Media Synthesis

The news media is a constantly changing collection of events, mainly composed of timely, dramatic, and compelling stories. The news has to be recent, eye catching, and arouse people's attention in order to gain viewers. The media has four main functions: Signaling, Common Carrier, Watchdog, and Partisan.

The signaling function is the media's responsibility to alert the public of recent, important events. Since U.S news organizations on their own do not have the resources to gather outside news on their own, they do this through wire services, such as the the Associated Press (AP), which station news reporters all around the world to gather news stories and transmit them to news organizations. However, the main goal of the news isn't to inform the public, but rather to attract a big audience and make money. Without ad revenue, US news organizations would go out of business. Because of this, there is a constant need for fresh news, with every day's story being different from the previous day's. Hard events are developments that have taken a clear and definable shape with the past 24hrs. An issue is likely to go unreported if it is not reverted into a hard event. Policy issues and problems do not change on a daily basis, making the undesirable and uninteresting, or simply “old news”.

The common carrier function is a political leader's means of communicating with the public and allowing the people to know of their plans and actions. Many presidents have adopted the Rose Garden strategy, where they announce their speeches in the rose garden by the Oval Office. However, political leaders cannot manage the news for two reasons: journalist's norm of partisan neutrality and the inability to monopolize the news. Journalists tend to report in a “he said she said format”, where when one officials say or does something newsworthy, there will be a contrary statement from the opposing party. In addition, on TV, journalists make use of the “shrinking sound bite” format, where candidates can barely even talk for more than ten seconds. In addition, journalists also make use of framing, the process of selecting certain aspects of reality and making them the most salient part of communication.

The Watchdog function acts as the unofficial 4^th branch of government that exposes corrupt officials and keeps power in check. One example of this has been shown when the Washington Post exposed the Walter Reed Army Hospital's neglect in treating its wounded U.S solders from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. After interviewing many patients, Washington Post managed to force the Department of Veterans Affairs into changing health care practices at its medical facilities. One area that supports the fairness of the watchdog function is objective journalism, reporting based on the facts rather than opinions (The New York Times is quite famous for this style of reporting). It's the exact opposite of yellow journalism, which tends to over-exaggerate stories and depict them in a negative connotation. In 1934, the Communications Act established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which oversaw broadcasting. Broadcasters had to be licensed and give equal time to all candidates, meaning that one could have more time than the other. In addition, the Fairness Doctrine stated that broadcasters were prohibited from using their news coverage to promote one party or issue position at the expense of another. Later on, however, after the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated (due to the increase of TV channels), broadcasters didn't have to air both sides to an issue anymore, and thus partisan talk shows were created.

The partisan function is the process of advocating for a particular viewpoint or interest. Traditional media, such as newspapers and broadcast networks, tend to more neutral when informing. However, rather than a strong partisan bias, traditional media tends to have a negative bias, or preference for bad news. After especially negative events like the Vietnam War and Watergate, the amount of negativity and mistrust in politicians increases. Talk shows tend to be mainly conservative, while the internet is mainly liberal. Republicans tend to favor the conservative Fox news while Democrats avor the centrist CNN and liberal MSNBC.

In recent years, there has been a shrinking audience for News. While literacy rates, urbanization, and radio widened the news audience, it was TV that played the biggest role. During dinner hour, 85% of all Americans in the nation would turn on their TV to the news channels, developing a traditional “news habit”. However, later on with the introduction of cable and Internet, people no longer had to sit and eagerly wait for news. They could simple watch the news at any time, or even record some programs if they really wanted to.

A majority of people today who pay attention and watch news are older adults, those over the age of fifty to be specific. Older adults are more likely to be exposed to news media and be updated with it, through the means of reading newspaper or watching news channels on TV daily. 40% of young adults pay little or no attention to news sources on a daily basis. And although older adults spend much less time on the Internet than young adult, when they do, they have a higher chance of accessing news related material when doing so. In addition, young adults tend to get. Strangely enough, from the 1940's to 1960's, young adults were actually more updated and informed about current news events than older adults, who many at the time had not even graduated from high school. Since the 1980's, the number of informed young adults has decreased, proven when younger adults could only answer 36% of factual politics questions in the ANES survey, as opposed to older adults's 55%.

News media from before and news media today differ quite a bit. Before, the media system was dominated by only a few powerful news organizations that had large audiences. In addition, back then news was reported in a more nonpartisan way, focusing less on patronizing or harming political parties and enhancing their roles in society. On the other hand, today the number of news outlets have increased, fragmenting the public new audience and decreasing traditional news organization's influence and audience. With so many different sources and outlets of news media, political leaders are portrayed differently, different aspects of politics are highlighted, and partisan polarization has become quite common. Some sides are praised and others are ranted on, leading to an increased split between liberals and conservatives. Today, people have less in common when it comes to politics than before. With the growing role of Internet in society, news media has becomes more flexible to access at different times of the day. Since people can easily bypass the news that hold little or no appeal, there is an ever increasing gap between more-attentive and less-attentive citizens.

Interest Groups Synthesis

An interest groups is a linkage group that connects the public to the government. Like political parties, interest groups are characterized for their group identification and affiliation; however, unlike political parties, interest groups focus on persuading public policy makers to respond to their group perspective instead of nominating officials. Interest groups influence the officeholders, not become them.

Interest groups range from many different types. There are the economic groups, which are joined together by material incentives such as jobs, higher pay, and profits, and citizen groups, which are joined together by a purposive incentive, such as protecting the environment or feeding the poor. Most economic groups are business groups, although there are a few labor and farm groups mixed inside, such examples including The National Farm Association and AFL-CIO. Citizens groups tend to be dedicated to promoting a political ideology or have philosophical or moral position on issues, examples including the NAACP.

On main key component in interest group are political action committees, or PAC's for short. PAC's have the job of raising money for interest groups and make contributions to the political campaign. Contributions from PAC's such as the NRA and BlackPAC have risen greatly over the years, skyrocketing during the years of 1981 to 2012. Because of their ability to raise seemingly infinite amounts of money, PAC's have also played a key role in the electoral process. Interest groups themselves cannot directly give funds such as union dues and corporate profits to candidates. To combat this obstacle, they solicit voluntary contribution money from PAC's members and donate this money to the candidates. PACs are limited in how much money they can give to a candidate; however they can support as many candidates as they want.

Lobbying is one of the most important tools for interest groups; it is the process of inputting effort to influence public policy through contact with public officials. This can be done through mainly two ways: Inside and Outside lobbying. Inside lobbying is when groups efforts to develop and maintain close (inside) contacts with policymakers, as shown with the case of the iron triangle. Outside lobbying is when members of interest groups pressure the government into satisfying their needs. This was shown in the case of the 2000 legislation on trade relations with China, when Boeing Corporation engaged in outside lobbying by asking its employees, subcontractors, and suppliers to contact members of Congress.

In addition, lobbyists aren't passive pushovers. Like many other aspects and processes of American government and politics, lobbyists can be very corrupt in their ways. As shown with the case of famous lobbyist Jack Abramoff, lobbyists can offer huge sums of campaign donations, all for one condition: favorable legislation. In modern day terms, this could be viewed as another example of bribery and conspiracy.

Over the years, interest groups have to shown to have the ability to greatly influence and impact public policy. For example, one major issue rooted in both American society and politics is the question of gun control/gun rights. Unlike many other Western societies, the U.S Constitution upholds and protects the right to gun ownership. Because of this, the U.S falls behind in gun regulation. The National Rifle Association, or NRA, holds great power in American politics and has prevented a number of assault weapon ban legislation. During aftermath of the mass shooting of children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary, the public immediately switched to a pro-gun control stance. However, the NRA managed to fight the assault weapon ban and gun trafficking punishment legislation through citing the 2^nd amendment. Congress ultimately failed to pass any new gun control measures, and still struggles to do so even today.

Interest groups play a significant role in American government and politics. In the iron triangle, their main job is to provide electoral support to Congress and congressional support (through lobbying) to bureaucracies. Through lobbying, interest groups can influence the public policy decision making process, whether it be through friendly connections or pressuring the government. Interest groups have gained a great deal of footing in the American political process over the years, and it only continues to grow.

Political Participation Synthesis

Politics is known as the battle that decides who gets what, when, where, and how. Different groups and people fight for the power at the top of ladder, constantly clashing along the way. In order to achieve their goals and come out as victorious, parties must be able to accomplish some of the basic steps:

-raise money

-develop a positive image

-nominate candidates who can develop public policy

-run successful campaigns

-coordinating in the governing process the implementation of the policies they support

-maintaining a watchdog function

-articulating issues into their campaign

All throughout history, America's system of politics has been centered around a two party system, unlike the many multiparty Democracies around the world. From Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans to Whigs vs Democrats to Democrats vs Republicans, there has always been an exchange between mainly two parties only. With a system of mainly only two parties, power constantly shifts. Democrats held a dominating era of power in both presidency and Congress during 1828-1860 and 1932-1968 while Republicans held their from 1869-1932. Currently, the nation experiences a Divided Era, were president party and dominating Congress party are different.

However, between the battle of the Democrats and Republicans, America also has many smaller third parties groups that cannot be completely ignored. These groups tend to have more narrow ideals and goals, the reason why they can never get the majority vote of the public since broader aims apply to a larger/broader public. Such groups in the Greenback Party, Libertarian Party, or Socialist Worker Party. Although these groups have no chance of winning in an election, they do play a considerable role in determining the outcome. In close elections especially, the few votes of the third parties can determine who wins. For example, George Wallace of the American Independent Party managed to receive 46 electoral votes in one election, leaving Hubert Humphrey's short of only a few votes in a close election. In 2010, another party emerged that posed as a threat to the Demcrats. Made up of grassroot Americans and former Republican leaders, the Tea Party favored the Republican side, endorsing many Republican gubernatorial and congressional candidates and earning them victories

Party Realignments occur when there is a sudden shift in public loyalty in a party. This can happen when one party dies/weakens out (like the Whigs or Federalists), when a major issue divides the nation (like slavery), or when a drastic event happens that causes the public to change their views on the party of the very person in office that caused it (like the Great Depression). For example, the Democrats used to make up the “Solid South”. However, after LBJ began supporting civil rights legislation, the South began to slowly become Republicans since white men were again civil rights. Likewise, More northeastern states became Democratic. There are three major realignments in history, all of which have had deep effect on future election since they affected voters' party identification

1. Great Depression Realignment: After Hoover ruined America's economy, the Republican Party was not very popular. People began supporting Democrat FDR and his New Deal policies.
2. Civil War Realignment: The Civil War was a great issue that divided the nation
3. 1896 Realignment: Democrats were not very popular after Cleveland was blamed for crashing the nation bank and putting the nation into an economic depression

In contrast to its counterpart, Party Dealignment is when people begin to shift away from parties to a more neutral and ideological view of party identification and loyalty. This can happen when voters are fed up with both parties and decide. register as independents. Rates of party dealignment have been increasing significantly today, as 1/3 of all voters register as independents.

The exact opposite of Party Dealignment is political socialization, the process of developing political beliefs and ideals. The factors that influence a person's developing views are known as the agents of political socialization, which include family, school, friends, coworkers, and media.

Family is the biggest and most influential factor since they are the people we spend around the most. Any strongly held beliefs of our parents will no doubt get passed down to us after frequent and constant exposure.

In school, teachers only tell young students of all the amazing national heroes such as George Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. and emphasize nations greatest moments such as the world wars. These teachings can lead young students to develop a somewhat narrow outlook of America that is more positive than it truly is.

Peer Pressure is a always a trick into making people change beliefs. Some Americans may not like the idea of being the minority in the group who support a certain belief while everyone else in that friend circle supports the opposing one. Following the path of conformity, they simply follow what is the commonly held belief around them.

Mass Media

Media is not only a means of updating the public with news story, but also a tool for influencing people's views on the world. For example, constant exposure to crime on TV can lead to people thinking society is more dangerous than it really is. This is known as the agenda-setting effect,which is the tendency of people to assign importance to topics emphasized by the media

People all the nation have diverse opinions and backgrounds. How does the government and thoses in charge become aware of the present day trends in the public?

Answer: Public Opinion Polls

Individuals are randomly selected and asked simple questions about their background, occupation, or political beliefs. Polls are the most basic method for estimating public sentiment; however, they do have their flaws. Most polls are through telephone calls. Many American either do not own phone or do not have the time and patience for a poll and simply deny answering by hanging up the phone. In addition, many Americans may not be very updated with present day issues, but do not wish to admit it. Because of this, the responses they give may not be very accurate.

People have political ideology if they hold a coherent set of beliefs. However, few Americans can truly accomplish this unless if they have a very strict perspective on something. Farmers for example, are the most likely group of people to oppose government benefit programs for the economically vulnerable. However, they support farm subsidies, and they no longer oppose governmental assistance if its directed at them. In this case, they only oppose governmental assistance if it isn't presented for them. However, it's different for the case of liberals and conservatives. In general terms, liberals tend to be more open to change, while conservatives favor the traditional way of doing things. For example, in the case for social issues such as abortion, cultural liberals tend be pro-choice, while cultural conservatives favor pro-life. When it comes to the purpose of the government, economic liberals believe the government should be the ones dealing with the current problems facing society whereas conservative favor a more lassiez-faire approach.

One of the most simplest ways to participate in politics is through the simple act of voting. However, most American who do have the ability to vote don't. Many factors influence voting, including registration, age, education, income, attitudes.

Registration is the formula to voting. No registration means no voting. Although Americans are all eligible to vote at the age of 18, many also forget to register; therefore, on the day of the election, many people can't vote even if they wanted to. Since people have to register a second time if they move, registration just seems to be hassle. The Motor Voter act made things a bit easier by giving American the chance the register when purchasing a vehicle; however its progress is too small to be considered substantial.

It takes time for political beliefs to firmly develop. As a result, many younger Americans don't vote because they haven't firmly decided in what they believe in. In addition, since young people tend to travel and move more often, it also means having to register multiple times. Middle aged Americans tend to make up the majority of the voter body

Not all Americans have the money to own a car or photo ID (required to vote), meaning that both the Motor Voter act is useless to them, and they cannot vote even if they wanted to. Because of this, people with higher or substantial income tend to make up a majority of the voting body. In addition, a decent level of education is also required, as it has been statistically shown those with a higher level of education tend to vote more often.

Civic attitudes make up general motivation of the public. Some citizens simply feel apathy, lack of interest in politics, when it comes to political participation. Politics is a hobby for some Americans. And like all hobbies, politics is something that can't captivate or entertain every person in the nation. On the other hand, some Americans have a deep sense of civic duty, the belief that they have every right to participate in public affairs, and actively participate in political matters. However, some Americans stand a bit in the bit and feel alienation, the feeling of powerlessness and that the government pays no attention to their interests even if they do vote and participate. Because of that, some Americans don't even bother to put in the effort even if they do genuinely care about politics.

Two extremely important factors in determining who wins an election are M&M, or money and media. Without funding, there are no campaigns, and without media, elections lose their significance.

In the case of Citizens United v. The FEC, the Supreme Court reversed part of the 2002 case, which stated that the 2000 ban on soft money was acceptable. Soft money is essentially unlimited funding from a linkage institution. After it was overused in 1996, candidate had to pledge that they would not spend more than what was given to them or accept other kinds of special donations. However, some interest groups managed to maneuver around the ban by forming “527” independent groups such as moveon.org, which could raise large amounts of soft money but get away with it due to being protected by the tax code. In the end, Citizen United v. The FEC ruled that based on the 1^st amendment, unlimited independent expenditures and political advocacy ads could be used by outside groups including corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups as long as the money was not donated directly to a candidate's campaign and disclosure rules were followed.

Media can play a significant role in the political process. There are legal restraints on extremes such as libel and slander; however messages can still be sent through passively. After analyzing the Obama v. McCain election, Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Obama's coverage initially started out negatively after his nomination, but later much more positive as his poll numbers increased. On the other hand, McCain's coverage became more negative after he suspended his campaign at the start of the economic crisis. It could be seen that although Obama's treatment was somewhat more positive than negative, McCain's was simply unfavorable all in general. However at the end of the day, the media really controlled by the government. During the Gulf War, there were many complaints that the Bush Administration was prevented the press from doing its job. However, when marines landed in Somalia for a humanitarian purpose, the Bush Administration gave full disclosure.

According to the 2010 Census, there are few new growing patterns in politics in the US. Minorities, Hispanics especially, make up a growing share of the U.S population and are the largest ethnic group. And unlike the commonly assumed belief, most U.S population growth has taken place in the suburbs rather than the crowded, populated central cities. Of course, metropolitan areas are still currently the areas with the greatest percentages of voting, fastest rates growth being mostly in the South and West and the fastest rates of decline being in the Midwest and Northeast. In addition, with the growing number of immigrants, they are no doubt changing both the population and the political process. However, the current growth rate in American is the lowest since the Great Depression. Although America is slowly reforming and improving its political system, it still has a long way to go.

To what extent does Citizens United Threaten Democracy

Citizens United
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnL9YFLqwwM

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission that corporations and unions could not be banned from spending money on campaigns, stating that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights to speech as individuals, only in the form of campaign spending. Therefore, money is equivalent to speech and corporations are equivalent to people. However, with corporations being the powerful, influential figures they are, the power of unlimited spending becomes an issue since they dominate campaigns and shut out the outside opinions of the people, the ones who are actually supposed to determine the outcome of the election. With money, corporations can spend funding on various forms of campaigning, such as advertisements and voter registration, to persuade citizens to support their side. In an election, swing voters play a very significant role. Depending on which side they eventually choose to support, swing voters can essentially determine who wins an election, especially in the case of a very close election, such as the one between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. Theoretically, corporations basically have the power to control the election if they can spend all the money they want on campaigns.

In the first article, Perriello and Rosenbaum talk about the case limiting the voices of the people. It all starts with the corruption of the system. As donors provide funding to the candidates, they in return must also receive something. This could range from ensuring friends high political positions (spoils system) to using the money on a plan that benefits the donor. The second article, on the other hand, presented a completely different argument. Sherman stated the exact opposite, that money wasn't the biggest key factor since voting was and still is based on the judgement of the people, not through the persuasion techniques of a candidate.

However, I don't believe that money is the key to persuading people to be on your side. After all, “Money can buy many things, but not friendship”. Money can only do so much. At the end of the day, it's the voters and their opinions to decide the vote. As studies show, a majority of people who vote tend to range from ages of middle aged to senior. Such people do not change their ideals and positions very easily since years of supporting and growing up with them have embedded it deep into their values. In this case, the money spent on campaigning would be better aimed at persuading the young generations, who still have much to experience and hold immature, underdeveloped values that can still be changed. The only problem with this is that younger generations tend to have little interest in mature, or so called “boring”, topics such as politics, government, finance, or economy. Money does not necessarily threaten democracy since many Americans don't have much of any interest or objective in widely supporting it.

In addition, history has shown many cases where money fails to ensure everything. During the election between Romney and Obama, Romney had spent millions of dollars on campaigning, but still didn't get the position at the end. Likewise, money doesn't necessarily determine the winners and losers of a election. It may influence people's decision, but it doesn't necessarily restrict since voters are the ones who make the final call when casting their vote.

Bibliography

Perriello, Tom. Rosenbaum, Amy."Citizens United: Democracy for Sale".Politico.2012.Web.Dec. 15.2014.

Sherman, Paul."Citizen’s United Didn’t Kill Our Democracy".USA Today.2012.Web. Dec.15.2014.

  

Which protest movement has more to learn from the other, The Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street?

Tired of Great Britain's tyrannical rule and pointless taxes, the colonies desired some self-control. In response to Britain's tax on tea imports, the colonies threw millions of crates worth of Britain tea, approximately 92,000 pounds, into Boston Harbor as an act of rebellion (The Aftermath, 2014, 1) with a message clearly implying, “WE WILL NOT DRINK SUCH TEA”. The tea partyers succeeded in one aspect: their rebellion was an act of defiance that showed that the colonists weren't simple obedient pushovers. The downside, however, was that the King soon imposed more rules, known as the Intolerable Acts, which ranging from closing off Boston Harbor, to allowing British soldiers to live in the colonists homes, to outlawing freely called town meetings and elections (Intolerable Acts, 2014, 4-8). The Boston Tea Party might not have been the most thought through idea in American history. What the whole point of putting up such a show when you're most likely going to get punished even harder for it?

The Occupy Wall Street movement was much more recent, happening not long ago in 2011. Due to a great deal of wealth inequality, political corruption, corporation influence of the government, people began to protest on such differences. They protested to reduce corporate influence on the government, have more and better jobs, more balanced income distribution, bank reform, and relief to indebted students (Occupy Wall Street: It's not a Hippie Thing, 2014, 4).Protesters came up with the slogan, “We are the 99%”, because the other 1% was made up of all of America's unfairly advantaged, wealthy figures.The protesters poured into Zuccotti Park, a park located in New York City's Wall Street financial district, and began their encampment, hence the name "Occupy Wall Street". The protesters and supporters were most likely made of up those with low income, looking for the chance for it to be raising. Here, the protesters simply ran their daily lives at the park, eating and going to the bathroom at nearby restaurants and stores, sleeping under blankets, and using bicycle powered electricity for surfing on the Internet (With Generators Gone, Wall Street Protesters Try Bicycle Power, 2014, 5). It was their way of protesting against the corruption of Wall Street. Although they did succeed in getting notice, they still have yet to fulfill their goals.

Eventually the show had to go. They couldn't occupy the park forever. It had to get cleaned for maintenance. When the protesters tried to reoccupy the space, the police, more prepared this time, would shoo them away.

I'd say that the Boston Tea Party has more to learn from the Occupy Wall Street Movement. To begin with, the Occupy Wall Street Movement was simply much more eco-friendly. Pouring millions of boxes of tea into the ocean POLLUTES THE OCEAN. People always talk about how water pollution today is terrible. Part of that pollution might have been from the Boston Tea Party. Coincidentally, Boston Harbor is one of the most polluted ports in the world. Although the Tea Party happened centuries ago in 1773, some people say the harbor's brown color comes from the leftover traces of tea. In addition, tea might not be the healthiest substance for aquatic life such as fish, shrimp, and seaweed. It's very possible that a great deal of fish died afterward, making life for a fisherman much harder. If I was a person during that movement that happened to have access to a box of tea, I would sneak off with it rather than throw it into the ocean. A box of tea that's fated to become part of the ocean may as well be taken and enjoyed.

Second of all the Occupy Wall Street Movement tackles a more in depth problem than the Boston Tea Party Movement. In the case of the Boston Tea Party, the Patriots were so passionate and focused on breaking away from Great Britain and didn't take the time to satisfy the needs of every person that may or may not have agreed to the plan. At that time, a great deal of colonists either disagreed with the idea of the Boston Tea Party because they were Tories who supported the King and didn't mind paying taxes or didn't even know about it since they were from farther, southern states like Virginia. In America at this time, one third of the population were Patriots, one third were Tories, and the other third were neutral (Tories, 2014, 3). Basically, a group of people was trying to make a life changing decision without the consent of the majority or minority. The Occupy Wall Street Movement, on the other hand, It dealt with the inside economic and financial conflicts with the United States. These protesters were doing the opposite of the Tea Party protesters. They were trying to give all of those who were underrepresented and ignored, such as those with meager incomes, better opportunity by protesting for better wealth and income distribution.

The sad problem with the Occupy Wall Street Movement is that sometimes protests aren't enough to completely change the course of action because the government does not necessarily always take in account of the public's interests. For this very reason, the gap between the rich and poor is still very big today and doesn't seem to show any signs of shrinking soon.

Of course, these differences might be understandable. These were, after all, two very different movements that happened in two very different time periods. In the 1700's, people most likely didn't realize how important it was to take in account of the opinion of the minorities or/and majority, especially since at that time the colonies technically weren't even independent. In addition, they probably had little knowledge about the consequences of pollution since the ocean was much cleaner at the time. It only goes to show that the Tea Party movement could try to use more eco-friendly and moderate actions. The less extreme it is, the less likely you'll get hit back.

Bibliography

"The Aftermath." Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum December 16, 1773 A Revolutionary Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/the-aftermath>.

"Tories." Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum December 16, 1773 A Revolutionary Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tories>.

“Intolerable Acts”Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum December 16, 1773 A Revolutionary Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tories>.

"With Generators Gone, Wall Street Protesters Try Bicycle Power." Internet Archive Wayback Machine. N.p., 30 Oct. 2011. Web. 07 Dec. 2014. <http://web.archive.org/web/20131204041430/http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/with-generators-gone-wall-street-protesters-try-bicycle-power/>.

"Occupy Wall Street: It's Not a Hippie Thing." Businessweek.com. N.p., 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 07 Dec. 2014. <http://web.archive.org/web/20130526104046/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/occupy-wall-street-its-not-a-hippie-thing-10272011.html>.

Chapter 6 synthesis

Civil Rights Synthesis

The 14^th amendment is most likely the most powerful and important amendment out of the 27. Although on the outside it seems to simply state that it grants every person the United States the right to U.S citizenship and equal protection under the law, it also acts as a hidden mastermind that influences all the other amendments. If, by any chance the legitimacy of the other amendments are questioned or denied, the 14^th amendment can act as the second wall of defense that protects it and reenforces it, as shown in court cases such as Gitlow v. New York. Even so, equality has still yet to be achieved. Affirmative action is the process of providing full opportunity and in employment and education for disadvantaged groups. However, too much of it could lead to reverse discrimination, where the group that was originally better off, take men for example, becomes the disadvantaged group. Today many different racial and minority groups still face barriers in gaining equal rights and treatment, these groups including African Americans, women, Native Americans, and Asian Americans.

The Equal Protection Clause states that no person shall be denied equal treatment under the law. However, it actually took quite long for this clause to be actually enforced, and still has yet to be improved on today. For example, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the SC stated that it was perfectly fine to give blacks and whites different public facilities as long as they were equal in quality. Of course, these facilities were definitely not equal and quality and blacks were being denied equal treatment under the law. It wasn't until later on in the case of Brown v. Board of Education that overturned the Plessy decision and allowed blacks to have the same access to eduction as whites.

However, Brown v. Board of Education was only a small step for improving the overall living standard and rights for blacks. Later on, Congress passed three acts: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination against providing housing, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in selling real estate, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited discrimination in voting and registration. These acts helped improve the situation by establishing dejure equality, equal by law, but still didn't solve the whole case for de facto equality, actual equality. Even today, de facto equality has still yet to be achieved.

Today, women are actually quite successful. They hold many important jobs and no longer hold the stereotypical label of simply being a housewife. Women have shown to be more likely to gain admission to college and do well in school. Some, such as Sarah Palin and Sandra Day O'Conner, even hold high government positions. Even so, women still can't quite reach equal ground with men. It is proven that on average, women only paid 80% the amount men are paid. The imaginary glass ceiling still exists, and women today are still fighting to break it.

Native Americans are a poor group who have been undermined for quite a long time. After, centuries of being deprived of home land and natural right, they finally have an official government agency established as part of the Department of Interior. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible of making sure that Native Americans are provided legislative benefits. Although today many Native Americans still live in poverty, casinos help boost their economy grow and thrive.

Asian Americans are actually a quite underrated group. They have make up a high percentage of leading university students and hold the highest percentage for 2 parent families, yet Asians account for only 10 individuals of congress and 2% of managerial jobs. In the past, Asians have very well suffered just as much as any other minority groups, but are not as focused on like blacks. For example, for a period of time, Asian immigrants were actually prohibited from coming over to the United States due to a common fear that they would take away job opportunities.

Equality is a very complicated concept. Even after hundreds of years, the United States still fails to completely establish it, and even now it still seems far from perfect. The founders of the United States, who were white men, still stand at the top for everything, from jobs, to housing, and paychecks. The glass ceiling is still a barrier for many disadvantaged groups to overcome.

Civil Liberties Pamphlet