Touro Communication Club Notes #29

tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

As the Democratic Presidential campaign comes to a close, the news continued to be filled with verbal faux pas (missteps). Barack Obama now has two religious clerics (Rev. Wright and Rev Pfleger) who have caused him political and personal pain. John McCain also has his share of preachers full of volatile fire and brimstone.

Words are very powerful weapons. They DO count because they convey ideas and feelings. Words create an ethos (atmosphere) of constructive or destructive behavior. A Chinese saying reminds us, “A sword can kill once, but a word can kill many times.” When words are used negatively to inflame a situation or ridicule a candidate (Rev. Pfleger),

Scott McClellan’s tell-all memoir of “What Happened” while he was the Press Secretary for President Bush is another sadly rich source of how words are used. McClellan says, among other issues, that he was not given accurate information to pass on to the media. The public depends on the media for information, however filtered it may be.

Assuming McClellan’s accusations are accurate, the public will hear misinformation or “disinformation” (intentionally false information) that is further filtered through the media. When we unknowingly receive tainted information from a supposedly trusted source, our right to freedom of the press is invisibly clouded. Then, as citizens, we never know what or who to believe.

Perhaps the juiciest highlight of last week’s “word play” was the CSPAN offering on Saturday of the Rules Committee meeting of the Democratic party. (To have watched this event,, you have to be a political junkie who is a glutton for verbal punishment.) They met to decide whether to give voting rights to the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be represented at the Democratic Convention in August in Denver.

The speeches ranged from vague to brilliant, muddy to crystal clear. For people who hate meetings, this was a plodding doozy! Unfortunately, the democratic (small “d”) process is a slow, glacial experience. It is not one for the impatient. (Dictatorships are for the impatient.)

As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst of all governments, except for all the rest.” In the process, we are constantly reminded that God is in the details – and so is the Devil!

After all the testimony, the committee adjourned for a three hour “lunch.” While they were gone, they had more than lunch. Off-camera, they decided the outcome of the meeting. (Not nice, after the transparent opening.) Senator Clinton’s representative, Harold Ickes, reserved the right to challenge the decision with the Credential’s committee. That means, Clinton may continue her fight until the Denver convention.

This week’s 3 primaries are crucial to what happens with the Clinton campaign. With Puerto Rico in her column, Montana and North Dakota vote Tuesday. TV pundits (those are people are who constantly shooting off their mouths in front of a camera.) are predicting that Clinton will keep her options open for as long as possible.

We’ll continue to watch. We hope you will too!

Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club is

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 – 1 pm - Club meeting –“Awareness II + Memory” led by Jason Carvell

The first session on “Awareness” raised so many thoughts and feelings among the group that they felt that a 2^nd session would be necessary to extend our exploration of what elements are involved in “Awareness.” Tanya Howard suggested that we add “Memory” to the exploration. Jason Carvell will again lead the session.

Wednesday, June 13, 2008 – 1 pm -Debate Team – Analysis of Video of the Final Debate

This is the week! The Debate Team’s final public presentation on Gun Control. Richard Green will video the debate and we will analyze it afterwards. This public debate is the culmination of about 3 months of preparation. No matter what happens, the Debate Team is clearly in a different place from when we started. When we’re finished, we need to give ourselves some perspective on our very challenging journey to discover and exercise our mental muscles. I am very proud of the Team’s progress and look forward a bright future.

What happened on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 – Public Debate on Gun Control

For 32 exciting minutes, two debate teams battled on the issue of gun control. The resolution was “Resolved: that New York State enact a law prohibiting the sale of hand gun, with the exception of police officers.” The Affirmative team was James Millner and Olushile Atkintade. The Negative team was Drani Gabu and Theresa Morgan. Lorinda Moore was a first time observer. Hal Wicke was the timer, Richard Green took the video record of the debate and David Nussbaum was the sole judge who wrote the following “Flow Chart” of the debate.

Debate Flow Chart

1st Affirmative	Amenities; Statement of Affirmative Craving for sex/violence among reason why guns kill people Survival chances lower with handguns than other violence. “Eye for an eye” code of justice Stricter laws and penalties cut down on sales Cops would not have been as “Paranoid” in Sean Bell case Police are the militia referred to in the right to bear arms Police should have training Caught with handgun – attempted murder charge
2 +x negative	Guns do not create violence – people do Most incidents are among people who knew each other (flash rage) Police altercations
1st negative constructive	Steelers used handguns to defend Protect family and save lives Protected by 2nd amendment Innocent people brutalized by legal owners can protect themselves if they own guns Gun possession does not turn people into lunatics Gun carrying would lower crime rate
+x 1st affirmative	Wild animals Altercations between people who know each other 2nd amendment applies to all, including criminals
2nd affirmative constructive	times have changed since a militia was needed Children can find guns police have training US leads in worldwide gun related deaths Existence of black market shows that affirmative would reduce but not eliminate
+x negative	NYS part of US – only has stats for US No training for citizens
2nd negative constructive	Woman was walking dog and defended herself with gun w/no means to call police 2 weeks is not enough police training Should the ability of police to help be restricted when they are off duty? What about hunting for meat?
+x 2nd Affirmative	Poaching – poaching is a crime 2 weeks not sufficient – is that better than no training for citizenry? Advocate more training Not one person’s job to advocate that is right

Rebuttals

1st Negative	Illegal does not prevent those who would break the law Reduce criminality – not handguns Punish person – not guns Law infringes on constitutional right
2nd Affirmative	Guns out of the picture would reduce gun related deaths Citizenry not whole militia Alternative to two weeks police training Guns found in home – protection from that
2nd Negative	It is a right Guns can be safely stored Protect from bodily harm to children
1st Affirmative	Size of guns an issue – hunting is not relevant to resolution Talking about small caliber guns Guns in home- paranoid

The Affirmative Team was the winner, according to David’s analysis. In the post-debate discussion, he detailed his reasoning. The debaters, exhausted, shared their experiences. The group decided to view Richard’s video at our next meeting in two weeks.

Overall, the debate was a wonderful success! This was a first for Touro – a milestone. It was difficult in many ways, but the team members rose to the challenge in admirable ways. Everyone learned something. Lorinda exclaimed, “I want to do that!” In the debriefing we will have in two weeks, the team will comment on their arguments and discuss what will be next on the team’s agenda.

Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke