I actually don't think that the trend changes all that much in concern with Human Rights. The author chooses to point out more negative policies from conservative presidents that didn't always deal as directly with human rights. Or at least the negative issues they highlight were left out from earlier years and listed during the time periods in which conservative presidents were in office. There seemed to be many good enviornmental and overall good policies after the 1960s such as the IRNF treaty, amnesty to illegals, and a few good( although many bad) Supreme Court rulings. While before the 1960s you had some very bad human rights issues around the world and in the US like the countless protests that ended with violence, the violent and radical racial groups in the US like the KKK and Black Panthers etc. It can be difficult to compare the later 20th century with the early half since a many strong civil rights laws were passed early on, but I don't believe it means human and civil rights movements have deteriorated over time. Many of those things when inacted didn't come into effect for a couple of years and was still opposed by the public at large which slowly changed as you go further through the 20th century. I think the author chose to format it in a timeline because it better illustrates the difference and change over time. In an article it could be difficult for a reader to fully comprehend the amount of time that had passed since.

In concern with the first question I don't believe that there is any one time for entirely one or the other. Lawyers and everyone else use a combination of their content and strategies to strengthen their position. Your validity is only as strong as how you present it which is a part of strategies/tricks however you see it. Same with a persons content or information in an argument, while some information or validity is stronger than other parts the presentation of it can determine how well you do. The user in this case is just as, if not more important, than your content.
As it says in the article, people tend to be more skeptical and less likely to buy in when they are aware of whats happening at the time. In my opinion, being in a courtroom and aware the prosecution and defense are attempting to sway your opinion would be the best and only way to be aware on what is factual and what is mere persuasion.

I believe for the policy side that a mixture is required for anything positive to come out of it. When you talk about relentless effort on it, it seems to me thats what a lot of the partisanship is in U.S. politics right now. Both sides attempting to show they know excatly what will work by being entirely adamant in your own position. Just like about the Jay-Z issue his career turned out for the better when he eventually stopped attempting to attack people and chose to come to a compromise and work with former advesaries that benefitted them both. I believe that approach is what would work best in dealing with issues on war and the economy. Republicans, Democrats and etc. all need to clairfy their positions and what they believe and then get over themselves and work for a middle ground rather than pleasing their base. I would be happy if someone in federal politics (say the president, since neither minority or majority will compromise) right now took the role of accepting both opinions but then working for the middle ground and when that occurs both sides are going to benefit by saving face with their base and also fianlly coming to an agreeable solution that will hopefully solve our current issues.

I believe people who gain tremendous amounts of power are often those who are inspired themselves to achieve something. Whetther it is for themselves or another cause desire and pushing in combination with who they know or how knowledgeable they are in a certain area creates more opportunity for power. People who act more towards the left or the right might have fear of the government but also have many other influences in their life that cause them to believe certain things.

In this article Mr. Rosling debates the demensions of development, labeling certain aspects as superior to others. While he does make a strong arguemnt, do you believe certain aspects of his argument contain flaws? Such as the minimal importance of education compared to the evniornment as a final goal? Within the Means of achieveing the goal, Rosling puts Human Rights as having minimal influence on achieving other goals. Do you agree? It could be claimed that in the past, having some human rights in a society has led to the desire for even more therefore inciting societal changes etc.
And which parts of his argument do you believe are accurate and strong in facts?

In this article the author points out how visual representations like the one created by Bohner's office are often made to intentionally mislead the American public about certain issues. Even though it may be misleading, do you believe it is fair to do in politics keeping in mind that the information is not being forced upon anyone and freely given? Would you be willing to manipulate numbers and charts to fool the public at large into believeing a cause that you felt strongly about?

NOT the Correct QUESTION!

In this article the author points out how visual representations like the one created by Bohner's office are often made to intentionally mislead the American public about certain issues. Even though it may be misleading, do you believe it is fair to do in politics keeping in mind that the information is not being forced upon anyone and freely given? Would you be willing to manipulate numbers and charts to fool the public at large into believeing a cause that you felt strongly about?

Simon's entire con career was based off of frames and being able to tell what would work with each audience. His favorite trick was admitted to be setting a frame that he's jsut getting a drink and ends up running into him by coincidence and could use some assistance. In the public sphere you see politicians all attempting to put constituents into this illusion that they are greater than they really are and emphasis their better qualities. Obama's Hope campaign, whether it is seen negatively or not, was a frame of future greatness with President Obama leading the nation and a greater life for all.