In case you missed if this week on SERENDIPITY, I thought I would run this article here as well. It includes some personal experiences along with comments on the famous work of non-fiction. Be sure to click on “View original post” at the bottom to hear over to teepee12.com for the rest of the story.
In case you missed it, we shared some thoughts recently on SERENDIPITY about the supply chain and how the current situation affects us all. The repairs to the links in our supply chain will be slow. Be sure to click on “View original post” at the bottom to head over to teepee12.com for the rest of these thoughts.
As April is National Poetry Month, I offer you a new poem. Be sure to click “View original post” at the bottom to head over to SERENDIPITY for the rest of this timely verse.
We are well into the New Year now and was there Peace on Earth, Good will toward men? You probably know the answer. Be sure to click “View original post” at the bottom to head over to SERENDIPITY for the rest of this “old long since.”
There might be disturbing things going on now in society, but rock legends Simon and Garfunkel knew the value of social commentary through music many years ago. A powerful metal version of this song came along a half century later. Be sure to click “View original post” at the bottom to head over to SERENDIPITY to hear these two interpretations.
A short story of business, life and what they hold for some. Be sure to click on “View original post” at the bottom to head over to SERENDIPITY for the rest of the story.
With the next election less than a year away, I thought it was important to share these thoughts again. Be sure to click on “View original post” at the bottom to head over to SERENDIPITY for the rest of the article.
As the course toward impeachment continues on, the verifiable lies seem to be increasing. Much to our surprise, the Republican politicians and Trump supporters do not seem to care what he says. Be sure to click on “View original post” at the bottom to head over to SERENDIPITY for the rest of the article.
Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all,
By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall;
In so righteous a cause let us hope to succeed,
For heaven approves of each generous deed.
-John Dickinson, The Liberty Song, 1768
Throughout the history of this country, the concept that we stand together has been expressed in song, in writing, and at the podium in speech. It was the rallying cry of the Revolution and the days following 9/11. It was spoken during the Civil War and the armed conflicts since. It was the thought of trade unions fighting for better working conditions. We may never have all stood together, but we were never divided at critical times in history. Until now, that is.
From the opening of his campaign until the present day, the leader of our country has worked hard to divide Americans with an “Us versus them” attitude. He speaks it, he tweets it, he lies about it.
In the opening salvo, he started by trying to assert that many of our neighbors who came from other countries were the enemy. Of Mexico he stated: “They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.” You likely know the most egregious things he said about Mexico. Let’s consider another statement.
Dividing us from other friends, 45 went on to say: “It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening.” This was stated despite a strict immigration policy under President Obama. Ask anyone who entered (or was deported) at that time.
Also at the time of his announcement, China and Japan were particularly criticised, along with the leaders of our own country. It is not unusual to criticize the other party during a campaign, but consider carefully the deals the country made during the Obama presidency and the comments made by Trump, the candidate. There is campaign rhetoric, and then there are falsehoods and divisions. The announcement of candidacy is filled with quotes that are not attributed to specific people and many statistics that raise questions of accuracy. Did he portray us correctly?
After a campaign of insults and hateful comments, 45 has spent a great deal of time on his twitter account blasting out hateful and divisive comments among people here and abroad. How do we feel about this? Early in the year the Quinnipiac University National Poll found that the Tweeter in Chief is dividing the nation. While polls results show that the majority of Republicans do not feel this way, Americans by 64 to 31 per cent feel that 45 is actually doing more to divide the country.
Worse yet, many are unsure if the man is actually stable. “President Donald Trump can’t seem to improve his approval rating, perhaps because of the troubling fact that half of the voters we spoke to think he is mentally unstable,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. But apparently, some of those voters are willing to stand by him anyway.
He tried to change the narrative on the NFL anthem controversy, perhaps because he could not get an NFL franchise years ago. The NFL commissioner and the NFL Players Association fired back. “Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players,” commissioner, Roger Goodell, said. NFLPA executive director, DeMaurice Smith, indicated that they would not back down.
NFL QB Tom Brady, believed to be a Republican, responded “I believe in bringing people together and respect and love and trust. I just want to support my teammates.”
Last year in September, the New York Times’ Peter Baker provided this news analysis, “Never in modern times has an occupant of the Oval Office seemed to reject so thoroughly the nostrum that a president’s duty is to bring the country together.” Isn’t it troubling that our leader has so many negative things to say?
Baker also noted, “In his brief career as president and a candidate for president, Mr. Trump has attacked virtually every major institution in American life: Congress, the courts, Democrats, Republicans, the news media, the Justice Department, Hollywood, the military, NATO, the intelligence agencies, the cast of “Hamilton,” the cast of “Saturday Night Live,” the pope and now professional sports. ” Is this presidential?
While the tweeter is in a rage, outside forces are also trying to undermine American life. Fake social media accounts have reportedly planted fake stories and memes meant to drive a wedge between parts of our society. Apparently it has been working. If you have been a regular user of facebook or twitter you know exactly what the problem is. As these fake stories pop up, unwitting supporters retweet, reblog and share these items on their news feed. Do you think foreign influences are behind this?
Social media believes we are under cyber attack. Google, the parent of YouTube and other media platforms, deleted Iranian accounts. Facebook and others have removed Russian accounts. These accounts were there to influence opinion and perhaps even divide Americans through fake stories. Was there collusion by 45 and/or his minions to help spread lies posted by Russians? Time will reveal the answer.
With full-blown propaganda wars in play, some started by and perpetuated by our leader, our enemies must be rejoicing. They see the unraveling of the American fabric, aided by our own leader, allowing them to advance to a stronger position in the world. If they can divide us and turn American against American, with Trump’s help, then our foes will watch as we stumble and fall in the eyes of the world.
Sources: “The Liberty Song,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberty_Song
“History of the Motto,” Smithsonian Museum of American History
“Here’s Donald Trump’s Presidential Announcement Speech,” Time, June 16, 2015
Quinnipiac University National Poll, January 17, 2018
“Roger Goodell, NFLPA angrily denounce Trump’s ‘divisive comments’,” NBCSPORTS.COM, September, 23, 2017
“Tom Brady: I Disagree With Trump’s ‘Divisive’ Comments,” thedailybeast.com
“A Divider, Not a Uniter, Trump Widens the Breach,” The New York Times, September 24, 2017
“Not just Russians: Google follows Facebook to remove
Iranian accounts,” Financial Times, http://www.ft.com
“President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days,” The Washington Post, August 1, 2018
Click on the source links above for further information on the above statements.
The article above originally appeared on SERENDIPITY (teepee12.com) last year at this time. It does not seem that things have changed.
What About Obama? Huh? ** by Rich Paschall
You may have heard of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, aka the Great Debates of 1858. Yes, this is history and there may be a quiz at the end so pay attention.
Abraham Lincoln and the incumbent Senator from Illinois, Stephen A. Douglas, held a series of debates around the state trying to sway voters on the important issues of the day. Each hoped their party would control the state legislature, as US Senators were chosen by the legislature, not by popular vote. Lincoln was well-received at the debates, but Douglas was elected Senator.
We know how it turned out for Lincoln two years later.
Now Lincoln-Douglas debates are mostly a high school competition. They are “values” debates where students often argue the greater good.
“Solvency” is not an issue. A debater does not have to know how to implement a solution, it just should be better for society. Of course, he/she will attempt to bring into evidence material from authoritative sources to bolster his/her position.
One of the suggested topics for this past year was Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. There is no need to say how this should be applied, but that there are situations when it should or could be. Historical examples would provide support. Law and order arguments may be common on the negative.
These debates, like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, are one-on-one. The first speaker has a set time. The second speaker a slightly longer period, then the first speaker gets a rebuttal. Total speaking times end up the same. The first speaker may have a plan. The second speaker may have a counter-plan or could argue that no plan is reasonable under the resolution.
Shouting, name calling, unsupported positions all result in a ballot for the opposition by the judge. Contestants must research, write, think, and propose. Obviously, acting like modern-day politicians would not produce a winner.
Two man team debate, also known as Policy Debate, will propose a resolution where the tactic not only includes interpreting the resolution but also implementing a solution. Some debaters may have so many points to make that they speak quickly. The judge will usually take notes to be sure that the speakers arguments flow logically from point-to-point. Both speakers on each side of the debate topic make a presentation, both are cross-examined. Then each speaks in rebuttal. In many leagues, constructives are 8 -minutes, cross-examinations are 3-minutes, and rebuttals are 5-minutes long.
You’d better come prepared!
A topic for last season’s two-man debate was Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States.
The topics for the debate season are often timely and include something prominently in the news.
Debaters must research both sides of the issue as they will be called upon to be on the affirmative or negative, depending on the debate or round within a debate. In mid-summer, debaters are already starting to study the issues and gather evidence pro and con. There will be no flippant remarks, insults of opponents, or made up evidence. General and stereotypical comments mean nothing without support. Judges will dismiss these comments. and opponents are wise to challenge them.
Because there are obvious “stock issues” implied with any current events topic, it is incumbent upon the debaters to deal with these intelligently. Bombast and supposition will not do. Instead, they must deal with the significance of the issue, solvency of the plan they present, the harms of the status quo or the affirmative plan, and the advantages of one side along with disadvantages of the other.
A key part of any debate is “Topicality.” With time to fill in rebuttals and possibly cross examinations too, it becomes important to stay on topic. With an audience of debaters and judges taking notes, you can not stray into areas that are “Extra Topical.” There are no random viewers waiting for a debater to pull out stock arguments on other topics or to launch into inane attacks on the opponent. It’s just critical thinkers judging the merits of the debate.
Why do we bring you this small lesson in the fine art of debate? Perhaps you have noticed that debate is a lost art in the political arena, television news shows, and especially social media. In the last election, you saw one party presenting something other than primary debates. Even as an entertainment show, it was generally lacking in substance. The other side had two candidates who actually seemed to study the topics, but they also found time to present “extra-topical” discussion points.
The presidential “debates” that followed frequently strayed off topic. One candidate spent time talking about other administrations rather than what he would do as president. The attempt to belittle your opponent through insults to family and associates may influence some viewers, but it would not work well with debate judges.
On my Facebook news feed, I see “discussions” of a social or political nature often degenerate into a series of personal attacks and Extra-Topical points. One friend often posts news articles on current social issues. A person I am acquainted with will usually make a comment on sanctuary cities.
If I point out the topic has nothing to do with these cities, he tells me to wake up! For him, that is the only topic which really matters.
Another friend likes to engage me in a debate. I try not to fall for it anymore. If he says something about 45, I might respond (on topic), “As a former military man, how do you feel about Trump sharing military secrets with the North Koreans or Russians?”
The response is likely to be “What about Obama? Huh? You never said anything against him when he was president.”
“Yes, I did.”
“I don’t remember that.”
“You weren’t listening.”
“Well, what about Obama? Huh?”
There is no staying on topic sometimes. It is particularly frustrating if you are a debate coach or judge.
** Originally posted on SERENDIPITY