Batten Down the Hatches!

Well I am in Florida, on holiday. Threatening my peaceful escape from reality is Tropical Storm Fay. I have never experienced a tropical storm before, but despite the huge deal the media is making of the storm, I am kind of skeptical.

It's agenda setting, plain and simple. The media does not tell us what to think or what to say, but rather what to think about and what to talk about. By doing so, news stations and reporters are telling everyone to "run to the hills", there is a storm coming. But really, when is there never a storm coming in our lives. Both literal and metaphorically, we deal with storms everyday. You know those feelings of despair and desperation? Those are storms. Anxiousness, depression, sadness; all storms. When the storms of life come we do the same as when a real storm comes; we retreat, we prepare for the worst. In essence, we stop trusting and take things into our own hands.

I know I am walking a very fine line here, I mean, if I were a resident of Florida, I would not, not do anything in preparation for the storm, but I would like to say I would not worry about it. We live in a broken world, storms come, we endure them and the next day forget we even worried about the storm that just passed. The point where responsibility becomes taking charge of our lives instead of trusting our situation to God. I do not want faith to be mistaken as Christian stupidity, and I am not saying that people in Florida should not do anything to prepare for hurricanes or tropical storms, that would be stupid. What I am saying is that, as Christians, we should not be so quick to run to the hills, to run from our storms.

As a side note, I am not sure where I first was introduced to what I am about to write about; it was either in My Utmost for His Highest (Oswald Chambers), or in Crazy Love (Francis Chan). If you are a believer, to this you can relate. Before leaving on a missions trip, a vacation, or a road trip, we always pray to God and ask for His blessing in the trip and ask for safety. Where does Jesus ever talk about comfort and safety in the Bible? In Matthew 11:28, Jesus says, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest." He does not say, I will give you safety; Jesus says, I will give you rest.

That being said, why do we think God wants us to be safe? As Christians we are not called to a cushy life with no problems. No, we take the narrow road, which is hard and arduous, a road which not many others take. Few will find it. As Christians we are also called to suffering, as Christ did. Jesus did not say that as Christians we would become greater than all others in the world. No, Christians are persecuted everyday. All around the world, every moment, brothers and sisters in Christ are suffering because they identify with Christ. Do you?

So, back to Fay. This is where the doctrine of American Christianity kicks in full fledge. As Americans, we have a sense of entitlement. We do. I have lived overseas, and the stereotype of Americans is ignorant and inconsiderate. That is the reputation we have among the world. Arab countries hate us and our government. Please, for your own safety, don't wear apparel with American Flags, identifying yourself with America. You will probably get robbed and beaten because believe it or not, we are rich. Even the poorest people in America have more than those in third world countries. So, this sense of entitlement. We think because God has blessed America, that it is His duty to do so. Well, guess what, it's not! When bad things happen in the world, it is not because He isn't a loving God, it is because He is a loving God. He uses suffering and storms to bring people closer to Him. John 10:10 says. "The thief comes only to kill, steal, and destroy; I (Jesus) have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." We live in a broken world, just because we are Christians does not mean life is going to be perfect. However, because we are Christians, we have an outlet to cast all of our cares on. The cross. We have the privilege and opportunity to cast all of our burdens and worries at the foot of the cross, to give them to Jesus, because the enemy has been defeated!

So, instead of asking for safety, why don't we ask God that He bring us closer to Him whatever it takes? I would challenge anyone who reads this to get real with his or herself and say, "God, I want to know you more, whatever it takes." As Christians, is not that the journey we are on? To know God more? To experience God more? It is. I urge you to understand, Christianity is not about what God can do for you. It is about serving God with what He has given you. God cares more that we grow closer to Him than that we are safe. Are you willing? Do you trust God enough that no matter what happens, good or bad, that you will find rest in Him?

When the storms of life come, God is in control. You will not find peace in preparation. You will find peace in Him.

In Philippians 3:7-10, Paul says, "But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead."

This is my hope. This is your hope. As believers, this is our hope. So he next time a storm comes your way, know that God is in control and that there are countless others who are going through the same thing you are.

Endure.

Persevere.

Press on.

Reentering the atmosphere

Well, I set this blog up as a requirement for one of my classes while in college. Most of the previous posts are not worth reading only because they were assigned; however, you are welcome to read them if you feel so inclined.

It has been over a year since I last posted. I am getting sick of facebook messages and notes and I want to share my own opinions on morality and Christianity with all who may be interested, not just my friends. I want this blog to be a catalyst for change. I may be an optimist and idealist to many, however, I believe one act of faith can change the world. Just because we cannot see the results does not mean people, places, have not been effected. There is so much more to this world than meets our eyes.

I recently finished a book titled "Crazy Love" by Francis Chan. As a Christian, I relate a lot to what Francis writes about. My unique perception of the world has been rocked by this book. I say unique, because I believe that all people, while having the same instruments of perception, (ears, eyes, nose, fingers, toes, brain etc.), perceive differently based on conditioned expectations resulting from huge life experiences. However, I also believe in Christ's power to change people. That while Psychology may diagnose someone as overly neurotic and introverted, the power of the living God, when invited into that person's heart will change that person forever.

Heck. Look at me. If you don't know me, I was overly neurotic and introverted before I found Jesus Christ. In fact, I rejected Christ until I was 20 years old. I am not that person anymore. Christ has changed me and he want to change you to. He loves me, and He wants to love you too.

I do not want this blog to be a place of argument of hotly contested issues. If you don't like what I say, I won't take it personally, because nothing good comes from me. Everything good in me comes from the Holy Spirit living in me. Instead of getting mad at me, examine your own heart. Be mad at God, for everything I say comes from Him. If you don't like my viewpoints, don't try and argue with me. I will stand up for what I believe in, but I won't bicker or try and prove you wrong. We are all entitled to our beliefs. However, one day, it will be evident which beliefs are actually worth believing...as we stand before God. "For we will all stand before God; for it is written, As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us will give an account of Himself to God." Romans 14:10-12

I know there is a horrible stereotype for Christians in America today. On behalf of all Christians, I would like to apologize. I believe the state of Christianity in America to be lukewarm at best and not what God intends for us. There is so much more than we can even think to comprehend. I want revival where I live and for all of America.

I have been completely overwhelmed by the relentless love of God. I am not perfect, I am a sinner. I sin every day. But, I believe in grace. Grace that takes its shape in the cross, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Do you want a piece of the pie? It's free. Ask Christ to dwell in your heart and He will rock your world. You won't be disappointed.

I believe God is viral. The Holy Spirit spreads like wildfire and I am praying He will use this blog in some way, shape or form.

Wikipedia: My reaction to the action.

Needless to say, Wikipedia is an adventure in and of itself. Despite what my freshman English professor thought, Wikipedia is great! While some may not consider it scholarly thereby discrediting its sources, Wikipedia can actually be considered so because it is peer reviewed. While it is not reviewed in the same manner as scientific journal, the author of an article may never really know who will read his or her article, therefore motivating him or her to create the best article possible. As a folksonomy, Wikipedia is a means by which to classify ideas and symbols. All articles are subject to community standards and guidelines; however some poor articles do slip through the cracks. But what it so great about Wikipedia is that it fosters critical thinking; that anyone who may be reading a given article can question the truth behind it and make adjustments accordingly.

To be honest, it was hard to find something that was not already contained in Wikipedia's archives. Instead of writing a new article I decided then to add to a previously existing article. But before I did so, I conducted an experiment or what I like to call a wiki-periment. I found an article about Long-Term Potentiation, which in biological psychology terms refers to a learning process and/ or a reinforcing effect that is aided by the synaptic plasticity of a neuron after simultaneous firings of that neuron take place. I wrote about 100 words of meaningful well thought out text that was not in the original article which I thought was very relevant to the topic. Obviously I was wrong seeing that it was only two hours after I posted my "revision" that someone deleted it. I was frustrated and a bit disappointed and I could think of no reason why someone would delete a perfectly pertinent and verifiable addition to an article. Perhaps it was the person who wrote the initial article, I do not know. All I do know is that someone thought I was wrong, while I was not! I do not think that complete text and paragraphs should be able to be deleted from articles. Rather, if a person feels the need to revise and article they must keep the same sense of material and stay true to the intent of the article. I also feel that there should be a higher power that governs whether or not a piece of information should be kept or discarded. In the current manner, any person can go around deleting facts and details simply because they are too stupid to initially grasp the concept.

On a lighter note, my recent Wikipedia contribution in regards to behavioral and neurological control of thirst is still alive and well. In fact, this past week, I checked to see if anyone had modified or deleted it several times a day. In my case, neither of the aforementioned occurred. I was surprised that no one had at leas edited my submission, but perhaps it was just that good? Please excuse my arrogance.

I felt that this project was very useful for it helped me to understand even more the concepts and ideas that we have learned in class. For me, there is no greater way to learn about something than to take part in it, and I came away with a new understanding of both folksonomies and online communities. While this was an extra-credit project, it may even be beneficial to a future class that this be a mandatory project. It was not strenuous, yet it cannot be described as easy. It required research and careful attention to articulation and planning. If I were to rate this project in terms of its ability to teach and reinforce, I would give it a ten out of ten. It made me relate preexisting knowledge to new models of classification and brought about unplanned situations where the only constant variable was the outcome; sharing knowledge.

The Internet is all about people in funny hats making things that people like.

Picture yourself logging onto your favorite website whether it be news, gossip, or online shopping. After a series of clicks, you search through the site and when you feel content that you have not missed anything you log off your computer. Now, imagine that you go back tomorrow and your favorite website is blocked or no longer provided by your ISP. What's up with that?

According to the Organization for Econmic Cooperation and Development the average American internet user pays about 12 dollars for one megabit-per-second of online downloading. Similarly, recent research performed by Kagan Research found that over the past nine years, major telecom organizations have spent a whopping 105.3 billion dollars upgrading their services and in the words of Ed Whitacre, CEO of AT&T, " . . . for Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts." He probably thought this up while riding in the back of his Maybach.

Well if you're one of those very special few who have missed the boat on this issue, you are sadly uninformed. The issue of Net Neutrality is rapidly spreading on the forefronts of national policy. It has passed the House of the Representatives and reached the Senate. And as Net Neutrality gains widespread publicity, its opponenets and supporters getting their pitchforks and sharpening their axes. This won't be pretty!



As described in the video, the way the internet works today is that everyone is on the same playing field, that is, we all have equal acces to the internet and its applications. In addition, everybody's website, whether it be NBC or MySpace, gets the same speed and quality. However, large multi-billion dollar corporations such as Time Warner, Comcast, and Verizon want to change this by offering better services only for those who pay them high royalty fees. Does that sound fair to you? Why should the internet be commodified even moreso than it is already? Is there really a need for fast lanes on the information super highway or are these telecomm companies just fishing for away to get out of the red?

In 2006, Vinton Cerf, co-designer of TCP/IP said in a congressional speech pertaining to
Net Neutrality that,

"The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many
ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part
of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or
services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows
people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By
placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the
network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an
explosion of offerings -- from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging -- that might never have evolved had central control of the network been required by design. "Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed on the network . . . As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online" (Jones, 2007).

The definition of Net Neutrality is subject to personal preference and opinion. The Wall Street Journal (2006) defines it as "[having] to do with how much control the companies that build and maintain the Internet pipelines-mostly telephone and cable companies-should have over the content that runs through those pipelines, and whether they can force Internet content providers to pay for the privilege." Similarly, Tim Wu, a Law Professor at Columbia University refers to Net Neutrality as "a network design issue based on the idea that information networks are often more valuable when they are less specialized -- when they are a platform for multiple uses, present and future" (Jones, 2007). So, in short, Net Neutrality is actually more important than you might actually think.

Savetheinternet.com argues that "amounts and type of bandwidth usage need not be specifically charged for, beyond the basic and minimally discriminatory fees for access to ISP servers" (Wikipedia, 2007). In response to government anti-tiering regulations, large corporations have lobbied that "a lack of differentiated funding sources has slowed their own implementations of new technologies and also resulted in elevated prices for many of their customers" (Wikipedia, 2007). What are these funding sources other than a lame excuse for corporations to pick our pockets. You know what, even if I were deaf, dumb, and blind, I still would not believe those philandering usurpers who run corporate America, claiming to act in the best interest of the consumer.

In the end it is all about one thing, GREED.

According to Jones (2007), Researchers at the University of Florida's department of decision and information sciences found that “improving the infrastructure [of the internet] would reduce the need to pay for preferential treatment but the incentive for broadband service providers to expand and upgrade would decline if net neutrality ended.”

But what is the need for preferential treatment. There is select treatment on airlines and cruise ships, isn't that enough? Why must the one truly widespread and penetrated invention be proprietized and divided up to the point of it's extinction, for the selling of service will only lead to a differentiation in service. You see that guy who just pulled up next to you in the Ferrari, you'd better believe that he gets his email and his downloads faster than you.

Net Neutrality serves to maintain the ideals of freedom, equality, and liberty that our nation was built upon. To commodify the internet is the same as instating a literal caste system. Some might argue that the elite deserve better service. But why? Just because they have money and power does not mean that they are any better of a person. It is bias to those who can afford it and that is completely against the principals upon which the internet was created. The internet should be equally accessible to all and not subject to corporate welfare! The fact of the matter is that we pay large organizations to provide us with the best internet possible, anything short is unacceptable. It is their job to make advances in computer technology for their duty is to serve the consumer. By segregating access to the internet, these corporations are providing their consumer's with a disservice. Lets talk about business ethics, oh wait, those went extinct with the dinosaurs.

References

Efrati, A. (2006). A Battle for Control of the Web. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://wsjclassroom.com/archive/06sep/htop_netneutrality.htm#facts.

Jones, K.C. (2007). Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001557.

Network neutrality. (2007, April 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:07, April 11, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Networkneutrality&oldid =121830457

Well I guess we're infidels, plain and simple.

Journalism; who, what, where, why, when, and how. As a distinct authority that is manifest through writing, Journalism is one of, if not, the oldest record of important events. The ability to write has allowed man to document and trace events that have been most important and influential to the development of society. According to Wikipedia (2007) “digitalization of news production and the diffusion capabilities of the internet are challenging the traditional journalistic professional culture” (par. 2). The monopoly of the press is quickly coming to a halt as participatory and/or citizen journalism allows the general public to publish and prodcue stories in between the cracks of professional media outlets. It is through this differentiation that deliberation has evolved. The ability of the group or the individual to enact attitude change has come a long way since the days of yellow journalism. Now, ordinary people are on the forefronts of journalism, reporting and uncovering what you and I may or may not read in the New York Times. However it is important to note that Blogging is not subject to direct editing, but rather indirect, through the eyes of those who read them. Therefore it is crucial to think critically while reading a blog, is what this person is saying biased or balanced, true or manufactured?

Wikipedia (2007) classifies print journalism as characteristic of “newspapers, news magazines, general interest magazines, trade magazines, hobby magazines, newsletters, private publications, online news pages and others” (par. 4). It has been through the facilitation of online and digital journalism that information can now be quickly spread and disseminated. Furthermore it is key to note that the growth of blogging has effected the media through the ability of blogs to “create news as well as report it, and blur the dividing lines between news and opinions” (“Journalism”, 2007, par. 15).

Thursday, March 29, 2007. The New York Times reports that the “U.S. Iraq Role Is called Illegal By Saudi King”, similarly JOSHUAPUNDIT writes that “The Saudis bash ‘illegitimate occupation’ as Bush’s Sunni Pals show their true nature”; here we have the same story, but different perspectives. You would have to have been living under a rock if you did not know that the United States’ role in Iraq has been a hotly contested issue. The aforementioned describes the fact that as of late it has been subject to direct criticism of the Saudi King, King Abdullah.

After reading the Times, I found that the article was very formal, objective, and displayed both sides of the argument. This article, by Hassan M. Fattah is clear and concise in its objective; that is to report the news. I feel this article is heavily influenced by the hope for peace in the Middle East; a fantasy at best for the moment. Nevertheless, Fattah writes that “King Abdullah said the loss of confidence in Arab leaders had allowed American and other forces to hold significant sway in the region.” This is important to note because the Saudis have been long standing allies with America, and King Abdullah’s recent cancellation of his state dinner at the White House has only tainted the disintegrating relationship between the two countries. Hassan also writes that Abdullah has “not publicly spoken so harshly about the American- led military intervention in Iraq before, and his alliance with Washington may be less harmonious than administration officials have been hoping.” This article concerns itself with the differing opinions of both governments rather than the putrid backlash that is sure to come. Similarly, I find it very interesting that Saudi interest views Israel soil as Arab soil as is written in the article. I find international politics to be somewhat interesting, like a chess game naturally. “The Saudis have seen that the ball is moving into the court of the democrats, and they want to extend their hand to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.”

On the other hand, JOSHUAPUNDIT’s blog is much more informal and seemingly more direct in its approach. After reading this blog I found it to be very unwavering in its focus. It was not characteristic of traditional media per say, but more subjective and analytical. It is catered to a particular viewpoint while at the same time provides enough background information to sustain an understanding. In their blog, JOSHUAPUNDIT writes in response to several comments made my King Abdullah that “unless they need us infidel slaves to take out Saddam or something.” Here JOSHUAPUNDIT mocks and takes advantage of the stereotype of westerners in the eyes of Arabs, that we are infidels. I highly doubt that I would read that in the New York Times, in fact, I did not. So no longer does freedom of the press mean those who have a press (Gilmour, 2004), but moreso who has a computer and access to the internet which almost everyone does. So journalism is no longer exlusive to Big Media, but rather the average who has some computer skills. The wroter also refers to King Abdullah as “the poster boy for the Bush administration.” Rightfully so, if that was written in the New York Times there would be serious reprocussions. First of all, if it even made it into print, not only the person who wrote it, but the person who allowed it to be published would most likely lose their job, hypothetically speaking. It is only on the internet that there is true freedom of the press. Not to be confused though, while some blogs are subject to an editorial hierarchy, “the editorial function has been adopted not just by bloggers, but by a host of new kinds of online news operations. Some peer-reviewed news sites, such as the collaborative Kuro5hin, which describes itself as tech­nology and culture, from the trenches, are doing interesting journalism by any standard, with readers contributing the essays and deciding which stories make it to the top of the page” (Gilmour, 2004). That is a very good point, that while it is important to moderate what is written in blogs, peoples’ minds and opinions cannot be controlled.

References

Gilmour, D. (2004). We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the people, for the people.
Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfmphile=WeTheMedia. html&tipe=text/html.

Journalism. (2007, March 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:31, March 29, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journalism&oldid=118575756.

North Carolina Mountain Dreams: Dozens dead after Iraqi police go on killing spree | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

North Carolina Mountain Dreams: Dozens dead after Iraqi police go on killing spree Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Lets Adopt: Even the Celebrities are doing it!

The Buffalo HodgePodge defines itself simply as "a melting pot of ideas about our world, nation, and hometown.” It is a blog where community is both fostered and developed through online interaction and offline action. The Buffalo HodgePodge is a member of the WNYmedia.net conglomeration; the bloggers' pseudonym is Buffalo HodgePodge and his or her e-mail address is also present. The earliest recorded archive was June 12, 2006; the initial conception of the Buffalo HodgePodge. Technorati has ranked the Buffalo HodgePodge 138,722 with 264 links from 31 blogs. In my opinion, the Buffalo HodgePodge is an informal blog used to discuss prurient issues. From Wal-Mart woes to Sabres fever, the Buffalo HodgePodge offers an excellent mix of popular and political culture. It incorporates well into the public sphere, however with some topics lacking frequent posts it may be evident what this blogger enjoys doing most, or least. However, with a plethora of links to “all things Buffalo”, the Buffalo HodgePodge also serves to connect other blogs present in Buffalo’s sphere of influence. As I have alluded to in earlier posts, blogs are a great example of participatory journalism, Where people like you and me gather the facts and tell the whole story, without bias. As I began reading the Buffalo HodgePodge, I quickly became aware of its intent. That is, not to criticize or belittle, but rather to report and define. I will say with confidence that the Buffalo HodgePodge does not interpret, for everything that us posted is without bias. You see, most blogs are uncensored by the media and are not subject to corporate welfare or partnerships. In the same sense, the main duty of “political” blogging is to educate and raise awareness of what people would not know otherwise.

I also found the Buffalo HodgePodge to be very concerning of issues important to our hometown; ironically Super Wal-Mart and Super Target. It were these posts and similarly those about Medicare and Healthcare that generated the most comments. For example, in the post relating to Western New York’s hospital debate, Steve writes “With that, DeGraff might still be an appropriate consideration for closure, as North Tonawanda-area citizens still would have relatively easy access to Kenmore Mercy to the south, and Niagara Falls Memorial or Mount St. Mary’s to the north, and Millard Fillmore Suburban to the east.” To be honest, Buffalonians could probably care less about lobbyists than other prinicpal issues such as the economy.

Without people politics do not exist. It is people who breathe life into politics, converting ideas into legislation and law. However, in my opinion politics serve to emasculate public opinion through the bolstering of agendas and policy. Politics also become instated through discourse and translation. Therefore if there were no people to discuss, argue, or simply agree to disagree, politics would have a short half life. In Thornetone’s article (2002) Mark Surman writes that “massive and positive social change will emerge from the introduction of a single, discreet [sic] communications technology. . .” (p. 6). With that in mind, could not blogging be that very communication technology that transcends society to become one of the most influential communication mediums known to exist? Thornetone (2006) also goes on to say that “the role of traditional media (television, magazines and newspapers) in modern democracy is increasingly problematic, and serious questions have arisen about its capacity as a site for political criticism or rational debate (p. 9). That is where blogs shine. Bloggers are not worried about making their contributors and sponsors happy, if anything blogs are out their to stick it ot the man. Take for example “Baghdad Burning” which brought out the secrets and true events occurring at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. I cannot innumerate that idea that blogs raise a serious question; that journalists should interact with the audience and reflect the desires of the group through non-commercial methods. Blogs allow people to play an active role in collecting, reporting, analyzing, and sharing information. I feel very strongly that blogs do in fact affect politics due to their ease of use and its promotion of practical reflection.

The internet also allows for convergence through its profound effects on members of a network or a group. According to Entman, the media frames meanings into social events; giving us a guideline by which to interpret the information. On the other hand, blogs and the internet saw a remarkable increase in use for political avocation. For example a PEW study found that, “in 2003, the Dean campaign posted 2,910 entries on its “Blog for America” and received 314,121 comments, which were also posted there. As the result of one of those comments, 115,632 handwritten letters were sent from supporters to eligible voters in the upcoming Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary (Cornfield, 2005, p.2). Similarly, Cornfield (2005) also found that “the internet made a difference in helping campaigns decide who to contact, what to say, when to say it, and, crucially, who to send to say it” (p. 5).

In closing I would like to leave you with something to contemplate.

Cornfield (2005) says that “The more citizens use the internet, the more they might expect from campaigners and political journalists: rapid responses to information searches; a multiplicity of perspectives available on controversies; short and visually arresting promotional messages; drill-down capacities into referenced databases; more transparency from, and access to, institutions and players. Meanwhile, on the supply side of the political equation, candidates, groups, and parties now have models for how to use the internet to raise money, mobilize voters, and create public buzz. The new benchmarks established in 2004 could well be matched and surpassed in 2008” (p. 7).

References

Cornfield, M. (2005). The Internet and Campaign 2004: A look back at the campaigners. Retrieved March 25, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/.

Thornton, A. (2002). Does Internet create Democracy? Retrieved March 25, 2007 from http://www.zip.com.au/~athornto/thesis_2002_alinta_thornton.doc.