... one of us is unnecessary. In fact, if two people always agree, somebody's just not thinking. If we're paying attention to what's going on around us and considering it thoughtfully, we will disagree from time to time. Disagreeing is not a problem. How we choose to respond to the disagreement may very well create BIG problems.
I've created a list of things that I would do if someone waved a magic wand and put me in charge. I also have a list of things that I would do if I won the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. I haven't prioritized my lists ... I'm not THAT delusional. But there are a couple of things on my list that have been on my mind today, so you get to read about them:
1) I would make Debate a required course in America's high schools.
When high school debaters go to a competition, they don't know which side of a question they will be supporting until they walk into the room where they will be competing. They have to be prepared to argue both sides of the issue. An informed, engaged electorate would do the same thing in preparation for election day. And be informed to at least the same level. How can I expect to make an informed, rational decision if I haven't explored both (all) my options?
2) I would eliminate from the ballot on election day that little box at the bottom that allows me to
vote a "straight ticket".
If I haven't done due diligence in my role, I should at least have to acknowledge to myself my ignorance and negligence and go through the motions of voting for each candidate/issue. I'm always a little offended (and saddened) when I notice that voting a straight ticket is even an option.
I'm concerned about our use of labels as a substitute for thinking. It seems to me that once we've hung a label around our necks (politics/religion/music genre), we quit thinking and just do/think what others with the same label seem to do/think.
The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know. -- Socrates
No comments:
Post a Comment