contemporary issues in public policy

How can he singlehandedly do this? I thought with checks and balances he couldn't do anything without approval from the other two branches?

Although I think what he did was great and I agree with the DREAM act, I find it scary that he had the power to do this by himself. I don't believe it was the correct way to go about things.

I do agree with Justina what he did was great I aswell agree with the dream act, i also thought he coldnt do anything without the approval from the oth 2 branches .. this musyt have not been the correct way to do things

The other two branches work very slow in comparison to what the president can do.  At one point in this article it does say that people are trying to restrain his power by filling constitutional complaints about the president, but with all of his recent appointments to the Supreme Court, they won't do anything with them.  There is literally no one policing him so he just gets to do whatever he wants.

I think that there should be a better way to limit the power of the president. He should not be able to do what he wants. And i also agree with the dream act.

If everything is always going to lead to a constant dead end, then we wont get anything done. There's has to be cooperation for us to progress.

I would be as well, the key to a good democracy is working together, as they seemed to have been doing. Low blow by Boehner to back out last second after so much deliberation. 

It does seem like a low blow that Boehner made yet when there are so many issues and nothing is being changed, I feel like after a while I would be fed up as well. Change does take time but the amount of time it has taken for there to be change now seems very large. 

They have done neither, and the fact that his own VP thinks his actions are wrong sends a terrible message to the people in this country and makes him seem like he is better than every other policy maker out there.  The system is in place for a reason, and he is completely disregarding America and our values as a people. 

Obama should not be going over congress like this. The point of our checks and balances system is so that no one branch has too much power. I could understand if it was during a time of war but that's not where we are right now. Maybe it is Obama who should compromise.

Although this may appear to be a frightening and disproportionate grab of power, at least he stepped up and did what he had to do. Our political system operates in the waters of partisanship because that is what is supposed to be most representative of and appealing to the American public. But when the bipartisanship of this country presents as a barrier to democracy and a game played by both sides, nobody is served, not the public and not those responsible for setting democracy into action. The president's decision to make the "executive power grab" was forced by Boehner and his party, and props to Obama for having the guts to push back against the bipartisan game. 

Without congress Obama has been struggling to get things done, leaving only few policies Obama could push through. Like lowering the interest rates, so homeowners could keep their homes.  

The parties seem to be sticking together more so than they ever have before. Instead of having a few Democrats vote Republican, or vice versa, what is happening now is that they vote within the party, making the two different parties even more polarized. This can cause a multitude of problems, and has, seeing as little can be done when parties are unwilling to budge on an initiative that may be proposed by their counter part.

Because of these stats on parties "sticking together" and becoming less willing to budge, is it necessarily fair to blame Obama or even just presidents in general for not getting things done when there is a divided government in office?  Then I guess the question becomes what are voting for?  Someone who can compromise with the other party best to get things done?

Alright, so I get that this article is pointing out that within their own parties, people are starting to get along more. But I can't help but think that maybe this has to do with how polarized the two main parties are right now. It's like they're both so set in their ideologies that the thought of compromise is way out there.

We have talk about this is class a little bit. The message that each party is throwing out there is so distinct that now when you look at any problem you know what each side would feel about it. Discussions seem to be short with regards to making changes because no one wants to budge or sacrifice a little bit. The other interesting thing is how few undecided people there are in the country during this election. People are hardwired to vote for their party they will not even look at the alternative. Hopefully things change and we either are able to work together or maybe a third party emerges with fresh ideas and gets everyone involved again.

I do not necessarily think that the parties are getting that much alike.  I think that they are making more and more compromises to get what they want.  

The larger the group and the more opinionated they are, it is harder to keep more unified with the same opinion. If the issue is smaller, the party is more unified and set on what they believe. They are more likely to get there interests displayed because they have come together as a group to influence policy. 

This is very true! Most times when there is game changing evidence that could be the key to a case, the only way it will be acknowledged is if the presenter can properly express themselves.

I agree. It is much harder to take a piece of evidence seriously if it is just shown in an ordinary manner. If the piece of evidence is well presented to a person, then the person is more likely to interpret the evidence as significant. 

I agree with this completely. The way you present the information or evidence is crucial to how useful it will be. It's not worth anything if you don't understand it and present it in a way that others will understand it as well. 

I also agree with this, it is very important how people present their evidence and details in odder to swade an audience. if it is really good evidence, but presented poorly... it will be looked passed. The only way i disagree with this statement and idea is when people are so set on their ideas and view points that not matter what the evidence is or how it is presented they will still think the same. 

Absolutely agree.  If used in the wrong context, it wont really do much for you.  If you are able to utilize it properly, it will be taken seriously.

Also, we live in a society where we expect everything to be "sold" to us.  We are such a consumer based society that if something doesn't look appealing or isn't eye catching, we will not pay attention or just completely tune out.  I think that is why a lot of evidence is presented as a scare tactic, they argue that if you don't pay attention to something, then horrible results will come out of not knowing the evidence.

just like in the presidential debates where the candidates were saying completely opposite statements, yet both were somehow mostly true.

This is one problem I see with the use of evidence and data. It is like statistics, you can make the results say bascially whatever you want depending on what you measure. It is like the saying we learned that measuring is scientific but what we measure is political. Politicians and the media can give evidence for what ever they want to support by manipulating it. Just watch a fox then msnbc they will have evidence for two very different sides.

This is true because if a person cannot apply the evidence or just have basic evidence to support their topic, they wouldn't be held credible to others. I feel that the words they say would turn people away, knowledgeable or not, because people would talk and turn others against them. This would make the 'changemaker' have difficulties to try and make changes.

Having evidence can be very helpful for change makers but we kind of just got done discussing how people do not necessarily respond to accurate and well put across evidence. To put evidence across in its most well thought out way requires thought to understand it. The average voter probably is not very intelligent and do not make decisions based off of well thought out evidence. They make decisions off of symbols that are vague and not really explained to a full extent. Symbols are probably a more effective toll for change makers than evidence backing up claims. Almost like lying sort of to appeal to a voter's likes and dislikes. People do not always want the truth but want they want to hear. (these are all just different ways of phrasing my opinion)

This makes me think of the lady who called Obama a communist on national television and then when asked about it she simply told the reported to "study it out" and "look it up" repeatedly without giving any sort of evidence to the fact that he is a communist and not an American despite being born here.  She is just a popular youtube video now because she had no knowledge of any real evidence and was looks like she is just there hopping on the Kenyan communist bandwagon and shouting out random things but doesn't really know what she is talking about.

Without evidence you would just be saying random ideas. You have to be able to back up your ideas and prove that they will work or else people wont care what you "think" will help. You must prove yourself because it is the peoples job not to be too trusting and take people for what they say. We need to make them prove their ideas are the right ones.

Technologies should never be assumed to solved problems. When we have problems, we have them with other people, specifically relating to using evidence. Technology is a medium to which we can derive specific numbers, communicate faster, make projects go faster, etc. It is a convenient way to do all these things but the responsibility for figuring out these issues lies with people themselves. I believe that it is a very naive way of looking at life if we just think we can off load our problems on technology and think it would automatically be fixed. The reason technologies tend to amplify real-world problems is because we take less responsibility to fix them and instead us technologies to make ourselves, our ideas, our motives, look better than others instead of collaborating with other to solve an issue. In relation to inequality, maybe people who DON'T have access to technologies are the ones who have presented the real-world problem. This takes their ability to solve their problem out of their hands and into someone else's who has the technology. When it is out of the hands of those to which the problem lies, the motive is not personal and the issue can become skewed and potentially inaccurate. 

I agree with Hayley's statement that we take less responsibility to real-world problems through technology.  I recently read an essay called "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted" by Malcolm Gladwellsince.  In summary it's an argument that the posts on social networks (technology) that ask us to do something that we typically wouldn't be motivated to do in a small form (1 million likes = 100 dollars to charity) is going to eliminate us from doing large things like the civil rights movements because we will already have the satisfaction of doing the small thing.

There are many different ways to get evidenec, so why aren't they all used? Its mainly only numbers used as evidence.

I believe that the black noise project would generate different results if done in the United States. I believe culturally the people are attracted to different things. Women dressed more provocatively will have a much higher change of being sexually harassed. In India women wouldn't normally dress like that

Why aren't they getting involved in government? Is there a specific reason?

Taking this statement hand in hand with how "our fellow citizens have a right to expect us to...use our knowledge to address serious issues", it makes me wonder if this is a sort of cycle. For sure, it seems like it's all influenced by society and norms, but I have to wonder if why it is so "silly" for scholars to get involved with policy analysis when they are basically doing their job?

I don't get how it is self-fulfilling though... 

This is my first political science class I have taken outside of AP government in high school (which I don't know if that really counts). A lot of what we discuss is about opinion and exercising our brains help us form our own opinions by assessing multiple perspectives. For people studying international affairs and political science in graduate study, it seems that it would be important to focus on the methodology to how the best policies are produced, not based on the sole opinions of what people assume people want. Playing off of an idea presented by Mickey Edwards from the conference, policies are created by representatives who can't relate to the people they are supposed to represent because methodology of policymaking is pushed the wayside and it is more about who gets what votes, not what the people want. Things get much trickier, I am sure, when it comes to international affairs because we are working with people who's opinions and best interests we don't understand and we try to implement our personal beliefs on a nation that does not align ideologically with the US. If we focused on the methodology and used the quantitative facts of how to go about these affairs, the opinions about what is best would be less polarized and it would create more of a standard to which representatives and officials carry out policies.