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.

Is truth absolute or conditional?

That depends. Your definition of truth determines whether it is absolute or conditional. Online reference Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) gives 12 different definitions of the word truth, which leaves a lot of room for gray areas as far as a definitive answer goes.

Anything that is so hard to define would logically be conditional, depending on a person's perception of what it even means. One definition given by Dictionary.com is "an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude." Obvious to whom? Accepted by whom? If it's not obvious to 100% of the population and not accepted by 100% of the population, does that mean it can't be the truth? That definition in and of itself imposes a conditional quality on truth.

Another definition given in the same reference is "agreement with a standard or original." Who determines the standard by which we judge whatever is in question? Did everyone agree on that standard or just the majority? And what about those things to which the original is long gone and cannot be qualified or quantified? This definition is particularly troubling for those who would say that truth is absolute because it implies that everything true requires proof. Some things that the majority of people hold to be true can clearly not be proven in any way, shape or form. Not to open up a religious debate, but what about the existence of God? What standard or original can be offered to determine the truth of His existence? People either believe or disbelieve in the truth of the existence of God by faith which cannot be scientifically measured or proven, therefore making it conditional.

Yet another definition of truth is "conformity with fact or reality." This leaves room for the gray areas of things that do not conform, fall outside the norm or "defy reality." If things that are outside the norm and do not correlate to our shared concept of reality cannot be considered truth, then that creates a whole other set of conditions on it. Who decides what is normal and conforms? In the past the definition of normal was what fell within the majority. That leaves the minority unaccounted for, yet that minority still exists.

By definition, truth is conditional. If it weren't we wouldn't ever have to apply common qualifying terms like "absolute truth" because that would be the only kind. Those who argue that truth is absolute, therefore, are actually making just the opposite argument without even knowing it. And that's the honest truth.

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.

Freedom of speech does not mean not getting offended

Freedom of speech almost certainly means that someone somewhere at sometime will be offended. This is because we are free to express any opinion, however contradictory to the norm it may be. When people discuss views, opinions and beliefs openly and freely, there is sure to be disagreement and there is always the risk of offending someone.

The offended party, fortunately, has the right to express his or her moral outrage and put forth their own opinion. That is the beauty of freedom of speech and why it must be vigorously defended. If we didn't have it, we would be forced to conform to one way of thinking approved and endorsed by one particular group, usually the government.

The risk of being offended is a small price to pay for such a basic and essential freedom. There are messages we see every day that we don't necessarily agree with, but we must stand up for the individual rights of others to put forth even those, or we run the risk of losing our right to express our own thoughts.

Think for a moment about a time when you have been most outraged about a form of expression. What did you do? Odds are, you expressed your indignation and spoke about why you disagreed with the message. You may have even thought to yourself that the party who expressed the offending message shouldn't have had the right to put it forth in the first place. If you stop to think logically about that, it would mean that you would likewise not have the right to express your opinion on the matter.

Free and open discourse is the only way that civilized, rational people can resolve problems and issues that affect everyone. It is because of contradictory ideas being expressed in the marketplace of ideas that social change ever has the opportunity to occur. When two opposing ideas are expressed, it opens up a forum or debate where others are free to give their input, often resulting in a clear resolution of the issue or even compromise. Someone is likely to propose an idea that appeals to both schools of thought and gives them some common ground on which they can agree.

Without our freedom of speech intact we may have a life of less conflict and find ourselves offended less often, but we would lose our ability to think and reason on our own. Plus, we would have to rely on someone or some group to decided what messages are appropriate and approved. There is no one in the world qualified to make those decisions for us. What we think, feel and believe must not be dictated by a single individual or group, but rather determined by our ability to sift through all the conflicting messages available and find those which which we agree and disagree.

Communist countries without freedom of speech and without a free press rely on their governments to distribute information. They are told what the government feels they need to know and are not allowed to express any opinions that do not totally agree with and support the ruling party. They may live their lives without being offended, but they are also living in the dark, their minds dulled by ignorance and controlled by a handful of people who decide what's best for them.

I would much rather stand the risk of being offended by what you have to say than to give up my right to either agree or disagree and have a frank, open discussion with you about it. Since, fortunately, we are still free to express ourselves, I was free to write this blog post. If you have been offended in any way or if you disagree, you are free to make that known by expressing yourself through freedom of speech.

Is it healthy to find old school friends on social networks?

Social networks like MySpace and Facebook have allowed many people to reconnect with others with whom they'd lost touch, not only school friends. These online meeting places have simply made it much easier to find people we might otherwise lose contact with over the years. There's nothing unhealthy about getting reacquainted with old friends and reminiscing about good times shared 15, 20 or more years ago.

I am personally thankful to both MySpace and Facebook for allowing me to get back in touch with some friends from my college days that I would have had no other way of tracking down. We have talked about memories of good times we shared in the past and we have gotten caught up on each other's lives. Most importantly, we have formed renewed friendships based on getting to know each other all over again as adults.

It's interesting to remind ourselves of the hopes and dreams we held for ourselves in our school days. Some of those things we even forget until and old friend reminds us. Revisiting the past can help put your today into perspective, and there's no one better to help do that than someone who knew you well in your past. One of the people I go to most often for advice is my best friend from college who lives hundreds of miles away. We communicate almost daily and social networks like MySpace and Facebook make it much easier for us to keep in touch. We have lots of things to talk about that are going on in our lives now, but some of our most entertaining conversations have centered around silly things one or the other of us had nearly forgotten from our time together in school.

As important as these trips down memory lane can be, the only thing unhealthy I can think of about getting together with an old friend after a significant time apart would be to expect things to be the same way they were when you last knew each other. Before contacting an old friend, if you keep in mind that time has passed, you've both grown and changed and your lives have taken you on different paths, you should be fine. If you expect to just pick the relationship back up as if it were yesterday, you could find yourself in for a severe disappointment. Also be prepared for those people who don't care to reminisce about yesterday. For whatever reason, there are those who may not want to be bothered with anyone from their past. If request to join someone's MySpace or Facebook as a friend is declined, respect that person's wishes and move on.

Even if you don't plan on sending out a lot of messages requesting friends, it's still a lot of fun to go through the member directories of social networks and see how many people you know. In most of them, you search for members as specifically as a certain year's graduating class from a certain school. I recently did this with my alma mater, University of Evansville, and was surprised to see lots of people I had forgotten and many I remembered very clearly. It was the digital age equivalent to flipping through a yearbook that had been automatically updated to today.

Keep a healthy perspective on getting reacquainted with old friends, don't go into it with any preconceived expectations, be ready to get to know a person who may be significantly different than you remember them, and be willing to respect those changes and differences. As long as you keep these things in mind, there's nothing at all unhealthy about searching for some old pals on social networks. Someone may just be dying to hear from you.

So, what do you think about it? Leave your comments...