The Choice Is Now

First of all, let me say upfront that I know this place totally needs a makeover. I’ll be lucky if I get to it this year. In fact, I’m lucky that I can even write right now, given that my daughter has decided to go from Perfect Baby to Fussy Baby in less than 24 hours. Full sentences I may make, but sense I will not. (And the only reason you’re even reading this is that my husband has removed Fussy Baby from my presence to allow me to write. How sweet.)

Anyway, I’ve noticed lately that when it comes to conversing with others, expressing a logical conclusion is often seen as arrogant. Directly, plainly, and assertively making a claim, generally a judgment about the world, is projected upon by others. Rather than going ahead and arguing the point, some individuals tend to take the claim personally and argue the arguer rather than the argument. I’ve been called everything from arrogant to self-righteous to closed-minded. It’s very annoying, particularly because it’s not true.

Amazing, isn’t it? The content sits there in the open, and people would rather, for whatever reason, attack the perceived delivery. It’s a waste of time, especially because what they’re saying about the delivery isn’t true. Confidence is often mistaken for arrogance by those who don’t have confidence.

It’s very frustrating when one enters into a debate about a certain topic, only to be bombarded by something like this. And for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why. I still can’t really figure out why, when logic and evidence lead us to one conclusion, people disregard it in favor for something else, generally some warm fuzzy notion as opposed to anything of substance. And yes, I’m speaking specifically about religion, but believe me, this can apply to much more than that.

It is one’s level of confidence and integrity that allow one to honestly recognize and analyze reality.

Most people, I’ve found, are totally content in a subconscious form of living. They have no interest in recognizing or analyzing reality. Rather than rise to the level of the rational thinker, of the philosopher, poet, or other manifestations of the great minds, they in turn prefer automatic living: get up, sit down, stand up, eat, shit, sleep, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, ad infinitum, ad whatever. These are the people who prefer to ignore the evidence, to ignore the conclusions, and instead focus on what maintains their comfort level. This is something I tend to see as subhuman functioning: avoiding reality.

Oh sure, they can blah blah blah various ethical principles all day, what they think about the world and reality, and how people ought to interact with and behave in it, but their behavior too often contradicts their professed theory (assuming their theory is more than repetitive, shallow platitudes and supernatural nonsense).

A few things separate us from other animals: namely rational thought and self-awareness. We have the ability to recognize reality, form objectives, and take steps to achieving said objectives. When we are capable of such greatness, yet sacrifice that for mediocrity, we are refusing to utilize our most precious resource—our mind—in favor of transient comfort.

From the desk you sit at to the computer you use to the light you control, these have all come from minds; they are products of minds. The mind is a thinking and producing entity; stagnation is its enemy.

We all have minds, but we don’t always use them. It is quite possible to make choices in daily living without really thinking about them, much like a dog will prefer one food over another if you set two bowls of two different foods in front of him. A choice has been made, perhaps even a choice made by a conscious being. But is it a self-aware choice? No.

Conscious living involves self-awareness, which leads to personal responsibility, accountability, and self-esteem. Our productivity and ultimately our success depend on our ability to generate, maintain, and implement confidence in all we do, and that can only come from a conscious, self-aware being. No, we can’t control external factors, but we must control our decisions, take ownership of them, and not be afraid to change our minds as new evidence comes along. This is essential. We have to be willing to change the belief, and thus the behavior, as our knowledge of reality changes. To refuse to do so exhibits one’s lack of integrity.

For as much as I know, and I know very little, I do know this: rational thought is a choice, and it is not easy.

So, when thinking about these aforementioned conversations, the essential element of integrity comes to mind. To me, I see integrity as congruency in principle and practice. What you profess, you manifest in your behavior. Since belief causes behavior (in most cases), it stands to reason that if I want to know your values and your ethical principles, I will look to your behavior. You can, again, blah blah blah all day, but if your behavior contradicts that blah blah blah, I can assume your behavior reflects your real and true beliefs, so you’re either intentionally lying, or you’re just really deluded. (Of course, in order to have integrity, one must first have self-esteem, and to have self-esteem, a person must first have a sense of self. I’d argue too many people don’t even have a sense of self.)

Conversely, your personal worth, value, and esteem are not measured by your external accomplishments. While your accomplishments reflect who you are, your worth, value, and esteem are judged on your ability to achieve. You are not what others say you are unless you want to be. So whether you choose to achieve and use your mind is up to you. It is only by analyzing and knowing your principles that can you then practice them, and it is only through integrity that they can align. This alignment will then reinforce your sense of self, and thus your self-esteem. And so the cycle continues.

I’ve been blogging over at Rational Moms. What a fine group of ladies we have over there! Everyone should check them out.

And no, I promise I’m not turning into some woman whose biggest dilemma is figuring out the difference between periwinkle and baby blue, and I won’t be changing all my screennames to Mommy2LuLu2009, but I admit it’s quite a challenge to go from making goo-goo faces to blogging (and utilizing some semblance of intelligence in the process).

As for me, I’m loving motherhood more than I ever thought possible, but motherhood is hard work and time-consuming (duh). But it’s amazing because this is the result:

Nothing could ever melt your heart more than seeing your own eyes looking at you.

As soon as I master motherhood and blogging simultaneously (as I’ve seen so many women on Rational Moms have), I promise to update more. (And it doesn’t help that I’m in love with Amalah. I don’t know where I’d be if I hadn’t come across her blog one night while crazily trying to find someone who wrote about pregnancy and promised that everything would be ok and no those hormones are not really you and yes a time will come when you won’t be pregnant and sorry those stretch marks are probably permanent but consider them battle scars because you awesomely brought life into the world.)

I have never had the opportunity to read “good” fiction, or maybe I have and I’ve forgotten it. I’m not even sure what that judgment call really means, what good fiction is, and I know it’s fairly subjective and probably comes across as condescending. After all, how can I judge what “good” fiction is if I have yet to really like fiction I’ve read?

I, for one, do not write fiction, and I don’t read it. You will find me any night of the week curled up in bed either reading a philosophical text (most likely by someone who died decades, even centuries, ago) while highlighting portions and tagging others or reading research and analyzing studies. I don’t “do” fiction.

And it’s a pity, I think, because Thom and I watched Stranger Than Fiction, which was an excellent movie that had both fiction and fictional narration built into the story. I cannot explain even a minute detail about it because the story was so interwoven that any detail would most likely ruin it for you if you have not seen it and intend to (and I recommend you do). The aesthetics were appealing, and it was overall cinematographically intriguing.

I used to ask myself, “What is the point of fiction?” I used to constantly try to figure it out. Why do people read fiction or even watch movies? And then I realized: The whole ontology of film has the same objective and meaning as literature, except that film encompasses an element of time and space that differs from text. Textual literature allows for the reader to change the time, place, and characters every time the text is read simply because the reader brings his/her experience to text. While that sometimes happens with film, film is still visual, which does take some of this reader-driven experience away.

But, in any case, after thinking about this for awhile, I’ve come to realize that the purpose of each is to act as a catalyst for empathy.

Fiction can be a purveyor of entertainment and education, oh sure, I don’t dispute that, but its purpose is neither. Its purpose is to allow the readers or viewers to empathize with characters, characters we can relate to (or especially characters we can’t relate to) and in turn empathize with other humans, other people in their genetic family, a way to understand and know one another without actually being intimate. By delving into a character’s life, knowing the intimate details of his/her life through such empathy, and, at times, actually experiencing what the character is experiencing (how many of us watch a drowning scene in a movie or read on as a character is suffocating and don’t involuntarily hold our breath?) allows us to apply a variety of experiences we’ve had vicariously through fiction to our own life experiences.

So why can’t I find any good fiction to read? Any suggestions?

At the base level of this entire economic crisis, recession, or whatever else people call the escalating national deficit, loss of income, hurting families, and overall lacking happiness, it is the ethical system people have structured their lives around that has caused such a tumultuous period for the American people and, now, the global economy.

Someone once said something to me to the effect that attempting to discover and analyze ethics and logic in politics is useless. Is it? I don’t think so. I think it’s the entire base of politics itself—especially if one wants political theory to work in his/her best interests (and who doesn’t or wouldn’t?).

Politics is an area that is based on three other philosophical disciplines: epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Politics cannot exist without all three, ethics being particularly important here, as it drives the other two disciplines. And guess what else drives all three? Yes. Logic. All three are based on each respective individual’s theory of human nature and of humanity’s relationship to existence, to consciousness, and this is based on logic—or lack thereof. This is the only way one can create a consistent political theory and physically manifest it in reality. In other words, one’s ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics determine how he/she thinks and acts politically. It stands to reason, then, that the more thought and analysis one gives to these three disciplines, the more ethically one will (or should) act politically.

When, however, persons refuse to analyze, refuse to critically think, refuse to accept the fact that without these three politics will deconstruct—implode, even—the result is what we’re seeing today: a shameful conglomeration of incapacity, ineffectiveness, inconsistency, superficiality, and avoidance of responsibility. (Yes, this is when the government plays mommy and takes over.) The political ideology that is without a well-thought-out philosophical base is doomed to fail.

Each person has a choice at every moment of his/her life to think or not think. Each person has to decide during every moment of every day whether to be conscious or remain unconscious. Rational thinking is a learned behavior, and it is choice-driven. One’s poor choices (or luck, even) do not constitute a moral obligation on another’s part.

We have the Jones mentality, in that most people in America—and this transcends everything from sex to race to class—want to be better than the next person, but no one seems to want to do anything based on their own merit to improve their lives. They simply want to buy shit, and lots of it. They want to buy $50,000 cars they can’t afford, they want to buy the $250,000 house with an adjustable rate mortgage, and they want to rack up an inordinate amount of credit cards bills in the process that they don’t want to pay back. They don’t want to save money, they don’t want an education, they don’t want to set up retirement accounts or even saving accounts. They don’t want to crunch numbers, and they don’t want to be held accountable for such idiocy. They simply want it—What is it? I don’t know—and they want it now. And if they can’t afford it, they’ll put it on credit. They’ll do anything just to watch Mr. and Mrs. Jones give them the curt “one-up-one-down” nod of approval and glint of jealousy before they begin their own shopping frenzy into consumer madness.

This is not a match of wits, brains, intellect, or accomplishment; it’s a battle of stupidity.

In the movie The Ten—in the same style as Upright Citizens Brigade, Kids in the Hall, The State, and other skit comedy shows I miss so much—each of the Ten Commandments is outlined in skits. The commandment on coveting centers on 2 neighbors who, instead of keeping up with one another regarding lawn mowers, TVs, SUVs, or tools, prefer CAT scan machines.

Basically, one neighbor covets his neighbor’s CAT Scan machine. After buying one CAT Scan machine after another until the houses and lawns are filled with them, both of their wives (and their children) leave them. They continue to pile these things up and up and up. After coming to terms with their own idiocy, the two neighbors reconcile and go out to the bar for a drink. Meanwhile, a disaster at a nuclear power plant leaves a busload of school children in need of several CAT Scan machines. They arrive at the neighbors’ houses, but the doors are locked, and the two men are at the bar, so all the children die.

The underlying truth inherent in this skit is so prevalent, it saturates the entire skit, thus making it worthy of my tears.

Whether we go to the store to buy a new dress to get some jealous looks from peers, or whether we go to the car lot and buy a car we can’t afford, it’s all based on the same principles and intentions: coveting, jealousy, and avarice. We are seeking public favor, approval, appreciation—just attention—from people we otherwise couldn’t care less about.

And you know who benefits? It’s not you or Mr. or Mrs. Jones. It’s not your kids or your boss or your mom and dad. No. It’s companies who manufacture this bullshit you buy in bulk, that you buy on credit. The shit you buy to impress other people is, for the most part, useless shit. Yet targeted advertising has never been more prominent or profitable. This type of advertising (such as teeth whitener, make-up, CDs, and clothing) boosts sales, creates hyper-consumerist frenzy, and constructs the idea that if the result of something is not immediate, it is worthless.

And it’s sad that, I think, it took this economic crisis for people to realize this. This past holiday season will usher in horrific sales numbers, and they’re only expected to get worse. Most companies are by far in the red, and a few are considering filing for bankruptcy. Most people are tightening their belts and saving money. Most of these people, though, are probably in danger of losing their homes, cars, or other useless possessions they bought on credit, too. And this, of course, leads to serious tension between human beings, which leads to conflict, and when we’re focused on conflict, we’re not focused on one another.

And this has, in a big way, led to the economic crisis we’re experiencing. We are living our values, and we are now experiencing the consequences of holding such values. The only way to change this economy is to change our values, our ethical principles. We have to eradicate the avarice. We have to want to quit spending money we don’t have, to think we’re entitled to a posh lifestyle when we’re not earning the money to support it. We have to stop seeing people as nothing more than stepping stones to a lifestyle we have not earned, nor one we should really want.

Changing our values will change the way we interact with people, which will, in turn, change the economy and all other areas of life in a way that helps us meet the objective of achieving personal happiness, and personal happiness starts with personal responsibility.

I ended up having a c-section, so I’ve been resting all week, but Lucidia arrived on December 18th at 8:59 pm. She was 8 pounds, 6.6 ounces and 19.75″ long. Tons of photos and stories are available on her website, but here are a few of my favorite pics:

as soon as she was born (one minute old!)

the best giftmas present ever (one week old!)

dad and baby

last night, hiccuping

More to come, I’m sure. Thanks to everyone for being patient with me and my lack of posting. Motherhood is demanding, but well worth it. I’ll be posting more regularly soon, as soon as I figure this whole motherhood thing out.

Yes, yes it is truer than the truthiest truth.

I am still pregnant. I am ready to pop, but here I sit with an enormous belly, swollen everythings, and a brain I am sure has diminished in size in the last 9 months, which is why you have not heard much from me in the past few months.

I have everything I need to welcome my daughter into the world. The house is ready, we’re ready (as if that’s possible, but it sure feels that way), and she even has her own website! But while I’m screaming in my head “Get out get out get out,” she’s happily smiling and rolling around in there, perfectly content to make me crave french fries and ranch dressing at all hours, and making everyone wait for her.

She is truly her mother’s daughter.

As for my blog silence, it’s not that there isn’t commentary in my head I’d love to get out on this site—there is!—but it’s been impossible for me to find an extended period of time to organize the thoughts into coherent sentences, which basically means I’ve given up all hope at blogging for the time being.

Perhaps after she’s born and I can confidently say I have my body back, then I can write something of merit. Until then, know I’m out there and still reading.

I don’t agree with Obama on everything; in fact, I disagree with major portions of his political promises. I didn’t vote for him, however, based on my level of agreement with him. I didn’t vote for him because he’s a Democrat, he’s a senator, or even because I think he’s good-looking.

I voted for him because he is the first person I could vote for who has run for the presidential office who is a science- and evidence-based thinker. He is a person who will put ego aside and demand a rational debate among people who have valid, diverse opinions about a variety of topics. From the beginning of his campaign to his cabinet choices, he has displayed his competence to me time and time again. He is willing to crunch numbers, to analyze, and to look at problems as objectively as possible. (I won’t agree with all of his conclusions, but I definitely agree with his methodology.)

But now that I’m 36 weeks pregnant and the television has become my very best friend, I am more exposed to talking heads than ever, and they all keep chanting the same sentence: “This has been an historic election.” Aren’t all elections historic? What makes this one so different?

To me, at 27, the primary thing I find “historic” is that the American people actually elected a person who is intelligent enough to run a country with some semblance of integrity and rational thought, the kind of person we haven’t seen in the past, oh, 40-50 years (depending on whom you talk to).

I asked my mom about this.

“What’s so historical about electing Barack Obama President of the United States?”

In a hushed voice, she answered, “Don’t you know he’s black?”

“Yes, Mom. I know he’s black. That doesn’t answer the question.”

Or does it?

While I didn’t live during the civil-rights era or during the Depression, while I wasn’t raised to even see race, while I was raised in a predominantly white neighborhood and attended schools predominately comprised of white students, I’m not ridiculously ignorant regarding preconceived notions of race and ethnicity. I know they exist. And while I know this isn’t exactly the norm, especially for people over, say, 40, I just hate to think that people are using the sentence “It’s historic” as a euphemism for “We elected a black guy!”

Obama doesn’t “happen to be” black—he’s African and white—but to our society, he’s black. I know this. You know this. We all know this. People look at him and think that guy’s black.

But we didn’t elect him because he’s black. We elected him on his own merit. He’s smart, he has integrity, he has amazing oratory skills, and he ran and is still running on a theme of unification and healing (and an impeccable campaign, I might add).

We didn’t elect him because of his race. At least I didn’t, and I don’t know anyone who did. That doesn’t mean they’re not out there. I’m sure a few people voted for him because he’s black, and I’m sure there are people who voted for McCain or a third-party candidate because Obama is black. That doesn’t mean this rationale is ethically and rationally acceptable.

I don’t understand how any rational person can allow race to affect his/her vote. Race is nothing more than the body’s indication for how one’s body absorbs and utilizes Vitamin D. It has nothing to do with one’s character, merit, or behavior. It has nothing to do with what one can accomplish.

I expect people to not vote based on color or sex or gender, etc., because doing that doesn’t make sense. I don’t put any stock in race, and I can’t understand why other people do or why it becomes such an integral part of one’s identity. It’s an attribute that is out of one’s control, so I don’t pay much attention to it. But when I hear the older generations cry “It’s historic!” I hear it as “We elected a black guy!” like that’s some amazing feat. It sounds condescending to me.

Yet people have told me that Obama represents the millions of Americans who have struggled to be seen as equals, those who fought in the civil-rights movement, who were/are descended from slaves, who have been oppressed by a government “run by white men,” etc. I have been told that “white privilege” means I have a choice whether I want to acknowledge race because, in this country, most minorities are aware of their race every single day to the point where it defines them more than it does white people.

To be candid, it was only a few generations ago that black people couldn’t even vote in this country, so the fact that Obama’s race didn’t prevent him from being elected to lead this country is historic on one level. While most people voted for him based on his own merit (not just because “the time had come”), I don’t forget that it was only a couple decades ago that skin color was one of the pivotal factor as to why Jesse Jackson never made it as a presidential candidate. So while racism is not dead yet, it’s dying, and Obama’s election is one benchmark indicating how far we’ve come, yet how far we have to go.

Seems to me that in reality, race is a negligible factor; in society, race is a deciding factor.

I think it’s this lack of rational thought that causes such cognitive dissonance when it comes to social conditioning. I would expect an adult who was raised in a racist family—or even just brought up to think racial attributes affect people—not to be racist because it doesn’t make sense to be racist. There’s simply no rational foundation for such thought. We can’t judge someone based on an attribute he/she can’t control, especially when that attribute is neutral—it doesn’t help or hinder the person’s behavior.

So for me, when speaking with people who were raised in what I call “racist times and racist homes,” I expect them to be rational and get over it. Claiming “That’s how I was raised” or “That’s just how things are” is no excuse or justification for one’s own idiocy.

But the social constructs and preconceived notions regarding race and ethnicity play a major role in the election process for those people who aren’t rationally grounded. And perhaps that is what makes this such a historic election—people got over it.

Perhaps it’s the fact that people were able to overcome their preconceived notions and biases of race and ethnicity, that they were able to sift through some personal and socio-political bullshit and really vote for someone based on merit, not what one looks like, that is cause to mark this historic.

So no, this election is not historic because we elected a black man to be President of the United States. It is historic because we, as a nation, were able to overcome and deconstruct some passed-down-for-generations biases that had somehow become embedded in our nation’s psyche. In an ideal (i.e., rational) world, we wouldn’t categorize people by their anatomical make-up, but we’re just not there yet as a whole. Obama’s election, however, has shown us that the majority of us are finally realizing that we are in control of how we think about our world and how these beliefs impact behavior. That is what makes this an historic election.

Everything seems to be in its right place today. The voter turnout is already astounding, with all news outlets showing lines going out doors and around blocks, with people standing in the cold, int he heat, or somewhere inbetween, waiting to cast their vote for the next president of the United States.

There is no doubt that people are, at least in part, voting today because of their disgust regarding the crumbling economy, blatant government corruption, and last eight years of watching American lives and money decline in quality and perceived value. They have simply had enough.

The fervor surrounding Obama’s campaign–the enthusiasm and inspiration he elicits, the manner in which he has handled crisis after crisis and attack after attack, and all his promises–have brought new and old voters out in droves.Conversely, the campaign McCain has run–abysmal, negative, overall disorganized, and, most importantly, far from conservative–is keeping many conservative voters home, or, if they are voting, it is not with the same passion that Obama supporters have.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama will be the next president.

Out of all the candidates, including third-party ones, I believe Obama has the most intellectual capability and integrity with which to lead this country. No, I don’t buy into his over-the-top promises that will most likely not come intofruition , at least not in the next four years–his proposed tax breaks, health-care plan, or this god-damned bailout for which he voted–because the political climate and landscape simply won’t allow for the kind of change he is promising. What I admire about this man is his character, his integrity, his ability to think rationally, to be above the rest yet still talk to people on a personal and emotional level. I admire his consistent calmness, clear-headedness, and ability to work with people. He is a communicator, a critical thinker, and disciplined–something we have not had in our White House in almost a decade.

McCain, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing going for him. While I respect his service to this country and the fact that he survived being tortured, I do not respect his frail character, his erratic behavior, or his proposed tax plan, health-care plan, or that god-damned bailout. I can only imagine how horribly Obama would lose if he had made half the mistakes McCain has throughout this race tothe White House.

I think Keith Olbermann said it best last night on his show “Countdown” (bold, my emphasis):

What would be happening tonight if Sen. Obama had stumbled, over everything from arcane details, to sweeping policies of the utmost importance, and not just once or twice, but endlessly? What if Sen. Obama couldn’t tell Iran from Iraq? Iraq from Afghanistan? Sunni from Shi’a? Somalia from Sudan? [...] What if it had been Sen. Obama who not only used his POW experience at every turn, but wrote of giving to his captors, not the names of his fellow servicemen, but of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers football team, only to, when he spoke in Western Pennsylvania, change the story so that he gave to his captors, the names of the offensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team? [...] Or if it had been Sen. Obama repeatedly mocking a research study on the DNA of bear until he was suddenly reminded he had voted for it? Or if Sen. Obama had an advisor who claimed that Sen. Obama’s work on a sub-committee had led to the invention of the blackberry? Or if Sen. Obama had tried to get one of the presidential debates postponed or cancelled [...] and threatened to boycott another one, the Town Hall, because he didn’t like the network the moderator worked for, all the while complaining that the other guy wouldn’t debate him or agree to ten Town Halls. What would be happening tonight in the souls of a nation, if after all that, at the first debate, it had been Sen. Obama who would not as much as look at Sen. McCain, and then finally addressed him, at the second one, in a weird and cryptic manner? [...]  We’d all be going home to our beds well before midnight tomorrow night. But while all that is hypothetical, this is not: This cascade of incompetence and irresponsibility I have enumerated tonight, all the sound bites, all the foot-in-mouth moments, all the no-brainers-gone-wrong - all these, John McCain has said. No hyperbole and no hypotheses are required. This is who John McCain has showed us he is.

And so on…

There can be no denying that Obama has faced dismal, harrowing odds, odds that were stacked against him from his very birth, yet he rose to achieve the presidency of this country. I may disagree with him on several things, but one thing I cannot deny is that I admire the man greatly, and I look forward to him being our president.

So here is my soon-to-be-here daughter, Lucidia Rose. I’m sure she looks just like me, but one can never be sure of these things. Last night, we got over 99 pictures and a 20-minute DVD during our 3D-4D ultrasound. The following five are my favorite, with the first one being my uber favorite.

THIS IS MY FAVORITE

THIS IS HER SLEEPING

HERE SHE IS, SMILING AGAIN (with her arm up)

SHE’S SO DAMN CUTE!

AND HERE SHE IS, WITH HER FOOT IN HER EYE (she gets that from her dad)

A SHORT 30-SECOND VIDEO

It doesn’t take much for me to make a decision about an individual’s character and, especially, whether that person can be a genuine leader. While I refuse to judge on baseless assumptions or otherwise hollow and shallow criteria, sometimes a person does or says something that seems to completely symbolize his/her entire character.

Take Governor Palin. Does she really believe dinosaurs walked the earth with humans? Did she really go to a church and receive “protection” from witches? Yes and yes! Then no, she doesn’t deserve any type of leadership position.

I’ve had many people say to me in response, “But so what? These are her religious beliefs. We should respect them.”

Really?

When did bullshit become something capable of being respected? What should be respected here? The fact that Palin has supernatural beliefs, especially those that directly contradict empirical evidence? Or that these beliefs are supernatural and, therefore, immune from criticism and, thus, worthy of respect?

Either way we lose. When we, as individuals and a people, refuse to honestly criticize and analyze political candidates—and I mean everything about the candidates that is brought to public attention—we lose.

But taken further, both rationales don’t make sense. The former demands we respect a specific group of beliefs, not on their own merit, but by mere fact that they exist. The latter demands we respect a specific group of beliefs because they are in a specific category (i.e., faith-based). The obvious question is: Why should anything faith-based be respected?

And what do we mean by “respected”? Should I respect John McCain when he has most likely called his wife a “cunt”? Or has a history of being a temperamental asshole (and that’s putting it mildly)? Should I trust him even though he’s consistently lied (either directly or via omission) throughout his campaign? Should I respect his and Palin’s silence during teachable moments or lacking responses when directly faced with the social stupidity they themselves helped propagate?

Should I respect Palin’s beliefs about dinosaurs? Her lacking answers to serious and direct questions?

Respect, to me, means to regard highly or to hold in high esteem. How can I possibly highly regard such beliefs and actions in high esteem? How can anyone?

I could go on and on, but it’s clear that none of these behaviors deserve respect, and if they don’t deserve respect, why do some voters think these people deserve the White House? It simply doesn’t make sense. There is a disconnect here, a political, moral, and intellectual disconnect.

Sometimes there are certain actions and beliefs that, no matter what happens as a result—whether one apologizes, tries to make reparations, or blatantly denies the behavior occurred or that he/she holds a certain belief—they represent the character of the person to the point where not only does respect go out the window, but so, too, does the opportunity to lead a people.

Both McCain and Palin have shown us they are not equipped to lead, they do not deserve the honor to govern, and they certainly don’t have the character or capability that such positions—President and Vice President, respectively—require.

So all this being said, why the fuck are Obama and Biden only approximately 10 points ahead of McCain and Palin in recent polls? When are people going to wake up?