Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas?
We have become entirely too sensitive as a nation. We have become so politically correct that we are robbing individuals of their freedom to express themselves freely. Recent taboos have gone so far as to make it socially unacceptable for someone to say "Merry Christmas" to someone that may not be a Christian. So in order to circumvent the socially awkward moment, we are informed it is more appropriate to say "Happy Holidays" to respect others that may not celebrate Christmas. The same trend is true across the nation. We are so afraid of offending people that we walk on eggshells constantly, worried that a comment taken out of context might offend someone of a different religion or that something we say might offend a certain nationality. The trend has gotten so out of hand that we have people trying to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, ban the Pledge of Allegiance, and as already mentioned trying to remove the Christian basis out of the holiday of Christmas. Just recently, Florida Gulf Coast University banned the use of Christmas decorations by University employees.
Let me make a distinction between hate speech and freedom of speech. Hate speech is not considered protected speech under ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. This means that spewing hate speech and ethnic slurs are outside of what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about a right to speak freely and express ideas that make one unique and individual and are not intended to offend someone else. The problem is that courts and activists feel that ‘not intending to offend someone’ is not a stringent enough doctrine to protect everyone and they would rather everything be made bland and generic. Intentions, or lack thereof, are rarely regarded in these cases, but rather the main concern is protecting dissenters and the minority from being exposed to beliefs and practices contrary to their own. The last time I checked, this exposure was called diversity; the same diversity that the same activists demand. They argue their rights guarantee them equality and protect their "different" point of view and then argue from the other side of their mouth that when others exercise these same guaranteed rights, they are the victim of opinions and beliefs that are contrary to their own. Essentially, they want their cake and they want to eat it to.
What exposure is it that these individuals feel is so demeaning and uncomfortable? Seeing a Christmas tree or a sign that says "Merry Christmas"? How long will it be until these people request the removal of crosses or crucifixes that are displayed at the top of steeples on our churches because the sight makes them uncomfortable?
I understand that the government cannot respect and establishment of religion, but at the same time this principle does not mean an institution (governmental or quasi-governmental) should feel it necessary to ban any kind of celebration or anything that identifies a unique people, regardless of their majority status. The reason why we have institutions that like to ban Christmas celebrations and decorations is because of the associated legal liability. Let’s face it, lawsuits are all the rage now when you want to get what you want or just want a little cash for your "troubles". Institutions allow individuals to exploit them because of some of the faulty rulings from the Supreme Court or because the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) foams at the mouth for these types of cases to help protect the minority by making everyone worse off (or at least uncomfortable). So because we have a few individuals that have managed to win their cases and "secure their rights", at the same time the rights of others have been limited. This has had a chilling effect on other institutions to heavily regulate the rights of others to avoid a lawsuit. And it’s all comes back to having just a few touchy individuals that ruin it for the rest of us.
I remember one particular job that I had when I was in college where we were not allowed to wish patrons a Merry Christmas without receiving disciplinary action. We could wish them ‘Happy Holidays’ instead (a more generic term). Considering how timid the organization is, I was surprised to learn that we could wish patrons a Happy New Year (considering the Chinese New Year is much later than the American). It pained me to have to be so politically correct and personally I found it a great way to rob our staff of any Christmas Spirit we had.
Thank you, ACLU for helping to destroy the liberties of the many in favor of the few. Thank you to those that are so up in arms over a Christmas tree or a few signs that they decide they should ruin the party for everyone else. I think personally, these people that are so easily offended need to develop a thicker skin or just lighten up.
So will I be wishing people Happy Holidays this year? Probably not. For the most part, strangers that I see this holiday season will get the typical Merry Christmas I give in between Thanksgiving and Christmas and a Happy New Year between Christmas and January 1st. I do not like saying Happy Holidays based on principle and due to the generic nature of the sentiment. Let’s all lighten up and to those that celebrate it, have a Merry Christmas!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
A Time to Be Thankful
A Time to be Thankful
Let me begin by saying that I would like to dedicate this article to my wife. Normally I like to write very intense opinion articles, but given that we are currently in the holiday season, I thought I would deviate from that and write a sentimental article for the Daily News.
During the holiday season, we are often reminded of the blessings and gifts that we have in our lives. Not all these gifts can be purchased in a store or can be ordered over the internet. The gifts that I am speaking of are the gifts of friendship, family, love, and our relationships with one another.
We’ve all heard the line "Peace on Earth and Goodwill to All Men", and this is something that we are especially reminded of during the holidays that often we have a tendency to forget outside of the holiday season. We have a tendency to forget this when stuck in traffic or the lady ahead of us in the check-out line is shelling out 237 coupons that will save her a net $3.45. However, each one of us is capable of loving one another and being warm and courteous (even helpful) to complete strangers. Such is the essence of "Southern Hospitality" and is one of the most attractive qualities of the area. Absent the South, you hardly find people who are willing to help another or even openly accept a stranger as a new addition to their family. It happens sometimes, but not as frequently as the South; my travels have taught me this. I am, and always will be, touched by the good natured people of this earth, a majority of whom live in Southern states.
Some of us do not have the luxury of worldly riches. The world likes to measure our worth by the size of our retirement plan, how much we have in our checking account, and how many worldly possessions we have or do not have. I myself am not a rich man by the world’s standards. However, when I think about my friends and family and all they have done for me, I realized that if my wealth is measured by their love and their dedication, there is not a wealthier man than me. There’s just something about spending time with the family that really gives you the wholesome, warm feeling; a feeling that I have long associated with the holidays.
The holidays have been, and always will be, a time of remembrance for those loved ones that have passed, a time to laugh with my family and friends, and a time of thanksgiving for having them in my life. For my family, it is a time for not only reflection of lost loved ones, but a time to laugh and rejoice in their lives and the influence they had on each one of us. The Lawsons are a family of story-tellers and I would have it no other way. The stories that we tell define our family and the experiences that have made us unique and cohesive.
I’d like to pause and speak to those that have lost a loved one recently or will remember that loved one this coming holiday season. The holidays are often the hardest time to deal with the loss of a loved one. I know this from experience. However, their life is a testament to the love they had for you and the love you had for them. I know that every time the Lawsons gather at the dinner table for Thanksgiving and Christmas or we gather around the tree to exchange gifts, these ‘departed’ individuals are amongst us, laughing and rejoicing, smiling and nodding in approval. They live on through us and through our love for one another and the love we still have yet to give the next generation. I also take solace in the idea that when someone has departed, there is always room to welcome another; not to take their place because these people can never be replaced, but because families are meant to grow. Families, much like a tree, are meant to grow and can never be too large.
So this morning, when I was thinking about the holiday (along with my wife, family, and friends) and subsequently decided to write this article, I began to think about the following subjects and their purpose in our lives. I hope that the readers enjoy these thoughts and that somehow, someway, they resonates with you in some form or fashion.
Love. We are called to love each other and love ourselves. Love is essential today, yesterday, tomorrow, and all the days we live. Love is one of the most fundamental purposes we are here. Love without reservation and recklessly. The love you give can make someone’s day or even turn it around. Love how you see fit, but love nonetheless.
Faithfulness. Your faith to others is important. It builds trust into the relationships that rely on love as a foundation. A lack of faith erodes love. Put full faith in others and ask them to put full faith in you. If you have broken someone’s faith in you, resolve to them and yourself to correct this wrong. Faith and love are inseparable, so treat them both equally.
Charity. Give! Giving money to the Salvation Army bell-ringer is a noble action, but do not just give money in lieu of your time. The best charitable giving is doing something for others in person. This does not mean give up all charitable giving or that you should absolutely go volunteer for some cause, but give of yourself to others in need. Bring charity home to your neighbors, friends, and coworkers. Help out when needed or when you feel called to do so. The giving of oneself and one’s time is one of the best ways to show you care. One drip in the pool of humanity through a charitable contribution will set off a ripple effect for all.
Kindness. This can be the hardest one for some of us. Be kind to others. Be kind to agitator that pushes you. You never know the kind of day that he has had. Show kindness to others to show them love. Show kindness to others and restore some faith in humanity. Show kindness through charity. I am not condoning being a doormat for others, but one can be kind and care for their own self-interests at the same time.
Generosity. Be generous! This is different than charity in that charity is the giving of something whereas generosity is the habit of giving. Making a habit of giving of yourself to others will open them up to giving back to you and to others; it presents the perfect ‘pay it forward’ scenario. Just as when one drop of charity creates a ripple effect, generosity will wake the waters and everyone will feel the stirring.
Friendship. Enjoy your friends and make as many as you can. Friends are the brothers and sisters that you select. Good friends are the ones that are there through the good times and bad and help you laugh through it all. For me, friends are an extension of family and family can never be too big.
Kinship. Brothers and sisters are friends chosen for us. Mothers and Fathers provide us with much needed guidance and provide examples of how we are to model our behavior. Family provides us with the support, love, and encouragement that we need to develop and chase down our dreams.
Gratitude. Be thankful for what you have because things could always be worse. If things are as bad as they can get, then be grateful that things can only improve and make the changes necessary to improve your life. Be grateful for friends, family, your life, and more. My father always said, ‘Count your blessings...’ and when I do, I realize that I am very blessed. Show gratitude to others for their love, charity, and devotion.
Above all else, enjoy the upcoming holidays with your friends and family. I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving and a Merry Christmas.
Let me begin by saying that I would like to dedicate this article to my wife. Normally I like to write very intense opinion articles, but given that we are currently in the holiday season, I thought I would deviate from that and write a sentimental article for the Daily News.
During the holiday season, we are often reminded of the blessings and gifts that we have in our lives. Not all these gifts can be purchased in a store or can be ordered over the internet. The gifts that I am speaking of are the gifts of friendship, family, love, and our relationships with one another.
We’ve all heard the line "Peace on Earth and Goodwill to All Men", and this is something that we are especially reminded of during the holidays that often we have a tendency to forget outside of the holiday season. We have a tendency to forget this when stuck in traffic or the lady ahead of us in the check-out line is shelling out 237 coupons that will save her a net $3.45. However, each one of us is capable of loving one another and being warm and courteous (even helpful) to complete strangers. Such is the essence of "Southern Hospitality" and is one of the most attractive qualities of the area. Absent the South, you hardly find people who are willing to help another or even openly accept a stranger as a new addition to their family. It happens sometimes, but not as frequently as the South; my travels have taught me this. I am, and always will be, touched by the good natured people of this earth, a majority of whom live in Southern states.
Some of us do not have the luxury of worldly riches. The world likes to measure our worth by the size of our retirement plan, how much we have in our checking account, and how many worldly possessions we have or do not have. I myself am not a rich man by the world’s standards. However, when I think about my friends and family and all they have done for me, I realized that if my wealth is measured by their love and their dedication, there is not a wealthier man than me. There’s just something about spending time with the family that really gives you the wholesome, warm feeling; a feeling that I have long associated with the holidays.
The holidays have been, and always will be, a time of remembrance for those loved ones that have passed, a time to laugh with my family and friends, and a time of thanksgiving for having them in my life. For my family, it is a time for not only reflection of lost loved ones, but a time to laugh and rejoice in their lives and the influence they had on each one of us. The Lawsons are a family of story-tellers and I would have it no other way. The stories that we tell define our family and the experiences that have made us unique and cohesive.
I’d like to pause and speak to those that have lost a loved one recently or will remember that loved one this coming holiday season. The holidays are often the hardest time to deal with the loss of a loved one. I know this from experience. However, their life is a testament to the love they had for you and the love you had for them. I know that every time the Lawsons gather at the dinner table for Thanksgiving and Christmas or we gather around the tree to exchange gifts, these ‘departed’ individuals are amongst us, laughing and rejoicing, smiling and nodding in approval. They live on through us and through our love for one another and the love we still have yet to give the next generation. I also take solace in the idea that when someone has departed, there is always room to welcome another; not to take their place because these people can never be replaced, but because families are meant to grow. Families, much like a tree, are meant to grow and can never be too large.
So this morning, when I was thinking about the holiday (along with my wife, family, and friends) and subsequently decided to write this article, I began to think about the following subjects and their purpose in our lives. I hope that the readers enjoy these thoughts and that somehow, someway, they resonates with you in some form or fashion.
Love. We are called to love each other and love ourselves. Love is essential today, yesterday, tomorrow, and all the days we live. Love is one of the most fundamental purposes we are here. Love without reservation and recklessly. The love you give can make someone’s day or even turn it around. Love how you see fit, but love nonetheless.
Faithfulness. Your faith to others is important. It builds trust into the relationships that rely on love as a foundation. A lack of faith erodes love. Put full faith in others and ask them to put full faith in you. If you have broken someone’s faith in you, resolve to them and yourself to correct this wrong. Faith and love are inseparable, so treat them both equally.
Charity. Give! Giving money to the Salvation Army bell-ringer is a noble action, but do not just give money in lieu of your time. The best charitable giving is doing something for others in person. This does not mean give up all charitable giving or that you should absolutely go volunteer for some cause, but give of yourself to others in need. Bring charity home to your neighbors, friends, and coworkers. Help out when needed or when you feel called to do so. The giving of oneself and one’s time is one of the best ways to show you care. One drip in the pool of humanity through a charitable contribution will set off a ripple effect for all.
Kindness. This can be the hardest one for some of us. Be kind to others. Be kind to agitator that pushes you. You never know the kind of day that he has had. Show kindness to others to show them love. Show kindness to others and restore some faith in humanity. Show kindness through charity. I am not condoning being a doormat for others, but one can be kind and care for their own self-interests at the same time.
Generosity. Be generous! This is different than charity in that charity is the giving of something whereas generosity is the habit of giving. Making a habit of giving of yourself to others will open them up to giving back to you and to others; it presents the perfect ‘pay it forward’ scenario. Just as when one drop of charity creates a ripple effect, generosity will wake the waters and everyone will feel the stirring.
Friendship. Enjoy your friends and make as many as you can. Friends are the brothers and sisters that you select. Good friends are the ones that are there through the good times and bad and help you laugh through it all. For me, friends are an extension of family and family can never be too big.
Kinship. Brothers and sisters are friends chosen for us. Mothers and Fathers provide us with much needed guidance and provide examples of how we are to model our behavior. Family provides us with the support, love, and encouragement that we need to develop and chase down our dreams.
Gratitude. Be thankful for what you have because things could always be worse. If things are as bad as they can get, then be grateful that things can only improve and make the changes necessary to improve your life. Be grateful for friends, family, your life, and more. My father always said, ‘Count your blessings...’ and when I do, I realize that I am very blessed. Show gratitude to others for their love, charity, and devotion.
Above all else, enjoy the upcoming holidays with your friends and family. I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving and a Merry Christmas.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Youth of the Nation
The Youth of the Nation
A trend that I have noticed recently, and briefly touched on in previous articles, is that today’s youth are radically different than the youth of prior generations. I am drawing this comparison from my interaction with today’s youth and my own experiences growing up.
Technology and communication have radically evolved since I was in high school so it seems logical that today’s youth are using technology differently than I did and is also seems that the youth are communicating in a radically different way than I did. Within the last 10 years the changes have been dramatic and in my opinion have helped build a very large communication gap between my generation and the current generation of youth.
We’ve all seen the commercial from AT&T where the girl speaks exclusively in text abbreviations to her mother ('IDK, my BFF Jill?', translated 'I don't know, my best friend forever Jill?'). This is meant to be an overexaggeration, but for the most part today’s youth have never known a time without text messaging or even a cell phone. Today having a cell phone and being a teenager are synonymous. I remember when I was growing up, Zack Morris from 'Saved by the Bell' had a cellular phone making him the 'coolest kid' at Bayside High School. Even when I was in high school, a teenager having a cell phone was the exception, not the rule. Eventually, I got one before I went off to college, but I didn’t get it to make a social statement or fit in with others; I got it to have a line of communication with friends and family back home. Today I still don’t use my Blackberry that much; the occasional (emphasis on occassional) text message, work related email (because sometimes things are that important), and of course keeping up with friends and family. Today’s youth (at least the ones that I am most familiar with) treat their cell phones (text messages and phone calls) as their lifeline to the outside world. They’re behavior regarding appropriate phone use and their communication styles as a result are changing dramatically.
I have noticed that today’s youth use text messages at an alarmingly high rate. A few particular individuals that I know of, if they are not being spoken to directly, will text endlessly to friends. Then if try to converse with them while they are in the process of texting, they only catch half of the information or what you were asking them. It appears that they prefer a text message conversation over a face-to-face conversation. Text messaging presents a new medium to gathering information without the need to actually have a face-to-face conversation. Thanks to the ease of texting today (with the use of full keyboards) it seems to be the preferred method of conversing with others. The value and importance of actually listening and connecting with another person face-to-face is dwindling as a result. Conversationalism is being lost in a generation, and is being replaced with text messages.
My greatest fear is that this change in communication amongst the youth is going to impact the success of the next generation when the new generation and the other, older generations meet in the workforce and the two cannot understand each other. Texting, in my opinion, is dumbing down our communication. Short, simple words are preferred to longer ones that not only exemplify more professionalism, but also more accurately convey a message. I remember that I received a lot of my diction from my father and then actively sought to increase my vocabulary. I wonder if this is the case for today’s youth or if they are content to rely on a very limited vocabulary and communicate in the easiest way possible? I certainly hope not.
With the public education system what it is today, I really cringe when I think about the future of today’s youth. I certainly hope that today’s youth is receiving some formal education on how to communicate effectively with others (and for that matter in the professional world). I hope they are receiving good instruction on vocabulary and it’s appropriate use. I know my education experience did not prepare me for college as adequately as my parents and I had hoped. I was lucky enough to have the self-determination to make something of myself and learn all that I could. I hope that schools have moved away from teaching for the CATS test, or whatever it’s called today, and more towards providing students with a good education foundation that will prepare them for whatever life decisions they make.
A trend that I have noticed recently, and briefly touched on in previous articles, is that today’s youth are radically different than the youth of prior generations. I am drawing this comparison from my interaction with today’s youth and my own experiences growing up.
Technology and communication have radically evolved since I was in high school so it seems logical that today’s youth are using technology differently than I did and is also seems that the youth are communicating in a radically different way than I did. Within the last 10 years the changes have been dramatic and in my opinion have helped build a very large communication gap between my generation and the current generation of youth.
We’ve all seen the commercial from AT&T where the girl speaks exclusively in text abbreviations to her mother ('IDK, my BFF Jill?', translated 'I don't know, my best friend forever Jill?'). This is meant to be an overexaggeration, but for the most part today’s youth have never known a time without text messaging or even a cell phone. Today having a cell phone and being a teenager are synonymous. I remember when I was growing up, Zack Morris from 'Saved by the Bell' had a cellular phone making him the 'coolest kid' at Bayside High School. Even when I was in high school, a teenager having a cell phone was the exception, not the rule. Eventually, I got one before I went off to college, but I didn’t get it to make a social statement or fit in with others; I got it to have a line of communication with friends and family back home. Today I still don’t use my Blackberry that much; the occasional (emphasis on occassional) text message, work related email (because sometimes things are that important), and of course keeping up with friends and family. Today’s youth (at least the ones that I am most familiar with) treat their cell phones (text messages and phone calls) as their lifeline to the outside world. They’re behavior regarding appropriate phone use and their communication styles as a result are changing dramatically.
I have noticed that today’s youth use text messages at an alarmingly high rate. A few particular individuals that I know of, if they are not being spoken to directly, will text endlessly to friends. Then if try to converse with them while they are in the process of texting, they only catch half of the information or what you were asking them. It appears that they prefer a text message conversation over a face-to-face conversation. Text messaging presents a new medium to gathering information without the need to actually have a face-to-face conversation. Thanks to the ease of texting today (with the use of full keyboards) it seems to be the preferred method of conversing with others. The value and importance of actually listening and connecting with another person face-to-face is dwindling as a result. Conversationalism is being lost in a generation, and is being replaced with text messages.
My greatest fear is that this change in communication amongst the youth is going to impact the success of the next generation when the new generation and the other, older generations meet in the workforce and the two cannot understand each other. Texting, in my opinion, is dumbing down our communication. Short, simple words are preferred to longer ones that not only exemplify more professionalism, but also more accurately convey a message. I remember that I received a lot of my diction from my father and then actively sought to increase my vocabulary. I wonder if this is the case for today’s youth or if they are content to rely on a very limited vocabulary and communicate in the easiest way possible? I certainly hope not.
With the public education system what it is today, I really cringe when I think about the future of today’s youth. I certainly hope that today’s youth is receiving some formal education on how to communicate effectively with others (and for that matter in the professional world). I hope they are receiving good instruction on vocabulary and it’s appropriate use. I know my education experience did not prepare me for college as adequately as my parents and I had hoped. I was lucky enough to have the self-determination to make something of myself and learn all that I could. I hope that schools have moved away from teaching for the CATS test, or whatever it’s called today, and more towards providing students with a good education foundation that will prepare them for whatever life decisions they make.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A Beacon of Morals
A Beacon of Morals
I remember hearing my parents and others talk about all the heros they used to look up to. These individuals served as role models to the baby boom generation. Individuals like James Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, Paul Newman, John Wayne, Clark Gable, Ted Williams, Jackie Robinson, Elvis Presley, and many others are some of the most notable American heros of yesteryear. But where are today’s stories of glory and where are today’s role models for tomorrow’s youth?
Today the media does not provide the "feel-good" media stories that it once used to. News coverage is saturated with negative sentiment and "celebrity watches" are littered with scandal and juicy details. The individuals that we used to look towards as our role models today are victim to an unrelenting, ever-scrutinizing media that unearth and make public the most intimate of details. And worse, the driving force behind the media’s (and paparazzi’s) digging is the public’s demand and interest in these matters. Our demand fuels the media’s intensity to report this information. The end result is that our former Hollywood and celebrity icons and role models have been exposed as being human and having flaws.
The media’s portrayal of our celebrity role models has left this current generation with little to cling to in terms of "Real American Heroes". Often children must turn to the realm of fantasy to find a hero without some a major character defect advertised by the media. For the previous generation, there were ample heroes to look towards probably because these celebrities were still entitled to some level of privacy not afforded today. Today I can only think of a few. Peyton Manning is one that comes to mind. Possibly Steve Young. I’m not asserting that American heroes are completely absent today, but they certainly are harder to find. Most celebrities and athletes today have some sort of scandal that has soiled their reputation. Think about some of the "squeaky clean" Disney stars that have either a current or past controversy/scandal; Vanessa Hudgens, Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Lindsay Lohan, Adrienne Bailon (from the Cheetah Girls) and still others. The point is that high quality role models are in high demand because they are in low supply.
So what does this mean for today’s youth that are in the market for a good role model? Scandals have left today’s youth without a nationally recognized beacon of morals to model one’s behavior after. Role models fulfill a very important role in the eyes of aging youth; they provide an example of how to live your life. With an absence of good role models (or beacons of morals) today’s youth look up to and mimic individuals whose behavior is simply not worth mirroring. I know I have watched some of the more popular shows that MTV produces (for as long as possible until I felt myself getting dumber by the minute), but I watched them long enough to see that the popular trend is to have an antagonist that creates tension and "drama" with the other characters. These are the people that receive the most attention on these shows; the villains. The youth see this and fail to see that these individuals (like Spencer on "The Hills") exhibit behavior that is not socially acceptable, yet still continue to feel the desire to mimic their behavior and start drama of their own. Even worse, the bad morals and behaviors that are depicted in these shows (promiscuity, drug/alcohol abuse, violence, rudeness, etc.) are becoming mainstream behaviors and more socially acceptable. The media has negatively influenced the upcoming generation not only through its depiction of these behaviors, but also by deconstructing good role models and constructed bad ones.
I remember when I was young (which was really not that long ago) that I had at least one Hollywood hero (Harrison Ford), but relied primarily on my hometown heroes. I looked up to (and still do) the examples set by my father and grandfather. They taught me the importance of being morally upright, justice, fairness, honesty, decency, and a plethora of other behaviors and beliefs that I steadfastly hold onto today. Without their influence (and the influence of others) it is uncertain how I would have turned out today. These hometown heroes provide a beacon of morals that our youth can and need to mimic. They are real, accessible, and present character that is not influenced by the watchful eye of the media. My role models passed on the values and morals that I have today and I can only hope that one day I will too be a beacon of morals to another generation.
I remember hearing my parents and others talk about all the heros they used to look up to. These individuals served as role models to the baby boom generation. Individuals like James Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, Paul Newman, John Wayne, Clark Gable, Ted Williams, Jackie Robinson, Elvis Presley, and many others are some of the most notable American heros of yesteryear. But where are today’s stories of glory and where are today’s role models for tomorrow’s youth?
Today the media does not provide the "feel-good" media stories that it once used to. News coverage is saturated with negative sentiment and "celebrity watches" are littered with scandal and juicy details. The individuals that we used to look towards as our role models today are victim to an unrelenting, ever-scrutinizing media that unearth and make public the most intimate of details. And worse, the driving force behind the media’s (and paparazzi’s) digging is the public’s demand and interest in these matters. Our demand fuels the media’s intensity to report this information. The end result is that our former Hollywood and celebrity icons and role models have been exposed as being human and having flaws.
The media’s portrayal of our celebrity role models has left this current generation with little to cling to in terms of "Real American Heroes". Often children must turn to the realm of fantasy to find a hero without some a major character defect advertised by the media. For the previous generation, there were ample heroes to look towards probably because these celebrities were still entitled to some level of privacy not afforded today. Today I can only think of a few. Peyton Manning is one that comes to mind. Possibly Steve Young. I’m not asserting that American heroes are completely absent today, but they certainly are harder to find. Most celebrities and athletes today have some sort of scandal that has soiled their reputation. Think about some of the "squeaky clean" Disney stars that have either a current or past controversy/scandal; Vanessa Hudgens, Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Lindsay Lohan, Adrienne Bailon (from the Cheetah Girls) and still others. The point is that high quality role models are in high demand because they are in low supply.
So what does this mean for today’s youth that are in the market for a good role model? Scandals have left today’s youth without a nationally recognized beacon of morals to model one’s behavior after. Role models fulfill a very important role in the eyes of aging youth; they provide an example of how to live your life. With an absence of good role models (or beacons of morals) today’s youth look up to and mimic individuals whose behavior is simply not worth mirroring. I know I have watched some of the more popular shows that MTV produces (for as long as possible until I felt myself getting dumber by the minute), but I watched them long enough to see that the popular trend is to have an antagonist that creates tension and "drama" with the other characters. These are the people that receive the most attention on these shows; the villains. The youth see this and fail to see that these individuals (like Spencer on "The Hills") exhibit behavior that is not socially acceptable, yet still continue to feel the desire to mimic their behavior and start drama of their own. Even worse, the bad morals and behaviors that are depicted in these shows (promiscuity, drug/alcohol abuse, violence, rudeness, etc.) are becoming mainstream behaviors and more socially acceptable. The media has negatively influenced the upcoming generation not only through its depiction of these behaviors, but also by deconstructing good role models and constructed bad ones.
I remember when I was young (which was really not that long ago) that I had at least one Hollywood hero (Harrison Ford), but relied primarily on my hometown heroes. I looked up to (and still do) the examples set by my father and grandfather. They taught me the importance of being morally upright, justice, fairness, honesty, decency, and a plethora of other behaviors and beliefs that I steadfastly hold onto today. Without their influence (and the influence of others) it is uncertain how I would have turned out today. These hometown heroes provide a beacon of morals that our youth can and need to mimic. They are real, accessible, and present character that is not influenced by the watchful eye of the media. My role models passed on the values and morals that I have today and I can only hope that one day I will too be a beacon of morals to another generation.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Green Movement
The Green Movement
Going Green is one of the hottest things to do recently. Everywhere you look you can see something describing either the benefit of going green or that an item you are purchasing is "green". Going green has become part of popular culture all of a sudden. It is one of the most common causes that Americans have adopted as a means of reducing their carbon footprint. Celebrities have endorsed the green movement, hybrid cars are selling in higher numbers than ever before, companies are focusing on making higher energy efficient merchandise, and even Hollywood productions (movies and television shows) have began stamping their products as being "green" (I personally don’t see how these television shows can be green, unless of course you count when stations "recycle" them with reruns). It seems to me that "going green" has become as popular as the furry Ug boots that some women wear (and they are called Ug boots for a reason; because they are Ug-ly). The trend is so popular even the Democratic National Convention went "green". It's obvious that the term as well as the change in lifestyle is penetrating American behavior.
Going green is a good idea, don't get me wrong. I personally love the environment and wooded areas surrounding Middlesboro. I think that taking a few steps out of my way to help "Mother Nature" is a good thing. However, just like the Ug boot fashion trend, I feel that maybe the going green trend is just that; a trend. What happens when the trend is no longer popular?
I don't want to sound like all those 1980's public service announcements, but for the most part they are right; we only have one planet. Everyone, to some extent, cares about the environment. However, most people will assume that the Green movement is something for those that connect with the Democratic Party and/or the liberal persuasion. The important distinction that people must remember is that both parties care for the environment to some degree; one just wants to safeguard the environment more than the other. People who identify as being either a conservatives or Republican still care for the environment, but maybe not as much as someone from "the other side of the aisle". However, when faced with the decision between economic progress and protecting the environment they will, more often than not, chose progress over saving the trees.
So we have celebrities and former politicians (most notably Al Gore) that adamantly support the green movement. They argue that by taking a little extra time and making a little conscious effort that we can help save the earth. They point to evidence of our carbon footprint like global warming (with movies like "An Inconvenient Truth") and describe our wastefulness. Rightfully so. We are a wasteful society. I think we can all concede that. There are a lot of people that have ample resources and often waste what they don't want or use. But what about those that don't have that much? It seems that those that don't have a lot are the ones that are least concerned about saving the earth. And why should they care about recycling or high energy efficient light bulbs when these individuals struggle to feed their families? Often times, going green means you have less green in your pocket. Basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing are your primary needs. Once these are met adequately and there are resources left over, then people can begin using their resources for their secondary needs (or things that they like but are necessary for survival). But if someone only has enough resources to provide for their primary needs, often they must forgo "saving the rainforests" of the world. They often have to make their dollar stretch by skipping on those high energy efficient light bulbs or the recycled garbage bags. Their concerns are getting through the day, not how much plastic and paper products they throw away.
The problem with the marketing strategy of the going green campaign is that the spokespersons are those that have more than enough resources and can more than afford to make charitable contributions to help save the environment. I dare the individuals responsible for the going green movement to try to find someone that is near the federal poverty line that is willing to use the few precious resources afforded to them to help save anything besides themselves and/or their families.
It just feels that individuals that are so proud of their effort to save the earth are the most smug. I feel that boasting one’s "green actions" is the new way of saying "I have more than enough money" or can be seen as a demonstration that they are better than "non-green" individuals. This demonstration of self-congratulation can work against the green movement. I know I do not want to be "that guy" that is so pleased with my actions that I look down on others for not living the same lifestyle. To me, the green movement is a form of class warfare; the rich demonstrate they are able and have ample resources to save the earth.
The green movement is a noble one but you shouldn't feel sucked into the pull of the hysteria surrounding it. Celebrity spokespersons often will build fads and trends that the rest of America is hard pressed to imitate. What happens when the economic recession tightens the budgets of middle-class Americans? They will begin to abandon the higher priced green items in favor of cheaper, more harmful products to stretch their resources. When this happens, the green movement will fade like the other trends before it.
Going Green is one of the hottest things to do recently. Everywhere you look you can see something describing either the benefit of going green or that an item you are purchasing is "green". Going green has become part of popular culture all of a sudden. It is one of the most common causes that Americans have adopted as a means of reducing their carbon footprint. Celebrities have endorsed the green movement, hybrid cars are selling in higher numbers than ever before, companies are focusing on making higher energy efficient merchandise, and even Hollywood productions (movies and television shows) have began stamping their products as being "green" (I personally don’t see how these television shows can be green, unless of course you count when stations "recycle" them with reruns). It seems to me that "going green" has become as popular as the furry Ug boots that some women wear (and they are called Ug boots for a reason; because they are Ug-ly). The trend is so popular even the Democratic National Convention went "green". It's obvious that the term as well as the change in lifestyle is penetrating American behavior.
Going green is a good idea, don't get me wrong. I personally love the environment and wooded areas surrounding Middlesboro. I think that taking a few steps out of my way to help "Mother Nature" is a good thing. However, just like the Ug boot fashion trend, I feel that maybe the going green trend is just that; a trend. What happens when the trend is no longer popular?
I don't want to sound like all those 1980's public service announcements, but for the most part they are right; we only have one planet. Everyone, to some extent, cares about the environment. However, most people will assume that the Green movement is something for those that connect with the Democratic Party and/or the liberal persuasion. The important distinction that people must remember is that both parties care for the environment to some degree; one just wants to safeguard the environment more than the other. People who identify as being either a conservatives or Republican still care for the environment, but maybe not as much as someone from "the other side of the aisle". However, when faced with the decision between economic progress and protecting the environment they will, more often than not, chose progress over saving the trees.
So we have celebrities and former politicians (most notably Al Gore) that adamantly support the green movement. They argue that by taking a little extra time and making a little conscious effort that we can help save the earth. They point to evidence of our carbon footprint like global warming (with movies like "An Inconvenient Truth") and describe our wastefulness. Rightfully so. We are a wasteful society. I think we can all concede that. There are a lot of people that have ample resources and often waste what they don't want or use. But what about those that don't have that much? It seems that those that don't have a lot are the ones that are least concerned about saving the earth. And why should they care about recycling or high energy efficient light bulbs when these individuals struggle to feed their families? Often times, going green means you have less green in your pocket. Basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing are your primary needs. Once these are met adequately and there are resources left over, then people can begin using their resources for their secondary needs (or things that they like but are necessary for survival). But if someone only has enough resources to provide for their primary needs, often they must forgo "saving the rainforests" of the world. They often have to make their dollar stretch by skipping on those high energy efficient light bulbs or the recycled garbage bags. Their concerns are getting through the day, not how much plastic and paper products they throw away.
The problem with the marketing strategy of the going green campaign is that the spokespersons are those that have more than enough resources and can more than afford to make charitable contributions to help save the environment. I dare the individuals responsible for the going green movement to try to find someone that is near the federal poverty line that is willing to use the few precious resources afforded to them to help save anything besides themselves and/or their families.
It just feels that individuals that are so proud of their effort to save the earth are the most smug. I feel that boasting one’s "green actions" is the new way of saying "I have more than enough money" or can be seen as a demonstration that they are better than "non-green" individuals. This demonstration of self-congratulation can work against the green movement. I know I do not want to be "that guy" that is so pleased with my actions that I look down on others for not living the same lifestyle. To me, the green movement is a form of class warfare; the rich demonstrate they are able and have ample resources to save the earth.
The green movement is a noble one but you shouldn't feel sucked into the pull of the hysteria surrounding it. Celebrity spokespersons often will build fads and trends that the rest of America is hard pressed to imitate. What happens when the economic recession tightens the budgets of middle-class Americans? They will begin to abandon the higher priced green items in favor of cheaper, more harmful products to stretch their resources. When this happens, the green movement will fade like the other trends before it.
The Promise of Hope
The Promise of Hope
Having stayed up to witness the concession of Senator McCain to President Elect Obama and to listen to the speeches delivered by both candidates, I can’t help but think this election is worrisome. I won’t go as far as to say that, "this is the beginning of the end for America" or that "the ‘antichrist’ was elected", but I do feel that the intentions of the voters that selected President Elect Obama were ignorant of the effect his promises and plan would have on America.
Normally I try to write from a neutral standpoint regarding politics. However, after reviewing some of the sentiment voiced by my peers, I just wonder if they really knew Obama’s policies before voting for him. To me at least, it seems they voted for a candidate that stood for "change" and "hope" rather than provide information regarding the substance of his plans, how he intends to achieve them, and any subsequent effect they may have on the nation. I hear people say, "tax breaks for the middle class" and "guaranteed health care for all" amongst the list of solutions Obama offered compared to his opponent. However, when I press them for details about these plans, little substance is left.
Obama’s tax breaks for the middle class and his rhetoric that McCain offered nothing for the middle class is complete malarkey. Obama planned on letting the Bush tax cuts expire. This means there will be a tax increase for 100% of Americans, not tax breaks for 95%. I know I used Obama’s tax calculator to determine how much of a "tax rebate" I would under his Presidency; to the sum of $1,000 annually. The thing is, this is far less than I would have received if the Bush tax cuts were still in place. Essentially, I would see my annual net taxes paid increase under his plan and I certainly qualify as middle-class (even with his decreasing threshold of what middle-class is). McCain decided that keeping the Bush tax cuts was a good idea, so essentially McCain was the real candidate for the middle-class as his plan would provide me with a larger check in April. Just one example of rhetoric offered by Obama.
Secondly, Obama will tax corporations to provide revenue for his social programs. Sounds good, right? Well, when you think about it economically, this works against the middle-class. When you raise taxes on corporations, they earn less profit. When corporations make less profit, they cut more jobs to increase that profit. Guess who corporations normally employ? You guess it; the middle-class. So how can Obama work for the middle-class when he already has two policies that leave less overall money in their pockets? This seems very contrary to his policies regarding "helping the middle-class".
As for healthcare, I believe that everyone needs some sort of insurance and that this will help bring down healthcare costs to some extent. The problem is, I cannot speak in an educated fashion as to what a nationalized healthcare plan will do to the insurance premiums paid by the middle-class and what this will mean for the quality of care given to individuals that are enrolled on this plan. Only time will tell. I will say that if we are lucky and more people are provided with health insurance, this might decrease healthcare costs overall if there are less uninsured individuals (whose health care costs are passed onto those that are insured).
Senator McCain was one of the people who called attention to these problems, much like he did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the financial crisis happened. It seems his voice has went unheeded again.
So as for the election, I would like to think that President Elect Obama was selected for his policies but find it hard to do so. I think that Obama was selected because of the disapproval people have with current President Bush. People saw "change" and "hope" as someone of a different political party than President Bush. I also believe that race played a factor in this election, but in a way that most Kentuckians are not used to; some selected Obama simply because of the color of his skin and not the content of his policies. Still others voted for Obama because the thought of making 2008 a historic election year was too much to pass up. And still others selected Obama for one or two issues not discussed here. All this is completely fine with me; that’s their choice and their vote and they did with it as they saw fit.
I will however offer those of you who are McCain supporters this message of "hope". We are unsure if President Elect Obama will have the support, resources, and votes necessary to pass some of his policies. America may come around and realize the error of their ways. Or, Obama may pass his programs and policies and the proverbial "mess will hit the fan" and the American electorate will let him know in 4 years what they really think of his policies. Either way, depending on his actions in the next couple of years, we will see how his policies affect the nation and how the nation responds.
Despite the result of the election and given the current state of the nation, we all need to unite and work through our problems. I will take nothing away from President Elect Obama. He has achieved something that is nothing short of historic. Although I do not support his policies, I do support this nation. I am a patriot first and foremost and will act as such. My rights allow me to be both a patriot and a dissenter. I am exercising that right today.
Having stayed up to witness the concession of Senator McCain to President Elect Obama and to listen to the speeches delivered by both candidates, I can’t help but think this election is worrisome. I won’t go as far as to say that, "this is the beginning of the end for America" or that "the ‘antichrist’ was elected", but I do feel that the intentions of the voters that selected President Elect Obama were ignorant of the effect his promises and plan would have on America.
Normally I try to write from a neutral standpoint regarding politics. However, after reviewing some of the sentiment voiced by my peers, I just wonder if they really knew Obama’s policies before voting for him. To me at least, it seems they voted for a candidate that stood for "change" and "hope" rather than provide information regarding the substance of his plans, how he intends to achieve them, and any subsequent effect they may have on the nation. I hear people say, "tax breaks for the middle class" and "guaranteed health care for all" amongst the list of solutions Obama offered compared to his opponent. However, when I press them for details about these plans, little substance is left.
Obama’s tax breaks for the middle class and his rhetoric that McCain offered nothing for the middle class is complete malarkey. Obama planned on letting the Bush tax cuts expire. This means there will be a tax increase for 100% of Americans, not tax breaks for 95%. I know I used Obama’s tax calculator to determine how much of a "tax rebate" I would under his Presidency; to the sum of $1,000 annually. The thing is, this is far less than I would have received if the Bush tax cuts were still in place. Essentially, I would see my annual net taxes paid increase under his plan and I certainly qualify as middle-class (even with his decreasing threshold of what middle-class is). McCain decided that keeping the Bush tax cuts was a good idea, so essentially McCain was the real candidate for the middle-class as his plan would provide me with a larger check in April. Just one example of rhetoric offered by Obama.
Secondly, Obama will tax corporations to provide revenue for his social programs. Sounds good, right? Well, when you think about it economically, this works against the middle-class. When you raise taxes on corporations, they earn less profit. When corporations make less profit, they cut more jobs to increase that profit. Guess who corporations normally employ? You guess it; the middle-class. So how can Obama work for the middle-class when he already has two policies that leave less overall money in their pockets? This seems very contrary to his policies regarding "helping the middle-class".
As for healthcare, I believe that everyone needs some sort of insurance and that this will help bring down healthcare costs to some extent. The problem is, I cannot speak in an educated fashion as to what a nationalized healthcare plan will do to the insurance premiums paid by the middle-class and what this will mean for the quality of care given to individuals that are enrolled on this plan. Only time will tell. I will say that if we are lucky and more people are provided with health insurance, this might decrease healthcare costs overall if there are less uninsured individuals (whose health care costs are passed onto those that are insured).
Senator McCain was one of the people who called attention to these problems, much like he did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the financial crisis happened. It seems his voice has went unheeded again.
So as for the election, I would like to think that President Elect Obama was selected for his policies but find it hard to do so. I think that Obama was selected because of the disapproval people have with current President Bush. People saw "change" and "hope" as someone of a different political party than President Bush. I also believe that race played a factor in this election, but in a way that most Kentuckians are not used to; some selected Obama simply because of the color of his skin and not the content of his policies. Still others voted for Obama because the thought of making 2008 a historic election year was too much to pass up. And still others selected Obama for one or two issues not discussed here. All this is completely fine with me; that’s their choice and their vote and they did with it as they saw fit.
I will however offer those of you who are McCain supporters this message of "hope". We are unsure if President Elect Obama will have the support, resources, and votes necessary to pass some of his policies. America may come around and realize the error of their ways. Or, Obama may pass his programs and policies and the proverbial "mess will hit the fan" and the American electorate will let him know in 4 years what they really think of his policies. Either way, depending on his actions in the next couple of years, we will see how his policies affect the nation and how the nation responds.
Despite the result of the election and given the current state of the nation, we all need to unite and work through our problems. I will take nothing away from President Elect Obama. He has achieved something that is nothing short of historic. Although I do not support his policies, I do support this nation. I am a patriot first and foremost and will act as such. My rights allow me to be both a patriot and a dissenter. I am exercising that right today.
Fair and Balanced
Fair and Balanced
This is an election year, surprise! Not only is this an election year, but it’s a historic election year. This is the first time in our nation’s history that an African American has been in serious contention for the White House (sorry, Al Sharpton does not count). This is also only the second time in American history that a woman has been nominated for the Vice Presidency for one of the major two political parties (see Geraldine Ferraro who ran with Walter Mondale in 1984). Unless you have cut off all lines of communication with anyone within the past 6 weeks, you’ve heard the news; Senator John McCain has selected the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, as his Vice Presidential running mate. The reason why you’d have to cut all lines of communication is because the media has literally treated this story with just as much frenzy as it did during the downward spiral of Britney Spears.
It seems that the media is running a smear campaign against Governor Palin. The media has portrayed her in the most negative of lights. It has focused on potential scandals that she may or may not be linked to and has disregarded her accomplishments in Wasilla, Alaska and during her current, albeit brief stint as Governor of Alaska. The media has sunk so low that they "uncovered" photos of Governor Palin during the bathing suit competition when she competed in the Miss Alaska pageant, in which she finished second runner up (or third place). These pictures were shown repeatedly on 24 hour news channels the weekend they were "released" to the public. Would they have done such a thing had Senator McCain selected a male as his running mate? Probably not. McCain’s pick was strategic and a brilliant move in itself. Here’s why:
McCain used his vice presidential pick to bring some excitement to his ticket. Too often he had been criticized by the media and his opponent, Senator Barack Obama, of being "more of the same", referring to the politics of President George W. Bush. The media and Democrats had blasted him for being "too old" and "out of touch" with today’s generation. He made the smartest move he could be selecting a candidate that has a track record of reform as well as a youthful vitality needed to not only generate buzz for his campaign but also sway undecided voters to his ticket. Democrats lamented that this move was nothing more than a shameful ploy to draw votes from former Clinton supporters that were still jaded from the nomination. I have heard people say that Governor Palin is nothing more than a straw man (or straw woman) being used by the Republican party to ensure at least 4 more years of policies similar to President George W. Bush. What they have failed to admit is that a Vice Presidential pick is intended to compliment weaknesses and minimize criticisms of the Presidential nominee. Senator Obama did the exact same thing by picking Senator Biden as his running mate. Senator Obama has been criticized as lacking experience in both tenure and foreign policy, two qualities that Senator Biden more than makes up for. In the same way, Governor Palin was selected for the youth and energy that she could bring to the campaign to make McCain more competitive for the youth vote; a voting cohort that political analysts say Obama had taken a great lead in. If you look closely at the two campaigns you will see that the candidates almost mirror each other; Palin to Obama and McCain to Biden. This was done intentionally to make each party as competitive with the other as possible and garner more votes.
But the media, as it always does, is playing a very influential role in the Presidential election. In much the same way that it painted a very elaborate picture of George W. Bush as incompetent, it is portraying Governor Palin as more of a "cheerleader" and without the necessary credentials to be Vice-President and potentially lead the nation. Katie Couric, a staunch Palin critic, put forth a great effort to make Governor Palin look as foolish as possible in their interview that has become an overnight sensation on YouTube. She painted a picture of Palin’s ignorance regarding McCain’s positions and track records and also chided her for her lack of executive experience as did the rest of the media following that interview. Has any major news media that interviewed Senator Obama really hit hard on his policies in order to make him out to seem a fool? Maybe Fox News, but that may be the only media outlet that has made such an effort. It seems that the media that has access to the Presidential nominees has painted Senator Obama as more of the "visionary", "savior", "new hope of our generation", and has portrayed Obama in the most positive light possible. Palin and McCain however, have been portrayed in the most negative by most media outlets. Still need more convincing?
Think about the "fluff" stories that have come out about the candidates. You have Oprah that welcomed Senator Barack and Michelle Obama to her show and did a very soft story to help him connect with the voters. That same Oprah refuses to have Governor Palin on her show until after the election. Does that seem fair? What about Us Magazine that published the fluff story about Michelle Obama entitled, "Why Barack Loves Her" and then a month later turns around and runs the following cover containing a picture of Governor Palin, "Babies, Lies, & Scandals". Does that seem biased? What about the media’s story about Senator McCain’s failed marriage proposal to the Brazilian dancer? What about media blogs have tried to create rumors that Governor Palin’s newborn baby Trig is not hers, but is rather her 17 year old daughter’s child. If you include the photos aired all weekend of Governor Palin in her bathing suit, the media has engaged in a smear campaign against not only the McCain/Palin ticket, but also against the second female Vice Presidential nominee for a major party. These attacks not only seem biased against the Republican ticket, but also sexist in nature. The last time I checked, the Presidential and Vice Presidential race were not selected based on the swimsuit competition.
But this is nothing new for the media. They have framed every presidential campaign starting back with Nixon and Kennedy. I’m not saying that Governor Palin is the most qualified candidate for Vice President ever. She clearly has her shortcomings, but then again all candidates involved do (even though she surpassed people’s expectations during the Vice Presidential debate). But that’s not the point. The point is that the media has unfairly portrayed one ticket in positive light over the other; their way of swaying the election. The media should have an obligation to be objective and not slant stories to one side of the political spectrum or the other. Reasonable access and equal time laws have been upheld to give political candidates equal access to the broadcast airwaves so that they can speak to their fellow citizens and ask for their vote. Maybe its about time that Oprah gets hit with another lawsuit so that she will provide at least reasonable access and equal time to Governor Palin, unless of course Oprah is above our laws (which very well could be the case).
This is an election year, surprise! Not only is this an election year, but it’s a historic election year. This is the first time in our nation’s history that an African American has been in serious contention for the White House (sorry, Al Sharpton does not count). This is also only the second time in American history that a woman has been nominated for the Vice Presidency for one of the major two political parties (see Geraldine Ferraro who ran with Walter Mondale in 1984). Unless you have cut off all lines of communication with anyone within the past 6 weeks, you’ve heard the news; Senator John McCain has selected the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, as his Vice Presidential running mate. The reason why you’d have to cut all lines of communication is because the media has literally treated this story with just as much frenzy as it did during the downward spiral of Britney Spears.
It seems that the media is running a smear campaign against Governor Palin. The media has portrayed her in the most negative of lights. It has focused on potential scandals that she may or may not be linked to and has disregarded her accomplishments in Wasilla, Alaska and during her current, albeit brief stint as Governor of Alaska. The media has sunk so low that they "uncovered" photos of Governor Palin during the bathing suit competition when she competed in the Miss Alaska pageant, in which she finished second runner up (or third place). These pictures were shown repeatedly on 24 hour news channels the weekend they were "released" to the public. Would they have done such a thing had Senator McCain selected a male as his running mate? Probably not. McCain’s pick was strategic and a brilliant move in itself. Here’s why:
McCain used his vice presidential pick to bring some excitement to his ticket. Too often he had been criticized by the media and his opponent, Senator Barack Obama, of being "more of the same", referring to the politics of President George W. Bush. The media and Democrats had blasted him for being "too old" and "out of touch" with today’s generation. He made the smartest move he could be selecting a candidate that has a track record of reform as well as a youthful vitality needed to not only generate buzz for his campaign but also sway undecided voters to his ticket. Democrats lamented that this move was nothing more than a shameful ploy to draw votes from former Clinton supporters that were still jaded from the nomination. I have heard people say that Governor Palin is nothing more than a straw man (or straw woman) being used by the Republican party to ensure at least 4 more years of policies similar to President George W. Bush. What they have failed to admit is that a Vice Presidential pick is intended to compliment weaknesses and minimize criticisms of the Presidential nominee. Senator Obama did the exact same thing by picking Senator Biden as his running mate. Senator Obama has been criticized as lacking experience in both tenure and foreign policy, two qualities that Senator Biden more than makes up for. In the same way, Governor Palin was selected for the youth and energy that she could bring to the campaign to make McCain more competitive for the youth vote; a voting cohort that political analysts say Obama had taken a great lead in. If you look closely at the two campaigns you will see that the candidates almost mirror each other; Palin to Obama and McCain to Biden. This was done intentionally to make each party as competitive with the other as possible and garner more votes.
But the media, as it always does, is playing a very influential role in the Presidential election. In much the same way that it painted a very elaborate picture of George W. Bush as incompetent, it is portraying Governor Palin as more of a "cheerleader" and without the necessary credentials to be Vice-President and potentially lead the nation. Katie Couric, a staunch Palin critic, put forth a great effort to make Governor Palin look as foolish as possible in their interview that has become an overnight sensation on YouTube. She painted a picture of Palin’s ignorance regarding McCain’s positions and track records and also chided her for her lack of executive experience as did the rest of the media following that interview. Has any major news media that interviewed Senator Obama really hit hard on his policies in order to make him out to seem a fool? Maybe Fox News, but that may be the only media outlet that has made such an effort. It seems that the media that has access to the Presidential nominees has painted Senator Obama as more of the "visionary", "savior", "new hope of our generation", and has portrayed Obama in the most positive light possible. Palin and McCain however, have been portrayed in the most negative by most media outlets. Still need more convincing?
Think about the "fluff" stories that have come out about the candidates. You have Oprah that welcomed Senator Barack and Michelle Obama to her show and did a very soft story to help him connect with the voters. That same Oprah refuses to have Governor Palin on her show until after the election. Does that seem fair? What about Us Magazine that published the fluff story about Michelle Obama entitled, "Why Barack Loves Her" and then a month later turns around and runs the following cover containing a picture of Governor Palin, "Babies, Lies, & Scandals". Does that seem biased? What about the media’s story about Senator McCain’s failed marriage proposal to the Brazilian dancer? What about media blogs have tried to create rumors that Governor Palin’s newborn baby Trig is not hers, but is rather her 17 year old daughter’s child. If you include the photos aired all weekend of Governor Palin in her bathing suit, the media has engaged in a smear campaign against not only the McCain/Palin ticket, but also against the second female Vice Presidential nominee for a major party. These attacks not only seem biased against the Republican ticket, but also sexist in nature. The last time I checked, the Presidential and Vice Presidential race were not selected based on the swimsuit competition.
But this is nothing new for the media. They have framed every presidential campaign starting back with Nixon and Kennedy. I’m not saying that Governor Palin is the most qualified candidate for Vice President ever. She clearly has her shortcomings, but then again all candidates involved do (even though she surpassed people’s expectations during the Vice Presidential debate). But that’s not the point. The point is that the media has unfairly portrayed one ticket in positive light over the other; their way of swaying the election. The media should have an obligation to be objective and not slant stories to one side of the political spectrum or the other. Reasonable access and equal time laws have been upheld to give political candidates equal access to the broadcast airwaves so that they can speak to their fellow citizens and ask for their vote. Maybe its about time that Oprah gets hit with another lawsuit so that she will provide at least reasonable access and equal time to Governor Palin, unless of course Oprah is above our laws (which very well could be the case).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
