Mediated Communication #4 American parenting is killing the American marriage

How American parenting is killing the American marriage

                        

WRITTEN BY

Danielle TellerPhysician and researcherAstro TellerHead of Google X

September 30, 2014 http://qz.com/273255/how-american-parenting-is-killing-the-american-marriage/

I was on face book and a first time mother had posted a picture of her one month old baby and talked about how much she loved her baby. Her husband made this comment under the picture, “I can honestly say there is one girl that I love more than my wife’.  

A few post down someone else posted this article which caught my attention. The article is about parents putting their children before their marriage and the negative consequence that follow. This article claims that people are elevating parenting to the status of a religion. This next paragraph describes how one person who spoke openly about putting her marriage first has been treated. 

To understand the frightening power of the parenthood religion, one need look no further than the 2005 essay in The New York Times by Ayelet Waldman, where the author explained that she loved her husband more than her four children. On “Oprah Where Are They Now,” the author recently reaffirmed the sentiments reflected in her New York Times article, and she added that her outlook has had a positive impact on her children by giving them a sense of security in their parents’ relationship. Following the publication of her essay, Waldman was not only shouted down by America for being a bad mother; strangers threatened her physically and told her that they would report her to child protective services. This is not how a civil society conducts open-minded discourse. This is how a religion persecutes a heretic.”  

The article itself was interesting and in my opinion presented both cogent and fallacious perspectives. I have included the link if anyone is interested. But the observation that sparked my attention was the last two sentences about how civil society conducts open-minded discourse.  I believe this sentences to be cogent because that is what this whole class has been about, learning how to have open-minded discourse.  Learning to allow other people to speak about things we might not agree with. Learning how to be open-minded enough to hear what they say and consider the validity of their argument. To be aware of attitudinal responses and develop a provisional perspective through critical thinking. And it was interesting to see it all taking place on my Facebook feed.  Thanks Prof Young for an insightful, enlightening, and thought provoking class. 

Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #3

    Learning the keys for building mutually respectful and meaningful dialogue.

The other day at work a coworker told me about receiving an email that was totally offensive to her and she asked me if I had any suggestions on how to respond. It just so happened that I had read an article over the weekend that I found from one of the sights listed on our class blog that addressed the issue of talking to people in ways that lead to understanding and tolerance. The article was titled In a world of sectarian violence, what can be done? Originally, I was attracted to this article because it reminded me of our first day of class and the conversation we had about the things well-meaning people say in the name of religion.  As I walked out of class that day I wonder if there were people I had offended without knowing it. I also thought, I think I will just keep my thoughts to myself from now on. Reading this article helped me to realize that I am not alone in my trepidation, unintentionally saying something that offends someone is a real phenomenon that is causing division. 

This article talked about sectarian conflicts and the mind-boggling complexity that accompanies it. It talks about learning to combat hate and violence through respect and understanding. The authors talk about learning how to talk with people of different cultural and religious beliefs in ways that build bridges and creates understanding.

This article introduced me to a movement that I have not heard of called Face to Faith. Face to Faith is an organization that takes presentations into public and private schools to teach students key core concepts of respectful dialogue. This program helps students develop communication skills for meaningful and respectful discussions on faith and beliefs.

After the students are taught these skills, they are then given the opportunity to network with students around the world via videoconference.  This gives the student the opportunity to articulate their own values as well as encounter the beliefs and values of other, face to face.

After reading this article I wanted to learn more so I explored their website. After reading this article I think Face to Faith is a cogent proposal to introduce to schools.  The goal of this organization is to “not only educate young people about religions and cultures, but to inspire them to work together for the common good”.  They promote that an open-minded approach to others can lead to tolerant, stable societies.      

https://www.facetofaithonline.org/     http://tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/   

The First Opposition Constructive

Should our President invoke executive powers for Immigration Reform?

Immigration is a complex and complicated issue and it is hard to fully understand such a broad topic. Since sources for data are so polarized, I prefer to leave this topic to those who research and investigate the matter. Consequently, the question is not so much about immigration, as much as it is the act of our president invoking an executive order. Even though Immigration is an important issue for our country, is invoking executive order and by passing congress an acceptable solution?

Separation of power is an important political concept that is intended to create limits on government. To ensure separation of power our government consist of three branches. These three branches are legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch creates laws, the executive branch vetoes or enforces the law, and the judicial branch determines which laws apply to specific cases. This system is designed for each branch to check the decision and actions of the others and to ensure balance. This system is important because it keeps one branch from having more control over policy and becoming more powerful than another. http://www.house.gov/content/learn/branches_of_government/

Now I have to agree, this seems like a brilliant way for a government to work. Officials who are elected by the people to represent the people, and for these representatives to present ideas for laws and persuade others to accept their premise. After a bill is agreed upon and passed by Congress, it is sent to the executive branch for approval. But, what happens when the legislative and executive branches cannot negotiation workable solutions? Often time’s relations between branches have been tense and eliciting cooperation has been challenging. Even still, does this mean one power should bypass another?

When a president bypasses Congress, not only does he defeat the purpose of a check and balance system, but he also contributes to the dysfunction in Washington. According to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, executive action stymies bipartisan cooperation. He said that “with every new stretching of the boundary of executive authority, the president alienates Congress”.  http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/obama-faces-backlash-on-executive-power

No matter how frustrated a president becomes, rather than bypassing congress, working with the elected officials of Congress for a comprehensive solution is the way the system is designed to work. Therefore, it is my opinion that the president should not invoke executive powers to bypass Congress for Immigration Reform.  Each time executive powers are used, we disregard what America has stood for since its founding, a system of checks and balances through elected government officials that represent the voice of the people. Consequently, bypassing congress through executive orders is not an acceptable solution.   http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2014/09/07/democrat-obama-immigration-action/15264525/   

Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #2

Germany’s Energy Model Can Save the World

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=PHOTOTHEK+/+GETTY+IMAGES+germany+windmill&rlz=1C1PQHB

I was snooping around websites listed on our comm. 1270 blog and found this article on alternative energy. This article discussed Germany’s Evergiewende, which is the term they have coined for their clean energy transition.  This article also claims that nearly one-third of Germany’s electricity production is clean energy.  I am a supporter of alternative energy so this article caught my attention.

The author claims the U.S. and other high-emission countries can learn from the steps Germany has taken so far.  He described many steps, but the one I like most is that Germany is shifting the control of energy from big company to citizen owned energy.  Reading this information reminded me of the utility co-op that I am part of, Dixie Power.  The author claims that nearly 70 percent of the renewable energy producing capacity is in the hands of farmers, small and medium sized business, cooperatives and community owned utilities.

I think this was a cogent article. I am all for clean energy. Couple renewable clean energy with publicly owned utilities and I think it is a winning combination that I could embrace and support. 

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/germany-renewableenergyclimatechange.html