Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Bravado Of A Different Tone
http://themoderatevoice.com/137606/americas-young-people-turn-against-patriotic-bravado-gazeta-russia/
I disagree with the idea that America's youth are carry less bravado. I understand that I might be taking a slightly different definition of bravado and what the blogger is trying,but for the sake of argument I will. Today's youth in America are patriotic, and proud just in a different tone. While previous generation have bragged about America, and gone out to show it either in war or business. those options are less taken today. If you want to see patriotic actions today you must look at the local level, to those kids who are participating in things like the Occupy Movement, or serious mission trips. There are your examples of American patriotism spreading.
Let's look at the Occupy Movement first. Yes, a good bit of the Occupy swell was sprung from the upstarts in the Arab countries, but Occupy was the bounce back to the Arab spring. Like radar or sonar, we answered the Arab Spring with out our American version, that lacked the serious military aspects. The participant of any American Occupy encampment will tell you it is their right as an American to be out there picketing. To me, that is American vibrato. In fact, in what I have read about the movement there was an almost snobbish attitude about why more people were not involved. Is that not the very definition of bravado? "I'm right, you're wrong! Why can't you see I'm right and your wrong?"
The Occupy Movement was very visible to the rest of the world, and shown that attitude to the point that OWS rallies sprang up all over the world. It might not be capitalism, or bullets that are being flashed by the Occupy Camps, but it is pretty easy to see that their patriotism was in full force for all the world. Might I add, they wanted to the whole world to see that we in America were attuned to what was going on and did not want to be left behind. Yet another example of what I understand to be bravado.
The second group of kids that we can look at are very much unlike the Occupy Wall Streeter, but no less bold in how they think. If you ask any OWS member why they were in the streets, the First Amendment right to assembly is going to be their first answer. If you ask any student out on a mission field, their answer may well quote the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Now let me make a distinction, there are missionaries and there are kid who go on mission trips. The hard corp kids are going to be the group that you get this answer from,though the mission trip kids will give a more warm-fizzy answer. Are they not displaying their patriotism by going out and preaching the word of God to others? Ask them that question and you are going to get a religiously laced patriotic speech that would make Reagan and Pat Robertson go nuts. This will be more pronounced if you poll many members of a particular university located in a particular central Virginia town that starts with L and ends in ynchburg. They see their freedom as something the rest of the world lack, and because we in America have it, we have to share it with the rest of the world. I must too here admit that I am a serious mission tripper, and have on occasion seen the world this way. I'd like to think now, that when I go on trips today, it's for the sake of helping other people in need.
My point is this. In years past people have had bravado because we have beat other countries at ward, or in the world market, or sports, or whatever. Now we need to tune into how our young people are showing off their patriotism in different ways. Not to sound all hippieish, but we are very well beating the country in peace. Is that not what we want? To show that Democracy is peaceful, and while we might fight amongst ourselves, we do so as a model for our to fight amongst your neighbors. Oh my, that dangers on American exceptionalism right there. Hmm
Let me know what you think! Have I gone off my rocker or am I missing the point all together? Leave a comment here or on my Facebook page. I'd love to talk
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698
I disagree with the idea that America's youth are carry less bravado. I understand that I might be taking a slightly different definition of bravado and what the blogger is trying,but for the sake of argument I will. Today's youth in America are patriotic, and proud just in a different tone. While previous generation have bragged about America, and gone out to show it either in war or business. those options are less taken today. If you want to see patriotic actions today you must look at the local level, to those kids who are participating in things like the Occupy Movement, or serious mission trips. There are your examples of American patriotism spreading.
Let's look at the Occupy Movement first. Yes, a good bit of the Occupy swell was sprung from the upstarts in the Arab countries, but Occupy was the bounce back to the Arab spring. Like radar or sonar, we answered the Arab Spring with out our American version, that lacked the serious military aspects. The participant of any American Occupy encampment will tell you it is their right as an American to be out there picketing. To me, that is American vibrato. In fact, in what I have read about the movement there was an almost snobbish attitude about why more people were not involved. Is that not the very definition of bravado? "I'm right, you're wrong! Why can't you see I'm right and your wrong?"
The Occupy Movement was very visible to the rest of the world, and shown that attitude to the point that OWS rallies sprang up all over the world. It might not be capitalism, or bullets that are being flashed by the Occupy Camps, but it is pretty easy to see that their patriotism was in full force for all the world. Might I add, they wanted to the whole world to see that we in America were attuned to what was going on and did not want to be left behind. Yet another example of what I understand to be bravado.
The second group of kids that we can look at are very much unlike the Occupy Wall Streeter, but no less bold in how they think. If you ask any OWS member why they were in the streets, the First Amendment right to assembly is going to be their first answer. If you ask any student out on a mission field, their answer may well quote the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Now let me make a distinction, there are missionaries and there are kid who go on mission trips. The hard corp kids are going to be the group that you get this answer from,though the mission trip kids will give a more warm-fizzy answer. Are they not displaying their patriotism by going out and preaching the word of God to others? Ask them that question and you are going to get a religiously laced patriotic speech that would make Reagan and Pat Robertson go nuts. This will be more pronounced if you poll many members of a particular university located in a particular central Virginia town that starts with L and ends in ynchburg. They see their freedom as something the rest of the world lack, and because we in America have it, we have to share it with the rest of the world. I must too here admit that I am a serious mission tripper, and have on occasion seen the world this way. I'd like to think now, that when I go on trips today, it's for the sake of helping other people in need.
My point is this. In years past people have had bravado because we have beat other countries at ward, or in the world market, or sports, or whatever. Now we need to tune into how our young people are showing off their patriotism in different ways. Not to sound all hippieish, but we are very well beating the country in peace. Is that not what we want? To show that Democracy is peaceful, and while we might fight amongst ourselves, we do so as a model for our to fight amongst your neighbors. Oh my, that dangers on American exceptionalism right there. Hmm
Let me know what you think! Have I gone off my rocker or am I missing the point all together? Leave a comment here or on my Facebook page. I'd love to talk
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698
Friday, February 3, 2012
Interesting Territory
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2012/01/state-v-church-trib-style.html
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
Of all the First Amendment right, the freedom of religion is my favorite, well second favorite to debate. Speech is my favorite, simply because it is the root of all the others.
We are covering the First Amendment in class, so I have been doing some thinking about the freedom of/from/for religion in this country, and I have reached a conclusion that might be a bit radical. By even hearing cases about religion, is the Supreme Court stepping close to the establishment of religion? Some may say no, I contend that recognition is pretty close. I think, the framers of the Constitution wanted religion completely out of the equation. There very thought of the Supreme Court hearing a case about religion, may well have made the framers sick.
But back to reality, the Supreme Court is dealing with religion. What I feel is a bit tedious about this whole affair is the notion that we are debating whether churches can deny coverage of an abortion on their health care. If we are separating state from church, why is there a debate? Churches are independent agencies that govern themselves, are they not? Their health care plans are their matter.
If my understanding is correct, why is the case being argued under the 1st Amendment? Would it not be more effective for the plaintiff to sue under a different premise? Yes the 1st Amendment will receive the most notice, but there is bound to be a better way to approach this to reach the same outcome.
What do you think? Am I totally nut? Write me a comment and we can start a debate. We welcome any and all comments. Leave them here or at our facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
Of all the First Amendment right, the freedom of religion is my favorite, well second favorite to debate. Speech is my favorite, simply because it is the root of all the others.
We are covering the First Amendment in class, so I have been doing some thinking about the freedom of/from/for religion in this country, and I have reached a conclusion that might be a bit radical. By even hearing cases about religion, is the Supreme Court stepping close to the establishment of religion? Some may say no, I contend that recognition is pretty close. I think, the framers of the Constitution wanted religion completely out of the equation. There very thought of the Supreme Court hearing a case about religion, may well have made the framers sick.
But back to reality, the Supreme Court is dealing with religion. What I feel is a bit tedious about this whole affair is the notion that we are debating whether churches can deny coverage of an abortion on their health care. If we are separating state from church, why is there a debate? Churches are independent agencies that govern themselves, are they not? Their health care plans are their matter.
If my understanding is correct, why is the case being argued under the 1st Amendment? Would it not be more effective for the plaintiff to sue under a different premise? Yes the 1st Amendment will receive the most notice, but there is bound to be a better way to approach this to reach the same outcome.
What do you think? Am I totally nut? Write me a comment and we can start a debate. We welcome any and all comments. Leave them here or at our facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698)
Why We DO NOT Need These Guys
Usually I try not to be so negative, and the next post I have in mind is much more high brow but I thought I would take a few minutes to highlight some of the more stupid things the Republican Nominees have said. As usual though, I want to offer a few different points of view
Ok, lets go with the idea that it was a flub. He may very well care about poor people. What gets me was that he wonders if there is a safety net, and whether it needs fixing. How out of touch does a person need to be before they are not sure if the safety net in American needs to be fixed? Is it at the millionaire mark? The billionaire mark? Of course Mitt, the safety nets needs to be fixed. We absolutely need to social programs in this country, and we need to improve them tremendously. We need to make them more effective in order to help the most people, the best way possible. Yes Mitt, there is a Santa Claus, and there is a safety net too.
Poor Newt. My only hope is that Newt's ancestors came across the ocean speaking the "language of prosperity." My guess is they did not. Shall we look a Newts family history to see? What kind of name is Gingrich? For the sake of argument, let us assume German. Shall for the sake of argument harken back to say the early 1900's when speaking German was frowned upon. The 1900's when German families changed their names to avoid repercussion. In the 1900's, Newt, I would bet someone may well have looked at the German neighborhoods and said "They need to learn English, and stop living in those ghettos." Now how does it feel Newt? Stop for a change, and think about what you are going to say, and the historical implications. You are after all a history professor.
Ok, so he wants to preserve the rights of family, and happiness. Good! Finally some sense spoken from the mouth of one of these guys, but wait! What if you are gay? Are the second class citizens? Are they to be denied unalienable rights simply because who they go to bed with? What ever happened to the notion of American values that Republicans are supposed to be so proud of? The idea that all people are created equal? We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right? Guess that doesn't apply to homosexuals, immigrants, poor, or non-Christians. Sorry guys and gals. Better luck next time.
We'll make sure your the first one up there Newt!
Ok, lets go with the idea that it was a flub. He may very well care about poor people. What gets me was that he wonders if there is a safety net, and whether it needs fixing. How out of touch does a person need to be before they are not sure if the safety net in American needs to be fixed? Is it at the millionaire mark? The billionaire mark? Of course Mitt, the safety nets needs to be fixed. We absolutely need to social programs in this country, and we need to improve them tremendously. We need to make them more effective in order to help the most people, the best way possible. Yes Mitt, there is a Santa Claus, and there is a safety net too.
Poor Newt. My only hope is that Newt's ancestors came across the ocean speaking the "language of prosperity." My guess is they did not. Shall we look a Newts family history to see? What kind of name is Gingrich? For the sake of argument, let us assume German. Shall for the sake of argument harken back to say the early 1900's when speaking German was frowned upon. The 1900's when German families changed their names to avoid repercussion. In the 1900's, Newt, I would bet someone may well have looked at the German neighborhoods and said "They need to learn English, and stop living in those ghettos." Now how does it feel Newt? Stop for a change, and think about what you are going to say, and the historical implications. You are after all a history professor.
Ok, so he wants to preserve the rights of family, and happiness. Good! Finally some sense spoken from the mouth of one of these guys, but wait! What if you are gay? Are the second class citizens? Are they to be denied unalienable rights simply because who they go to bed with? What ever happened to the notion of American values that Republicans are supposed to be so proud of? The idea that all people are created equal? We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right? Guess that doesn't apply to homosexuals, immigrants, poor, or non-Christians. Sorry guys and gals. Better luck next time.
We'll make sure your the first one up there Newt!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Exactly What We Need
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/02/146265421/more-voter-id-proposals-introduced-across-the-nation
When I first heard this story, I was first drawn to the question: Why are law makers trying to limit those who vote? In a time when voter turn-out in a general election might reach 50%, limitations on who can vote are not what this country needs. It is simply un-American and bad for Democracy.
Besides the fact that it limits Democracy, there are very few draw backs to these laws. It will ensure that those people who vote are who they say they are. If you think about it, responsible citizens who vote are really who the government needs to keep it's collective eye on.
When I first heard this story, I was first drawn to the question: Why are law makers trying to limit those who vote? In a time when voter turn-out in a general election might reach 50%, limitations on who can vote are not what this country needs. It is simply un-American and bad for Democracy.
Besides the fact that it limits Democracy, there are very few draw backs to these laws. It will ensure that those people who vote are who they say they are. If you think about it, responsible citizens who vote are really who the government needs to keep it's collective eye on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)