INTEREST GROUPS!

The idea that organizations or associations exist to further the interests of their members is hardly novel, nor peculiar to economics; it goes back at least to Aristotle, who wrote, "Men journey together with a view to particular advantage, and by way of providing some particular thing needed for the purposes of life, and similarly the political association seems to have come together originally, and to continue in existence, for the sake of the general advantages it brings." S More recently Professor Leon Festinger, a social psycholo- gist, pointed out that "the attraction of group membership is not so much in sheer belonging, but rather in attaining something by means of this membership." f The late Harold Laski, a political scientist, took it for granted that "associations exist to fulfill purposes which a group of men have in common."  



Olsen says something interesting in this paragraph. Many people join organizations or associations because they really need from them while others join for the "perks." We as humans never do anything with the giddiness of our hearts. We always look for a gain when we are suppose to be helping each other out. I chose this passage because it made me think about why i never joined any organizations and why other people did. i came to the conclusion that everyone that joined always spoke about what they would get out of it when they finished the requirements of the program. According to Leon Festinger "the attraction of group membership is not so much in sheer belonging, but rather in attaining something by means of this membership" and i completely agree with him.

ROE VS WADE (ABORTION)

The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor. In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the mother’s health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

The Supreme Court held that litigation involving pregnancy, which is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” is an exception to the general rule that an actual controversy must exist at each stage of judicial review, and not merely when the action is initiated

This case is about a single women pregnant named Roe, a couple named Does and a doctor called halberd who does abortion along with the district attorney named wade. In the case they were trying to see if the texas abortion laws was violating the mothers constitutional rights. The decision on this case was made based on the constitution and declared "void as vague and for over-broadly infringing the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff."  Although the case was won, the laws weren't enforced.

I chose this case because there are many women and teenage girls that make mistakes. we are all human so we all make mistakes. They have unprotected sex and don't think about the present. This is a very controversial subject but why should an innocent life suffer because of what the wrong things their parents did. We wouldn't want a drug addict whom does drugs during pregnancy bring in a child to the world to suffer. Im sure we would rather have them abort. Im not saying abortion is an option for everyone because even hough it is an option it also has its risks like everything else. 

THE PRESIDENCY!!

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. 

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

I chose this passage because I have noticed that most speeches include the economy but they don't really do much to "fix" it. Im not sure about how good or bad Ronald Reagan was as a president but in his speech he says a lot of positive things. For example when he says " Now, so there will be no misunderstanding,it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work-work with us, not over us; t stand by our side, not ride our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it;foster productivity,not stifle it." this is true government SHOULD be standing by each others side and not against each other but the way that the government is not sure that would happen. The point of the government is to help "society" not destroy it and Reagan clearly states it in his speech by saying that they are the problem and not the solution.Also John F Kennedy in his speech say "And history teaches us that animates between nations,as between individuals, do not last forever", which is correct.

Gerrymandering

"One important consideration in determining electoral districts for the house, is what has come to be know as "gerrymandering." State legislatures in each state are tasked with re-drawing the electoral districts in accordance with population fluctuations in the state. Predictably, this has a partisan bias, meaning simply, that whatever party has a majority in the state will seek to draw the boundaries in the district to benefit their party and disadvantage the other party"

Gerry mandering is a really incredible thing. This term that congee use to vote what party has the right to pass their laws is quite unfair. How do they know that the population is a republican/democrat(not that they care) or how do they know that their law is better than the others party. I believe that this type of term is actually hurting a state because if you think about it how long would it be for the other party to persuade/pass their laws. According to Christopher Ingraham  Americas most gerrymandered congressional districts " According to an analysis i did last year, the democrats are under represented by about 18 seats in the house, relative to their vote share in the 2012  election. The way republicans pulled that off was to draw some really,rely funky-looking congressional districts. This makes you think about how "fair" this gerrymandering really is. Which brings me back to my question when do they change "sides" in a state?

Thankfully new york hasn't fallen into this. If it did it would cause many trouble in the state.

RIGHTS!!

This status was clearly an aid , and not a menace, to Capitalism and the free-market economy, because it was dominated by civil rights, which confer the legal capacity to strive for the things one would like to possess but do not guarantee the possession of any of them. A property right is not a right to possess property,but a right to acquire it, if you can, and to protect it, if you can get it. but if you use these arguments to explain to a pauper that his property rights are the same as those of a millionaire, he will probably accuse you of quibbling. Similarly, the right to freedom of speech has little real substance if, from lack of education, you have nothing to say that is worth saying, and no means of making yourself heard if you say it. But these blatant inequalities are not due to defects in civil rights, but to lack of social rights in the mid- nineteenth century were in the doldrums. The poor law was an aid, not a menace,to capitalism, because it revealed industry of all social responsibility outside the contract of employment, while sharpening the edge of competition in the labour market. Elementary schooling was also an aid, because it increased the value of the worker without educating him above his station.

I chose this passage because T.H Marshall is right, society is whom says what is right or wrong and who gets to do what. An education is worth many things today, without an education much can't be done like before. in the paragraph he says "But these blatant inequalities are not due to defects in civil rights, but to lack of social rights in the mid- nineteenth century were in the doldrums."(15) Many didn't have rights in the nineteenth century even though there wasn't any slavery. The poor nor the rich or middle class ever looked at one another with equality. Even today a millionaire can't compare to a lottery winner that they are in the same social circle, even if they had the same likes. An interesting quote from " History is a Weapon" by Frederick Douglass says "To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. "(7) We got our freedom of speech, civil rights, and liberty but society doesn't let you really be "free."

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75.(10) If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us  not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.(11) 



I chose this passage because  it talks about how our country isn't really ours when someone from another country tries to come and make it as their own. This goes for the government who has been raised a different way then come and try to change our ways. Government is corrupt and "bad" but if we see it in their point of view some do try to help the society. in the passage it says "If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them." in some way it is bad because the more they tax the foreign commodities the less the merchandise brought to the ports. We live by trade and if we don't reason we would fail. According to Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions "Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it s the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it,and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its power in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness", we have the right to decide whether we want a government but we don't use that power. Many of us,myself included, don't vote but get mad when the government chosen not who we wanted.  

TRANS-NATIONAL AMERICA!

We are all foreign-born or the descendants of foreign-born, and if distinctions are to be made between us they should rightly be on some other ground than indigenousness. The early colonists came over with motives no less colonial than the later. They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting-pot. They did not come to adopt the culture of the American Indian. They had not the smallest intention of "giving themselves without reservation" to the new country. They came to get freedom to live as they wanted. They came to escape from the stifling air and chaos of the old world; they came to make their fortune in a new land. They invented no new social framework. Rather they brought over bodily the old ways to which they had been accustomed. Tightly concentrated on a hostile frontier, they were conservative beyond belief. Their pioneer daring was reserved for the objective conquest of material resources. In their folkways, in their social and political institutions, they were, like every colonial people, slavishly imitative of the mother-country. So that, in spite of the "Revolution," our whole legal and political system remained more English than the English, petrified and unchanging, while in England law developed to meet the needs of the changing times.(pg 2)

What defies an American? Is it being born in america, our social status, if we know the history...WHAT?? America was built by immigrants. The first people who settled had to come from somewhere because america wasn't discovered until 1492.  As stated in the paragraph "They came to get freedom to live as they wanted. They came to escape from the stifling air and chaos of the old world; they came to make their fortune in a new land."(pg 2) Immigrants aren't a threat to us, Most of us are daughters, sons, wife,husband of an immigrant.  I agree with the passage in its totality because I being a daughter of immigrant parents understand where they come from. They see us as if we are an "infection." The situation in third world countries are horrible. People are starving, there aren't any jobs and they do what thy can so they could have a roof over their head. Us immigrants don't want to "take over" america or be looked at as an assimilation. All we want is to be "free" and live decently.

I chose this passage because it inspired me. Every word in the passage speaks the truth. Immigrants are looked as all the same. If one does something they want to put us in the same category. Some of us really do come because we have a family to support or because they have a "desire" to succeed in something.