
      All though the thirty eight year old woman has a great chance of having a healthy baby, a hundred years ago she most likely wouldn't have survived. It is amazing what modern medicine can do. 
  • Dahara pushes, pain creasing her sweating face, and then pushes again - and suddenly between her legs there is a little boy with the walnut features of newborns everywhere, and a mop of damp, dark hair. Insa gives a delighted squeal, but Dahara is still silent: as her baby is wrapped in a cloth, she turn
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think that it is amazing that there is so much of a difference in medical care between countries such as Niger and Sweden.  It's like they are from a time hundreds of years before.  
  • Death is a real possibility for women who get into difficulties giving birth in Fardun Sofo: Zeinabou Abdou, the village's traditional birth attendant, has years of experience but no drugs and no equipment except for a packet of razor blades for cutting the umbilical cord.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think this is a great example of how public policy implications in America can differ so greatly from those internationally. Sometimes it's hard for the American population to keep that in mind when getting up in arms about current issues in our society.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 14 Sep 12
       
      This was a really interesting article. From the start of the Nigerian silence birth to reading about the wealthy living of Sweden, it really did hit me that this is actually happening around the world. It made me put a lot of things in perspective. This article was really interesting to me, because it showcased the extremes of child birth from two very different countries. Not only did this article make me kind of depressed, it also made me think about everything I have now.
  • Where Uppsala's hospital is white, clean, spacious and calm, Zinder's is dirty, cramped and chaotic. The corridors are crammed with dusty, ancient-looking equipment. There are open bins and swarms of flies in the quadrangle, and cats roam free. The paint is peeling, there is no air conditioning despite temperatures of 40C and more,
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 15 Sep 12
       
      This is a nightmare. The state in which they are made to give life invites nothing but misery and the fear of death. The equipment and care (or lack thereof) that they are provided with is appalling. The entire process is terrifyingly dangerous; no human being should be made to accept these conditions. 
  • Because this boy is the fifth child Dahara has pushed into the world and of the others, only one is still alive.
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 15 Sep 12
       
      Only one is still alive? wow! did they die at birth or die sometime during there childhood? either way it shows the very poor living conditions are. Do they have a really low life expectancy age? 
  • anonymous on 12 Sep 11
     
    This lack of care available to Nigerians makes me wonder if they do not value human lives as more developed countries do. The men do not even believe that the women are worth the money to go to even a run-down hospital, and when babies die, it is such a common circumstance that it is not a big deal. Perhaps money is really hard to make in Nigeria, but life is priceless, isn't it?
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
     
    Although this article is the sad truth, Niger is one of many countries with very similar beliefs and practices. It may be gut wrenching and very foreign to us; however, that way of life is all they know. A country like that does not change because the country as a whole does not want to change. The old Islamic and cultural traditions countries practice freeze them in history. The people not only are uneducated on the modern way of life, but lack the motivation to seek the knowledge to change their own way of life. That does not dismiss the horror women face in countries like Niger, I feel people from western cultures should do their best to help, but there is only so much the modern world can do to influence an entire way of life.
  • cj_woldanski on 12 Sep 11
     
    I thought that this article was really interesting about the way that it explained some of the differences between childbirth in a technologically advanced nation and a third world nation. I think that it is unfortunate how some of these children in Niger are being born with the odds not really in their favor, but that is life. These mothers need to be more aware of what may happen to them or their children and you would think that maybe they would try to find a better site before they started the birthing process. I also thought that it was interesting how in the article, it explained how that in Sweden the health care is free, but what I would like to know is how do they get free health care because nothing in life comes free, someone is always picking up the tab.
  • Mitchell Burris on 12 Sep 11
     
    Global equity is an impossibility. This idea that Nigerian infants "deserve" the same degree of pre/post-natal care is unrealistic. Proficient medical care is essentially a luxury not a basic human right. The situation in Niger is horrific but unfortunately it's a grim fact that life simply isn't fair. Their are numerous problems in Niger and other third world countries that contribute to the poor quality of life and we (The U.S and/or philanthropic individuals) can not rectify all these problems nor is it our responsibility. I realize this sounds cold and unfeeling but I do not mean it that way.
  • Emily Shandorf on 14 Sep 12
     
    It is interesting knowing how different cultures and religions are comparing to ours. I was shocked reading that in Niger woman while having a baby don't make any noises. They suffer in pain and go through with it. Now a days in the hospitals besides getting pain killers and medicine the woman is free to complain and yell and do everything just o have a baby. America is a liberal country. In the poor countries woman usually get pregnant at a young age (15 or 16) and most of the people are not ready to be a parent for more then one child, but even for only one. It is a great responsibility and time consuming. I understand that there is only a 4% that people use contraception but the risk is high and it is not a joke to bring another human being to life. it must be difficult for Dahara seeing that her kids that she had before died and that the one that she has might or might not die. It must be a worse feeling loosing "your" human being or also aborting. I also found interesting the tradition that men don't play role in the in their child's life, they keep their distances. I would never want my husband to do that and my child to grow up without a male figure that will teach him/her new things, experiences. Another interesting fact that you can only get blood from relatives in the hospital if someone is dying or is sick and needs new blood. A good aspect that they have put in Niger is "Save the Children" which is where they take away health fees and therefore more poor people have a better chance of surviving. I agree on that the countries needs more trained midwives, well-equipped antenatal clinics to improve lives in these countries. Niger just needs help from richer countries because it is not a safe place and it is not a place to grow up a child. At the end of the article there is written "Ces't le vie", (it's life), like if it was normal that new born babies have to die from these mal treatments and diseases that in other countries could
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.
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?
Tyler Schnorf

Wired 11.09: PowerPoint Is Evil - 3 views

www.wired.com/...ppt2.html

shared by Tyler Schnorf on 22 Oct 11 - Cached
  • Visual reasoning usually works more effectively when relevant information is shown side by side.
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 22 Oct 11
       
      This made me think about the Chart Wars clip we watched. In that clip, we concluded that visuals are more effective to get your point across rather than words, but this article is saying that no matter how creative and appealing your visuals are, the audience will be bored if you haven't introduced an interesting topic for them. I think they both make sense, but personally I'm not too sure which one i agree with more.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 23 Oct 11
       
      Well, yes because there is a connection. A graph with words makes more sense together than separate. Words by itself is considered boring. Picture by themselves are lacking content. So, images and words together would be better for listeners. This article does suggest that the importance of words will not be good enough without visuals, and vice versa, but I disagree. I think people gravitate more towards visuals by themselves. However, I do think that for information to make sense, visual reasoning is more effective when relevant information is presented as well.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 24 Oct 11
       
      The Chart Wars clip does have some connection to this. Images can carry a powerful message, but without relevant words to explain the image, people can easily interpret the visual incorrectly. Words give context to an image, although the image itself is primarily what causes an emotional response. Relevant information can also give the sense that the issue expands beyond the single instance shown in one image. I think that visuals cause people to think about an issue while the relevant information gives a clearer understanding and focus.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 24 Oct 11
       
      In today's society the ability to use images affects people every moment. That ad, the commerical on tv, the poster on the wall etc. How visually striking are those images for the unadopted pets with the sarah mclaughlin song or the starving children in africa. There are reasons they show you photos to things like that, to make an impact and emotional connection. Everyone has a weakness for imagery and it truly just depends on the depictions being made.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 24 Oct 11
       
      I believe that powerpoint presentations are effective when visuals are present because it gives the audience a better undersanding of the information being presented.However some powerpoints can be boring like Tufte said in the article "Thus PowerPoint presentations too often resemble a school play -very loud, very slow, and very simple." For powerpoints it depends on the presenter because if the presenter is not engaging and very vague the presentationn will indeed feel like a school play and the audience wont truly benefit from it.
    • Kaitlyn Guilbeaux
      Kaitlyn Guilbeaux on 24 Oct 11
       
      I believe that PowerPoint presentations are for the most part effective and good. There are many instances when PowerPoints seem ineffective, and that is because the presenter utilizing the slideshow doesn't know how to create an effective presentation. That is why small children are being taught how to use the programs in elementary schools. If we all know how to make a good slideshow, they will always be effective learning tools. PowerPoints are beneficial, when they are done well, because many people thrive when they can look at a visual that represents what they are learning about. From this article, I have gotten a vibe that the author believes that slideshow presentations are made to stand alone. That is something I almost never see. A presenter uses a slideshow as an aid to accompany something that they are speaking about. If a presenter did not say anything and just made his/her audience look at slide after slide, of course it would be boring and ineffective! That is not how slideshows are meant to be used.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 24 Oct 11
       
      I feel like a PowerPoint presentation is a thing of the past, there are so many new ways to get information across to people. When someone gives a presentation with just a bunch of info some people will understand it ,but others will not feel engaged. Instead of someone just trying to get a bunch of information across to people with 40 slides of info in a PowerPoint they are not going to feel engaged, they are not going to want to listen and they will not think any of the information is important to their lives. There are so many new ways data is presented and when people are learning they need to feel engaged to the material they are being presented.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 26 Oct 11
       
      I feel like I should bring up an idea that I have seen used before called a Pecha Kucha. Its a twenty-slide PowerPoint presentation that is just made up of pictures, with NO text. Each slide is only allowed to be up on the screen for twenty seconds before the next one comes up. This sort of presentation is conducive to preventing "information overload" and makes it easier for the audience to follow along.
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 24 Oct 11
       
      especially in Dr. Marichal's class. the difference is that most poeple dont know how to use them. most people even teachers put too much infor on the powerpoint for a student to take note on or process. there is a technique to making a useful and productive powerpoint most dont know about
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 24 Oct 11
       
      I have to agree with Magen. In class we use the powerpoints but minimally. We know that taking notes on the slides presented would be less than useless. Its sad that the majority of Profs use the Powerpoint to teach everything. Every single subject that I have taken in college either at CLU, UCR or at Berkley (just the schools that I've either sat in class or taken classes) have all used Powerpoints and each one, I've fallen asleep at least once because its so boring. I think thats what Tufte is getting at. Its a boring way to teach therefore ineffective.
    • Taylor Rofinot
      Taylor Rofinot on 24 Oct 11
       
      Not sure that I can agree with this. although powerpoint doesn't help all the time it isn't a clear line of stupidity and can still help relay statistical information
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 24 Oct 11
       
      A table or graph can be very useful to have up as a point of reference and so people can see the data for themselves and if there are multiple tables or graphs it would be useful to use a powerpoint. I don't think powerpoint is what is stupid, it's the way people use it. Used properly it can be a useful tool.
  • ...13 more annotations...
  • At a minimum, a presentation format should do no harm. Yet the PowerPoint style routinely disrupts, dominates, and trivializes content.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 24 Oct 11
       
      I feel as if whether we are making a power point or taking notes off one, more often than not a power point is overwhelming and chalk full of information for us to read and write down instead of listening to what is really being said. That isn't to say that I believe power points are bad and stupid, I simply mean to suggest that individuals do not use the power point in the most effective manner which I think is more accurate than just dismissing the program and its value all together.
  • Particularly disturbing is the adoption of the PowerPoint cognitive style in our schools. Rather than learning to write a report using sentences, children are being taught how to formulate client pitches and infomercials. Elementary school PowerPoint exercises (as seen in teacher guides and in student work posted on the Internet) typically consist of 10 to 20 words and a piece of clip art on each slide in a presentation of three to six slides -a total of perhaps 80 words (15 seconds of silent reading) for a week of work. Students would be better off if the schools simply closed down on those days and everyone went to the Exploratorium or wrote an illustrated essay explaining something.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 24 Oct 11
       
      I agree with the last couple sentences of this paragraph in specific. I honestly think that the amount of information we retain from a powerpoint presentation is little to none. We seriously would be better off going to an educational place or such- we would be learning more in comparison.
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 24 Oct 11
       
      I fondly remember the days that we actually left the school building to go to places like museums to learn. What ever happened to those days? I feel that these are very important resources that a school can use but choose not to. The best we could get nowadays is to read a power-point about what we would see at the museum.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 24 Oct 11
       
      I'm not fond of the author's false dichotomy that we are teaching power-point message based language in place of decent literary writing. Also, I hold the author's assertions that teaching children the boring methods of working in the business world as "pointless" as being misguided. True, school is much more than preparing children for the workplace - but it is a definitive pillar of education to prepare them for the tasks they will encounter outside of school in order to allow for a functioning society (a working polis). 
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 29 Oct 12
       
      Mike is exactly right. School is a lot more than just teaching kids reading, writing and arithmetic. They will learn the foundations of society by working hard. 
  • Audience boredom is usually a content failure, not a decoration failure.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 24 Oct 11
       
      ...or lack of interest as well
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 30 Oct 12
       
      I think that no matter what the topic, if the presenter is able to present the information in a way that makes it interesting to the audience there is no problem. But the presenter must use his style of presentation to present the information instead of just relying on the powerpoint to do do the presentation for him/her.
  • The practical conclusions are clear. PowerPoint is a competent slide manager and projector. But rather than supplementing a presentation, it has become a substitute for it.
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 24 Oct 11
       
      More and more we see that some, if not most, classes make it a point to incorporate PowerPoint presentation into the requirements. As much as these presentations are painted in a position light (and this is not to say I am against PowerPoint) they lack the proper execution. When professors add all the information they are going to use in lecture, you see a good amount of students feel that there time is being wasted as all the information needed and being used in lecture is on this presentation, one that they can easily print. We become disengaged when all the information is given to us, yet we have to sit there and pretend we are interested. Can PowerPoints be useful, yes of course they can. But for the most part, they tend to contain too much information, and we tend to get lost in the sea of data.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 24 Oct 11
       
      The author again assumes that everyone misuses power-point which is far from the case. 
  • Presentations largely stand or fall on the quality, relevance, and integrity of the content.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 24 Oct 11
       
      Power points largely rely on these factors as well. To any successful presentation there is quality, relevance, and integrity; however, power point allows for creativity and a use of marketing skills to HELP capture the attention of the audience. As seen in the pictures above, Tufte shows a power point and attempts to use it as a "chaotic and incoherent" mess. I find it very interesting that Tufte actually uses a horrible power point and expects the readers of his article to believe it signifies ALL power points. I do agree with him on one issue though, power points being used for young children in grade school is a bit early because young children need to begin with the basic understanding of how to comprehend and truly absorb what they read rather than relying on pictures to create their own narrative.
    • Jacqueline Ramsay
      Jacqueline Ramsay on 24 Oct 11
       
      Power point presentations may cause a distraction from the actual content of a presentation, with all the obnoxious graphic and fonts that take over the screen. But students should be taught how to incorporate power point into their presentations because with today's technological advances, power points are very commonly required. The important thing is to continue teaching the importance of public speaking and essay writing, but also ensuring their knowledge of power point as an additional tool. Power points can also draw the audience in by using few words, making sure not to overwhelm but simply introduce the important information. Giving the audience something to look at other than the presenter also gives your eyes options, keeping you more focused. However, when teachers use power points for their class lectures and fill them with notes that we are expected to know, students spend too much time trying to copy the notes rather than focus on the actual thoughts and words of the professor. I think the more simple the better.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 24 Oct 11
       
      Overall I agree that powerpoints are poorly implemented, yet I think they can be used properly to improve a presentation. I think the major problems with usage today is. -Too much content/Blocks of text -Distraction (especially in classes where everyone is so busy copying the slides down they mis important information) -Presenter relies on the information to remember what the presentation is on (basically being unprepared) -Related to last one losing track of the topic and jumping around to different slides to figure out what you wanted to talk about
  • Slideware may help speakers outline their talks, but convenience for the speaker can be punishing to both content and audience.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 24 Oct 11
       
      This statement is very ture because i believe that powerpoints, while sometimes necessary, are really overused. They should be used for supplementary ideas rather than the centerpiece for the speaker's whole presentation, as that is detrimental to everyone.
    • Tyler Schnorf
      Tyler Schnorf on 31 Oct 12
       
      Powerpoints are definately too overused in todays society. They should be used as guides to help learning not to convey a specific message to an audience.
  • betraying an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 24 Oct 11
       
      I feel that while using imagery and data might in away betray the content of the talk - I believe it is the way in which the presentation is done that truly decides this. One could use the power point simply as a reference to statements made by the speaker, or an outline as the author mentioned. I feel that saying all "slideware" somehow is a problem is kind of hyperbolic.
  • The standard PowerPoint presentation elevates format over content, betraying an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 27 Oct 11
       
      (I just realized that I posted this as private... but I posted it on time I swear!) I definitely agree with this point. I remember when we used to start using Powerpoints in school back in the elementary days, and it was the plain black and white, and it focused more on information than format. However, starting in high school, it started to be more about whether or not the presentation was aesthetically pleasing. I never would have connected it to commercialism, but now that Tufte has brought it up, they do have striking similarities. 
  • Everything is wrong with these smarmy, incoherent graphs: the encoded legends, the meaningless color, the logo-type branding. They are uncomparative, indifferent to content and evidence, and so data-starved as to be almost pointless.
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 29 Oct 12
       
      These graphs aren't coherent nor meaningless, most people are visual learners and looking at these graphs with color and labels helps it to become very clear for someone to understand and remember. 
  • Graphics Press A traditional table: rich, informative, clear. BAD Graphics Press PowerPoint chartjunk: smarmy, chaotic, incoherent. Consider an important and intriguing table of survival rates for those with cancer relative to those without cancer for the same time period. Some 196 numbers and 57 words describe surviv
  • Imagine a widely used and expensive prescription drug that promised to make us beautiful but didn't. Instead the drug had frequent, serious side effects: It induced stupidity, turned everyone into bores, wasted time, and degraded the quality and credibility of communication.
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 31 Oct 12
       
      Edward Tufte is crazy. Edward states " Imagine a widely used and expensive prescription drug that promised to make us beautiful but didn't. Instead the drug had frequent, serious side effects: It induced stupidity, turned everyone into bores, wasted time, and degraded the quality and credibility of communication". What! First Edward, this is the 21st century which requires humans to use magic that can connect us to the internet. It's called a computer, and by the way, I have one. Within my computer, is a Voodoo based software called PowerPoint, which has significantly degraded my English capabilities and caused the education system to plummet. I will know connect the dots and complete my response. "Crazy" is a strong work, lets say "powerful", so I can keep up with the theme of "PowerPoint". I just called Edward Turte crazy, well is he. Probably not, but I can use derogatory words in hopes of publishing an article in Wired magazine. So Edward, you should restate your phrase, "PowerPoint is Evil". First, PowerPoint and slide presentations gain student attention through means of video, graphics, music and pictures. Second, Professors can share lectures and presentations by sharing flash drive. Third, the benefit of using power-point create creativity within students and is a useful tool in the job market, because the majority of business have used PowerPoint.
  • anonymous on 23 Oct 11
     
    I think PowerPoint slides are really useful for getting some ideas in school to stick into the students' heads. If the teachers always had to draw diagrams in their explanations, that eats up some valuable class time and they might not be as clear as one which is made on a computer (and very few people have handwriting as neat as a computer's). If the presentations are actually good, they don't look like advertisements, but also have important content, whether it is explained verbally or visually.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Lauren Frenkel on 24 Oct 11
     
    I would definitely have to say that power points are very useful, but as a second addition. Power points are a great way to guide a lecture or discussion, however not all the infomation can be provided on it. Lecture is important so that you are forced to listen and think about what is being said rather than just reading it. Power points become problematic because at times they are relied on to heavily and they can cause some one to be distracted from the main point that is trying to be made.
  • Kiera Murphy on 24 Oct 11
     
    I believe PowerPoint is a very effective tool in the classroom! As a visual learner I benefit from relating facts and information with a slide or picture. For example in Dr.Marichal's class I may remember the image of the young and old lady picture when I'm having to answer a question about perception. Also, a PowerPoint helps the professor stay on track and gives them a great tool to keep organized and prepared. Some professors do rely on PowerPoints too much, but if you use them as a source of an outline for lecture of discussion it serves as a very useful and technologically savvy resource!
  • cj_woldanski on 24 Oct 11
     
    Personally, I think power points are a great way to help get someone's point across. Some power points are boring because of the way they are formatted or simply because the person presenting is boring. When information that is relevant to the subject is put up on the big screen and it is outlined in bullet points it gets right to the point and tells you this is what you need to know. But I'll admit when someone does have a weird chart like the example that looked just like a Picasso painting it does get confusing and does not have a lot of valuable information.
  • Andrew Rothans on 24 Oct 11
     
    I feel visual reasoning really is more effective because I can see what I am being told. The information means alot more wen it is presented to me visually. I enjoy classes where the teachers use powerpoints because I can actually take notes and process what I am being told. In my opinion powerpoints really help present information in a different way and make information more interesting.
  • Mitchell Burris on 24 Oct 11
     
    I do think that the author makes a good point. I find that most often when I am confronted with a power point presentation that I am in for a boring presentation. It is hard to say definitively if this is because of the presenter and it would have been a boring presentation anyway or if it is the way it was presented through power point. My first impulse is to surmise that the real problem is with the people giving presentation and not power point itself because I can think of a number of classes specifically *cough*Dr Marichell*cough* that I find engaging, helpful, and entertaining. Maybe this is related to what the author is getting at. Perhaps power point is becoming a crutch and helping people learn a short cut method to an "assignment completing" presentation. Over all I think that if the speaker is engaging and simply uses the power point to add to their presentation and does not simply read the slides to the listener that it can be a valuable tool.
Melissa Moreno

Bystanders to Genocide - Magazine - The Atlantic - 3 views

www.theatlantic.com/...4571

shared by Melissa Moreno on 04 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • With the grace of one grown practiced at public remorse, the President gripped the lectern with both hands and looked across the dais at the Rwandan officials and survivors who surrounded him. Making eye contact and shaking his head, he explained, "It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate [pause] the depth [pause] and the speed [pause] with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 04 Dec 11
       
      He did not make an apology, but instead an acknowledge of not knowing what was going on because of the job he had. I can understand this for people sitting in offices. Where are they going to hear about things like this? On the news and if not on the news? where? However, president Cllinton was as his name suggest, the president, he knew about it, but he did not know what to do about it. There is no way he was unaware of the genocide. However, i think he should have just admitted that he knew about it, but America did not know what actions to take, but once America wanted to help we did our best. That would have been better, because another country cannot hold another for not helping them.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 05 Dec 11
       
      What could be done though? The US could have sent troops t to stop it but then we have a whole nation with no leadership which has probably had a large portion of anyone who would have been capable of leading it murdered by the previous government.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 05 Dec 11
       
      There are possibilities that could suggest that the President did not know about it until it was too late. If you're going to commit genocide that last people you want to know about it will be other countries, and the first people you silence in the country are news reporters. I think it would have been extremely controversial if we sent troops in. We would be in the middle of another Vietnam War-like situation. Many Americans would probably ask why we were taking care of another country when we were just coming out of a recession.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 05 Dec 11
       
      But even saying that they knew what was happening but didn't know how to act is a lie. The previous paragraph says that they refused to do things to help and worked actively to pull people who were helping out. It seems almost as if they were aiding the genocide because they wanted to stay out of it so badly.
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 05 Dec 11
       
      how serious does a situation need to get before the US will act on it and give it a valid amount of attention in order to aid in some way?
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 05 Dec 11
       
      I agree. And ironically, this question can also be asked with respect to that of global warming.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 05 Dec 11
       
      The seriousness of the situation is not really the case I don't think. I think it is more of the risk/cost factors of the situation. If Rwanda had been a major economic helper to us then I think we would have acted extremely quickly. If Rwanda had something to offer the US in return for our military support I am sure we would have acted accordingly. These are all the things that the President has to consider before investing millions of dollars into a campaign to help a country. Moral issues aside.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 05 Dec 11
       
      I agree with Jonathan, if Rwanda had been more important to the US economically, then help would have come quicker. However, it is a upsetting that these people suffered great loses and were hoping for help from this country.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 05 Dec 11
       
      Its really sad that thats what it comes down too. I do agree with those who commented above how its a status issue. If Rwanda had a better status and have been a major economic helper to the US then are support probably would have been given immediately, however since thats not the case then we didnt react right away.
  • Ryan Brown on 05 Dec 11
     
    Why is it always the U.S. that has to intervene? At any one time, somewhere in the world a genocide is occurring, a society is being destroyed by oppressors. What is the role of our country to always have a hand in making it better? We do not have the resources to keep doing this over, and over, and over again. We have been doing this since 1950 and ever since, it has not exactly been an ideal situation. Much to contrary belief of these posts, I do have a moral code and it is very much in the hearts of these people but I am just tired of U.S. soldiers dying for what? Especially something that will more then likely happen again.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • John Buchanan on 05 Dec 11
     
    All good points. I believe President Clinton was simply playing politics. He remembered having to bring 19 SF and Delta guys home in body bags the previous year, and was afraid that the same thing would happen again. That decision was wrong. Like Felicia said, there is no way he didn't about what was going on. Decision through indecision is a favorite of politicians who try and fence-sit. Only in this case, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people paid with their lives for the President's lack of foresight. Ryan: I believe the United States takes a role in foreign situations because, as the richest and most powerful nation on the face of the earth, it is our job. Did President Bush stay in Iraq in 2007 because it was good for his numbers in the polls? Certainly not; he did it because he believed it was America's moral responsibility to not abandon the Iraqi people. The same can be said of President Obama, and the actions he took in Libya this past winter. As for you comment regarding the deaths of American soldiers, I would like to point you to the words engraved on the Korean War Memorial in Washington, D.C.: "Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met." We honor them not because they died fighting for the freedom of the American people, but rather because they died fighting the greater ideals of tyranny and oppression, which (while it may not be easy to be accept politically), it is certainly something of which we can be proud.
  • cj_woldanski on 05 Dec 11
     
    I remember I actually watched a documentary on the genocide and there was more that the US could have done. But we did not act because there was no interest in the region. We did not feel that we should do anything after the disaster in Somalia. So we could have done something but if it failed then it would be disasterous.
  • Eric Arbuckle on 05 Dec 11
     
    It is our moral duty to come to the aid to others, if we have a clear goal and path to that goal in order to avoid getting attached to a conflict for many years at the cost of thousands of troops. We should have gone into Rwanda because a genocide was in process, but we should not jump into every situation to help people because nothing is just black and white, or that easy.
Kim H

Jay-Z vs the Game: Lessons for the American Primacy Debate | Marc Lynch - 3 views

lynch.foreignpolicy.com/...or_the_american_primacy_debate

shared by Kim H on 10 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • When he learnt this lesson might also offer insights into how great powers in IR learn.  He changed his style after his most famous beef, and the only one which he lost:  his battle with the Queensbridge legend Nas
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 10 Nov 11
       
      Never! Jay won this battle :) Supa Ugly!!
  • Jay-Z is a bit different, given his hegemonic status and the absence of a prior relationship. The Game has always had a particularly odd, passive-aggressive relationship with Jay-Z.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 11 Nov 11
       
      Game wants to be Jay z. Simply, the game has not been the same since he left GUNIT. If he attacks rap hero, its nothing because the hero wont even respond. Jay z started a new trend by not responding to rappers or by subliminally mentioning them. With his age, i think maturity is also apart of his resistance not to respond to the game, but rap is a young man's sport. Jay z is getting old in their eyes!
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 16 Nov 12
       
      I also think that the west coast v east coast battle (that has been going on since biggie and 2pac) may have something to do with this.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 16 Nov 12
       
      its all about whos on top, competitive game to rule the rap world.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 16 Nov 12
       
      Agreeing with Justina about the west coast vs. east may have something to do with it. Many rappers today are either from one side or the other and are gang affiliated. This posses rivalrys between many of the famous rappers in which there lyrics talk badly about one another. But it seems like the little tiff with Jay Z and the game can stem from west vs. east but is so minor that Jay Z could careless. I feel like the game is insecure and is somewhat jealous of Jay Z's fame and status in the rap game.
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 30 Nov 12
       
      The east coast vs the west coast, as well as rival gang affiliations on either side of the country definitely  play a role in how rappers respond to one another. someone else mentioned that ignoring someone is the best dis, and often times, i think that's true. a lot of people just want attention and so they try to start fights where there doesn't need to be any. 
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 11 Nov 11
       
      It goes back to the idea that giving importance to those who have less power than you do whether it is politically based or a music rivalry will only increase the power social power of the lesser party. Yet if you use your power to completely oppress the party with the less power, then you are seen as abusing importance of your power in society. So then what is one to do? How d
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 11 Nov 11
       
      I think Jay-Z is just best leaving things as is and not interfering. Similar to the world of politics and society in general, retalliation even when provoked does not shed the person in a good light...thats because society sees it as "whoever walks away without causing more harm or offending somebody, even when you were offended, is the bigger person". As a result, if they dont "walk away", it ends up being detrimental to a persons career
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 16 Nov 12
       
      I wonder what would have happened if we had used this way of thinking after 9/11 attacks...
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 16 Nov 12
       
      I agree that it is probably best for Jay-z to walk away and be the "bigger person" even if it means letting the Game win.  It's interesting to apply this to 9/11. It would have saved alot more lives. But i think that with so many lives that were lost in 9/11, if nothing happened then the public would be dissatisfied. The ones who lost people would feel like no one cared. 
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 16 Nov 12
       
      i also agree that Jay-Z is being the bigger person by not responding to the Game's offensive comments.Being the better person, I think, only applies when people are not being hurt or killed. In the  case of the 9/11 attacks however, it is the government's duty to protect its citizens.  They needed to respond with force because if we did not, then other countries might get the idea that we are passive and non-confrontational.   This may open up the doors for more attacks on the U.S. resulting in the loss of more lives.
  • ...10 more annotations...
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 11 Nov 11
       
      I think the author's friends reaction is what most people also think. But why should another rappers beliefs affect his career negatively? There is the question of whether or not he has the right to express his beliefs in that manner, but then do WE have the right to judge him because of his beliefs and then affect his career in singing?
  • His best hope is probably to sit back and let the Game self-destruct, something of which he's quite capable  (he's already backing away from the hit on Beyonce) -- while working behind the scenes to maintain his own alliance structure and to prevent any defections over to the Game's camp.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 11 Nov 11
       
      Jay-Z does benefit the most by letting the Game make a fool of himself in the public's eye. He has the most to lose. He's a smart man and much like politics he knows when he needs to step up and defend himself and when he needs to let a punk kid run his mouth and ruin their own career. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 16 Nov 12
       
      I agree with this statement, it is a very smart idea for Jay-Z to just sit back and not fight back... Game will self-destruct himself. He will make a fool of himself by proceeding to go after Jay-Z and having Jay-Z ignore him. Jay-Z will be looked at as the better person.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 16 Nov 12
       
      This seems an awful lot like the game of politics. Rappers or politicians, it's fiercely competitive and people will rise and fall on their own accord. 
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 16 Nov 12
       
      Jay-Z is handling the situation right. If someone is trying to push your buttons for no valid reason and is not cooperating, then the best thing to do is wait for the opposing side's self destruction. I agree with Caitlin, Jay-Z looks better compared to the Game , making him more mature.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 16 Nov 12
       
      Jay-z definitely is being smart about how he reacts. Just like in politics, if someone attacks you or says something bad about you, you would just look as stupid and rude as they did when they tried to attack you. You always look better if you handle it maturely.
  • Should he use this power to its fullest extent, as neo-conservatives would advise, imposing his will to reshape the world, forcing others to adapt to his values and leadership?
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 11 Nov 11
       
      I definitely do agree with Jay-Z having A LOT of power. I really do believe that he could do whatever he wanted and it would be accepted by most people, regardless of what it was. Of course, not everyone is always happy, but he can surely appease plenty of people.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 16 Nov 12
       
      I agree, plus he's a pretty respectable guy. But even if he has a lot of power to do what he wants, either make a change or not, it's his choice to make that decision. I'm not really sure if I like how they stated this question though, "forcing others to adapt to his values and leadership." Yeah, he has a lot of power, but it feels like the author is making him seem more powerful than he really is.
    • haakonasker
      haakonasker on 16 Nov 12
       
      I agree. He is a very respectible guy. He does have a lot of power, and beeing with Beyonce make them a incredible powerful couple in the music industry. The have already supported president Obama and gay marriage. This will influence a lot of people.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 16 Nov 12
       
      I never really thought much about cultural hegemony. Many rap artists such as jay z (and especially jay z). Through his songs and their lyrics he can manipulate culture and interests if he truly is that influential (I personally never thought twice about the guys). But he should use that power to the utmost extent if his message was good by our societal values. But it would be very dangerous if they weren't.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 14 Nov 12
       
      A part of me hopes that people do not take everything Jay-Z sings about as part of their own ideologies.  He is number one on the Forbes list as an entertainer and I think people forget that, there is a certain amount of meaning to his rap but he is also making music that he hopes will sell and make him a lot of money and not always trying to send the most morally correct message to listeners.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 16 Nov 12
       
      I totally agree with you, as smart as Jay-z may be about how to sell records and build a reputation and business in the music industry does not mean that his opinions or music have any kind of substance.
  • the countdown to the end of the Game's career starts today.
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 15 Nov 12
       
      I think since this paper was written in 2009 is really shows the power that people have over others. This line shows it perfectly because I have heard Jay-Z for the last couple of years on the radio and in the media but i hear none of The Game, I don not even know who he is (this could be due to the fact that I listen to country) But this still shows that if you criticize  someone in power the back lash could take you down and make them even more popular because people will want to defend and help someone who has not said some thing back, for example Taylor swift and Kanye we all know what I mean just by me saying their names together and that did help her career because it put her in the news much more then if she would have just won and got her award.
  • So what does Jay-Z do?  If he hits back hard in public, the Game will gain in publicity even if he loses... the classic problem of a great power confronted by a smaller annoying challenger
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 15 Nov 12
       
      I believe that it is best to do what is mentioned below... to let the Game continue on his way and the public will probably see it as a reach for power or publicity and Jay-Z will look like the good guy with not confronting the Game and causing a huge scene. The politics can relate to this as people do not want to see ugly confrontations, we want to see maturity to handle our society and make progress for a better society.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 16 Nov 12
       
      This 'matchup' is very similar to political figures, as well as between countries. If we were watching a presidential debate and saw one politician pining at the other and mocking them (or negative ads, generally. but not always), we would instantly be turned away as long as the receiver of the disses stayed above it all
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 16 Nov 12
       
      A well established power does not need to address all the up and coming challengers that my come his/her way. Publicly confronting a smaller force may give it more power or momentum by giving the smaller force. Bringing the well established power down a few levels so the well established power must do one of two things. Assume it is just a phase that will quickly die down or cut off all sources of power that may help the up and coming power.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 15 Nov 12
       
      If Jay-Z ignores the game, he will look like the bigger person. When the game led crowds in cheers of "F*** Jay-Z" and "Old Ass N*****" at some of his shows, it seemed like he was trying to get attention as well as gain supporters while they were fully into his music. 
  • As Jay-Z got older and more powerful, the marginal benefits of such battles declined and the costs increased even as the number of would-be rivals escalated
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 16 Nov 12
       
      This methodology obviously worked for him, now owning part of the Brooklyn Nets, albiet a small part, producing an incredibly successful album with Kanye West, being featured on multiple tracks with the G.O.O.D Music group, and marrying Beyonce. He didn't try and follow his predecessors, and did not let others like The Game sway his postions. His tenacity led him to the top, and he and his wife are one of the richest and most successful couples in Hollywood. 
  • He's generally avoided getting embroiled in beefs since reaching the top, only occasionally and briefly hitting back at provocations from rising contenders like 50 Cent, Lil Wayne, and others.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 16 Nov 12
       
      I feel being an adult and not responding to these things speaks more than any attempt Jay-Z might have to defend himself. Instead of stooping to their level, he simply has to show that he is too mature for their childish antics and that he has no interest in responding to them. I guess you could say that Jay-Z is avoiding the inducements that the other rappers are trying to get him to fall for. 
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 16 Nov 12
       
      its good, rappers these days are degrading and its all about the game and whos on top. He is a good example of working hard and making good choices that has led him to be successful.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 16 Nov 12
       
      This is really interesting. I never knew that rap was the equivalent to a competition, to a lot of people. Very passive-aggressive
Kim H

Does the Invisible Hand Need a Helping Hand? - Reason.com - 8 views

reason.com/...does-the-invisible-hand-need-a

shared by Kim H on 16 Sep 11 - Cached
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 16 Sep 11
       
      is this saying that the players would completely forget about the ethical thing to do which is maximize loong term gain and go for short term interests if the "game" has an issue like a player being fined? if there is a consequence do people try to cheat their way out by just getting short term gain and be done with it? do they think they are benefitting??
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 16 Sep 11
       
      I was thinking that maybe the fact that there is a government regulation, they don't feel that they are responsible for taking care of the natural resources? Kind of like the "government" is the babysitter? And the people don't feel that they should be help accountable. 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 16 Sep 11
       
      I mean to say that "people don't feel that they should be held accountable" not "help" sorry
    • Mangala Kanayson
      Mangala Kanayson on 16 Sep 11
       
      Maybe they think their human dignity and self worth are degraded by micromanagement/government intervention.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 16 Sep 11
       
      "By pursuing his own interest (the individual) frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." I think this quote, and this article as a whole, refers back to the common saying that "subordination leads to revolution." If a person wants to do something, as in donate time or money to a cause, they will do so because they feel the need to pursue their own interest through helping society, which is a win-win. But if "costs" are presented to people in the form of taxes and they're forced to pay for things they don't necessarily want to contribute to, they will want to go against the goodness of the cause, if merely for the sake of not allowing someone to force them into something.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 19 Sep 12
       
      Exactly. It's just human nature. We don't like to be told what to do, and despite what the money's going towards, since it was obligatory, it doesn't have the same effect as if it was given freely. There could be some satisfaction in paying the taxes, because there's a sense of "it's over with", but I don't think much else. Self interest governs a lot of how this society works, anyways, and making some things obligatory (like picking up kids from a daycare) tends to take away ethic value and increases a more economic perspective ("What is the opportunity cost for leaving my child too long? Is it worth it?")
  • In one game, a player split a day's pay with another player. If the second player didn't like the amount that the first player offered, he could reject it and both would get nothing. The findings would warm the hearts of market proponents. As Bowles notes, "[I]ndividuals from the more market-oriented societies were also more fair-minded in that they made more generous offers to their experimental partners and more often chose to receive nothing rather than accept an unfair offer.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 16 Sep 11
       
      did the players know that it was just a game? if they knew it was a game in the first place, obviously they wouldn't have minded giving their money away. if they actually thought it was real, that would be some interesting information. i wish they would've included this detail somewhere
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 16 Sep 11
       
      The players that were earning more money will always be more generous than the players that were earning less money. If the players knew it was a game they would have given their money away. But in some cases people that earn more money are less likely to give it away because usually the people that make more money are more frugal and send their money wisely
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 18 Sep 12
       
      I think it would have been better, like Gaby said, to see weather these people knew they were playing a game or not. I feel that the results would have been very different if they felt that it was for real, compared to if they knew it was a game. People are completely fine with losing money when it is just game; however, people feel that it is for real, they would "play", no pun intended, it smarter. 
  • Instead, parents reacted to the fine by coming even later.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 16 Sep 11
       
      The parents who picked up their kids late before the fine was imposed would come later after the fine because they would pay the same amount for being 5 minutes late as for being 20 minutes late. If people are going to be punished equally for actions of different degrees, they will often not care about a greater offense because the punishment will be the same.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      Just another example of innate human values and free market principles not coinciding.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 16 Sep 11
       
      While this is on a much smaller scale in the bigger picture, this same principle happens all the time whether when dealing with picking up your kids or republicans and democrats fighting in Washington. The free market does not always coincide with a personal morals, values, and ethics, however, that doesn't mean that it has to be either or.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 16 Sep 11
       
      The obvious reason that the parents came later than normal after the imposed fine is basically that the parents are rebelling against authority. The parents are sending a message that they do not care about the penalties, instead, they are saying that the people in authority in this situation have no power to tell them what to do.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      I believe that the parents were just weighing their pros and cons... pay extra money for the daycare or have more free time before getting their kids. They chose that the extra money for some more time was worth it, so it made it kind of better for the fine to be placed for the parents because it could relieve guilt of being late with paying the daycare extra money.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 18 Sep 12
       
      ok i already posted a comment but i dont see it on here anywho if the parents are paying for daycare and have good reasons for being late then they shouldnt be fined for working or whatever the case may be traffic etc there indeed paying for day care the teachers should atleast give a time limit after the initial let out time of the kids
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 18 Sep 12
       
      I think the parents saw the payment as an opportunity for extended care rather than a punishment for being late. So i gave them a chance to pay for babysitting pretty much making it more ethical to leave their kids past due. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 18 Sep 12
       
      I agree, yet when the parents signed up and paid for daycare they only paid for a certain time. I highly doubt the teachers are given overtime and after everything the teachers are doing for the child, the decent thing would be to pick your child up on time or call to inform them you will be late. Knowing that you will be fined a set price for being late and then using that to your advantage by knowing their is no set limit, is abusing the teachers. That's what I believe.   
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with what Eric said ^^^^^ up above, the parents appear to be, metaphorically, laughing in the face of the teachers and declaring that the teachers don't have authority over them. It's just like with politics, they need to find a middle ground where the parents and teachers are happy (eg. maybe charging slightly more, but getting rebates for picking up on time, so parents feel like they have the ability to GAIN something as opposed to the ability to LOSE something)
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 19 Sep 12
       
      My mom would pick me up late whether there was a fine or not.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with the people who understand this to be a prime example of how people react when they are micro manged. I understand that many people are different but looking at my life experiences I have been most successful when I had a boss that did not micromanage, when I was accountable to my self to pick up my son on time or be on time to a doctor appointment and finally when I had complete control over my own fiances. I look at the fine for being late as a way out of self accountability because it normalizes it by saying most of you can not be responsible so we will create something that allows you feel okay about. This is true in many other cases as well.
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • In one game, a player split a day's pay with another player. If the second player didn't like the amount that the first player
  • We're showing that paying taxes does produce a neural reward.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 16 Sep 11
       
      I would not have guessed this actually. People complain about taxes so much, but deep down they obviously know that paying taxes is beneficial to others as well as themselves.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 16 Sep 11
       
      This is true, unless there are too much taxes. And the taxed product, or in other words, where the money goes for the tax is another issue.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 16 Sep 11
       
      I disagree with the phrase "too much taxes". It should be noted that taxation in a blank slate economy can never be considered 'too much'. The appropriate amount of taxation depends on the cost of living, income levels, mean wealth, and a variety of other variables.  In the United States it could be said that 'too much taxation' could occur easily, but the greater issue at hand that I think Sarah raises is whether those taxes are being put to good use for the public good. The issue is one of public common interest vs private self interest.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 19 Sep 12
       
      In my opinion, the neural 'reward' for paying taxes is not necessarily just about taxes. Since the people knew that the tax was directly for a food bank and not something that doesn't help a sensitive topic; they felt like they were doing some good for a charitable cause even though it was required. And that sparked the 'neural reward' for them.
  • "policies that appeal to economic self-interest do not affect the salience of ethical, altruistic, and other social preferences." Consequently, material interests and ethics generally pull in the same direction, reinforcing one another.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      I feel like these two points are contradictory.
  • The players looked at the fine as a cost and pursued their short-term interests at the expense of maximizing long-term gains. In this case, players apparently believed that they had satisfied their moral obligations by paying the fine.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      This is one of the perfect examples of why the federal government charging people for not purchasing health insurance is a ridiculous idea.
    • jackmcfarland12
      jackmcfarland12 on 19 Sep 12
       
      How can you possibly justify satisfying a 'moral' obligation by stealing more of a collective resource in the short term and still having it be an issue in a few months or year. Self-regulation is an important tool for people to have, but potentially throwing the whole community under the bus for a short large gain may not be worth it...
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 19 Sep 12
       
      I definitely agree.  It doesn't really satisfy the moral obligation.  It will be a reoccurring theme for a while and many short term gains will not equate to long term ones.
  • The fine seems to have undermined the parents' sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase."
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 16 Sep 11
       
      It seems to be a bit of an overreaching argument to suggest that a fine would re-prioritize the ethical behaviors of the parents. I could understand parents viewing the situation in a matter of quantity, that is that being five minutes late is no different than an hour monetarily, but I think that this reasoning does not provide for whether they had a loss of moral integrity or guilt regarding their child being left at the day care late.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 17 Sep 11
       
      I do not agree with Bowles' statement that picking up one's children is not an ethical obligation. The way those parents saw the fine, was as a fee for an extra time. If the parents were more late than usual, I think the fine should have been more specific. By having such a vague fine, picking children up late you get fined, is not very informational. The fine should have been defined properly for instance, if you are 10 minutes late you are fined so much money and so on. Just moving the fine progressively according to the lateness of the parent might have produced different results.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 19 Sep 12
       
      I find this reaction to the fine interesting in that it plays directly to the idea that "time is money". Convenience comes at a certain economic value whether its your car, your cell phone, computer, plane ticket, paying someone to mow your lawn or anything of that sort that saves you the hassle of completing a certain task. All the things I have listed are tasks/items that could be done in cheaper/less efficient ways, but we buy the right to the convenience. The issue in the parents minds seems to be not along the line of morality in the sense of respecting OTHERS and their time, but the ethical standard of " I am buying this time, and I will pick up my child late because I 'bought' that right". Once money was introduced to the equation, the parents feel more inclined to not mind the  teachers time but rather their own. 
  • After eight rounds of play, the Colombians withdrew an amount that was halfway between individually self-interested and group-beneficial levels. Then
  • In other words, as people gain more experience with markets, morals and material incentives pull together.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      In markets, human beings will look out for their own self interest, because that is a part of human nature, so I do not know about gaining morals in the market because humans will find the best deal for them that they can get. All they have to do is get the other person to agree with them, it does not always have to be fair especially if one side needs something desperately.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      but yes the market could help people to learn how to work with others so that we could all benefit
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 19 Sep 12
       
      Although 'market players' are often viewed as purely looking out for themselves in competition, human beings do, by nature, feel inclined to give back to society. so oftentimes when they realize that they will do well material-ly in a market, the morals begin to move in. or so the author appears to be saying.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 19 Sep 12
       
      Humans tie in morals and material incentives together, especially in a market. Some may argue that compassion and lending a helping hand is a variation for self gain and worth.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 19 Sep 12
       
      The characteristics necessities for a market to be successful brings those in the industry to acknowledge the importance of respecting the value of a fair-minded exchange. There is competition within the market to be on top but you must rely on others to help excel your profits. The fair-mindedness aspect links to the "moral" aspect seemingly as one BECAUSE of the other. The correlation between the two can be coincidence because of what the author has defined as "moral". Moral could be the idea of being fair, but morality delves deeper into than that. Morality relies on intention or motivation. In this article, the moral issue is the idea of making a fair exchange. He defines fair as making a mutually beneficial exchange with each other. Does each side have the say as to what would benefit the other? Or is this just a ploy to gain trust from the other individual in the fair exchange? This article could be giving too much credit for marketeers in saying that the benefits of being "fairminded" comes from a moral stand point. It is perfectly plausible to say that they are making fair exchanges based on their reputation as a business or/and to pull ahead and be better than the other companies. This, in my mind, would be just playing a smart game and a smart game doesn't have to be aligned with morality.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 18 Sep 12
       
      There is a pattern that humans get better joy out of doing things that get them socially accepted buy others.
  • The fine seems to have undermined the parents' sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase."
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 18 Sep 12
       
      offcourse the parents are gonna come later who wants to get fined for being late to pick up your kid from school especially if the parent was working i mean if the parent was having fun and constantly did it then maybe i wuld agree but i dont think thats the case with the majority of the kids someone needs to pay for the daycare so i dont think parents were late at first for b.s reasons
  • "By pursuing his own interest (the individual) frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 18 Sep 12
       
      Self interest creates competition which makes the market more efficient
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 19 Sep 12
       
      This idea would be the basis of why we should not increase taxes even more on the upper class because the more of their money they get to keep and spend how they want the more they will spend and boost the economy.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think this entire article has some valid points towards the laissez-faire economic philosophy.
    • Tyler Schnorf
      Tyler Schnorf on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree. . The market needs to fail at times to improve business with new competion
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Karina, even if we took all the money from the richest people, we would not be able to take care of the deficit spending problem we have in the United States.  Most of the taxes come from the huge middle class, which are also some of the biggest consumers in a society.  If you allow taxes to be low, then people will not be afraid of losing all of their money at some point and will feel more comfortable putting it back into the economy through commerce and donations.  When people are afraid of the massive amounts of taxes they are going to have to pay, they are going to keep their money in their pockets and not spend it.
  • But we're showing that the neural reward is even higher when you have voluntary giving."
  • He was forever looking over your shoulder, constantly kibitzing and threatening you. In return, you worked as little as you could get away with. On the other hand, perhaps you've had bosses who inspired you—pulling all-nighters in order to finish up a project so that you wouldn't disappoint her.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think it is ridiculous for people to base their work habits on how their bosses treat them. They should do a good job for the sake of their own morals and work ethics.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think it's going a bit far to define this choice as ridiculous. It's natural for an individual's output to be gauged on their input and the time and effort that goes into the work that they do. Although good work ethic is an individual choice, it would be haphazard to discount outside factors such as necessary employment and financial stability. 
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think this example is more on not liking the boss than personal work effort. Doing just enough work for the boss to just leave you alone comparing to a boss that is not so controlling and that you are willing to work for.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 19 Sep 12
       
      Regardless of how the employer or manager treats an employee, they should be doing every aspect required of them, the one thing that I cannot stand though is working your hardest and trying extremely hard to impress and then you get absolutely no recognition for your deeds
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 19 Sep 12
       
      I found this article interesting because it displays to readers that money is not the main internal drive when working. I believe that self fulfillment is the main factor. This goes against the invisble hand and the preceived notation that competition within the work force is drived by money.
  • In return, you worked as little as you could get away with.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 19 Sep 12
       
      The concept of just getting over the threshold, doing the absolute minimum to satisfy the needs of your job and not bothering to go above and beyond.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think that when people give voluntarily, it gives them a sense of satisfaction from their conscience. Gaining experience with markets, however, can help tie moral and material incentives so that better decisions are made.
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think it is funny how the fine that was intended to make the parents pick their children up on time backfired and led the parents to pick up their children even later than they normally would have otherwise.  They figured that they would pay the same for an extra five minutes by being late as being 10-15 minutes late. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 19 Sep 12
       
      I feel like it is almost ironic that the parents don't pick up there kids on time and come even later. They think that if they pay the fine than it compensates them being late. The fine helps them to free their moral obligation to which they don't feel bad 
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 19 Sep 12
       
      "lateness is a commodity they could purchase".    This makes sense to me. If I am going to pay the same fine for being one minute late as I would if I were an hour late, why wouldn't I take my sweet time getting there if it's costing me the same either way. 
  • Eric Arbuckle on 16 Sep 11
     
    Taxes are a necessity for an economy. However, where do we draw the line of.. how much taxes? where does our money go? who gets taxed more? and why do they get taxed more? etc... These are all issues that are going to sway peoples "neural reward."
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Andrew Rothans on 21 Sep 11
     
    I believe taxes are needed for our economy to stay above water. Like Eric said where do we draw the line? And where does the money truly go? I don't feel that all the money we pay in taxes really helps us in the future. It may help the economy and our country but I feel that it does not help me in any direct way.
  • gina Hogrefe on 18 Sep 12
     
    The article of games and players that are seeking rewards; sounds like monopoly to me.What I liked best about the reading is that even voluntary giving has its "neural rewards." Maybe if the general public knew they would get a gift from giving than they would give more.
  • Carissa Faulk on 19 Sep 12
     
    I find it fascinating that, in the case of the day care, the mere act of putting a fine in place seems to remove the moral obligation to be on time. This is certainly not a logical response to such a fine, but as I think about my own life I understand the almost subconscious difference that it incites in one's way of thinking. If you pay a fine for an immoral or unfair act (such as, for instance, a late fee on a library book) it seems to remove the feelings of guilt about inconveniencing others and makes you instead feel as though you had purchased some extra days with the book. It would make sense that this would hold true for taxes. If we pay our taxes and the government gives to the poor, we feel like our moral obligation to the poor has been fulfilled. We think we did our part, when in actuality we have done very, very little.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 19 Sep 12
     
    No the invisible hand does not need a helping hand. The free market is specifically created so that the market works itself out of tough econmic times. Any tampering with the free market could make things way worse than they already are. It might take some time for the market to improve, but it will if we can just leave it alone.
Mike Frieda

Dan Dennett on dangerous memes | Video on TED.com - 0 views

www.ted.com/...ennett_on_dangerous_memes.html

shared by Mike Frieda on 31 Oct 11 - Cached
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 31 Oct 11
       
      This guy is reppin' a legit beard. And he sounds like Garrison Keillor.  Now that that's out of the way... I agree Mr. Dennett that there are memes out there that represent a clear and present danger to secular and free societies (i.e. radical Islam).  These need to be stamped out utilizing every military, intelligence, and media asset in our arsenal. However, there are other memes which are simply the product of our capitalist society, such as pornography and violent video games.  While these may be morally wrong to many people, I do not believe they necessarily pose any threat to society as a whole.  Rather, it is simply something that people may see as distasteful and choose to avoid.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 31 Oct 11
       
      In such cases as ideas, I don't think it possible to completely eradicate an idea. To quote a favorite movie of mine, "Ideas are bulletproof". As long as there is someone somewhere with radical ideas, it will never die and it can never be destroyed. Ideas spread faster than an epidemic and trying to terminate it will only make it stronger. If you try to destroy an idea, people begin to wonder why, and when you open their eyes to the idea, for some it will take hold.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 31 Oct 11
       
      I got to agree with Jonathan, it is one of the many ideas from the movie Inception. Ideas are one of the most dangerous things there are. I feel like everything he said was from Inception it is all true of course an idea is something that is so dangerous, it can take over a country. Ideas can spread like something the world has never seen.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 31 Oct 11
       
      I agree with Jonathan. Despite the fact that you may want to eradicate a radical idea it is near impossible. It goes back to a persons free will. It is under their own free will that they chose to believe and support and idea. An idea is an intangible thing which makes it so dangerous. You cannot fight an enemy you cannot see so how do we expect to eradicate an intangible idea we cannot see or combat.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 31 Oct 11
       
      While free will and the way it affects how people feel about their ideas and the ideas of others is important to consider here, we must also understand the idea of a totalitarian ruler and mindset. You can't necessarily always change someone's beliefs, but these people are belief creators. They have the capability to spread ideas throughout a society using the bandwagon technique, and through doing so are able to pose one meme, or general feeling, upon an entire society.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 31 Oct 11
       
      It is hard to convince people to change their minds. But people create their own ideas and the only way to change them is if it is relatable to them. I read a book that suggests that the only way people can be empathetic is if they are related to the problem or the issue. Because people are never empathetic unless they have a connection to the problem. We won't believe or support an idea, unless it is close to us.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 01 Nov 11
       
      People create their own ideas based off information provided to them, what they do with that information is up to them. Some people turn information they have and make it into something else. Some people say they change their minds because of people in their life that have influenced them, I feel its more they have taken into consideration what they have learned and made the decision for themselves to change their mind.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 31 Oct 11
       
      Just a quick note...first Shermer and now Dennett?!?  Dr. Marichal, you keep picking some of my favorite authors! 
  • Eric Arbuckle on 31 Oct 11
     
    One statement from Mr. Dennett I agree with is, "we have to focus on the facts before we worry about the morality of problems." Well, what he said went something like that. Radical Islam is a meme that is becoming larger and more powerful consistently as our world moves forward. However, there is no clear way to solve the problem, or even slow it down. Military action sounds great on the surface, but there is always a new leader next in rank. And for every one we kill, dozens or even hundreds are persuaded into the unstoppable virus of radical Islam. As John said, we need to utilize every asset we have. And, I could not have said it better than John about the memes that do not pose any real threat to society as a whole.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Mark Drach-Meinel on 31 Oct 11
     
    I really like how Mr. Dennett makes the comparison between ideas and viruses (virii?). I agree that ideas are contagious and sometimes this can be a bad thing. But this can also be very good. Ideas of universal kindness can be spread by just having such an idea. Ideas and memes shape the world more than anybody can see without having an outside view on the big picture.
  • anonymous on 31 Oct 11
     
    Memes are fascinating! Like many other things we discussed in Public Policy, we also talked about this in Humanities Tutorial. Socrates said that some men are pregnant in body (meaning they reproduce through means of genetics), while others are pregnant in spirit (thereby begetting ideas, virtue, and wisdom). Mr. Dennett explained how spreading ideas are more powerful. This really separates humans from other animals, for they have the ability to influence so many through their ideas. This is more apparent now than ever before, with media and videos like Mr. Dennett's.
  • Kiera Murphy on 31 Oct 11
     
    "We're all responsible for just the intended effects of ideas but for their likely misuses." Dennett makes a solid point. We have to stay away from the misuses of valuable ideas. At about the seventh minute or so he explains that people tend to be scared of ideas and charcuterie them for one dire purpose or another. I completely agree with this theory. I think it's important to be confident in a valid useful idea and not deviate from it's positive effects. Therefor the memetic perspective that Dennett explains is clearly is a solution.
  • cj_woldanski on 31 Oct 11
     
    I agree that memes are contagious because of the way we think about ideas. If someone has an idea that is an originial idea or thought, they think it is the greatest idea ever and if someone has a different idea then you most likely do not care for it. Many ideas could turn out to be bad over time. Mr. Dennett argued that as evolution continued to happen we the more memes that we thought of. As we all continue to grow, we will continue to have different ideas that get better and better.
  • magen sanders on 31 Oct 11
     
    when he first began to talk about the ant and how there is a parasite making it suicidal i began to think about the movie the happening, when the plants release a toxin that does the same thing to the human brain. then humans present differeent ideas and fears that make the situation worse, they begin to do what Dennett is talking about they plant ideas in eachothers minds and take over and cause panic. people think they are in control but they really arent when these different ideas take hold
  • Andrew Rothans on 31 Oct 11
     
    Memes can be extremely contagious due to the effects of our ideas and the ideas we have. Ideas can be very dangerous at times, but could also be very influential. It really depends how we go about acting upon our ideas. He explained how spreading ideas is more powerful and I agree with Dennett. It really gives citizens all points of view and could sway or change peoples opinions.
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.
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!
Matt Nolan

Science of Persuasion in Courtroom Questions by Felecia Russell - 29 views

When there is a point that you do not agree with it is going to be harder to get someone to understand where you are coming from and get them to agree with you. When you are presenting evidence it ...

started by Felecia Russell on 29 Nov 11 10 follow-ups, last by Matt Nolan on 02 Dec 11
Sarah McKee

HOW TO CHEAT AT EVERYTHING | More Intelligent Life - 5 views

moreintelligentlife.com/...how-to-cheat-at-everything

shared by Sarah McKee on 28 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • A con man is essentially a salesman--a remarkably good one--who excels at making people feel special and understood. A con man validates the victim's desire to believe he has an edge on other people.
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 28 Sep 11
       
      My question for this article was based off of this quote-- I think that a con man is simply someone who is a master of manipulation. This is a good thing sometimes and a bad thing at others, but conning is simply about making people feel like you really know them and then manipulating them. Do you think that this is something that just anyone can do?
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 29 Sep 11
       
      The best way to con someone is to make sure they feel comfortable with and feel like they can trust you like Joette stated. You could also say that someone who is a good con is also a good salesperson, because they want you to you buy into their ideas and beliefs. No, i do not believe everyone can be a con some people are blessed with gifts and some people are blessed with being a con. Being a con artist is frowned upon yet it is still a gift to be able to make people believe anything you want.
    • Kaitlyn Guilbeaux
      Kaitlyn Guilbeaux on 29 Sep 11
       
      Perhaps everyone has the potential to be a con. Anyone could be taught the techniques of how to manipulate people. However, I do believe that some people are naturally better at it than others because they were born with certain traits; charismatic, a good lyer, etc.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 29 Sep 11
       
      Well this is true. To be a con man, one has to be without compassion, because if he/she has compassion, they wont be able to do their job. It is a little thing called onscience, and that is essentially what a con man does not have. They are not concerned with consequences for the victim, ultimately, it is just a profit for their self benefit.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 29 Sep 11
       
      I don't think that everyone is cut out to be a con man. There are certain character aspects of con men or grifters that make them so good at what they do. There is no doubt, that you can train to be a grifter, but you will lack the "talent" of someone with that natural ability. The question in my opinion is asking if anyone could be a used car salesman. The general belief is that used car salesmen are some of the best con men because they are able to sell a POS. So by that logic, I would say that no, not everyone can be a con man.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 29 Sep 11
       
      Yes I do believe that conning is a task that just about anyone can do. Some maybe naturally better at conning than others but it is a task anyone can do. It just takes the effort to learn all the techniques of a con artist. It is a job in itself that tasks patience, time, and the will to manipulate people. You have to know how to be charismatic polite and convincing while being deceitful at the same time. Once you are able to master those skills you can become a con artist.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 30 Sep 11
       
      In order to be a con man I think first of all, you have to be able to speak and "woo" people. If people naturally gravitate towards you it is part of your personality, because it radiates to others around you. So a con man uses this to his.her advantage to manipulate others.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 30 Sep 11
       
      Readily yes I do think charisma is the how to cheat at everything card that just about anyone can play. Understanding the stakes that other people have in things is the key to see that the way we think is often in relation to where we come from and where we have been raised. Often times what you say or the way you say it is what draws the line between knowing something, questioning it and empathizing with it. Often times people will want all the above at different times. Putting things up to a notion of pure faith that the right people will come into your life at the right time is a beautiful religious notion for those that believe it but for me my ace in the hole against that argument is free will. Predestination makes will invalid so I believe that in reacting to the reactions of people to gain favored results is the true con man way of thinking. Make people feel the way you want to gain the desired results from them. If one carries themselves in that sense than they play the blank slate card where people jump into the sense of reliance in this person that they are the canvas they can emulate deep personal feelings with drawing the connection the con man or woman can act upon
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 30 Sep 11
       
      I would love to have not only the swagger and abilities of a con man but the confidence that comes with being able to have that big of an impact on people. Though i might use those abilites for something a little more benefical to society, i am in complete admiration for their skills. This article was interesting! I couldnt believe that someone who can manipulte people that well for that long can all of a sudden have a moment where they realize all the harm they have done to people. I can barely tell a lie.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 30 Sep 11
       
      Charisma is a very large factor in the successes and talents of con men. Charismatic people can essentially get people to do anything for them with little to nothing in return, and the art of charisma is sometimes difficult to master. Con men are naturally very stealthy and smart with their time and investments, and much is required from them in terms of a constant rapport to upkeep their status and position.
  • It's an amazing paradox--a con man has incredible emotional insight, but without the burden of compassion.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 29 Sep 11
       
      is compassion really a burden?
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 29 Sep 11
       
      It is if you want to be a con man, so the article says..
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 30 Sep 11
       
      I interpreted this quote as it would be used for politics. In order to come to an agreement for policies and laws, morality has to be set aside. Once morality and emotions are involved the decision is biased due to the comprimising situation one is now in. So in order to be good at a job, in this case a con man, he has to exclude compassion or else guilt will override his decision to con anyone.
    • tania markussen
      tania markussen on 30 Sep 11
       
      From a political perspective it is very helpful, and maybe necessary, to be able to detach your own feelings when making laws, policies, etc. because there will almost always be a "loser" and if every politician walked around and felt truly and deeply sorry about everything, nothing would really go forward. But, feelings aside, they can show compassion and try to make the best decision for the society as a whole.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 30 Sep 11
       
      I think that not having compassion would be a burden. Sure, they can do their work well, whether it be conning someone or making laws and policies but without compassion you'll only really be good at your job. You won't be able to connect with people because you won't have compassion for anyone. Maybe the world needs people without compassion to make laws and policies but I don't think it's necessary. Compassion can be helpful when making decisions that affect lots of people.
  • "If you feel sorry you are dead in the water," he warns.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 29 Sep 11
       
      is it possible that these con-men actually have some kind of psychological problems? naturally humans "inherit" this feeling of compassion, just like morals, and to be able to completely disengage with something like caring about people and the damage you do to them, that's something very worthy to take note of.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 30 Sep 11
       
      But he still had compassion. It just took him a while to realize it. So maybe they do have some psychological problems or something that blocks that compassion, that guilty feeling but at least in this case eventually the human nature to feel guilt and compassion appeared.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • "You must have an encyclopaedic knowledge of odd bits of trivia and use these facts to win people over. "
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 29 Sep 11
       
      Doesn't everyone wish they had encyclopaedic knowledge?
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 30 Sep 11
       
      Eric's exact thoughts were what went through my mind reading this. I feel like it is a unique gift to "win people over" through these means
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 30 Sep 11
       
      I would love this as well. I was thinking how an encyclopedic knowledge effects framing, and I feel as if having access to a vast array of information allows you to most accurately bring your audience to the desired side of your issue. If you know all the information about your audience, this was gone over in the film, you could more easily prime them to see only one side of your policy issue. 
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 29 Sep 11
       
      this made me laugh out loud. the fact that people, because of their own ignorance, laugh at those who getted tricked and conned and think they are in on the whole scheme when in reality they are just as ignorant if not more ignorant because they are so diluted with the idea that they arent among the the tricked.in turn it seems that they are actually conning themselves into thinking they are in on it all.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 30 Sep 11
       
      It's funny yes, but mostly I just find it sad. The ease at which people can be conned. I mean, if placed in the shoes of one of these people, would all of us really be able to see through the con?
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 30 Sep 11
       
      It's funny how even a simple act of reverse psychology can work so well if used correctly.
  • "I could sell shit at an anti-scat party," he says, "you have to figure out someone's wants and needs and convince them what you have will fill their emotional void."
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 30 Sep 11
       
      I read the same concept in Aristophanes' play Knights, and the theme was the same. One of the characters is a sausage seller in Ancient times, which is as close to selling poop as you can get. It is truly an art and takes a special kind of person to read a person and be able to make them believe they need something. The play is a political satire and it is a very appropriate take on public policy and politics in general. As a politician you have to be able to figure out what you are going to have to do to be the best and win, and further your agenda. 
  • He must take an intense interest in other people, complete strangers, and work to understand them, yet remain detached and uninvested. That the plan is to cheat these people and ultimately confirm many of their fears cannot be of concern.
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 30 Sep 11
       
      Although in this article is speaking to the techniques of a con man, the same characteristics can be used for anyone who wants to influence another or a group of individuals to believe or accept something that will benefit them. Perfect example is when presidential candidates promise the world to "the polis". They are merely working to understand them,"showing them" that they can put there fears at ease in order to gain their vote. The ability to persuade others give one the ability to influence decision making.  
  • Once, when he visited a victim the day after to "apologise", he found the man crying about his mortgage, wife and kids.
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 30 Sep 11
       
      In order to be successful at "conning" individuals you must be emotionally detached, this gives you the ability to excel because you do not see the repercussions of the damaged you have caused or can cause. Being indifferent is key, being aware of the consequences leads to the guilt that can ultimately stop one for continuing in this act as we saw with Mr. Lovell. 
    • Bethany Petersen
      Bethany Petersen on 30 Sep 11
       
      It is interesting to see how Mr. Lovell justifies his acts to himself.  He feels that by returning the money that he (in a sense) stole, he no longer has to feel guilty for his actions, even though it was only a small portion of what he took.  While this is a weakness it seems to also be a strength- as long as he no longer feels sorry he will not be "dead in the water".
    • Bethany Petersen
      Bethany Petersen on 30 Sep 11
       
      Although Mr. Lovell will not admit it, his actions suggest that he feels guilty.  This shows another aspect of conning- he is constantly on-edge.  Even though he is in a sense "retired", he is still afraid of being "dead in the water"
  • interest he takes in others.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 30 Sep 11
       
      Did he start with a general interest in people and turn that into a con or did he learn to be interested in people to enhance his cons?
  • Eric Henderson on 30 Sep 11
     
    I guess with practice, anyone can achieve this, yet some people may have a more natural ability to be able to con than others. Conning can be considered a trade skill just like a carpenter etc. because it is effectively useful in the sales industry. Therefore, it can easily be considered a learned skill. While this may be true, I definitely do not agree with the actual act of conning because it is deceptive and the victim normally does not receive 100% accurate information.
elliott reyes

What Political Science can give to policy makers - The Monkey Cage - 4 views

themonkeycage.org/...what_political_science_can_giv

shared by elliott reyes on 15 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • The standard way of making a policy argument is to figure out the conclusion that you want to reach, find an argument to support that conclusion, and find a case (or, if you are extraordinarily ambitious, a couple of cases) that can be squeezed until it appears to support that argument
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 15 Oct 12
       
      This statement I believe is so true as the people involved in the debate are just responding to issues of how they think the people would want them to. They do not say what they truly want to and what they think is best for America. If they did what they thought was right and not worry about the voters, it would be quite refreshing and a nice change of pace of honesty.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 16 Oct 12
       
      While I agree that some honesty from the politicians would be refreshing, it isn't realistic. Whenever politicians try to level with the American people, they seem to turn against them. They always claim to be tired of the lies told by politicians but they can't handle the truth themselves, no matter what party. When Obama said his infamous "you didn't build that" phrase, the American people went up and arms, when in reality not only was the statement distorted and taken out of context, it was very true. When Romney said his infamous 47% statement, the country again lost it, even though what he said (the numbers were way off and he could have said it in a logical way) was relatively true. And perhaps the most truthful politician of them all, Ron Paul. He isn't afraid to tell us the truth, whether it costs him the election or not. Known for his controversial statements, much of what Paul speaks about is factually accurate and honest. It just goes to show, when you try to level with the people of the United States, they can't take it. They'd much rather hear some other bs about how we're the only country that has freedom and liberty and other meaningless symbolic terms..
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Sahal. To ask politicians, who historically have been known to bend the truth and hide their lies, to be honest and open about their beliefs is almost impossible. Whether a politician is completely honest or not, it doesn't matter. In the end, as horrible as it is, Americans will vote for the one who is good at swaying citizens with his/her bs than actually telling the truth.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 17 Oct 12
       
      This is all sadly true. People often say they want "the truth", but more often than not, what they really want is validation for their already set ideals. Politicians know this, and they will take advantage of this. To be truthful in politics, at least to me, seems to be a gamble, not because of the morality, but because of the consequences it will ensue
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 17 Oct 12
       
      this is a very true statement given below I agree with Lauren honesty from politicians would be great since they manipulate things to their favor.
  • . Ideally, a grounding in selection effects would go hand-in-hand with quantitative training. But it doesn’t have to. Th
  • Ideally, a grounding in selection effects would go hand-in-hand with quantitative training. But it doesn’t have to. The basic logic applies equally happily to qualitative data too.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • I think (and the written comments on my teaching evaluations to date reflect this) that they get a lot from the more methodologically focused parts of the course.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 17 Oct 12
       
      This is my first political science class I have taken outside of AP government in high school (which I don't know if that really counts). A lot of what we discuss is about opinion and exercising our brains help us form our own opinions by assessing multiple perspectives. For people studying international affairs and political science in graduate study, it seems that it would be important to focus on the methodology to how the best policies are produced, not based on the sole opinions of what people assume people want. Playing off of an idea presented by Mickey Edwards from the conference, policies are created by representatives who can't relate to the people they are supposed to represent because methodology of policymaking is pushed the wayside and it is more about who gets what votes, not what the people want. Things get much trickier, I am sure, when it comes to international affairs because we are working with people who's opinions and best interests we don't understand and we try to implement our personal beliefs on a nation that does not align ideologically with the US. If we focused on the methodology and used the quantitative facts of how to go about these affairs, the opinions about what is best would be less polarized and it would create more of a standard to which representatives and officials carry out policies. 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 17 Oct 12
       
      I would agree that it has to be hard to present an argument that gets at the idea of why this way of doing things is so wrong, and how can we enable people to choose a better way to make their arguments?
  • Emily Shandorf on 17 Oct 12
     
    Is it that hard to be honest and persuade people at the same time? "Social Science offers extremely useful skills for making sense of the world". More people should use them and stop changing their ideas every time there is a problem. Therefore you should confront the problem.
1 - 20 of 125 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page