A MATTER OF FACT

I was sitting in my communication class on Tuesday; the topic of the day was good public speaking, as anyone could have guessed. It was not all that thrilling being there. The day was such overcast. Everyone was tired. Not many students were listening.

We were going over the application and usefulness of “facts” in a persuasive speech when the question came up from the back of the room, “Would using a [quote from a] Bible be considered fact?” The audible murmur rose from my sleepy class. ‘What an interesting question… and how do you answer this?’ I asked myself.

After a minute or so, my thoughts looked at the usage of the Bible as “fact” in an academic setting. I believed it should really matter to the application of the text. If it is used in relation to a class, like a religious studies course, I do not think that anyone would question its relevance. Should the Bible be used in a speech dealing with persuasion, as discussed in my class, ethical thought should evaluate the use of the text, but can probably be accepted. Historically, some events of as discussed in the Bible have been proven accurate, and hence these particular occasions would be applicable. The list continued on and on in my mind, and then came my conclusion.

As long as a proper exigent argument is established, I think anyone can use a Bible as fact; this can also be true of any other religious text. What I mean by this is that as long as the usage of act displays a relation to the subject at hand, one should be able to count of such writings as fact.

The important thing to consider in using such a source is objectivity. As long as this is applied ethically and thoughtfully in an academic manner, no problems can be foreseeable. Then again, that is my opinion.

COMMUNICATION & THE PRESIDENCY

The presidential debates were televised the other week and it showed the importance of talking aside from each of the candidates’ agendas. Truly, as many critics will agree, it was a chance for both John Kerry and George Bush to show how strong they were at communicating coherently.

What? Did I say something wrong here? “Communication is not the issue, its [blank]…” you say? If you think that communication is not that important in the qualities of a strong president, apply the underlining concepts of it to the very roots of governing our nation in this example:

The federal government is comprised of multiple bureaus and divisions, each with a specific job… the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the same responsibilities as the Central Intelligence Agency or the Social Security Administration. This system of divisions are great for specialization and focusing tasks, but using such a method creates communication barriers between their respective branches. Should the occasion arise, these bureaus and divisions must work together, despite their differences, and still be able to work separately to ensure the integrity of each organization. Open lines of communication are a must in these particular instances if anything is to be productively done.

As surely as it is important to keep lines of communication open between bureaus of government, it is doubly important to be able to communicate openly to the American people with coherence and directness. Yes, there are instances that should remain secret, as regard to security and like operations, yet communication should still be established to maintain a trustworthy working relationship.

There will come a time when the people of America and the President of the United States, whoever it may be, must have a ‘fireside chats’ to resolve issues of significance, be they foreign or domestic in nature. When the time comes, there must be an eagerness to come to the table and talk to progress civil reform and other domestic topics from all parties. Communication and clarity must be established and recognized by both sides to achieve a desired and beneficial outcome.

__________________________________

Debate Transcripts of September 30th

POLITICAL COVERAGE: A thought…

Of all the issues being discussed in current political coverage for this upcoming presidential election, I wonder why does military service records continually force its way into the fray. There are campaign publicists that think this presents a particular sense of “character”, namely the serviceman/patriot appeal, and informs the public on the credibility of both Senator Kerry and President Bush as the ideal head of the nation. Unfortunately for them, I have to disagree.

Being a young adult, I find this combative issue lacking in the overall argument. Firstly, the events in question, whether you choose the Kerry-Vietnam debate or the Bush-reservist issue, occurred several years before my birth in 1984. The relevance to today is just not a forefront focus for numerous others of my like-aged peers simply because we have no feasible way to apply ourselves to the information. Secondly, by constantly pushing this motif of leadership and war, it blocks opportunities for our potential candidates to actually push the more important underlining issues into the light. To someone who does not cast your vote via political parties, like myself, the issues make or break the selection; without a well-presented understanding of the issues, younger voters usually decide to flip a coin or simply dodge the elections altogether.

It is my feeling that political campaign coverage should be more issue-affective and broader in scope than they currently have been during this election year. The purpose of it all, idealistically, is to inform the public and not to blame or promote a particular person. The military records of either candidate, though noteworthy indeed, should be placed on the self and the truth of the issues should decide the victor.

________________________________

The following are links to candidates’ homepages:

John Kerry

George Bush

Ralph Nader

If there are more candidates than are listed here, please reply with their information and a link to their respective site. Find whose stance on the key issues match your own!

Tactics of Definition: Outsourcing

OUTSOURCING IS NOT GOOD FOR US

A few years ago, one of my good friends, Jon, worked for in technology department of a certain corporation as a data manager and technical assistant. He held this job for almost ten years; the ten year mark happened to be the cutoff of pension benefits, and the corporation knew that all too well. Before the end of the tenth year, Jon was told that his department wasn’t going to be stationed in the US, and that he was fired. Jon was a victim of outsourcing.

Outsourcing, for those unaware of the term, is the relocation of jobs in particular country to another country for a better productivity and/or less expensive workforce.

To America, this commercial outsourcing is becoming more and more like a virus. Why, you might ask? To me, it seems rather simple. Consider the following scenario:

Let’s imagine that a nationally know telemarketing agency decides to outsource their technology departments nationwide. Several American employees, including you, now find themselves without a job simply because of a company’s “cost-effectiveness” outweighs the costs of keeping jobs at home. Your tenure with this company now means nothing. As result, the money once earned by Americans to be spent in America is now in some other country, such as India or Australia. Although there are penalties involved with outsourcing in America, it seems not to effect the board members decision…

Does this bother you? The money that could be in the hands of blue-collar and white-collar Americans is now going overseas to the profits of multibillion dollar corporations. Yet, despite this growing problem, this issue is nowhere to be seen in the current debates for the presidential election in the fall. Should we be worried about this? If you value your future income, I would have to say yes.


Outsourcing in the News by Google