Personally I do not think the US should have gotten involved with the genocide. Since the US is such a powerful country it primarly takes care of its allies because it provides resources that the US needs. In this situation it is hard to say who it to blame because it was not only the US who has power to help stop the genocide. There were others who could have done the same, but did not. It is difficult to accept the situation since it is taken emotionally and seen that way through the eyes of many people.

Pertaining to the second question i think that you cannot seperate both morality and justice. Ideally that is the goal, but the reality is that as a lawyer you are trying to win your case whether the person is guilty or not. I think justice and morality do conflict with one another, but as a lawyer you have to do your job, to prove your side is correct.

1. Do you think that politicians utilize patternicity to their advantage when addressing the public on policy issues? How do they utilize or do they not utilize patternicity?

2. Are people more succeptible to commiting a type 1 or type 2 error if they are not fully informed on a public policy issue? What does it say about the decision making of the polis?

I do think that visualization is generally more effective than speeches. Most people remember images rather an entire sentence. If you try to recall a certain part of a speech, you more than likely just summarize or ommit it. When you try to remember a picture or image it is easier because it caught your attention immediately. Along with what Sharina stated, is that a picture is worth a thousand words. Due to this the involvement of visuals can be beneficial to the presenter since they can sway people in a certain direction.