Propoganda v. Legitimate Exercise of Free Speech (blog 4)

While it may feel that most forms of political information presented to us are overly biased and have specific agendas, there are actually many sources of good information available to us. However, much of what we hear and see on television, radio and the internet could be considered political propaganda. Propaganda is “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” This information is oftentimes falsified or exaggerated in order to persuade people to believe a certain thing or act in a certain way. Propaganda usually employs the use of fallacies and emotive language to strike a chord with people without having to prove an actual point. On the opposite end there is legitimate free speech which presents fact along with sources to verify them, the language used is straight forward and neutral and no specific agenda is being set forth.


Currently in Arizona Senator John McCain is running advertisements for his re-election to the Senate and using some very interesting tactics to gain votes. His ads state that “John McCain is Arizona's last line of defense.” As if the state is being invaded by some enemy force. They use terms like “A battle to save America,” “leading the charge,” and “Standing up to titans,” evoking images of war and glorifying his role as a strong political leader. They call government run health care “ridiculously unaffordable” and John McCain himself states that “President Obama is leading an extreme left wing crusade to bankrupt America. I stand in his way every day.”
The ideas being presented are obviously heated, biased and intensely political. Using words like “ridiculous” and “extreme” evoke doubt in the listener then they hit home with the fear tactic of exposing a President who would purposefully bankrupt his own country. The ads use money (a hot topic of conversation and worry these days) to scare the listener into believing that John McCain can change the problems that are causing financial hardship to Arizonans.


An example of the use of political free speech would be an article from the World Net Daily by Art Moore discussing a federal court case declaring a National Day of Prayer in public schools unconstitutional. First and foremost, merely being able to discuss a topic of such political heatedness is an exercise in constitutional freedoms of speech. In this article the author recounts the decision of the Wisconsin federal district court in which Judge Barbara B. Crabb “determined the statute [allowing the President to declare “the first Thursday in May a National Day of Prayer”] violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’"


This article not only presents the viewpoint of Judge Crabb but also the opposing viewpoint of “Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, the ACLJ [who] called the decision flawed and expressed confidence it will be overturned.” The author does not present any personal opinions but merely presents facts and the opinions of those involved. Moore simply reports on what is happening and leaves opinion up to the reader and those involved. It is a refreshing piece of news reporting that allows the reader to make decisions for themselves rather than having an opinion shoved down their throat.


resources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda, accessed 17 April 2010.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/07/2168050.aspx, accessed 17 April 2010.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=141325, accessed 17 April 2010.

Reasoning in Primary Schools

Reasoning skills should be taught in primary schools because it allows people to think about the world around them in a more encompassing way. Reasoning is a skill that takes time to fully employ and teaching children at a young age can give them a better chance in the long run to use the skill to their full advantage.

According to Schick and Vaughn (How to Think About Weird Things, 2008, 78) there are four pieces in the steps to acquiring knowledge starting with perception, then introspection, memory and finally reason. The first three are basic in every human while the last is more difficult to acquire. Reasoning is methodical and not as intuitive as the other methods of information gathering. It requires knowledge of things against which to weigh other things in order to reach a conclusion. For example, if it is snowy outside it is safe to say it is cold. Without having the knowledge that snow is a frozen material, one would have no idea whether snow was cold or not and could not conclude that it would be cold outside. Of course, reason could not be without perception, introspection and memory. Once we perceive the snow, realize it is cold, and remember it to be so we can say just by seeing snow that it is cold outside.

There are critical periods in learning when we acquire these different skills. According to Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, children’s brains do work differently than that of an adult but eventually, around age eleven or twelve, they reach the capacity for reasoning of a mature adult. From age six or seven to about age eleven or twelve children become able to imagine events that occur outside their own lives. http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_09/i_09_p/i_09_p_dev/i_09_p_dev.html

Rebecca Saxe (MIT) also suggests that the human brain begins to develop the capacity for empathy, or the ability to think about other’s thoughts, around age seven. http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_saxe_how_brains_make_moral_judgments.html

This progression leads to the ability to make moral judgments. Without the incorporation of reasoning, this skill is nearly useless. She gives examples of humans at different stages of development being given moral tests of judgment and they obviously progress in reasoning with age.

What could be wrong with teaching reasoning skills to primary school aged children? Perhaps they would not fully grasp the concepts being taught to them and the lessons would be wasted. Well, while that may be true, we teach our children manners from an early age and though they rarely understand the lessons at first, after practice and cognitive development the lessons have a great impact. Teaching children reason from an early age is much the same idea. If we show children consistently lessons of reasoning that can be applied to practical situations, eventually they will understand the lessons and be able to fully apply them. Furthermore, we know that a human being can only master a second language up to around the time of puberty. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2920538 During this critical period in development, it could be safe to say that other skills are best learned as well. During this time, the human brain is developing rapidly and cell production is occurring at an amazing rate (up to 250,000 neurons are created per minute!) http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/dev.html The argument could be made that this might be the best time to teach a human being about reasoning and show them the basic skills used to reach logical conclusions. At the stage in cognitive development of a primary school student, the capacity to absorb new information is great. While the information may not be fully processed until later in development, there is no reason exposure should be withheld. We teach students multiplication in third grade so they may do algebra in sixth, so they may do geometry in ninth and so on. Giving children a basis for reasoning could only lead to a better chance of mastery of the skill at a later point in development.

Reasoning not only leads to the drawing of logical conclusions, it lends itself to empathy and morality and gives human beings the ability to accept good information and reject nonsense. By teaching our children reasoning skills at an early age, we would in turn be creating more well-rounded adults, who would have a greater sense of empathy and morality as well as a better understanding of the world around them.

the old school, new rules

If you haven't happened to see this, you should definitely check it out. Luckily, many citizens have commented on this article so we know that people will not stand for it. However, I find the fact that our elected officials think in this manner appalling. We have to start being active in our society if we want the world to be a place in which we want to live.

http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1086&ArticleID=77685

This is a test. This is only a test. Hopefully this test is a success.