Some pundits and the national media have attempted to cast the debate over the nation’s debt ceiling as a philosophical difference in how the two political parties view the role of government in the U.S. In short, the prolonged and bitterly partisan debate over raising the debt ceiling was rooted in conservative or liberal principles about the nation’s economic governance. Baloney!
What we have all witnessed over the past weeks was nothing more than the worst kind of childish and petty political partisanship. The loins share of this divisive behavior was on full display among many Republicans in the House of Representatives who refused to budge (at all) on the issue of including tax increases in any agreed upon debt-reduction plan. Their entrenched opposition was not only out of step with most leading economists; it ran counter to the views of a majority of Americans who, to their credit, sensibly acknowledged that both revenue increases and spending cuts were needed to resolve the debt crisis.
No matter what the political composition of our U.S. Congress at any given time, legislating is often difficult and will always require compromise to get things accomplished. Ideological intransigence is the very antithesis of sensible compromise.
The reality is that no matter what one’s ideological views -- conservative or liberal -- leaders must always be cognizant of their responsibility to act in the collective public interest. This means that sometimes strongly held ideological views must yield to the higher purpose of working cooperatively "for the greater good" to solve serious problems. The very definition of compromise means that all parties at the negotiation table won’t get everything they desire, but walk away with something.
It would be rather convenient for politicians to hide their base partisan antics under the guise of philosophical principle. But such transparent distortions of political reality don’t fly, and shame on the media for thinking they would.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Change Your Dating Expectations
Change. Too often women complain that their male counterparts should “change.” Women all over the world consistently express a chronic sense of dissatisfaction from men in key areas such as love, sex and monogamy. Women use a variety of mediums and platforms to share their plight and implore men to do a wealth of things such as: be more romantic; become better lovers; and embrace commitment and monogamy.
I think women should do the changing.
Women should change their standards, expectations and drastically alter their level of tolerance for undesirable behavior. When this is set in motion, women will find that the caliber of men they date and their experiences with them will change - for the better. Women will get much more out of their romantic encounters if they do the changing instead of expecting men to.
Ladies, instead of expecting more from men, expect more from yourselves.
You’ll be glad you did. -v7
Monday, July 4, 2011
What Happened to Personal Discretion?
It’s official; the art of personal discretion is dead. Face it, we now live in a popular culture where anything goes and everything is ripe for public display. Take a look at almost any reality TV program and you often see young, attractive people degrading themselves on national television in pursuit of a monetary prize or ephemeral fame.
Contestants have been shown engaging in sexually crude behavior, distastefully exposing intimate body parts, using coarse language, speaking disparagingly and disrespectfully about fellow competitors, and sometimes displaying an astounding lack of common sense and class.
The notion of exercising personal discretion is simply passé for a generation hooked on camera phones, computer cams, text messaging and other forms of instant communication that allow individuals to engage in graphic show and tells whenever the mood strikes.
A friend was shocked, appalled and dismayed when she heard about the antics of the New Jersey teenager who was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography for posting sexually explicit images of herself on MySpace. My friend couldn’t fathom why a young person would even dare do such a thing, let alone think it was acceptable behavior. But what my friend so innocently failed to grasp was that today’s teenagers have grown up with the Internet and comfortably using social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter where putting aspects of one’s private life on public display is the norm. What’s a few nude images between friends, when they can so easily be uploaded at the click of a button? As only a passive user of Facebook myself, I am still amazed at the intimately personal things friends seem compelled to post online. What they want me to know versus what I feel I need to know is often at odds.
Personal discretion has eroded partly because the Internet offers an irresistible venue for freely engaging in narcissism and self-promotion. It provides free self-advertising for those seeking some distorted sense of frame and notoriety. By creating a Webpage or posting images of oneself online, one can escape the shadows of obscurity to become known a entity. It’s like having one’s own personal billboard for all to see.
There was a time when the fear of shame or humiliation used to be a sufficient inhibitor to inappropriate or distasteful public behavior. Take extramarital affairs, for instance. The mistress involved in an extramarital scandal was once a universally scorned figure. Public sympathies were always reserved for the aggrieved wife and the “other woman‘s” identity, if known, often remained discrete or received scant attention. Few women in such situations wanted to be known as the homewrecker who destroyed a marriage.
Today, mistresses have often become minor celebrities. Instead of hiding in the shadows, mistresses brazenly discuss their affairs in public - freely participating in the media spectacle. Rielle Hunter, former fling of presidential candidate John Edwards and mother of the disgraced politician’s love child, gave a tell-all interview to GQ magazine. And look at the parade of women involved in golf superstar Tiger Wood’s tawdry extramarital escapades. Many willingly came forward, seemingly unashamed of their actions, to discuss their sordid affairs in the press.
So where do we go from here? Can we as a society return to our once modest and discrete ways? Sadly, probably not. The ubiquity of the Internet, reality TV and talk shows (where people seem willing to blather on about everything) have essentially blurred -- or obliterated -- the lines between private and public. Leaving little to the imagination is the new norm. These highly public venues also fuel an instant-fame-obsessed mindset that doesn‘t appear to be leaving us any time soon.
When reality TV features everyday people who become household names, regardless of how boorishly or stupidly they behaved on-air, 15-minutes-of-fame seekers will abound, especially when show producers dangle million dollar carrots in their faces. Apparently, illusions of fame and fortune have won out over concerns about self-respect and decency.
Think about it: If the fear of public humiliation and embarrassment isn’t enough to tame crude, lewd and outrageous behavior, nothing will. Like I said, discretion is dead.
Contestants have been shown engaging in sexually crude behavior, distastefully exposing intimate body parts, using coarse language, speaking disparagingly and disrespectfully about fellow competitors, and sometimes displaying an astounding lack of common sense and class.
The notion of exercising personal discretion is simply passé for a generation hooked on camera phones, computer cams, text messaging and other forms of instant communication that allow individuals to engage in graphic show and tells whenever the mood strikes.
A friend was shocked, appalled and dismayed when she heard about the antics of the New Jersey teenager who was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography for posting sexually explicit images of herself on MySpace. My friend couldn’t fathom why a young person would even dare do such a thing, let alone think it was acceptable behavior. But what my friend so innocently failed to grasp was that today’s teenagers have grown up with the Internet and comfortably using social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter where putting aspects of one’s private life on public display is the norm. What’s a few nude images between friends, when they can so easily be uploaded at the click of a button? As only a passive user of Facebook myself, I am still amazed at the intimately personal things friends seem compelled to post online. What they want me to know versus what I feel I need to know is often at odds.
Personal discretion has eroded partly because the Internet offers an irresistible venue for freely engaging in narcissism and self-promotion. It provides free self-advertising for those seeking some distorted sense of frame and notoriety. By creating a Webpage or posting images of oneself online, one can escape the shadows of obscurity to become known a entity. It’s like having one’s own personal billboard for all to see.
There was a time when the fear of shame or humiliation used to be a sufficient inhibitor to inappropriate or distasteful public behavior. Take extramarital affairs, for instance. The mistress involved in an extramarital scandal was once a universally scorned figure. Public sympathies were always reserved for the aggrieved wife and the “other woman‘s” identity, if known, often remained discrete or received scant attention. Few women in such situations wanted to be known as the homewrecker who destroyed a marriage.
Today, mistresses have often become minor celebrities. Instead of hiding in the shadows, mistresses brazenly discuss their affairs in public - freely participating in the media spectacle. Rielle Hunter, former fling of presidential candidate John Edwards and mother of the disgraced politician’s love child, gave a tell-all interview to GQ magazine. And look at the parade of women involved in golf superstar Tiger Wood’s tawdry extramarital escapades. Many willingly came forward, seemingly unashamed of their actions, to discuss their sordid affairs in the press.
So where do we go from here? Can we as a society return to our once modest and discrete ways? Sadly, probably not. The ubiquity of the Internet, reality TV and talk shows (where people seem willing to blather on about everything) have essentially blurred -- or obliterated -- the lines between private and public. Leaving little to the imagination is the new norm. These highly public venues also fuel an instant-fame-obsessed mindset that doesn‘t appear to be leaving us any time soon.
When reality TV features everyday people who become household names, regardless of how boorishly or stupidly they behaved on-air, 15-minutes-of-fame seekers will abound, especially when show producers dangle million dollar carrots in their faces. Apparently, illusions of fame and fortune have won out over concerns about self-respect and decency.
Think about it: If the fear of public humiliation and embarrassment isn’t enough to tame crude, lewd and outrageous behavior, nothing will. Like I said, discretion is dead.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Voters Undermine Bipartisanship
We’ve all been hearing a lot these days about voters’ frustration with out-of-control partisan rancor in Washington and the failure for elected leaders in Congress to work together to get anything done. It’s a familiar refrain: Voters claim they want leaders to stop bickering and solve the nation’s problems. It all sounds civic-minded and lofty, but the truth is that voters really want nothing of the sort. They characteristically whine about Washington gridlock, but their voting decisions often contribute to, if not help perpetuate, the problem.
But the solution, if the public is truly feed up with partisan politics, is quite simple: Stop returning partisans to Washington! In a two-party system where voters have limited choices, partisan gamesmanship works to the advantage of both ruling political parties.
But voters have an antidote to this perpetual childish political nonsense: They can start electing more independents to Congress. If both political parties know their lock on power is threatened by a viable alternative, they will have no choice but to modify their behavior or risk election defeat and marginalization.
But of course this can’t work if voters keep allowing themselves to be pawns in the partisan political games both parties play to preserve power.
But the solution, if the public is truly feed up with partisan politics, is quite simple: Stop returning partisans to Washington! In a two-party system where voters have limited choices, partisan gamesmanship works to the advantage of both ruling political parties.
But voters have an antidote to this perpetual childish political nonsense: They can start electing more independents to Congress. If both political parties know their lock on power is threatened by a viable alternative, they will have no choice but to modify their behavior or risk election defeat and marginalization.
But of course this can’t work if voters keep allowing themselves to be pawns in the partisan political games both parties play to preserve power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)