Skip to main content

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

Jay-Z vs the Game: Lessons for the American Primacy Debate - 1 views

I think this analogy of Jay-Z and The Game can be applied not only to the United States of America but to Barack Obama. As the first African American president Barack Obama has had to endure so muc...

started by Flavio Guzman on 23 Nov 12 no follow-up yet
Flavio Guzman

The Social Construction of Target Populations. American Political Science Review. - 1 views

After reading this I believe that almost every policy can be passed as long as it is presented to the correct group. In order to be presented to the correct group however the people must be placed ...

started by Flavio Guzman on 19 Nov 12 no follow-up yet
Tyler Schnorf

Jay-Z vs the Game: Lessons for the American Primacy Debate | Marc Lynch | Diigo - 2 views

www.diigo.com/...or_the_american_primacy_debate

shared by Tyler Schnorf on 19 Nov 12 - No Cached
    • Tyler Schnorf
      Tyler Schnorf on 19 Nov 12
       
      I agree with the fact that putting someone down could not only make their reputation worse, but make the other's better. People feel sympathy therefore they listen to their music more or maybe listen to the others less
Flavio Guzman

A Payoff Out of Poverty? - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...21cash-t.html

shared by Flavio Guzman on 16 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • In 1994, before the peso crisis, 21.2 percent of Mexicans lived in extreme poverty. In 1996, just after the crash, 37.4 percent did. But that figure had dropped to 13.8 percent by 2006
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 16 Nov 12
       
      that's awesome! we should definitely take a look at this type of thing for our own welfare system.. 
  • A pilot program began in September 2007, financed by private donors, including Bloomberg himself.
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 23 Nov 12
       
      I think this great, that MAyor Bloomberg not only fought for teh program but put his money int0o it. If we were to get this out of all politicians we would have a lot better results. Politicians earn great incomes, so why not give back to the people that have put you in that privaledged position.
Kristi Kniest

A Payoff Out of Poverty? - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...21cash-t.html

shared by Kristi Kniest on 16 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Lewis singled out elements of a culture that, he argued, keep those socialized in it mired in poverty: machismo, authoritarianism, marginalization from organized civic life, high rates of abandonment of illegitimate children, alcoholism, disdain for education, fatalism, passivity, inability to defer gratification and a time orientation fixed firmly on the present
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 16 Nov 12
       
      It seems to be that these factors are the cause of poverty, but there are other factors that come into play such as Hurricane Sandy. I don't think its entirely fair to say that only the Mexican culture experiences poverty because of those factors. I think these factors are universal. Machism would just be a guy thinking he is better than every one else.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 16 Nov 12
       
      For one thing, this was written near 4 years before Sandy, but that wasn't your main point. Your main point is that these obvious societal problems aren't what are causing poverty in this area, which is arguably quite false. Many countries have society-wide problems, America certainly being one (getting worse by the day), but this culture is one that is spiraling towards even worse lows than they've had, unless the people look to each one of themselves to better society one person at a time.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 16 Nov 12
       
      Never underestimate the impact social factors have on, well, society. Things such as machismo and marginalization have a definite effect on how people operate. 
  • Banfield argued that poverty was a product of the poor’s lack of future-orientation
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 16 Nov 12
       
      Interesting point. I'd probably agree with this.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 16 Nov 12
       
      I think i can agree with this statement
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 16 Nov 12
       
      I don't think that this is necessarily true in every case. While in some cases it may be true, I think it would be dangerous to try to make generalizations like this.
  • and that nothing government could feasibly do would change that orientation or stop parents from transmitting it to their children.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 16 Nov 12
       
      Many of the things i want in life are because i have grown up with them. My parents have always been role models for me. I think i would want the same lifestyle as my parents have even if it wasn't the best because it is something comfortable, something i would have grown up with. 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 16 Nov 12
       
      i dissagree with this statement. I think that just because someone grows up in a household with poverty it diesnt mean that they will live that way in their life. Maybe the chances of living in poverty are greater but i think that if someone works hard enough for it they can have whatever life they want.
  • ...1 more annotation...
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 16 Nov 12
       
      The culture of poverty, in my opinion, is anything but a defense mechanism.  A lot of people who live with poverty do not have the choice or the ability to get themselves out of it. Most people do not choose to live in poverty. People especially do not choose to live in poverty to purposely show inequality.
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
Phillip Delgado

A Payoff Out of Poverty? - NYTimes.com - 4 views

www.nytimes.com/...21cash-t.html

shared by Phillip Delgado on 15 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Banfield argued that poverty was a product of the poor’s lack of future-orientation, and that nothing government could feasibly do would change that orientation or stop parents from transmitting it to their children.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 15 Nov 12
       
      He makes it sound as if poverty is a disease that is passed down to the next generations. I agree that there will always be poverty, and that the government can only do so much to try to lessen the hardships of those in poverty. I think that government can help, but cannot be 100% effective in eliminating the continuation of poverty. 
    • Phillip Delgado
      Phillip Delgado on 16 Nov 12
       
      He says these negative cultural elements are to blame. I don't disagree, but this can be found an any kind of poverty stricken people. The race doesn't matter just the wealth
  • gina Hogrefe on 16 Nov 12
     
    I have been on the fence with welfare programs lately because people maybe milking it. However there are two sides to every coin and I can not assume everyone is milking it. I use to blaime capitalism for poverty because the system thrives off of inequality and exploitation. Now I think it's the case that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer so these social assistant programs are vital to helping the people that need it. The article did not talk about the rich but the top 1% hold 24% of all the nations wealth. This hoarding of money has to be one of the reasons why poverty is so prevalent.
Dana Sacca

Dan Pink: The puzzle of motivation | Video on TED.com - 6 views

www.ted.com/...dan_pink_on_motivation.html

shared by Dana Sacca on 15 Nov 12 - Cached
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 15 Nov 12
       
      This Ted Talk is really interesting and relates really well to the idea of incentives and punishments. I definitely can see how incentives kill creativity. I've seen it in school! When students get an assignment to read, they often read it in its entirety but when they get an assignment with questions to answer, they simply search the text for the answers and skip a lot of the other parts (unless they don't read the text at all). The idea of incentives and rewards does work against its motive.
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 23 Nov 12
       
      I agree. Even after seeing this TED Talk many of us will continue to think that the way to speed up production is to provide insentives. Regardless of this already having been proved false, many of us will still continue to reject this fact. We need the fact to be proved as a "true" fact in order for us to consider it a fact.
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 16 Nov 12
       
      This is a great TED talk. And it is how many of the software companies in California are starting to be run. Having incentives for many cases impedes the creativeness to answering complex problems. Look at it in the school sense. If you take classes that you love and have a passion about the incentive or 'grades' take a back seat and you rarely think about them. But if you take a class that is something you are forced to take and is something that you are generally not interested in you start thinking just about getting a better or worse award, in this case a better or worse grade, all based on the amount of time and effort it would take. Companies know this and that is how many of the newest innovations have come about, by just having people work on stuff they love and are interested in.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 16 Nov 12
       
      He brings the people into his talk by starting it with a personal story. I agree that if you want people to work better you need to reward them, or threaten them, the if... then scenarios. I like how this is science based. "Rewards narrow our focus." The reward does restrict our possibilities because we want to get to the reward, thus we try to do the task asap, meaning cutting corners and such things. It is very interesting that given a bigger reward cognitive skill is poorer, but mechanical skill is greater. The data shows that incentives narrow our creativity to the point that we can't think or get things done.
  • gina Hogrefe on 15 Nov 12
     
    I agree this Ted talk is great. Mr. Pink's enthusiasm is through the roof. It is good to see he's putting his lawyer degree to good use too. In regards to the puzzle of motivation the findings that the federal reserve researched that higher financial incentives led to worse performance. Social scientists know this, the federal reserve knows this, and now I am informed about this so how do you let the business' world know this. My favorite part of of the talk is that success equals the drive to do things because they matter.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Emily Shandorf on 16 Nov 12
     
    He is so motivated when he talks, he really believes what he sais and shows passion and convinces people. I find very interesting the example of "the candle problem" created in 1945 by a spycologist named Karl Dunker, it is used in a whole variety of experience and behavior science. In the power of incentives, money always motives you and I find this true. A good example is: "the carrots and sticks". If you want people to perform better, you reward them, bonuses, and commissions. That's how business work. Sharpen thinking and accelerating creativity but it does just the opposite, it dulls thinking and blocks creativity. It is a continuous motivation, if you do this then u get that. I also like the these words that he has said: "New operation system revolves around 3 elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy, the erg to direct our own lives. Mastery, the desire to get better and better at something that matters and purpose do something larger than ourselves. These are a building blocks our a business." He sais that "…narrow focus, works really well". But the real problem is that you also want to look "out of the box", the more we concentrate and narrow our attention to one thing, it restricts our possibility. Everyone has a different point of view of the candle problem, they all think opposite from each other and it is interesting. In a business there are no feelings, no philosophy, but just facts. I thought they showed a good and interesting example with MIT students, and it proves that the people with higher rewards did badly, "higher incentives led to worst performance", and the people who offered the small rewards did better.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 16 Nov 12
     
    This is a good Ted Talk for many resons. He managed to be funny, to convey valuable information, and get his point across while still being very entertaining for the audience. I just wonder now what will come out of new information like this. Will business start offering less rewards for critical thinking? What is an alternative that will still keep people in business and in other fields motivated?
  • Amanda Garcia on 19 Nov 12
     
    I liked this talk, it presented information I've never heard before. I used to be a business administration minor, and oftentimes I would hear things similar to this in class. Teachers encouraged incentives and punishments for everything from mindless work to creative projects. I dropped it because I was convinced that teachings like that dulled the mind and lead to only the basest of lives. A life simply spent working for rewards and avoiding punishment is not a life well lived; it's a task any dog could achieve. I liked this talk because it presented information we all know to be true for ourselves. For any job or project or subject that we find we can really enjoy working at, the incentive to work is the work itself, and so we strive harder not to run from punishment but to execute a goal we've set for ourselves. Of course, there are situations in which this does not work, but it is a wonderfully idealistic concept.
Lauren Dudley

A Payoff Out of Poverty? - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...21cash-t.html

shared by Lauren Dudley on 15 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • The elegant idea behind the program — give the poor money that will allow them to be less poor today, but condition it on behaviors that will give their children a better start in life
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 15 Nov 12
       
      I think this is a great idea.. not give money just to survive day by day, but to give money to provide a better life so some day the chain of poverty can be broken is an excellent concept.. It helps people in the long run instead of just for the time being..
georgenasr

A Payoff Out of Poverty? - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...21cash-t.html

shared by georgenasr on 15 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • the culture of poverty
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 15 Nov 12
       
      That's almost unfair... being born into poverty. The sad part is it's hard to move up and get an education, since you end up getting so invested in helping your family that going to school isn't even an option.
Flavio Guzman

A Campaign Map, Morphed by Money - 0 views

Only certain states matter to super pacs and special interest groups. I can see why they matter and why so much money goes into them. These states are the states that basically determine the winner...

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

Terrorism and the Posibility of Memes: TED Talk - 0 views

I think that we are all afraid of terrorism and the things around us. However we have to realize that no matter how hard we try there will always be danger around us. There will always be things th...

started by Flavio Guzman on 12 Nov 12 no follow-up yet
Dana Sacca

Sample Chapter for Fung, A.: Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. - 0 views

"Changing a name, of course, cannot itself raise test scores, make classes more orderly, build classrooms, or increase children's readiness for middle and high school." I agree. Kids do not pay at...

started by Dana Sacca on 11 Nov 12 no follow-up yet
Amanda Garcia

Sample Chapter for Ober, J.: Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classi... - 3 views

press.princeton.edu/...s8742.html

shared by Amanda Garcia on 10 Nov 12 - Cached
  • The bad news offered here is that it is only by mobilizing knowledge that is widely dispersed across a genuinely diverse community that a free society can hope to outperform its rivals while remaining true to its values. The good news is that by putting knowledge to work, democracy can fulfill that hope.2
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 10 Nov 12
       
      Facebook and other social networks perform this function in a way by making it possible to share information with a large group of possibly a diverse community.  However, most of the information shared has some sor of hidden agenda it seems and therefore make it very difficult to trust or really think about the information. Likewise, the anecdotes of information are usually just present in the mind for as long as you are looking at the screen and disappears as you scroll down with two fingers.  I think that social networking and the internet in general have the potential to do a lot fo good in our society by spreading knowledge the hard part is getting that knowledge to make a difference in peoples lives and their ideologies which directly effect the country as a whole when it comes to voting.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 12 Nov 12
       
      agree with finn, with technology comes the spreading of knowledge both good and bad. 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 12 Nov 12
       
      I thought the line about how willfull ignorance is practiced in politics by both sides was interesting. It is true that many times policy makers will choose to ignore or be completely ignorant of the bad stuff and wont tell the people what could be bad about their plan. They focus on only the good and tell you only the good things. We have to figure out what could go wrong on our own.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 12 Nov 12
       
      But the thing about Athenian government is that while it was presented as a people's government, it still was very narrow in who participated (if you were a woman or a slave, tough luck) I only say this because while their system was very admirable, it's easy to give a certain group of people a bit more power, however slight. And I feel like this is a problem today, maybe not as obvious, but it's there.
  • The history of Athenian popular government shows that making good use of dispersed knowledge is the original source of democracy’s strength.
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 12 Nov 12
       
      I really like this statement. Basically saying that democracy only works if we all work together. Not one person knows everything to properly run the government. We have to be able to take some knowledge from many different sources to effectively work. I think that nowadays we especially have to keep this in mind because of the accessibility of information. Everyone can have access to more than enough information but one person cannot simply do it on their own. If the Ancient Athenians could figure out how to run a decent government than we should be able to as well. 
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Contemporary political practice often treats free citizens as passive subjects by discounting the value of what they know
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 20 Nov 12
       
      Athenian principals stress policy that is good for democracy, thinking that it will always lead to what is best for the community. Not all nations can work under a typical Athenian democracy though. First of all, Athens was a CITY not a country; the reason why its members were so involved was because they had public meetings in courthouses in which all citizens were allowed to argue and vote and have a say in the city's political agenda. It would be impossible to have something this engaging on a national level, in which every citizen is expected to participate, or else not bother to complain.  Secondly, not all residents of Athens were citizens, and if you were not a citizen (born in Athens and not a foreigner) then you had no say in the politics of Athens. So Athenian democracy did not look out for the best of its community because its community was much larger than those who had a say in its politics; it looked out for its male citizens and the democracy that upheld that type of government.  Thirdly, Athenian citizens were expected to bring a well-formed argument for their proposals to the table if they wanted to be even barely considered in the courts. So yes, you DID have to know your stuff and your opinion WAS discounted if you didn't, because you had no place giving opinions in things you weren't very well educated in. And even then, those who could convince and sway the most people to their side were the ones who had their agendas voted for, even if, on occasion, those agendas were not to the benefit of the "community" of Athens. In fact, Athenian democracy oftentimes lead to the detriment of the city, when people who should have had no say in its policy were allowed to influence and effect change if they could argue well enough. So before we go on putting one version of democracy on a pedestal above another, let's remember there are flaws in every version of every type of government, and not one has proven to be even remotely ideal yet. 
  • gina Hogrefe on 10 Nov 12
     
    Interesting read the attention grabber was Plato. I have to agree that democracy is flawed mostly because people are misinformed. It be hilarious if philosophers ran the state but awesome non the less.
Karina DaSilva

http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/POLI195_Fall09/Schneider_Ingram_1993.pdf - 1 views

www.unc.edu/...Schneider_Ingram_1993.pdf

shared by Karina DaSilva on 09 Nov 12 - No Cached
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 09 Nov 12
       
      This is something I've noticed for a while. People often use the idea of mothers, children, and the weak to sometimes elicit an emotional response from the general public, I think. Groups such as veterans and the elderly are always automatically treated with respect, which I don' think is a bad thing, but it shows how people have  biases ingrained for different groups. 
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 09 Nov 12
       
      I don't think that it is a bad thing either, we just have to be aware that it is happening to so that we don't get pulled into something we may not agree with based on emotions.
  • gina Hogrefe on 10 Nov 12
     
    This article read like a political-sociological article. What I got from the article is that Political Scince and pseudo Sociology are brother and sister disciplines. Targeting your audience is a marketing technique used and finding what appeals to people is a selling point. What I am more concerned with here is the brain washing going on with this herd mentality, and fooling people to vote for canidates that are not in their best interest. All these techniques used to trick people and targeting their audience is the reason why this was the most expensive election our country has seen. All this targeting comes with a price tag and it must be discussed.
Flavio Guzman

President Obama's Executive Power Grab - 3 views

started by Flavio Guzman on 09 Nov 12 no follow-up yet
Flavio Guzman

McAllen, Texas and the high cost of health care : The New Yorker - 2 views

www.newyorker.com/...090601fa_fact_gawande

shared by Flavio Guzman on 08 Nov 12 - Cached
  • other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 08 Nov 12
       
      So how did McAllen find itself serving to that group? 
  • Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’
  • In Washington, the aim of health-care reform is not just to extend medical coverage to everybody but also to bring costs under control. Spending on doctors, hospitals, drugs, and the like now consumes more than one of every six dollars we earn. The financial burden has damaged the global competitiveness of American businesses and bankrupted millions of families, even those with insurance.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 09 Nov 12
       
      When putting the cost of healthcare into terms of it being one of every six dollars we earn, I can easily see why Obama has pushed for the Affordable Care Act. When more than 15% of our income is spent on treating the sick, I can see how it needs to be made more widely available and affordable. To spend 15% of your income on an illness is absurd, and I feel that it hits families that are living in the lower income brackets even harder, where every dollar they can save counts. 
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 09 Nov 12
       
      This is ridiculous. Healthcare should not be that expensive especially for a town like McAllen, Texas. The government needs to step in in and figure a way to reduce healthcare costs.
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 19 Nov 12
       
      Yes this is rdiculous becuase teh government is spending so much money on health care for its people. But why don't we stop to think about what would happen if health care wasn't provided by the government, people wouldn't be able to provide medicare for themselves, let alone their families or even be able to support their families
  • Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ”
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 09 Nov 12
       
      I completely agree, healthcare providers should be compassionate and care for their patients. As a prospective healthcare provider, I hope my generation would serve the public not for monetary gain, but the satisfaction of being able to help those in need the most. Some doctors I've had appointments with just diagnose me, or say there isn't anything wrong and leave the room. Doctors and nurses should have the ability to empathize their patients. Patients are people too, not a lab subject.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 09 Nov 12
       
      Today, healthcare providers seem to want to benefit for monetary gain. As a prospective healthcare provider, I hope my generation will treat their patients with respect and do the best of their ability to treat them. From personal experience, I went through many doctor's appointments with different doctors and I saw a repeating pattern. It's rare to find that good doctor who empathizes their patients and cares about their well-being; not a checklist off a number. Not only a professional relationship, but there should be a personal level too.
Kim H

Are political parties growing more unified? - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...l-parties-growing-more-unified

shared by Kim H on 30 Nov 12 - No Cached
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 30 Nov 12
       
      just reading the title of this article made me mentally scream out "NO! If anything they are becoming more and more polarized. Especially after witnessing this year's presidential election. 
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. 
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
‹ Previous 21 - 40 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page