In my opinion, much of the current rules in public debate of politics appear to be as such:
I’m a very smart and educated person and I believe X.
This other person believes Y.
Therefore, this other person is a complete buffoon (or at least that is the nice word as opposed to what we read 5-7 comments down after any opinion based article)
This other person believes Y.
Therefore, this other person is a complete buffoon (or at least that is the nice word as opposed to what we read 5-7 comments down after any opinion based article)
So, I am not taking sides in my blog today, but rather offering up some educational facts to allow you to form your own opinion on the current issues at hand. As with any public debate, there is usually merit to both sides. What is important in any debate, is to know how to discuss rationally and to know the facts. So here I go… (with the help from an article in “The Art of Manliness”)
First, how about we ALL try our hardest to see the other side. Seek to understand. When we passionately believe in something, it can seem nearly impossible to even conceive how another person doesn’t see things the same way you do. But since we’ve established that having a divergent political belief does not a buffoon make, you should be duly curious about why your friend feels the way he does. Right?
Second, please stop with the “how” and “why” questions. Questions like, “How could you possibly believe that?” and “Why can’t you see how wrong you are?” won’t get you anywhere. People have emotions and opinions – you cannot control those. They. Just. Are. Instead, pose “what” questions: “What makes you feel that way?” “What has led you to come to that conclusion?” Be interested in what the person has to say. Stop thinking about your response and truly listen to understand.
Third, and I do work for Gannett – a media company, please learn to consume media from both sides of the issue. How can you expect to expand your mind when you always listen/read what you agree with? If all you consume is media from one particular source, a source that affirms and flatters your already preconceived beliefs, then you’re never going to be able to see the other side – the definition of narrow-mindedness. History shows us that “back in the day” we didn’t just read op-eds and attend speeches of people with whom we agreed. We eagerly consumed what our opponents had to say as well. We must make an effort to read, listen, and watch news that may make our blood pressure soar, but will leave us better informed and ready to make fair assessments. If you’re a devoted CNN fan, tune into Fox or BBC every now again.
Next, learn to concede a point where appropriate. Unless your friend really is a buffoon, she’ll probably say a few things that you actually agree with. A badger of a person will let these things pass by without a word, believing that to concede any point is to show weakness. An intelligent and secure person is able to say, “Yeah, that’s a good point. I hadn’t thought of that.” Even if you don’t agree with something, at least pepper your discourse with the occasional “I understand why you feel that way,” and “I can see that.”
Find common ground. Even if you and your friend are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Even if it’s basic generalities like “Washington is broken,” or “politicians have lost sight of their jobs”, or “the Packers are the best team in football” (ok, I took a side there). We can agree on those things and then civilly present our varying perspectives on how it should be fixed.
Finally, we all need to stick to the facts. Only bring to the table those facts which have been thoroughly vetted as true – fact check yourself. Information culled from emails forwarded to you by Aunt Madea or Uncle Buck, articles from the National Trash Daily, and stories from a ham radio broadcast you listened to at 430am do not count. How you and your friend interpret the facts will of course vary, but you must at least be debating accurate information as opposed to rumors and slander that no one can really prove or argue against.
And this brings me to the second part of my blog, “just the facts please, just the facts” (with the help of ESPN, gov.org, Wikipedia, Webster’s, Google, Francis Scott Key, and Aunt Madea):
The important thing to remember about our National Anthem is that it is a battle song involving rockets and bombs. That's why, in our country which proudly celebrates actions on the battlefield and the playing field, "The Star-Spangled Banner" and our sports have a nearly perfect union. The anthem was created during one war, and cemented in our psyches during another. They seemingly go “hand in hand’. We honor war, love sports and celebrate winning - our national anthem strikes all three chords at the same time. So…what does an antagonistic, difficult-to-sing 200-year-old tune about a flag have to do with playing sports? Congress didn't officially adopt the "The Star-Spangled Banner" until 1931 -- and by that time it was already a baseball tradition steeped in wartime patriotism. After America's entrance into World War I, Major League Baseball games often featured patriotic rituals, such as players marching in formation during pregame military drills and bands playing patriotic songs. During the seventh-inning stretch of game one of the 1918 World Series, the band erupted into "The Star-Spangled Banner." The Cubs and Red Sox players faced the centerfield flag pole and stood at attention. Upon hearing the opening notes of the National Anthem from the military band, a player (and former Navy serviceman) immediately faced the flag and snapped to attention with a military salute. The other players on the field followed suit, in "civilian" fashion, meaning they stood and put their right hands over their hearts. The crowd, already standing, showed its first real signs of life all day, joining in a spontaneous sing-along, quietly at first, then finishing with flair. For the next two games, it had the band play "The Star-Spangled Banner" during the seventh-inning stretch, to similarly enthusiastic crowds. Not to be outdone, the Red Sox ratcheted up the pageantry when the Series relocated to Boston for the next three games. At Fenway Park, "The Star-Spangled Banner" moved from the seventh-inning stretch to the pregame festivities, and the team coupled the playing of the song with the introduction of wounded soldiers who had received free tickets. Like the Chicago fans, the normally reserved Boston crowd erupted for the pregame anthem and the hobbled heroes. The crowd, already on their feet, began to sing along and applauded at the end of the song. SO …. thanks to a brass band, some fans and a former Navy servicemen (and current player) who snapped to attention, the “anthem” was the baseball’s (national pastime) anthem more than a decade before it was the nation's.
And how about our flag? There is an actual code for our flag and a section devoted to conduct during the National Anthem. The United States Code for the Flag, in Section 171, describes conduct during the National Anthem. “During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should render the military salute at the first note of the anthem and retain this position until the last note. When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.”
And what about “freedom of speech”. Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
And the “right to protest” - while no human rights instrument or national constitution grants the absolute right to protest, such a right to protest may be a manifestation of the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Some are questioning the rules and duties for our President. They are actually pretty simply defined: The Constitution lays out rules and duties for the president as follows:
The president serves terms of four years.
During that time, he or she must oversee the faithful execution of U.S. laws.
He or she must take this oath: "I do so solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president serves as commander in chief of the U.S. military as well as state militias when they're activated under federal command.
The president can grant pardons, except in cases of where he or she has been impeached.
He or she can make treaties with other nations, with consent of the Senate.
The president can appoint Supreme Court justices, ambassadors and other public officers (such as Cabinet secretaries), with Senate confirmation.
He or she can convene or adjourn both houses of Congress, if deemed necessary.
The president must report to Congress in a State of the Union address.
He or she must receive foreign heads of state and officials.
The president is compensated (for salary, expenses and travel expenses).
Should the president be accused of high crimes and misdemeanors, he or she can be removed from office through impeachment.
The president must propose bills to Congress.
He or she can block Congressional bills from becoming law through the veto power.
This is the extent of the president's duties, and later amendments and laws further shaped the presidency. The 22nd Amendment (ratified after Franklin Roosevelt's record three full terms) limited the president to two terms, although these needn't be consecutive: President Grover Cleveland served two terms with a four-year hiatus in between. The succession of power in the event of the president's removal or incapacitation was delineated in 1947: “Next up is the vice president, the speaker of the House, the Senate president pro tem and then the members of the Cabinet, beginning with the secretary of state and ending with the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs”.
Then there is also the “unitary executive theory”, which was claimed to justify effectively unchecked presidential power over the use of military force, the detention and interrogation of prisoners, extraordinary rendition and intelligence gathering. According to the unitary executive theory, since the Constitution assigns the president all of “the executive power”, he can set aside laws that attempt to limit his power over national security. This is an enormous power: critics charge that it effectively places the president above the law. Advocates of broad presidential power argue it is necessary to defend the nation against the threat posed by terrorism.
From an article in the New York Times about facts, arguments and politics (Gary Gutting), he says “But, strictly speaking, facts by themselves provide only the premises of a rational argument. To draw a conclusion, we also need a logical process of reasoning. Sometimes, the process is obvious and insisting on it a mere technicality: if the train is in fact bearing down on you, the conclusion is that you should get off the tracks. But in political debates, there’s often a questionable move from facts to a conclusion. … That facts alone are necessary but not sufficient for a good argument. As important as getting the facts right is putting the facts into a comprehensive logical structure that supports your conclusion. This structure must present a plausible account of the various factors relevant to the conclusion. Without it, even an impeccable set of facts does not give us a good argument. The recent journalistic trend toward serious fact-checking holds considerable promise for improving our political debates. But we also need a serious effort at argument-checking.”
We all need to seek to understand and respect our differences in opinion. Present our facts and debate while also seeking to understand the “other side”. Our country, our leaders, our politicians, our co-workers, and even our friends can lose sight of the importance in understanding, accepting, and valuing differences. Most issues are not black and white, red or blue, or even he or she – the best answer lies somewhere in the middle (note I did not say “right” answer). Ultimately, the most important thing about including the ideas of others is that it recognizes and honors the fundamental value each of us bring to a discussion. So please debate away with facts and an open mind, but please remember this - often, the best answer lies in the middle. Together. We. Win.
“O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave…O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave”…
Dave Harmon
People Division
“Kindness is Currency”
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/davidharmonhrFollow Dave and other USA TODAY NETWORK highlights at: Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, The Muse and Gannett Careers
No comments:
Post a Comment