Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 9 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
A constant state of always wanting to be right
Published Monday, September 14, 2009
I groaned with interest this past week as people were protesting President Obama making a speech to the schoolchildren at the start of the school year. I groaned because to me this would not have been a problem if I had children in school. I groaned because we have far more worrisome things going on than a speech by the president asking schoolchildren to do their best. What happened to common sense?
I grew up in a time when it would not have been a problem for the president to make a speech to us. It would not have mattered had the president been Republican or Democrat. We were taught to respect the president regardless of what party he represented.
We seem to be so afraid these days of someone with an opinion that differs from ours. We are a nation running in fear of people thinking and living differently from us. Are we so afraid of our children being indoctrinated into another party against their will that we ban them from listening to the president?
Do we ban our children from watching the violence on television? Do we ban our children from playing violent video games? Do we ban our children from meeting strangers on the Internet? Do we get as upset as people seem to be about the president speaking to us when our children use bad language, when we use bad language or when our children show disrespect to adults? It seems to me those should be reasons to get upset. Watching the president is mild compared to other things to which we are exposing our children.
Julie Seedorf
I have three children. They know what my political views are. They have always known, but they have been exposed to both viewpoints and so they made their own choices. They are Republican and Democrat. We have some exciting discussions. They grew up and they made their own choices independent of the viewpoints they were exposed to at home. I respect their choices.
As I was growing up, I was a member of a church that taught me to just believe and not ask questions. I did that as did many of the classmates I shared my church classes with. Later on in life after I had children, one of the people I had known had been a member of a cult and deprogrammed. I asked this person how this could happen. I was scared. I had looked up to this strong religious person, and if it could happen to this person, it could happen to my children. This person told me to make sure my children knew what they believed and why they believed it.
I felt that was excellent advice. How do we expect our children to make informed decisions about life if we don’t give them the foundation and the exposure to make good decisions? How do we expect them to learn to make good decisions if we don’t have conversations explaining both sides of view and why we believe our side is better? Why do we need to believe that only our viewpoint is right? Is it because we are insecure about our beliefs?
Don’t we indoctrinate our children with our viewpoints? We want them to believe what we believe. We want to be the ones influencing our children. It seems people have gotten carried away politically if they are so threatened that a speech from the president is going to corrupt our children. There were many popular leaders who got on the bandwagon and enforced that viewpoint before the speech. They fueled the flames. And possibly furthered their agenda.
It does seem our country is going backward. We are so busy fighting each other’s viewpoints politically on health care, the economy, the wars, etc., that we are forgetting to listen to each other. It becomes more important to be right than to compromise and listen. We don’t compromise and listen and take the good points from each other so that we can work together to solve problems. If we stay in a constant state of fear and a constant state of always wanting to be right, we are going to stay at a standstill. The president’s speech was a great teachable moment if you disagree with him. Let your children listen and then talk to them about it and explain why you felt he was wrong.
I was never very good at banning things in my household. I always felt it was better to tackle the problem together with my children and explain why I felt things were good or bad. Sometimes they listened and sometimes they didn’t, but they grew up capable of making their own choices and decisions. Yes, I didn’t always agree with their decisions and, yes, they made mistakes and they suffered the consequences, but they grew from that.
I don’t know about you. I am tired of the fighting. I am tired of the politics. Maybe we should all take the time to know what we believe and why we believe it including our politicians. Let’s listen to each other and not run scared from a differing opinion. Let’s learn from each other and then get to work with the focus being on the best solution, not may the “the best party win.” Let’s forget about the elections and being re-elected and work to do the best job possible because it is the right thing to do.
Maybe at that point the president will give a speech, and we won’t care if he or she is Republican or Democrat. We will not fear what they are going to say because we will know that person is doing what is best for the people and not for the party.
That is my opinion. Thank you for listening. It’s OK if you don’t agree with me. I would be happy to listen if you don’t. Perhaps we can learn something from each other.
“A closed mind is like a closed book: just a block of wood.” — Chinese proverb
“If you wish to know the mind of a man, listen to his words.” — Chinese proverb
“To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a fish.” — Chinese proverb
Wells resident Julie Seedorf’s column appears every Monday. Send e-mail to her at thecolumn@bevcomm.net or visit her blog at www.justalittlefluff.blogspot.com.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on September 14, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Do we ban our children from watching the violence on television? Do we ban our children from playing violent video games? Do we ban our children from meeting strangers on the Internet? Do we get as upset as people seem to be about the president speaking to us when our children use bad language, when we use bad language or when our children show disrespect to adults? It seems to me those should be reasons to get upset."
The answer to that in MOST households would be--YES! We CAN and SHOULD control what children see on TV--what video games they play, whether they use bad language--and yes--we should be concerned when the President presents an overtly political message. The message sent to the President was clear--and the White House changed the words on the TelePrompter for him to mouth. That is democracy in action--make sure your kids learn from the experience.
Seedorf says she is tired of the fighting. Conservatives are tired of the fighting, too--but then, conservatives are not the ones introducing the big-spending bills that imperil not only our OWN freedoms, but the country. Would she SERIOUSLY suggest that we don't oppose the constant barrage of big spending bills?
"It becomes more important to be right than to compromise and listen" Though she is sarcastic, I agree on this one. It IS more important to be right than to compromise. In this case, this bill is 1/5 of our entire economy. This bill will be as far-reaching and long-lived as the Social Security and Medicare bills--and look at the financial mess THEY have created. LET'S TAKE THE TIME TO DO IT RIGHT--NOT PASS SOMETHING UNREAD IN A HURRY.
The more people become informed about this bill, the more they are opposed. How in the WORLD would Seedorf advocate "compromise" on this issue? The system is working just as designed--make a proposal, let the public know, and see if they endorse it. In this case, the result is a resounding NO! I would be curious how Seedorf would change THIS PROCESS? Perhaps by meekly accepting what someone ELSE dictates?
Posted by jseed (anonymous) on September 14, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think people that know me, know I don't meekly accept what someone else dictates. However we have a problem, and we are already paying for those who don't have insurance or who are struggling to pay their own insurance. We are doing this by higher medical costs and by our insurance premiums rising astronomically. What we are doing is not working. My point is that we have to quit blaming (conservatives are not introducing the big bills) and find a solution that will help those that need medical care. I don't have a solution. If I did I would run for President but I don't need to have a solution to care about my friends that sick, don't have medical care and are struggling to put food on their table. Do they buy medication or buy food? I thank you for your input ErnieGann. I felt your ire by your tone. It is great that you express your views. I would only hope that you do not do it in a confrontational way that would make someone else confrontational so rational decisions could only be made in the heat of the moment. You have some very good points and I would hate to see them get lost in the heat of a confrontational arguement. Thank you.
Posted by BabyGotBack (anonymous) on September 14, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You go girl!
I cannot believe people made that big of a deal about the Obama speech. There is nothing wrong with the President encouraging kids to stay in school. No more wrong than a President encouraging kids to be drug free.
Mountains out of molehills if you ask me.
Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on September 14, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jseed--thank you for your observations. If the tone seems "confrontational", it is only because we can only "confront"--challenge--the barrage of bad bills introduced. It's like dealing with a 5-year old that constantly wants anything they see--sometimes, the adult has to explain that it is either bad for them, or that there are NOT unlimited resources.
I would take exception to only one statement--"conservatives are not introducing the big bills" Here's a list of some of the items that conservatives introduced in one of the THREE bills introduced--starting way back on May 20.
•Expand health savings accounts.
•Allow individual consumers to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income, just as their employers do.
•Controls on medical malpractice suits.
•Allow individuals to buy insurance across state lines.
•Allow like groups to combine their numbers to buy large group health insurance policies.
•Expand the treatment authority of nurse practitioners
•End absurd state imposed insurance mandates that drive insurance costs up.
House Speaker Pelosi said "We're not going to consider those" and indeed, they have not been reported out of committee. Republicans have not been invited to sit down with the President on this issue since April. Where's that bipartisanship?
I would say that adopting these bills PLUS the newly-discovered "waste and fraud" crackdown (If the government KNOWS where waste and fraud are occuring, why haven't they STOPPED it already?) would go a long way to reforming health care and controlling costs--WITHOUT establishing a Federal Bureaucracy.
Posted by amauer (anonymous) on September 14, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Julie, a very nice treatise to what is needed in human discourse. One of our more fiscally successful Governors, Arnie Carlsen, said recently that the main thing he learned from being Governor is that you can't charge in expecting just your way or the highway, What he accomplished was though Bi-partisan listening, cooperative effort, and looking out for the best interest of his people of Minnesota, not his just party. He said this was one of his criticisms of Pawlenty.
Posted by jcorey2 (Jeremy Corey-Gruenes) on September 14, 2009 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I really liked this column's message. I think many of us fall into the trap of simply arguing to defend our positions rather than really listening to others and being open to logical positions they might have. That's not to say we always need to agree or give in, but the lack of listening, common sense, and respectful dialogue is disheartening.
I think the advance hysteria over the president's recent address to school children is a great example of this problem. The speech was both timely and inspiring. (If you haven't seen it, I suggest checking it out on youtube.) I have yet to see any evidence by critics of the speech that Obama changed any of its content after receiving criticism for planning it in the first place. A few things were reportedly changed in the suggested curriculum the white house offered, but those were minor things. I was glad to see Laura Bush speak out in support of it too.
I digress . . . Thanks Julie for the thoughtful column.
Posted by Pierre (anonymous) on September 15, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ErnieGann proves Julies point. While the whole basis of the piece is we should listen more and work together..he uses the article for a one sided big spending rant.
Posted by MITCHRAPPGUY (anonymous) on September 15, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a difference between listening in a co-operative environment and being told what you have to swallow. Julie writes a nice and thoughtful commentary, and there is nothing wrong with correcting or further informing about inacurrate statements like ErnieGann did. I am sure Julie would welcome such dialogue on an "opinion" page. A phenomenon of today's infosociety is that a statement, any statement, is taken for the truth. Thats a big reason why the self aborbed Hollywood crowd have come to believe they have so much power. Already, voices from both sides of the aisle objecting to the one sided steamroller of suggestion has altered greatly how this proposed bill might look. More work to be done. If you do not like opposing opinions, (couldn't help but use the word here) then this forum might not be for you?
Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on September 15, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pierre--"one sided big spending rant?" There was ONE SENTENCE about "big spending." I'll reproduce it for you here--"Conservatives are tired of the fighting, too--but then, conservatives are not the ones introducing the big-spending bills that imperil not only our OWN freedoms, but the country"
That's about the same amount of space that YOU took in attacking it! (laugh)
Do you feel DEFENSIVE about big government spending?
"One sided spending rant?" Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS CAN PROPOSE THE BIGGEST SPENDING SPREE IN AMERICAN HISTORY--and those opposed can't have ONE SENTENCE opposing it?
You ARE a tool!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)