I think that blogging started off as a great idea, but as the semester got going, it lost its effect. The part that I found the most annoying was trying to respond to two blogs each weeks, especially because most people didn't blog, or didn't blog until 11PM on Sunday. I think that if you continue to have people respond to blogs, you should make the blogs due on Saturday and have the responses due on Sunday... that way people can get their responses in.
I think that blogging was a good alternative to a paper. For one, it gave us a number of chances to think about questions that may be on an exam. It was also nice because it took only a couple of hours a week, rather than a huge midterm paper that would take up much more time. Overall, I think blogging was a good experience.
I think that I deserve an A. For one, I am one of very few people who blogged on time every week. In addition, I responded to two blogs every week. I put a lot of thought into my blogs, and connected articles and pictures to almost every single blog. I tried to make my blogs interesting so that other people could respond to them, and I think for the most part people responded to mine.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Will this be the year?!?!
Why don't young adults vote? It seems so peculiar to me that they are often the first one's to open up their mouths to complain about stuff, but they are the last ones to go vote on election day. I CONSTANTLY hear people complaining about the high cost of tuition, the high cost of books, blah, blah, blah... but come election day, is anything done? No. People my age are too lazy to get to the polls, so why would the candidates for ANY office listen to them? Not only do we not get out and vote, but we also don't make campaign contributions... neither time nor money.
As the article points out, our age COULD be the swing vote. We could finally get a candidate willing to listen to us, but we have to get out and vote. The article says 60 percent of people our age think we are headed in the wrong direction with the war in Iraq. Our age group is also the one's FIGHTING in Iraq. If we want anything changed, it is simple, make them listen.
Unfortunately, no matter how much people like me preach, no matter how many people you try to get to register early and remind to vote, less than 50 percent of people under 30 will vote in 2008. Could this finally be the year that we wake up? Probably not, but we can at least hold out hope.
As the article points out, our age COULD be the swing vote. We could finally get a candidate willing to listen to us, but we have to get out and vote. The article says 60 percent of people our age think we are headed in the wrong direction with the war in Iraq. Our age group is also the one's FIGHTING in Iraq. If we want anything changed, it is simple, make them listen.
Unfortunately, no matter how much people like me preach, no matter how many people you try to get to register early and remind to vote, less than 50 percent of people under 30 will vote in 2008. Could this finally be the year that we wake up? Probably not, but we can at least hold out hope.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Critical Eras
A critical era occurs when a stable era is interupted by a critical election, one that arouses unusual intensity and interest and that changes voting patterns substantially, followed by another stable era. According to "Why Parties" by John H. Aldrich, the first critical period occurred in 1790 with the formation of the first parties (Aldrich 279). The most recent critical period occurred in the 1960s with the political realignment of southern blacks to the democratic party. However, many people believe that the 1990s was also a critical era, and that the 1994 election was the critical election. After reading the attatched article by Aldrich, I would agree.
As we discussed in class, some key elements of a critical era are elite generational transitions, a change in public belief and action (in particular party identification), and changing relations between the people and the elites. The candidates in the 1990s went from the World War II veteran to the Vietnam veteran. Instead of a glorified war hero, dissenters and those who oppossed the conflict rose as the elite candidates. Party identification was marked by stronger partisan ties, a reduction in split ticketing, and a trend of the public being able to tell distinct differences in the two parties. In addition, as Aldrich points out, incumbency was not as strong as an advantage as it had been since the 1960s. The relationship between the public and the elites changed drastically due TV advertising and, most importantly, the internet. Candidates could now reach the public easier and did not depend on the help of the party as much. In addition, partisan realignment was seen with the 1994 Republican take over of the house. After reading Aldrich's article, it is obvious to me that the 1990s was indeed a critical era, though it may not have been as dramatic of a era as the 1960s.
I also think that we are in a stable era. I could not find any articles on this, so I'm going to go off of my own observations and hope that feedback from others will correct me if I'm wrong. The candidates, as we saw in the 2004 election, are still the Vetenam vets... who could forget all of the mudslinging about that?!?! Partisan ties remain strong, and are on a rise. People can still tell distinct differences between the two parties, and there have not been any major realignments. One problem with my theory that this is a stable era would be the 2006 election when the Republicans lost Congress to the Democrats. However, I still think that there is overwhelming support for us being in a stable era. However, I do know that this next election will be very competitive and it may end up being the critical election for this era.
As we discussed in class, some key elements of a critical era are elite generational transitions, a change in public belief and action (in particular party identification), and changing relations between the people and the elites. The candidates in the 1990s went from the World War II veteran to the Vietnam veteran. Instead of a glorified war hero, dissenters and those who oppossed the conflict rose as the elite candidates. Party identification was marked by stronger partisan ties, a reduction in split ticketing, and a trend of the public being able to tell distinct differences in the two parties. In addition, as Aldrich points out, incumbency was not as strong as an advantage as it had been since the 1960s. The relationship between the public and the elites changed drastically due TV advertising and, most importantly, the internet. Candidates could now reach the public easier and did not depend on the help of the party as much. In addition, partisan realignment was seen with the 1994 Republican take over of the house. After reading Aldrich's article, it is obvious to me that the 1990s was indeed a critical era, though it may not have been as dramatic of a era as the 1960s.
I also think that we are in a stable era. I could not find any articles on this, so I'm going to go off of my own observations and hope that feedback from others will correct me if I'm wrong. The candidates, as we saw in the 2004 election, are still the Vetenam vets... who could forget all of the mudslinging about that?!?! Partisan ties remain strong, and are on a rise. People can still tell distinct differences between the two parties, and there have not been any major realignments. One problem with my theory that this is a stable era would be the 2006 election when the Republicans lost Congress to the Democrats. However, I still think that there is overwhelming support for us being in a stable era. However, I do know that this next election will be very competitive and it may end up being the critical election for this era.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)