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.