Do your duty, fellow Americans

In a few short days the election polls will open (for those who haven't voted early) and droves of Americans will stand in line to formally let their individual voices be heard.  Americans get a chance, every four years, to evaluate the present state and course of the country.  To review the performance of the executive and legislative branches of government and decide whether the job performance of the people in these seats meets the needs of the country or not.  

The process is similar to a performance review at one's place of employment.  If one gets a poor review, action is taken to ensure that the needs of the organization are being met and in some cases that action is termination.  If the work is acceptable, the individual will most likely keep his or her position.

Fellow citizens, this is your country.  You get to decide who runs this organization called America.  As Americans, we employ hundreds of representatives to work for us and we should hold these employees to the highest standard.  I'm referring to standards in the sense of those ideals that the founding fathers put forth for us in the Constitution - working to create a more perfect union for all people.

On November 4, perform your duty as a member of the board of directors of America.  Submit your vote for who you think should be running this beautiful organization called America.  Don't leave it up to others to decide for you.  There is too much at stake to not make your voice known.  It's the least we can do.

I think I disagree with the former president

It's no secret really: I love Bill Clinton.  I think he is a brilliant person who has done great things for the United States and continues to do great things for the world through his Foundation.  I think that he is an extremely gifted politician (perhaps the best of my lifetime, so far?) and I'm glad that he is widely recognized as such.

I generally agree with most things President Clinton says.  Not in a blind-follower sort of way, but I just usually agree with him on economic and social issues (perhaps because both of us are democrats - just a guess).  However, there was a recent occasion in which I took issue with a comment from the former president.  

On an appearance on ABC's "The View," President Clinton said that people have their reasons for voting for a candidate and you can't criticize them for those reasons, no matter how ridiculous you may think the reasons are.  I took this to mean that someone may vote for an individual based on that person's sex, race, hair color, religion, choice of clothing, or prediction of what Punxsutawney Phil will tell us about the length of winter.  I suppose you could call these people single-issue voters.

Obviously President Clinton wasn't suggesting that the latter items in that list are actually good reasons to vote for someone.  However, I think he he did intend to say that sex or race are perfectly justified reasons.  I understand that every voter has the right to vote for whom ever they want for whatever reason they want.  I'm just not convinced that it's responsible.

Don't we have to look at stances on issues and qualifications?  There is perhaps a fairly high chance that if you vote for someone based on their sex alone, you may be voting against your own interests.  I really don't think I would vote for someone who is gay, just because he or she is gay.  I say "I don't think" because the truth is that I suppose we really don't know until we are in that situation.  Perhaps women and African Americans could shed better light on this situation; for the first time they were faced with this very dilemma in this presidential election season.  

So, I've been trying to not question people who fit this mold - voting based on one identifying factor rather than issues - but it's extremely difficult for me.  It just seems irresponsible to put someone in office because they prefer the same brand of toilet paper as you do.  Am I oversimplifying the president's comments?  Certainly, but I do think there is something to my argument.  I guess the bottom line is that I think in an odd twist of reality - I don't agree with Bubba.

What are your thoughts on this?

The My Perspective... Weekly Poll

Check out the latest addition to My Perspective...

The My Perspective... Weekly Poll on the right side of the page! Every Monday morning a new poll will be posted for you participate in - check back often to see how others respond!

I want to hear your perspective!

This week's poll: Are you looking forward to this election being over?

Vote on the right side the page!

Withdrawal on the horizon

Can you believe it?  Only one week left.  Most people are anticipating the day when they can wake up and not worry about having to mute political ads.  They can turn on the news and hear stories other than the latest attacks and polls.  They will be less worried about getting annoyed with the constant use of such phrases as, "spreading the wealth," "third term for Bush," "Wall street to main street," "Joe the plumber," or the dreaded "maverick." 

Well, I have to admit that I'm not in this group of people who are counting down the days until this election is over.  I have invested countless hours of my life into this historical election - two years, really!  I feel as though many of the journalists and contributors are like family, I look forward to waking up in the morning and hearing their analyses of yesterday and their predictions for the day ahead.  I get giddy when Chuck Todd or John King has a new poll to share with us at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, complete with data on every minority.  And of course, we all feel better when David Gergen blesses our candidate with a positive assessment of his or her performance.

I know that I don't stand with many when I say that I am going to miss all of this, but it's true - I will certainly go through a bit of withdrawal over the next few weeks.  I'm reminded of the OJ Simpson trial.  People were obsessed with it!  They watched the proceedings and compared their own thoughts with the analyses of the various commentators (i.e. Greta Van Sustren).  I recall going to confirmation class when the trial was over and my pastor saying, "You'll have to bear with me, I'm going through OJ withdrawal."  I now understand, Pastor John.

As the masses rejoice in this final week, anticipating the close of the election HQ's - it will be bitter sweet for me.  Hopefully our country will elect "change we can believe in," and get things back on track.  I will truly rejoice in that, but I will need some time to adjust to my new life, a life without Paul Begala and James Carville.  I know there will be more elections and all of my favorite contributors will certainly be on giving their take on current political climates.  But you have to wonder...will it ever be the same?

So when Wednesday, November 5, rolls around and we are hopefully celebrating a victory for change - you'll have to bear with me, I'll be going through election withdrawal.

I'm more annoyed than you, Gov. Palin

At a campaign rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on Saturday, Sarah Palin told a crowd of supporters that she was "annoyed" with the questions she was asked by Katie Couric in her widely criticized interview on CBS.  If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it if you're in the mood for a dark comedy.  I say dark comedy because it's funny at first, but then you realize that this is actually a real interview with an actual candidate for the vice presidency of the United States - and then you just get scared.

In the voice that Tina Fey has mastered, Palin said, "Last time I was here I got to tell a crowd that I had to give a national interview that didn't go so well."  I would have to agree with Palin's assessment.  Perhaps one of the few times we'll agree.

She continued, "And it was because I was kind of annoyed with the questions that I was being asked because I thought they were kind of irrelevant to, you know, national security issues and getting our economy back on track, so I kind of showed some of the annoyance."

You go girl!  Wait, what?!  What is she talking about?  Is she trying to spin the constant look of confusion and "oh crap" that she wore in that interview into just being "annoyed?"  But the more confusing part of her statement is that she suggests the questions she was being asked were "irrelevant" to national security and the economy.  Well, let's take a look at some of the questions, in no particular order, that Couric asked.

-  "You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience, what did you mean by that...explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials."

-  "What do you see as the role of the United States in the world?"

-  "Governor Palin, you've had a very busy week and you're meeting with many world leaders.  You met with President Karzai of Afghanistan, I know the McCain campaign has called for a surge in Afghanistan, but that country is, as you know, dramatically different than Iraq.  Why do you believe additional troops will solve the problem there?"

-"The United States is deeply unpopular within Pakistan.  Do you think the Pakistani government is protecting al qaeda within its borders?"

-  "What specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country?"

-  "...if the bailout doesn't pass, what's the alternative?"

-  "You're talking about greater oversight, not necessarily giving Treasury Secretary Paulson the keys to the castle.  What will that oversight look like in your view?"

-  "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend 700 billion dollars helping middle class families that are struggling with healthcare, housing, gas, and groceries,  allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"

-  "If this doesn't pass, do you think there's a risk of another great depression?"

-  "Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?"

So, if these questions aren't relevant to national security or the economy, what might relevant questions look like?

It remains completely incomprehensible to me how anyone in this country could think that this person is prepared to be in the executive branch of our nation's government.  Yes, she may be a "regular" person, like so many of us.  But do all of you "regular" people think that YOU are prepared to the president or vice president of the United States?  I don't want my president or vice president, or senator for that matter, to be a "regular" person.  I want him or her to be extremely well-informed and thoughtful.  To have a depth of knowledge about the world.  But also an understanding that he or she does not have every answer and thus has a willingness to seek the best advice from the best advisers available. 

So, yes, Gov. Palin is annoyed with Katie Couric.  That's fine, she has that right to be annoyed.

But guess what, Gov. Palin.  I'm annoyed as well.  I'm annoyed that you think you have the depth of understanding of national and world issues to be the vice president of the United States.  I'm not saying you are not intelligent, I'm not saying that with more years of experience, with struggling through the issues and coming to a point of forming your own views, you could never be prepared.  That's not it - I am saying that you are not ready today.  If you and and you're running mate put your "country first," as you always say, then why would you put your country in such a position as possibly having you in one of the most powerful offices in the world?

It's truly frightening, and yes...annoying.

Photo from cnn.com

But they aren't funny, Bay.

Last night on CNN's Larry King Live, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan said that SNL is biased and that they need to take a look at the other side and make fun of the Obama campaign.

Ms. Buchanan, there isn't anything funny about the Obama campaign.  They don't make stupid mistakes.  They don't pick ridiculously ill-prepared running mates.  They don't change their platform on the hour.  They don't say they are going to run a campaign free of nasty tactics, and then do it anyway.  They don't have to distance themselves from the tragedy that is the Bush presidency.                                             

So, Bay, perhaps SNL has tried to come up with something to parody in the Obama campaign, but they just don't provide as much material for comedians as the Republican ticket does.

Do we always have to blame the media?

The study of psychology is largely concerned with studying human behavior and the factors or stimuli that influence that behavior.  We are often obsessed with looking for causal relationships, hypothesizing reasons why someone would behave in a certain way.  This is the basic idea behind scientific study:  what does X do to Y?

Regardless of our specific roles in society, we all seem to be inundated with media of some form. Television, print, internet, gaming, music, and the endless list goes on.  I suppose because of this saturation it is easy, and in many cases appropriate, to tag the media as a cause in many of the causal relationships of human behavior.  As Aronson (2008) writes, we are often influenced by others (including the media) without even being aware of it.  During this grueling political season, we are in no short supply (perhaps without demand) of people trying to convince and persuade us with a variety of mass media tactics.

For the purpose of this discussion I would like to focus on the media and its impact, or rather perceived impact, on the behavior of adolescents and teens.  In my lifetime there has been some intensely aggressive and negative behavior performed by teenagers that has been thrust onto the national stage.  There have been, of course, the numerous school shootings and the various stories of extreme bullying.  Perhaps a most recent example is the group beating of a teenage girl by her friends.  All of these are incredibly awful. Working in a school, I was witness to several bullying acts – physical and emotional – on a daily basis. Some more extreme than others, but nonetheless present.

I must take a moment to touch on behavior that isn’t often emphasized or studied.  On a daily basis I witnessed teenagers doing incredibly kind things to and for one another.  I experienced young people working both individually and in groups to do their part to make the world a little better.  There exists in the teenage world, a lot of people who are filled with hope, compassion, and energy to contribute something and do their part to elicit change.

So how does media play a role in all of this?  Well, it seems to me that we, as a society, are quick to blame the media when it is convenient and fall short of giving it credit at times when it deserves it.  As I stated earlier, as a people (especially students of psychology) we are constantly looking for that cause/effect relationship.  In short, who or what is to blame?  At the risk of sounding preachy, I have to wonder if we are often quick to blame others when things are not going well or not turning out the way we had desired, and  then quickly take credit when the opposite occurs.  It certainly makes sense.  If a child gets in trouble at school for punching another student – what parent would stand up and take the blame?  It’s likely that few, if any, would.  This is a fairly delicate topic.  I want to be certain to clarify that I am not suggesting that a bullying or aggressive child automatically equates to horrible parenting.  It’s not that simple.  However, it is also important to point out that this must also be true of other influences, such as the media.

One could argue that people are exposed to a variety of media throughout a lifetime – positive, negative, violent, loving, etc.  So why then do we blame the media when people are violent, but don’t give the media credit when people are loving and caring?  Hopf, Huber, and Weis (2008) point out in a recent longitudinal study that there are a variety of risk factors that contribute to the development of aggressive and violent behavior in teenagers.  A few of these include: family, media, school, peers, and personality.  Also included in this list and discussed in Aronson (2008) is attitude, specifically attitude about one’s self, violence, and others.  

To me attitude plays a much larger role than we generally give it credit for.  Attitude has a great influence on how one responds to a given situation. Throughout one’s lifetime a multitude of challenging situations and people will present and force a reaction. This reaction is informed by myriad factors and I think it is irresponsible to externalize all of the factors to the point of erasing all responsibility.  I realize that our attitudes and personalities are largely shaped by our experiences (external forces).  But external forces such as immediate environment are often brushed aside to make room for blaming a video game.

This topic is extremely complex and I certainly do not have all the answers or even a few.  I’m not trying to suggest that violent media does not play a role in certain behavior.  It just seems to me that we give it too much credit for undesirable acts and not enough for positive acts.  It’s similar to parents saying that if their child isn’t doing well in school – it’s the school’s fault, but if the child is excelling – it is because they are exceptional parents.  Why can’t it be both environments contributing to either situation?

As we continue to look at the issues of child aggression and violence, I think it is important to be responsible with the amount of influence we give certain factors.  Tagging media as the main causal factor in teenage aggression is an overly simplistic answer and truly does not address an overly complex issue.

I would like to see research start to look at both sides of this issue (positive and negative effects of media).  There is no doubt that media plays a role, lets just make sure that we are striking the appropriate balance between the power of its influence and attitude with which children respond to it.

I’ve tried not to oversimplify this topic and to be sensitive to the wide range of opinions and angles one can have. A great deal more work needs to be done to truly understand the issue, and perhaps that will never be possible. The best thing to do is to have an open mind and understand that there is generally not one simple reason people behave as they do.

Stuck

I love this country. That's right, Michele Bachmann, I'm a democrat and I love this country. This country affords anyone who is willing to face circumstantial barriers, an opportunity to live up to their God-given potential. In this country we are allowed to freely voice our opinion, even at the expense of others (which is often the case). Because this country allows me the right to speak freely, I'm going to do so.

I'm stuck today. I can usually let the ridiculous things people say roll off my back and I go about my day getting done what I need to. My thoughts are generally not consumed with the words of those who choose to speak so ill of gay people. I hear things from time to time, pause to convince myself that the majority of the people in the world may not agree with such hateful comments, and then get on with my day.

I'm unable to do that today. I'm not really sure why, but I'm just not able to accept it today. I sit back and stay pretty quiet on this topic as I don't want to create waves and offend others. I try to stay cool and allow people to have their views and not let those views affect me. I'm tired of accepting it. I'm tired of not letting my voice be heard. I'm tired of walking on eggshells around people who don't think about how their hateful words affect others and that maybe, just maybe they are really doing much more harm than anyone.

There are so many questions I have, specifically for people who are so adamantly opposed to allowing equal rights to same-sex couples. I would like to speak directly to those people for a moment: Why do you care? What is it you are so afraid of? How is your life affected by two strangers living their life peacefully together? How does the marriage of two people threaten your marriage? Why do you think you have the right to generalize the ideologies of your religious beliefs to the entire country?

The fact that a lot of the arguments are based on Biblical context is fairly disturbing to me. Since this country is based on the separation of church and state, how are Biblical texts relevant in making an argument for legislation? The simple fact that everyone in the United States doesn't believe in the Bible and doesn't have to believe in the Bible, makes it an irrelevant document in terms of legislating. It can certainly inform the values of its believers, many who happen to be lawmakers, but it cannot be used specifically as an argument.

I think I'm stuck today because of Michele Bachmann, U.S. Congresswoman from Minnesota. In an interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews last Friday, she suggested that Barack Obama has "anti-American values" and that the media should investigate how many democrats in congress are actually anti-American. In what way are these comments helpful in forming a more perfect union? How does further dividing the country with these divisive comments make this a better place to live? It is irresponsible and dangerous.

Her comment was denounced by Colin Powell as "nonsense" in an October 19, 2008 interview. Powell said, “This business of... a congresswoman from Minnesota who’s going around saying, ‘Let’s examine all congressmen to see who’s pro-America and who’s not pro-America. We have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and our diversity." Thank you, Mr. Powell.

In support of a constitutional amendment she proposed to ban same-sex marriage, Bachmann said that the gay community was specifically "targeting children." Bachmann believes that people who are homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or transgender suffer from "sexual dysfunction" and "sexual identity disorders." I assume these latter comments are inspired by her husband who operates a Christian counseling center.

This kind of language is hurtful. It cuts right to the center of who I am. I'm gay and there is nothing I can do about it. I have accepted that fact and frankly, it's just not a big deal. I live my life day-to-day trying to make the world a little better place to live. As much as I try to wrap my mind around it (and trust me, I try very hard to understand the opposite view) - I just can't seem to understand why people like Michele Bachmann wake up each day and work hard to ensure that I cannot enjoy the same things in life that she can. I don't understand why she thinks it's ok to pass such extreme judgment on people that she does not know or understand.

I'm stuck at the moment, but I won't be for much longer. I will be able to go about my daily business and try to make the world a better place for all. But people like Congresswoman Bachmann will be stuck in a world in which they feel the need to pass judgment and hatred and in doing so make the world a much less desirable place for a lot of people. When we are all looking back on our lives, who will feel better about what they have contributed to the world?

I suppose that's not for us to decide.

Photo from minnesotamonitor.com