This is the quote I want to note on..."Second, there is an issue of legitimation that relates to the intrinsic value of democracy. As deliberative democrats (Cohen, 1989, among many others) now point out, democratic legitimacy
is secured largely to the extent those affected by a policy decision have the ability or right to participate in deliberations about its content."
I found this to be a rather rewarding and interesting article, though I do not agree with some of the points he makes, I think that is mostly because of lack of knowledge about the Australian system, This quote represents a question about the democratic society as a whole, the question of equal and proper representation. Dryzek argues about decision making and particularly in this quote, that the only way a democratic society knows it is legitimate is via decision making. But whether it was this class or California Politics, we all know that their is not such thing as the "perfect" government, especially in terms of representation, so I guess according to this quote, my question would be, do we in the United States have the best way of representation, in our version of democracy? Do we give people of all shapes, colors and sizes the ability to be represented? hmmmm...interesting article and point.

I think the most interesting comment was the comparison between Jay-z and the U.S. Example - "As Jay-Z got older and more powerful, the marginal benefits of such battles declined and the costs increased even as the number of would-be rivals escalated. Just as the U.S. attracts resentment and rhetorical anti-Americanism simply by virtue of being on top, so did Jay-Z attract a disproportionate number of attackers. "I got beefs with like a hundred children" he bragged/complained on one track. " this is quite an interesting point that is being made, but I have to agree with this statement. I think the U.S. has reached the point that they do not have to worry about every little skirimish in society and only pursue foreign affairs in a strictly benefitting us. This article argues that we have now adopted the policy of pursuing the benefit of everyone here rather than just our society as a whole. We have this polciy but I think right now, in society, we must be weary of outside affairs when we are struggling so bad domestically. Security purposes make sense but anything else should be done at a later date. Jay-z started like this and now has entered the idea of benefitting more people than just this, however, their is a large lone difference between the two, jay-z suffers he loses stature, the U.S. stature, we lose lives. I think it is more important to remember the comparison, but look primarily toward the future.

Please answer one or both of the questions:

#1 - In the reading, A History of Violence, four different philosophies of why our "killing behavior" has changed, which one of the four do you agree with? and why? (Deterrence, Higher Value, Equal Gain, Evolution)

#2 - In the reading, The Story of Power, Meachem talks about how power is both command and control upon which he defines as "making others do as you wish or reorder the environment around you", which do you think leads to a bigger impact, changing your environment or ruling your environment?

Thanks everyone, see you tmw!

Obviously all factors play a vital role in growth but there are ones that are more important than others. Culture needs to come with the building of the area, it is not something you can just make appear, it has to be developed over years. I think if you started with human rights, education and economic growth that is the most you could ask for from an unstable area. human rights is a moral code that can be easily established. The other two are vital though not quickly accomplished but for the future and present both must be in place for the country to succeed.

I thought this was an interesting article demonstrating the impact of money and distribution in scenarios involving the market system. Though the article does show some of studies done, I felt that some of the studies were created to get a single answer rather than one without a bias. That said, one of the last thing that Bowles shows is how important voluntary giving is rather then money giving under force. "We're showing that paying taxes does produce a neural reward. But we're showing that the neural reward is even higher when you have voluntary giving." I thought that answer was one of the more surprising responses in the article also bringing forth some good points.