Also, click here to check out last week's blog. There were some interesting comments on it.
Again, it seems as though we're having a hard time understanding what "historically" means. I'm using it to describe incidents from the last several years. Not individual examples, but a wide-reaching "general" example of how the last several years were between members of Tau Kappa Epsilon and Sigma Sigma Sigma in the SGA. Historically, they voted alike. Yes, there were specific instances in those couple years that they didn't. You can find those if you want to nitpick. And, yes, lately (this semester and some of last semester) there have been a lot of examples of the "Tekes" and "Sigmas" not voting together.
Here's an anonymous comment that was left last week:
I hate to continue the harping on this issue...but:
Just because Ashley makes a point, and people subsequently vote according to her point, does not mean that they are just following her lead.
Unless you can see into everybody's psyche, you cannot make this point. How do you know how Kiwa (or Nicole Coleman, Karina Rahall, or the quiet freshman in the back) was feeling when Ashley made her point? Maybe they already agreed with her, and just didn't stand up to say so.
I'm not saying your point isn't valid: I'll be the first to refer to the senate as sheep. But over the past few years, I have definately seen a greater awareness about what is going on and you cannot call specific people out, because you don't know what they are thinking. Additionally, Kiwa brought up current issues but she was only giving examples. You want past examples? 1) Keith Pruitt disagreed with Jared Tice. 2) Jessica Cook disagreed with Danielle Richmond (remember Ben v. Rocky?) And speaking of that election, Danielle DEFINATELY disagreed with Tice.
Here was my response to that:
To respond to "Anonymous" - you wrote:
"You want past examples? 1) Keith Pruitt disagreed with Jared Tice. 2) Jessica Cook disagreed with Danielle Richmond (remember Ben v. Rocky?) And speaking of that election, Danielle DEFINATELY disagreed with Tice."
Those are two examples over the last 4-5 years. Again, we're having a misunderstanding of what historically means - those are two exceptions to what has historically been the case in the SGA. Of course, we're going to have instances of two members of Tau Kappa Epsilon and Sigma Sigma Sigma disagreeing (which is what you presented in your points). But, there are something like 12 SGA meetings a semester, and you gave two instances. Two examples out of nearly 50 meetings or so (if my horrible math skills hold up...).
I'll even give you another example to help you - when Danielle Richmond ran for Business Manager against Bryan Henderson. That split the members of Sigma Sigma Sigma.
But, it's not enough to change the fact that historically, those two groups vote and think alike in the SGA.
Could it be changing this year? Maybe. We'll see what happens in the coming weeks and semesters. Has it been that way in the past, though. No.
I don't know. Let's give that debate a rest for a couple weeks and see what happens with it. It looks like the two organizations may be changing what has historically been the case in the SGA. Let's see what develops...
I had another interesting comment in my blog. Take a look at it:
"I Can't Believe It's A Journalist!"
"Hi, I'm Chris Slater. You may remember me from such self-help films as 'Watch, Bitch, and Blog: How to Make Yourself Feel Important', and 'SGA Antagonism: The Road to Infinite Attention'"
One of my favorite things to do with anonymous comments is try and imagine who wrote them. With this one, I'm 95% sure that I know who wrote it. I can just hear something like this coming out of this person's mouth. But, this person chose to remain anonymous, so I will respect his or her decision. If you don't get where the quote is coming from, click here.
And, again, I want to point out that I don't mind anonymous comments. If want to share something you feel is important, but don't necessarily want your name attached to it, go ahead and make it anonymous. As long as it's semi-relevant to the subject and not completely trashing somebody, it's okay.
I don't really know how to respond to a comment like that. As I've stated several times in this blog (and my old blog), I think some people don't understand the power and importance of social media mediums, like Facebook, Twitter, and blogging.
I don't do this to "bitch" or "antagonize" but I will admit that I do this for attention. I do this to bring attention to things I find interesting. If I'm blogging about a George Harrison song I like, I want people to listen to it. If I'm blogging about my first haircut in 3 1/2 years, I want people to see me with short hair. If I'm blogging about the SGA, I want people to know about the SGA.
I think Concord's Student Government is important. I had always blogged about the SGA a little bit in the past, but I really got heavily into it whenever I realized that last year's Concordian staff didn't consider the SGA to be a high priority for them. I knew a lot of people read my blog and decided to do what the newspaper wasn't doing - give people a weekly summary of what went down. Some people like my opinions, so I added my thoughts.
So, there's that. I guess. Hopefully that helped explain my reasoning somewhat for doing this.
* * *
Speaking of The Concordian...
The 09-09-09 issue of the newspaper is online at http://www.cunewspaper.com/ and looks pretty good. Design-wise, there's still a lot of work that needs to be done with the paper. The writing also needs a little help. I kind of compare it to the Obama Administration - there's a lot of good stuff they want to get done, but they've been saddled with a lot of crap from the previous administration.
The Concordian is still trying to fix its damaged reputation. Don't get me wrong, the paper had some good stories and some good writing last year, but I don't think the majority of public opinion was ever good again after the infamous "Voted yes on No Confidence" mistake that was made.
In addition to my blog, I'm also a big fan of Twitter. On my blog, there's a version of my Twitter feed on the right side of the screen. My actual Twitter page is located at - http://twitter.com/chris_slater . I've talked about Twitter before a few times in the past. I really enjoy it - the possibilities of what you can do with it are endless. Check that out if you're a fan of random thoughts, interesting articles, occasional professional wrestling talk, and much more.
Another fun Twitter account to check out is this one - http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays . It's run by some guy named Justin and every Tweet is something that his 73-year-old father said. It's hilarious.
I tag people in the SGA blogs, but I usually don't in the other blogs I write. Just to show that I blog about other topics besides the SGA, I'll leave a list of some recent blogs. If the title intrigues you, click it.
* * *
I'll leave my disclaimer here:
I import these blogs into Facebook. Facebook gives you the option to "tag" people in your note, sending the person an e-mail notification. I generally tag people for two reasons - 1) if you are mentioned by name, I try to tag you & 2) if I think you will find this interesting, I will try to tag you.
If you're tagged & don't want to be, let me know & I won't tag you in the future. If you're not tagged & would like to be in the future, also let me know. Questions/thoughts/complaints/suggestions/etc... are encouraged.
There is a comment feature on this blog, and I don't mind if you use it. Anonymous comments are allowed, but only if you keep the comment relevant to the subject & mildly-profanity free.