Exit Polls a Entertainment

I know during an election my TV is tuned into CNN literally all day and night. I like to sit around and guess who is going to win what state and yell at the TV when my candidate seems to be behind. It brings a level of entertainment to the election process. Of course the system is flawed as we saw with the Truman/Dewey elections, but anyone who takes these exit polls as fact is being a little ridiculous, especially when there is a close race going. Today in the televised media exit polls, they will dell you how much of a specific district or state had reported and the polls are based on that. Until 100% is reported I would not assume which candidate has one, I would actually just wait to the following day just to be sure. I like the way the exit polling is done and displayed because it attracts people who may not be interested otherwise. The who thing is a spectacle and who doesn't enjoy a great circus act!!! When viewing exit polls it is important to take it all with a grain of salt. Nothing is concrete until it is all over. Do I think it effects the way someone may vote. Of course it does! But what doesn't effect the way people vote. The weather effects the way a person votes, what they eat that morning effects the way a person votes. That s a major reason why the media reports these exit polls, it is subliminal in a way. We discussed how most media outlets are privately owned. These owners are probably conservative or liberal, and I'm sure that has something to to with the exit polls, if even a little. I say let the entertainment of the exit polls be just that, pure entertainment. i don't think it has always been this way, but thanks to CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, etc we have a new form of reality TV!!!

Fickle Society

Our society just jumps from one issue to another without even completing one task. I find it very interesting how we all just go with the flow. Everyone gets in an uproar over one situation, and as soon as something else pops up we forget about our previous struggles or debates. For example. During our last Presidential debate the hot topic was the war in Iraq or terrorism. There was an out cry from the public, and it was the main issue that every candidate had to tackle if they wanted to be taken seriously. Now the hot topic is the economy, but its not like we have resolved our problems with Iraq or terrorism. What does this mean? Do the people care more about what is happening in our country now instead of the longevity of our social climate? How do our political representatives complete task if we as a people have Attention Deficit Disorder about the current issues. I remember when I was younger and not so into politics hearing about abortion and how that was an hot topic. The candidates hardly ever talk about this issue, but nothing has really been resolved. There is still debate over Roe vs. Wade as well as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, but it is not what people are concerned with anymore so we have simply moved on. Have we moved on from the war as well. Sure the candidates talk about how they would deal with the war once they are in office, but will they really deal with it if it is not at the forefront of our minds. Obama wants to slowly remove the troops where as McCain wants to send in more to occupy Iraq, but none of this matters now that we are in a recession. So forget about the the war, abortion or stem cell research, it is time to get money back in to the pockets of Americans. I think the U.S. needs a giant dose of Ritalin so that we can focus and actually get things accomplished.

Unconventional becomes Conventional

One of the most common forms of conventional participation is protesting.  Just a few decades ago when a protest demonstration would occur the whole nation knew about it.  When this was done it meant that something bis was happening and there were a lot of people that were upset over it.  Today we see a different protest getting a thirty second spot on CNN, MSNBC, and other large media outlets.  What happen to the power that a protest once held?  Has this outrageous gesture become an status quo in American activism?  i think the reason why a protest demonstration is not taken as serious today as they once were for a few reasons.  One when something is done over and over again it looses it punch.  Our generation has gotten to use to seeing protest, so we don't get alarmed by them anymore.  Second, not enough people are getting involved in these activist movements.  We live in a society where if a situation does not directly effect us, we just don't care about it. We are a rather selfish generation.  It takes a massive group of people to get a point across to our government and other people not directly involved.  I think if we could grasp that idea then these demonstrations would get the attention they deserve.  Finally, we need to be a little bit more picky as to what we choose to stage a protest over.  This is a tool that can really change things if it is presented in a legitimate way.  Protesting Carl's pet shop because they don't sell pit bulls is not worthy of a protest.  OK maybe that was not the best example, but you get the idea.  So in the end this unconventional participation has become conventional.  The only way to fix this situation is by developing new unconventional participation methods.  This is just something that will have to develop on its own and over time.  i don't think the power of a protest is dead, but our generation has to give the power back to it.

The Impact of Martin Luther King Jr

I'm embarrassed to state that as an African American today was the first time I have completely read Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"  However after reading the letter i was stunned by how powerful it truly is.  At the time this letter was written our country was in the midst of one of its most racist and hateful periods.  The way the Reverend handled himself and lead the people was so incredible, that the movement is still regarded as the one of the most influential movements in history.  His word were so elegant and yet so powerful.  i imagine that those that this letter was addressed to were just as impressed, even questioning their own intelligence and religious beliefs.  i could not help but wonder after class had ended why the Civil Rights movement seemed to end after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.  We as African Americans have definitely come a long way since the marches in Birmingham, but I do not feel we have reached the equality the Rev. King was striving for.  i suppose his followers were extremely devastated at the time of his death, maybe even to the point that they felt they could no longer proceed with the movement.  There are so many injustices still committed against minorities today, and not just African Americans.  I feel that some thought as Martin Luther King Jr. was a leader for Blacks, but he was a champion for anyone facing injustice.  As he said in his letter, " Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".  The spirit of what Martin Luther King Jr. fought for needs to be reborn in our society today.  However, as we mentioned in class today there is power in numbers, and if the masses won't stand up and demand equality among all men our country will continue in the turmoil we are currently in.  We have gotten comfortable with our lives today, so we don't feel the need to achieve a better quality of life.  We have slightly moved away from the more racist stigma of our country, but we are now consumed with classicism.  There are hundreds of thousands of Americans of all races living in run down ghettos, trailer parks, and other poverty stricken communities.  Who is trying to truly help these fellow countrymen.  Martin Luther King Jr. fought for human rights and the conditions that these people live in are definitely violating there human rights.  We live in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, which is why I am amazed by the living conditions of many Americans.  I am confident that if Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today he would be just as appalled.  I wis that we as a people could put our own personal pursuits aside so that we could help others, and I feel that Martin Luther King Jr. was such a great leader because he was able to do this and motivate others to do it as well.

Why is it that a politician can not hold a conversation without giving a election or re-election speech.  I found the visit with our state Representative a bit perplexing.  His presents was very ambiguous.  I could see why the people of his district continued to vote for him because he his very charismatic, but I felt that he was talking in circles about things that we already knew.  The best part of his visit was the question and answer section.  It seemed to be the one time that the Representative was genuine, but this could be because he was being drilled in such an intimate setting.  He did present very interesting information on the current budget issues in our state.  i had no idea that things were in such an awful state.  He even mentioned that thee were other states that were in the same position, and yet the President refuses to acknowledge that our country is currently in a recession.  I was very disappointed by the answer I received to my question about Chicago hosting the Olympics in 2016.  I was told that there really is no money in the state budget to bring the Olympics to our worthy city.  This was confusing because I know that the Olympics would bring in so much revenue for the state.  We would be missing out on an awesome opportunity because the Illinois Congress can not get a descent budget in place.  Hearing about the bickering going on between the majority leader and the speaker, who are in the same party was very discouraging as a supporter of the Democratic party.  We finally get the upper hand and yet we are fighting against one another.  i suppose that after writing about the visit, I realize it was fairly informational.  I guess I have a problem with listening to a republican, who does not admit he is republican speak.

i learned so much from our trip to the museum today.  I had no idea that campaigning was not apart of process of electing a president.  Once the campaigning was put into play it completely changed the image of the political system.  the candidates were more relate able to the public, it also gave the people a chance to get more involved in the election project.  The people were wearing buttons and displaying posters of the candidate they supported for the first time ever.  Women were even wearing stockings with campaign slogans on them.  When the campaign process started it gave the public a new interest in politics.  It was so fascinating to see how this process began, because today you see campaign ads on TV year round.  When campaigning hit the airwaves with Kennedy and Nixon's debate it put a new spin on everything.  The image of the candidates became very important.  The public noticed all the imperfections in the candidates appearance.  I think that televised debates played a huge role in Kennedy win because people may have found him to be more personable, handsome, and charming then Nixon, who appeared sweaty, disheveled, and impatient TV.  Finally the development of TV campaign ads took the process another huge step forward.  I noticed that this was the point where a strong since of negativity and a little pettiness came into the picture.  Candidates calling each other old, others had their wives coming in to defend them, and low blow were flying.  It makes me wonder if TV campaign ads were a step forward after all.  It has become the number one tool used in candidates getting their message out, so it is very effective, but they also cause us all to loose focus on the real issues sometimes.  I mean the fact that a campaign can fail because the candidate can not spend millions of dollars on TV airtime is ridiculous.  i read today that a campaign will spend up to a billion dollars now.  The campaign process as has truly evolved into to a monster, but so has the political system so  guess it is fitting.  What a cool trip!! 

what does the first amendment protect?

Should non political speech be protected under the first amendment? I think that is such a interesting concept. i guess for the most part I assumed that all speech was protected under the first amendment. It is treading on ice waters to be tell someone that they may not express themselves verbally because it is against the law, so I do think all speech should be protected by the first amendment with some exceptions. Speech that incites someone or a group of individuals to cause harm to others should not be tolerated or protected by our constitution. I know this sounds like a complete contradiction of the amendment, but I feel it is a necessary exception. If someone want to preach hate that is an issue that lies within that individual and anyone who chooses to listen. However, if this speech is leading to the harm of others and the constitution protects it, it would violate every other amendment that guarantees a life of peace and happiness. The whole idea is rather fuzzy, but whatever is better for the people is what the ultimate solution should bring.