Growing up, one of my dad’s favorite sayings when I’d try to manipulate him to my way of thinking was, “Flattery will get you nowhere!” Dad could see through my schemes because he knew about how people “flatter with their tongue.” That word used for flatter means to divide, share, plunder, allot, apportion or assign. In other words, those who use it are trying to get part of you for their goals and agenda not your own. Dad stood his ground because he loved me and didn’t want me to get hurt or into trouble. He could see beyond my selfish whims.
Does the statement “flattery will get you nowhere” remain true today? After all, we’re continually bombarded with flattery-based rhetoric to pull us in a certain direction to purchase certain products or vote for a certain candidate. Does it even matter? If we are purchasing a certain brand of cereal or article of clothing, we’re not likely to experience any long-term problems. When we’re casting our vote, we could encounter repercussions, some that might extend beyond our lifetime impacting our children, grandchildren and those of everyone else in the nation. It’s important to stand our ground for what is right, so we need to know and understand truth in order to make a wise decision. We’ve got to look beyond that which tickles our ears. Yes, we’ll do our homework, but we can also observe how those trying to persuade us demonstrate their passion.
I read an alarming account on Fox News about Wisconsin State Legislator’s son, Sean Kedzie,who was beat up trying to protect a Romney / sign in his front yard. Makes you question the discernment and amount of homework these perpetrators did to determine that it warranted violence and destruction of private property. Perhaps in this election, flattery is getting somewhere.
Babe? No, I’m not talking about a hot looking woman; rather, I am referring to those who are considered too immature to count or have an opinion that matters. Yet this 13-year old young lady demonstrates that there is hope for the future. In fulfillment of a class project, Jenny makes a great case by looking at the track records of presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Mitt Romney and gives each of them a grade based on their performance – novel concept. Looks to me like she’s already moved beyond the elementary teachings as she ably researched and organized her information to deliver it in a comprehensive and easy-to-understand format. As a former teacher, I’d give her an A.
You may have seen this youtube video in other blogs, but I think it bears repeating for several reasons:
Jenny did an excellent job. We need to recognize and affirm our young people for excellent performance so that they will continue to move forward. It does not help anyone, especially the children, when you keep passing them on so that they won’t feel sad or unworthy. Instead commend them when they do well so they’ll learn to accept responsibility to do better or continue on their forward trek.
Jenny was more professional in her presentation than many adults in business today. Not only was she neat in her appearance, but she smiled and presented her information in a clear and concise manner. Obviously the debates were not her model.
Jenny was articulate in her speech – unless I missed it, there were no “Yo’s or dudes” in the entire presentation. She prepared her material, primarily factual, in an interesting, relatable manner. Everyone could “get it.”
Jenny had excellent mentors. Sounds like Mrs. Jackson and her father have accepted their responsibility and opportunity to teach her well including the newest technology.
Jenny made some outstanding points.
I’ve seen some comments related to this video stating that a 13 year old was incapable of producing a video of this quality. Maybe the commenter’s kids went to inferior schools. I have 3 grandchildren who could produce an equally professional video, but then they have parents who encourage them to do their best.
Last night we viewed the last of the election debates between President Obama and Governor Romney, and the winner was – one more time – the candidate of your choice before you turned on the TV or watched online. Did either of the candidates change anyone’s mind? I think that one’s debatable.
One thing I observed this time is that Mr. Obama may have gained a measure of respect for the debate process as he curbed his tendency toward interruptions. How can interested citizens possibly hear through the name calling and comments sufficiently to discern which plan makes sense when one candidate can’t control his tongue long enough for his opponent to explain his version? Maybe that’s the plan. Because time is short, grab all the minutes you can. That way, no one will be able to hear anything but your side. Hmmm, didn’t we get bad marks for this in elementary school?
Evidently Rachel Martin of NPR did her homework and found out that indeed there are rules for these debates – lots of them. In her article, Turns Out There are Rules for the Debates. Lots, she tells us there are 21 pages of rules. Maybe that’s the problem. There are just too many regulations and not enough time to read and understand all of them let alone follow them. I guess it’s just easier to ignore them. Does that go along with the line elementary school students use? You know the one, “the dog ate my homework.”
It seems to me, the Presidential debates, rather than being an opportunity to hear a clear, concise presentation of each side’s viewpoints and perspectives, have become an extension of the negative ad campaigns that have been frequenting the airwaves, tweets and other social media. It appears it’s much easier to point your finger at someone else instead of intelligently explaining your position. Didn’t we learn that in elementary school, too? I think it was in detention not history class.
I’m beginning to think that perhaps Presidential debates have outlived their usefulness. They are more of an embarrassment than enlightenment. Maybe they should go the way of the cassette, typewriter and other outdated technology. I guess that’s debatable, too.