Well, I think that every single country holds a moral responsibility to protect the human rights of those around the world. That being said, yeah I think that as a leading power in the world, the U.S. does have a little more responsibility for this. I think as a country we need to step in another countries shoes and see what we would like done for us. If we are facing a crisis with genocides and can't find a way to solve the issue ourselves, I am pretty sure that we would be desperately wanting other countries to help us. Maybe we might not be allies of every country, and this might be something that makes other countries turn the cold shoulder on us. But this is about something wayyy more important than simply politics, it is about vunerable people that need the help.

I don't think it is only the United States' job to help out- there are other countries out there that could have helped out as well and chose not to. But I think just because other countries didn't help out, does not excuse the U.S. for not helping out either. In my personal opinion, the U.S. should have helped out...I agree with what Lauren said, we cannot just sit on the side watching it all happen. If the issue is the enemies that we might create for ourselves in helping them, or how the country as a whole would be viewed by getting involved in something that might not directly affect us, how is that any different than if we did help out? As a result of not helping out, the U.S. gets viewed as a selfish country that only helps defend those that benefit the U.S., and not any other countries. It is practically a lose-lose situation, so why not put our own benefits aside, and just help out those that are in fact crying out for our help? And if the issue is that the country is not doing well economically or whatever, that does not mean we simply sit back and watch it unfold. The scenarios given are only of two extremes: use up everything we have to try to help, or don't do anything at all. But there does exist a middle ground. In the case where we as a country are not doing well, we could at least help out by sending weapons or some of our troops. Overall, [in my opinion] the U.S. did not do the right thing by choosing not to help out- sometimes it can be considered better to try to fix the problems within the country before trying to help out another country, but when alot of innocent people are DYING, there's no excuse.

I believe that I do have rights, but I also believe that they have the potential to not be respected equally. In my own personal perspective, race does play a huge role in how people respect you and your rights. My family and I speak Spanish and English, and once I was at a store with my mom and we were speaking Spanish, and a lady turns around and calls us out for it, saying that we are in the United States and shouldn't/can't speak Spanish. Forget about the racism involved, there was the simple lack of respect for the right I have to speak in whatever language I would like since I'm not doing anything particularly wrong. Various other cases based on race have also occured which I have witnessed- so as far as race goes, I think it goes hand in hand with the disrespect for a person's rights. On another note, I don't believe that the handicapped should be turned down from a job simply because they are not fully capacitated. If they can get their assigned task done, then they should be able to keep their job or have a chance at a job. Likewise, there exist training coaches if they are needed.

I agree with what has already been stated above. Politicians use persuasive tactics mostly when they are running for office and such- they try to portray their rival politician in a negative light and dually try to show why they are the better candidate. They use situations that emotionally tug at the heart strings in any way, such as whether or not a politician donated to the poor, or served in the military, or said something racist. In this way politicians attempt to persuade us against their opponent, and convince us to give them our support.

I also agree with the philosophy of deterrence, as compared to the other three philosophies. Culture has created the mindset in us that certain things are just not acceptable in society, and people punish or socially shun people who disobey these cultural rules/boundaries. On another note, I think that changing the environment results in a bigger impact as compared to simply ruling it.This is becasue if something is being done wrongfully, when one tries to change this for the better, a bigger impact is made as a whole as compared to just ruling the environment and not changing anything that may not be right or just.

I think that violence will be reduced with time, but we will never completely live under full "peace". That being said, I think the possibility of us backtracking into the savages we once were depends solely on the exterior factors such as food scarcity, natural disasters, etc. As for the matter of power, I think politicians obtain power for both reasons. Politicians may start with the belief of obtaining power for the sake of bettering the polis, but with time this notion gets lost in what the side effects of power are, and thus they create a combination or power for their own sake, and power for the sake of the polis.

I do think that politicians use patternicity to their advantage when talking about policy issues...in a way I think they use this to "scare" people aware from choosing one side of an arguement over another. They use it, even if what they are saying is incorrect, they shape it to their own viewpoint and benefit. As for your other question, I think people are more succeptible to committing a type 1 error if they aren't completely informed on a certain public policy issue, because I think it is easier to make something seem like it is true, than to do the opposite. As a result, this just proves how flawed the system is in itself- everything is based of who can make what more believable, even if it's not true (as in the type 1 error).

Well I think that incorrect casual associations affect society because they in turn lead society to believe or follow incorrect assumptions, or assumptions that are not necessarily the best when it comes to the polis as a whole. I think politicians use patternicity to their advantage when storytelling because, in a way, it scared people off when they think about both sides of the argument, and which side would be worse. People then use this information, which could be incorrect, to base their decisions on what policy to vote for, or what politician to elect/vote for,

Do you agree with Rosling's belief that human rights, environment, governance, economic growth, education, health, and culture are ALL needed for growth in development [and to rise out of poverty]? Which of these is the most important and the least important in general? Why?

Is it really more effective to use visuals/pictures than to give speeches or provide plain statistical evidence? Why? Is it easier to get tricked into believing something when visuals are involved, or when speeches and/or statistical evidence is given?