In this article it says "...that if individual liberty is an ultimate end for human beings..." I found this to be very interesting because freedom is often looked so highly upon that it seems to be the very thing everyone strives for. It is true, freedom is a great thing, but can individual freedom be an ultimate end? We can't let people going around doing whatever they want. That is why we have laws- to create and maintain order within the polis. It is interesting to think though just how much individual freedom we can allow without ending overall peace and well-being within a society.

This article is very bias. It talks about how republicans exploit information and use freaking techniques to trick americans. Don't ALL politicians do this? I just found it to be very interesting how the article began by putting blame on one side to make its ideas appear unreasonable. We discussed last week how "framing" is used across the board.

I kind of agree with this article. It is ridiculous that we have to use celebrities and crazy adds to grab people's attention and make them want to help. It's a "trend". If it's made cool and popular by celebrities and famous politicians people will jump on board. I guess though, these things are raising awareness. Before the ICU club appeared, most college and high school kids had no idea about what was going on in Darfur and other African countries. I feel like people should hold some kind of social responsibility to know major things that are happening in the world. But like we said in class the other day, people don't take this responsibility as a citizen of the world seriously, so I guess crazy adds and celebs have to be used to spread awarness.

Personally, I agree with the whole "slidware" stunt. I think that by using Microsoft Powerpoint, Keynote, etc. people can hide the fact that their discussion lacks content. Sometimes pictures and phrases can be useful in guiding the discussion or providing examples. This is not always the case though. In high school one of my teachers pointed out in another student's powerpoint that he/she had no true analysis about the topic, but was attempting to cover that up with fancy fonts, catchy slogans, and lots of pictures. When I listen to a speaker I want to be sure that I am being given as much DATA as possible, and even more important RELEVANT DATA! I've even caught teachers using their power points to cover the truth that they were not prepared to present the lecture. 

I thought the whole idea of the command and control functions was very interesting. I think, especially in public policy, they're both used together. When a piece of legislation is passed we don't really have much control over it (granted, we could protest, sign petitions, etc.), so we have to do as "they" say. That's the command function. The control function is also in use though. I think that in order to make something seem more appealing and in order to gain support politicians definitely re order the environment to fit their argument. We're kind of tricked by this....

I think that political scientists are beginning to realize more and more than almost everything is significant when it comes to "social construction". We are all, to some extent, influenced by both internal and external factors. I find the idea behind specific groups to be very interesting. I have always noticed that there are many politically-based groups that strictly abide by one set of ideals. I always wonder why they refuse to wander outside of their established "zone" and who are what factors led them to believe those were the best ideals. Gender is especially interesting. I guess women tend to be more soft/gentle/emotional characters, so this is why their ideals lean a certain way. However, I wonder if things may be changing. It seems as though a long time ago women had an established place and role in society, so this could have influenced their thinking. Now though, women can and do do all of the same things that men partake in. I wonder if this influences them politically at all. I, for one, am not soft and probably not as emotional or sympathetic as some people think I should be. 

This article is very interesting. I think it's weird how they were actually able to transform an educational institution by first changing the name. I think that people embrace names and that they can be somewhat empowering. If the name of something is relatable or refers to something grand then people tend to be more responsive. I think this is a kind of framing in which a name can shape an institution, how it works, and how it's members participate. 

I can see both the pros and cons of this situation and always apply it to the legalization of marijuana in California. While I worry that legalization makes illicit drug use acceptable, we do see cases where drug use actually declines in the period after legalization. I don't really understand why this is, though, ...if something is legal it's not fun anymore?? I just think that, although it would be a good source of tax money, If marijuana is legalized people will still use it but I also think they will turn to other kinds of drug use which are much more serious. Whether we like it or not we know that a great amount of illicit drug use comes from marijuana use.  Tax Revenue or Possibility of more illicit drug use? I'm not sure which is better, or what would happen if drugs were legalized in America. In a variety of things, laws and regulations do not work in America as they do in foreign countries because we are so different, diverse, and seem to have overall different views on morals. 

I think that, while it would be RIDICULOUS, if the administration had no idea what was going on in Rwanda, the third point is correct in some sense. It said "regardless of what it knew, there was nothing useful to be done. We see in a lot of unfortunate situations like this the only thing that is moderately useful that outsiders can do is to capture the leader- it times of chaos, it's not easy. This reminds me very much of the deal with Joseph Kony. Even though many countries have made a commitment to catch him if possible, it still hasn't happened and people are still being murdered.  I guess it comes with the power, but it still always surprises me that other countries judge us if we don't jump in to help EVERY situation in EVERY country at that VERY second....not to say that we shouldn't help people, but I think that too much is expected of the United States. We can't solve everyone's problems-- we can't even solve our own........