It would seem that your older pieces are more thorough and better written then your newer pieces. Perhaps you had more time?

I liked your reference to Zen. I had to read that in high school and though I barely got through it I completly saw its relevance to this piece. This is the type of researc and outside support I have been waiting to see!

I also liked that you aptly and fairly criticised both viewpoints and left any biases at the door so to speak. It was very insightful.

If I may comment on the collection as a whole, I'd like to say that though I liked some pieces better than other, all of them made me think about things I usually take for granted.

Nicki :P

This review and those preceding it have been brought to you by the Review Game's Review Marathon! (link in my profile)

I liked the passion with which you wrote this peace. I've come to understand your approach to these essays and so I was not as offput as usual by the focus on ethos rather than logos.

I did not like that the ideas felt a bit disjointed. You made leaps and assumptions that were not fully developed so that the reader (me) had a hard time determining how you came to your conclusion.

Nicki :P

I think this was by far the best essay in this collection. It simple and concise but it presents your opinion clearly and effectivly. You used example (not statistical but they are still valid) to back up your reasoning.

I also like that you made this piece relatable by talking about your friend. Using anecdotes in a introduction is great. Using them as evidence is not.

Nicki :P

I'm starting to see that these essays are more like blog posts. They convey what you feel about a certain issue but have no research or depth to them. This is not a bad thing (I keep a blog myslef where I babble about random things) but it was not what I was expecting from this collection.

I feel that the conclusion to which you arrived was random and perhaps a bit misguided. Sunday laws are not new laws that hint to the crumbling of church and state as this line implies: "Whatever happened to the old "separation of church and state" concept? As this minor example (and so many others) shows, that foundation of our country is crumbling."
Rather these laws are the antiquted remanants of old America, where morality and legality did in fact go hand in hand. A bit of research would have revealed that.

I liked this piece more than the others though because it was more clearly personal opinion rather than a generalized prescription.

Nicki :P

"Provide me with proof and I will believe you…" :D Apparently we are kindred spirits! This has been the essence of my reviews all along!

“Okay, we know everything about this subject now.” No self-respecting scientist would even think those words.

"In the evolution vs. deism argument, the true question posed is: “Does a god truly exist?”" Really? Says who? Once again you base an argument on a generalization you have yet to validate. I could (and do) argue that scientist studying evolution are not concerned with the existence of god but rather with the mechanism by which the organism that currently populate the Earth have arisen. Thus, if one disagrees with one element of your argument one can discredit the entire essay because you have provided no evidence to show that your argument is worthy of consideration.

Nicki :P

"In decades gone by, the debate was a standard part of politics, and as such, higher education trained teens and young adults in its ways." Really? Do you have an example? If not this is yet another baseless claim. But this reasoning behind this claim is not readily clear making the lack of evidence all the more detrimental. And furthermore this seems to be the cornerstone of the essay! Not presenting evidence to support it thus undermines the validity of the essay as a whole.

By the end it seemed that this was a prescriptive piece rather than a descriptive piece. That's not necessarily a bad thing it is simply not the commentary I expected it to be.

Nicki :P

Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of this piece. Once again I felt that it was lacking substance to constitute a formal argument. There were quite a few unsubstantiated generalization and the evidence was anecdotal at best.

I did however like that you conceded to the opposing view, even if only in passing.
Nicki :P

Although the solution you brought up was a good one, you hadn't thoroughly convinced me that there was problem in the first place. You did not use very much evidence to back up your claims and did not show what the shortcomings of the current system are and how the one you found could address these issues.
You should consider cutting out the second and third points. They are about voter apathy and party systems, resprectivly, not voting systems. They do nothing to contribute to the essay and are addressed in neither the title nor the solution you present. Without these two red herrings you can focus on making your case stronger.

Nicki :P




Nicki

I'm a sucker for structure and repitition and this poem had both, so I liked it. As a poem, it I feel it gets the point across. But as part of a collection of "soial and political essays" I feel it is lacking substance and reasoning.

This review (and the ones that follow) are brought to you by the Review Game. (link in my profile)

I think this an interesting concept. This introduction does well to lay out your intent. However I felt it did not attract the reader. As you said, readers read the first chap first, and as the first chap this should have done something, anything, to make me keep reading.

Nicki :P

I agree with this one. I can debate myself, but quite frankly, it’s frustrating to debate with almost anyone today, because they don’t know how to do it properly. It’s quite frustrating to hear things repeated over and over again, and when you ask for reasoning they can’t give it.

Hi there.

Thank you for your review so very long ago. Recently I have been very busy, but I did not forget your review, and here is one back for you.

I think this essay covers a good portion of the gay marriage debate. I completely agree with your way of looking at it. It would appear the opinions of those against same sex marriage come from an attitude of intolerance. It's a shame some of the effects that lingering traditional religious teachings have on the politics of this country.

On another note, I would be interested to read more essays of yours. I think you should write some!

Sincerely,

Max

Outside the Realm of Freedom:
I liked how you used a small detail of your life in which an unreasonable law stopped you from doing something you felt you should have been able to do, after analyzing the law for its validity. I agree with you that this way of doing things seems to be the current way of things. I would challenge you to look at the Patriot Act (what a laughable, hypocritical title) and its impacts of aspects of our liberty that actually matter.

Nice work.

I think there are two essays you need to write as foundation chapters in order to make this one's intentions more justified. The first needs to critique the electoral college and point out its inadequacy, since this is, in itself, a much debated political process.

The other essay needed writing is a critique of the two party system and its in adequacies. Because, in the end, even you point out that the goal is to get someone in office who is the most widely tolerated of candidates. The two party certainly accomplishes this, and probably a lot better than a multi party system would. One need only look to other countries with a multi-party system and see that this system is likely to elect someone with far less than fifty percent of the vote. Maybe you need to point out more about how you see other parties being incorporated into government?

Just some thoughts.

Hey, just let you know I edited and expanded on my essay, thanks for your suggestions, I hope it now meets your approval. cheers!