Interest Groups /Yarisa Figueroa

Interest Group Article 
Yarisa Figueroa
05/09/16 


There is a logic to social movements, which brings up the same problems of collective action, namely the free-rider problem. People have an incentive to free-ride as well, if civil rights legislation is passed it will benefit all minority groups affected, but there is still a tendency not to contribute assistance and to allow someone else to do the work of providing this benefit

 This small paragraph reminds me of the Welfare System. I do think the welfare system is in place for the  to assist families for a small period of time.I also feel that some people take full advantage of the  system and do want a free ride. they get used to having  is best to allow the minorities to speak out and for what they need for social justice, and equality in today's society. I think the rich and lets say the powerful people of politics don' allow minorities to speak up and to say what they need to say. I feel the way the system is up now its a little difficult. Lets say that even with the presidential candidates , such a Donald trump things are a little insane with his feelings towards minorities. The way he feels about minorities , immigrants and their overall being of living in the US is degrading. I think civil rights and legislation may help minorities but i also think a lot of things come into play as well. 

The logic of collective Action By Action Y.F

The logic of collective Action By Action
By Mancur Olsen


Some critics may argue that the rational person will, indeed, support a large organization, like a lobbying organization, that works in his interest, because he knows that if he does not, others will not do so either, and then the organization will fail, and he will be without the benefit that the organization could have provided. This argument shows the need for the analogy with the perfectly competitive market. For it would be quite as reasonable to argue that prices will never fall below the levels a monopoly would have charged in a perfectly competitive market, because if one firm increased its output, other firms would also, and the price would fall; but each firm could foresee this, so it would not start a chain of price-destroying increases in output. In fact, it does not work out this way in a competitive market; nor in a large organization. When the number of firms involved is large, no one will notice the effect on price if one firm increases its output, and so no one will change his plans because of it. Similarly, in a large organization, the loss of one dues payer will not noticeably increase the burden for any other one dues payer, and so a rational person would not believe that if he were to withdraw from an organization he would drive others to do so. 



In this paragraph it shows how a person support an organization not to loose on benefits that it has to offer. It states that when a number of firms increased its output, the price will fall but if the number of the firms involved its large no one will notice the effect on price if the firm it increases their output, as it states some people may argue the support of large organizations because if they do not others wont either. This paragraph describes the competitive market and the need for analogy.  

The Judiciary( Y.F)

The Judiciary 4/30

The judicial branch continues to play an important role in protecting the rights of minorities (whether it be business interests or ethnic/racial minorities), however it does raise the question of whether the courts are too independent of the majority will. With life terms for federal judges and the lack of any accountability to the populace through elections it is relatively easy for the courts to ignore or defy popular will. 

This paragraphs brings a lot to me since I'm a minority myself. Since the Judicial branch plays such an important role protecting the rights of minorities it makes me question? if everyone feels or does everyone agree on how much power the judicial branch should have. After all, federal judges and justices are appointed, not elected. As most Americans believe in democracy , shouldn't elected officials run the country.. On the other hand, perhaps Americans government would be fairer if judges had even more power. Because they do not have to worry about reelection, they are relieved of the outside pressure of public opinion. After all, the majority is not always right. It is no accident that the Founders provided for elected officials in the legislature and appointed officials in the judiciary. They believed that freedom, equality, and justice are best achieved by a balance between the two branches of government.

John F.Kennedy Speech (Yarisa Figueroa)

Inaugural Address of President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
January 20, 1961 




To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. 

I think this is such a powerful statement in John F. Kennedy speech states that we should pledge to help the people across the globe that are struggling. There are so many people around the world in poor countries that don't even have clean water to drink, food to eat and shelter to live in. In this statement he brings out that this 
is something we should be doing in general as human beings  not because communist are doing it or because we seek their votes.the world needs more people in society to want to help their fellow people and spread that positive energy and vibes  around the world. Some people in life just need a helping hand that can  lead them to something better. 

What 60 years of political gerrymandering looks like. Yarisa Figueroa

What 60 years of political gerrymandering looks like.

But these states don't show any discernible relationships between population, the number of seats in a congressional district and the extent of gerrymandering. Pennsylvania and New York have lost congressional seats over time. But Pennsylvania's gerrymandering scores have risen steadily, while New York's peaked around the 98th Congress and have been declining ever since. Texas has nearly doubled its congressional representation since 1950, and its gerrymandering average spiked in the 103rd Congress, dipped in the 108th, and shot back up in the 113th. Maryland's number of districts has been relatively flat, and its gerrymander scores have fluctuated considerably. 


This paragraph states that Pennsylvania and New York have lost congressional seats over time, but that New York peaked in at 98th Congress declining ever since. I think that a lot of that has to do with economy or maybe all the things that have being going on. The way things are now compared to 60 years ago are completely different. there are new laws, new regulations, new presidency and new things are have been created.  For some states things have fluctuated, stood flat or risen. 

what is a slave to the forth of July ( Yarisa Figueroa)

What is a slave to the fourth of July?( Frederick Douglass)

But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. — The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!


This frederick Douglass speech is personally one of my favorite speeches from this powerful man. He made this speech allowing the American people to see that the Forth of july was not a celebrtion for him and all the slaves that were capitive in slavery. he did the speech first congradulating America on the Fourth of  July but got into the indepth of how he sees Independence day.He said that there are problems between us. he siad he isnt included in the celebration that they are celebrating. he siad he doesnt have that justica and healing that they have. he tells them that the sunlight that brings them the healing brings them stripes and death> they never been slaves and they were never beatin but he was. His whole life he was treated unfairly becaus eof the color of his skin in being in slavery . he expresses to them that he is not like them and he cant not celebrate the fourth of july the way they do.

A lecture on the Anti Slavery Movement (Yarisa Figueroa)

                         A lecture on the Anti Slavery Movement (Frederick Douglass)

One anti-slavery movement nearly died out fifty years ago, and I am not prepared to deny the possibility of a like fate for this one. The elements of discord and deterioration are already in it, and working their legitimate results.And yet I am not gloomy. Present organizations may perish, but the cause will go on. That cause has a life, distinct and independent of the organizations atched up from time to time to carry it forward. Looked at apart from the bones and sinews, and body, it is a thing immortal. It is the very essence of justice, liberty and love. The moral life of human society—it cannot die, while conscience, honor and humanity remain. If but one be filled with it, the cause

ives.…If there be but one such man in the land, no matter what becomes of abolition societies and parties, there will be an anti-slavery cause, and an antislavery movement.

In this paragraph Frederick douglass discusses how the anti slavery movemnet  nearly diesd fiffty years ago and he ddint want that to happen with this one. He was prepared to make a difference and do whats right and what he believed in.  He stated that even if things persih , dissapered are no longer there he will still go on and what he wants to achive as the cost  will go on as well. he wanted everyone to have the justice,  the love and liberty they suppose to recieve just because there are human and that is everyones right . He felt that this things is everyone divines right. He felt that no matter if people dont fall through thee will alwyas be an anti slavery movenment.

 

Trans-National America ( Yarisa Figueroa)

Trans-National America Randolph S. Bourne
To face the fact that our aliens are already strong enough to take a share in the direction of their own destiny, and that the strong cultural movements represented by the foreign press, schools, and colonies are a challenge to our facile attempts, is not, however, to admit the failure of Americanization. It is not to fear the failure of democracy. It is rather to urge us to an investigation of what Americanism may rightly mean. It is to ask ourselves whether our ideal has been broad or narrow -- whether perhaps the time has not come to assert a higher ideal than the 'melting- pot.' Surely we cannot be certain of our spiritual democracy when, claiming to melt the nations within us to a comprehension of our free and democratic institutions, we fly into panic at the first sign of their own will and tendency. We act as if we wanted Americanization to take place only on our own terms, and not by the consent of the governed. All our elaborate machinery of settlement and school and union, of social and political naturalization, however, will move with friction just in so far as it neglects to take into account this strong and virile insistence that America shall be what the immigrant will have a hand in making it, and not what a ruling class, descendant of those British stocks which were the first permanent immigrants, decide that America shall be made. This is the condition which confronts us, and which demands a clear and general readjustment of our attitude and our ideal.

Randolph Bourne discusses the “failure of the ‘melting pot.'” According to Bourne, Americans at the time had been trying to assimilate the cultures of immigrants into their own. America was supposed to be the melting pot, where everyone was allowed to come and “melt” into the large American culture. But they overlooked the fact that not everyone wants to be assimilated, and forcing the issue only makes immigrants’ nationalistic feelings towards their countries of origin more intense.Bourne then states “Americanization,” for he argues that it can no longer mean that the United States is a so called “melting pot” waiting for new people to come and embrace the new, larger culture. Americans, he says, need to account for the wishes of the immigrants: how they want to become part of America, not how we want them to become part of the country. He tells Americans that in all actuality, are they are  descendents of immigrants. These people came over not to be part of the Native American culture and adopt all its ways, but in search of freedom. People should regard new immigrants like their ancestors, like people who are searching for freedom instead of new cultural customs to follow.

---

The Atlantic Monthly; July 1916; Trans-national America; Volume 118, No. 1; pages 86-97. 

The diffusion of Innovations among American states(Yarisa Figueroa)

3/16/16
The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States  
Jack L Walker    


Demographic Factors: After studying the acceptance of technological innovations by both individuals and organizations, several writers have concluded that the decision maker's relative wealth, or the degree to which "free floating" resources are available, are important determinants of the willingness to adopt new techniques or policies.'4 If "slack" resources are available, either in the form of money or a highly skilled, professional staff, the decision maker can afford the luxury of experiment and can more easily risk the possibility of failure.'5 Other studies, especially in the areas of agriculture and medicine, have also shown organizational size to be a strong correlate of innovation.

I think that when Walker speaks of innovation, he doesn't refer to anything more than adopting a new program. Even if a state adopts a new program begrudgingly and appropriates only $1000 to it, the state has adopted the new program. Furthermore, Walker refers only to programs adopted by state legislatures (not by bureaucrats). He thinks that when the program gets adopted by a state it will be  more recognized every where else and it will actually be known. It states that its difficult for states decision makers to want to resist even the weakest plans but  they don't want to make the public all arouse. I like that he states its is important for people showed encourage change and their social value, because most of  societies social value is based on ignorance. 

Another Stabbed at the US Constitution (Y.F)

The New York Times Article ( Another stabbed at the US Constitution) Revisiting the Constitution: we need term limits for Federal judges.

In this article there was one particular paragraph that stood out too me.

"But the average life expectancy of an American in 1787 was about 36, less than half of what it is today. the 21st century reality is that when the supreme court vacancies arise, one of the criteria for selection is that the judge be young enough to serve for several decade. Many of our most distinguished jurist, judges like  J. Harvie Wilkinson and Diane Wood , both in their sixties, are by now too "distinguished" for our highest court.


I think that the average life expectancy is still kind of the same as it was back than. the only reason that the life expectancy was so low back than because in the 1700s there was a high rate of infant mortality. In addition today in the modern world their has been a lot of discoveries, so i think that has something to do with the difference. In our society today, there has been a lot of medical cures that has been brought to society today compare to 1787.  I do think that the retirement age for judges should be 70 years old or so not reaching 80 years old. I think that when people get to a certain age their are things that start to diminish and they wont serve as they used to.

The Politics of the American Founding ( Declaration of Independence) Yarisa Figueroa

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.




        In this paragraph, The Declaration of Independence first begins stating that all Man are created equal no matter their race or gender. It goes on to state that we all have Human rights where we are in titled to Life, Liberty and Happiness. These rights are rights that the government should never violate. It states that when the government doesn't protect these rights, we the people are entitled to over throw the government . It explains that the people should establish a government that is designed to protect those rights. Governments are usually not over thrown and should not be over thrown for trivial reason. It goes off to explain that the King of Great Britain is guilty of several specific abuses. The king interfered with the colonist right to self government and for a fair judicial system While reviewing this document it really reminded me how the government should be working.  How the government are created to protect and secure certain unalienable rights , rights that are granted, not by the government or man but by God. In todays society not all of our rights are protected. There has been a lot of race issues going on , a lot of police shooting happening with Minorities and I feel like this topic has being bringing a lot of controversy to the government and the overall society. our rights as minorities are not being protected or secure, such as giving these people a fair trail and protecting the rights of citizens or legal residents.

                                Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Role of Gov't

Paragraph from Article:

Majority Willing to Trade Off Lower Taxes for Fewer Services

A majority of Americans (56%) say they would be willing to pay less in taxes and accept fewer services, rather than either leaving things as they are now or paying more taxes for more services.This supports the general position of some conservatives and libertarians, including GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul. They argue that citizens should want their government to do less, and thus collect fewer taxes. Liberals, on the other hand, have focused on the value of the services the government provides, particularly in terms of creating jobs and providing a social safety net, and the necessity of keeping tax revenue flowing in order to fund those services. Fewer than half of Americans, however, currently want to keep or add to the level of taxes and services they have now.As would be expected, 81% of Republicans would opt for reduced taxes and fewer services, as would 58% of independents. Democrats have more mixed reactions, but about two-thirds would either keep things as they are now (36%) or would opt for more services and more taxes (30%).

I chose this article because this is something that i have spoken about to a few friends of mine, where we cant all agree. This particular paragraph states how the majority are willing to trade off lower taxes for fewer services. I personally have mixed feelings about this maybe because I'm a democrat. I honestly feel that lower taxes will be great but to have less services makes me no where near to ever want to except to pay less in taxes. I want our government to do as much as possible of their citizens. i want the jobs and services to be created for the people that need it. There are thousands of homeless people and  low income families in our society today which need different services to help them out. I think this is a major issue for republicans because they want to put there focus away from the people and not provide them with that safety net.