John F. Kennedy

 With such a peace, the will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and

nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each men love his neighbor, it

requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their dilutes to a just and peaceful

settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last

forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring

surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not

be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it

seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to

move irresistibly towards it.

 Being at peace with someone does not indicate there will be no disagreements. There will always be

some type of conflict as there is with family and nations. World peace does not require that you love

each other, but that there is mutual respect. Resentment does not last forever as we can see that in

historical times. Despite personal opinion and thoughts, changes in how we feel towards a particular

view change and we learn to accept or rather respect them. Don't let peace be impossible and war

unavoidable. Lets be more positive and help others understand and view peace as an option rather

than resulting directly to war.

 I chose this passage because it is crucial in the world today. Governments do not talk peace in society

today. Instead stories and lies that build hate are being told to the people in order for them to carry out

with their plans. We are not being told the truth nor facts, but what is beneficial for them. There has to

be peace in order for a future. We cannot continue to be at war. We are killing our men and destroying

families for what purpose? It is unfair to let our soldiers, sisters, brothers, family, friends, die. If

instead we chose to be rational and come up with solutions rather than sought out to weaponry.

Democrats won in 9 of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts. But eight out of 10 of those districts were drawn by Republicans

 This speaks to the notion that the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a safe seat but to put

your opponents in safe seats by cramming all of their supporters into a small number of districts. This

lets you spread your own supporters over a larger number of districts. And the way to do this is to

draw outlandishly-shaped districts that bring far-flung geographic areas together. North Carolina's

12th district, which holds the title of the nation's most-gerrymandered, is a textbook example of this:

It snakes from north of Greensboro, to Winston-Salem, and then all the way down to Charlotte,

spanning most of the state in the process.

 Gerrymandering works for the party that designs a particular district. The more spread out your

seats are the more electoral advantage you have. The plan is to give your opponent less seats but

making them feel confident by having more supporters within smaller districts. The more oddly

shaped and widely spread states, indicate more gerrymandering. An example would be the passage

above how Democrats won the 9 of the 10 districts because they were designed by their opponent

party. North Carolina's 12th district from Greensboro more widespread districts are part of the nations

most gerrymandered states.

 You can conclude that based on the information given the number of supporters is not a factor. You

might think and feel comfortable if you do but it is what gerrymandering is about. Having a large

number of supporters within a small district will not help if your number of seats are small.However,

the number of seats you have per district is what will give you the electoral advantage. Boundaries

are drawn to benefit a party disadvantaging their opponent party. I don't think this should be how

electing should take place but it is one of the methods used today and has increased over the years.

Citizenship and Social Class

 Citizenship is a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who posses the 

status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the statuses endowed. There is no 

universal principle that determines what those rights and duties shall be, but societies in which 

citizenship is a developing institution create an image of an ideal citizenship against which 

achievement can be measured and towards which aspiration can be directed. The urge forward along 

the path thus plotted is an urge towards a fuller measure of equality, an enrichment of the stuff of 

which the status is made and an increase in the number of those whom the status is bestowed. Social 

class, on the other hand, is a system of inequality. And it too, like citizenship, can be based on a set of 

ideals, beliefs and values. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the impact of citizenship on social

class take the form of a conflict between opposing principles. If I am right in my contention that the

citizenship has been a developing institution in England at least since the latter part of the seventeen

century, then it is clear that its growth coincides with the rise of capitalism, which is a system, not of

equality, but of inequality. Here is something that needs explaining. How is it that these two 

opposing principles could grow and flourish side by side in the same oil? What made it possible for 

them to be reconciled with one another and to become, for a time at least, allies instead of antagonist?

 The question is a pertinent one, for it is clear that, in the twentieth century, citizenship and capitalist 

class system have been at war.

 Citizenship is based on the way of living. Societies display an image of what a citizen should be, 

have and work towards to, to be a good citizen. To do these things and more will make a citizen feel 

accomplished. Social class is not as equal as being a citizen. Everyone has different beliefs and values 

which may arise conflicts between each other. The systems created are not meant to be equal but 

rather the opposite. Citizenship and Socialism should be two matters worked together instead of 

against another.

  I think that citizenship and socialism are really important factors amongst residents and should be 

taken more seriously. We should be more involved in whats going on around us so that we can be 

better prepared. However as far as these systems working together I don't think we will ever achieve 

that for the simple fact of this countries diversity. But, I do believe more factors should be taken into 

consideration leaving out religion, which is too controversial in itself. We have to demand our rights 

and work as a community.