Being that the United States is currently one of the strongest nations in the world, one can easily conclude that they have the responsibility to protect the human rights of those abroad. As much as this sounds ideal, we know this has not always been the case when it comes to US intervention in foreign affairs. We can argue that because we have such great power and influence that we must use this power to protect those who cannot help themselves, but can we help a country when we ourselves are facing deficits, ineffective policies, and a plethora of issues that are affecting the overall well being of our society? On the flip side, we have seen situations in which the US has gotten involved when it feels that individuals are not being treated with basic human respect. Unfortunately we have seen many cases such as Rwanda where the US had the opportunity to stop a genocide from occurring and did nothing to stop it; claiming that they had no knowledge of the masscre taking place in Rwanda, yet we have seen the US get involved in issues in the Middle East with the hidden interest for oil. We have also seen the US support foreign governments with the reasoning that they are helping establish or maintain a democracy such as in Central and South America that ultimately lead to governments that killed innocent civilians and established some of the most brutal dictatorships in South America in order to have influences over the countries. So then the question becomes do we get involved only when we gain something in return?

1 The article sets it's finding by establishing the idea that "our ultimate goal when interacting with others is to change their mind and eventually their behaviors." The author goes on to present different techniques that are used in the courtroom setting and finds the relevance to the way they can be used in society. Although most of the findings were based on a controlled experiment setting, how much of what was presented do you see played out in our everyday life? Are we taught in society on the positives notations of using persuasive tactics as a way to be an effected communicators and leader in society? At what point does this drive for authoritative figures having control through the power of persuasion become morally unethical?

2) In what ways do we see politicians use persuasive tactics when relaying information to the polis? Has our policy-making shifted from the politicians presenting actual facts to validate their stance or has an emphasized been placed on the ability to use persuasive tactics when presenting arguments to give their stance credibility?

I think it is beneficial for Jay Z no to retaliate against less prominent rappers because it gives him already evident power and influence more validity. When someone who has power is challenged by someone who doesn't have power, you allow those with less power to voice their opinion without you yourself getting involved because you know you have the upper hand. Retaliating would show others that a) that there is a fear this person and or group will have an impact on your power or b) that what these individuals with less power have to state is in somewhat accurate. The idea that you only attack when you feel there is a actual threat. This would ultimately affecting the desired outcomes you have for whatever issue, in JayZ's case it would be the desire for others to see his talent as better than others

I think his message of the seemingly impossible being possible is great in theory but it is harder to put into play. In a sense I feel like he vamped his main message by including colorful charts and visuals to capture the audiences attention. It is easy to show what needs to be achieved but where this falls short is offering possible solution to complete the task at hand.