GT Group 1

In "The Chronicle of Higher Education" Eric Hoover goes over the results of some surveys that took place in colleges. Through the survey's he learned that only a small percent of students actually study the recommended 25 hours a week in college. This totally makes sense since lot of students only need to study in certain subjects. To be in college, you had to have some skills of studying and learning material before entering into the college you are at. Those skills can help you learn some material faster than others. So when you are only taking a small number of hours (say 13-15) and there is only one or two classes that you have trouble learning, then you don't need to spend countless numbers of hours studying. Especially if you can get help in the subjects giving you trouble, such as tutoring or a study group, then the amount of time you need to study to get a full comprehension of what you are going over should not be that tedious. If you spend a couple of hours a day studying the subjects that are giving you a hard time then you should not really need to study 25 hours a week; you should be able to get a full comprehension of what you are doing. Furthermore from that article it indicates that seniors do more community service work than freshmen. This is easily understood because most freshmen are clueless as to how to go about doing community service work and might be scared to go particapate in some of the activities that do it. Also they need to get a feel for college and the environment they are working in, so they might not have enough time to go out and do service work until they feel they have totally adapted to college life.

In the Nancy Pelosi film "Journeys with George," then governor George W. Bush is portrayed as a normal person going for something that he wants pretty bad. During the film, Pelosi seems to become come friends with the soon to be president and though this friendship is able to show a side of Bush that citizens normally don't get to see. Another major factor with the film is the way Pelosi acts, she is having fun with it and in turn we are able to see just how the president acts when being asked silly questions and when people need his help. By saying "when people need his help" I'm refering to times such as when Pelosi got alienated after accidently releasing the survey of who was winning the election that she took of all the press on Bush's campaign. After that none of her friends or allies that she had created on the campaign trail were talking to her, and it took president Bush to actually make her part of the pack again. The press is supposed to be savages that don't care about who they hurt as long as they get their story; from this documentary you get the feeling that Bush understands what the press has to do and how he needs to act around them so that they can make him sound good to the American people. Bush acts good to the press so maybe they too will write good things about him. The movie shows just how fun and caring the president can actually be and does a real good job at putting a character and a personality to the president. It's good to know that even during such stressful and sleepless times as an election, that President Bush can still know how to lighten the mood and have a pretty good time.

In "Frist's Fury Over Filibusters" the Senate Majority leader Bill Frist seems to be getting angered about something stupid. To get a position like the Senate Majority leader, Frist should have been informed enough to know that filibusters have been used by people in the senate forever. Filibusters are a way to allow parties in the government to create time to keep something from occuring so they can find a way to actually stop it from occuring. For Frist to actually want to come up with a piece of legislature to end filibusters forever is insane. Frists says that "This filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority," refering to a filibuster by the democrats that would keep all corrupt, incompetent or ideologically extreme nominees for federal judgeships. Filibusters are what allow the Democratic Party a say in who becomes a judge. Since there is a Republican as president, he has the ability to put pretty much who ever he wants into the position of Supreme Court Judges. If the candidate is a bad one, shouldn't the Democrats have a right to try and stop it from occurring. Filibusters give politicans the right and the ability to stand up to the greater party at the time and actually have a say in what is occurring in the government at that time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16756-2004Nov27.html?sub=AR

Many political analysts would say that this election is a political realignment election. This means that power and public opinion has shifted to the views of one party. This is true only to an extent. Republicans do now contorl the House and Senate both, and in that respect it is a political realignment, but as far as public opinion goes, the margin of victory was very small for Bush. If the war in Iraq and on terror is such a realigning issue, why was this margin of victory so small? It should've been much greater than the one or two percent that it was. In total, more people turned out for this election than ever. Fourty five percent of the Republican party came out compared to just thirty five percent in 2000. Now, referring to Republican dominance, how long will this last? Well it is thought that if they continue playing the religion and terrorism card, their domincance could last for an undetermined amount of time. In other words, a long time. Being that republicans are in a strong position of power right now, they have many opportunities and ways to maximize their time in power. They may be able to find a way to elude the pendulum that is politics. They have the upper hand on many political issues, as demonstrated by this most recent election, whether or not by a small margin. They now control the House and the Senate, and soon Bush will be able to add some justices to the supreme court who will agree with his policies, being that many of the current justices are ill or very old. As far as this election being a realignment election, I think it could be if Republicans would just refine their methods a little bit and increase their margin of victory in the next election. Only then could the government and public opinion be controlled completely by the Republicans.

In the article "Bush follows vice presidential debate with sharp critique of Kerry" Bush continues to try and not only criticize his opponent, but he also makes excuses for his weaknesses that his opponent points out. From this article I got the feeling that there is a lot of accusations being made by each administration toward there opponents on making everything they have done look bad. From the title you get a feeling that the article will go in detail and explain how Bush criticizes Kerry and Edwards; but instead it talks about how both sides are criticizing each other and how the Vice Presidential debate went.
On the subject of the Vice Presidential debate, the criticism that Edwards throws at Cheney is ridiculous. Edwards says that "One thing that's very clear is that a long resume does not equal good judgment," and while that may be partly true, a long resume does mean experience and knowledge about what is occurring in the government and gives Cheney first hand experience with how to deal with a lot of situations. Another thing Edwards and the Democratic Party tries to throw at Cheney is the fact that he has met Edwards before even after Cheney said that he had never met Edwards before the debate they had. The meeting they are referring to is a handshake the two men had four years before; for a man like Cheney to remember every little handshake he makes every year is ridiculous, that does not count as an actually meeting, it is just a brief encounter. If either party wants to actually prove how the other party has failed they need to stick to specific incidents on matters that matter, not by showing that something said by one of them that no one really cared about in the first place was actually false by something as brief as a handshake.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Poker_Playing_Teens.html?UrAuth=aN`NUOaN\UbTTUWUXUUUZTYU_UWU_U]UZU\UcUcTYWVVZV

It seems like the card game of poker is a new thing to the for high school teens. I am not surprise at all because the game of poker is everywhere especially on television. Celebrities and professional poker players are playing the game of texas hold’em and other form of the game poker on television like on the big channel like ESPN, the Travel Channel, and many other channels. There are several local tournaments going on like at bars, restaurants, and several other gathering places. I know for sure that Barnacles (the bar and grill) have tournaments on Tuesday’s, Wednesday’s and Thursday’s. It is no wonder that teens are playing this game. I know that several of my friends play a friendly game of texas hold’em poker every Saturday night. I admit that I get sucked into playing because it looks fun and looks like there is no harm of playing. But the truth is, there is downside to this game. This type of game can lead these teens to a gambling problem in their later years. Parents say that they would rather see their kids playing poker than smoking pot, because it gives them a chance to beat athletes in a fair game and also to improve their math skills. I think that poker is a great way for teens to get away from the stressful homework, having a good time with their friends, and earning a little money for snacks. I also believe that the game of poker should be control by their parents because the betting can get out of control among the teens and violence can be unleashed if it is a high betting poker games. Poker is a great game to get to know people, and it is a great form of entertainment when you and your friends are bored.

While reading an article about current events in Iraq, I realized that in all of the chaos of the election and school work, I have been largely out of touch with what is happening in Iraq. When wrapped up in studying, it is easy to forget how terrible things still are there. It is obviously good, then, that I am leisurely reviewing current events for my English class. The whole situation seems unreal to me, like it is not really happening, because I have purposely tried to avoid the war since the news of the matter is always terribly about death.

The New York Times article, “Amid Relative Calm, Iraqis React to Calls for Election Delay,” highlights the deaths occurring in Iraq, such as four corpses that were found shot in the head with their feet bound by insurgents. With all of the dead bodies in Iraq in mind, this Thanksgiving I am thankful that I am not there. It is great to hear that the American soldiers who are there are making progress. Apparently, Saturday American and Iraq forces raided a building finding a 55-gallon drum of materials for assembling bombs. This bit of positive accomplishment seems to somehow balance out the overall negativity of what is reported to be going on in Iraq. It is especially nice to hear that Iraq forces accompanied Americans during this triumph.

The article is also about whether or not the election should be postponed for six months, as several major groups are in favor of. The author quotes people who believe that delaying the election would be much worse than holding it in January, as planned, but he fails to mention why these people, such as Iraq’s deputy prime minister, believe the election should not be delayed. The author explains why a delayed election would be beneficial, so I am curious why they should not delay the election if a delay would allow more people to vote and perhaps develop a more informed decision. Maybe this is common knowledge that I am simply unaware of, but I think the author should offer an opposing viewpoint, since he focuses only on why people are in favor of a delay.

In the article, “Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels,” Steven Waldmen made an interesting remark about conservatives’ historical viewpoints of civil rights and women’s rights. He said, “Liberals believe that historically red state conservatives were on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle (first as conservative Democrats and then as Republicans) and that they opposed much of the campaign for equal rights for women that enabled Condoleezza Rice to be National Security Advisor and Sandra Day O'Connor to be on the Supreme Court.” It is disappointing that people, particularly conservatives, have not learned the dangers and errors of being close minded. Conservatives wrongfully opposed civil rights and women’s rights in the past, and now they resist gay rights because they are afraid of anything new and different, which they consider outrageous. I do understand why conservatives are passionate about certain issues. I am much more liberal now, but I grew up extremely religious and conservative. I once thought that it was absolutely wrong to be gay because it was a sin, and I was also against abortion. Similarly, religious people supported segregation in the past, but now Christians believe that a black man and white man should be treated equally. Obviously, we have since then realized that our previous failure to embrace people who are different was ignorant. It is now considered a sin to be racist. I wish Conservatives would realize that their current failure to accept all people is as immoral now as it was in the past.

When I first read the article, “The Faith Factor,” by Barbara Ehrenreich, I, like Clara, felt a bit confused about the author’s viewpoint. I was not sure whether she was conservative or liberal. It seemed to me, at first, like Ms. Ehrenreich was completely bashing the church, but then I thought that she started proclaiming Jesus’ name and saying that everyone should to be a Christian. Then I reread the article and realized she is a liberal and Democrat after all. She is just saying that the Democrats need to act like ancient Christians in the sense that Democrats are also a minority and need to stand up for what they believe in. The author really exaggerates the roll of the church, and makes Christians almost seem like criminals. She says that Christians are helping a criminal continue his bloody work. She even says that the church is a great place for unemployed people to hang out and for drunks to get booze money. “Got a drinking problem, a vicious spouse, a wayward child, a bill due? Find a church.” This seems a little ridiculous to me. I don’t think that church is a popular form of welfare. In my opinion, Christianity is harmless, and the church has no intention of supporting criminals. Religion is good for people. However, I do think extreme conservatives/religious people can be scary in political positions because of certain moral views that they usually have, so I agree that democrats should stand strong.

I got the same impressions that Chris got, that the author seems certain of his opinions. He spells out how the Democratic Party screwed up, beginning with their first mistake, collaborating on tax-cuts. It is great that he feels as though he knows exactly why people voted the way that they did, but I do not find the author, Andrew Arato, very credible. I am sure he probably is, but as far as I can tell, there is little evidence to suggest that the he is indeed trustworthy. I do agree with a couple of his ideas though. Mr. Arato says, “Kerry could not offer concrete proposals that would simultaneously cut the deficit and provide much needed new programs.” I do believe that this was a major factor in the election. Even if a candidate offers plans that are excellent, the plans will be of no assistance if we do not have the necessary funds to put the plans into action. The Democrats did not have the means to offer new programs. Any time a plan was spoken of, voters, including myself, were left to wonder how it could ever be financially possible. Unfortunately, the government’s recent spending was not Kerry’s blunder, but it still greatly impacted his chance in the election. Right before the election I definitely remember hearing everyone saying, “The candidates always speak of their plans so vaguely. We need to know the details.” I think voters did want Kerry to construct some sort of plan for Iraqi disengagement, and that more specific plans, in general, would have helped either candidate win the election.

I support the use of filibusters used as intended. I am wondering how many people in the Senate actually support Mr. Grist’s opinion that "one way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominations must end.” I think the important thing to remember is that this tactic is not employed unless a number of people are strongly against a nominee, and in that case I think that the voting should be delayed, and the nominee should be reconsidered. The voice of the minority should not always be overpowered. If the Senate made this tactic unconstitutional I do believe that they would regret it some day. Filibusters have been used against “military adventurers and war profiteers,” and there is no reason why the strategy will not continue to benefit our country. I think it is funny that Bill Grist is threatening to use “the nuclear option.” What is “the nuclear option?” Not scary. In response to something Clara said: it is troubling that our nation’s political leaders often have such religious agendas. It is dangerous to mix religion into key decisions, like war. Once you have that, “I am good. I am doing this for my religion,” mentality, you will do anything, like crazy religious suicidal bombers in other countries. I went of on a tangent, but anyhow, there is no reason why Grist should be scared of the minority, or threatening them. Grist needs to take everyone’s opinions into consideration. The Senate is supposed to be about compromise, not your own selfish endeavors.

I think that the amount of time this author believes students to be studying is representative of most students, but not Georgia Tech students. The majority of colleges, especially other public colleges in Georgia, are not as challenging, so the students do not have to study as much. I have friends that go to Georgia State that say it is basically like high school, and I do not feel at all like my school resembles high school (thank God!). I know quite a few college students that do decent in school, but don’t have to study 25 hours a week. I, on the other hand, do study at least 25 hours a week, and I still feel like I should be focusing on school more. I am still not doing as well as I would like to be doing, mostly in calculus. Although, I feel confident that if I went to the college down the street I would making all excellent grades, and be one of the best students again. This article tells me that I’m in the 11% of students that actually have to study at least 25 hours a week. It’s depressing in a sense, but I know that I’m getting a good education, and that I’ll probably be more prepared for challenging things to come than the students that were not challenged as much at their colleges. I agree with the headline, “Undergraduates study much less than professors expect.” It seems that my profs certainly do expect more than I can handle, or find time to accomplish.

I have continued to think about an earlier post I that I wrote about voting. I mentioned that I did not really feel comfortable voting for either Bush or Kerry when I went to the polls. This is primarily because as soon as I finished voting for Kerry, I went home and finished my English paper about nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. I full heartedly disagree with Kerry's plan to stop a nuclear waste repository from being constructed at Yucca Mountain. During the election I felt like I was required to weigh this issue (consolidating our nation's radioactive waste) against other important issues (stem cell research, ect.), and ultimately decide which was more important to me, which is a hard choice to make. I definitely felt like I had to vote (not that I didn't want to) because I would be a bad citizen and an ungrateful American if I did not exercise my freedom of choice. Now, I continue to feel disappointed in myself, in a way, because I had to choose to vote for someone, even though I hate the fact that he is against burying nuclear waste. Honestly, it is disgusting to me that Kerry let his opinion of what should be done with our country's dangerous nuclear waste be determined by what he hoped would win Nevada's votes. He said that if he were elected he would absolutely stop the Yucca Mountain project, and hire scientists to find the best way to store the radioactive waste that is vulnerably sitting inappropriately all over the country (138 sites). Scientist found the best site (Yucca Mountain) and the best way to store the waste (geological disposal) over 20 years ago, and they have not found a better site yet. Nuclear industry officials are disapproving of Kerry's policy, and even Nevada voted for Bush overall. $9 billion dollars and decades of research have gone into this project, and Kerry wants to kill it instead of help fund, and properly design it. I guess it might be good (in this instance) that Bush is still president after all.

Suggestions have been made that college students don't work hard enough. College professors suggest that students should study atleast twenty five hours a week in order to succeed. I think they are basing that number on when they were in college, and how much studying they did. A survey was conducted and said that students generally study ten hours a week, yet stil make good grades. Maybe times have changed, and maybe students now are smarter than students several years ago. Just a thought. Personally, I would say i study between ten and fifteen hours a week. However, this school is very difficult for me, so I still do bad. This leads me to two conclusions. Either I'm studying too little, even though others study less and do better, or the way I'm studying doesn't work. The second conclusion could be a likely reason for why students do better with less studying now then years past. After all, we now have many new tools at our disposal, like the internet, calculators, computers, many other things as well. I think this helps kids get more studying done in a shorter amount of time. The survey goes on to say that students who are involved in campus activities do better. This is true to a degree. You can be so involved that it takes all your time and your grades suffer because of lack of studying, or you can do just enough to force yourself to manage your time better, and not procrastinate. Also, being involved in campus activities can also help keep your interest in school and not become un-motivated. For example, if you like cars, join GT Motorports. This way you will be more motivated to succeed and to do well in school, so you can stick with the club. There are probably other factors in the way students succeed and how they get good grades, but these are clearly two of the biggest differences between when professors went to school and today.

Arato has some interesting views in this article. He lays out the exact reasons why the Democrats lost the election. My problem is this is where does he get these ideas from? He says things like "the first mistake they made..." then goes on to list a couple others. They way he words this article it is like his reasons are the ONLY reasons that they lost. He goes on to say that the primary reason they lost the election was the fact that they did not support a war in Iraq, or atleast Kerry and Edwards didn't. This is only partially accurate. This contributed to them losing not because they didn't support a war, but because they kept changing their story about what they supported. He (Kerry) mislead people often by coming out with different statements and ideas and policies nearly every month. There is an anti-Kerry website that puts all of his statements together back to back, and people can really see that they clearly contridict each other. Another reason Arato mentions is the taxing situation in this country. In order for the Democrats policies (education, welfare, social security, etc...) they would need to raise taxes, but with the Republicans proposing a tax cut, the "very reasonable" idea of raising taxes was out of the question for Democrats, making many of their plans obsolete. In my opinion Arato is correct on this. Who would vote for a plan when they knew no one could pay for it? I think in the long run, it was clear to many voters that Bush was a better candidate because Kerry clearly wasn't sure what he wanted to do, or how he was going to do it, while Bush had experience and had a clear plan that he was going to stick with. However, had Kerry had a plan laid out saying exactly how he was going to do things, even a vague plan at that, the election in 2004 might have gone very differently. The thing I like about this article is that for the most part, it is very well laid out, provides background information about things before it dives into them really deeply, and is fairly simple to understand, even if you have limited political knowledge.

I don’t know that I consider all Republicans to be inbred or sex-obsessed. (Yokels, well that’s another story—just kidding.) In fact I disagree with many of the comparisons that Mr. Waldman makes between liberals and conservatives. Why would conservatives be sex-obsessed? They are anti-abortion and totally Bible-belt. Maybe he meant gender obsessed. That I can agree with. I really think that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are very legitimate and are rooted not in name-calling but in convictions and values. Republicans and Democrats don’t get along as such not because of their political labels but because of differences in their lifestyles. A personal example of mine regards my best friend Christina. We were raised in very different ways (she, on following the Bible, and I, on composting and being tolerant--hehe) and recently, whether it is correlated with the election or not, we just don’t like to hang out. I don’t think of her as a Republican; I just don’t like her lifestyle and I don’t agree with her basic value system about gays and abortion and such and it affects the way I think of her as a whole, and she of me. It doesn’t matter who we wanted to win the election, although our differing political preferences do rather embody our value systems. And my refusing to mail her repulsive absentee ballot was perhaps the last time we communicated. But anyway. I think Mr. Waldman made a lot of generalizations that are just as false as the ones he attempted to refute. Not all liberals are as “moral” as all conservatives are, and not all conservatives are as “smart” as all liberals are.

This article made a lot of sense to me in some ways, but it was a bit too harsh toward everyone. In the first paragraph, Arato lists a series of contrasts between the Republican party and the Democratic party. Some of the pairs of words are quite harsh toward the Republicans, such as, well, all of the contrasts. “Nation vs. democracy; imperial aspiration vs. the rule of law; rhetoric vs. rationality; incarnation vs. persuasion; will vs. judgment; symbolism vs. interest” and the list goes on. I’m not sure that anyone of conservative views would be persuaded into anything by this article, but persuasion was probably not Mr. Arato’s point. He tried to rationalize why the Democrats lost the presidential election this November, and in doing this he was not speaking to the Republicans about how they’re just sorry people—instead, he seemed to be addressing the Democratic party as a whole about how they screwed up their chances in the election. Arato seemed to take pity on the Republicans, in fact. At the end of the article, Arato expresses his sadness that the poor, misled people who voted for Bush were less at fault for the terrible outcome of this election than the Democrats, who simply did not take advantage of the chances they had to show the conservatives the light. Maybe I am just avoiding self-incrimination, but I disagree. The Dems did their best. It would have been beneficial for Kerry to have voted against war and then voted for the funding, but that is now in the past. Americans are divided almost neatly in half, I think, because of the issues involved in the election—not so much because of political strategy.

For a little while when I first read this article, I had trouble deducing which side Ms. Ehrenreich was on. The title, for one, screams Conservative. She says the Democrats’ recent action has been “repulsive”. The Democrats don’t understand how out of touch they are with the religious transformation of America. Something about the Great Revival and then that churches offer not only eternal salvation but also material assistance. But then, what’s this? Churches offer lunches where carwash owners and bank loan officers get together to trade business cards and joke about Democrats and gays? And then my feelings changed. She’s liberal. I reread the article and it made much more sense, kind of like Fight Club. Every time you watch it, something else makes better sense. But anyway. I had never thought about repulsively conservative evangelicals that way before but I can see that Ms. Ehrenreich is correct. Their faith is used to their advantage—to get food, get bills paid, and the most typical, trading business cards. It’s blasphemous, really. If the Church were what the Bible implies it should be—humble and the scum of the earth, people whose treasure is in Heaven—it would be interesting to see how many of these evangelicals would attend services, or even associate themselves with Christianity. But this is beside the point. Conservative evangelical churches take programs and funding away from non-Christian poor people. This would be great if everyone were Christians, but as it is, it’s not acceptable. Ms. Ehrenreich says we are on a downward spiral to theocracy. If the Democrats don’t do anything about it, I say she’s right.

Aren’t judges supposed to be nonpartisan? It really is unfortunate that our country is having trouble appointing judges to the Supreme Court because of differences between the Democrats and the GOP. Judges are basically supposed to read the Constitution and make decisions about important stuff. Those decisions are supposed to be based not on their personal beliefs but on what the Constitution says is correct. For instance, the Constitution says there should be a separation between church and state. If an issue arises such that a law against it or for it is based on religious ideals, the judges should decide according to the Constitution, not their religion, whatever it may be. In the case of the Republicans, it’s rather clear what that religion is. Yes, I am a Democrat, and therefore biased, but I feel like the Republicans are probably nominating a whole bunch of conservative Baptists (or the court’s equivalent) to be on our Supreme Court, so as to forward their political agenda of religion-based bans. Abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research are three that come to mind. Of course, if the states were to vote that there be an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as a union between “a man and a woman”, then the Supreme Court would have to judge accordingly. And all of the gay couples in America would just have to deal with not being able to see their loved ones in the hospital, and live without the Social Security checks of the partner they’d lived with until he or she died. But for now, let the Democrats filibuster.

This is one of the high moments of the class when we get to compare satire to real life events. It gave a whole new prospective on the election and tells in some truth what is going on in people heads about the election. Although it took things to the extreme it also shows how somethings promoting the election are also provocative. Like the Puff Daddy add vote or die. What is he trying to say and why is it put in such a violent tone. When people are told to do something they wont likely do it. South Park shows some good examples of this. So I actually support the idea of watching South Park about the election was a good idea and not just for a good laugh.

the gretest thing about this particular show is it says what people are thinking, but they wont say it. Like the debate and what happened. Everyone that watched it had to have some "What just happened" moments during the debate. Like the canidates thanking the people for being their and wasting some of the time they have over a particular subject. Also the erie pause that Bush had in the debate. They just made a joke about it and let everyonre else know they realized it to. At last at the end, it sort of encouraged voting for the thing or person you want to no matter what. This was extremely more positve the Puff Daddy way to vote. Had some positve without even trying to force it on people.

Let's give a round of applause to Chuck for making our English class based on politics and the election. He made a very good decision and took advantage of the fact that we were to have a presidential election this year. I don't see why there aren't more classes focused on the same thing. Throughout high school I never learned very much about the entire election process and never went into depth or discussed anything about it. After this semester, I doubt I'll have a class that focuses on politics again (except for maybe a History class, which most likely would not discuss election issues anyway). I feel lucky to have had the opportunity to learn more about politics and the way our country runs elections in English class, otherwise I might have always been confused. I'm not just brown-nosing here either ... I thought that the class would be a complete bore and that I would hate it just because it was based on politics. As the weeks went on, however, I found myself enjoying the topics we discussed and I was glad to know a little more of what was going on in the world. I'm curious about how this class would work when we're not in the election season, which is more often than not. Would students learn as much without being able to flip on the tv and recognize something that you learned in class? Once again, I feel lucky to have had this class during this semester. Thanks Chuck!

When Dr. Tryon was introducing the movie and mentioned that it was created by a "registered Democrat," the first thing that popped into my mind was Fahrenheit 911. Was Dr. Tryon really going to show such a one-sided film in class? My first thoughts were all wrong. While I was expecting a very biased film that was going to make Bush look like the bad guy, the footage the movie showed did not work in any way to deliberately make Bush look like an idiot. I was actually very entertained and wish I could have seen more. It's not everyday that you get to see Bush acting like he does behind the curtains, and when you do, it's interesting to see how he really acts. Alexandra Pelosi was very clear about what was going on in the documentary and although she did admit that she did not agree with then Senator Bush, she was very respectful about it. I like how, even though she is against Bush, she includes footage that shows how Bush is a good man, such as the time where he comforted her after her unofficial poll was leaked to the press. Personally, I would like to see a documentary on every candidate's campaign or something similar so I have more of an idea of what that candidate is like in person, not just on stage reciting something that somebody else wrote. After seeing this, I feel a little more comfortable with the divide between Republicans and Democrats and that it is possible for the two parties to get along and play nice, even if they don't always agree. Hoorah for Alexandra Pelosi, even if she is a registered Democrat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50926-2004Nov15.html


This article is quite interesting because several of Bush’s officials are resigning. The secretary of state Colin Powell plans to resign on Monday; and he is not the only one announcing resignation of office. Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige is going to announce his resignation also. Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman, and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, these officials will be leaving soon. Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans already left office. All of these officials leaving at the beginning of Bush’s second term cannot be good. All of these departures are going to cause great changes for President Bush and for his administration. I wonder who will take over these openings? The decisions of picking the new administration officials will greatly affect how Bush’s agenda will turn out; and Bush is supposedly to have the most ambitious agenda in 2005 than any other years. I wonder why all of these officials are leaving? Are they leaving because of Bush’s decisions or are they leaving because they believe their time are up? I know for sure that the new cabinet members will have their own agenda, and their agendas will affect Bush’s agenda. The next four years will be quite interesting for the people in Washington D.C. and the people in America because these resignations will start more resignations to happen, so the new people will be coming in, and the old ones will be coming out for the Bush’s administrations. Bush’s Cabinet was quite a diverse one too. Will Bush pick his new officials that will allow his cabinet to be diverse? We just have to wait and see what is going to happen at D.C.?

This was an interesting movie. I have seen that 'home movie' style before, it is typically very affective. It gives that "this wasn't set up" feel to the whole thing. However I do not think this movie was supposed to be a critique of George W Bush or the Republican party. I think this was a documentary that did what it was supposed to do, document. It told us what the reporter (specifically those reporters in the Pact) saw and did. I believe many of us feel that most reporters traveling with the candidate get a whole lot of news and that those reporters just don't report it for some reason. This film shows us that this notion is wrong. The reporters traveling with the candidate are often no better off than the average citizen when it comes to knowing whats going on.
It gave us a taste of what the process must be like for the candidates. Travel, arrive, wave, shake hands, stump speech, wave, shake some hands, wave some more, on the plane/bus for some more traveling. There isn't much else to it. The film also pointed out some dark little points about these campaigns. For example the people that go to the rallies are completely insane. They sit in wait for some guy 'they like because he's a great leader' in subzero temperatures just so they can 'get some of their Bush'. I found hilarious that those lovely handmade signs you see in the background on TV when a candidate is giving his speech are actually made by the party and handed out during the rally. I also found it terrifying that when Alexandra sarcastically asked a two year old who couldn't speak "and what party are you with" the father puppets the innocent "say 'I'm a Republican'". I'm sure Democrats do that too. It makes me feel that eventually whichever party breeds more while lead the country in the future. And honestly I don't want many of these people to breed.
Anyway, despite my less than objective observations and statements I believe the film did a good job. I would recommend it to every Republican just so they can see themselves from a "not necessarily liberal" persepective.

At the beginning of the semester, when I learned that my English class was going to revolve around politics and that I was not required to read any books, I must admit, I was a bit dissatisfied. This was simply because I had grown accustomed to traditional English classes. I had never been a fan of politics, mostly since I had never known much about politics. Basically, I thought that I was not too fond of politics because the only major issues that I knew about were corrupt, like Nixon. I guess I kind of had this general idea that the government is twisted in many ways or not as it should be.

As the semester progressed, I realized that this type of political based English class has been extremely beneficial for me. I certainly needed to learn a few things about what is going on in the world today, specifically in the election. Before English 1101, I knew that I wanted to vote, since it would be my first chance, but I had absolutely no idea of who to vote for, or why.

Before, I could not really hold an intelligent conversation about Bush/Kerry’s policies, for instance, but now am familiar with many key issues. I feel much more involved with current events. The times that I have been working on things for English class have sadly been the only times that I have focused on the news lately. I am glad that Chuck has encouraged us to study articles related to the election.

Ok, so from this movie I have determined that George Bush makes the worst jokes ever told in the history of the world, part one AND two. More importantly though, it has given me a different perspective of looking at him. From all the publicity he gets on TV, and seeing him in his serious mode all the time, it really makes a person see him as a boring kind of person. Seeing this video has allowed us to see a different side of him, and I think he acted differently than many of us expected him to act. Throught the video, he never lost his temper, he made many jokes (they still count even if they were terrible), and he was clearly a hard worker. Even after he screwed up one of his speeches really badly, he didn't let it get to him, he just made it funny and laughed with everyone else. I think that shows true character. It also shows that in office, he can make mistakes and not get beaten down by them, or any criticism that others might have of him because of those mistakes. Also, instead of making the media his enemy, he made them his friends. He Flew on the same plane as them during his campaign, he took the time to meet and talk to them, and he even became some of their friends. All these different things that he showed in this video change my opinion of him for the better. I percieve him as a good hearted person, and someone with a strong will. As far as showing these types of videos in class, it was a good idea. It lets students see their leaders in a different light, a light that isn't the spotlight. It lets us see how they act as people, not as politicians. Showing more videos like this would be beneficial to students in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/politics/10oil.html?oref=login

This article scares me. It is definitely disturbing that United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, would avoid serious accusations of fraud. Of course, maybe this is because he is stubborn and has nothing to hide, and maybe this is blown out of proportion, but it certainly seems like Mr. Annan has something to hide. The UN is apparently stopping the Senate from retrieving documents from a service provider, Lloyd’s Register, that examined things purchased by Iraq. Obviously, when people refuse harmless documents it is almost always because they are concealing evidence.

Kofi Annan is also said to be preventing investigators from interviewing United Nations officials. The Senate would like to interview 11 officials, including Benon Sevan. What is he hiding? Investigators believe, “Mr. Sevan might have received oil allocations from Saddam Hussein.” The Senate is worried that the UN is skilled in concealing what is necessary while revealing only positive records.

I have always known that our government is corrupt, but it is still extremely bothersome. It is hard to believe that our world leaders are involved in illegitimate activities, but you know at least some of them are. Politics are undoubtedly twisted. People are so consumed by money/power that they would actually have relations with Saddam Hussein!

I seriously hope the truth prevails, but the sad thing is, judging by my experiences thus far in life, the bad guy usually gets away with the crime, unpunished. This article makes me wonder how much corruption exists within the government today. It makes me sick.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching “South Park” in class on a rainy Thursday. I didn’t have my paper, which was due, I woke up late, and then traffic was so bad that I was late to class. Anyhow, the show was a great relief after a restless night, and the perfect conclusion for the election.

Immediately, and throughout the episode, Peta was characterized negatively. The creators of “South Park” initially highlighted the fact that it’s absurd to make small children change an innocent school mascot because it is an animal. Have people actually tried to do this? The children weren’t actually hurting or even handling a live animal; they were almost glorifying it by using it as the school symbol. Then, the Peta portrayal really gets gruesome when we see their living quarters. It’s beyond disturbing that the Peta characters are having sex with animals. I’m willing to bet that the Peta people are upset about the episode. It was hilarious though that the Peta people didn’t mind killing humans, but treated animals as sacred.

Also, it was funny that they shunned what’s his name for not voting. I know that whenever I hear someone say that they are not going to vote, I try to convince them that it is worth it, and that they should. It must be frustrating for those people who have made up their minds that they don’t want to vote for a lousy candidate. I hope those people who didn’t want to vote for “the lesser of two evils” realize that they will probably be never get the chance to vote for a candidate that they support in every policy. Like “South Park” says, the choice is always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

I don’t think that the reporters can give completely objective coverage of the election because on their long journey they have grown close to Bush. The British journalist actually mentioned this. Bush and Mrs. Bush are constantly charming the reporters. For example, Bush gave Alexandra a kiss on the cheek, he served the “pack” fried chicken, and he throws many birthday parties for them. Bush even shows an interest in Alexandra Pelosi’s crush on Trent. These personal gestures allow Bush and the reporters to become friends in a sense. Bush is always trying to earn their vote and their support, so that the reporters can help him win the election. The documentary, “Journeys with George”, shows Bush blatantly asking the reporters for their vote on several occasions, and he even jokingly tries to guilt them into voting for him.

Even though they sort of become friends with Bush, Alexandra still votes for Bradley. The fact that she’s a registered Democrat is unapparent except for a couple of instances. Alexandra Pelosi only challenged Bush once in the film because she has to maintain a good relationship with Bush or he’ll ignore her. She asked about the death penalty saying, “Do you sleep well at night,” and Bush got upset. You would maybe expect for Bush to be characterized more negatively by a Democrat. If the reporters did characterize him unfavorably they would not get fed their daily news release, and they may not get promoted to the white house news core. Instead, the film focuses mostly on Bush’s personality. We see that he often jokes with the reporters and has a playful attitude. Bush comes across as very personable.

the putcome or how the election went about was shocling to maost including me. I actually thought it would be a real race to 270, but Kerry dropped. See in the election poles i showed Kerry had a chance. Although they were allegations of voting fraud he still should of finished the race. It shows that theUS today is corrupt in many ways. The election wasn't the same feel as the past years election. Wanting your president to winn I did not get that feeling. So under Bush as President a lot of feelings I use to have has gone. Feeling of security, feeling that I will get to see my brother again after the war the feeling that the president we have is the right choice. Just does not make sense. Ths election this time made me feel like who ever I choose we will be endanger. Kerry quiting showed that half that feeling is true. Now I have to trust the selection Im dealt with. Though even if he quit I still cant trust Bush because the issue of voting fraud, This is what I felt when during this 2004 election.

I’m proud to say that Tuesday was my first time voting. Tuesday morning I realized that I didn’t have my voter registration card with me, which was okay, except I wasn’t sure where I was supposed to vote. So, first I went to the school where my district used to vote, and found directions on where I should go- The Lion’s Club. I was in a huge hurry to get there because it was almost lunch hour rush. I stood in the wrong line for a while because someone told me incorrectly. Luckily, an old lady was nice enough to let me in the correct line. For some stupid reason, there were no signs that said where people should be alphabetically. Everyone seemed so happy to be there. In general, people were just kind, talkative, and enthusiastic. A couple of people were wearing the “Vote or Die” shirts. Unfortunately, I only felt comfortable voting for three items because I wasn’t familiar enough with the other candidates/issues. My goal is to be able to vote for much more next time around. Like South Park says, I did feel like I was deciding between a “turd sandwich and a douche.” I prefer Kerry’s ideas for most aspects, but immediately after voting for him I went home and worked on English paper about how Kerry’s policy for disposing of nuclear waste is just for Nevada’s vote, and that I favor Bush’s plan instead for constructing Yucca Mountain. It made me feel like there was no decent choice. Also, I do feel like my vote doesn’t really matter (not that I would skip voting) in the grand scheme of things since the electoral votes are really the only deciding factor. Also, I had to really squeeze it into my schedule, and for a brief moment I thought that maybe I didn’t even have time to vote with a test the next day, a lab report, and a paper due. Anyhow, for what it’s worth, I voted.

I went to vote with my mom today, and it was quite a new experience. The lines were incredibly long, even though we got to the polling area early. There were probly a couple hundred people in front of us, so it took about two hours to get through the line. The atmosphere was quite bustling. People were standing in line talking about what they thought the outcome of the election was going to be, and some people got irritated with other people's views. Must've been the long wait. When I got to the voting machine, I marked my choice and proceeded to get out of there as quickly as possible to move the line along. Unfortunately no one else was thinking the same way that I was. It felt very satisfying to finally have a say in the direction our government takes. One observation I made was that I was one of the few young people there, probably due to many people being gone at college and not making the effort to get home. In short, my voting experience was new and rewarding!

Something that been running through my mind is that should we Vote. Honestly Idont think we should unless you as a person want to vote for one of the canidates. People say you have to express your freedom buy voting, but not voting cause of that freedom is the same thing. There are some who believe people who dont vot are non-American. The way I understan it why vote for somebody that you dont want in office that is bandwagoning and to me is taking aaway your right as a American to think for yourself. Its okay to vote to keep someone else out of office, if your like me and there aer two canidates that have not shown they could lead the nation I wont voter. Reason being if someone does something I do not support and is bad I would feel IM to blame. Thats just me.

I dont like doing things that i dont like to do. Voting for someone you dont believe in is something I dont do. Other people feel the same way , but wet are criticized just because they dint vote. Its been said that if you dont vote your wasting your say in the world. Every President does not have the same say a others. We should look at the 1860 election and take out of there and put it in todays politics.

I just got back to campus about twenty minutes ago. I went home last night so that I could leave early with my dad to go to the polling location early (thanks a lot GA Tech for not shutting down campus to facilitate voting) so that I could get to class on time. My dad and I arrived at the church about a mile away from my house at 6:30am, 30 minutes before the polls were to be opened. The parking lot was packed. My county has an average voter turn out of about 70-75%, which is pretty high, but I was not expecting a full parking lot before the polls even opened. Guess I should have known that all government-related events require waiting for long periods of time (don't get me started on the DMV). Anyways, I estimated that there were about 200-250 voters ahead of us, and according to what my dad said, it should take an hour from where we were at. And he was right. Luckily we got there when we did because from the time we got there, more and more people just started piling in. However, the atmosphere was definitely not like that of the DMV, where people are a little tense from waiting 4+ hours. I saw many of my neighbors and people that I just happen to recognize from my community that I haven't seen in a very long time. People were talking to each other and chit-chatting about the polling process. After waiting about an hour behind the large wall separating the waiting lines from the polling booths, when we got to the other side I saw that there were about 20 electronic polling machines. There was not ONE time when more than five were being used. My dad began talking about how many of the polling places are saying that they need more polling machines, but it's useless to have more machines if we can't get people through to use them quick enough. God bless the elderly poll officials for doing what they do, but for pete's sake could they move a little faster? Or at least give them a new electronic system that can verify voters at a faster rate so that all those electronic polling machines can be used at one time (of course, only if these poll workers don't type slower than molasses). After having voted, and yes, it does feel good, I realize the problems that we face with polling locations. If things could be sped up with the wonderful technology of the 21st century, I'm sure more citizens would be encouraged to vote.

What to Do on Election Day
by: The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/opinion/01mon1.html

This caught my attention because it did not have an author. Also it happens to be a list. Nothing is more fun than a list. Jests aside this is perhaps one of the most important things a citizen of this country can do besides serve in the military. The suggestions are reasonable and rather common sense, but for the first time voter, like myself, they can be very helpful. For example the link to mypollingplace.com would be of extreme help for all who don't know where they have to go. I checked out the site and it seems fairly idiotproof.
Analytically speaking this is not much more than a how-to guide, but that just means it has a very specific pathos. People who will be looking for information will go for this article. Hopefully there will be quite a few people looking into this type of information.
On a side note I would like to let all potential voters to vote, I already have voted (absentee), and think that you should take the process seriously. Many souls gave there lives for the rights and priveleges we enjoy today, to make light of their sacrifice would be cruel and wrong.