VIDEO POSTED

I missed last class but I saw the video which was posted so am assuming all of the police killings were a topic in the class. I had seen the video and read about the case when it had happened. It is a very disturbing video, and even though it angers me when people record things happening instead of trying to help, its a big thing now recording altercations with citizens and officers. In this case, I read that Mr. Powell was mentally ill and he was outside with a knife in broad day light. Apparently police were called to the scene and thats when some undercover cops pulled up responding to the call. First off, the approach the cops had in my opinion was as if they were ready to take action. The way they sped in and pulled up so fast but it can be understandable after all they were looking for a man with a knife out right? In the video you can hear Mr. Powell telling the cops to just shoot him already and he did walk towards the cops which in their defense they see as a threat and are allowed to "defend" themselves. What I do not agree with was their approach as to how they handled the situation. As police officers I know they are risking their lives every day and always have to be on the defense, but as police officers the objective shouldn't ever be simply to immediately kill but to catch the criminal. If the cop honestly felt threatened and felt he had to use his gun then he should have just shot Mr. Powell in the foot. If he would have shot him in the foot he would of gotten him down, been able to hand cuff him between him and the other cop who was there and I'm pretty sure they could have gotten him under control that way with out shooting multiple times as he did and killing the victim. Yes I said victim because I see no reason as to why the cop had to shoot so many times the way he did when the situation could have been handled much different with out anyone losing their lives.

Brown V. Board of education

"Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The impact of segregation is greater when it has the sanction of law. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law tends to impede the educational and mental development of black children and deprives them of some of the benefits they would receive in an integrated school system."

In this passage they are giving some reasons as to why segregation in schools is wrong. Here they speak about how it would affect the black children personally. They say how the black children would feel as the minority and feel inferior to the other students. They make the point how segregation would affect the black children mentally and emotionally and it would make the children loose motivation to even learn which people probably did not even think about. Having segregation done by the law makes it that much worse, to know that not even in their country are they treated equally but instead pointed out and kept seperate from those who "belong" and have all the rights which they too should have. 

I chose to write about this passage because it was where they made nice points against segregation. I chose this case in general because it was about something I believe against so it interested me to read the case summary. I personally agree with these points which were made and could add many more. This passage also brought me back to think about previous readings such as "Transnational America" where we read about how despite our nationalities we are all descendants of foreign borns. In this case, what makes certain races any better than another? And what gives one race more rights than another? Why should any races be treated differently if none of these races have been in this country from the start? This country was made up of immigrants who came here and took over. People from all over the country have moved here and made this country their home. These immigrants began generations and generations in this country but we still all have those outsider roots. So why have such a thing as segregation? When we think back, we all have that one similarity, all having coming from different places and making this place our home.

Obama

"Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.
Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.
We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.
(APPLAUSE)
There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.
We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

In this passage Obama is trying to make the point that even though America is a very diverse country it is still a country untied. He says how people try to divide the country or segregate it by who is who and who believes in what but he is saying no matter what people believe in, what they support, or who they are, they are all still one, apart of the same country, brothers and sisters. I liked this part of his speech but as he says, many don't see the country as THE UNITED states of America. Many just see themselves and who they consider "their people" and the rest are just outsiders. It should not be like that. It would be nice if the country was really united as he says it to be and if all the people of America felt the same way.

11/11/14

Passage from "What 60 years of what political gerrymandering looks like"

"While a compact district may be desirable, it doesn’t necessarily reflect how people live or what county and city boundaries look like." Or, as John succinctly puts it, "Representation is about people, not polygons."

First of, this quote was taken from a writer named Seth Masket. What he means by compact distract he is referring to factors such as equal population size, no racial discrimination, compact districts, preservation of county boundaries and preservation of communities of interest. I got this from a passage right before the one I posted here. However, if this is what he is referring to in regards to a desirable compact distract, then I disagree with him when he says it wouldn't necessarily reflect how people live. If a county had an equal population size the people of the county would possibly live more comfortable then those in a county which is over populated. If there were no racial discrimination in a county, the people of those county would live a much easier, comfortable life where they don't have to feel targeted or treated unfairly or unequally. Next Christopher (the blogger) puts in a quote from John Sides who says "Representation is about people, not polygons." This quote is pretty straight forward meaning representation should be about the people and for the people, not about size or gerrymandering or any of that. 

I chose this passage mainly because I liked John Sides statement about representation being about the people and not polygons. It also made me think about everything I had just read in Christopher's two blogs and helped me understand the concept a bit more and connect the concept to these quotes from these writers. 

Citizenship and social class

"The right to freedom of speech has little real substance if, from lack of education, you have nothing to day 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, and social rights in the mid-nineteenth century were in the doldrums."

In this passage Marshall is expressing how the right to freedom of speech has no real meaning if you don't say things that in authorities eyes are worth saying. You can say things and not really be heard or be aknowledged. Marshall says this inequality is not an error in civil rights but it is from the lack of social rights. He also states that in the mid-nineteenth century social rights were "in the doldrums."

What I get from this is that Marshall is trying to express how we have freedom of speech but yet how many of us really get our opinions across to the government or anyone in higher authority? The only people who are really heard are those who are involved, who are educated, and those who are entitled. I've personally never even thought about social rights. This piece made me think about what social rights really are. Marshall says in the mid-nineteenth century social rights were in the doldrums but if we think deep into it aren't they still in the doldrums now?

Thoreau

"I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through, before they could get to be as free as I was. I did not for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it."

I took this passage from the second part of Thoreau's writing. In this piece he is talking about his experience being in jail. He did not pay his poll-tax for six years and therefor was put into jail for one night. He describes the setting as having thick solid stone walls and a thick iron and wood door. He seems amused by what he describes as foolishness of this jail. He describes being treated as if he were nothing but flesh, blood, and bones. He says; "If there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was still a more difficult one to climb or break through, before they could get to be as free as I was." This to me is a very powerful line in that he is saying this stone wall he is confined in, seperating him from the rest of his town, there is "a much bigger wall" they will have to break through before they can be as free as he was. The much bigger wall he is talking about is the one blocking the rest of the people from seeing the truth, from understanding what they are really living in. He is in jail but feels freer then those who are not in jail. He is free in the sense that he knows who he is what is right and stands by what he believes in while others give in to what "higher authority" wants them to believe and goes by the way the government wants them to live. That is not being free.

I found this passage the most interesting because of the way Thoreau describes the jail setting and his thoughts while being confined behind cell walls. Instead of feeling vulnerable and caged, he pitied those outside the cell walls who in his eyes are not free at all. Although being encarcerated Thoreau did not feel "locked up" at all, he knew he was free.

The diffusion of innovations among the American states

"There is a growing awareness, however, that levels of expenditure alone are not an adequate measure of public policy outcomes. Sharkansky has shown, for example, that levels of expenditure and levels of actual service are seldom correlated; presumably, some states are able to reach given service levels with much less expenditure than others."

Jack Walker in this passage from him essay is that the amount of money being put in for each state does not always  add up with what each state gets from it. He says how Sharkansky shows that a lot of times the levels of expenditure are not equal to the amount of levels of actual service the state relieves. He also says that some states are able to reach their need in service levels using less money than other states.

This passage stood out to me because it's one thing I do not agree with what this state does. I feel as the state takes more money (ei. From taxes) then what is actually needed. They could probably find a way to manage getting the NECCESSARY services done with less than the amount they take. Another issue is having higher expenditures because of states getting or providing extra services which are not even needed. It also makes me wonder, if some states can manage to get their required services on a lower budget why can't all states manage a lower budget? Then again, location, population, economic status ect. must have an effect on the amount the state needs. There can be many different things that play a role with the amount needed for a state to maintain its self but I still believe they take more then they need.

PASSAGE FROM NY TIMES

REVISITING THE CONSTITUTION: DO WE REALLY NEED THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
Article by Melynda Price

"I am not naïve enough to believe that doing away with the Second Amendment would do away with gun violence, but I know firsthand the impact of guns and gun shots on children. This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts. Still, the Framers believed that not only the Constitution, but also the peaceful way the document was created, would penetrate the Americans' minds and change they engaged. The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy."

In this passage, the author is implying the idea that we may be better off without the second amendment which gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. She adds in a personal note which is that she personally knows the impact that guns can have, even to children. The quote I found most interesting in this passage was "This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts" I found this very true and thought back to many events in which the nation was changed due to ugly conflicts. One that came to mind was the civil war. Melynda makes it clear that she knows getting rid of the second amendment won't get completely stop gun violence, but she is hoping it would in some way help reduce the amount of gun violence we have now.

I chose this passage because it is a very interesting one in that there can be so many arguments with and against this article. In a way I would agree with her in the sense that if we did not have the second amendment it may make it a little harder for unauthorized people to get a hold of guns which can reduce gun violence. On the other hand if we do away with the right to bear arms, the people who really contain guns for safety will no longer have the right to protect themselves in that way. It would not be an easy decision if it were ever to be up for discussion but the negative side to doing away with the second amendment would be that it would not completely end gun violence and those who would of had guns for protection would be unprotected. 
                           

FEDERALIST NO. 51

"Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of the individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of the country and number of people comprehended under the same government."

What I think he is trying to say in this passage is that all authority or government system would depend on the society itself. He says that the society will be broken down into many parts and classes of citizens. The rights of the minority wouldn't be threatened by the majority. He states that in a free government the peoples civil rights will be the same as those with religious rights. I think what he also tries to say is that the extent in which the government would go with its rights and regulations would depend on the number of its civilians. 

I chose this passage because it had a lot of information on the rights of a society. It was difficult to comprehend but I grasped the main idea of it. 

FEDERALIST NO.10

"Madison makes it clear that the purposes of the federal government, or the Union, the union of all the states is beneficial because it will best control the effects of "factions." Today we would call them "special interests" but the meaning is the same. Sometimes, people seem to think that the U.S. government was founded by moral idealists but on the contrary the founders seemed to have a very pessimistic view of human conduct."

What I think Madison is trying to say in this passage is that the purpose of the government is for good cause and beneficial to the people. He says that the government will best control the effects of factions, meaning the people do need someone to have control over them to avoid chaos. He also states that the founders of the U.S. government seemed to have a very "pessimistic view of human conduct" in which I believe he is trying to say that they observed human conduct and by their observations believed humans needed someone above them to take charge and have control over broad actions and make rules to keep everyone and everything under control.

I chose this passage because it was one that I was able to break down to myself. What I found interesting in this passage was what Madison said about the founders view on human conduct. I've never thought in debt about the founders and why they came up with what they came up with. This specific passage made me think and understand why they would have come up with the system of a government. They must have seen how humans conducted themselves and the way towns were run with out a government and saw that there had to be some time of control over the people.

PASSAGE FROM TRANS-NATIONAL AMERICA

"We are all foreign-born or the descendants of foreign born, and if distinctions are made between us they should rightly be on some other ground than indigenousness." This line was taken from Randolph Bourne's essay "Trans-national America" I very much agree with this statement he made. If we really think about it, the real "Americans" are the Native Americans who were here way before any of us or the colonist who came to this country and "discovered America" So many of us here were born in the country but we are ALL here because of our descendants who were born in other countries and came to the new found land, America. Often times immigrants or "foreigners" are discriminated against or expected to become "Americanized" but why should they? Why are they any different then those who came to this country decades ago? This statement is saying if any differences are to be made between us  they should not be based on where we come from when everyone in this country comes from somewhere else.

The reason why I chose to write about this passage is because it was one line that stood out to me and I strongly agree with it. I personally have faced occasions where I've been treated like a foreigner when I was born in this country. Like many others, my parents came here from another country, but what makes me any less American then the next person who was also born here? What people need to realized which is stated in this passage is as Bourne says, WE ARE ALL DESCENDANTS OF FOREIGN BORN. 

Despite negativity, Americans mixed on ideal role of Gov't

The passage I chose is the one about American's feelings on the role of the government. Displayed in the passage are many surveys showing us what American's feel about the governments power. What I noticed when looking at all of the surveys is for the most part Americans believe the government was too much power in every aspect questioned. Newport also brings taxes into account. In the passage he says 56% of Americans would be willing to pay less in taxes and accept fewer services. This stat interested me the most because it made me wonder which category I would have been in. Of course I would love to pay less taxes just like that 56% of Americans do, but then I wonder if we were to get our way with that one, how would it affect America? We sometimes tend to be negative towards the government and think they do and take too much; but how would things be if they did less?

I chose this passage because I was very interested to see what other Americans feel about our governments power. Before reading this article I was with the majority of the votes (those who voted the government has too much power) because I've always felt the government does too much, takes too much, and does a lot of unnecessary things. I've always felt they have too much control and take too much from the working class to spend on things they want to do that in no way help me or to just give away to those who don't do anything at all but collect. But after reading this article, and seeing some people vote the government has the right amount or too little amount of power, made me try to think as to why they would feel that way. Then I got to wondering how much different things would be if the government in fact had less power and gave more power to the people. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing? Would the economy rise or fall? Would things get out of control? Then it made me think maybe it is best for the government to remain with the power that they have simply to avoid chaos.