"Soon, nearly one in six shops in the city – ranging in size from small neighbourhood cafés to large community centres – served coffee. Gradually, kahve percolated through to the far reaches of the empire." Why this quote is important is because a few decades before this, coffee didn't even exist. Now, at this time, it appears any shop (1 in 6) you walk into, you can go drink coffee and chat with others. Who would those other people be? Some would be friends and family, but others would be important people discussing rumors of war and creating aliiances. This soon led to the independence of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. But as mentioned early in the article, coffee played a little role in the eventual downfall of the empire.

The quote, "Coffee houses gave men somewhere to congregate," appears to me as why the empire collapsed. These men would go to the coffee houses and plan new tactics they can use in war and create alliances. It was later mentioned too how their "caffeine-fuelled efforts" made Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria all independent in the early to mid 1800's. I also found it interesting that each of those independent nations after the empire fell, added their own twist to coffee that other empires/countries did not do or think of at the time.

When I think of someone who was a charismatic leader, I typically think of Martin Luther King. What he was able to do before he got assassinated changed the way the world operates. Like many others he stood up for what he believed in, which inspired many others to stand up for what they believe in. Just last month, a kid in Texas was denied access to his school because his hair was not properly cut, (he has dreads that go past his ears). He has since appeared on Ellen and has been invited to the Oscars, but this just shows how young people stand up for what they think is right, and I can't help but think that wouldn't be inspired by Martin Luther King. Secondly, I think rational-legal authority is generally more stable than charismatic because rational authority is a form of leadership in which the authority of an organization is largely tied to legal rationality, legal legitimacy and bureaucracy. Charismatic authority is more of following a person because they have good ideas and morals, but no real rhyme or reason for why they're ruling a country, you just like them. Typically that person shows heroism or exemplary character which makes people more attached to them.

If a society approves of the power in a certain way, then I do think it is a legitimate power, as long as the citizens of that country aren't brainwashed by a leader who prevents them from thinking another way. If power is being misused, like the bullying example above, then this idea of legitimate authority is not correct because the victim in that situation (which would be society) is being threatened by a higher power.

These types of societies are usually run by dictator's hiding the truth of their country. For example, North Korea, specifically Pyongyang, appears as a beautiful city with tall buildings and very clean streets. However most of those buildings are just for show, so societies like this are often the worst in the world. I have looked very deeply into North Korean lifestyles' and it is fascinating. Some of the local markets there are just designed for tourists to make it look like the country has food and isn't starving their people. There are numerous concentration camps in the country that are unreported and if any tourist is caught filming events that would negatively affect the view of North Korea society, they are asked to delete it. There are also many interviews with North Korean college students who have never heard of pop music or western film s because internet access isn't allowed there. These types of society only benefit the leader and not the country as a whole.