Thursday, September 18, 2008
Q3 - Humility
In the musical, John Adams is forced to allow others to step forward into the spotlight in several places so that his ultimate goal of "Independence" can be furthered. Give a modern example of why it might it be important to separate "men" from "issues" in todays society. Comment on at least one other perception!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
The UN is a great representation of the need to seperate "men" form "issues". In the UN representatives have to stand for what their country believes, not necessarily their own convictions.
The senate should be a place where you seperate "men" from "issues". Each member of the senate should vote on what would be best for the people of their state and what those people believe in. The senators should not just vote the way their political party does on the issue, they should think about what their state would want.
I agree with black Lizzy that the UN is a perfect example. Country representatives should not vote against a subject just because they don't like the person proposing it. They have to decide what is in the best interest of the place they are representing. a simpler example is neighborhood politics. When one parent wants to repaint some fence, you should not go against it just because her kid ding-dong-ditched your house last week. You should vote based on whether you want the fence to be painted or not.
I like what Pink jeannie galindo said about the senate being a place where "men" should be separate from "issue". Members should vote on issues based on what the people in their state want not on what the senator's particular party believes in. However, most of the time members vote with their party in mind not the people. Too many senators vote only republican or only democrate. Each issue should be considered for its content and the vote shouldn't be based on representing one's party.
John Adams said what he had to say and he new when it was time to let someone else talk. My representatives didn't like Adams, so they were tentative to agree with him. It's sort of like getting a bad grade on an assignment. You want to blame the teacher for "giving" you the bad grade, when you know in reality that you earned it.
I agree with a few, that the UN is a def. a good place for that. Like the Georgia delegate said, he's there for his people and until he knows what they want, he has to play it safe. When someone votes you in, you have to take their thoughts and wants into the UN or senate. I agree with mickeymccraken that too many senators just vote republican or democratic on an issue because that's what their party general does!
I agree with Black Lizzy. The UN really is a great representation. The UN the selected people get to stand up for not what only they believe in but what there entire country believes in.
i feel that every situation where a body of people being represented by one or several of those people should fall under this catagory. Those representing have to put their feelings aside and do what is best for their people, whether it ranges from town council to the UN.
Pink Jeannie Galindo really made me think with her wording of "the senate SHOULD be a place where you seperate 'men' from 'issues'." This made me reflect on how Adams is treated due to his strong personality. It is kind of troubling to think that disagreements in congress TODAY could be based upon popularity.
In the movie, Adams has to step out of the spotlight for his goal because people dislike him, and wont listen to what he has to say just because of that. In our world today this is also true in a place like a hospital. Lets say two doctors dont like eachother, and are at a meeting together discussing with others what to do with a patient. One doctor says to do one procedure, and everyone agrees it is the best for the patient. If the other doctor stands up and says they should do a more risky procedure on the patient just because he wants to disagree with doctor #1, that is not right and he needs to separate his personal issues for the betterment of the patient. (just like the guy from Pennsylvania needed to separate his issue with Adams for the betterment of the people).
As people have said the UN and the senate are where people should sepirate the individual from the issue, but another example is our current electon.
I too agree with black lizzy in the fact that the UN is a great example of the need to separate "men" from "issues". The representatives must speak for the people they are representing and not just for their own ideas. If they spoke just on their own ideas then they would basically be ruling their people like a monarchy, instead of a fair goverenment. When the subject of Indepence arose in Congress in the movie, the representative from Georgia had to go against his own idea for his people. The people of Georgia did not want Independence from Britain so he voted "nay" for them, as he should have done.
I agree with tax evadin amy bones. In any predicament where a body of people are spoken on behalf of a few delegates, the people should be the ones that are taken into account, not the delegates feelings. I agree with everyone else that the UN and the senate are several great examples of this.
In the government men need to be seperated from issues because they cant only speak on their oppinion. They also have to speak on behalf of the people because they have their say in important issues becasue of the people so one has to listen to the people when in such a situation.
I believe in politics all together there is a need for "men" to be seperated from the "issues". In todays election John Mccain for example wants to bomb and start a war with Iran before even having a civilized conversation with the leaders of the country. I think that he should remove his prior feelings towards the country and think about the lives and money at stake. In politics there are only certain places in which personal convictions are needed.
When voting on anything, the vote should be cast on the person's opinion of the issue, instead of the person's opinion of the person introducing the issue. However, it is almost always impossible to do that. Voting for Representatives, for example. A voter does not vote for the issues they want to be presented, they vote for the person who's ideas are most in line with their own. As slappy said, another example of this would be the presidential election, as well as any other election running at this time.
It's always been important to separate men from issues; as many have said - Cap't Raja Seabeard being the first - people disagree with each other because of random personal problems, and THAT'S a problem. People suggesting answers or weighing the pros/cons have the responsibility of determining just how much they need to separate the man from the issue...if they're not separated, people can easily be lead to agree with someone's random ideas, which is nooot good if they just sprouted from some obscure grudge and nothing else.
Yes there are several instances when "men" should be separate from " issues". As Black Lizzy first said the UN being a prime example. This is very true, countries need spokespeople so that countries can be heard as wholes not just individual voices. Personally I find the Olympics another good example. This is a time when countries must put there differences beside and compete in good natured sport. Back when the Olympics first started in Olympia, Greece the Olympics where a time when countries would come together and try to resolve their differences. They found a positive way to include men with their issues just as we should try to do.So just because men can be separated from issues doesn't mean they always should be.
I think that all of the Branches of government today require that you input your own opinion about an issue. in the senate, you are supposed to do what you think is best for the people in your state.
Oooo, I really liked jackfruit33's example of separting "men" from "issues" - The Olympics! In these international games, every country wants to send out their best athletes; it doesn't matter their race, their religion, where they stand politically, or how smart they are. I guess kinda selfishly, we just want them for their athletic ability letting them step into the spotlight to represent us, having absolutely nothing to do with issues in today's society. An example of my own, would be how Mr. McCarthy and the school board heard what "the people" or really the students said in their complaints about the portfolio, and no matter what his personal opinion was he knew he had to stand up for us and make some changes. He wanted to benefit "the people".
The simplest form of separating men from issues could be between one man and another. If the two had past difficulties or violence or mishap, it can certainly cause more difficulty in the future. However, there are certain times where you must put this difficulty behind for a moment, and focus on what is going on in the present. For instance, me and you hate each other. But we both want the same thing right now. I am not going to change my mind just because you want the same thing and I hate you. We can put our "issues" behind and focus on what we both want and even work together.
In an ideal environment, a congress should be an environment in which men are sepperate from the issues. Sadly though, we are all subjected to all of the flaws that come with being human and we are not always able to control all of our feelings in concern for the task at hand which is why the format that were using for these blogs is so cool, I think it would be a good thing for a congress to be anonomous.
Separating issues from men is important because too many other things get in the way as the issue is being presented, like the person bringing it up. I liked both the UN and the Olympics ideas, esp. the idea of having congress annonomous.
Especially since these days because one can't seem to bring up anything without it being challenged on something irrelivant, like republicans all not believing in global warming, or democrats not caring about life because the majority are pro-choice. The political group usually associated with certain issues only slows things down and prolonging a decision.
I dont belive that a representative should back down from what they belive ever, for we pick them to speak for us. Most of the time they are more informed and have a greater idea of what will result from a certain decision than we would. To seperate a man from an issue is a discrace to them and what they may feel is right.
I also really like the example of the Olympics separating "men" from "issues". That is basically the only time when different cultures and beliefs from different nations can come together in peace and participate in the time honored tradition of the Olympic games. This is a great competition in which we can all come together and put all our troubles behind us.
the thing about a representative democracy is like the man in 1776 talked about, a representative should not only say what the people say but must also use his own logic in order to reach a fair and equal decision. today, in the senate and house of representatives, sometimes the senator/representative will go against their people's opinion for their own reasons.
I agree with black lizzy on this one. The UN is a perfect example of seperating people from issues. They have to put their own beliefs and opinions aside and focus on what is best for everyone. Pink also brought up the senate, another good example. >.< uhm, of course this has been said about thirty times though. Jackfruits bringing the olympics up was very interesting. Its so true!
Post a Comment