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". 

I do not understand the United States resistance to making an effort toward bettering the environment. Clearly a good majority of the rest of the world is on board for making that effort, but why not the US. Do we view ourselves as too important/privileged to have to change our habits because that would be more detrimental to our power or our "importance" to the rest of the world. Altering the way we manufacture, package, distribute, recycle, etc., is too inconvenient and the US has shown that they are not willing to make that change because the effort to do so could have a negative effect on them. Sure, this could be the case, but the consequences of that are short term and selfish. The US does just enough to get by without being TOO environmentally harming, but not enough to keep up with the efforts that are being made by 141 countries in the rest of the world. 

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.

Health care today has grown in the wrong direction. Yes, it is wonderful we have LIFE saving procedures and LIFE saving treatments and cures that have been introduced through western medicine. What is over looked, is the bodies capability to heal it self, to help it self, to save itself. I am not talking about the body healing terminal illnesses; these are the things that medicine today is great for. I am talking about heart problems, aches, pains, things that our curable if we take charge of our own bodies. Surgery is being used unnecessarily and almost flippantly without consulting and looking into alternative conservative methods. Chiropractic, acupuncture, massage therapy, nutritional guidance, etc. are all things that are overlooked. With new medicine becoming more readily available to fix these problems with pills and surgeries, people think that they can just do anything to their bodies because there is a quick fix for any complications that may arise. Health care systems NEED to focus on PREVENTION and self responsibility of our own health and our own bodies. Educating younger generations about prevention and how to keep healthy bodies and making these invasive, inorganic solutions a second or third option to the holistic options that are available. Make health care holistic, and leave the western medicine alternative for those who really NEED to be helped. 

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. 

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. 

Technologies should never be assumed to solved problems. When we have problems, we have them with other people, specifically relating to using evidence. Technology is a medium to which we can derive specific numbers, communicate faster, make projects go faster, etc. It is a convenient way to do all these things but the responsibility for figuring out these issues lies with people themselves. I believe that it is a very naive way of looking at life if we just think we can off load our problems on technology and think it would automatically be fixed. The reason technologies tend to amplify real-world problems is because we take less responsibility to fix them and instead us technologies to make ourselves, our ideas, our motives, look better than others instead of collaborating with other to solve an issue. In relation to inequality, maybe people who DON'T have access to technologies are the ones who have presented the real-world problem. This takes their ability to solve their problem out of their hands and into someone else's who has the technology. When it is out of the hands of those to which the problem lies, the motive is not personal and the issue can become skewed and potentially inaccurate. 

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. 

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. 

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".

This is a rather lofty expectation that Bock had of this study. This could be an influence of the rigid society of the first part of the 20th century. Life is not black and white. Happiness is not one way or another. Happiness, among many other emotions, resonates between good and bad, twisted and angelic. Happiness can be defined universally. Ways of attaining happiness is infinite and relative. 

This is a clear example that speaks to happiness coming in different forms for different people.

I love this idea of studying how to maintain happiness. Much emphasis is put on mental "sickness" or and there seems to be a negative stigma associated with that. Yes, some people fall into illness because of uncontrollable cause, and require therapy. Therefore, seeing a therapist means that there is something wrong with you to where you can't deal with your problems yourself. The idea of focusing more so on helping people maintain happiness and good standing in their lives is almost common sense. Prevention is key. Giving people tools to succeed is essential to the well being of someones life. Of course you can argue that people learn from their mistakes and from getting up after they have been knocked down. That is just life. I personally feel that many times, people are guessing in life and there is no clear cut path. By focusing on how to live well, could potentially shape society in good ways. There is no right way to live well, but if everyone is on the pursuit of their own happiness, overall we might live in a more accepting and fluid society.

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.