I agree that it is hard topic that can go in circles. The U.S. has the tendency to get involved in order to keep positive relations with their allies. Which makes sense. However, I do not believe that we need to step into other countries problems every chance we get. the U.S. needs to use discretion, especially in such fiscally trying times. There's a reason for the United Nations and it's a good way to have input without directly getting involved and other countries besides the U.S. We can't be the end all be all when it comes to helping out just because we may be the most powerful. I'm not saying that we shouldn't step in at all, we just shouldn't do it alone in order to look out for our best interests in the long run.

In class awhile back I touched base on the idea that everyone should be given the opportunity to reach their own success in society. Jobs need to be created that can fit the criteria for any level of mental capacity and education level (Like Jacqueline stated). If there isn't availability for people to make a living for themselves regardless of their abilities we can't sit there and say too bad, so sad. If we have programs such as welfare in place, thats great because it creates a safety net for people who can't get a job in hard times like these. However we also need to give people the opportunity to achieve their own success with finding a new job! No jobs equals no opportunity for people to escape the recession. Job creation is a must to rebuild our nation and escape the recession!

I also agree that there is a totalitarian model used by United States Politicians. Secrets are inevitable. Politicians have always twisted negative into positive. It's all part of the schema that they create in order to gain support. Just another aspect to the "game".

1. Schneider and Ingram, when talking about construction of target populations, states "advantaged groups are perceived to be both powerful and positively constructed, such as the elderly and business." The chart on pg. 336 shows how the advantaged, the contenders, the dependents and the deviants fit into groups that are considered positive and negative constructions and having weak and strong power. Do you find that the chart is accurate now? This article was written in 1993? Do you think anything has changed?

2. Schneider and Ingram conclude with the statement that "the government can be expected to continue to put forth justifications claiming that providing benefits to advantaged groups serves broader public interests, but the credibility of these explanations will decline for several reasons." One being that ordinary citizens will see the policy as ineffective or that important problems aren't being solved? What do you believe is happening in politics right now that is a prime example of the articles closing points?

I think that internet media has trained our brains to only pay attention to things that only interest our desires. This makes the human eye prone to generalization which can fog important information that we should know as voters in a Democratic society. We live in a fast passed society that relies on getting things done quickly. So therefor most American's would more likely want to get the bigger picture of political information and news rather than looking and analyzing data that is presented to them as voters. The internet media only furthers our need to get things done quickly, therefor we I agree with Sharena that the message can be powerful but it is not as powerful due to internet media.