I find this counter-intuitive to what we see in the current congress on the federal level. Right know we think of the Republicans as all united under social and fiscal conservationism (ie. The Reagan Ideal). Democrats are seemed to be more varied, with blue dog democrats, progressives, moderate liberals, and the like all mixed in. However, on further analysis, this party unification makes sense. The Iraq war and the rise of President Obama seems to have had a unification effect among Democrats as a whole. Democrats feel united under the "hope and change" ideal that Obama gives. Meanwhile the Republicans seem to have split between middle-right and far right, with little in-between. This change will no be permanent though. As long as our democracy is how it is, there will be different waves of unification. 

This is an idea that I can agree with. I work in a library, and currently we are trying to balance new and old technology. When I help with research, students seems too keen to try to find internet sources before trying to find books that we have that are extremely relevant to their needs. Students always feel that there will be some sort of "magical" journal online that will give them exactly what they need, when in reality. Finding things online is often easier, but students seem to forget that there actually are other formats of information still available: Books, newspapers, periodicals, and the like. The key is to find a healthy balance of information that works best with a specific topic. 

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. 

For some reason Diigo won't let me respond to a certain passage. However, I am responding to the passage that deals with poverty. The idea in this passage is that people, given no external factors, tend to blame poverty on the individual and as something that results from being lazy and non dedicated. However, when exposed to footage of poverty, people are more likely to blame politicians and  forces that are outside of the control of the impoverished.  Naturally, people like to think that they are better than most others. So when they hear of people being poor, it must be just because they didn't have the same motivation as you, right? However, when people in poverty are humanized, we tend to be less critical of them and more critical of those who support such a system of poverty.  Visual stimulus can do wonders for inciting action in a person. If I told you "there are sick dogs in America" most people would not have much a reaction. However, if they are shown a 2 minute commercial showing sad and dying dogs, they may be more likely to take action to help the animals.  We are visual creatures. The ways in which visual stimulus frames our mode of thought is incredible. 

I feel that the "good life" that the subject had earlier on in this case study is what set him up for such a troubled life beyond college. Having your early years be nothing but pure bliss (or as it seems in this study) did not prepare the subject for any type of adversity later on in life. Personally, I think people need to suffer some type of troubles in their lives in order to understand what "happiness" truly is. One reaches happiness when they can overcome such struggles and become more well-rounded individuals as a result. When someone who is rich their entire lives loses all of their money, they will be far fetched to return back to the top. But someone who has experience in such difficulty suffers financial hardship, they are more equipped (experienced?) to handle such a situation. So as odd as it sounds, adversity breeds success.