And Yet, if We Call Her a Bitch...

Further proof that the Republican Party is divisive and intolerant has come in the numerous reports that Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said, "So Sambo beat the bitch!" in describing Barack Obama's win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant. The quote was originally reported in the L.A. Progressive blog and attributed to Palin by "Lucille," an unidentified Alaska waitress.

It has become obvious Mrs. Palin is a good speaker, but to be able to alienate both African Americans and women in one short statement is a feat nothing short of amazing. Using some of the most offensive language possible, she has shown her lack of respect for two groups of people and indicated clearly that she has an incredible lack of self-restraint.

Are those characteristics we really want in a potential leader of our country? I, for one, think not. I believe there are a great many African American and female voters who will agree. John McCain has been quoted as having used the term "bitch" in reference to Hillary Clinton, showing just how much respect he has for women.

Whether or not we feel the term may be justified, it is incredibly ignorant and unprofessional for a politician to be throwing it around. It can be argued that they are people with opinions, but they are also running for very important public offices. They know that every word out of their mouths at this point is going to be scrutinized and analyzed, and yet they cannot exercise the restraint to stop saying stupid, offensive things.

If they can't even keep their mouths shut and keep from throwing out offensive racial and gender based slurs, then how can they be expected to practice diplomacy and tact in dealing with leaders of other countries? Some of those leaders of other countries happen to be black and some even happen to be women. Disrespecting our own people is bad enough, but when you have a President or a Vice President who makes disrespectful comments to or about another world leader, you have the potential of having an international crisis on your hands.

I am a big defender of freedom of speech and don't deny that Palin and McCain have the right to say whatever they want to say. However, I have the right to point out that what they're saying is making them appear ignorant and intolerant and I hope that others are picking up on that as well. Keep their comments in mind when you go to vote.

What's Happening to the First Amendment?

Anyone who's even remotely interested in the erosion of First Amendment rights in this country should take a moment to read today's AP article by Associated Press Writer P. Solomon Banda entitled Balancing free speech with protest rights.

Here's my two cents worth on a related topic...

Should protesters be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US?

Before I state what I'm sure may be an unpopular opinion, let me start by saying that I have a nephew who is a Marine and I am extremely proud of him, as I am of all our men and women serving in all branches of the armed forces. I am thankful for their sacrifices and I applaud them for their courage and bravery.

However, as a person who values my freedom of speech above all else, I have to take the stance that protesters should be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US. It is simply a matter of preserving free speech and freedom of expression, which are part of what our brave men and women are fighting for.

Whether any of us agree or disagree with the point the protesters are making is completely beside the point. We must stand beside them as American citizens and vigorously defend their right to say whatever it is they want to say and make their point in whatever way they choose to express themselves, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights or break any laws. Peaceful assembly is legally protected in this country and one of the things we should be thankful for.

This does not, however, give anyone the right to resort to violence or to overtly disrupt the operation of those recruiting offices. There are fine lines between being heard and being disruptive which have to be addressed on a case by case basis.

Anyone who supports the view that protesters should not be permitted to picket military recruiting offices should take a moment to think about that position. If we allow our freedoms to be taken away one by one, it's only a matter of time until something you hold dear is under attack. How would you like to be told that you no longer have the right to write any article that supports protesters being permitted to picket military recruiting offices? How about being told that you can't write anything that doesn't show 100% support of the current political administration?

It may sound far out or left-wing, but it's not that absurd to think that we could find ourselves living in a society where we are told what we can and cannot write. That's what freedom and speech and freedom of expression protects. If we allow one form of suppression of those rights, it's only a matter of time until other forms of suppression show themselves. I, for one, value my freedom to express myself, right or wrong, popular or unpopular, too much to see anyone else lose those rights and that freedom.

How many homes do you have?

How many homes do you own? If you're lucky, you might answer one. In this country, there are many who aren't so lucky. We have far too many homeless and people who are living in substandard housing. Most of us are one paycheck away from losing our homes and hardly anyone is safe from the threat of foreclosure.

In the midst of all this, Senator John McCain dares to admit that he has no idea how many homes he owns. He said in a recent interview that he would have to have his staff get back to the interviewers with the answer. The true answer has since been reported to be around seven.

The man owns seven homes. No wonder he had to have someone else do the math and answer for him. Does this really sound like a person who has any idea what it's like to struggle to make a house payment, put food on the table and keep the gas tank filled so you can make it back and forth to work? No. It doesn't even sound like a person who has any idea what it's like to be one of us regular, working folks. So, how could he possibly be able to do anything for us as President?

The Olympics

The Olympics are a truly wonderful thing, uniting the world in good sportsmanship and friendly competition. However, I always have to wonder if they don't wind up being exploited as a purely political spectacle wherein the competing countries try to assert their superiority and world domination.

It was part of Hitler's plan in designing his master race to develop super athletes who would dominate the Olympic games and thereby prove to the world that Germany was in a position to conquer it's enemies.

There is always political intrigue surrounding the Olympic games themselves, including where they are hosted. This year's games were certainly no exception as all eyes were on China and how they would handle opening their country to foreign influences.

Though there is undoubtedly a great deal of politics and posturing involved with the Olympics, the good far outweighs the bad. The world unites for moments of triumph and cheers together each victory. Though some countries clearly dominate certain sports, it's usually pretty equally distributed throughout all the various sports and events represented, giving each country their own unique opportunity to shine.

This year's Olympics will be remembered for many things, including the phenomenal, almost superhuman Michael Phelps, the murder of a former Gold Medalist's father on Chinese soil and the unrest between Georgia and Russia. Hopefully they will be remembered primarily as a time when the world set aside it's differences and came together as spectators for one of the most thrilling competitions of our time.

Why can't politicians keep it in their pants?

According to an Associated Press report today, John Edwards has admitted having an extramarital affair. While I personally don't care who anybody sleeps with, It does make me wonder why politicians in general just can't seem to keep it in their pants?

Click here to check out the article. Then, give your thoughts. Let's get some discussion and debate going on this. What do you think about it?

Do people tend to base election votes more on emotion or reason?

The vast majority of people tend to base election voting decisions on emotion, rather than reason. This is an unfortunate reality that both political parties have figured out and tap into in their political advertising and campaign speech messages.

If you are in any doubt of the fact that emotion is a key factor, think of the millions of dollars in advertising that go into political campaigns. Then take a moment to think about the political ads you have seen. Did they talk about the issues or did they make emotional appeals to voters by either showing the "good guy" with his wife, kids and dog and talking about what a wonderful, church-going family man he is? Or, perhaps they showed a particularly unflattering picture of the "evil" opponent and tried to scare you with talk of his "radical views" or "reckless spending history."

You hardly ever see a campaign ad or hear a campaign speech that is purely factual rather than emotionally charged. This is partially because all advertising is geared toward the lowest common denominator and kept to about a 6th grade level. The people behind the advertising seem to think that none of us is capable of making an informed decision based on information alone, so they need to prod us along with emotional appeals.

If you don't think political speeches are a form of advertising, listen closely to one the next time you hear it. It is an extended advertisement meant to influence the way you will vote and nothing more. Here are where the emotional messages become especially charged. You will hear the politician patting himself on the back in subtle ways about what a good person he is and throwing spears at his opponent on usually personal issues that have nothing to do with politics but much to do with painting a picture of him as a "bad" person.

Though there are many of us who are intelligent enough not to rely purely on emotion, the sad fact is that the majority of people will resort to "gut instincts" or emotional responses which have been colored by the advertising messages they have been fed. This is no way to choose a political candidate, especially one as important as a President, but it happens in this country every four years.

If these emotional approaches didn't work so well and influence so many voters, they wouldn't be used so widely. So, in a way, we've done it to ourselves by responding to them. It's time we started demanding the facts and actually finding out what the candidates' stands are on important issues instead of voting based on fear or who has the nicest family picture.

Does Wal-Mart have any business telling its employees how to vote?

I personally think the obvious answer is a resounding no, however they are doing it. Wal-Mart has been trying to "persuade" their employees to vote Republican in the upcoming Presidential election by scaring them with inaccurate information about a Democrat plan to unionize the monstrous company.

The fact that this huge corporation is abusing it's power in such a way as to try and influence a Presidential election is scary and shouldn't be taken lightly. Please take just a few moments to read the information on the following website which explains this in further detail and also shows the "Wall Street Journal"* article about it: http://action.walmartwatch.com/page/s/voters

*This edit corrects New York Times to Wall Street Journal