1) In the timeline, you can notice a pattern. From the 1930s to the 1960s, the general trend was toward positive advancements in human rights, but as you move toward modern-day, those trends seem to point more negatively. Why do you think this is so? And why do you think the author used a timeline rather than just spelling out what the issues were in a well-written article?

2) The rights listed in the timeline are mostly mandated by the government, so how do you think the actual normative rights might fit into this timeline? (at least more toward the modern side?). Finally, do you think that these trends will continue in the same directio, or do you feel that human rights will become a more prominent issue? Why or why not?

For questio number 1, I do not think it ever is at all about validity or content. The main concern in persuading your audience is to give a good presentation and use "tricks" to get the audience to believe your point of view, or at least support it. This concept is very similar to voting, mainly because many voters nowadays seem to vote for the candidate who promises the most or who puts on the best advertisements or presentations. It never is about their actual positions on certain political issues anymore, which in my opinion is where it should always be.

for question 2, I do not think that there is a decisive dividing line between everything. In many and most cases, there is a lot of gray area, like that in the Rodney King case. As a society, we need to outline the gray area in a way that works better in the court system than just how the jury views the force that the police officers used. Unfortunately though, it is not that easy to just unanimously define a gray area because the people deciding on this issue will most definitely not have the same views, therefore creating a disagreement. The true challenge in society on this issue is compromising to create a definition of a gray area.

I definitely believe that it is easier to get individuals to do what you want them to do rather than change the world as a whole. This mainly stems from the fact that it is harder to change a group as a whole rather than one small part of it. Power, I believe, comes from charismatic individuals who tell the people what they want to hear and what that individual knows will gain him/her popular support. An example of this could be either Mussolini or Hitler. Both were very charismatic and excellent public speakers, and they said the right things to gain popular support in their respective countries. In government, I believe that people who tend to be liberal fear power in government institutions more than conservatives, mainly because they want social and economical equality for society as a whole.

I guess fair is the right word to use in this situation, as the public really does not have to believe everything that politicians say are true. I think a better word would be is it right? and the obvious answer to that is no because then it may mislead someone to think they are voting for or believing in one policy, even though their true beliefs lie in another. On the other hand though, if i did feel strongly about an issue, I would most definitely manipulate data to mislead the public into following my beliefs.

I think we are all being mislead in the world of politics, as that is the overall "vibe" I get from any interaction with politics i come across. Policy leaders or politicians, make their living on misleading people, whether it be good or bad, into believing their particular point of view on a subject. I believe that there is a right time to have politicians give us "information" and a right time for us to research it ourselves. that is very hard to define, therefore i will only say that politicians she be giving us less "information" than they are giving us right now.

I do believe that money is a very minimal factor in development, yet it doubles as a way to aquire a lot of the things that developed countries nowadays do have, like medical care, and human rights activists etc. Also, money can create jobs from which more people in a country can thrive, yielding to a better quality of life, whicch is probably one of the most important factors in my mind about development of a country.

That is all that Americans do...I as an American, do not agree with making something that would be universally acceptable a fad, that, in my mind, just destroys the concept of trying to help people in need altogether. Obviously, the reasoning behind "saving" anyone or anything nowadays is to clear any guilt we have on our conscience at the moment. And I do believe that the only reason that the aid to Africa is so publicized is because celebrities are involved such as Jolie, or Bill Gates. Either way, the United States would be involved in Africa, I just think it has become a fad and publicized duue to popular culture involvement.

This is a very good question. To help clarify though, I think the word "save" should be defined as bringing the quality of life and government up to par with developed countries such as the United States and numerous European Countries. That being said, I do not think that Africa needs to be "saved" whatsoever. For many years before the modern time, Africa survived, and in good order too, without the help or aid of any other foreign country. Also, during the Imperial Age, most of Africa's natural resources were depleted, yielding a lower economic output leading to a lower standard of living. All of that said, I think it would have been best to not help Africa in the first place, and just let the continent work its own problems out.