Olson argues you can separate "diffuse interests," the majority, from "concentrated interests," minority interests. For example, trade policy is made interest groups, lobbying the government for tariffs on imports from foreign countries. This would result in higher prices on these items. A majority of people might be opposed to this, but since the minority interests are more concentrated, they will work harder to lobby the government. The majority interests are diffuse and not organized

I believe this passage means that the reason minorities rule, is due to the fact that they are more concentrated so they are more organized and are more able to be heard by political parties and agencies that can benefit their cause. Minority groups are more concentrated to to an area where they can find other individuals who share their interest and are able to gather more supporters. Where majorities, are more scattered and are less likely to organize and get the attention and support of political parties, they are less likely to share the same interest and have the ability to get support of desired audience. 

I choose this passage because I found it interesting that minorities are most likely to be heard than majorities when the norm is the opposite, majority rules. I'm guessing this is the case because minorities are able to stuck together and come up with plans and tactics that a huge group might find it difficult to agree on.

I choose Brown vs. The Board of Education. This case was about a father, Oliver Brown who's daughter Linda Brown was denied access to/ into an elementary school at the time the law for equal rights was passed, and so a law of ' equal but separate' was put in place. This law stated that if racially separated facilities where equally equipped, then the Constitution's 14 th amendment was being upheld. I chose this because I believe it has played an important role in our current system and it has improved the education, self value and the ability to equal opportunities as whites and I believe that could've been a reason why it was put into law, despite the fact that it took a while to pass and even though it was passed not every facility had followed it at the time.

In his lawsuit, Brown claimed that schools for black children were not equal to the white schools, and that segregation violated the so-called “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment, which holds that no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This was upheld by being heard by the U.S District Court of Kansas where the ruling was granted that African Americans could share the same pubic spaces as whites because of the negative impact segregation had on African American children and that, in fact the education received was different depending on race. 

I have chosen President Obama because of his intellect and his untainted reputation as a husband, a father and a president. When he speaks, he does it with such class, such conviction and in a well thought out process, he doesn't go  on a ramble with unproven statements, nor does he speak without having the knowledge and the take of others on subjects he addresses. I find his speeches so well informed, that I don't understand how all his laws haven't came to pass. 

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

This was the last line in President Obama's speech, i find it powerful and empowering, it motivates, it pushes us to go out and be great for ourselves, our country, our children. It reminds us that where we are now, what we are facing now is nothing new. Our nation has faced greater challenges, greater foes and still came out on top because of the resilience of our people and our drive to survive, our drive to live, our drive to never remain defeated. 

I think given a fair unbiased chance, Obama could've been one of the greatest President this country has ever had, but his rule was met with brick walls and many stop signs that hindered many of his great work. He was a President that had been on both side of the fence and could see the struggles that minorities endured cause he endured it as well, and could also relate from the majorities view point because he was there as well. 

                                         Is Our Vote Even Worth Anything?

This election year we can expect to hear a lot about Congressional district gerrymandering, which is when political parties redraw district boundaries to give themselves an electoral advantage.

What I don't understand is, how can this be allowed? From what I can see, to pass a law on equal rights and justice, to pass a law on gun safety in the country, to pass a law on education for all, to pass a law on minor crime convicts to be able to receive aide from the government you need a 2/3 vote but gerrymandering, denying citizens of a fair and equal opportunity to have their voices hear through their votes, there is no law against that? 

Is any part of the system made for the citizens protection? This sounds like the government ensuring their wellbeing, there bottom line, making sure that their seats remain ' their seats'. According to the this article, we can change that, we might not be able to stop them from gerrymandering, but when we are being governed by individuals who has their own interest and not that of its citizens, we have a right to have them replaces with better individuals. Let them know that this is not ok. Every vote counts, so let districts be divided in a manner that won't have me guessing the figure that's being represented, is it a dragon, is it a butterfly? NO? It's our votes being distributed evenly. i'm not even gonna mention the foolishness of Electorial votes

Marshall argues the demand for social rights really begins with the idea of public education. If civil rights literally means only that the government cannot interfere with you, then on that basis alone there is no clear right to provide education for all the people.

I believe civil rights is accomplishable, the government has no right to unlawfully stop, search or interfere with a person unless they have evidence that that person is doing wrong. evidence could be anywhere from, a person reporting a suspicious activity and has good reasons why such activities are deemed suspicious and accurate description of the individual

As for social rights. As a country, it should be an unspoken action to provide each citizen with the requirements to live a healthy life with all the necessities that a person needs to go out and be successful, this includes education that extends primary school, or a trade. 

Candacy Lawrence

                                             Demand For Change

"why are you not in jail?' expressed by Henry David Thoreau, mentioned this to his colleague as an incitement to provoke/ urge citizens to take a stand against the government, a stand that will promote better or just governing. He states that blindly accept and follow the laws or the government is to unconsciously support their cause. This relates to the article, all  authors are fighting to make their voices heard by  the government. they are all seeking equal  right, equal justice. They all want to be seen and heard and respected as citizens of the United States

I choose this because  in today's society the government need it's citizen's to function, and they can  not arrest a whole state, so if people where to come together, all people or majority of people come  together and stand against the government in peaceful protest until a positive productive change comes along the government will have no choice but to comply

Candacy Lawrence


                                             Give Us A New And Improved America

After reading Federalism, I got to understand that the practices we participate in today has been around since the begining of  time. With that said old habits are hard to kill, but we must try for a more united state of  America. Jefferson participated in the Declaration of  Independence because he didn't believe it was right for humans to be kept as slaves, this could also be due to his relationship with Sally Hemmings a slave, non the less he opposed  it, even though he didn't see it fit that blacks and white should live together as one. He the people to love the government and knew that for that to happen the government would have support it's people.

I choose "Jefferson did believe however that the Constitution should be updated every ten years or so" because this too is a way in  which  the government could support it's people and ensure that every person is treated with equal rights and their concerns be heard and acted upon.

Jefferson states that despite the different parties we are all one people. And as a people, we have the resource to share the wealth and opportunities amongst our people, this could be how America can Proudly be called the 'Melting Pot' and end the fight against each other and start the lifting and building  of a great nation. 

Candacy Lawrence


                                                       We Need A Change, for Freedom


Funny thing, a few of my classmate from another class and I were discussing politics and the state of the Constitution came up. The Constitution was written in 1776, that is two hundred and forty two  yrs ago. The world has changed so much since then, America has changed so much since. The last time the constitution was amended was between the 1960s and 1970s, that's yrs of improvement of citizenship, equal rights (doesn't really exist, but for the sake of argument), women and Blacks can now vote and counted as an individual and so much more. The constitution needs to change as well. I choose " People often say that the Constitution is a "living document" meaning that it changes and adapts itself to fit the needs of the era." because it shows the need for a change. 

The constitution itself  makes it hard to change, the unattainable requirement for changing the constitution is preposterous, I understand that it's not an easy task, it takes thought, adequate information, an unbiased group of people and the ability to foresee likely outcomes, positive outcomes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

The constitution has  been written many years ago and the fact that it needs to be interpreted should show that a change needs  to be made. now I understand that the task might sound easy, but I know that it will take a government who is just and fair, a government who sees the people they govern as equals and deserving of equal rights and justice. I choose "This is controversial, because although preventing some (not all) abuses of government authority, it makes it difficult to use the government for more constructive purposes, leading to what is called "gridlock."  as a reason for the change.

Now, I understand that these laws are set  in place for a reason, and it is a great responsibility and requires much deliberation, but America has changed considerably over the years and, so, does a need for change in the constitution. but before the constitution can be improved, we first need a government system that is fair and just.

Though these changes might or might not take place,  it is a necessity in this state, the justice system who's scale weighs unfairly, the government who seeks only to benefit itself and those who share its social class and so much animosity towards minorities. We need a positive change

  Candacy Lawrence              Oh The Sweet Sound of one Sided Freedom

POLITICAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL CULTURE

     The writer claims this article is an Anti-war  and a defence of Multiculturalism acceptance in America, but i find it says little to defend that, most passages, I've found that the writer says little in defending Multiculturalism, and after reading this from the point of view of an indigenous people, I'd want to reek war on each and every immigrant of America.


In Paragraph 3 or 4, depending if u consider the intro a paragraph, the writer says ' Obviously American culture in some part it is derived from the Anglo-Saxon (British) colonists who settled here in the 17th century, displacing the original Indian Settlers.' This by far doesn't sound like a declaration for peace and need for every individual to unite as one. I believe there is such a thing as setting your own agenda to get one's point across and to convince your readers to agree to your point whatever way you can. I believe this writer is using, call me crazy and I emphasise that  this is my understanding of the essay, that this writer is using reverse psychology.  he further goes to say " To face the fact that our aliens are already strong enough to take a share in the direction of our own destiny..." Most passages in this article seems to refuse the idea of Multiculturalism, yes it points out a few benefits like the technologies that are now useful, or the education system, but it is more of an opposition.

I believe America is built as a Nation of many people and many race, and that is what makes america America. with that said, people of power should ensure that every individual under their government is treated as equals, the laws should be the same for every person, sentences shouldn't be based on race or economic standing, the same opportunities should be equally available to every community, proper education should be granted to all residents and states shouldn't vote, people should.

                                  Citizenship and American Identity


'They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting pot. They did not come to adapt the culture of American Indian' I choose this quote because it summed up what america represent.

Why was America colonized with so many different nations? Was it for freedom from oppression, was it for wealth, was it for freedom of religion? Whatever the reason was, how did immigrants incorporate their beliefs, their culture their identity under one umbrella when there was already a group of natives already in the country? They didn't, America is built on diversity. Diversity in religion, culture, food, languages and so much more. take the Jews for example; they have their own law enforcement, their own religion that gets noticed, so much so they have the opportunity to celebrate their holidays. did they come here with the intention to give up who they are? NO, they came here to make this country their own

I close by saying, immigrants came to America from all ends of the globe with the idea, to build a new or better life for themselves and their family, and with them, they brought their beliefs, their culture and over threw that of the original settlers of America and called it Americanization known as the American culture we've all come to know.

                            Power and Civilization in America


'Equally objectionable to the pluralists and to us-is the sociologists’ hypothesis that the power structure tends to be stable over time.'

Taking into consideration that this was published in the early 60's by  a male, i'm going to have to say this article could use some editing. I choose this quote because it shows that an agreement can not be made on the true distribution of power.

Neither side, the pluralist, elite nor the sociologist can agree how power is shared. The text states 'Pluralists hold that power may be tied to issues, and issues can be fleeting or persistent, provoking coalitions among interested groups and citizens, ranging in their duration from momentary to semi-permanent'. While another group the elite states'  A third criticism of the elitist model is that it wrongly equates reputed with actual power:'

I believe neither have proven to be accurate, for the Pluralists', they seem to base their power on the issues that may arise in a town, city or state and how they are resolved. Not every citizen will share the same problem not every problem can be solved and even if they can it might take a period of time. During that period of resolution, is power being given to the citizen as the wait or to the 'mayor'?

This must've been the most difficult thing I have ever read. The only thing I walked away understanding is, no one knows how power is distributed. Not the elitist, not the pluralist not even the political scientist majors. I personally can't seem to agree with neither. Who really has the power? The president the, police, the judge jury or the man that commits the crime and gets away with it without anyone ever knowing he did it? That's power, breaking the law and paying no consequence for your action, but who really has that power? The president, governors, police officers and judges and the wealth, that's where power ends and begins.