1) To what extent is the US responsible for protecting human rights abroad?

2) In the article, Power said that "public opinion is rarely if ever aroused by foreign crises, even genocidal ones, in the absence of political leadership" to what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement and what can we do to change this?

I believe that I do have rights as a US citizen. However, I don't think that every US citizen is treated equally in respect to civil liberties. There are many factors that can lead to a distortion of rights, such as race, social status, and gender. However I think the biggest and most obvious issue is that of gay marriage. In discrimination due to race and gender, one may simply have to deal with a profiling issue, or, as Gaby mentioned, rude people who do not agree with your lifestyle. With the issue of gay marriage, there is a blatant, constitutional disregard for the civil rights of certain citizens in our society. Therefore I can't help but to think that there is no way that we are equal under the law and have the same rights.
I hate to bring up a touchy subject, but this was the best example I could think of.

Regarding the Jay Z article, I think that his move to ignore the attacks against him was a very good decision. Generally, if people are repressed by the people in authority, they gain even more strength to fight back. By ignoring the insignificant insults, he demonstrates that he truly is better than the other rappers, because they are too unimportant for him to worry about. Had he made the decision to lash back at his opponents, they would only find more reason to continue the fight. This principle comes into play often politically, as this is often the best route for a political body to take when dealing with opposition. Forcing people to obey your will only makes them fight back harder, and through it it is impossible to create a just and free society.

While using target populations would be more cost-efficient for politicians, I agree with Tavish. Politicians should not be merely concerned with targeting a certain population. In doing this, a certain group is favored over another, and that defeats the purpose of trying to generate equality. Also, this is dangerous because politicians are looking out for their own self-interests. This can obviously lead to more corruption in the future and cause problems when trying to formulate good policies. I agree with Tavish that the best way to generate equality would be to treat every group equally and as a whole. Our society should not be chopped up and separated because then it will never be truly equal.

I would like to believe that the human race will keep becoming more and more peaceful. While the carnage of the 20th century was dwarfed in comparison to that of ancient times, that does not necessarily mean that it was less horrific. I think that the most influential force that drives recent generations toward peace is the sheer fear of the destruction that a full-scale war would bring, not necessarily their respect for human life. While wars did not kill the same percent of the population, new technology brought with it the power to kill more people in a single day (around 300,000 died at the Battle of Verdun), and definitely have the power to dwarf the carnage of ancient times. I think that the tension of the Cold War in a sense still exists today- people are too afraid to use military action against another nation for fear of retaliation.

I see how politicians would use patternicity in order to further their goals. One way they could do this is by planting schemas, such as the conspiracy theories like the ones in the articles. By doing this they ensure that their audience does not listen to the arguments of their opposition as well as just hearing their own. Overall, I think it would be a lot easier to commit a type 1 error (and therefore politicians would be more likely to take advantage of this), however type 2 errors can occur as well. I would say that each person's susceptibility is based on their level of intelligence and how many schemas they have already filled.

I would say that they are all necessary to some extent, however the most important would be economic development. Before a country can even attempt to rise out of poverty, there must be capital with which to do this. From that a nation can improve healthcare and provide education. In terms of development, culture is the least important aspect. Culture is not going to build hospitals and help people rise out of poverty. However it is important in that it helps people to work together and fight through poverty, and ensures that they have a sense of purpose and identity. Culture can help to unify the nation as it attempts to "make the impossible possible".

I think that the data representation would be just as influential whether or not there was a growth of internet media. This is because Rosling, or any political figure, is presenting hard data. Whether that data is presented using a chart on a piece of paper or a chart on a power point, the facts are still the same and just as powerful. It is true that people do tune out some aspects of internet media because we are so accustomed to it, but I think that because there are no ads in the sidebar of Rosling's speech it is almost easier for someone to pay attention to what he is presenting.