Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ contemporary issues in public policy
Rss Feed
Sort By: Most Recent | Popular Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
jackmcfarland12

Seeing Like a State - 4 views

www.nytimes.com/...scott-state.html

shared by jackmcfarland12 on 07 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • From a naturalist's perspective, nearly everything was missing from the state's narrow frame of reference.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 07 Dec 12
       
      This ties directly to what the author was talking about in the introduction. The way we see the efforts and accomplishments of a targeted group depends directly on which perspective we take it. Someone may serve the needs of some people, but not all of them. 
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 10 Dec 12
       
      I don't see how the "satisfaction to the king" relates to the varying perspectives later stated. The idea of things in the polis is interesting because it takes physical ideas and turns them into concepts.  The example of " the actual tree with its vast number of possible uses was replaced by an abstract tree representing a volume of lumber" shows what i mean. I thought the concepts were very confusing though and did not understand most of this reading.
  • The great advantage of such tunnel vision is that it brings into sharp focus certain limited aspects of an otherwise far more complex and unwieldy reality.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 10 Dec 12
       
      In politics, I believe you need to have people who have this "tunnel vision" as they talk of so that they can be assigned a certain topic and get it done in the most efficient way as it is their specialty. We can have higher leaders in control who are capable of deciding factors involving every area and then others who can focus on specific things. Yes there are ways this could fail but I also think it is a good idea. 
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 10 Dec 12
       
       Yeah he can get it done in efficient way, but the repercussions are far greater. With tunnel vision people can fail to look at the variables and how their decisions can affect others and their lives. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 10 Dec 12
       
      i agree with both, and see the pluses and minuses of tunnel vision. yes, it will help in getting things done in a timely and affective manner, but  through tunnel vision other things may be missed out on. they can fail to look at certain important thing because they are too focused on one other one 
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 10 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Caitlin. Yes, tunnel vision will get the most done in the shortest amount of time, but when you are looking at something like that it is impossible to see the other outcomes besides the one you are planning for. So I think it is better to have open people get things done, even though it may not be ideal for time purposes.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 10 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Dana. I think in general it is always better to have an open mind to things. It is better to put more time and effort into something, than to rush through it.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 10 Dec 12
       
      I agree with what Dana is saying. I think it is always better to be open-minded. The outcome will always be better if you put time and effort into it, rather than to rush through it. 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 10 Dec 12
       
      I think what evryone is saying is true and that usually it is better to have an openmind and it is seen as bad to be narrow minded but in certain cases like this you have to narrow your mind to see things right
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 10 Dec 12
       
      I also agree with what is being said about tunnel vision. It is good in the sense of being able to deeply focus on a problem and find the best solution; however, it is also true that other issues can be overlooked. I think it is good for some of the people in politics to be able to have this "tunnel vision", but there also needs to be those that look at the whole picture so that it provides a stable balance.
    • laurenneiger
      laurenneiger on 10 Dec 12
       
      I think this is a particularly efficient way to get these goals accomplished.  I believe that it may not be efficient if applied to everything in life, however this in particular works. 
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 10 Dec 12
       
      I think it is good for some of the people in politics to be able to have this "tunnel vision. is a particularly efficient way to get these goals finished.
    • Devin Haerle
      Devin Haerle on 11 Dec 12
       
      Agreeing with the others- "Tunnel vision" like this is a fantastic way to get a lot done in a short amount of time, but with the unwanted side-effect of crippling broad, long-term planning. As with many other management techniques, it must be used when the situation calls for it.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 12 Dec 12
       
      'Tunnel vision' is good for the most part, but what I think is more important, is to view things overall, in the big picture so you know what would last in the long run of things. Tunnel vision would only help you achieve half the battle.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • The state did pay attention to poaching, which impinged on its claim to revenue in wood or its claim to royal game, but otherwise it typically ignored the vast, complex, and negotiated social uses of the forest for hunting and gathering, pasturage, fishing, charcoal making, trapping, and collecting food and valuable minerals as well as the forest's significance for magic, worship, refuge, and so on.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 10 Dec 12
       
      By having the tunnel vision, they made a quick rash decision, and not worry about other potential benefits of the forest such as the hunting and its value to certain people. They could have easily used the land for better uses, yet did not because of their tunnel vision. They thought of the immediate results, not of the bigger picture at hand.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 10 Dec 12
       
      I agree, if it had not been for the state's tunnel vision the state may have foreseen the possible consequences of their rash decision. However having such a narrow vision can help in certain way like bring a great focus to certain aspects of an issue. Unfortunately with the narrow vision of the state, the state cannot not see the overall picture of their bad decision leading to dissatisfying results. 
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 10 Dec 12
       
      Having tunnel vision is dangerous. Approaching an issue by only looking at one aspect and ignoring all others is irresponsible. This is such an issue in public policy today when one side has tunnel vision for only their ideas and chooses to ignore other ideas, no matter how important or correct they may be. Yes, sometimes tunnel vision is a good thing, but we really need to step back and look at the issue as a big picture and think about how it will effect everyone. 
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 10 Dec 12
       
      I completely agree with what everyone is saying. Tunnel vision can have positive effects, but someone has to be able to step back and look at the overall picture. I think that one way to attack problems is to have some of the decision makers having tunnel vision to first gain an idea and then have others step in to address the other side of an issue.
  • utilitarian discourse replaces the term "nature" with the term "natural resources,"
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 10 Dec 12
       
      this is something we need to think about. we spend all our thought on nature as 'what can we get from it'.. maybe we should think a little more about nature as a whole, and preserving its natural beauty.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 10 Dec 12
       
      But do we truly need that? We are people, we utilize our resources. So in turn we must utilize our "natural resources."
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 12 Dec 12
       
      Utilizing natural resources is fine, but not at the expense of nature at the level utilitarianism might allow. Sometimes it is necessary, but when we allow nature to be destroyed continuously and without regulation, natural resources can in turn become deficient, and this is not beneficial to anyone. 
  • Would it not be a great satisfaction to the king to know at a designated moment every year the number of his subjects, in total and by region, with all the resources, wealth & poverty of each place; [the number] of his nobility and ecclesiastics of all kinds, of men of the robe, of Catholics and of those of the other religion, all separated according to the place of their residence? ... [Would it not be] a useful and necessary pleasure for him to be able, in his own office, to review in an hour's time the present and past condition of a great realm of which he is the head, and be able himself to know with certitude in what consists his grandeur, his wealth, and his strengths?
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 10 Dec 12
       
      Yes, I do believe this would be a great idea. An impossible idea however. Too many things change from one moment to the next to know the exact numbers of everything. Not only thta but in a way too much information becomes useless. It is always important to account for everyone, but not too this extent. Too much time would go into getting exact numbers instead of actually fixing things and doing the thinsg that need to be done.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 10 Dec 12
       
      Quite the noble gesture, and the only true way to do that is if every tiny district somehow lived independently from every other one. But as we know, we live in a giant country, so it we sacrifice the ability to know every little interest or statistic. The impossibility if this makes the statement pointless. An omniscient president or king? Sounds like god if you ask me. Which I'm not saying is an impossibility, just at our mortal levels.
    • jackmcfarland12
      jackmcfarland12 on 13 Dec 12
       
      This reminds me of the stock market failure in 2010. the numbers were crunched by machines are were done quickly and efficiently. The problem was when humans get involved, they cannot calculate quickly enough. Alot has changed since 1686 and we do have the ability to gain substantial information in a short amount of time. But is that information useful, quantifiable? Just because they have all the numbers does not mean they have all the answers, or the questions to look at them through. 
  • gina Hogrefe on 10 Dec 12
     
    I like the bee analogy in the article that introduced how structured hives are from a beekeepers perspective. It helped me understand the author James Scott's stance on the state. Clearly the state does have plans and is centralized in hierarchy. This highly structured, dominance and authoritarian attitudes have failed according to Scott's case against it.
Flavio Guzman

Seeing like a state: Introduction - 1 views

started by Flavio Guzman on 12 Dec 12 no follow-up yet
Flavio Guzman

Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are Enacted - 1 views

On October 22, 1986, lawmakers from both parties gathered on the South Lawn of the White House and applauded as President Ronald Reagan signed into law the most comprehensive revision of the federa...

started by Flavio Guzman on 12 Dec 12 no follow-up yet
Shannon Wirawan

Sample Chapter for Patashnik, E.M.: Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Ch... - 2 views

press.princeton.edu/...s8773.html

shared by Shannon Wirawan on 07 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • disintegrated
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 07 Dec 12
       
      It's kind of sad that this tax reform has disintegrated. This obviously loops back to the topic we discussed in class about the author of this article. People may hate the government because after they finally agree to pass something they don't follow through and insure that the law is continuing to live on and be supported. 
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 12 Dec 12
       
      I agree. People go off on too much hype over a reform but fail to back it up once it is getting implemented into the system.
  • Although important “vestiges” of the celebrated measure remain, tax policymaking dynamics have largely regressed to their pre-1986 ways.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 08 Dec 12
       
      I find it horrible that the !986 reform seemed to benefit the public overall, but it did not end up suriving after some years. I think it is necessary that republicans and democrats work together on issues to provide beneficial reforms. I think both parties need to take a hint from this 1986 reform and stop not being able to compromise because compromise is essential. The parties should not base their decisions off of important figures of groups, they need to look at the nation as a whole and make their reforms work, so that the people of America can put their trust back in the parties and their ability to fix problems.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 08 Dec 12
       
      I agree. I think that Congress needs to take a note from history.  Clearly this tax reform got us on the path to lowering the deficit less than 30 years ago and all that has gone out the window.  They also need to evaluate that information and implement it properly into modern times otherwise it may not work. 
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 10 Dec 12
       
      I agree completely with what Lauren and Caitlin are saying. Looking back into history, reform has been semi beneficial but also not as ideal as hoped for. Today reform is hard to come by because of the innability for the democrats and republicans to agree in congress. Once the two groups can work together, reform with come naturally.
  • These stunning reform victories signal that American national government has the capacity to overcome parochial concerns and serve a larger public interest
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 09 Dec 12
       
      I think that a lot of general-interest reforms are generally to help the public. They are created for the well being of the public. They want to promote the general welfare of America! America's government is all about the people: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union". We are here to serve the larger public interest and unite together. 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 10 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Kayla. I think that reforms should have the general public in mind. This should be the most important factor when making decisions that impact citizens.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 10 Dec 12
       
      The government is responsible for the public's welfare. Citizens are a vital part of our government, and the government should comply to their needs of service.
  • gina Hogrefe on 10 Dec 12
     
    The tax reform act of 1986 was one of the more far reaching reforms in the tax system since the adoption of income tax. It has been argued in contemporary society that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified. I believe this has merit because income tax (direct tax) should be apportioned. This is just adding to the history of Reagan's tax reform.
Amanda Garcia

Patashnik, E.M.: Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are Enacted. - 1 views

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search

shared by Amanda Garcia on 03 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Why do certain highly praised policy reforms endure while others are quietly reversed or eroded away?
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 03 Dec 12
       
      Some forms of policy reforms are seen as more critical and need sudden attention. The ones that pass are the most important ones and they need to be used immediately in the United States government. The reforms that are eroded away are probably ones that need less attention and require less government assistance. I think overall there is a tremendous effort invested in enacting policy reforms. 
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 05 Dec 12
       
      I think that the policy reforms that do not receive immediate attention could be less important or they could be of great importance but also great debate. The two parties may be in complete disagreement and give the opposing party a hard time when trying to propose or pass a policy. Often, when a party opposes an issue, they will make it extremely difficult for the policy to pass and it may erode away. 
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 05 Dec 12
       
      The policies with high praise are the important ones. Those are the ones that the two parties were able to compromise on and put into action. They are also the ones that are important to help keep the nation running smoothly. The ones that are reversed are more likely than not counterproductive for the country. Those eroded away are unimportant and probably bad policies. They won't solve any problems that are at the top of the list right now.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 07 Dec 12
       
      Important policies are the ones that should receive the most attention. Policies that both parties agree on are the ones that should be implemented right away. When looking at national policy vs. state policy, the national policy will most likely get more attention. For policies that erode over time, I think it's because people start caring less about those policies, especially if there's other policies that interest them more.
    • haakonasker
      haakonasker on 07 Dec 12
       
      I agree with all of the above. I think that the policies with high praise are the important ones. They should be dealt with at first, hand get handled. After these are handled, it is important to take care of the less urgent ones. Even though the ones that pass are the most important ones, it is important not to forget any of the other ones. All policies affect some people, so it is important to take care of each one.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 07 Dec 12
       
      Obviously the policies with high praise mean that it was the kind of policy people were looking for and wanted/needed at the time. Just because a policy does not get a huge amount of praise it does not mean it is not good policy or needed it just is not something people are worried about at the time or feel is irrelevant to them when maybe it is not.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 07 Dec 12
       
      Highly praised policy reforms endure because they seem to be more important over the others. Like what Marichal showed us in class, there are so many reforms listed online. He read a random one and no one knew or really cared what the policy bill was about. It's all about narrowing down the priorities. The extras aren't necessary.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 07 Dec 12
       
      Although it may seem highly cynical, the policy reforms recieve publicity based on who is backing them, why they are backing them and how much money the people backing the issue has. The only exception may be controversial issues but at the same time those controversies many times are shaped by the media how the policy is portrayed. One example that is coming to my mind is the issue of natural gas and hydraulic fracking.
  • tells us how policy designs help shape the long-term sustainability of general-interest reforms
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 05 Dec 12
       
      This is an idea that is not perpetuated in policy, which has been a reason that supports the idea of history repeats itself. It repeats itself because constituents of the policy makers are short term minded and want policies that will positively effect them in their lifetime, here, and now. People are not willing to sacrifice some of their habits for the benefit and success of a future policy. People are typically not in favor of huge change, fearing that uprooting things that they know will effect their lives more negatively than positively. It sounds like this book is a wonderful read to get people more on board with understanding and supporting policy that helps "shape long-term sustainability of general-interest reforms". 
  • He argues that the reforms that stick destroy an existing policy subsystem and reconfigure the political dynamic.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 06 Dec 12
       
      Is he arguing that all reforms destroy policies? That seems to be an overstatement. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 07 Dec 12
       
      I believe that this is very much an overstatement and a loud-mouth opinion. Yes reforms that stick could destroy all policy but the opposite side of that is that they could totally change the aspects of the policy in a positive manner. If this is the case, then this statement would need a lot more evidence to back up how these reforms could be so destructive. 
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 07 Dec 12
       
      I don't think that the statement being made here is entirely true. Not all reforms are going to ruin and destroy an existing policy subsystem. Some reforms may actually strengthen the existing policy and make it more productive and functional. 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 07 Dec 12
       
      I disagree with this statement as well. I think reforms can be good for a country. I do not see how they can destroy our policy subsystem. We should be making changes as our system changes. 
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 07 Dec 12
       
      As what everyone else is saying, this statement seems a bit ridiculous in terms of how real policy in enacted. Yes, there is the term "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But really, should policy makers never really institute reforms that remain prominent in terms of influencing the policy subsystem? As with many aspects of policy, it depends on the situation. There are certain reforms that do, in fact, leave a lasting positive impact. It is rash to think that all reforms are destructive in this sense.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 07 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Brandon, reform should come when our current system is no longer working as efficiently as we would like it to, it shouldn't be something viewed as negative. Times change, people change, policy should be changing too.
    • Devin Haerle
      Devin Haerle on 11 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Brandon and Brandon. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it;" but that is assuming current pollicy is not broken. The purpose of reform is to mend policy that is obsolete, nonfunctional, or immoral. Ideally, all reform has a positive impact.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Most books focus on the politics of reform adoption, yet as Eric Patashnik shows here, the political struggle does not end when major reforms become enacted.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 06 Dec 12
       
      I think that this is very good as I believe that a lot of the politics or issues we hear about come when it is being debated on whether to pass certain reforms or not. They show how and why each reform should come into place or adopted,but I think that this is very interesting to show what happens after a reform has actually been adopted. To show how effective it is based off a certain decision and arguments that led to the approval of the certain reform. I think that this book would be very itneresting to see how each reform actually helps reshape policy or how they might just fade out and why certain ones do as said in the next sentence.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 06 Dec 12
       
      I agree. Just because the reforms are passed, not many really go in depth to see how the reform is adopted into everyday life.  We perform and settle a lot of debates over these reforms, but when they actually pass, no one is for sure about what happens after. This book would be interesting to do a quick-read over to see what happens after a reform is passed; will it do what people voted for it to do, or will it disappoint people and just crash out.
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 06 Dec 12
       
      I agree with both the statements above, as I am curious to see what happens to the reforms after they are implemented, how society takes the, if they really are all that they are said to be when trying to pass them. I don't think we see enough of that, and it would better our knowledge of if they live up to what they are said to be. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 07 Dec 12
       
      This statement is true in which when reforms are passed they do not become enacted. This brings up the question: are the reforms that our government puts into place really effect our everyday lives or shape our policy? Most reforms I feel get pushed aside after the hype is over with and no one hears about them afterwards and how they are implemented. If we knew about each reform place in policy we would be more knowledgeable as citizens in this country about how our government works/ operates. 
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 10 Dec 12
       
      I think it is funny how it talks about Ronald Reagen and how he created a revolutionary tax policy, yet in an indirect way, we are having issues with the middle east because of Reagen. He was the one to supply them with high tech weapons. I do think that what Reagen stands for is important, but he is kind of the root of our issues with the middle east.
  • Reforms at Risk debunks the argument that reforms inevitably fail because Congress is prey to special interests, and the book provides a more realistic portrait of the possibilities and limits of positive change in American government.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 07 Dec 12
       
      It is often easy to blame Congress for giving in to special interests, mostly due to our great tendency to hold others accountable when something does not work. However, Congress is really like a group of book writers, constantly being pressured of what to put into their works, disagreeing among each other about how to write a better metaphor, and having to deal with the ridiculous publishing process all while trying to please a large audience of subscribers.  
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 07 Dec 12
       
      That's an interesting view, that first comment there. I wonder if there is a way that would help decrease the power of special interests over congress; why is it that congress is so beholden to these lobbyists? Is it simply because they help them get re-elected? If only the lovely electorate of America didn't vote for candidates based on the flashiness of their advertisements, just think what a great country we could be..
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 10 Dec 12
       
      With a position in politics there can only be expected such high scrutiny, with so many different opinions they can't expect everyone to be pleased by the decisions they make. 
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 12 Dec 12
       
      I like this. Instead of simply and continuously throwing the blame about, it provides realistic and progressive solutions to our political dynamic problems. That's forward thinking for a change. 
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 07 Dec 12
       
      This is difficult to ensure because one never knows for certain if a policy reform is the right thing to do for the public before it is enacted.  It may seem like the right reform but who knows until it is proven and actually in use with the public?
Flavio Guzman

Bystanders to Genocide - Samantha Power - The Atlantic - 5 views

www.theatlantic.com/...304571

shared by Flavio Guzman on 29 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • And most crucial, what could the United States have done to save lives?
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 29 Nov 12
       
      I don't think anything could have been done. By Clinton's reaction he obviously had more important things on his plate than those being killed off in Rwanda. This is saddening and sickening. There was such a big hype about "Kony 2012" and yet nothing was done about this?
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 02 Dec 12
       
      I think this raises the question about a country's responsibility to other nations. Clinton may have had many priorities, but does that mean we can simply ignore other country's concerns? I think that every time period is going to have a different mood toward foreign policy. There are times when we can only focus on ourselves and others where we should do more for other countries. Regardless, there is an emotional/moral obligation to help others/other countries in need. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 03 Dec 12
       
      The question shouldn't be "what could have the United States have done to save lives?" but "what could the Clinton Administration have done to save lives?". When citizens elect the president they put all trust and knowledge in what decisions he will make. America made its choice to elect Clinton and so we should be able trust that he will make the decision. 
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 03 Dec 12
       
      I agree that there probably wasn't much that Clinton could have done to help. On the other hand i find it hard to believe that he had no idea that it was going on. Sure there might have been more important things going on that pertained to him but i feel like if that many people were being slaughtered it would stand out. It wouldn't be something to just pass over. 
    • haakonasker
      haakonasker on 03 Dec 12
       
      There was not any Country in the world that did anything while the genocide took place. I think that the world sometimes turn their back against big issues that goes on. Especially in Africa. The genocide in Darfur, Sudan is another newer example on how the United States and the rest of the world turned their back against, also the starvation of millions of people in Eastern Africa that have been going on the last couple of years, manly in Somalia. I agree with Tori, on that Clinton did know what was going on in Rwanda, but did not act upon it. This is what the world do a lot of times. If a Country is not going to benefit financially or for their own countries security, they will not do anything about the problem.
  • s. It reveals that the U.S. government knew enough about the genocide early on to save lives, but passed up countless opportunities to intervene.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 02 Dec 12
       
      I think the U.S. needs to step it up. The president is too worried about intervening with the "wrong" countries because he is concerned about losing trust or priveleges with other countries. This cowardice to step up and do the right thing has killed hundreds of thousands of people. I personally talked to a survivor of the genocide mentioned above and the terror he and his famil went through is not okay. The U.S. government also fails to announce the Armenian Genocide as the president does not want Turkey to put the U.S. on their bad side. People should take a step back and look at what is happening to the world around them. Although it may be more pragmatic to make certain decisions, the morality and "rightness" should also be a key role as we are all humans and have a level of compassion and urge to do the right thing and help others in their time of need. It would have been right o defend the Tutsis who were a minority and could not defend themselves. 
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 03 Dec 12
       
      So many signs or insights of information were given were given to the us, yet because the "genocide" word was used the US stayed out of it, aside from sending UN troops. United States policy resembled "outta sight, outta mind". many, if not all lives could have been saved
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 03 Dec 12
       
      I agree that this was not okay. This statement of the U. S. knowing enough about the genocide but just merely passing up the many opportunities to help puts the U. S. in a bad light. Like Alexis said, the president was so concerned with the alliances he has made with countries in the world that he basically sat back and let the genocide happen. It is so sad to think that so many people lost their lives or lost those whom they loved and that this country could have taken steps to stop this, but didn't. This article puts the U. S. and Clinton in a particularly bad light, as it should for what happened. 
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 03 Dec 12
       
      I agree as well. Clinton should have paid more attention to this issue. By passing it up, it gave him an unfavorable image. He was the President, and other countries around the world see his actions through all of America. It was a poor action to not be able to intervene with the genocides.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      I'm not really sure if I agree that we should have intervened, or that I blame Clinton... I think that it's hard to really make that claim, to say that the President should have been on top of things and intervene in a  genocide. It is very dangerous to just leap into a country and try and tell them what to do... we would be painting a target on our back, and might even create a war in that manner. I know that we knew about it and we could have done something, but that doesn't mean we were the only country, just Clinton got caught holding all of the cards and was blamed for not taking action. Being President would be too difficult for me, foreign affairs are very tricky business...
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 03 Dec 12
       
      It's sticky business. It's hard to just intervene in other countries internal affairs. Who are we to judge and patronise their culture. What we have defined as genocide is not necessarily what the Utuu call it. Perhaps that basic sense of what is mass killing does not ring in their heads. It's just a fact that is considered differently by different societies and cultures. Maybe an ethnic cleansing or simply just a cleansing to better their society. And who are we to enforce what our ideas I what's better onto them?
  • In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 03 Dec 12
       
      super interesting genocide, one that I have researched deeply. Super interesting because this genocide wasnt two different lands, they shared everything aside from the title of hutu and tutisi. It was people murdering their own people
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 03 Dec 12
       
      What else could President Clinton have done? This is the question that many find debatable. Is the duty of the United States to protect other nations in times of genocide. Honestly I think that many didn't not know how bad the genocide was at first but as time went on more and more died, which called for more nations to step in and help. Clinton was taking a huge risk if he put his country into the mix of the genocide. Oddly enough I don't think that there was much he could personally do and so I think he made a good choice in just staying out of it, even though it may not be the most moral thing to do.
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 03 Dec 12
       
      Even if he did send troops into Rwanda, it's very difficult to know who you are fighting against. Also the president would have to endure the consequences of looking like a bully to other nations. Sometimes staying neutral is the easiest way out of it and that is the direction the president choose. 
    • Devin Haerle
      Devin Haerle on 11 Dec 12
       
      It was a lose-lose situation. If the US intervened other nations in the region might twist US actions into those of the bully, the oppressor, even if they were well-intentioned, and moving more troops into the region may have only served to escalate the situation and bog the US down in yet another costly and likely unpopular war. Proponents of intervention often seem to overlook the economic and psychological cost of war. If the US stood by, its citizens and others would accuse the government of a lack of action on important issues. Clinton's actions were no doubt well-rehearsed and he assuredly recieved advice on the situation from the cabinet, advisors, et cetera- few Presidents act alone- and he did what was seen as in America's best interest.
  • A few years later, in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 03 Dec 12
       
      I found the last part of this sentence to be really true. I did not know about this at all but it seem like it should have been a bigger deal and someone needed to step in and help. I do not see how it could have been so easily ignored. So many people died for no reason at all it just seems crazy it was not in the media or in our history books now.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 03 Dec 12
       
      This is the most shocking and interesting aspect of foreign policy; that is how we choose our battles. The excuse that we had no idea what was happening really does not cut it but I do understand that many things are weighed out when making decsions like whether or not to get involved in other countries problems. I wonder how people make decisions to refrain from interviening and keep from the media mass genocides like this incident in Rwanda.
  • "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 03 Dec 12
       
      I get the impression that it is far more likely for a government to take action over something if it is made public. The Tutsi genocide is far less known than say, the Holocaust. People don't know about what is going on, therefore they don't ask questions. Once people start raising questions, however, I feel like that's when a lot of politicians start making a "stand".
  • Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 03 Dec 12
       
      I think that this is pretty horrible. For people to ruthlessly kill this many people is just unbelievable. Something should have been done to stop this. I think that the fact that Clinton knew about this and did nothing to stop him make him slightly guilty. Its like someone watching a murder and just walking away and not helping while its happening. And i think it made Clinton look bad as well as America.
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 03 Dec 12
       
      I think that this is an extremely sad story to be told. People really need to be more informed about this kind of thing. If more people were informed then I think the government would be more inclined to step in and help. Well the government is supposed to work that way. But someone in one of the later comments mentioned Kony 2012 in which many people did make a statement about and the government still didn't step up to the plate. Not only was the Clinton administration made to look bad, they also could have easily changed their image.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 03 Dec 12
       
      The US government's semi-imperialist use of its military in recent years is out of control, but what we SHOULD be using our military for, outside of protecting out homeland, is to eradicate genocides like this.. here's an idea, let's stop deposing foreign leaders just because they don't like us, and start worrying about mindless killing. gameplan -set.
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 11 Dec 12
       
      How is it possible that this was allowed to happen? thats more than half a million lives lost and yet it took years for someone to write about it. If this had happened in any developed country we would have known this was going to happen before it even happened. These are the issues that all goverment should be worried about fixing now, not other things such as oil.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 03 Dec 12
       
      I think that this is pretty horrible. For people to ruthlessly kill this many people is just unbelievable. Something should have been done to stop this. I think that the fact that Clinton knew about this and did nothing to stop him make him slightly guilty. Its like someone watching a murder and just walking away and not helping while its happening. And i think it made Clinton look bad as well as America.
  • Why did the United States not do more for the Rwandans at the time of the killings?
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 03 Dec 12
       
      What else could President Clinton have done? It's hard to get involved in something so far from us. Rwanda is on the other side of the world and it is hard to stay in contact. We only know what is going on from stories and pictures being shared with the U.S. I feel like if the United States got involved it possibly could have made it worse. Clinton was put in a tough place and all the pressure was put on him. I think there were things that maybe could have happened to help but it was a difficult place to be in. 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 04 Dec 12
       
      I think the U.S did do somethings as far as sending military aid to protect people. besides that i don't know how much more the United states could have done to help. We sent soldiers over who had much more pwerful weapons than the hutu extremists and so the hutu usually stayed away. The U.S could not do much more at the time of it happening
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 03 Dec 12
       
      In retrospect, we as Americans look at the Rwandan genocide and think about how we could have saved people. But would we really do anything different in a similar situation today? Look at Syria. There is violence there similar to the situation in Rwanda. But we are not getting involved. We are far to retrospective and not proactive. 
  • portrayed (and, they insist, perceived) the deaths not as atrocities or the components and symptoms of genocide but as wartime "casualties"—the deaths of combatants or those caught between them in a civil war.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 03 Dec 12
       
      this is so interesting, it kind of echoes what we've been learning about with the polis, that in it politicians can take Truth and kind of turn it in a way that helps them..
  • most efficient killing spree
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 07 Dec 12
       
      This phrasing here really bothers me. Saying that this event was "efficient" makes it sound as though it was a good thing. This genocide was horrific. That's a much better word to describe it, than efficient. 
  • gina Hogrefe on 29 Nov 12
     
    This article informed me about the genocide in Rwanda. I have done investigations of the genocide in Darfur and Sudan because George clooney and his father were jailed for protesting and I wanted to know why the media brought more attention to an actor and not a country that is killing itself. Genocide is mass murder and it is unfortunate that if there are no incentives for America or other countries to help then they turn a cheek. Notice how USA invades countries where oil is plentiful. This to me explains USA avoidance to act on humanitarian issues like this.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 29 Nov 12
     
    I feel that we should have done something to help what was hapening overseas, but at the same time where does our role as the "international police" end? It is sadly coming to the point where if there is an international issue and the US is not involved then it looks like we are not doing our job of protecting. Yes we should have helped the genecide, but the issue was not with our country so why are we being criticized? I am not saying that we should not of helped, only that is it not fair to question the character of the US
  • Emily Shandorf on 02 Dec 12
     
    The article describes the mass killing of approximately 800,000 people in Rwanda, East Africa, in 1994. Two ethnic groups were in competition with each other: the Hutu people and the Tutsi people. The Hutus massacred the Tutsi population brutally, trying to eliminate it completely. The rest of the world did nothing to help. We learn something very terrible: that the US was a bystander too genocide. It was sad to read how President Clinton did not even want to help out or respect the situation. Actually, it was ignored. He did not have any interest in stopping the genocide and he stood by as many deaths were occurring. Genocide is a serious crime-the worst possible. One population was trying to eliminate another by terribly violent means. People are asking themselves how it is possible for a country like the United States not to know about it. I, myself, wonder how the President of the United States cannot know the details. Why did he show no interest at all? I think the reason is that he and the United States simply did not want to get involved. That is why he issued the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgement" Another issue I found interesting was the fact that the policymakers declared the deaths as "casualties" and war deaths. Were they ashamed into admitting that it's partially the US fault that ignored this problem that affects everyone? Was this a way to create a kind of distance between the terrible violence and the typical political situation in another part of the world? At the end of the article the writers says that policymakers don't want to talk about suffering because it affects them and it shows one's "rational" arguments are weak. To me, this means that very often countries and political leaders do not want to risk anything by taking a stand or making a strong decision. It is easier not to do anything -- and apologize for it later! It makes me think that we need strong, intelligent
Flavio Guzman

Using the Science of Persuasion in the Courtroom. The Jury Expert. - 1 views

Once again here is proof that we as humans are much more emotional than logical. Even in the courtroom where everything should be decided based completely on the logical aspect this doesn't happen....

started by Flavio Guzman on 11 Dec 12 no follow-up yet
Justina Cooney

Seeing Like a State - 1 views

I found it very interesting that this author argues that capitalism is just as much an agency for homogenization as the state would be. Obviously I have some major problems for this since the very ...

started by Justina Cooney on 10 Dec 12 no follow-up yet
Finn Sukkestad

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/scott_seeing.pdf - 0 views

yalepress.yale.edu/...scott_seeing.pdf

shared by Finn Sukkestad on 07 Dec 12 - No Cached
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 07 Dec 12
       
      I think a lot of people in this world tend to settle for less instead of going for the best. We settle to take the road traveled more than the road less traveled. We as humans want to take the easy way out. We want to have the simplest solution to our problems and make them go away. I think that we should start aiming higher and going for our goals. If we are determined and keep our eye on the prize, anything is possible. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 10 Dec 12
       
      I believe the same thing. People tend to downgrade to the lowest level just to either get something done quicker or because they feel it isn't possible. Determination is key and I also believe that humans should strive to be something greater than they ever thought they could be. 
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 07 Dec 12
       
      Maybe if more people think in the same way as described earlier on in this introduction, then there would be less of a reason for people to hate government. Sometimes, it takes the ability to look at multiple perspectives to understand something. 
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 09 Dec 12
       
      Progress and resolutions are supposed to be achieved from past pas mistakes, however our desire to do things the easy way keeps us from attaining a high-quality outcome. Engineers of societies are often plagued by their desire to look good in front of the public rather than making decisions that are best for the community. Thus, policy framers are often faced with a decision between job security/popularity and good decision making.  
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 10 Dec 12
       
      i agree that if people stopped worrying about how they looked infront of people or their image in society, they would be able to make better decisions on what it best. Something might be better for society but they won't do it because it will look bad on their name. 
  • ...4 more annotations...
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 10 Dec 12
       
      Looking at the fourth element, I feel that the people can do something when the state is implementing a system into society. The fourth element says that society lacks capacity to resist. The workforce has the ability to halt production, so if they come together they can stop the state from doing whatever it is that their doing. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 10 Dec 12
       
      Having too much power in the states can be detrimental to the people that actually lives within these states. Agreeing with above, I feel as if the people should in fact do something to stop the state from implementing laws within a system that the whole of society has to follow. Most of the time the states don't know exactly what the people want or need so that case the voice of the people should be heard and stop the states from completely taking control. 
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 10 Dec 12
       
      I think that people in this country agree with solutions to problems that when implemented will not actually work.  For example, many young people support the solutions to health care and education without actually realizing that the things they think they are getting for free, are actually going to be paid for by them.  Instead of looking for total solutions to problems, people need to look for what they can do for the people around them.  The government is not going to have the solutions to these problems on a nation wide scale because the problem is too large.  Individual areas in this country have problems and the people closest to them with figure out the best solutions to them. 
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 10 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Caitlin. With such broad issues concerning the country, it is best to work within small sections to solve the problems. This is why we have Congress. But in my opinion, Congress has become too partisan on both parties to get anything solved.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 10 Dec 12
       
      "Designed or planned social order is necessarily schematic; it always ignores essential features of any real, functioning social order". I really like this quote. I feel like a lot of times people try to simplify things way too much in order for an idea or practice to fit into a neat little box that can be easily understood when no, such things are never really simple. People tend to try to take the "easy" way out of understandings instead of, well, trying to understand. And this line of thinking can be harmful to all parties involved.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 10 Dec 12
       
      I like wat he writes about out capitalistic market, I agree that it takes away the humane aspect to anything when your only goal that you share with millions of other people is to make money, and to do so you must consume natural recources and then sell them for the highest price possible.  There is no selflessness to it there is just personal monetary gain, I think that when your only happiness is invested in money there is something wrong with the society we live in.
  • Brandon White on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think we as a society tend to demonize what we see as the "easy way." We cannot comprehend how people can get ahead of us by putting in less work. However, I feel that the easy way can often be the most efficient way of doing things. Not to displace the values of hard work or the like, but often the best way to succeed and get ahead is by doing things the easy way. For example, why take all the time at work to enter in numbers when there is a programming tool that does the work for you? Such a situation does not make you lazy or inefficient. It gives you the ability to get work done quicker and move on to other objectives. Yes, most aspects of life involve working hard to get ahead. But do not forget the easy way.
  • Emily Shandorf on 10 Dec 12
     
    Not everyone thinks alike and sometimes there are some misunderstandings. I think there should be different prospectives from multiple people, to then come out with a good, well thought decision. Mistakes happen but can be solved with more and different point of views from a range of people. The need to be open-minded and don't feel preoccupied of other people's judgment, is important.
Finn Sukkestad

Amsterdam as Smart City: Going Green, Fast - Businessweek - 2 views

www.businessweek.com/...ck-market-and-financial-advice

shared by Finn Sukkestad on 25 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • in local bus stops will be powered by small solar panels. Elsewhere, 500 households will pilot an energy-saving system from IBM (IBM) and Cisco (CSCO) aimed at cutting electricity costs. An additional 728 homes will have access to financing from Dutch banks ING (ING) and Rabobank to buy everything from energy-saving light bulbs to ultra-efficient roof insulation
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 25 Sep 12
       
      IBM is thinking smart by doing all this were gonna save energy and Gas having electric trucks that are nonpolluting is a benefit for us it will take jobs away but overall will be better for our inviroment.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 08 Dec 12
       
      It is nice to see banks offer small loans to people so that they can make the effort to be mores sustainable and feel better about their own city specifically as well.
  • gina Hogrefe on 26 Sep 12
     
    Green innovation and Eco friendly infrastructures is good news for the world. Especially if the United States has caught on to Amsterdam's Environmental architects. This green innovation is expensive to fund but it is the most efficient thing investors could do for the environment and the global economy.
Courtney Sabile

Timeline: 1920s - YES! Magazine - 0 views

www.yesmagazine.org/...timeline-1920s

shared by Courtney Sabile on 03 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • In 1924, the Society for Human Rights in Chicago becomes the country's earliest known gay rights
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      It has taken almost 100 years to get the ball rolling for gay rights, only now are we getting to gay marriage, and there is still plenty of rights to still get.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 05 Dec 12
       
      It's amazing how far back the fight for gay rights was. Since it was the 1920's, there were a lot of social liberal customs like woman donning short hair and short dresses. The 20's always fascinated me, especially reading The Great Gatsby.
  • Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 grants all Native Americans the rights of citizenship, includin
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      As far as Native Americans go, it took the US way too long to grant them citizenship, especially after we stole their lands and displaced some of them indefinitely, and wronged many generations of Native Americans.
Amanda Garcia

Timeline: 1910s - YES! Magazine - 1 views

www.yesmagazine.org/...1711

shared by Amanda Garcia on 03 Dec 12 - Cached
  • In 1913, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns work toward the passage of a constitutional amendment to give women the vote. The group is later renamed the National Women's Party.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 03 Dec 12
       
      Loving this website, alice paul was amazing, and did so much more than people know for women's rights
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      I remember talking about Alice Paul and the NWA for weeks in my US History class, she was a true pioneer for women's rights, and set the path for equality.
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 03 Dec 12
       
      I have to say, I love this picture. It's so accurate and it's a shame more educated women like Paul and Burns didn't realize it before. It's a shame this picture had to be drawn to prove a point at all. 
  • Tyler Schnorf on 05 Dec 12
     
    It is crazy to think that women have only been able to vote for about a hundred years now. America has come along way in one century. I only hope that with such rapid progress we can continue in the right direction.
madison taylor

Timeline: 1930s - YES! Magazine - 1 views

www.yesmagazine.org/...timeline-1930s

shared by madison taylor on 03 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Decade of 1930s has highest levels in U.S. history— average 167 per year.
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 03 Dec 12
       
      why during this time were executions the highest? what were the crimes they considered execution to be the consequence for? 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 04 Dec 12
       
      It is really strange that we had such a large number of executions at this time. It would be interesting to see hte crime statistics in comoparison to this.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 05 Dec 12
     
    It is possible that because of the Great Depression happening in the 30's that law enforcement wanted to crack down to send a message to the public. Many roits and revolts were taking place because of the people's frustration, so maybe that could have something to do with it.
Ryan Hamilton

Bystanders to Genocide - Samantha Power - The Atlantic - 0 views

www.theatlantic.com/...4

shared by Ryan Hamilton on 03 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • U.S. Army Rangers and Delta special forces in Somalia attempted to seize several top advisers to the warlord Mohammed Farah Aideed. Aideed's faction had ambushed and killed two dozen Pakistani peacekeepers, and the United States was striking back. But in the firefight that ensued the Somali militia killed eighteen Americans, wounded seventy-three, and captured one Black Hawk helicopter pilot. Somali television broadcast both a video interview with the trembling, disoriented pilot and a gory procession in which the corpse of a U.S. Ranger was dragged through a Mogadishu street.
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 03 Dec 12
       
      This is a huge reason for the indecision in Rwanda. The situation in Somalia was a huge hit to the US and looking at Rwanda the US realized that they would have to commit a larger force in order to not make the same mistake. The policy makers and decision 'trigger pullers' wish that things would be have a right answer and a wrong answer but that is just not the case and we can see it here. After the US pulled out its citizens they largely ignored the situation in fear of being pulled into another mistake like they made in '93. We can see these types of decisions today with Syria. There is pressure for policy makers to decide to help the Syrian opposition yet it is not as easy as that and these types of decisions take intelligence and time which we can rarely afford. It is an unfortunate business that we get to look at the decisions or lack of decisions from the past and that is something we will invariably do with Syria as we are doing with the Rwanda situation.
Shannon Wirawan

Timeline: 1990s - YES! Magazine - 0 views

www.yesmagazine.org/...1719

shared by Shannon Wirawan on 01 Dec 12 - Cached
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 01 Dec 12
       
      I really liked reading through all of these little blurbs about human rights throughout the United States. It shows how far we've really come throughout the years. I also presents how public policy has really come through for this country.  Amongst the violence and loss, it's interesting to look back and see where we are now because some of the past events that has happened.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 03 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Shannon. We have come a long way even though we've had our ups and downs, but compared to 100 years ago, we are better off today. 
Hayley Jensen

Timeline: 2000s - YES! Magazine - 0 views

www.yesmagazine.org/...timeline-2000s

shared by Hayley Jensen on 03 Dec 12 - Cached
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 03 Dec 12
       
      Overall, I believe that this shows that nobody is perfect. Sure the United States has made some mistakes but we have also done a lot of good for the world. The best we can do as a nation is learn from are mistakes and try not to repeat them.
  • Kyoto Protocol takes effect 2005: 141 countries pledge to reduce emissions of global warming gasses. The U.S. does not sign.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 03 Dec 12
       
      I do not understand the United States resistance to making an effort toward bettering the environment. Clearly a good majority of the rest of the world is on board for making that effort, but why not the US. Do we view ourselves as too important/privileged to have to change our habits because that would be more detrimental to our power or our "importance" to the rest of the world. Altering the way we manufacture, package, distribute, recycle, etc., is too inconvenient and the US has shown that they are not willing to make that change because the effort to do so could have a negative effect on them. Sure, this could be the case, but the consequences of that are short term and selfish. The US does just enough to get by without being TOO environmentally harming, but not enough to keep up with the efforts that are being made by 141 countries in the rest of the world. 
Karina DaSilva

Timeline: 1960s - YES! Magazine - 0 views

www.yesmagazine.org/...1716

shared by Karina DaSilva on 03 Dec 12 - Cached
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 03 Dec 12
       
      The 1960's can be seen as a time when the country cared the most about human rights. The timeline shows how the country advocated for women's rights, a healthy environment through the Clean Air Act in 1970, and in human rights through the establishment of the Peace Corp. The country also made strides in civil rights, with Martin Luther King Jr. delivering the "I Have a Dream" speech, and winning a nobel peace prize. The country also protested the war, burning draft cards, having anti war demonstrations, and so on. The wanted to save lives and not have them lost in a war that they did not support.
  • Equal Pay Act of 1963 makes it illegal to pay a woman less than a man receives for the same wor
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 03 Dec 12
       
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that nowadays, white women get around 79 cents to a man's dollar. And that's white women. 
Lauren Dudley

Bystanders to Genocide - Samantha Power - The Atlantic - 0 views

www.theatlantic.com/...5

shared by Lauren Dudley on 01 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • On April 9 Dallaire watched covetously as just over a thousand French, Belgian, and Italian soldiers descended on Kigali Airport to begin evacuating their expatriates. These commandos were clean-shaven, well fed, and heavily armed, in marked contrast to Dallaire's exhausted, hungry, ragtag peacekeeping force. Within three days of the plane crash estimates of the number of dead in the capital already exceeded 10,000.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 01 Dec 12
       
      This statement right here shows the Europeans along wth Americans knew exacty what was happening- a genocide was happening or about to happen and they knew that the army tryingto fight against it as in no shape to withhold them, but they went on their way home. I feel that this is horrible, I know that the countries want to look out for their best interests but standing by nd let killing happen.. hw much has to be seen or heard to finally step in and look past their own interests to save others? These people should have looked more morally into the situation in my opinon because some help is better than no help at all.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 01 Dec 12
       
      they knew that killing was taking place to say the least I mean
georgenasr

Bystanders to Genocide - Samantha Power - The Atlantic - 2 views

www.theatlantic.com/...304571

shared by georgenasr on 30 Nov 12 - No Cached
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 30 Nov 12
       
      I think that it is incredibly sad that this has happened so many times after the Convention on Genocide in 1948. However, due to the vague nature of the conventions stipulations it makes it hard for the UN or any other country to recognize an act as "genocide" because then action needs to take place.  I think that Clinton did not deal with the issue because he had lost so much public support after going into Somalia that he could not afford another disaster which would cost him reelection. Also, by choosing not to address the issue people were less knowledgeable about the genocide. 
  • did much more than fail to send troops.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 30 Nov 12
       
      It's kind of funny to see how US policy changes from year to year, especially when looking at the clinton administration to the following bush administration. 
1 - 20 of 92 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page