George W. Bush has the distinction of being the most hated political figure in the world right now. No person has taken more criticism for his decisions, more second-guessing, and more flat-out resentment than he.
Type in 'bush' on the Facebook Flair application page and see what you find.
Bush is compared with a monkey. Shoe-throwing is encouraged. His last day is viewed with extreme joy. He is called evil, -----,-----,----(you get the picture). There are numerous games mocking him, a countdown clock to the end of his terms, and even more unmentionable things designed to bash the man who is leading the country.
My question: Is there a point in which we become too critical of a president? Is there a point where we become a nation divided by political parties? Is there a point where 'political humor' becomes unreasonable?
Not that this is a terrible thing; to have political views and freedom is what America is all about.
In fact, I enjoy a good political cartoon as much as the next person. The problem is, when it becomes purely centered on bashing the president, I get a little uncomfortable. Isn't there supposed to be some respect for the people who run this country, whether you agree or disagree?
The presidency is not the easiest job in the world. Again, the presidency is NOT the easiest job in the world. Not only do you bear responsibility for what you do, but also for other things out of your control. You must make decisions based on what you think is best for the country as a whole-you WILL offend someone no matter what you do.
And that's not to say that I agree with everything Bush has done. I'm not real thrilled about his domestic spending and I'm disappointed with some of his middle-of-the-road politics. But let's flip the coin now.
Fast forward to January. President Barack Obama steps up to the podium to deliver his first speech as president. I'm watching. Do I agree with this man? No, not on the majority of issues. Do I think he is the most qualified to run our country? No. Did I vote for him? No. But, in the midst of all this--do I think Obama is 'president evil'? No. Do I think that Obama should be assassinated? No. Do I think Obama's marriage should be discussed in the tabloids? Absolutely not. Do I think that he should be called names that make me blush? No.
He is the president. He deserves respect because of who he is. He is the leader of the country for the next four years. He is the man who will do his best to do what he believes is right for America. No matter what your position, that's what he is. Show some respect.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Bailout
Much has been said and written on the various government bailouts of banks, AIG, and the proposed bailout of the Big Three automakers. I would just simply like to comment on one basic thing--sensible business practice.
In your first business class, what do you learn? That a natural economy has ups and downs. Times when everything is plenty and times when life is tough. In fact, we could dial this down to common sense and simply say that you have to plan for the future.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler clearly did not plan properly for the future, or they might not be in the pickle they are in. It must be difficult to run a multi-billion dollar business--but you command a multi-million dollar salary, too. You have to realize that demand for your product is definitely not going to remain consistent. Tastes change, and needs change. The United States still drives large vehicles, but the demand has shifted to smaller and more fuel efficent cars.
How did the Big Three miss this? Who knows? But the fact is that they did. Should we, the taxpayer, have to bail them out for their mistake? And the fact, is, it was a mistake--nothing more and nothing less. Consider this, over 80% of small businesses fail within the first ten years--due to business practices or ideas that clearly did not work. Should we therefore bail them out too?
The frequent argument is that the Big Three support an industry that utilizes a massive amount of our nation's workforce. If the Big Three go away, what will happen to those jobs. Some will be lost, but the industry will eventually restructure itself into a smarter entity. The people of the United States are not dumb. We can adapt. And it will be tough. I suppose I can say this impassively, seeing as it is unlikely I will be directly affected. But I don't like the idea of paying for these companies for failure.
In your first business class, what do you learn? That a natural economy has ups and downs. Times when everything is plenty and times when life is tough. In fact, we could dial this down to common sense and simply say that you have to plan for the future.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler clearly did not plan properly for the future, or they might not be in the pickle they are in. It must be difficult to run a multi-billion dollar business--but you command a multi-million dollar salary, too. You have to realize that demand for your product is definitely not going to remain consistent. Tastes change, and needs change. The United States still drives large vehicles, but the demand has shifted to smaller and more fuel efficent cars.
How did the Big Three miss this? Who knows? But the fact is that they did. Should we, the taxpayer, have to bail them out for their mistake? And the fact, is, it was a mistake--nothing more and nothing less. Consider this, over 80% of small businesses fail within the first ten years--due to business practices or ideas that clearly did not work. Should we therefore bail them out too?
The frequent argument is that the Big Three support an industry that utilizes a massive amount of our nation's workforce. If the Big Three go away, what will happen to those jobs. Some will be lost, but the industry will eventually restructure itself into a smarter entity. The people of the United States are not dumb. We can adapt. And it will be tough. I suppose I can say this impassively, seeing as it is unlikely I will be directly affected. But I don't like the idea of paying for these companies for failure.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The morning after pill......
Barack Obama is now our 44th President of the United States.
It is the morning after one of the most contested and publicized presidential races in our country's history.
In retrospect, who knew that this junior senator from Illinois could upset Hillary Clinton and John McCain, two of the political scene's most solid pillars?
When we review the campaign, we see two distinct problems for John McCain. He did not hold the media's attention as did Barack Obama. As mentioned before, McCain did seize initiative with the introduction of Sarah Palin, but that sputtered out and left him only his attack ads. Secondly, John McCain did little to attempt to appeal to the younger voters. McCain's age and poor relations with the younger generations was perceived to be a problem and high voter turnout was expected, but McCain did little to appeal to them, trusting to his perceived strengths to carry him through. This was born out by a 66 to 32 Obama win in the 18-29 age group.
Barack Obama did an extremely good job of responding to those attack ads and did not rely on counterattack to gain the voter's trust. He utilized his media advantage to call attention to his counterpoints. He used his charisma to appeal to younger voters and called upon his constituents to vote.
I voted for John McCain, because I felt he was more qualified to lead this country. I was apprehensive about many of the policies that Barack Obama plans on implementing. However, Barack Obama is now the president of the United States. Many people have the line of thinking that because a Democrat has been elected president, our country will be ruined.
My position is, until that happens, we should stand behind this president. The race is over--Obama won. I pray that he will bring positive change to this country. Because of Barack's political stances and my own beliefs, I believe that under McCain we would have a better chance of that, but we will see what we see.
If you aren't willing to do that--to give the man a chance--you need to move.
It is the morning after one of the most contested and publicized presidential races in our country's history.
In retrospect, who knew that this junior senator from Illinois could upset Hillary Clinton and John McCain, two of the political scene's most solid pillars?
When we review the campaign, we see two distinct problems for John McCain. He did not hold the media's attention as did Barack Obama. As mentioned before, McCain did seize initiative with the introduction of Sarah Palin, but that sputtered out and left him only his attack ads. Secondly, John McCain did little to attempt to appeal to the younger voters. McCain's age and poor relations with the younger generations was perceived to be a problem and high voter turnout was expected, but McCain did little to appeal to them, trusting to his perceived strengths to carry him through. This was born out by a 66 to 32 Obama win in the 18-29 age group.
Barack Obama did an extremely good job of responding to those attack ads and did not rely on counterattack to gain the voter's trust. He utilized his media advantage to call attention to his counterpoints. He used his charisma to appeal to younger voters and called upon his constituents to vote.
I voted for John McCain, because I felt he was more qualified to lead this country. I was apprehensive about many of the policies that Barack Obama plans on implementing. However, Barack Obama is now the president of the United States. Many people have the line of thinking that because a Democrat has been elected president, our country will be ruined.
My position is, until that happens, we should stand behind this president. The race is over--Obama won. I pray that he will bring positive change to this country. Because of Barack's political stances and my own beliefs, I believe that under McCain we would have a better chance of that, but we will see what we see.
If you aren't willing to do that--to give the man a chance--you need to move.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The usual "Get out and vote" spiel....
The election is coming!!! The election is coming!!!
The media and the political people on either side proclaim the dire consequences if their opponent wins. Exit polls begin to come out in rapidly increasing numbers. Victories are guaranteed. Assasination plots come to light. The list goes on.
As we all run around like chickens with our heads cut off, I can't help but question our national sanity as a whole. I care about what happens in this election, but at a certain point I realize that my influence on the outcome is best expressed in two words: one vote.
The whole concept of a democracy is everyone has a say--or at least (in our country) everyone has an opportunity to have a say.
For someone like me, I tend to sit back and let the chips fall. Either Barack Obama or John McCain will win and that will be that. I know who I want to win the election and I have different predictions on what will happen when the president is finally chosen.
The end result is, just like everyone says, do your patriotic duty and vote. Let the results be seen and move from there. Not real profound, but practical.
The media and the political people on either side proclaim the dire consequences if their opponent wins. Exit polls begin to come out in rapidly increasing numbers. Victories are guaranteed. Assasination plots come to light. The list goes on.
As we all run around like chickens with our heads cut off, I can't help but question our national sanity as a whole. I care about what happens in this election, but at a certain point I realize that my influence on the outcome is best expressed in two words: one vote.
The whole concept of a democracy is everyone has a say--or at least (in our country) everyone has an opportunity to have a say.
For someone like me, I tend to sit back and let the chips fall. Either Barack Obama or John McCain will win and that will be that. I know who I want to win the election and I have different predictions on what will happen when the president is finally chosen.
The end result is, just like everyone says, do your patriotic duty and vote. Let the results be seen and move from there. Not real profound, but practical.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Plan for Change--part 1
I do not tend to read much on the candidate's websites...but a friend has been pressuring me to do so for quite a while and so I hopped on Barack Obama's website.
I clicked on the 'issues' tab and picked up the very first issue listed--civil rights.
According to the website, the main problems are as follows: Pay inequality, hate crimes on the rise, efforts continue to suppress the vote, and disparities continue to plague the justice system.
1. Pay inequality
I actually find little to argue with on the issue of pay inequality. If it is happening, it definitely should be stopped. This is an issue for the federal government to deal with and should be a priority. The problem for this type of legislation is that it is somewhat difficult to determine whether discrimination has taken place. A man and woman in the same job usually do not have the same work experience, the same work ethics, or work habits.
2.Hate Crimes on the Rise
According to the official FBI website, the FBI "does not recommend comparing hate crime statistics from year to year".
Furthermore, Barack Obama's website says "The number of hate crimes increased nearly 8 percent to 7,700 incidents in 2006." What they do not tell you is that the number in 2005 just happened to be the lowest total since 1995 (and numbers aren't readily available before that point). So the Obama campaign implies that there has been this sudden rise in hate crimes, when 7,700 is the middle statistic for the last decade. And as despicable as hate crimes are, that's 7,722 for over two hundred and ninety-nine million people, or .002 percent.
3.Efforts continue to suppress the vote
Barack Obama's plan says that he will impose harsh penalties on those who commit voter fraud and provide voters who are misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote. A couple of different questions.
How do you interpet misinformed, inaccurate, and incomplete information? Couldn't that argument be made for every single campaign ad on boths sides? We could argue that McCain's attacks on Obama don't present the full picture on Obama's good traits (which really do exist) and that his attempts to associate Obama with Ayers is misinformation. (which the Obama campaign has repeatedly stated) On the other side of the coin, we could argue that Obama's ads attacking McCain as against stem cell research don't present that fact McCain supports stem cell research but opposes growing embryos simply for the stem cells.
A law like this would create a disaster of partisan politics and attacks all over our election system.
I do support any effort to impose harsh penalties on voter fraud and believe that these should be enforced to the fullest extent.
4. The disparities in the Justice system.
Obama points out that Hispanics and Blacks are twice as likely to be searched, arrested, and forcibly subdued when stopped by a police officer. Obama's plan calls for logs to be kept of stops so that biases can be detected and states that 83 percent of Hispanics and Blacks felt that the force used against them was excessive.
Um, maybe I'm just niave, but most people don't like being arrested. And the other problem is that Blacks and Hispanics have higher PERCEIVED crime rates than other races. The average person thinks a Black or Hispanic is more likely to commit a crime. Is it racism? In a pure sense, it sure is! Is it common sense? Given what we see in the news, it sure is! The average police officer probably realizes this to a greater extent than we can ever see from our recliners.
The fact is, I agree with Barack Obama on some issues, but his plans just do not seem grounded in reality to me. His stated goals are as admirable as anyone else, but I can't see his methods actually working. But read on....
I clicked on the 'issues' tab and picked up the very first issue listed--civil rights.
According to the website, the main problems are as follows: Pay inequality, hate crimes on the rise, efforts continue to suppress the vote, and disparities continue to plague the justice system.
1. Pay inequality
I actually find little to argue with on the issue of pay inequality. If it is happening, it definitely should be stopped. This is an issue for the federal government to deal with and should be a priority. The problem for this type of legislation is that it is somewhat difficult to determine whether discrimination has taken place. A man and woman in the same job usually do not have the same work experience, the same work ethics, or work habits.
2.Hate Crimes on the Rise
According to the official FBI website, the FBI "does not recommend comparing hate crime statistics from year to year".
Furthermore, Barack Obama's website says "The number of hate crimes increased nearly 8 percent to 7,700 incidents in 2006." What they do not tell you is that the number in 2005 just happened to be the lowest total since 1995 (and numbers aren't readily available before that point). So the Obama campaign implies that there has been this sudden rise in hate crimes, when 7,700 is the middle statistic for the last decade. And as despicable as hate crimes are, that's 7,722 for over two hundred and ninety-nine million people, or .002 percent.
3.Efforts continue to suppress the vote
Barack Obama's plan says that he will impose harsh penalties on those who commit voter fraud and provide voters who are misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote. A couple of different questions.
How do you interpet misinformed, inaccurate, and incomplete information? Couldn't that argument be made for every single campaign ad on boths sides? We could argue that McCain's attacks on Obama don't present the full picture on Obama's good traits (which really do exist) and that his attempts to associate Obama with Ayers is misinformation. (which the Obama campaign has repeatedly stated) On the other side of the coin, we could argue that Obama's ads attacking McCain as against stem cell research don't present that fact McCain supports stem cell research but opposes growing embryos simply for the stem cells.
A law like this would create a disaster of partisan politics and attacks all over our election system.
I do support any effort to impose harsh penalties on voter fraud and believe that these should be enforced to the fullest extent.
4. The disparities in the Justice system.
Obama points out that Hispanics and Blacks are twice as likely to be searched, arrested, and forcibly subdued when stopped by a police officer. Obama's plan calls for logs to be kept of stops so that biases can be detected and states that 83 percent of Hispanics and Blacks felt that the force used against them was excessive.
Um, maybe I'm just niave, but most people don't like being arrested. And the other problem is that Blacks and Hispanics have higher PERCEIVED crime rates than other races. The average person thinks a Black or Hispanic is more likely to commit a crime. Is it racism? In a pure sense, it sure is! Is it common sense? Given what we see in the news, it sure is! The average police officer probably realizes this to a greater extent than we can ever see from our recliners.
The fact is, I agree with Barack Obama on some issues, but his plans just do not seem grounded in reality to me. His stated goals are as admirable as anyone else, but I can't see his methods actually working. But read on....
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A bias vs. a prejudice
THERE IS ALWAYS A BIAS.
Even when you are trying to unbiased, unless you have absolutely zero knowledge on the subject (and that means absolute zero) there is no way that you can be completely unbiased on a subject.
Furthermore, I have no problem with biases!!! I have no problem with people having UNIQUE perspectives!!! That's what makes us different from each other.
Consider this, a bias is "an inclination of temperment" according the the Merriam-Webster dictionary. That is to say, it is not by definition negative. I believe that our biases are shaped in three primary ways--our experience, our upbringing, and lastly, our education.
My past experience makes me not like heights. I was 'forced' on roller coasters in my early years and still have not gotten over that. That 'tramautization' has made me view any rides with a drop with no small amount of nervousness.
My childhood has taught me to enjoy fishing and the outdoors.
My homeschooling education has taught me the value of individual attention and prepares me to work one on one effectively with a professor.
I have a bias towards the place where I work--because I work there. I have a bias against certain sports teams--because my past experiences. You, the reader, have a certain bias towards what I am writing because you have some knowledge or experience that shapes your attitude toward this piece.
In politics, a bias is usually interpeted as an extremely negative thing. Racial biases have been especially highlighted in this year's presidential election. The real problem is not a bias, it is a predjudice, which is defined as an "irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
A prejudice is definitively negative. It is bad. We know this from the history of the civil rights movements in the South.
This is an important difference. Now, the point must be made that a bias should always be proclaimed when neccessary--for instance, teaching a college class. If you state where you are coming from, no one can fault you for indulging in your bias if they know there is one. You have made clear your views.
The conclusion is--accept your biases, analyze them to see if they are grounded in reality, and be fully aware that they exist.
Even when you are trying to unbiased, unless you have absolutely zero knowledge on the subject (and that means absolute zero) there is no way that you can be completely unbiased on a subject.
Furthermore, I have no problem with biases!!! I have no problem with people having UNIQUE perspectives!!! That's what makes us different from each other.
Consider this, a bias is "an inclination of temperment" according the the Merriam-Webster dictionary. That is to say, it is not by definition negative. I believe that our biases are shaped in three primary ways--our experience, our upbringing, and lastly, our education.
My past experience makes me not like heights. I was 'forced' on roller coasters in my early years and still have not gotten over that. That 'tramautization' has made me view any rides with a drop with no small amount of nervousness.
My childhood has taught me to enjoy fishing and the outdoors.
My homeschooling education has taught me the value of individual attention and prepares me to work one on one effectively with a professor.
I have a bias towards the place where I work--because I work there. I have a bias against certain sports teams--because my past experiences. You, the reader, have a certain bias towards what I am writing because you have some knowledge or experience that shapes your attitude toward this piece.
In politics, a bias is usually interpeted as an extremely negative thing. Racial biases have been especially highlighted in this year's presidential election. The real problem is not a bias, it is a predjudice, which is defined as an "irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
A prejudice is definitively negative. It is bad. We know this from the history of the civil rights movements in the South.
This is an important difference. Now, the point must be made that a bias should always be proclaimed when neccessary--for instance, teaching a college class. If you state where you are coming from, no one can fault you for indulging in your bias if they know there is one. You have made clear your views.
The conclusion is--accept your biases, analyze them to see if they are grounded in reality, and be fully aware that they exist.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The problem for John McCain
With the election drawing ever nearer, John McCain's campaign staff must be frustrated by their seeming inability to make any sort of a splash on the front page. Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama carried that sort of coverage through the entire weekend as he made his choice clear on NBC's meet the press.
On the other hand, John McCain remains the same old, same old. He is repeating the same old points.
With Barack Obama leading in the polls, the pressure is on John McCain to draw attention to himself in order to court the independent vote.
His choice of Sarah Palin as his VP choice was such a play. Media attention eclisped Barack Obama for some time and McCain showed an instant jump in the polls. In order to win in November, John McCain needs to pull out another trick out of his hat to have a legitimate shot. Appearences on Saturday Night Live are simply not going to cut it.
John McCain needs to make a challenging statement directed straight at the Obama camp. He needs to directly go after Obama on the key issue--experience and Obama's tax plans. He needs to do this in a way that is attention getting.
Here's how: John McCain should announce a press conference. Obviously, all the networks will attend, if for nothing else but to say they're covering the election. John McCain the n will start talking to the cameras as if he's having a face to face conversation with Obama. For at least ten minutes, he should talk directly to Barack Obama through the media--directly through the median that has propelled Obama to the top--highlighting every point of contest; every debate point that was skipped over. He should do so forcefully and strongly. Then sit back and wait for Barack to respond.
The media will hold their collective breath and wait for their chosen one to respond to McCain's savage attack. The buildup will be something that McCain needs--renewed coverage and media attention. He will not win the election emphasizing the same things...everyone has already heard them. He will win by doing something different, something new---something that actually is maverick-ish. He needs to portray himself as something new, unlike the image that he has let Obama corner him into.
On the other hand, John McCain remains the same old, same old. He is repeating the same old points.
With Barack Obama leading in the polls, the pressure is on John McCain to draw attention to himself in order to court the independent vote.
His choice of Sarah Palin as his VP choice was such a play. Media attention eclisped Barack Obama for some time and McCain showed an instant jump in the polls. In order to win in November, John McCain needs to pull out another trick out of his hat to have a legitimate shot. Appearences on Saturday Night Live are simply not going to cut it.
John McCain needs to make a challenging statement directed straight at the Obama camp. He needs to directly go after Obama on the key issue--experience and Obama's tax plans. He needs to do this in a way that is attention getting.
Here's how: John McCain should announce a press conference. Obviously, all the networks will attend, if for nothing else but to say they're covering the election. John McCain the n will start talking to the cameras as if he's having a face to face conversation with Obama. For at least ten minutes, he should talk directly to Barack Obama through the media--directly through the median that has propelled Obama to the top--highlighting every point of contest; every debate point that was skipped over. He should do so forcefully and strongly. Then sit back and wait for Barack to respond.
The media will hold their collective breath and wait for their chosen one to respond to McCain's savage attack. The buildup will be something that McCain needs--renewed coverage and media attention. He will not win the election emphasizing the same things...everyone has already heard them. He will win by doing something different, something new---something that actually is maverick-ish. He needs to portray himself as something new, unlike the image that he has let Obama corner him into.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)