Political communication

“To convince citizens that they should pay attention to politics and that it is worth their time and energy to become informed about political discussions, to vote, to volunteer their time for campaign activity, and perhaps even to submit their own names as candidates for office, we need to persuade them that their participation genuinely matters and that they can make a difference."Thomas A. Hollohan
Political communication can be a hot bed at many different levels. Whether it be at the interpersonal level, the public or community level or the political level, talking about politics often can lead to a heated discussion that many times spins out of control. So how are we as a free society to treat this issue? Obviously each area in which politics is discussed we need different guidelines and helping hints. For one way of communicating cannot be used for all areas.
Perhaps the area that many people struggle with the most on a day to day basis is how to effectively communicate political views with one another or in small groups. It seems that in families the most heated debates take place. I propose that in order to improve these interpersonal political discussions we as citizens of this country need to become more informed politically. We should all encourage one another to read up on major political issues in order to be better informed when we come together to discuss issues. Also to become more aware of arguments that has no merit. To not accept evidence that is not backed by credible resources. I feel that the one of the only ways to really improve our communication on an interpersonal basis is to learn how to effectively search for the facts. We should learn to search out credible sources of information instead of just checking those sources that reaffirm what we already believe.
Another way of improving interpersonal communication in regard to politics is the practicing of empathizing with the opposing view. By doing this I mean people should practice paraphrasing. By this I mean repeating or summarizing without caustic tones back to the other person what they said to insure that they heard correctly. People should be encouraged to use paraphrasing before they counter the other view in order that both parties can make sure that what was said was said correctly and decoded by the other party correctly so they can further understand the first person. I first practiced this concept in my conflict class. At first I found it absurd but after time I saw that it made me choose my words more carefully and try to communicate more civilly because they also were trying to do the same with me. using this method people are in a way being slightly forced to be civil with one another and learn that they are talking to a person with feelings not just an opposing view that is wrong.
The next area of political communication that can be improved is public communication. “Another opportunity for direct political involvement is through participation in interest groups and citizen action committees.” (Hollihan) So often our citizens feel that they are left out of the game that only every four years they get a say on what goes on in their local or federal government. The biggest change that can be made is to let the people know that their voices really matter. So how as a country are we going to accomplish this? The first thing I propose that we do is to hold more town hall meetings, however in a different way. The biggest downfall of our town hall meetings is that people get too riled up and often nothing ever really gets done except a screaming match. There needs to be a group of people whose job is to run town hall meetings every day of the week. The local elected government should choose them and be accountable to them or meet with these officials once a week so that they can relay the major concerns of the people back to their elected officials. The meetings themselves should be held five days a week. Each day or every other day the meeting will listen to or go over arguments written out by the people about the concerns they have over this particular issue. The board that would run these meeting should post what they were going to discuss that week a week in advance. The arguments or concerns need to be written in advance. Then they officials can read those concerns and separate the issues from the heated emotions. Then they can go to the meeting the next day and address those issues face to face with the individual who wrote them. I believe that this revised version of town hall meetings could really make a difference in how people view their government. There should be members of both major parties on this board who are known as skilled communicators and not prone to rash reactions. Giving the people more access to their government is essential to keeping this democratic system alive.
On major issues that are going on in the senate or congress I think those representatives should also be have access to these forums to get a feel for how their constituents want them to vote or act. These congressmen need to show that they are doing their best to listen to what the people say to them and not what fills up their wallet.
On a personal note I feel that one way to drastically improve public political communication is to make laws about using obstinacies. I know we are entitled to free speech however these words are not being used to help our society. They only hurt the young people of this society. If we cannot effectively use our language to cry out for what we want what good would “F” this guy or “F” this policy do? As a citizen we want our voices to be heard right? Well we only take away our credibility and cause more heated language to fly through the air. Nothing gets accomplished when using these words. As an educated society we really should encourage one another to use the language we have in better ways. Public communication is essential to politics so why not teach our younger generations that we are as advanced as we are because of the words we choose not the curses we yell out in the streets. Yes it should be illegal to say some of these words. People would be forced to use their brains to communicate their view in a more appropriate and effective way. I know that I am more willing to listen to a calm well constructed argument than an argument that is filled with personal attacks and curse words.
Education is the key to political, public communication. A measure that will most certainly improve our public communication is taking classes in college that teach us how to interact with one another civilly when we have different opinions. It should be a mandatory class that every college student takes. Learning how to separate out the issues, and the arguments from the fallacies and emotions will propel this society into a new era of political communication. I believe that more will be accomplished by implementing this tool into our education system. Students are the future of this society and if they learn how to disagree with grace and dignity but also share their views respectfully than our society will be more successful. Teaching students how to argue effectively will help all of us in the long run. People could not be swayed so easily by the tv or what they hear but learn to look deeper and access information themselves. If anything in this society will help us to show the world that democracy is the best form of government, than we need to teach our young how to use this system to the best of their ability by teaching them how to communicate in the right way. Education can accomplish this. Taking classes in civility and political communication has helped me immensely and I can now empathize with the other view much easier now than I ever could without taking those calluses. This is the way to go in public political communication.
The last arena that could use change in our society is political arena. Our government does an ok job at this but I believe that they can do better. How can this happen? Well I think we need to ask our government officials to be more present in the lives of the citizens they work for. They need to all give more speeches publish their views on different bills and work closely with local governments in order to win the hearts of the people. Perhaps what our government needs to do more than the students is to takes classes as well in civility and political communication. To be honest I believe that my previous arguments if implemented will naturally bring about a change in the way our government conducts its political communication. They only way to improve political communication in politics is if we the citizens of this country demand it and implement it. Otherwise we will go in this mudslinging arena and never fully reach our full potential. By learning how to communicate and becoming more active in our system of government we as a society can cause wonderful things to happen. And perhaps not demonize each other in the process. So often our candidates are so focused on the mudslinging that they lose sight of why they are there if the first place. They just want to get enough voters to see the other side as evil and make themselves look like a better alternative to that evil. “Candidates today realize that they do not need to make an attempt to convince all voters or even most voters to support their election or to endorse their policies. They only need a sufficient number of voters to secure more votes than their opponents, and they can achieve this goal by both urging people to vote for them and discouraging them from voting their opponents.” (Thomas A. Hollihan) We so often think of the opposing view as wrong or evil but by learning and involvement and even paraphrasing one another we can not only learn about the opposing views but learn about those people who we share this country with. Learning to be civil and educated is the answer to political communication. That is the only way our society will ever be able to move forward in the future.

Bad political debate syestem

One of my favorite classes I took at Colorado State University was the political debate class. I have such fond memories of learning the proper way to debate how to do a Lincoln Douglas debate, and most of all to use my wits instead of my temper. I learned how to separate out my arguments from pointless slanders and irrelevant attacks against the opposing party. I worked hard on discovering the facts of my case and theirs. I came up with responses that were not only useful but backed up by credible sources of support. I remember staying up for a week searching books and professional articles or scholarly journals gathering all I could to prepare the best arguments I could. Not only did my rhetoric have to be sound but I had to be concise and to the point because of the time limits, my arguments were checked and anticipated by the other side to look for fallacies and most of all I would gain no points for using those fallacies such as attacking the other side’s character. I had to attack their arguments not them. I had to not only anticipate their arguments but their rebuttals. It was a game of wits and truth. But most of all it was a game of research and facts.
Still after coming out of this class I had one great question? Why on earth do our politicians not use this method of debate anymore? Our current political debate system is useless. It is more of a jabbing and mudslinging contest than it is a chance for our leaders to explore all views and offer the best evidence for a point of view. There is more immaturity in our current system than there has ever been before. I hate watching political debates. It is not a place where you can learn the facts anymore. It is more of a place where candidates can attack each other not their policies. When I watch those debates I feel always that the mediator has a political slant no matter which way it is. They ask questions about age, race, personal views and then maybe what they would do if they were president. The debates are no place anymore to learn about policy. If one candidate is proposing a new way of doing things up on the hill then I want to know every argument for it and against it. I want to hear evidence from both sides not opinion. I want to hear that their claims are backed up by evidence not what their cabinet says. There are no papers for the candidates to refer to no pre asked questions that are unbiased. Questions that are often asked are meant more as insults than viable questions. There is no group of judges to check the facts and sources of the candidate’s information. Often the modern debates turn in to a game of who can overtly insult the other party than who has the best argument. I want the arguments to be timed so that each member has equal time to not only make an argument, present a rebuttal but also to not bring in any new evidence when they are not supposed to. Also I wish that all the information that the candidate brings to the table can be checked and rechecked not only by the judges but by the public. We need to see the credible sources that these candidates use to support their arguments. I want to learn about more of the facts not their opinions in these extremely important matters. I want to know the downsides and every contingency accounted for when I hear these arguments being presented to the people that they are most going to affect.
Personally I am so tired of both sides of the debate saying that they won the debate when really all they did was personally attack the other side. If our politicians cannot debate with civility than how do they expect their followers to one trust their arguments, two know the truth, and three treat the other side with respect while disagreeing with them. They set such a bad example in Washington no wonder the public feels like that they are just choosing the lesser of two evils to be the leader of the country. By using Lincoln Douglas debates I feel that this country can not only learn about the political issues their candidate supports or is against but they can be reassured that their president no matter who ends up winning will have the common sense to research every issue that is laid before them. There are times when I have done a debate that due to my research and the other parties arguments my own views were changed or at least I gave much greater attention to their views than I would ever have before. So often we can be entrenched in our own views that no matter what the other side says we will not listen but at least this style of debate makes both sides look hard at the opposing view and their support for that view. I feel that this style of debate creates a better empathy than any other style if you know not only the arguments of the other side but the reasons why you are more able to understand your opposing side. That is what is so desperately needed in this country.
Perhaps my biggest argument for this type or style of debating is that our country needs to see that those who wish to lead are better than using cheap shots and fixed questions. They need to see that our candidates know how to address issues and not their personal ego. Our countrymen need to see democracy at its best and not its worst. When other countries look at our debates they see our people at our worst. These debates need to shine for our greatest glory and not be a demonstration of our pettiness. How often our own people vote knowing nothing based on the facts or watches our current debates to see who can get the best pot shot on the other side. Personally I hate our current system of debates. They focus so much on image or age not on wits and knowledge. Our candidates need to demonstrate that they know how to obtain facts and learn about all sides of an issue. They should not focus on well if I was in charge or if things were done differently than it would be better. They slander past administrations and bring very little numerical or physical evidence to the table to support what they are spewing out of their mouths.
I feel that our country does not look at the beauty of our debate system. It has been turned into something that is not so comely. If anything what I am driving at is that our country needs first and foremost examples of good character and hard work. Instead we get celebrities and heir and heiresses and nut cases that are running for and conducting our political system. Our debates could make a huge difference in people’s opinions and the way they vote. Our current system only seems to solidify our current biases and closed-minded, uniformed views about issues. Many Americans do not view our debates as an exchange of well constructed arguments that are for the informing of our people. No they view them more as a boxing match. Our candidates dodge blows and land verbal punches on one another instead of trying to convince the public that the side of their argument is for the best of those who they mean to lead. We need to show our children that our candidates are smart and well read not good at making jokes and insults. All we see is distrust between those who are debating. They demonstrate a lack of respect for one another. This is not the essence of democracy that our children are taught to revere and believe. This is just a demonstration of name calling, and pouting rather than seasoned professionals making real arguments that are well informed. We need to take our debate system and examine it with a cold eye. First do they provide us with real information or just fallacies and mudslinging? Two are we actually learning anything positive from these debates? Are our opinions being affected by these debates? Do these debates enhance our knowledge or create further frustration with our government and those who lead our party? These questions I feel are not being answered positively with our current political debating system. Change is needed for the government and for our citizens. We live in the information age. It is time we get that information from those who wish to lead us into a better future. I have railed enough on this system of debating. Perhaps our televised debating system should just disappear all together, but we know that that chance is slim. Still a change would be welcome by those who are looking for and expect more from their candidates than just a good show.

Bad political debate syestem

One of my favorite classes I took at Colorado State University was the political debate class. I have such fond memories of learning the proper way to debate how to do a Lincoln Douglas debate, and most of all to use my wits instead of my temper. I learned how to separate out my arguments from pointless slanders and irrelevant attacks against the opposing party. I worked hard on discovering the facts of my case and theirs. I came up with responses that were not only useful but backed up by credible sources of support. I remember staying up for a week searching books and professional articles or scholarly journals gathering all I could to prepare the best arguments I could. Not only did my rhetoric have to be sound but I had to be concise and to the point because of the time limits, my arguments were checked and anticipated by the other side to look for fallacies and most of all I would gain no points for using those fallacies such as attacking the other side’s character. I had to attack their arguments not them. I had to not only anticipate their arguments but their rebuttals. It was a game of wits and truth. But most of all it was a game of research and facts.
Still after coming out of this class I had one great question? Why on earth do our politicians not use this method of debate anymore? Our current political debate system is useless. It is more of a jabbing and mudslinging contest than it is a chance for our leaders to explore all views and offer the best evidence for a point of view. There is more immaturity in our current system than there has ever been before. I hate watching political debates. It is not a place where you can learn the facts anymore. It is more of a place where candidates can attack each other not their policies. When I watch those debates I feel always that the mediator has a political slant no matter which way it is. They ask questions about age, race, personal views and then maybe what they would do if they were president. The debates are no place anymore to learn about policy. If one candidate is proposing a new way of doing things up on the hill then I want to know every argument for it and against it. I want to hear evidence from both sides not opinion. I want to hear that their claims are backed up by evidence not what their cabinet says. There are no papers for the candidates to refer to no pre asked questions that are unbiased. Questions that are often asked are meant more as insults than viable questions. There is no group of judges to check the facts and sources of the candidate’s information. Often the modern debates turn in to a game of who can overtly insult the other party than who has the best argument. I want the arguments to be timed so that each member has equal time to not only make an argument, present a rebuttal but also to not bring in any new evidence when they are not supposed to. Also I wish that all the information that the candidate brings to the table can be checked and rechecked not only by the judges but by the public. We need to see the credible sources that these candidates use to support their arguments. I want to learn about more of the facts not their opinions in these extremely important matters. I want to know the downsides and every contingency accounted for when I hear these arguments being presented to the people that they are most going to affect.
Personally I am so tired of both sides of the debate saying that they won the debate when really all they did was personally attack the other side. If our politicians cannot debate with civility than how do they expect their followers to one trust their arguments, two know the truth, and three treat the other side with respect while disagreeing with them. They set such a bad example in Washington no wonder the public feels like that they are just choosing the lesser of two evils to be the leader of the country. By using Lincoln Douglas debates I feel that this country can not only learn about the political issues their candidate supports or is against but they can be reassured that their president no matter who ends up winning will have the common sense to research every issue that is laid before them. There are times when I have done a debate that due to my research and the other parties arguments my own views were changed or at least I gave much greater attention to their views than I would ever have before. So often we can be entrenched in our own views that no matter what the other side says we will not listen but at least this style of debate makes both sides look hard at the opposing view and their support for that view. I feel that this style of debate creates a better empathy than any other style if you know not only the arguments of the other side but the reasons why you are more able to understand your opposing side. That is what is so desperately needed in this country.
Perhaps my biggest argument for this type or style of debating is that our country needs to see that those who wish to lead are better than using cheap shots and fixed questions. They need to see that our candidates know how to address issues and not their personal ego. Our countrymen need to see democracy at its best and not its worst. When other countries look at our debates they see our people at our worst. These debates need to shine for our greatest glory and not be a demonstration of our pettiness. How often our own people vote knowing nothing based on the facts or watches our current debates to see who can get the best pot shot on the other side. Personally I hate our current system of debates. They focus so much on image or age not on wits and knowledge. Our candidates need to demonstrate that they know how to obtain facts and learn about all sides of an issue. They should not focus on well if I was in charge or if things were done differently than it would be better. They slander past administrations and bring very little numerical or physical evidence to the table to support what they are spewing out of their mouths.
I feel that our country does not look at the beauty of our debate system. It has been turned into something that is not so comely. If anything what I am driving at is that our country needs first and foremost examples of good character and hard work. Instead we get celebrities and heir and heiresses and nut cases that are running for and conducting our political system. Our debates could make a huge difference in people’s opinions and the way they vote. Our current system only seems to solidify our current biases and closed-minded, uniformed views about issues. Many Americans do not view our debates as an exchange of well constructed arguments that are for the informing of our people. No they view them more as a boxing match. Our candidates dodge blows and land verbal punches on one another instead of trying to convince the public that the side of their argument is for the best of those who they mean to lead. We need to show our children that our candidates are smart and well read not good at making jokes and insults. All we see is distrust between those who are debating. They demonstrate a lack of respect for one another. This is not the essence of democracy that our children are taught to revere and believe. This is just a demonstration of name calling, and pouting rather than seasoned professionals making real arguments that are well informed. We need to take our debate system and examine it with a cold eye. First do they provide us with real information or just fallacies and mudslinging? Two are we actually learning anything positive from these debates? Are our opinions being affected by these debates? Do these debates enhance our knowledge or create further frustration with our government and those who lead our party? These questions I feel are not being answered positively with our current political debating system. Change is needed for the government and for our citizens. We live in the information age. It is time we get that information from those who wish to lead us into a better future. I have railed enough on this system of debating. Perhaps our televised debating system should just disappear all together, but we know that that chance is slim. Still a change would be welcome by those who are looking for and expect more from their candidates than just a good show.

Rhetoric and Religion

Throughout the United States political history our presidents have or have not chosen to use their religious beliefs in their rhetoric. Now in our current society the people of this country are so zealous about cutting out religion from rhetoric that they are in a way asking our candidates to not talk about a fundamental portion of their lives. our country since the beginning has stated in our constitution that there is to be a separation between church and state. However I feel that many people do not take the time to know that first that statement means that the church cannot run the government nor can the government run the church. Second in this modern era our citizens are so ignorant to the fact that religion no matter what religion they followed, it was very prevalent in our president’s speeches and everyday rhetoric. My purpose is to point out different quotes from presidents rhetoric concerning religion and the state or how religious affiliation affected their everyday lives.
I think that it is appropriate to go from beginning to end. Our very first president the founder of our presidential system and example to all presidents after him was grounded in scientific thought and loved democracy with a passion he was a man of few speeches compared to our current president. However in his rhetoric there are religious quotes and quotes concerning religion. “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792]. Another quote from our first president concerning religion, “The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.” Now many believed that these quotes support the claim that Mr. Washington was a atheist, however these quotes do show that his views about religion were included in his rhetoric.
Our next president John Adams had several quotes about religion in his own rhetoric. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion” “The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.” These men both were profound thinkers of their time. Yet even they used their religion in their rhetoric. Or they spoke of topics concerning religion in their rhetoric. At this time in our countries history people were really scared that the church may be in charge of the government instead of the people they were afraid of another roman church.
Another of our founding fathers used religion in his rhetoric however like the other two it is not in the context that many people think it was. "The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ." Jefferson like those before him was very liberal in thought and believed that men had the right to do what they please with themselves concerning religion so when it comes to others asking him about scandal between him and some pastors his rhetoric clearly demonstrates his feelings about religious or as he said any kind of tyranny from church, man or government.
Skipping ahead a little our president Andrew Jackson often spoke of his beliefs in his rhetoric and used quotes from the Bible to speak about what he believed. Does this mean that his religious rhetoric affected his policy well maybe yes and maybe no however he was not afraid to use religion in his rhetoric. "Go to the Scriptures...the joyful promises it contains will be a balsam to all your troubles. That book...is the rock on which our republic rests." "Sir, I am in the hands of a merciful God. I have full confidence in His goodness and mercy...The Bible is true. I have tried to conform to its spirit as near as possible. Upon that sacred volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Was this man afraid to show the world his beliefs? Well no he was not. He was not afraid to show his beliefs in his rhetoric as well. I for one am proud that even though there was pressure for him not to mix his religious view into his rhetoric he did so because he believed it was right. I honestly believe that no matter who is president they should not hide what they believe and if their religion is such a big part of their lives than we should expect to see that religion in their speeches and their addresses. The country wants honest people not people pleasers so I think that he is honorable for stating so clearly in his speeches his beliefs. Even Teddy Roosevelt spoke of religion in his speeches. “A thorough understanding of the Bible is better than a college education.” Did these men allow their faith to rule the country? I believe no that is why they set up a democracy so that there could be checks and balances. However I do believe that for the better they allowed their religious views to help influence their decisions concerning this country and they let the people know that by using their rhetoric to convey that decision making process.
Now days there are example of religious rhetoric in our modern presidents. It is my view and honor to say that I supported President George W Bush when he used the Bible in his rhetoric and his speeches. he spoke openly about his beliefs and hi speeches openly spoke about his beliefs. He is a man that loves the Lord and is not afraid to show it. Now i would have voted for him if I could simply because his rhetoric spoke so boldly about how he believes in Christ and is going to ask for his guidance in his policy decisions. Many people were upset with this and talked about separation between religion and state. Still we knew his intentions and I believe that because he used religion in his rhetoric the people knew exactly what they were getting when they were voting for him. They were not deceived at all by his words when it came to his beliefs. "...The God I know is one that promotes peace and freedom. But I get great sustenance from my personal relationship. That doesn't make me think I'm a better person than you are, by the way. Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, don't try to take a speck out of your eye if I've got a log in my own." "My faith plays a big part in my life. And when I was answering that question what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do. And my faith is a very, it's very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls .But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an Almighty and if you choose not to. If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America is the right to worship the way you see fit. Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency.”
I honestly believe that religion is going to be a further part of our president’s rhetoric no matter what they believe. As Americans we should know and accept that. What a man believes is the reason why we vote for him to be our leader. If he chooses to I think that it should be ok for him or her to use religion in their rhetoric. No I endorse it. Yes there is such thing as separation between religion and state however there is nothing that says there should be a separation between a man of religious faith and working for the state. This country is about the people’s right first and foremost. The right to freedom of speech extends of political rhetoric contain religious quotations. We cannot and should not ever take that away or we will lose our ability to be called a truly free nation.


Places where I got the quotes
http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_GWashington.htm
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/john_adams/
http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
http://www.eadshome.com/Andrew%20Jackson.htm
http://www.talkjesus.com/lounge/22490-bible-quotes-famous-people.html

illegal immigration

Perhaps one of the most debated topics over the past few years has been illegal immigration. Our country has been in hot debate over the issues. I myself have several opinions about the subject. First and foremost I am all for immigration of a legal nature. I myself am friends with many people from different countries who are here on legal visa’s to either work or go to school. They are here because they value the opportunities that this country has to offer and what this country represents. That being said my opinions now that are being offered are strictly opinions.
I feel that this country is being drained of our resources and many lives being changed for the worse because of all the illegal’s that live in this country without documentation. My first argument against illegal’s being here from Mexico or any other country is the drain on our economy. Many of these workers come here and work in our fields and do jobs that are low wage. They then send the money they earn back to their home country to support their family. Now as far as humanity is concerned everyone has the right to support their own family and ensure that they are well off. However that being said they are taking resources that could be circulating in our own country and instead adding it to another country’s welfare. This for me is one reason why I do not support illegal immigration because that money is very much needed to support our own economy in our current downturn.
My next argument against illegal immigration is the medical situation that is created. In California and other states close to the border, there are hospitals that are closing or are in dire need of financial aid. You see when an illegal immigrant comes in for help they cannot be refused by the doctor or the hospital. It is a part of the oath taken by doctors and I agree that no person should be denied medical care. However the immigrant can’t afford to pay the hospital bill or the doctors fees for their service, so where does the money come from. Well it comes from our taxes. I personally do not like the idea of paying other peoples bills when I can barely make it on my own. And if illegal’s do not help pay taxes I am supporting them as well as my family and that is wrong. I don’t work so hard to support people who do not honor the country and its system. Doctors have to raise their prices for those who can pay to make up for those who can’t hospitals have to raise prices because they cannot afford to stay open if they are not getting funded. And it is getting worse. I have many friends out in California who witness this situation all the time. If I was a doctor and I was not getting paid to work I would either move or charge other who could pay more money. This situation again calls on citizens to support illegal’s who are not adding to this countries worth but only taking away from it. It is hard for all of us to pay medical bills or to pay insurance to companies who charge too high of prices to begin with. Still when you are a doctor what choice do you have when you are not getting paid? And it is not just one or two illegal’s asking for help. No hospitals in California are closing their doors because they cannot afford to stay open because a good deal of their patients are illegal’s and do not have the ability to pay for the bills or the emergency services provided to them. Doctors are leaving hospitals because they are not getting paid and they cannot afford their malpractice insurance. So they either have to move to a place where they will get paid or they have to charge people like you and me higher prices in order to make ends meet. And to pay off their own bills and loans for medical school.
Next there is the crime situation. Many rapes, murders and other crimes have been committed by illegal’s who were criminals to begin with. Then they crossed the border and where not documented. So we do not have their prints or DNA on file. Yes rapes and murders are committed by citizens too but there are many people who did not have to be hurt that were hurt or killed because of the illegal immigration situation. How many crimes have been committed by illegal immigrants? Too many if they want to be a part of this country they should obey the law and honor what this country stands for not hurt it or its citizens in any way. That means economically or physically. I feel that people who cannot enter this country legally are not conducive to following its laws in the first place. That should be a red flag to all those who are in support of immigration. Why won’t they at least enter in on a work visa? Maybe it takes time but if they love this country as much as I do then they will want to follow its laws as well.
One type of crime that has increased because of illegal immigration is drug trafficking. Because our boarders are so often crossed many substances that is harmful not only to the user but to other because of the user are entering our country because of the continuous back and forth crossings of people between Mexico and America. If our country was serious about stopping drug trafficking than they would pay closer attention to those who were coming into our country. Another crime that is gaining speed is the amount of Mexican gangs infiltrating our country. There are more gangs in this country now and more racist gang wars in this country. Now that is not at all to blame on the race of immigrants but first they are in our country and they are in a gang. Bad to begin with second of racism in this country and in other gangs that leads to more violence than we already have. Yes this a rather poor argument but it is there.
Another argument I have to offer is the language barrier. Over the past summer I lived in Italy. I loved the country and its people. I had to jump through a few hoops in order to get a visa and be allowed into that country. I had to be medically fit, have a clean record and most importantly of all be a documented citizen of a country to be allowed into Italy. However when I got there I was expected to know enough Italian to get myself from point A to point b. The Italian people take great offense to those who don’t even try to learn their language. After all it is their country and I cannot expect them like so many others do to make every effort to convenience me. I watched as my fellow Americans were ripped off or received rude service because they expected people to act the way they do or to know English. Than when I went the same Italian and I spoke their language no matter how poorly I did the Italians always treated me with ten times more respect and admiration and I always got better service because I respected them as a people. That being said I loathe the idea of another people coming into our English speaking country and expecting us to change our signs to Spanish, having our schools being taught in two languages and expecting our people to learn their language in order to get by in our native country. That too is wrong. If they want to be a part of our society they need to learn to speak our language. I should not have to learn to speak two languages in my native country because illegals came in and said I don’t understand you so work for me. No I will not do it. It is simply wrong.
My last argument is for legal immigration. I have two friends that are immigrants. The first one is from Scotland, the second is from Brazil. Both face the possibility of not being in this country in the future. My friend from Scotland came into this country to become pastor. He received a seven year visa and worked hard to be a great influence on our society he was a good man and was law abiding. However last year his visa expired and he was forced to go back to Scotland. My friend from brazil is a brilliant engineer and is responsible for many structures right here in fort Collins however his visa is expiring and he dreads going home where he will not anywhere near as good of a job or lifestyle if he stayed here in the united states. Both of these men have worked hard to be a part of this country and contribute to it. I believe that the government should let them stay instead of the illegals. They con tribute to our society yet now because they followed the law they have to go home. Is that fair to them? I believe that this situation needs to be addressed no ignored.

actors in my politics

It seems these days that every actor on the stage and in film who has a big enough name and enough money decide that they want to do their civil duty and go into politics. You look around and all you see is one famous person or another from the screen now deciding your future. My questions are, does this concept worry anyone, what makes them qualified to lead us, why can they get in so easily and we cannot, how did and when did actors start making the cross from film to legislature and should we take them seriously? Should fame decide who you vote for? Whatever happened to credentials?
Okay so I have just rambled off a ton of questions but as I observe in class and through life I wonder why people like Brad Pitt have their words taken so seriously when an esteemed scientist is ignored. No it is not like this in every case however the rich and the famous are heard more than those who actually do the work. When I first started look as this I thought of sex appeal? Yeah I know but hear me out on this one. Ok everyone has heard of a poster child right? For this article I will assume that you have. Maybe one reason why political parties use actors to portray their view is sex appeal. Who is our modern pop culture centered society going to pay more attention to? A guy in a business suit or a white jacket with a stack of notes and books or the hot man or woman we follow in the tabloids and watch movies of? To be honest a lot more people prefer the actor. They have the beauty that draws people to them.
Another factor that influences why people listen to actors more than other plain people is that the actor’s lives are continually thrust upon us by films and media. Also because we demand to know about their personal lives, their political views are going to be brought up. If I am say in love with Edward Norton, ‘yes he is pretty cute,’ I would be interested in what he does off the screen as well. If I adore him and have what some call an acting crush I am more likely to listen to what he says. So say he supports a particular political agenda or a cause. I am probably going to take a second look at that agenda, cause, or even party because I take him as a credible source. Often this happens. People may deny it but in many cases this previous statement does have some merit.
Actors may join the political arena for many reasons, either they generally care about issues; they just want more fans and money or both. Some actors like Ronald Reagan, Angelina Jolie and many others really cared about the lives of others. They did and do generally want to help make the world and this country a better place by making their views public and using their fame for the good of those who are less fortunate. Then again there are actors who want more publicity. I will not name names, but there are a few actors who think by joining politics more people will come to watch them on the screen.
Ok so I have spouted out a few names of our modern actors that have joined up in the political game but an actor involving themselves in politics has been going on for a very long time. One of the first well documented campaigns for an actor in the political sphere was Helen Gahagan Douglas. This woman started off on Broadway but then in 1944 was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. One thing that she is most remembered for is giving Richard Nixon his nick name tricky dick. Another actor that joined the game was Charlton Heston. He was known for being involved in civil rights and the NRA. He gave the NRA a face to put on the posters. People saw his face next to the slogan and knew what he stood for. Another famous household name is Sony Bono. He was an elected republican official. Then there was Arnold Schwarzenegger, we all know his history in the movies and now he is the governor of California. Side not he is much better than the last governor. However why do we take his word over others. I think that his fame is one of the things that made it easier for him to come into politics.
Alright so there are a lot of actors and singers in our politics. What makes them qualified to lead us? And why is their views more important or paid more attention to than other who knows more? I honestly do not have answers for either of these questions. No it is not true all the time however what makes an actor so special that they can lead me or my sate. For example the governator, really? Does he have any training in politics, economics, world social issues, military experience, and social reforms? How can he connect or know what his voters want? He probable does not hang out with everyday people. He is part of an elite class. Like many other actors who were or are in office I feel that they are not really qualified or have enough experience in our system to make informed decisions. But then again half of our current politicians no matter what party they are a part of have no idea about half of the stuff I have mentioned.
Ok so what about all those actors who use their fame to endorse an issue or a political side. My personal opinion that unless it is for a humanitarian cause, don’t do it. You’re an actor I do not care if you are a dem or a rep or a comm, really shut up. I think that it is low and just dumb to include actors in political rings. I don’t want to hear Pairs Hiltons views on anything. I want to hear someone who has a degree. Maybe I am one of few that do but one example of this that will most likely get a lot of comments is Al Gore. I was mad that he got a Nobel Peace Prize. Yeah good cause but he does not even really abide by the system he wants to enforce. He did not do any scientific data or go out in the field. No he put together a power point that came from the data of others work. That is what made me mad. He is not a credible source the guys behind the work should of gotten the prize not him. Yet no one really knows of any scientist who worked or works on global warming analysis. Nope we just know the politicians and actors who have big mouths.
This last section I am writing is my personal views on what should decide political involvement in the higher level aka elected office. If an actor wants to get in on this ok whatever but I believe that every politician should have a well versed background in economics, world history, our own cultures history. They should know why different groups of people disagree and have knowledge about different religions, and how they feel about one another. Being a speech major I would like to see politicians be skilled in the art of giving speeches and not reading off of teleprompters. They should have a good deal of knowledge of military tactics. Manly because if I were in the military I would not want someone who knew nothing of it to lead me or be my commander and chief. Yes these people should have a knowledge of world trade and how it works, they should know about many different cultures so they don’t make too many blunder in other countries. Most of all I feel that actors are more pre-determined to be affected by public opinion rather than standing by what they believe in. that I do not want. I may not agree with a president or an elected official but I respect anyone who stands by their beliefs and does not let the masses tell them what to do.
Alright so I have ranted enough for one day but as you can see I feel that as a country we need to take a closer look at why our rich and famous decide to join politics. Even so should they be able to lead us? Yes it is a free country but as citizens of this free country we also have a responsibility to one another. I encourage everyone not to vote for a actor unless they have the qualifications needed to lead a group of people. Then again that goes for every political player. Actors are just an extreme truth to the fact that not all of our elected officials are qualified to lead. My list earlier should apply to everyone. The most qualified and educated should be leading us, not the most popular or powerful or rich or famous. I know I would feel much safer in my everyday life if I knew that the people who were in office knew more than I did on a subject or a field. So perhaps we should demand that from our leader. A man or woman who has these qualifications is far more likely to win my vote than a pretty face I have seen in the movies.

females in politics

Women in Politics

Political leaders require many things, strength, power, patience, intelligence and a willingness to learn. These are only some of the virtues that should be the qualifications for leading people. However not all people who are leaders are first held up to those standards. What am I talking about? Well I am discussing women in political history. It is my view that no matter what women do, no matter what they accomplish the first thing they will be remembered for is that they were a woman. Almost saying wow a woman could accomplish all this. I know not everyone feels that way but that is how many people act. As human beings we think that the sex life of a woman and her role with males is just as if not more interesting than the things she did to change the world around her. Throughout history there are many examples of this. Why is this?

Throughout our history women were mostly seen either as mothers, sex symbols, whores, or things that got in the way. Ok I know not all women were but what does our history record? One famous example is the story of Cleopatra. She was most noted for her affairs with César and with Mark Anthony. That and well killing herself with a snake bite. However what do all of our movies and books and fictional writers focus on, not the fact that she united two empires, fed millions of people and fought wars, defeated her brother and was basically the last pharaoh, nope they just focused on her body, her sexual habits and her affairs. yes this was a big part of her. However she was more than just her libido.

Another famous example is none other than the good old queen of England herself queen Elizabeth the first. Now days I will admit that we give her the credit she was due. She defeated the Spanish armada, prevented England from going into civil war, encouraged our greatest English writers and united England in many other ways. However today and most of all back then she was known first and foremost as the virgin queen. Her sex life was more important to her people than the decisions she made for them day to day. I must say I felt sorry for her I feel sorry for her. Excuse my poor grammar. People always wondering who she was going to marry was more important than who she was leading.

One exception in most ways to my argument is Joan of Ark. Except for the pants issue she was most noted for her visions and leading the French people to freedom and independence from outside English influences.

Ok now that I have mentioned many women in the past I will touch on our modern political women leaders. First let us look at our own lady in the white house Hillary Clinton. After class I was shocked at what I saw. Ok so I am a republican but I was sad and angry at those people who were yelling iron my shirt b… . I mean seriously how people can do that. I may not agree with the woman on a ton of issues but I do admire for one thing. That one thing is that she is willing to step out into the political arena and let her voice be heard. As I heard those chants it only proves my statement all the more. Society still views that women should be in the home barefoot and pregnant. Yeah it made me angry and ashamed of my own party. We should be encouraging every citizen to get into the political arena and not make it hard or difficult for anyone based on race or gender or religion. Will this kind of stuff ever stop?

As a young woman in school I barely heard about women’s suffrage. When I did it was not really stressed as all that important. However these women wanted to say that no their husbands do not represent them in their views. They wanted to choose who was going to lead them instead of other choosing for them. They wanted to be equal citizens. For if women were under the law of the united states they should be able to take part in shaping those laws and their own futures. I admire those women who worked so hard to give me and my other women kind a voice in our system. Also I admire any woman who goes out into the political sphere.

I see women like Clinton, Palin, Pelosi, Dole, and many others go out and fight for their beliefs. They do not dress in household dresses nor do they dress like hoes, they dress like business professionals. So why can we not treat them like professionals? Why can we not as the most free country in the world get over the fact that yes they are women but no they are no less smart or efficient. I am sad to say that I have heard from many that women do not have what it takes to lead a military. That they cannot make the kill. Well we can but also it should be celebrated that we think of everything else first before we think of killing.

Ok maybe I got a little carried away there. However there is merit in what I said. As women how often are we told that it is a man’s world and that often we just have to accept that. I don’t know maybe I am wrong but I feel that in this world a woman can either be a house wife a career obsessed beast or a whore. Personally I do not want to want to be any of those things. However when women such as those I have mentioned before try they are treated in terrible ways. I know that I would crumble if people were yelling at me to iron their shirts. Is this what I want to go after no way not if women are treated like this no matter what party they are a part of?

I know that in many ways I could be mistaken however I do believe that I am not. Woman in politics should not be looked at for their fashion, their hair, their sexual activities, or their abilities to be a mother. They should instead be looked at for their ability and to make an educated decision based on the research they have conducted. They should be given a chance be women of good moral fiber and not just women who want to play with the big boys. Women have the ability to lead a country and county a state or a school board. They also have the ability to live the way they want to without it being extorted by the media when a man in the same position would have no questions at all raised about him.

Last I implore my fellow women in our society look up in history how hard other women have worked so hard to give you the chances they never have. Also stand tall and insist that you be look at for more than just your breast size or how long your skirt is. Honestly we have to stand together and insist that we are more than just the female of a species but equally important participants in our society and we deserve the credit we deserve. Stop saying that it is harder for a woman than it is for a man. Today it may be harder for us but by working together we can show the rest of the world that it will not be that way for long. No one day perhaps we will be treated equally as men. We will not have to deal with men shouting iron our shirt or how high does your skirt go up. No one day we will be seen as we should be as citizens of this country.