President Obama’s lost year

The year is quickly slipping away, and for President Obama, it is beginning to seem like a lost year. His administration is besieged by controversies, and the severity of them is likely determined by which political party a person belongs to.

There is a lot of smoke surrounding these scandals, but there is also some fire. The Benghazi situation grew out of the deaths of four Americans in Libya last September that was the result of a terrorist attack.

Since then, the administration’s handling of the event has remained controversial. Though presidential supporters believe this is old news being rehashed by Republicans for political gain, the president really has nobody to blame but himself for its lingering.

The president claims he has referred to this event as a terrorist attack since the beginning. However, less than a week after the attack, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice did multiple media appearances blaming the attack on an anti-Islamic video that caused inflamed passions in that area and not a terrorist attack. This contradiction has led to much confusion that has not been cleared up yet.

Rice, who at one time was considered a possible successor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appears to have fallen off the edge of the earth. She has kept a very low profile, and what media appearances she has made has been with friendly members of the fourth estate.

If the president did believe this was a terrorist attack from the beginning, all he had to do is take a straightforward approach with the American people. He apparently did not do that and the story continues to drag out months later.

All he had to do is say the deaths were a terrible tragedy and clearly state it was an act of terrorism. He could have pledged to do all that was possible to track down those who were responsible. He also could have emphasized that he will look at what went wrong in his administration to guarantee this will never happen again.

However, he did not really do that. He did say some of those things, but it was not with the emphasis and action needed to end the story. If he had, there would have been some political fallout, but it would not have been enough to sway last year’s election. He failed to trust the common sense of the American people, and it has come back to bite him.

Of course, there are other controversies, too. The IRS scandal probably resonates with the public more than any of these scandals. This is because we can all relate to it. We all understand the immense power the IRS has, and if it is misused, it can do damage. Any person who has ever opened their mailbox to find a letter from them during non-tax season can attest to how scary that can be.

An Inspector General determined the agency used its power to target conservative groups trying to get non-exempt status.

It does not matter if the president had direct knowledge of the situation. People are already skeptical of our government, and he is the head of it. If the scandal continues to unfold, he will take heat.

And finally, there has been controversy regarding the government’s heavy-handed approach to scrutinizing the Associated Press and other media. The government went as far as to name Fox News reporter James Rosen as a criminal co-conspirator in one situation. Though the public rarely has sympathy for the media, the government’s actions here deserve intense scrutiny.

If they will do this to the media, won’t they do it to you and me?

Passing the buck

We all have to put up with a lot of noise in our lives each day, but sometimes we hear words spoken that cause us to pause and think.

For whatever reason, I have repeatedly been in situations lately where I have heard discussions about our country’s direction and who is responsible for it. In each situation, I did not offer much input, preferring to be a fly on the wall. Many times, a person can learn more about the mood of a situation by just listening instead of leaping into the middle of it.

Based on what I heard, there are many people who believe our nation has started down a slippery slope with little chance for recovery. According to them, times are bad, and there is not much hope our current leadership can do much to help.

I discount that point of view to a certain degree. For better or worse, I have always been a ‘glass-is-half-full’ kind of man. While I concede the United States has many problems on its plate, we still live in a formidable country. I would not want to live any place else.

I guess the aspect of these discussions that intrigued me most was the amount of finger pointing taking place. Some people pointed their fingers right at President Obama and the Democrats and felt it was their entire fault. Others laid the blame right at the feet of Republicans. There were others who blamed everybody and decried the fact that nobody seems to be able to work together.

However, in each of these discussions, a recurring theme was how none of them put our current problems in any type of historical context.

For example, our nation has a national debt of almost $17 trillion that is currently growing by a staggering $900 billion each fiscal year. Based on the talk I heard, most people appear to believe this problem sprouted up overnight with absolutely no warning.

Of course, this is totally incorrect. The era of big federal government can at least be traced back to President Johnson’s administration in the 1960s. This approach has continued, and we have little consensus about how to pay for all we want. Even though this problem has been a long time coming, many people want to simple-mindedly heap all the blame on our current representatives (though they do deserve their share of blame).

The same goes for social issues like gay marriage. For me, it amazes me how many people appear to believe this issue simply showed up out of thin air. For anybody paying attention, we know the gay rights movement has been gaining momentum for decades. In a modern sense, it can be traced back to the Stonewall Rebellion of the late 1960s, and there have been other milestones of that movement as time has unfolded. My comments should not be misinterpreted as either support or rejection of the gay rights movement. My point is that some people have proven themselves totally clueless about even knowing it was going on.

I guess the overwhelming emotion I felt as I listened to these people was that it is better late than never when it comes to paying attention to what is going on around us. Apathy is real, and the tragedy is that most people never pay attention. In the 2012 presidential election, 90 million people who were eligible to vote did not. I guess ‘American Idol’ must have been on that day.

The bottom line is we need to at least be paying attention to what is going on. We do not have to agree, but let us try to be knowledgeable about what we are talking about.

Passing the buck

We try our best to be consistent in our decision making, but try as we might, we are often unable to do it. This problem is a trait that most of us share in common. It is one of the most fundamental parts of our human nature.

Our decision making can be impacted for a number of reasons, but one of the most common ones deals with how emotionally involved we are in a situation when trying to come to a conclusion.

When thinking rationally, I believe most of us would agree that matters involving our government usually are much more important than matters in the trivial world of sports. After all, our government makes decisions that directly impact our lives while sports only provide periodic moments of entertainment.

With that in mind, why do we hold people in the sports world more accountable for their actions than people in politics? This is not the case in every situation, but we see this more often than not.

Consider what we have seen in the news lately. In late November, the University of Tennessee fired its head football coach after failing to find success on the gridiron. Derek Dooley inherited a mess when he was hired three years ago at the school.

However, during his time there, he was unable to clean up the mess and was let go. Fair enough. College coaches at big schools are paid tons of money, and they understand the expectations and pressure when they take the job. Coach Dooley did some good things at Tennessee, but it did not work out.

His situation was unique in that he was only given three years to fix the program's problems. Most rebuilding situations take more than three years, but the team took a step backward this year. Supporters of the coach would argue he was not given enough time to succeed, and they might be correct.

Unfortunately for Dooley, the fan base got restless and all the negativity built with each loss. Despite the brevity of his tenure, the emotion reached a point where he had to go.

Compare the quick hook Dooley got with our attitudes toward politicians, especially on the national level. Early in November, we held an election and very few of the incumbents were voted out of office.

The president was re-elected, as well as most of the people in the House of Representatives and Senate. This is despite our nation’s struggles economically and in other areas. As voters, most of us made the choice to continue with the hand we had been dealt.

Keep in mind, my comments are not meant to be anti-Republican or anti-Democrat. My curiosity centers on why we are willing to be so patient in certain aspects of our society and impatient in others.

For example, approval rates in polls are generally quite low when measuring attitudes toward Congress. Despite this, as a nation, we chose to keep the Senate in control of the Democrats and the House of Representatives in the hands of the Republicans.

As much as we say we want change and accountability we do not follow through. Our idea of change is usually wanting other people to be thrown out of office instead of our own representatives. Therefore, few get voted out.

So, where has this approach gotten us? It has gotten us $16 trillion in debt and an unemployment rate of almost eight percent. It has resulted in our country being extremely politically divided. Working together is becoming more of an obsolete concept.

What should we do? Maybe the time has come to hold our officials as accountable as some of us held Derek Dooley.

Will Obama win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote?

Mercifully, the presidential race comes to a close on Tuesday. All the pontificating will end, and most of us will go back to living normal lives without candidates trying to convince us how great they are. However, this experience has included more than candidates.

For example:  Polls. I am sick of polls. Each day, several organizations release polls telling us how the race is going in various states and across the nation as a whole. It is all a bunch of noise to me because news organizations rarely release information about the methodology used to create these polls. Still, the possibilities indicated by them are intriguing.

Perhaps the most fascinating possibility is the chance one candidate will win the popular vote and the other the Electoral College. To be elected president, a candidate must win 270 votes in the Electoral College. In a sense, it does not matter who wins the popular vote because 270 is the magic number.

Because of Mitt Romney's popularity throughout a big chunk of the country, some pundits are floating the real possibility that he could win the popular vote, but President Obama still win the Electoral College.

Our country is incredibly polarized when it comes to politics, and if this happens, the roof might blow off. However, we must not forget that this very scenario happened only 12 years ago.

Tennessee's Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the electoral vote and became president. Democrats cried foul, and the climax of the election was unique to be sure because of the problems in Florida.

Those poor folks in Florida demonstrated how easy it is to mess up an election. Because of their errors, many claimed the presidency was stolen from Gore. However, this was not the case. The bitter irony for Gore is that he would have won if he had simply won his home state.

In the aftermath of all that, there were cries from a lot of people to do away with the Electoral College and elect the president by popular vote. Of course, most of the people who said that were Democrats upset about the election while Republicans steadfastly defended the current system.

However, if Romney won the popular vote but lost the election, there would be a complete role reversal. Democrats would get the White House while Republicans would be on the outside looking in. Do we really believe Republicans would go gently into that good night?

Not hardly. I am sure many of them would cry just as loudly as Democrats did in 2000. Some of the Democrats would be in the awkward position of supporting a process some denounced only a decade ago.

In addition to this, there is one other possibility that is even spicier. Apparently, there is at least one scenario in which Obama and Romney could tie with 269 electoral votes each. In this case, the House of Representatives would select the president and the Senate would choose the vice president.

Because of the parties that control those bodies, Romney would likely be selected president and Joe Biden vice president.

This may not reflect well on me, but I would love to see this scenario play out. After the shrillness of the campaign, it would be a fitting way to bring it all to a close. Both sides have beaten the other to a bloody pulp the last few months. This has occurred to the great annoyance of many citizens.

What better way for election night to end with neither candidate being able to say they won? I think it would be tremendously symbolic, but then again, not all people like to live through history being made.

Obama and Romney both provided memorable campaign lowlights

Election Day is now only a little more than one week away, and for some, it cannot come soon enough. Of course, it has already come and gone for people taking advantage of the early voting period.

For those people, they can kick back and turn down the noise associated with the election process. They have a unique opportunity to enjoy some peace and quiet until the votes are counted.

There are many races on the ballot, but the big one is for the presidency. Regardless of who a person votes for, I think it is important to remember that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney appear to be decent and intelligent men who are trying to offer their services to the country. They both have many positive qualities.

Despite this, both men have made substantial missteps during the campaign, resulting in situations that have left us shaking our heads.

For the president, his primary misstep has been the whole tone of his campaign. It has been vastly different compared to 2008. Back then, he swept up the nation with optimism in a campaign that promised "hope" and "change." Our nation was in a big mess then (as is the case now), but his campaign in 2008 had an idealism that is rare in national politics.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case with his current campaign. This year's effort has been marred by negativity, negativity, and more negativity. When talking about negativity, I am not referring to his criticizing of Romney's political record. That is fair game. I am referring to the unseemly personal attacks that are nothing more than cheap shots.

However, this approach has been effective to a certain degree. For several months, the president had effectively turned Romney into just another rich guy who would not talk about his taxes and did not care about the middle class.

At the first presidential debate, this changed as much of America got a good look at Romney for perhaps the first time. After that, Romney surged in the polls. Many attribute the surge to Obama’s poor performance in that debate, but it was likely that voters saw Romney in a way that did not fit the image projected by the president's campaign.

The president, on the other hand, has come across as just another politician who will do what it takes to get elected. It is always a red flag when an incumbent does not run on his record, and Obama has done a lot of this.

Just like Obama, Romney has made big mistakes. His most unfortunate one was his infamous "47 percent" comment. He was caught at a private function stating that 47 percent of the public were going to vote for President Obama anyway because they were dependent on the government and viewed themselves as victims.

He implied the people in this group were a bunch of slackers who did not want to take personal responsibility for their lives, and it was up to the government to take care of them.

His statements were a textbook example of how over-generalizing complex issues can result in ridiculous statements. Defenders of Romney claimed it was unfair that the statements were recorded undercover at a private event. However, it is important that these comments came to light.

Comments like these are examples of what politicians say behind closed doors when the prying eye of the media is not there. Candidates often change their tune depending on who their audience is, and these comments were mean and condescending.

To his credit, Romney has admitted he was wrong, but children often say the same thing when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

The perfect ending for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

To be elected president, a candidate must win 270 electoral votes. Based on what is being reported, there is at least one scenario where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney could end up tied with 269 electoral votes each. 

This may not reflect well on me, but I wish this would happen. As shrill as this entire campaign has been, it would be a fitting climax. 

If that happened, the House of Representatives would choose the president and the Senate would choose the vice president. Because of the parties that control those bodies, it means Romney would likely be chosen president and Joe Biden vice president. The result would be a MADHOUSE!!!!! A MADHOUSE!!!!!

Who could ask for anything more?

Withering civility in a testy political season

We are only a few weeks away from the presidential election, and civility continues to erode when it comes to discussing the important issues of the day.

This is not happening just among the candidates running for office, but among people like you and me. On the bright side, it is good that people are feeling so passionately about the issues, but the end result of this passion is that we appear to be becoming more polarized than ever.

Let us look at the candidates in the presidential race. We are definitely seeing an overload of negative campaigning and attempts to make the other look like a royal idiot. Some negativity is acceptable, but the key is balance.

When it comes to negativity, it is perfectly okay for candidates to criticize the records of their opponents. For example, it is fine for President Barack Obama to be critical of Mitt Romney’s stances on issues and other parts of his political background. Equally, Romney has the right to go after Obama’s track record as president and be critical when appropriate.

However, where they both go wrong is when the attacks get personal and try to reduce the other to nothing more than a cartoon figure. For months, the Obama campaign has painted Romney as a rich guy who does not pay his taxes and does not care about the middle class.

On the other hand, the Romney campaign has played the same game by trying to reduce Obama to nothing more than an empty suit who is aloof and really has nothing of substance to say.

This lack of civility was also on display during the vice presidential debate. Vice President Joe Biden repeatedly laughed and sneered as his opponent Paul Ryan tried to make his points. Seriously, did Biden really think it would be effective to laugh while a serious discussion about Iran’s nuclear capabilities was taking place? It was another low moment in a campaign of lows.

Of course, this lack of civility has a trickle down effect. We see it take place through the mainstream media every day. Conflict is the mother’s milk of the 24-hour news channels where opponents verbally duke it out in a vain attempt to make points.

I really do not understand how this became such a popular technique for the networks to use. The conflict often overtakes the points trying to be made. Because of this, viewers are turned off and the words spoken by those people often come across like the braying of donkeys.

The trickle down effect also flows down to the general public. I recently read a story on the Cable News Network’s web site that stated one-fifth of the people who use social media have ended on-line friendships simply because of political disagreements.

A person could make the point that a friendship must not have been very meaningful if it was ended because of a political difference, but I have seen relationships severed for a lot less than that.

The bottom line is our nation has become more and more polarized in recent years when it comes to political issues. We choose sides and become enemies if people have the audacity to see issues differently than we do.

It is a crying shame that it has come to this. It used to be that the deepest relationships we had with people were ones where we could sharply disagree but still have dinner afterward.

However, it is not too late. We can all step back from the ledge we are looking over if we become a little less focused on ourselves and more on other people. This is an old recipe for happiness, but it still works.

Iran trouble bubbling and not going away

It would be stating the obvious to refer to the Middle East as the most turbulent part of the world. The United States recently wound down a long and costly war in Iraq, and for many, it was not a minute too soon.

Additionally, we will remain embroiled in Afghanistan for a least a couple more years. We have been there since late 2001, and a lot of personal sacrifice has been given in order to battle the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

In some respects, the Afghanistan conflict is starting to feel a little like a forgotten war. For such an important war, we rarely see much in-depth coverage of it in the mainstream media. We hear reports when people die, but do we really hear enough deep analysis of what is going on there? My answer would be 'no,' but that is a question people will have to answer in their own hearts.

However, even if our troops do leave in 2014, the Middle East's drama is doubtful to go away. This is because as long as Israel is there, then enemies of that country will be looking for ways to hamstring it.

Israel is America's most important friend in that region. Though it is often a tinderbox of activity, there can be no denying its importance when it comes to America’s interests in the Middle East.

This was especially apparent recently when international leaders spoke at the United Nations' General Assembly. The attention of United States and Israeli leaders was firmly on the growing threat of Iran's nuclear program.

Despite the focus on Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years, Iran continues in its role as thorn in the side of America in the region. A primary way this is manifesting itself is through the nuclear program Iran is currently developing.

Iran's president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and to put is mildly, he is a kook. He is a hostile opponent of Israel not to mention his own people. Life in Iran is why every American should be happy that we live in this country.

Since the late 1970s, the country has been under the thumb of a conservative Islamic government and citizens there publicly oppose the government at their own risk. Human rights violations are well documented there, and if anybody does not believe that, just spend a little time on-line because there is plenty of research to back that up.

Additionally, Ahmadinejad denies Israel's right to exist and even goes as far as to proclaim the Holocaust did not occur. The Holocaust occurred in World War II as the Nazis extinguished six million Jews. If Ahmadinejad takes such extreme stances, isn’t it understandable why the Israeli government has gotten so jumpy as Iran has developed its nuclear capabilities?

After all, would not the United States get equally jumpy if a nearby country developed weapons capabilities we were uncomfortable with? Am I the only one who remembers the Cuban missile crisis?

Though most international experts are unified in believing that a nuclear Iran is a terrible idea, there is a lot of disagreement about how to handle it. Sanctions have hurt Iran but it apparently has not deterred the development of the program.

There has been some tension between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the course to take. Both believe in deterring Iran, but the Israeli leader wants firmer accountability of Iran when monitoring what they are doing.

This is not an issue that is going away. If recent history shows us anything, the Iranians can be very creative when hiding what they are doing. In other words, we should not believe anything they say. Their leader hates America and Israel.

Big decision coming with presidential election one month away

It is a little more than one month until Election Day when voters will decide whether President Barack Obama will get to serve a second term or Republican nominee Mitt Romney will get the opportunity to lead our country.

Based on what I have read, most people reading this have already made up their minds for who they will vote. Barring a remarkable event, there is little chance these people will have a change of heart.

I do not know whether this is good or bad, but it is an indicator that Obama and Romney are chasing a small group of undecided voters who could tilt the election one way or the other.

Couple that with the apathetic people who will not bother to vote and this small pool of undecided voters gets that much smaller. Of course, apathetic people have a right to their apathy in much the same way that passionate people have a right to their passion. In some respects, it is a shame these apathetic people will not bother to vote.

However, if these voters are apathetic to the point that they are uninformed on the issues, then maybe it is a good idea they are staying home. I do not want to ride in a car if the driver has not bothered to get a license and the same principle applies to people who vote. If a person does not have basic knowledge about what is going on, then I will not shed a tear if they choose not to vote.

For the people who do vote, the election is basically a referendum on how well President Obama has done in the last four years. Of course, there are wildly diverging points of view on this.

Supporters of the president will point out our struggles of the last four years would have been much worse if he had not taken steps like supporting the quarter-of-a-trillion dollar stimulus package that was meant to help our economy as it sputtered. The supporters state he inherited a big mess, and it was so large that four years was not enough time to produce substantial improvement.

Critics will point out the last four years have been a failure in which unemployment has remained above eight percent, and many economists predict problems will continue. They will say the president has taken a big government approach that has yielded few results, and it has resulted in a national debt now above $16 trillion. They feel more debt will strangle the long-term prospects of the country.

Usually, I do not publicly state for who I will vote and I will not now. But I do have some pretty deep feelings about the upcoming election.

Deep in my heart, I believe this is the most important presidential election of my lifetime. Our country’s challenges are real and cannot be solved overnight.

The economy remains in a mess. We are still fighting a war in Afghanistan even though nobody seems to want to talk about it.

I fear our standing in the international community is slipping as the recent protests by radical Muslims demonstrate.

Whether it will be Obama or Romney who will lead us in the coming four years, I hope all of us will dedicate ourselves to holding our elected officials more accountable. For several years, the primary goals of our leaders seem to have been to maintain power rather than actually lead.

That is not a knock at one person or one political party. There is plenty of blame to go around, and we need to do a better job of clearing our throats when monitoring them.

It is our government, you know.

The struggle and loneliness of a political moderate

These days, life can be lonely if a person is a political moderate. Many of us tend to be Independents who do not fit inside the tents of the Democratic and Republican parties.

This loneliness was especially acute during the last couple of weeks when both parties held their national conventions. I could not bring myself to watch much of either of them, but I tried.

Both conventions were basically useless when it came to finding substance. Gone are the days when these events produced genuine news, and they are now reduced to nothing but glorified pep rallies. They are infomercials in which people wearing fancy clothes try to convince us that our problems are not their fault.

It would be an overused cliché to state the two parties are like 10-year-olds on the playground pointing their fingers at the other refusing to take blame. Then again, cliches often earn that status because they speak the truth.

This loneliness is further intensified when Independents search the mainstream media looking for evenhanded and reliable political analysis. We live in an age where bias is not only tolerated but encouraged when it comes to presenting information.

This is especially true when getting information from the major television news networks, and many of them were in rare form during the conventions. It was predictable which network praised and criticized candidates.

Most of the primetime programming on these networks falls into the category of political analysis and commentary. Under these rules, it is acceptable to present opinion and be critical of specific candidates and policies.

However, when certain broadcasters repeatedly fall on one side of a party or candidate it becomes easy to identify their ideology and personal agenda. This is where it becomes dangerous for the average viewer because if they only watch a limited amount of programs, then they are exposed to information presented from one point of view.

During the conventions, some of these news outlets toted the predictable party lines. For example, MSNBC is indisputably in the back pocket of the Democrats and especially President Obama when it comes to its primetime programming.

Too often, broadcasters there rely on emotional techniques when discussing issues and sometimes inject race into debates. The most frequent users of this technique are Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton. When discussing opponents of the president, they inject racial bias as a factor much too much.

I understand that racism is a significant problem in our country, and I have no doubt that it is a factor when it comes to some opponents of the president. There can be no questioning that and for those who feel otherwise, I feel they are being naïve if they do not acknowledge our racial divide.

Still, the frequency in which Matthews and Sharpton use race makes it come across as a power play rather than being legitimately concerned about our nation’s racial climate. I believe the reason more white people do not discuss race is because of a fear of being branded racist if they make a misstatement. Therefore, it becomes easier to just avoid the topic. Because of this, Matthews and Sharpton really are not helping.

On the other side, FOX News has people such as Sean Hannity who has no inhibitions when it comes to throwing around terms like ‘liar’ when describing the president. Don’t get me wrong, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize policies or candidates. However, inflammatory name calling really does no good.

In addition to Hannity, there can be no questioning that FOX presents information from a perspective leaning to the right. Therefore, it is important to understand that when listening.

Accepting information can be tricky so choose wisely.

Social media frustrates as well as enlightens

During the last decade or so, there can be no debating the impact of social media. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have given us the ability to reach out to each other in ways that were not even imagined a generation ago.

While I am sure there can be a debate as to whether this is totally a good thing, it does provide us the opportunity. If I want to tell people that I had a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch, then theoretically I can let hundreds of my friends know that within seconds of it happening.

Though Facebook and Twitter are the hottest forms of social media right now, it manifests itself in many ways. These ways can include just about any forum that allows people to share information.  Any web site with a message board can host comments from people around the globe, and it allows people to cross paths that might not otherwise meet.

Personally, I do not use Twitter. I am sure it has merit, but it lacks appeal. Since I have a tendency to latch on to fads just as they are winding down, I may use it at some point after everybody has already moved on to the next big thing.

I do use Facebook. For the most part, it is an effective way to communicate to the people in my orbit. It has also provided me the opportunity to reconnect with people I had not spoken to in years. What could be wrong with that?

However, like most communication tools, Facebook has become a reservoir for misinformation and outright ignorance in some cases.

Do not get me wrong: I am grateful for the first amendment, and Facebook certainly is a great tool for free speech. The problem is that information that is presented on Facebook by many as fact often is way off base when it comes to accuracy.

In some respects, Facebook can be one big gossip chain where one person presents some incorrect information. Then, another person takes that incorrect information and passes it on to somebody else. And then the process repeats itself thousands of times until a whole lot of people get a whole lot of bad information.

This can happen on any topic. Politics can be the worst offender. I repeatedly see people present the positions of our elected officials incorrectly or taken out of context. This applies to people of both political parties. I know people mean well, but I wish we would be a little more careful about how we present the words of other people. It really is not too difficult to spend some time researching to see if what we are presenting is actually true or not.

Religion is another area. If I had a hundred dollars for every time I have seen people misrepresent what is in the Bible, I would be walking around with pockets stuffed with Benjamins. I do not claim to be a biblical scholar, but even a person of average intelligence like me can tell when somebody is completely off base. The internet is a notoriously difficult place to discuss religion (and politics, for that matter), and Facebook is another forum that demonstrates this.

I want to be clear that Facebook can be an effective forum for things like politics and religion. When Facebook is used responsibly, it can have a tremendous impact on people’s lives in a positive way.

Because of this, it is important to use the resource as responsibly as possible. The internet is the wild, wild west in many bad ways.

Let's not live down to the negative aspects of the internet. Let’s not abuse our freedom.

Our current menace

During the summer, I enjoy driving around and enjoying the beautiful countryside. We have several places around here that are particularly scenic. Because of this, people who enjoy nature should consider themselves blessed to be living in this area.

It is more difficult to do this in cities. After all, there is not a lot that can be done to dress up a large metropolitan blob. However, in smaller communities, it is possible to have development while maintaining natural beauty.

Still, achieving this balance can be particularly challenging right now. This is because a local election is right around the corner, and the signs candidates put up to ask for our vote should be considered a form of urban blight.

I understand why they do this. Any means necessary must be used to get their names in front of prospective voters, and this is a way commonly used in this part of the country. Since the signs are often clustered together in high traffic areas, it is difficult for any of them to stick out and gain our attention. There was one that achieved some notoriety in Manchester recently, but that attention had more to do with what it said about a candidate instead of seeking a vote.

Still, candidates use this method. Until the prevailing conventional wisdom about their effectiveness changes, I am sure they will continue to use them as a way to reach us.

However, there are other ways they could communicate with us, but for some reason, many choose not to do so. Social media and other Internet venues are ripe with possibilities when it comes to getting local candidates in front of voters, but it seems many are unable or unwilling to embrace this approach. Candidates on the national and state level do this, but locally, not so much.

This is too bad because the opportunity is there. There are a few local officials that have web sites or Facebook profiles, and the ones I have seen allow those people to get their positions across to citizens in a way that is unfiltered by the local media.

There are pros and cons to this. Our local media is a watchdog that should be challenging all representatives on their positions and actions. If information is unfiltered, voters have to be careful that they are not falling for a bunch of propaganda.  After all, during an election year, some candidates will tell us what we want to hear so they can get our vote.

Despite this danger, the potential is there for effective dialogue between candidates and the public. More and more, voters feel alienated from the process. They feel their voices are not being heard which adds to the cynicism many feel.

Candidates who are willing to reach out to voters through these methods have a real opportunity to separate themselves from the pack. Frankly, candidates who do not use on-line resources are being lazy and are not showing they can adapt to the changing times. Is this a quality we want to see from a candidate? I will let voters answer that question themselves, but the answer is obvious.

By suggesting these alternative forms of communication, I am not suggesting that traditional methods of campaigning be abandoned. Despite their ugliness, the roadside signs do have their place.

But we live in a new age and candidates must show an ability to think outside the box. If they cannot embrace new ways to campaign for our vote, what does this say about their ability to try fresh approaches when dealing with our local problems?

Again, the answer is obvious. Hopefully, more will soon use these outlets.

Contraceptiongate hijacking important political debate

Our nation has a thousand political and economic problems, but the most passionate debate in Washington right now centers around birth control. Nice job, everybody. Rome is burning, but our primary focus is on this? Special kudos to professional gas bag Rush Limbaugh for throwing way too much gas on this fire. I don't like his style.

Unity through humility

For those of us who believe unity is lacking in our country, the obvious goal is to search for guidance that will lead us closer together.

There are many paths we can travel when it comes to this, but the most important teaching on this is in the Bible. Chapter two of the book of Philippians reminds us that humility is an important ingredient when it comes to people succeeding together.

Unfortunately for our country, humility is about the last idea on people’s minds these days. For many, humility is about as appealing as eating an onion sandwich. We live in a culture where we are encouraged to look out for only ourselves, and if that is at the expense of others, then too bad for them.

This looking-out-for-number-one approach is a major reason why our society is fragmenting. If our focus is squarely on ourselves without considering others, selfishness runs rampant and a cold chill runs down the collective spine of our community.

Don’t get me wrong; there are appropriate times when we need to put our individual needs first. However, if this becomes the single focus of our lives, we have lost sight on what is truly important in life.

So, what do we do? Philippians chapter two offers advice. The Apostle Paul writes beginning in verse two: “Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”

First, it should be noted that Paul was speaking about the steps people should take to maintain harmony within the church. However, I believe this passage has a universal application that extends far outside a church congregation.

Working toward the common good of our nation is something we should all be striving to do, but how “common good” is defined varies from person to person. Paul understood that people were always going to disagree, but their approach to disagreeing was key when maintaining unity.

If a person’s approach to disagreement is shaped by a “me first” attitude then the chances for unity are sharply diminished.

However, if people are disagreeing in the spirit of love and cooperation, then unity has a much better opportunity to survive. It does not mean disagreements will go away, but the managing of differences of opinions will be much less destructive.

It cannot be denied that we live in a country where the self-centered interests of a few can disrupt a lot of people. We see this often in politics on just about every level of government. If only a few wield power without consideration for the welfare of everybody, then many get left out in the cold. In our nation’s case, those being left out in the cold are likely the generations that will follow us.

After all, our federal government is currently $15 trillion in debt. Our generation seems to have adopted a “me first” mentality that is sacrificing the long-term prospects for our children and their children.

Even governments have to pay debts at some point. Right now, it appears most are only interested in doing what helps them and not what will happen later.

For all the rhetoric we hear, neither major political party seems committed to unity – only their version of what America should be. In the coming months, it will be interesting if they strive to unite us or divide us.

My guess is they will choose division. Unity and humility do not have a place in politics much these days.

Polls, polls, polls

We are slightly more than one year away from the next presidential election, and people seeking that office will be using every tool available to measure how they are doing.

Polls are a common tool used by candidates and other outside organizations to measure their success. Since President Barak Obama is not facing opposition for the Democratic nomination, much of the polling focus is on the Republican candidates right now.

In the last few months, we have seen wild swings when measuring the field of candidates. Since the beginning, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been a GOP frontrunner while others have surged and fallen.

During the summer, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann found some success then faded when Texas Gov. Rick Perry entered the race. Perry has floundered recently in the polls, and Herman Cain has taken his place as the primary challenger to Romney.

Will Cain have this same success next month? Who knows? The presidential race is a marathon. This means it is too early to discount anybody who is running.

However, we have to be very careful regarding how much influence we allow polls to have over us. As a society, we like receiving updates in short and definite terms. Therefore, polls are attractive to us because they give us an update that shows who is winning and who is not.

Despite this, polls can be misleading. The methodology an organization uses while compiling data is critical, but we hear little discussion about how a poll is tabulated. All we hear are the final results.

Because of this, it is necessary that we take a close look at who takes a poll. News organizations often sponsor these polls, and as we know, some news organizations have bias when it comes to politics.

Therefore, if we read a poll sponsored by MSNBC that is hurtful to a Republican candidate, we need to remember MSNBC's politics lean to the left. Does this necessarily mean the poll cannot be trusted? No, but it is one of the many factors we must consider when digesting information.

The same applies to an outfit like Fox News. Fox leans to the right, and that must be acknowledged when analyzing data about the president or other Democratic leaders.

Many of the polls we are currently seeing are national polls that measure a candidate's popularity. While these polls may have some merit in providing us the pulse of the race, they fall way short when providing information about a candidate's electability.

These general polls are not useful because this is not how we elect the president. We elect a chief executive through the Electoral College. If we genuinely want to use polls to determine who is a frontrunner in the race, we have to use a more specific approach.

The easiest way would be to take polls in all states. Pollsters could give respondents in each state a choice between the president and a specific Republican challenger to measure the strength of both sides. Based on those results, assign the number of electoral votes each state has to the candidate who led in the poll.

Adding up those results will give us a much better idea who is a player in the race.

Most of the polls we see now are not doing this. People who perform these polls appear content to only provide a snapshot of what the field is like today.

This is not necessarily bad. Snapshots have their place, but we have to remember that they do not tell the complete story.

The unfortunate fact is that many are using these snapshots to determine who the most qualified candidate in the race is. And that is a little scary.

Obama's vacation just bad timing

To be successful, good preparation is often the most important ingredient in any effort we attempt. After all, if we do not put enough work into considering all the angles, then our plans can go dreadfully wrong.

Of course, preparation is not the only aspect to consider. Sometimes we can prepare as much as possible, but if our timing is wrong then we can alienate a whole lot of people.

Bad timing is especially tricky when it comes to our elected officials. When times our good, our politicians often try to exploit the situation by making speeches or making proposals that make them look good. In these situations, they are trying to build momentum for themselves regarding how the public views them.

However, when times our bad, the slightest action or statement can aggravate the public. President Obama recently found this out the hard way when he went on vacation with his family to Martha's Vineyard up in New England.

There is no doubt that our nation's economy is stumbling and bumbling, and many people are suffering. The national unemployment rate remains about nine percent, and the stock market has been erratic.

Because of this, the president has taken a lot of heat for going on vacation while our nation is going through hard times. The media has not done the president any favors with its coverage of his pleasure trip, and this situation has been easily exploited by his opponents.

Despite the problems our nation is facing, there is nothing wrong with the president going on vacation. His only problem has been that his timing is bad.

We all go on vacations, and since the president has the most stressful job in the world, I do not think it is outrageous for him to spend some time away from Washington. His time off is a working vacation. It is not as if he stopped being president while relaxing.

True, the economy stinks right now, but we are kidding ourselves if we believe our problems would be solved if the president stayed in Washington. Times are tough and will continue to be so. Our problems were not caused overnight, and there are no quick solutions.

Since Congress is not in session, I do not see many benefits that can come by him staying in Washington. I think it would be a waste of time. It is ironic that more of our Congressmen are not under the same scrutiny because a lot of them are on vacation right now, too.

On this issue, the solitary nature of the office of the president is hurting Obama. With the presidency, we can always direct our complaints at a specific person when we are frustrated, and an issue like this makes a president especially vulnerable. People rarely complain when their senators go on vacation because a lot of people do not even know who their senators are.

But everyone knows who the president is. And the president will always be a lightning rod even on issues as trivial as going on vacation.

The bottom line is this is nothing new. For those old enough to remember, President Ronald Reagan was criticized a lot when he spent time at his ranch in California when the economy struggled during his first term. The same went for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

This issue is insignificant compared to all the other challenges we face. We need to drop it and get focused on the big changes our nation is facing.

The more we let issues like this distract us, the longer it will take to get our nation back to normal.

Reconsidering term limits for Congress

Our federal government is a mess, and most people have a dim view of the way our political leaders are performing in Washington.

The frustration people are feeling transcends party politics. Most people hold both Republicans and Democrats in very low regard. The challenges of our country are daunting, and the folks in Washington are clearly clueless on what to do.

Polls show President Obama's approval rating is well below 50 percent, and the feelings are the same for Congress.

So, where do we go from here? Obviously, there is no simple solution for what is going on, and our problems will not be solved overnight. Still, there is one action we can take that will start us in the right direction.

It is time for us to reconsider having term limits for members of Congress both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. After all, the president is limited to only two four-year terms, which means no chief executive can serve more than eight years. Why should not Congress have similar restrictions?

Members of the House are elected to two-year terms while each term in the Senate is six years, but there is no limit regarding how many times people can be re-elected. Is this unlimited ability to be re-elected causing some of the problems we are seeing? I believe so.

No matter how well intentioned some of our leaders are when they are elected, it seems their emphasis changes once they reach Washington. Instead of primarily focusing on the people that elected them, they appear more pre-occupied with becoming a good delegate for the party they belong to.

It is as if they fear upsetting their colleagues in Washington more than they do the public. And that is flat-out wrong.

It might also explain the hardening of the arteries that we are seeing in Congress. The more a person is re-elected, the more power he or she attains. If there is anything we know about power, it is that people will do just about anything to keep it once they have it.

Seniority is often a driving force when it comes to the power an elected official has, but that is not always a good idea. We see that a lot in the workplace. While it is important to have co-workers who have a lot of experience, we also know performance should remain the primary factor when considering who has power and who does not.

Call me crazy, but the same way of thinking should apply in Washington. While this seems like a simple concept, we know that it is not the way it works there. The 'power of incumbency' plays a major role when a leader is up for re-election, and the public knows how the system works up there. Therefore, incumbents have a leg up when trying to remain in office.

With term limits, all of this would be swept out the door. Instead of worrying about getting re-elected and maintaining power, our leaders might be more focused on legislating our country's problems because they know they will eventually have to leave anyway.

The topic of term limits used to come up a lot back in the 1990s. When the Republican Revolution occurred in 1994, one of the planks in their 'Contract with America' was to pass term limits. The 'Contract' had 10 items in it, and nine of them were voted on and passed.

Which one did not? Of course, it was the one regarding term limits.

In the past, I opposed term limits, but now, I believe it is the only way we can clean out Washington. The public will not do it, so we should legislate it.

Terroristic rhetoric

During the heat of political debate, it is important not to take some of the rhetoric we hear too seriously. This does not just apply to our politicians, but to media members and other groups involved in the democratic process.

After all, when the sparks are flying, we have all heard examples where people let the words they are speaking get ahead of their brains. This happens on all levels, including here on the local level.

However, we heard some of the dumbest rhetoric I can recall in the aftermath of the debt crisis that occurred earlier this month. Some compared Republican tactics used during this controversy to terrorism.

That's right: terrorism. As we stand on the threshold of the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that killed almost 3,000 people some actually compared political maneuvering to a horrible event like that.

I would have let this slide if it had been an isolated incident, but pundits on networks like MSNBC and other venues used the analogy many times. Also, it is alleged that Vice President Joe Biden used the term when meeting with Democratic members of Congress.

As a citizen who is fed up with the tactics of both the Democrats and Republicans, the abuse of the term 'terrorism' represents a new low. What is next? Comparisons to the holocaust? To Charles Manson? If mass murder is an appropriate comparison to political controversy, then the word 'terrorism' has been greatly cheapened.

It was not too long ago that President Barack Obama and other leaders called on everybody to cool the inflammatory talk. In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, some alleged that the shooter could have been spurred on by the hostile rhetoric used by some elements of talk radio.

Of course, this was baloney. Her shooter allegedly suffers from mental problems, and the attack had nothing to do with talk radio. Still, the way words are used was a very hot topic for a few days.

The bottom line is I am kidding myself if I believe our leaders will stop using inflammatory words when it suits their agenda. The manipulation of words is a primary weapon when competing for the attention of the public.

We all manipulate words without even realizing it. When I was a boy, I can remember not wanting to eat spaghetti because I hated it. I did not really 'hate' spaghetti. It just was not a food I liked very much.

'Love' and 'hate' remain the most misused words in our language. If we genuinely loved everything we say we do, then our hearts would be overflowing so much that it would be impossible to say anything bad about anybody.

However, there is a fine line between what is acceptable and what is not. The use of the word 'terrorism' in the recent political debate crossed that line. I know the line can be a subjective one. When the stakes are high, it becomes a lot easier to push the envelope when it comes to the words we use.

As a culture, we have to do a better job at determining when enough is enough. This applies to how words are used, but also to lots of other areas of life.

Frankly, we do not do a good job at defining boundaries in our society. Just about anything goes these days. Not only does this apply to words, but also to what serves as entertainment and other aspects of life.

Because of this lack of discipline, it should not surprise us that we hear the types of words we do. It is just another example of things spinning out of control.

Season of political discontent

For people who enjoy juicy political sex scandals, the last couple of months have been a golden era.

First, it was California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the child he fathered out of wedlock. Then it was New York Rep. Anthony Weiner who was caught sending inappropriate messages to women other than his wife.

The public already has plenty of ammunition for being cynical toward our politicians. Toss a couple of scandals like these on to the fire and the discontent becomes a raging inferno.

There are many lessons that can be learned from the Weiner situation, but perhaps the primary lesson is that many politicians simply do not know how to manage a scandal once the public becomes aware of it.

For all the public's cynicism, we tend to be pretty forgiving if a person will just admit his mistake and learn from it. However, Weiner did not do that. First, he denied that he had done anything wrong. Then, he said that somebody had hacked into his Twitter account to smear him.

Obviously, he was trying to buy time, hoping the story would go away. It did not, and he finally had to admit his mistakes. If he had just been honest when the story first broke, he might have been able to limit the political damage. Instead, he chose another approach and paid dearly.

The revelations about the end of Arnold Schwarzenegger's marriage also recently caught the public's attention.

Before becoming California's governor, Schwarzenegger had an affair with his housekeeper that resulted in a child being born. The child was born 10 years ago, but he was publicly revealed only a few weeks ago.

Now, everybody involved must endure the prying eyes of the public. It is hard to imagine a more difficult situation than having to deal with such a private matter on the public stage.

Additionally, the children (including the ones from his marriage) are old enough to understand what is going on. I am sure Schwarzenegger was not thinking of this 10 years ago, but he has to deal with this reality now.

While Schwarzenegger was wrong in what he did, we must all be careful before wagging our fingers at him too strongly. Though none of us like to admit it, all of us are capable of making decisions like his if we lose our focus. History is littered with people who made the same decisions as Schwarzenegger.

Historical figures in the Bible such as King David and Solomon both committed adultery. David was described as a man after God's own heart, but he strayed. If he can do that, what does this say about the rest of us?

The bottom line is we all need to remain humble about what we have observed in both the Weiner and Schwarzenegger situations. If we find ourselves thinking we would never do something like that then we are in big trouble. The moment we find ourselves believing we are incapable of failure then we become that much more susceptible to it.

Pride makes us behave in a funny way. It makes us get too big for our britches, and before we know it, we are standing in the wreckage of situations we never thought would occur.

I do not know if it happened this way to Weiner and Schwarzenegger. However, power and fame are great seducers. People tell us how great we are and then we start to believe it.

When we reach that point, we find ourselves with one foot dangling over a cliff and the other on a banana peel. We all need to be careful. If we do not, big problems await us.

Improved political civility begins at the grassroots level

Even casual observers understand that the political rhetoric in our country is often heated and full of cheap shots.

In the aftermath of the shootings in Arizona that injured a congresswoman, there have been calls to tone down the noise. Why was this done?

In the hours after the shooting, some thought that the howling that passes for debate these days may have played a role in the crime. Since then, these thoughts have been debunked somewhat when it became apparent that the alleged assassin has mental issues.

Because of this, I think the idea that political rhetoric played any role in this incident is wrong.

However, this should not cause us to pull back from the issue of the nasty political debates we hear. To his credit, President Obama has made impressive statements for both Democrats and Republicans to tone it down.

Has that happened? The results have been mixed so far. At the State of the Union speech last week, some members of both parties sat together as a show of unity.

On the negative side, Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee evoked the Holocaust when describing Republican tactics during the recent Obamacare debates. Cohen, who is Jewish, showed insensitivity toward one of the worst crimes in human history just to make a political point. Disturbing.

A question we must ask ourselves is: Where does all this inflammatory debate come from? There has to be a source for all of this, right?

While it is easy to pile on and blame only our leaders for this, all Americans need to look in the mirror when assessing guilt. After all, is not our government a reflection of the people who put them in office?

We get the government we deserve. Whether we like it or not, we must admit that our society lacks civility a lot of the time.

Take it from somebody who worked in the customer service industry for several years, people can be ruthless and rude over minor issues. While I agree that customers have to stand up for themselves against big companies, there is a segment of our country that has a lust for confrontation.

While in that industry, I was called just about every name in the book and was consistently threatened. Does that sound that much different from what we hear in Washington?

Many people do not think twice about getting in the face of others. This frequently happens while driving.

Recently, I had another driver get mad at me for merging too slowly onto the interstate. It was during the middle of the afternoon rush hour in Nashville, and the guy behind me was practically having a seizure because he could not get on the road five seconds sooner.

Sorry fellow drivers, but hitting the interstate going 70 miles per hour during rush hour is not realistic. Grow up and develop some patience.

The lack of civility bleeds over to our entertainment as well. A lot of so-called 'reality' television depends on confrontation. Humiliation and embarrassment are key ingredients in this type of entertainment.

The bottom line is that we need to clean up our act if we really want improvement in how our politicians interact with each other.

Maybe I am a naïve dolt, but I believe the Golden Rule still has a place in our society. It is not always easy to treat others like we want to be treated. However, we must sometimes do things because they are difficult.

By definition, life is not always easy, but we are guilty of taking the easy way out too often when it comes to dealing with others.

Reader, it is up to you how you will handle this. But remember: your children are watching.