A and B

In the articles, Saudis in Bikinis and The Tyranny of the Majority, the authors depict the injustices that can be created by an overwhelming majority.
Guinier provides examples of how our own society imposes a winner take all mind frame on us from the time that we are children reading through Sesame Street magazines to the time we are attending our high school proms. She states that this state of mind excludes the minority’s thoughts and feelings about decisions being made for the group as a whole.
She shows how our own democratic voting system can become flawed if we allow a fixed majority to consistently undermine the wants and needs of the minority. If we allow the majority to it to become permanent, there are no checks and balances to keep it from becoming overbearing. Thus, “A majority that doesn’t worry about defectors is a majority with total power,” she states; In other words, a tyranny.
Kristof’s piece complements this argument by also showing how majority rule can dominate an entire culture’s way of life, and at the same time give the minorities a sense of unfairness. He presents the opinions of women belonging to that particular culture, all of whom are in somewhat of a different social status. In his questioning of these women, Kristof realizes that these women do have different opinions about what they are forced to carry out in society. He shows how some in the minority group of women opposed to their set customs can still feel a sense of discrimination, even when the majority of the women support those customs. Just as it is unfair for those students at Brother Rice who have to listen to only one genre of music during their only high school prom it would be unfair to force all women to wear certain robes around their bodies at all times of the day. These are both sides of the extreme, but they both show the same argument against an overbearing majority.
The way in which Kristof’s essay complements Guiner’s piece is that it shows how (even in a democratic society that has voting systems in place to ensure equality for all) a majority group that has no concern for the minority can be as tyrannical as a society run by a demanding religion and it’s king.

Aand C

In, The Tyranny of the Majority, Guinier attacks the all powerful majority rule on certain decisions that pertain to society. She warns that an overbearing majority that has no consideration for the minorities can become tyrannical if not kept in check. She cites the fear of President Madison that his people could become a tyrannical government if all powers rested in one hand, “Whether one or few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
In, The Case for Torture, the Michael Levin also brings up the subject of the benefits of a majority as opposed to the benefits of a minority. However he takes a different approach to the argument and supports a different idea of tyranny that still benefits the majority.
Assuming that the majority of society would be opposed torture; Levin goes against the opinions of the people in the majority. He does this by favoring the opinions of the presumed minority (which is by the way also looking out for the society’s safety as a whole) by supporting the torture of only the blatantly guilty under extreme circumstances. By favoring the minority’s dreadful idea of torture, he is also favoring the well being of the majority.
Levin tries to convince his reader that when it comes to the safety of a vast majority, the safety of a miniscule minority (the terrorist who is in turn trying to hurt the majority) is worthless. The overall message being, “Who cares about the terrorist’s well being when we have hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives to save?” Levin suggests that torturing someone (considered by many a tyrannical act) is justified if it has the best interest of the majority at hand.
The way in which Levin complements Guinier’s argument is that it shows how tyranny can be present in a society through somewhat different ways, it can be hidden behind the majorities need to survive or through the majorities simple wants.

huh?

When the old billionaire announced he was giving all his money away, reporters from all over the world including: China, Mexico, and Japan flocked over to question him; to their surprise however he presented them with only a single question of his own, “Do you think I could possibly take all that money to the grave?” he asked them with a smile, and then left the podium.



I think this is 90% grammatically correct.
I know there's should be another comma after the quotation somewhere and i played with the semi colon and colon too much.

ugh abortion.

For this week’s blog post I decided to write about Mary Gordon’s article on abortion, titled “A Moral Choice.” It is an analysis of her writing and the way in which she captivates her audience.
Gordon aims to convince those who are against pro-choice or confused about the subject to join her side or to at least consider her argument. The uncertain and misinformed masses are her target audience as well.
In order to prove her point, Gordon slightly questions the opinions of anti-choice groups. She states that anti choice advocates wrongfully illustrate women undertaking an abortion as the types of women with “moral callousness, selfishness, and irresponsibility.” She does this by providing the different reasons anti-choice advocates give for their argument and showing how those reasons are merely assumptions that all abortions are made irresponsibly.
In presenting the ontology of a fetus, Gordon asks her audience to consider whether or not abortion is really an act of murder before presenting facts about the life cycle of a fetus. She points out that she along with the rest of society have different emotions concerning the abortion of a 7 month old fetus as opposed to a seven week old. So she questions what level a fetus should be at in its development so as to be considered a person equally to its mother.
Gordon and her pro-choice advocates do not deny that abortion can be a regrettable occurrence, but she argues that abortion in a seven week old fetus is not that same as abortion in a fetus that is able to live on its own outside its mother.
Gordon infers that pro lifers are unrealistic at times when they get into the “emotionally over laden topic.” They’re fears and hopes make them susceptible to unclear thoughts, she points out.
She points out that humans have sex recreationally most of the time and are not trying to get pregnant. It has been happening throughout history, and not always is a pregnancy welcome. So since it will continue to happen, we should at least allow it so as to prevent unsafe abortions which can kill the living mother to be.
I think Gordon does reach her audience. She presents both sides of the argument thoroughly and explains the issues to someone who would be ignorant so as to give them an opportunity to develop their own knowledgeable opinion.