Come on people. He is our President.
Like him, don't like him. The majority spoke and that is what makes us who we are.
I love all of the people who quote the Bible. Have you read Romans 13: 1-2? No? Go check it out.
It really doesn't matter what you think or how you voted. He is a man who came from nothing and worked very hard to get where he is. He is the definition of what America is.
And you don't want him speaking to our youth?
Unlike many people I spoke with on this subject, I read the prepared speech online before passing judgement.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Streaming-at-Noon-The-Presidents-Speech-to-Americas-Students#
Then I decided I would allow my child to watch it at school.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
9.03.2009
He has a point.
I will not say which side of the heath care debate I am on or which political party I belong to. Democrat or Republican, this guy has a point.
SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) -- As people shout over each other and tune out diverging views in town hall meetings, the health care debate is proving to be symptomatic of a major ailment threatening our nation:
A contagious culture of closed-mindedness threatens to suffocate our progress as a society.
Why has it become so difficult to even consider changing our minds about important issues?
Here's my diagnosis.
Increasingly, the willingness to change one's position on political issues has been misread as a mark of weakness rather than a product of attentive listening and careful deliberation.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, the successful branding of John Kerry as a flip-flopper doomed his bid. Fear of "flip-flopper syndrome" is apparently catching like the flu, because today politicians are not alone in their determination to adhere to partisan positions despite the changing needs of our nation.
Nearly everyone's so reluctant to appear wishy-washy that they stand firm even when the evidence is against their views.
Three factors exacerbate this paralysis by lack of analysis: labels, lifestyles and listening.
First, the labels ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo, loading what could be rational, economic or social measures with moral baggage. This narrows our choices, hemming in policy makers.
Any proposal including the words "government-run" elicits cries of "socialism" and "communism." Any argument invoking the words "God" or "moral" sparks accusations of "right-wing extremism," "facism," or "Bible-thumping." Instead of listening to each other's ideas, we spot the warning label and run the other way.
Second, our lifestyles favor knee-jerk reactions. The way we think, work and live in the Digital Age demands we quickly categorize information without investing time into rich interaction, research and understanding.
We're hesitant to ask questions because we don't have time to listen to the long, complicated answers that might follow. And we lack the time to fact-check competing claims. In our haste, it's easier to echo our party's position than drill down, questioning whether party leaders are motivated by our best interests or the best interests of their biggest contributors.
Third, we tend to listen only to like-minded opinions as media fragmentation encourages us to filter out varying perspectives. If you're a liberal, you avoid FOX News. If you're a conservative you revile MSNBC. The dynamic is even more pronounced online, where a niche media source can be found for any outlook.
This silences the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and deliberation that might lead to reformulating positions, forging sustainable compromises, and developing consensus crucial to moving our nation forward on complex issues.
So how can we overcome this challenge, starting with the health care debate? How do we open our minds to the possibility that we could actually learn from somebody else? Here's my prescription.
For starters, we should eschew the notion that changing our minds is a character flaw. To the contrary, experts believe it's a manifestation of higher intelligence. Renowned psychologist Stuart Sutherland wrote in "Irrationality," his seminal 1992 book: "The willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence is a sign of rationality not weakness."
To further free our minds, we should aggressively treat the three Ls:
Let's lose the labels: from "flip-flopper" to "commie," from "fear-monger" to "right-wing nut job." Trash the diatribe; mull the ideas.
Let's engage in some constructive lifestyle management, slowing down to ponder -- and make independent decisions -- as enlightened people. We cannot allow the technological evolution to rob us of the intellectual strides of the American Revolution.
We must value the art of listening, reflection, comparative analysis, and civil discourse if we're to make the most of our democracy. In the process, we should signal to leaders that we're willing to expand our horizons beyond party lines. Maybe they'll get in front of our parade, collaborating for a change.
Let's request a second opinion and listen to each other. Switch channels. Visit different Web sites. Read a newspaper, while we can still find one. How about stepping into a town hall with an open mind, prepared to converse with people hailing from diverse circumstances? A range of perspectives enriches our viewpoint, empowering us to craft nuanced responses to complex situations.
Ultimately, we must stop thinking that the only thing to think is what we've thought all along. As we learn more about multifaceted matters, our positions should evolve accordingly. Let's accept that it's OK to change your minds.
In the end, opening our minds can only enhance the prognosis for our most cherished patient: America.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rudy Ruiz.
SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) -- As people shout over each other and tune out diverging views in town hall meetings, the health care debate is proving to be symptomatic of a major ailment threatening our nation:
A contagious culture of closed-mindedness threatens to suffocate our progress as a society.
Why has it become so difficult to even consider changing our minds about important issues?
Here's my diagnosis.
Increasingly, the willingness to change one's position on political issues has been misread as a mark of weakness rather than a product of attentive listening and careful deliberation.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, the successful branding of John Kerry as a flip-flopper doomed his bid. Fear of "flip-flopper syndrome" is apparently catching like the flu, because today politicians are not alone in their determination to adhere to partisan positions despite the changing needs of our nation.
Nearly everyone's so reluctant to appear wishy-washy that they stand firm even when the evidence is against their views.
Three factors exacerbate this paralysis by lack of analysis: labels, lifestyles and listening.
First, the labels ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo, loading what could be rational, economic or social measures with moral baggage. This narrows our choices, hemming in policy makers.
Any proposal including the words "government-run" elicits cries of "socialism" and "communism." Any argument invoking the words "God" or "moral" sparks accusations of "right-wing extremism," "facism," or "Bible-thumping." Instead of listening to each other's ideas, we spot the warning label and run the other way.
Second, our lifestyles favor knee-jerk reactions. The way we think, work and live in the Digital Age demands we quickly categorize information without investing time into rich interaction, research and understanding.
We're hesitant to ask questions because we don't have time to listen to the long, complicated answers that might follow. And we lack the time to fact-check competing claims. In our haste, it's easier to echo our party's position than drill down, questioning whether party leaders are motivated by our best interests or the best interests of their biggest contributors.
Third, we tend to listen only to like-minded opinions as media fragmentation encourages us to filter out varying perspectives. If you're a liberal, you avoid FOX News. If you're a conservative you revile MSNBC. The dynamic is even more pronounced online, where a niche media source can be found for any outlook.
This silences the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and deliberation that might lead to reformulating positions, forging sustainable compromises, and developing consensus crucial to moving our nation forward on complex issues.
So how can we overcome this challenge, starting with the health care debate? How do we open our minds to the possibility that we could actually learn from somebody else? Here's my prescription.
For starters, we should eschew the notion that changing our minds is a character flaw. To the contrary, experts believe it's a manifestation of higher intelligence. Renowned psychologist Stuart Sutherland wrote in "Irrationality," his seminal 1992 book: "The willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence is a sign of rationality not weakness."
To further free our minds, we should aggressively treat the three Ls:
Let's lose the labels: from "flip-flopper" to "commie," from "fear-monger" to "right-wing nut job." Trash the diatribe; mull the ideas.
Let's engage in some constructive lifestyle management, slowing down to ponder -- and make independent decisions -- as enlightened people. We cannot allow the technological evolution to rob us of the intellectual strides of the American Revolution.
We must value the art of listening, reflection, comparative analysis, and civil discourse if we're to make the most of our democracy. In the process, we should signal to leaders that we're willing to expand our horizons beyond party lines. Maybe they'll get in front of our parade, collaborating for a change.
Let's request a second opinion and listen to each other. Switch channels. Visit different Web sites. Read a newspaper, while we can still find one. How about stepping into a town hall with an open mind, prepared to converse with people hailing from diverse circumstances? A range of perspectives enriches our viewpoint, empowering us to craft nuanced responses to complex situations.
Ultimately, we must stop thinking that the only thing to think is what we've thought all along. As we learn more about multifaceted matters, our positions should evolve accordingly. Let's accept that it's OK to change your minds.
In the end, opening our minds can only enhance the prognosis for our most cherished patient: America.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rudy Ruiz.
7.08.2009
Is it the media or all of the people that KEEP WATCHING!?!
(CNN) – New York Rep. Peter King called on the media to "knock out the psycho-babble" and stop covering Michael Jackson because "this guy was a pervert."
"He was a child molester. He was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country," King said Sunday in front of the American Legion Hall in Wantagh. "We're too politically correct. No one wants to stand up and say, 'We don't need Michael Jackson.'"
King, a nine-term Republican representative from New York's Third Congressional District, said the media has "disgraced itself," noting that there are people dying everyday.
"There are men and women dying today in Afghanistan. Let's give them the credit they deserve," he added.
Jackson went on trial for child molestation allegations in 2005, but was acquitted after a 14-week media circus of a trial in Santa Maria, California. A decade earlier, prosecutors in Los Angeles declined to file charges in their own 13-month child molestation investigation. That case settled out of court, reportedly with Jackson paying millions in damages.
"There's nothing good about this guy. He may have been a good singer, did some dancing, but bottom-line is — would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room with Michael Jackson? What are we glorifying him for?" King said, asking instead that the public honor people like servicemen, teachers and firefighters.
King defended his comments in an interview Monday with CNN radio affiliate WOR, “The fact is that what he has done as far as young children are concerned, young boys are concerned, is a horrible example to set to the world.”
“…Anyone who causes evil or endangers children, to me that supersedes anything else. And do we as a culture really want to be defined by Michael Jackson's singing and dancing or by the fact that he became a worldwide spectacle for abuse of children? “
"He was a child molester. He was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country," King said Sunday in front of the American Legion Hall in Wantagh. "We're too politically correct. No one wants to stand up and say, 'We don't need Michael Jackson.'"
King, a nine-term Republican representative from New York's Third Congressional District, said the media has "disgraced itself," noting that there are people dying everyday.
"There are men and women dying today in Afghanistan. Let's give them the credit they deserve," he added.
Jackson went on trial for child molestation allegations in 2005, but was acquitted after a 14-week media circus of a trial in Santa Maria, California. A decade earlier, prosecutors in Los Angeles declined to file charges in their own 13-month child molestation investigation. That case settled out of court, reportedly with Jackson paying millions in damages.
"There's nothing good about this guy. He may have been a good singer, did some dancing, but bottom-line is — would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room with Michael Jackson? What are we glorifying him for?" King said, asking instead that the public honor people like servicemen, teachers and firefighters.
King defended his comments in an interview Monday with CNN radio affiliate WOR, “The fact is that what he has done as far as young children are concerned, young boys are concerned, is a horrible example to set to the world.”
“…Anyone who causes evil or endangers children, to me that supersedes anything else. And do we as a culture really want to be defined by Michael Jackson's singing and dancing or by the fact that he became a worldwide spectacle for abuse of children? “
6.21.2009
11.05.2008
Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States of America.
Policies and politics come and go. We all need to come together as a united nation and stand behind our newly elected leader.
That was one of the BEST victory speeches I have ever heard.
Congratulations, Mr. Obama.
God bless America.
Policies and politics come and go. We all need to come together as a united nation and stand behind our newly elected leader.
That was one of the BEST victory speeches I have ever heard.
Congratulations, Mr. Obama.
God bless America.
11.04.2008
Election Day
Election Day is here again. History in the making. I am very proud to say I was part of this election as I am every time I vote. I think it's great so many people have gotten involved and passionate about this election and the future of our country, but I also think that they fail to realize how very important the local elections are also. There have been many times in the past few weeks that I wanted to scream at someone for being so ignorant.
Sadly, I can't say that I am proud of who I voted for. For me it boiled down to who I disliked and disagreed with the least. That is not the way I like to vote and it frightens me that McCain and Obama are the best that our great country was able to churn out. Obviously this is a time we need a Great Leader, not an average, crooked politian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)