media, polarity, politics... and the bottom line
Sitting down to a planning meeting for a man's Human Rights candidacy in the early 70s.
Youthful eyes, blue-jeaned idealism focused on the task of absorbing and understanding that for which he stood. "...to change a government you need to tear out the foundation."
Seeing a picture of a block tower made just a few years ago and imagining what would happen if I removed the bottom blocks, I instantly knew there was something wrong with that picture.
Starry eyed idealism changed to realism. I, at 16, knew more than someone old enough to apply for office.
Now, I am old enough to know that polarization in politics tells but a part and not the whole. Leaning much further now to the right than the to the left, I still try to keep an open mind and look at both sides.
One morning years ago, I clearly recall hearing up-to-the-minute, straight-from-the-horses-mouth information from Managua during the Sandinista regime. That evening, front page headlines of the Ann Arbor News painted an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT story!
I was shocked. But, perhaps, I don't understand what a "free" press really means.
Newspaper editorials clearly state they have a right to point out their own opinion.
During political campaigns, they even tell us who, in their opinion, would be the best person to elect. Rarely do they seem to consider another option: that FREE might mean they'll lay out both sides and allow us to make up our own opinion.
That is an option I would prefer. That is an option that I think would be fairer to both parties viewpoints. It would allow Eric to say his peace (which, IMO, isn't). It would encourage less polarity and more objective discussions.
And, most of all, it would, I believe, result in greater objectivity in all relating to others. I believe that HUMAN life begins at conception. I believe a FETUS is one stage of that HUMAN life. I know that many people want choice regarding this. I think it is sad that, often, in an effort to try to discredit the opinion of another and sway more people to their own opinions, people resort to name calling and categorizing, misrepresenting and isolating. For example, being a Christian is now often considered to be a dirty word. For decades, I have been seeing the slander and the subtle manipulation of words at the cost of others. Today, I have seen its fruit. I am I, and you are you. Surely, despite differences of opinion, we can make a choice to get along (if not agree) with one another. I am a Christian, that does not make me a bigot. I am a Christian, that does not mean that I will not treat you with respect. I am a Christian. That does not mean that I am perfect, that I know all the answers, or that I am going to try to jam my religion down your throat. We've missed something. All of us! You are you and I am I. Let's try to get along with one another. Respect to whom respect is due. "Do no person any harm."
Youthful eyes, blue-jeaned idealism focused on the task of absorbing and understanding that for which he stood. "...to change a government you need to tear out the foundation."
Seeing a picture of a block tower made just a few years ago and imagining what would happen if I removed the bottom blocks, I instantly knew there was something wrong with that picture.
Starry eyed idealism changed to realism. I, at 16, knew more than someone old enough to apply for office.
Now, I am old enough to know that polarization in politics tells but a part and not the whole. Leaning much further now to the right than the to the left, I still try to keep an open mind and look at both sides.
One morning years ago, I clearly recall hearing up-to-the-minute, straight-from-the-horses-mouth information from Managua during the Sandinista regime. That evening, front page headlines of the Ann Arbor News painted an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT story!
I was shocked. But, perhaps, I don't understand what a "free" press really means.
Newspaper editorials clearly state they have a right to point out their own opinion.
During political campaigns, they even tell us who, in their opinion, would be the best person to elect. Rarely do they seem to consider another option: that FREE might mean they'll lay out both sides and allow us to make up our own opinion.
That is an option I would prefer. That is an option that I think would be fairer to both parties viewpoints. It would allow Eric to say his peace (which, IMO, isn't). It would encourage less polarity and more objective discussions.
And, most of all, it would, I believe, result in greater objectivity in all relating to others. I believe that HUMAN life begins at conception. I believe a FETUS is one stage of that HUMAN life. I know that many people want choice regarding this. I think it is sad that, often, in an effort to try to discredit the opinion of another and sway more people to their own opinions, people resort to name calling and categorizing, misrepresenting and isolating. For example, being a Christian is now often considered to be a dirty word. For decades, I have been seeing the slander and the subtle manipulation of words at the cost of others. Today, I have seen its fruit. I am I, and you are you. Surely, despite differences of opinion, we can make a choice to get along (if not agree) with one another. I am a Christian, that does not make me a bigot. I am a Christian, that does not mean that I will not treat you with respect. I am a Christian. That does not mean that I am perfect, that I know all the answers, or that I am going to try to jam my religion down your throat. We've missed something. All of us! You are you and I am I. Let's try to get along with one another. Respect to whom respect is due. "Do no person any harm."