Presenting and listening

This past week we have been presenting in groups before the class lectures about wars the united states has waged, and the restrictions of civil liberties exercised by the government during those wars. Through watching these presentations, I learned several things about the nature of a good presentation versus a poor one, and the kinds of presentations which elicit positive reactions from the audience.

The biggest key to success in presenting, it seems to me, is keeping the audience's attention. This appears obvious, but is easier said than done. Long descriptions of wars and treaties delivered without break to an audience will lose their attention quickly. It seems to me as if the surest way to keep an audience's attention is to open up lecture's to discussion with them. If the audience is involved, they cannot lose focus, or likely won't at least, as they have the opportunity to voice their own opinions, and most of us enjoy being heard alone with other people's undivided attention.

In addition to audience involvement, creativity is important in an attention keeping presentation. Diverging from the normal ways of delivering information, i.e. handouts and speaking, and including items such as skits allows the audience to learn information on the time period while simultaneously being amused by the antics and actions of the presenters. If one is amused, one is also more likely to retain the information being given. It seems as though teachers would benefit from occasionally switching up the regular class format if they do not do so already.

The enemy

This past week in american studies we have examined the issue of civil liberties and their appropriate restrictions by a nation's government in times of war. This got me thinking as to the required treatment of the opposing side, as opposed to one's own, during a war. Are their manners of conduct and rights that ought to be given to the enemy? Should war follow rules?

The Geneva conventions, signed in Switzerland, were official agreements among several participating countries as to the humane conduct of warfare http://www.reference.com/browse/Geneva+Conventions. Terms included the forbidding of the targeting of enemy medical facilities, and the humane treatment of prisoners of war. My initial reaction to this idea was puzzlement. In a time of conflict where two nations seek to destroy and overpower the over, how it is possible to adhere to a set of rules? Isn't the objective of war victory at all costs?

While this was my initial reaction, my thoughts changed quickly. While wars are a clash of force between two countries to settle a conflict, how we conduct wars determines our moral status. In fighting the war against terrorism today, if it may be called so, the USA places limits on the allowed practices for interrogating captives of the other side. We do not permit torture, as used to be common practice several hundred years ago, despite the enemy's intent to destroy us by any means possible. In war, while treatment of our own side must clearly be managed appropriately, so must treatment of the other side.

Freedom's boundaries

Concepts such as the right to free speech and equal treatment for all are relatively modern ideas which have no doubt taken great importance in the minds of american citizens and other western first world nations. However, the necessary limits to such rights are less often questioned, and attempts to restrict them are often met with high opposition as people fear the loss of their freedom. Sometimes, though, I believe liberties such as freedom of speech must be restricted in dangerous time periods for the safety of a nation's people.

Today the west has come under threat from terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, which attempt to impose their fundamentalist beliefs on free countries via terror tactics. The danger of the terrorist threat is so great as it comes not only from external nations but from within. Bombs sent by Al Qaeda recently came close to entering several Chicago synagogues, and so american citizens must be wary of the terrorist danger in their own land. In such times, I cannot support the permitting of freedom of speech if it encourages hateful and violent behavior against others in the name of a faction's cause. I do not believe anyone should be allowed to preach violence against fellow americans in the name of a supposedly "greater cause", religious or not. As it is, the dangers to national and individual security are great enough already.