120. Who is really not ready to lead

I do not know which is funnier- George Bush trying to explain the financial crisis, John McCain believing that he is needed to help solve the financial crisis, or the prospect that Sarah Palin might know anything about the financial crisis. I mean really, Bush talks to the public like we all are a bunch of third-graders, McCain, just 10 days ago, said that the economy was fundamentally sound, and Palin is being sheltered from the media- just in case they might ask her about the economy.

I was at a fundraiser last week when one individual suggested that it was difficult to tell the candidates apart- that they were all moving to the center. That assessment is wrong on two accounts. First, there is a difference between Obama and McCain, a big difference, but worse, much worse, is Palin. She is proving, the more we learn about her, to be an unqualified candidate and cultural extremist.

If the presidential election was between Bush and Palin, I would vote for, gulp...Bush. In fact, not only would I vote for Bush, I would campaign for Bush. It seems, at this point anyways, that Palin is in way over her head. Not only does she lack serious leadership experience; she has only a moderate education and is culturally recluse. Furthermore, her religion leapfrogs Bush's beliefs, as she appears not only conservative, she is evangelical. It is one thing to have your beliefs; it is another to act as though you have never heard a decent counterargument to them.

The cute and tough "hockey mom" persona is quickly eroding into small town politician, one that, like Bush, has the superciliousness to think that people will believe whatever she says. She appears to be an actress portraying a presidential candidate, repeating well rehearsed lines, being, as best-selling author Sam Harris noted, led around by the McCain team like a "pet pony."

Harris further notes that her religious convictions include worshipping in churches that enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings," and the "gift of tongues." Disturbing video was recently released showing her being "protected" from witchcraft. And, finally, Harris notes due to her affiliation with the Assemblies of God Church, she might believe "that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the ‘end times.'" The implications of these are obvious.

The first ever presidential endorsement by the Human Society Legislative Fund, made up of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, unanimously selected Obama. Their selection only moderately had to do with Obama's excellent record with animal protection, or McCain's lukewarm record, rather it was Palin's abuse of animals.

Quoting from the press release:

"Gov. Sarah Palin's (R-Alaska) retrograde policies on animal welfare and conservation have led to an all-out war on Alaska's wolves and other creatures. Her record is so extreme that she has perhaps done more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United States.

Palin engineered a campaign of shooting predators from airplanes and helicopters, in order to artificially boost the populations of moose and caribou for trophy hunters. She offered a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf as an economic incentive for pilots and aerial gunners to kill more of the animals, even though Alaska voters had twice approved a ban on the practice."

It might be her culture; however, there is a brutality about her. The video from these hunts are disturbing, absolutely dreadful. Hunting moose might make her interesting in some circles; aerially eradicating Alaskan wolves so that trophy hunters will have more animals to kill for fun simply lacks morality.

The few interviews that Palin has agreed to, again, have been very concerning- to the point that, if it was not for her arrogance, I would feel bad for her. She consistently struggles with any question that includes an unscripted matter of substance. Anti-intellectualism might have been cute and entertaining over the last eight years; but it is not so funny anymore.

I wrote previously about a Democratic politician that I thought lacked the necessary qualifications, again, such as experience, education and social diversity, to be an executive for the people. This is not a partisan evaluation, our country's welfare is too important. This is not the time for putting "ordinary people" in charge of the most influential country in the world. Harris notes in his Newsweek article that in regards to issues like "nuclear proliferation, the ongoing wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, global climate change, a convulsing economy, the rise of China, etc." that "Palin does not seem competent even to rank these in order of importance, much less address any one of them."

This election is critical; our economic systems are at risk. As the most important issue of the election, I consider simply two ideas. Who created this situation and who offers the best chance to get out of it? The Republicans have clearly created most of this mess- so much so that if the situation were reversed; if the Democrats had been in the charge the last eight years, I would vote Republican without hesitation. Secondly, I have no confidence that either McCain or Palin has any real understanding of the economy, much less the ability to lead its recovery.

119.Palin pick shrewd, questionable

Wow! I must say it was perfectly orchestrated.

The night before, Barack Obama had given one of the most impressive acceptance speeches in recent political history. He discussed his modest upbringing, the ineptness of the last eight years, addressed and dismissed his perceived his weaknesses, and challenged McCain to debate our most important issues. He was clear, brilliant, tough and carried himself like a president should.

However, just before noon the next morning, before Barack's speech fully made its rounds on the national news networks, McCain announces that he has selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I thought it was either a brilliant political move or a move of desperation. Either way, it was a bold move, and I look forward to a 2008 election that features young, old, black, white, male and female. It was obviously a strategic pick, as was timing of the announcement, and showcased the advantage of having the second move.

Clearly, Sarah Palin was not chosen because she was the most qualified candidate; I do not think she was even the most qualified Republican woman. And, if Hillary Clinton had been named as the Democrat's Vice-President Candidate, there would be no Sarah Palin.

Immediately, experience again moved to the forefront of the debate, as Democrats noted that it was difficult for Republicans to attack Barack Obama's lack of experience, when an unknown Alaskan governor was one "heartbeat" from the White House. It seems that Republicans traded the experience debate in exchange to target women.

Gusty move.

Experience is certainly a factor, for both Obama and Palin. However, what exactly qualifies as the proper experience when it comes to being president of the most powerful nation in the world? After all, George W. Bush is the son of a two-term vice president, one-term president, served as governor of one our country's largest states, has a brother who was the governor of another major state, and had four years of experience as president under him before he was re-elected. If experience was a factor, he should have been the best president in history! In contrast to the expectations, many will argue that he will be remembered as one of the worst.

The most valuable experience is leadership and the ability to handle the pressure- and that can be accomplished in many ways, none of which I would argue is a definitive predictor of presidential success.

The idea that the Republicans chose "this" woman is interesting, because Palin is the polar opposite of Clinton, and the woman voters they were targeting. Palin rushed to make this appeal, which I thought was premature (and very politically cliché) since most of us knew very little about her. I also think that it is offensive to women that she and the Republican Party believes that liberal Clinton supporters will throw their value and principles down the toilet to elect a very conservative politician- just because she is a woman. Furthermore, she acted like this was ground-breaking, more glass ceiling talk; actually, the Democrats traveled this path (nominating a woman for vice-president) decades ago.

Regardless of her experience and appeal to Clinton supporters, and although I would disagree with almost all of her political positions, my first impression is that she has some political common sense and that she handled the thrust into the national scene very well.

However, there are questions. I must start by saying that I do not envy having one's life torn apart. At the same time, we do not know anything about her...and there is some concern. The investigation into "troopergate" suggests that she might not be above abusing her power, and that she possibly has a vindictive side. I think she needs to fess up that abstinence-only programs do not work- since it did not even work in her own house hold. However, the most pressing question for me is the secessionist involvement. How much does she really love America if she wanted to take her state and leave it? I think we need to hear more about this.

In the end, I think she will need to move pass the clichés, and let us hope she does not fall victim to the political culture of Washington. That part of her seems refreshing, an appeal shared with Obama. Of course, to do that she will have to ignore the advice of John McCain, who is clearly well entrenched in Washington politics. And in the end, we must remember that it is still McCain versus Obama.

It should be an interesting election season, and I look forward to some open and honest discussions. There is too much at stake, and too big of a mess to cleanup, to be consumed with political spin, negative campaigning and empty promises. We need more from our political leaders, and we need to support those that share our values, our beliefs...regardless of color, age or gender.

118. Too often we avoid asking 'why'

In most professional and social circles, it is considered almost taboo to engage in a serious conversation about religion or politics. The reason for this social taboo is the sensitive and personal matter of such discussion and the potential for inducing a heated argument- one that can strain working or even casual relationships. This is particularly true for someone like me, who often wonders off the beaten path.

It is has been my argument for years now that a civil discourse would serve people well- to open lines of discussion and offer the potential for compromise. The country will continue down its divided path if we only speak politically or religiously in our guarded and like-minded social or familial circles.

How is it that we have gotten to this point, where people are afraid to engage in meaningful discussion? Why do we spend so much time talking about the weather, who won the game last night or the latest office gossip? Why do we waste our time on such superficial conversation when there are so many important issues reigning down on this country? Why do our leadership groups not spend the time of a community's most influential people on the difficult questions? Why do we play it so safe?

I think that the major reason that we avoid these subjects is not because it is personal in nature, but because people do not know why they believe the things they do. In other words, to have a religious or political discussion requires that not only do you have reasons for your beliefs, but that you are able to withstand the criticism of those beliefs or ideas.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "Few have the courage of their convictions. Fewer still have the courage for an attack on their convictions." How true this seems. The most difficult question you can ask someone is "why?" The tension of the conversation escalates when one challenges the response to this question. Many people react as though they own the right to their answer, as though it cannot be rebuffed or a judgment made upon it.

For example, sometimes people will ask why I do not believe in god, but are uncomfortable when I ask why they do believe in god. When I ask someone why they are Christian, the answers are basically scripted in the truths of Christianity. However, when I suggest that the main reason he or she is a Christian, rather than a Muslim or Hindu, is because they were born the United States (rather than the Middle East or India), people are appalled at the suggestion that there is not an inherent truth in "their" religion. To many, a belief in god seems rather obvious, if for no other reason than so many other people believe.

However, when you have honest meaningful conversations with people, rather than repeating what Bill O'Reilly said the night before, we are often surprised to learn that the other side is not "evil," and that there might be room for compromise. Unfortunately, some people spend so much time with people that think like they do, who reinforce their ideas, that they have never actually heard a good opposing argument. Furthermore, we tend to offer credibility to the arguments made from the people we trust, so when we grow up getting our ideas from our parents or pastor, we place great weight on them. And it is not that we should not place value on their opinions, but it is always good to hear opposing arguments. We should not be afraid to ask why.

The nuisance of the "why" question for many is that we can keep asking it. Our beliefs are often built upon other beliefs or assumptions. And if any belief or assumption fails, the entire argument fails. For example, if someone says they do not approve of homosexuality, I might ask why? Here is how the conversation might proceed:

"Why do you not approve of homosexuality?"
"Because it is not right."
"Why is it not right?"
"Because The Bible says so."
"Why is The Bible authoritative?"
"Because it is the word of God."
"Why is it the word of God?
"Because I am Christian and we believe The Bible is the inspired word of God."
"Why are you a Christian?"
"Because I was born in the United States, and since most Americans are Christians, it is statistically likely that, due to family, cultural and social influences, I will arbitrarily choose Christianity over all other worldly religions and non-religions."
"Well said... we've talked before- haven't we?"

117. County tax opponents misguided

Previously I wrote about the issue of referendum regarding the tax issues in Lorain County. In this column, I want to speak more specifically towards the county sales tax- which not only might be on the ballot again this November, but which is also the basis (thus far the entire basis) for Nick Brusky's campaign for county commissioner.

As I commented, implementing a tax increase can be a death sentence for a politician, and it is the reason progressives sought to relieve this burden by suggesting referendum. Conversely, the necessity of a tax increase, proposed by a politician is then self-evident- precisely because of these potentially adverse consequences. And again, as elected representatives, it is their responsibility to do what is best for the community- and that includes making the difficult decisions.

However, to impose a tax on its citizens, especially on a largely depressed community, requires not only an explanation, but the general support of its citizens. Due process is preferential to haste. Here is where I think the commissioners made their mistake in regards to the proposed sales-tax increase. I think they made the proper decision, but did not present it to the community properly- and consequently left the door open for an opportunist like Brusky to use it to rally taxpayers. And while I respect Brusky's ability to organize an opposition to the tax- the issue proposed by Brusky's group is not on the merit of whether Lorain County could benefit from a tax increase, but whether the commissioners were tyrannical in voting for it.

Even though Lorain County expenses have been decreasing, a positive indication of responsible financial oversight, revenue is also decreasing. Even the simplest economic minds can recognize that you cannot continue to provide the same services, during a time of rapidly increasing prices, with a decreasing amount of resources. Either expenses must be cut or revenues must be increased. Granted, there is always opportunity for money-saving efficiencies; however, over time, further cost-cutting is only realized through reducing staff and services.

The fact of the matter is that only two counties in Ohio pay less than Lorain does in sales tax (Stark and Hancock), while 83 counties (all but 7 counties) pay more (6.5% or higher). Neighboring counties in Erie Huron, Ashland, Medina and Cuyahoga pay 6.5, 7.0, 6.75, 6.5 and 7.75 respectively. Nearly half the counties pay a full 7% in sales tax, so the .25% proposed increased by the county commissioner is far from unreasonable- or an act of tyranny.

What Brusky needs to answer in his run for county commissioner is how he will approach the larger problems- poverty, unemployment, foreclosures and the lack of economic development. One of the county's largest expenses is the criminal justice system; so we need to hear that he will keep people out of jail. It is easy to fight against a tax, probably the easiest fight in politics, but it does not solve any of the underlying problems. Any effort to keep people out of the criminal justice system, for example, requires a commitment to education, economic opportunity, and keeping people off of drugs (speaking of taxes and education, I wonder how Brusky voted on the Amherst School levy). For many people, a sales-tax increase is the least of their problems.

Brusky plans to clean up county government, though in talking to the Chronicle Telegram, he has no idea of exactly he will accomplish this, "Cuts can be made, Brusky said, but he added that he can't provide specific examples of where that should happen until he's in office." Would that not be like Barack Obama campaigning to resolve the Iraq war, but refusing to speculate on how he will do it until he is elected? If Brusky is serious about making changes, then he needs to roll up his sleeves now and let us know what exactly he plans to do. Generalities such as "cuts can be made" will not suffice, because it is easy to tell people what they want to hear. Similarly, I need more than "I'll bring jobs to Lorain County." How will you bring jobs to Lorain County? What kind of jobs? How many jobs? Only then would I consider voting for him (That is not an empty statement by the way, I did vote for at least one Republican in the last general election).

His claim that cuts can be made in government suggests, under a pending budget deficit, that either people will lose their jobs or services will be cut. You cannot have it both ways. Noting the words of one commentator, "If you are against paying taxes, then try building your own highway." Lorain County government is also one of the largest employers in Lorain County, so for many in Lorain County, this would be like supporting an applicant for CEO who, once hired, immediately plans to fire you. As a Lorain County citizen, I am looking for someone who will accept the challenge of increasing revenue, not take the easy way out by haphazardly cutting expenses.

Brusky obsessively asks current commissioner Ted Kalo for an apology over the sales tax issue; however, I cannot help to think that when one of his neighbors loses his employment with the county, when a single mother can no longer take the transit to her minimum wage job, or when an elderly woman is robbed at gun point by a desperate unemployed citizen because the police force does not employ enough officers to the keep the streets safe- it might be Brusky and his conservative government that owes the apologies.

I am of the opinion that Lorain County could benefit from a sales-tax increase. On a one hundred dollar purchase, the proposed increase is 25 cents. To me this is a small price to pay for a healthier, wealthier and safer community. Because people in this community need help; they need education, jobs, opportunity through economic development, and to stay out of prison- much more than I need my quarter.