The comment below is a perception from a viewer who posted it on Sean Hannitys’ blog site regarding a Cspan webcast called GOVERNMENT AND WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION .
The Federalist Society topic was wealth redistribution as a part of a Law Convention seminar. The web commenter's reflections regarding the program seem to illustrate an example (1 example) of a previous conversation I had regarding how people tend to listen for slant toward their own current perspectives and are left to remain there in their attitudes(perception), though they believe themselves "objective." The opportunity to gain a disparate perception is lost.
Viewer of the webcast comment: I just finished viewing the last 45 minutes of this program on CSPAN and the final question and debate section was excellent. I don't remember their names, but a brilliant University of Chicago professor puts several big time slams on a liberal commie Yale professor. Mark Levin fans will appreciate the UofC professor's references to Hume, Locke, Smith, Natural Law etc, Also Forbes was great and SEIU's Andy Stern was a typical double-speaking union boss as you would expect... I don't see how Forbes could bare sitting next to that scum for such a long time!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there are opportunities for added perspective by listening to those who don’t necessarily agree with say our own perception. For instance, President Barack Obama is illustrating that via his administration's perspective to have conversation with other nations whose perceptions differ from those of his or our own but are based on their own perspectives. I believe his administration's approach is laudable. I do not believe it is an indictment upon intellect or ideology but is rather enlightenment. Education and its application the means in which we are illumined to resolve our differences.
We should learn to question ourselves why we think what we think; how we came to believe what we think; how the decision to think what we think results in the consequences we experience; and finally, whether the results from what we think produced the desired intentioned outcome. If it doesn't, we can change what we think. In order to change what we think, diversity of thought is essential. I believe this was the main reason that the invited speakers were ideologically as disparate as they were. They wanted to "mix-it-up" to see what became of it.
For the general relativity to perspective of the problems facing distribution of wealth, I believe history shows that concentrating wealth amongst a few produces wide-spread discord amongst the many. It retards equal economic opportunity, effectively killing The American Dream since the wealthy tend to keep the wealthy wealthiest. Call it a growing greed mentality. As the middle class is eroded spirally downward, they tend to blame the poor for being poor. To paraphrase Dr. Martin L. King, how can you expect a poor man to pull himself up by his bootstraps when he doesn’t own any boots?
In the second edition of POWERHOUSE HILL™ I addressed perspective patterns determine perception of the reality we experience. The prevailing pattern of perspective of the listening audience was one surrounding law, since this was a “Law Conference.” Law perspective provided the constraining context for the forum – Government and the Redistribution of Wealth. The opportunity presented was the different perspectives – natural law, governmental liberal historical and governmental conservative historical law, financial historical law, and labor historical law.
The television audience, as well as some who were present in the arena, are not necessarily so constrained to listen to differing views but rather are susceptible to listening for validation of what they currently think. Of course, the speakers too are susceptible to the same, as we found out from the Q&A session where debate was very lively and mostly defensive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there are opportunities for added perspective by listening to those who don’t necessarily agree with say our own perception. For instance, President Barack Obama is illustrating that via his administration's perspective to have conversation with other nations whose perceptions differ from those of his or our own but are based on their own perspectives. I believe his administration's approach is laudable. I do not believe it is an indictment upon intellect or ideology but is rather enlightenment. Education and its application the means in which we are illumined to resolve our differences.
We should learn to question ourselves why we think what we think; how we came to believe what we think; how the decision to think what we think results in the consequences we experience; and finally, whether the results from what we think produced the desired intentioned outcome. If it doesn't, we can change what we think. In order to change what we think, diversity of thought is essential. I believe this was the main reason that the invited speakers were ideologically as disparate as they were. They wanted to "mix-it-up" to see what became of it.
For the general relativity to perspective of the problems facing distribution of wealth, I believe history shows that concentrating wealth amongst a few produces wide-spread discord amongst the many. It retards equal economic opportunity, effectively killing The American Dream since the wealthy tend to keep the wealthy wealthiest. Call it a growing greed mentality. As the middle class is eroded spirally downward, they tend to blame the poor for being poor. To paraphrase Dr. Martin L. King, how can you expect a poor man to pull himself up by his bootstraps when he doesn’t own any boots?
In the second edition of POWERHOUSE HILL™ I addressed perspective patterns determine perception of the reality we experience. The prevailing pattern of perspective of the listening audience was one surrounding law, since this was a “Law Conference.” Law perspective provided the constraining context for the forum – Government and the Redistribution of Wealth. The opportunity presented was the different perspectives – natural law, governmental liberal historical and governmental conservative historical law, financial historical law, and labor historical law.
The television audience, as well as some who were present in the arena, are not necessarily so constrained to listen to differing views but rather are susceptible to listening for validation of what they currently think. Of course, the speakers too are susceptible to the same, as we found out from the Q&A session where debate was very lively and mostly defensive.
I believe for some of the speakers, in their private confines of research, a more open-minder approach will prevail. At least I hope so. When we go through life merely seeking validation through others who may think or see things the same way that we see things, we are not inclined to engage and wrestle with the differing perceptions and the differing perspectives that cause them.; such as – “Whether your viewpoint would be the same if your life condition was one that was substantively and materially less? It seems this wrestling process is the means toward what's noble in us and is what I deem to be Education to us. Everything else seems indoctrinal and unfit for civility. What do you think?
"The test of our progress is not
whether we add more to the abundance
of those who have much;
it is whether we provide enough
for those who have too little."
– Franklin D. Roosevelt
- igman'111309
"The test of our progress is not
whether we add more to the abundance
of those who have much;
it is whether we provide enough
for those who have too little."
– Franklin D. Roosevelt
- igman'111309
Other info on Wealth Gap
(1) Across the Great Divide The Wealth Gap Challenges American Ideals - by Molly Lanzarotta
An extreme example of the growth of the wealth gap is found in the wage gap between executives and workers. While the average worker's pay in 2000 was lower than in 1980, adjusting for inflation, CEO pay was 10 times higher. In 1999, CEOs made 458 times as much as production and non-supervisory workers. If minimum wage had risen during the 1990s as rapidly as CEO pay, it would have been $24.13 an hour by 1999 instead of $5.15. Less in the realm of fantasy, if wages had at least kept pace with productivity, which rose 46.5 percent from 1973 to 1998, the median wage would have risen to $17.27 an hour, rather than $11.29, giving $12,438 more a year to full-time workers. So why are we complacent or in denial about what is no longer just a gap between rich and poor, but rather an ever-widening gap between the mega-rich and everyone else?
(1) Across the Great Divide The Wealth Gap Challenges American Ideals - by Molly Lanzarotta
________________________________________
(1) Across the Great Divide The Wealth Gap Challenges American Ideals - by Molly Lanzarotta
________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment