I agree with Jonathan about the alpha dogs. Not a lot gets done when two figure heads are going at each other's throats. The important thing about Jay-Z's career is that he knows when to let things go and when he needs to fight and defend his career and those close to him and the things he believes in. This is something he has learned over his long seasoned career. Obviously as a eager young man he was not always prone to letting the little things roll off his back but today in politics that is the key that politicians need to remember. It is not about the ego or the status it is about getting what needs to be done done. Our government system is not a business and running it as one may not be the best idea. However the parties need to find common ground and stand firm on their beliefs but not so firm that we are at a stalemate in politics.

In my personal opinion I don't believe that the market has ruined healthcare. I think that in order to help fix healthcare maybe we should take more of a market approach and allow for nationwide competition. There has been some debate that competition across state lines will provide the best healthcare economically and in regards to quality. That is more of a market model more so than what we have. It is true that the healthcare market is flooded with inflation and lack of service but I do not believe the market itself has corrupted healthcare. So in my opinion the market could theoretically help fix the healthcare system with competition.

I agree that it is easier and far more in a person's interest to try and get what they want and better themselves than trying to change the world. I don't think this is because we are not sympathetic towards other people, I believe it is because people are more concerned with their won needs and the immediate satisfaction. The world is such a vast place that trying to change it can seem overwhelming and most people do not want to take on such a daunting task. A person who has more self-confidence or who truly wants something that requires a change in the world is going to be more likely to be able to make a change. They need to believe it. Eric brought up a valid point about Hitler. I always tend to agree with the fact that Hitler was able to make a nation believe in him purely because he was able to move people with his voice. His public speaking was a serious skill that despite your moral qualms it is still a brilliant skill and technique.

I believe it is beneficial to be extra cautious in regards to public policy. When being told political stories it is important to now take everything at face value. The "rustle in the grass" may just be a rustle in the grass but it can also be something more like the article says. Often we take for granted the information given to us because it is attached to a "fancy title" or someone who is "highly educated" has told us so. But what about the empirical evidence we are supposed to be looking for? I believe although we tend to think we are cautious we are all to accepting of information because it is attached to someone who is a supposed expert. We are not cautious of the "rustle in the grass" because out pops a cute bunny...but then the bunnies eyes turn red and attack and we regret our decision. I think that it is just important to be careful of the stories we accept are true and the stories we quickly disregard. we need to be cautious of the rustle to make sure we are not blindsided or regretful of our decisions and their consequences.

I believe that we are responsible to some extent for what we come to understand from all the political data and numbers. Numbers can very well be misleading but so can the article you just read and the political ignorance of America. It can be presented very nicely but that is what democratic speech is, it isn't always concerned with the truth. Do I believe we have to research EVERYTHING we read or need to know? Of course not, but I do believe there are clues in each source of information that we look at that will tell us how valid and reliable what we are looking at is. We do it with gossip magazines; People, Us, and Star. They are all very interesting to read and yes there is probably a shred of truth in the articles but we all know not to take it at face value, the same with political information and numbers. We need to look at everything so we can get a good read on the information and then make an educated and informed decision.

1.When reading the article do you agree that America treat's "saving Africa" as a fad? Do you think we as a collective body put so much effort into saving countries like Africa because we are looking for redemption or salvation as mentioned? And is our help towards Africa, as well as other 3rd world countries, only as popular because of celebrities such as Brangelina, Scarlett Johansen, and various others and do you think that if celebrities didn't place so much emphasis on helping these impoverished countries that there would be such a high percentage of people willing to be involved?
2.The article also mentions how the west places entirely too much emphasis on the problems in Africa and instead of looking at the good and progress they are making we focus on the corruptness in their leadership and the overwhelming diseases creating an epidemic. Why do you think that we place so much emphasis on these issues or do you believe the author is wrong and we are simply trying our best to make the world a better place? Is this really what we need to be focusing on or do we place entirely too much emphasis on other countries problems or should be focusing on our own country's poverty rate, corruption in government (if you believe there is any), and diseases? While are hearts may be in the right place are we justified in going over and trying to help them or should we be giving them credit for what they have already done?