I understand Sharena's point that it merely impossible for the U.S. to fix the entire world's problems. We can see the backlash that has resulted from the U.S. going in to resolve peace in the Middle East. It is difficult to define when it is a moral responsibility to stay in. Of course it is a given that if the U.S. is being directly affected then they should step in, however what if we aren't impacted? Discretion and investigation are critical when deciding which issues we should get involved in. When incidents like the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust happen I think it is necessary for us to be involved and helping. How we can stand on the sidelines and watch tragedy happen. I am not saying we need to be in control but our help is a necessity, we should lend out our privileged resources to those that are undergoing suffering.

I do believe that today in America people are legally offered the same rights. However, many are limited to resources and do not have the same kind of access to opportunity. This is just the nature of American society; everything is placed on the individual, you can go onto say it is an individual's for not reaching the level off success they want to be at, but limitations are a reality. Many I feel want to stay blind to the fact that today still race, gender, and physical capacity are important determinants in the work force. However it is a reality everyone reaches a glass ceiling at some point in their career. However I do not feel that affirmative action reservations are the solution to this problem. Like Eric said, these reserved positions limit those who are more qualified. Special interests in job reservation always has a backlash and that is those who are eligible are limited from opportunity. When it comes to handicapped individuals certain jobs need to be created so that they still can contribute in the work force and have opportunities. If a handicapped individual can fully function and be successful in a certain occupation then there is no reason for their discrimination.

Campaign slogans are a major way that politicians use persuasion when relaying information to the polis. Their way of presenting ideas and issues they see that need to be solved is a tactic in itself. Their agenda of policies that they want to create are justified by making society feel that they are necessary. Physical appearance is another tactic as well; if they appear confident and caring they can win the hearts of the polis. Like Tavish said, appealing to emotion is a critical tactic for politicians. It leeds to winning support, this can be problematic however, because voters will begin to believe any "facts" presented to them rather than fullty investigating the situation.

I agree with those above that the chart is still accurate because policies are still formed in the same way. It is all about favoritism and winning the interest and support of a certain group. Similar to what Sharena said, a lot of different groups have emerged since 1993, however the system still works in the same way. Those opinions and reactions from a significant group play a large role in putting forth new policies.

I would have to agree with Tavish,patternicity allows the polis to place blame easily. It is felt that further research is not needed therefore false problems are created. lot of time and effort is made to prevent a problem that could perhaps be non existent. This continuous cycle postpones progress and solutions.

Since people do not know a lot of information on a certain issue, I think people are more susceptible to a type II policy. People are not aware of what is important, this says that people do not take it upon themselves to be completely informed. I would have to agree with Amanda in that politicians use patternicity to their advantage. It is a strategy to better reach us on a personal level. Emotion is the key to relation therefore politicians use this to their advantage.

1. Hans Rosling claimed his main message to be "the seemingly impossible is possible". Do you feel that this presentation actually proved his point, if you were convinced what do u think made you think this way?

2. Do you think data visualization would be as influential in regards to political power and influence if it weren't for the growth of internet media?