(no subject)
Oct. 6th, 2004 09:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greybetaI almost missed my post for today. I've just been so busy taking care of things that I procrastinated on. That's a habit that I need to kick myself off of.
In other news, I managed to squeak out an article for my college newspaper. Many thanks to the Magic dinosaur, the sagely boneirici. I basically plagiarized from his comment on my second article. Okay, I didn't say it word for word but I did borrow heavily from his ideas. I need some external inspiration from time to time.
If you can comment before 9:30am tomorrow with any suggestions, that would be super (my deadline is noon on Thursdays). You can go ahead and comment if you don't make it in time though ;).
A leader’s faith
by Daniel Tu
According to Confucius, the ruler of a nation must have faith to properly lead a nation. Without faith to guide him, a ruler has no sense of direction. Inevitably, the nation will lose its identity and crumble into ruin. Conversely, a ruler with a strong faith will lead his nation into prosperity. The nation knows itself and shines in its glory. In the presidential debates, each candidate claims to have more faith than the other.
On President George W. Bush’s website, the Bush campaign emphasizes strong family based values. On Senator John Kerry’s website, the Kerry campaign also emphasizes strong family based values. It’s safe to conclude that a man of faith knows how to raise a family. Otherwise, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would be stressing the importance of raising children according to good old American family values.
Since a man who cannot raise a family cannot lead nation, America will not elect a President who has not raised a family. In any given election campaign, a candidate always puts a picture of his family into his election materials. Whether they’re running for county corporation commissioner or U.S. President, candidates must reinforce the idea that they have faith in American values. Most candidates going through a divorce or some other family problem will be defeated.
Not only must a ruler have faith in his family but he also must have faith in his nation. For American politicians, they must put a positive spin on every trouble that America encounters. A setback in war must be seen as temporary, and a nation who refuses to trade with America merely misunderstands American business. Politicians necessarily put on a show of patriotic pride. To this end, political candidates often position photo shoots with an American flag in the background.
Another important aspect of faith is faith in one’s self, one’s abilities. During the presidential debates, Kerry gained on Bush on this matter. Bush appeared to be on the defensive while Kerry appeared to be confident in what he was saying. Bush looked like a man sheltered by his political staff. On the other hand, Kerry was a bit too smug to be genuine.
Strangely enough, liberals have had to define their religious values more clearly than their conservative counterparts. The media paints President Bush as a strong Protestant conservative and Senator Kerry as a weak Catholic liberal. This perception has led to the popular belief that Bush naturally has former governor of Texas has more faith than the current senator from Massachusetts. Realistically, Kerry isn’t any more blasphemous than Bush is religious.
In the end, a presidential candidate must always proclaim his belief in God or he will lose the election. Of course, many politicians merely give lip service to the idea of faith in God. Yet, America would sooner vote for a Jew, Muslim, or Buddhist than an atheist. Voters prefer a candidate who believes in something greater than themselves, but an atheist cannot offer a faith in God to them.
In other news, I managed to squeak out an article for my college newspaper. Many thanks to the Magic dinosaur, the sagely boneirici. I basically plagiarized from his comment on my second article. Okay, I didn't say it word for word but I did borrow heavily from his ideas. I need some external inspiration from time to time.
If you can comment before 9:30am tomorrow with any suggestions, that would be super (my deadline is noon on Thursdays). You can go ahead and comment if you don't make it in time though ;).
A leader’s faith
by Daniel Tu
According to Confucius, the ruler of a nation must have faith to properly lead a nation. Without faith to guide him, a ruler has no sense of direction. Inevitably, the nation will lose its identity and crumble into ruin. Conversely, a ruler with a strong faith will lead his nation into prosperity. The nation knows itself and shines in its glory. In the presidential debates, each candidate claims to have more faith than the other.
On President George W. Bush’s website, the Bush campaign emphasizes strong family based values. On Senator John Kerry’s website, the Kerry campaign also emphasizes strong family based values. It’s safe to conclude that a man of faith knows how to raise a family. Otherwise, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would be stressing the importance of raising children according to good old American family values.
Since a man who cannot raise a family cannot lead nation, America will not elect a President who has not raised a family. In any given election campaign, a candidate always puts a picture of his family into his election materials. Whether they’re running for county corporation commissioner or U.S. President, candidates must reinforce the idea that they have faith in American values. Most candidates going through a divorce or some other family problem will be defeated.
Not only must a ruler have faith in his family but he also must have faith in his nation. For American politicians, they must put a positive spin on every trouble that America encounters. A setback in war must be seen as temporary, and a nation who refuses to trade with America merely misunderstands American business. Politicians necessarily put on a show of patriotic pride. To this end, political candidates often position photo shoots with an American flag in the background.
Another important aspect of faith is faith in one’s self, one’s abilities. During the presidential debates, Kerry gained on Bush on this matter. Bush appeared to be on the defensive while Kerry appeared to be confident in what he was saying. Bush looked like a man sheltered by his political staff. On the other hand, Kerry was a bit too smug to be genuine.
Strangely enough, liberals have had to define their religious values more clearly than their conservative counterparts. The media paints President Bush as a strong Protestant conservative and Senator Kerry as a weak Catholic liberal. This perception has led to the popular belief that Bush naturally has former governor of Texas has more faith than the current senator from Massachusetts. Realistically, Kerry isn’t any more blasphemous than Bush is religious.
In the end, a presidential candidate must always proclaim his belief in God or he will lose the election. Of course, many politicians merely give lip service to the idea of faith in God. Yet, America would sooner vote for a Jew, Muslim, or Buddhist than an atheist. Voters prefer a candidate who believes in something greater than themselves, but an atheist cannot offer a faith in God to them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 01:55 am (UTC)See, this is all opinion. Opinions go in the opinion/editorial section... but the structure of your paper looks like this is just floating around in there, and that's sort of bad.
Either way, this reads more like an essay than a newspaper article... and you draw some strange conclusions. Most of them are all clearly your opinionated logic... they're not something that most people, namely those who disagree, can understand... when you're writing an opinion article, it helps to have logic other people can follow. Otherwise, it just sounds like you're saying stuff... that doesn't really make sense. And you are.
Of course, I disagree violently. I don't think that faith in a diety is important to a leader at all, but I do know that too many Americans do think that for someone crazy like me to get elected. And it annoys the hell out of me. The state of things in America, that is.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 06:33 am (UTC)i'll tell you what you should have written about. You should have written that not only is faith necessary to a leader, that YOU yourself are a strongly religious person, that YOU like to see a leader with a strong believe in god and THEN what you do is fucking thumb your nose at the atheists and pagans with a finishing line that says pagans and aetheists not only cant and will not be elected, it's illegal in some states.
Maybe you can add how you support legislation to force Michigan to add a statue which forces people to recite an oath which says they believe in god before they take office. YOU YOU YOU. You need to write what you believe, not what I believe or the guy down the hall believes. If you want to be confrontational, in you face, you gotta write about something dangerous that you believe in that other people don't, get people riled up, on both sides.
Nothing you have ever writen has expressed your own true opinion. You're far too cautious.
Write about Vietnam. Except instead of hiding the stuff you don't like to show. . . BRING IT OUT. Bring out the anti-colonial hate, bring out the "We would have been you even if you had brought nuclear weapons to hanoi" attitude, just bring an opinion.
As it is, your article just wanders all over the place.
Get angry. And write about Vietnam next time. That's my advice.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:46 am (UTC)But, if I want to be a good writer, I have to get out of my own box. It's going to take some work, so I thank you guys for your honest opinions. I'll try to find some time this weekend to write an article that's more opinionated.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 10:44 am (UTC)There you go again. That isn't your problem. Your problem is that you are afraid, so you keep trying to deny responsibility for your opinions. Your problem isn't in your ancestors the problem is in you. You're afraid of getting hurt.
Look man, it's like when you are at the swimming pool and you try to do a flip. You peer down at the water, ooh, scary. So you go off the board, and kinda get going, and kinda hold back and get half way around BELLY FLOP.
You need to quit being careful, and you need to take more responsibility for your opinions.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 01:09 pm (UTC)When I looked at your paper in that Adobe file, it wasn't in a clearly marked "Editorial" or "Opinion" section, and that can get you in trouble.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 06:57 am (UTC)You open with Confucius, implying that a nation without a faithful leader is doomed.
And then you go on to talk about the following tenuously-related points:
* US political candidates claim they have more faith than their opponents.
* US citizens won't vote for a candidate who has not had a family.
* The purpose of faith in politics is to trivialize hardship.
* Self-confidence is solely derived from faith.
* A leader can be elected who claims to be faithful, but isn't terribly. And therefore, by the first point, the nation is doomed.
So which is your point?
If it's Confucius, you have to follow up on that. Give us concrete examples of nations that have failed because their leaders are faithless. Toss out anything that doesn't have to do with this point.
If it's that US political candidates can't win without faith, show us which candidates lost because they didn't have faith.
Without some hard data, your article comes across as one big wandering conjecture, as a vague survey of faith and politics. Maybe you are interested in the latter; in that case, make it obvious that's what you're talking about!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:50 am (UTC)I probably shouldn't submit this, but my deadline's up. I'll work on being more concise in my next article.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 01:26 pm (UTC)Because your article wandered so much, I had no way of telling which ideas were yours and which were someone else's - so I responded to the ideas themselves. So please don't take it as a personal attack, because it's not.
But as others have pointed out, if the reader can't tell where the author stands - then the article in question is not successful. Decide what *you* think and stand by those ideas with solid reasoning and/or research.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 04:13 pm (UTC)Something I take as a personal attack..."Greybeta, you're stupid". Your blog was not that and I appreciate the time you spent on it.