121. Get beyond race and negativity

I cannot say that I am much of a Howard Stern fan; he does what he does and though he has done the same thing for many years- if people continue to be entertained by him, so be it.

However, he recently made a point by having one of his reporters interview people in Harlem. The interviewer asked people whom they supported for president- of which most, not surprisingly, favored Barack Obama. His point, however, was in the follow-up questions in which he asked if voters supported certain Obama policies and his choice for vice-president that were, in fact, those of John McCain. In other words, the reporter would ask if Obama supporters approved of his stance on pro-life, continuing the war in Iraq and selecting Sarah Palin as his vice-president. The supporters were, over and over, clueless, enthusiastically endorsing policies that Obama did not, himself, support.

It is a fair point, and it works both ways. Obviously there are those that are voting for Obama simply based on race, because he is black. Conversely, there are those that will not vote for Obama for exactly the same reason. The same applies to Sarah Palin. Many support her only because she is a woman, and there are probably some archaic beliefs among us that women should not be in a position of power.

All of these viewpoints are pathetic.

Increasingly, McCain and Palin, and their supporters, have made a similar appeal to American prejudices and fear- attempting to link Obama to terrorists, through affiliation and by emphasizing his middle name (Hussein) at every opportunity. Thus, not only does Obama suffer from the prejudices of race, he must also defend the insinuation that he is Muslim, and a dangerous Muslim at that.

The impact is clearly felt among white males, who do not show the same support for Obama as other groups. Furthermore, of additional concern for Democrats in this regard is the polling, known as the Bradley effect. As noted by Mark Blumenthal, "what pollsters fear is that in the context of a survey interview, some respondents may fail to tell the truth about their preferences due to some "social discomfort" arising from Obama's race." In other words, the fear is that some, in particular white males, will claim that they support Obama, as not to appear racist, but, under the comfort of the privacy of a voting booth, will choose McCain. Author John Grisham, rightly so I believe, suggested that if Obama were white, he would be leading in this election by double digits, perhaps 10-15 percent over McCain.

The obsession to some singular ideas extends to "hot button" issues, such as abortion. Many people vote for Republicans for one reason- their views on pro-life. This decision is, of course, a Supreme Court decision, and George Bush has already attempted to stack the court in hopes of changing it. It is fascinating, actually frightening, how many people are obsessed with the idea that Democrats (and Obama specifically) are "baby killers." Interestingly, when Palin was asked if there was an inherent right of privacy in the Constitution, the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision, she said she thought there was. Huh?

It is obvious, from all of these ideas, that there is much of the country that will vote the way they do, simply based on prejudices and biases. I look around my neighborhood, and the Republicans still support Republicans, even if it is obvious to most independents that Palin is grossly unqualified to serve as vice president, let alone the absurdity (but reality) that she could be president. A large segment of our population has lost its objectivity. Republicans vote for Republicans, Democrats vote for Democrats, blacks vote for blacks, women vote for women.

Furthermore, any objectivity is hypocritical. Consider Palin's "folksy" speech, with her "darn rights," the dropping of the "g" in many words- as well as her winks and "shout outs to third graders" Ask yourself, if you are a Palin supporter, if you would tolerate the same behavior from Obama. What would you say if he spoke in African-American slang, asking, "what's up dawg?" and giving a "hollar" out to his "homies in the hood"?

The recent attack on Obama by Palin and the McCain campaign is shameful. Frankly, if it was my party, I would be embarrassed; however, Republican crowds seem to be enjoying it- begging for more attacks, shouting "terrorist" and "kill him." The personal attacks and insinuations, specifically designed to appeal to prejudices and biases, are dishonorable and desperate, and I have a new lack of respect for Palin- even if acting as an "attack dog" is somehow part of her job as a vice presidential candidate.

This country needs to grow up and become informed. An educated and tolerant America would ignore such an appeal to prejudice- making these tactics obsolete. I am so tired of the negative advertisements, exaggerations, and misstatements. The report I am watching today from North Carolina reveals that McCain's advertisements are 100 percent negative; Obama's 34 percent. Again, if Americans were more informed, political parties, on both sides, would not resort to such strategy. The truth is that it works all too well, and politicians will continue to rely on American ignorance.

I like to think that, eventually, people get what they deserve. I spent eight years criticizing Bush, and with embarrassing approval ratings, both political parties attempting to distance themselves from his policies, and the condition he is leaving the country- he will have to live with his legacy of failure. McCain and Palin have gone almost exclusively negative, and while I cannot predict the outcome of the election, I can only hope their arrogant and reprehensibly offensive behavior will eventually come back to haunt them.

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?"