Palin derangement syndrome - a sight to behold

I was 20 when Dan Quayle was introduced to the national stage. Immediately the main-stream press went after him. They called him a rich kid and a frat boy. Although being very intelligent he was not a great orator. This added to the fodder for late night comedians and perpetuated the myth that he was a dunce. Yes people on the left didn't like him him but it was at least relatively civil.

However this is 2008 and all sense of decency and objectivity has been cast to the wind with the introduction of Sarah Palin to the national stage. After hearing this woman speak for the first time I felt, as many did, the strong sense that she is a real person. She felt like a far cry from most politicians who are told what do say and what do think and what to wear and where/when to go potty. She is charismatic, likable, intelligent, well-spoken, compassionate, pragmatic and quite attractive.

Of course since her arrival, the vitrial from the left hasn't been well contained. The list of celebrities and public figures coming out opposing her isn't a surprise. The surprise is the level of discourse as they try to deal with her and who she is. Here is some of the brilliance spouted by our best and brightest:

• Matt Damon, former talented newbie and now hollywood elitist snob, thought it would enhance his career to decided to be one of the first to go public to display his ignorance. He compared her rise to a "'really bad Disney movie' and said it's absurd that this woman could become President.
  

• Lindsay Lohan, mentally unstable actress and noted lush (who now believes she is gay) called Sarah "narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe."

• Pamela Anderson, dim bulb and rock star serial wife, said "I hate her, she can suck it".

• Sandra Bernhard, lowlife commedianne, suggested that she be raped by black men if she comes to NY.

• Non-political Oprah Winphrey refused to allow Sarah on her show as she openly stumps for Obama.

• SNL does a skit insinuating that Todd Palin is having sex with his daughters.

• Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings said about Sarah "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

This has truly been a site to behold. Remember when you were in high school and there was this really popular girl. The girl was pretty, smart, nice to everyone, class president, honor society, volunteer at homeless shelter, prom queen, etc. Most people in your class liked her because she was genuinly likable and she never did anything to you to make you not like her... But you learned that there were kids in your class that didn't like her. They just did not like her. You chalked it up to jealousy. You knew the haters usually came from dysfunctional homes and had very low self-esteem. It all made sense.

Real life seems to be copying the caddy days of high school. Sarah Palin represents that super girl from high school and most people really like her. The more we get to know her the more we like her. However there are those who still hate her. Yes it appears irrational, not based on any facts and basically deranged.

The whole irony of hollywood's take on Sarah is they are making a tantamount admission that they hate their fans. Sarah is more of an everyday American as opposed to an elitist. Everyday Americans buy Hollywood's product but those in Hollywood dispise what she represents. It just doesn't make sense.

This is, however, fascinating to watch. The late Ronald Reagan reminded us that as a whole the American public knows the truth regardless of what is fed them by those who assume the mantle of America's elite.

God Bless America and His blessings to Sarah Palin.

Liberal conundrum: Abortion/Racism

• Fact: Planned Parenthood is a pro-abortion entity.

• Fact: Planned Parenthood was started by a racist named Margaret Sanger ostensibly to eliminate black babies.

• Empirical evidence suggests that abortion is a sacrament to those on the political left. Therefore those on the left typically have a positive opinion of Planned Parenthood.

• Empirical evidence suggests that those on the political left - usually Caucasian and guilt laden - believe that racism and "hate crimes" are far worse than most historically felonious crimes.

I read something on a left-wing message board yesterday and I see this quite often. I see the same people who are militantly pro-choice also see themselves are the saviors to African-Americans. Something just doesn't seem right with these people. Perhaps that is why it is accurate to say liberalism is a mental disorder.

Contrary to how we are portrayed, we on the mainstream right in this country are pro-life (all races) and we don't view black folks as inferior and in need of patronizing government policies.

God's special gift to humans

I have a cat that acts more like my mistress. OK. Hold on. Sounds weird? Well stick with me here... When I sit down she climbs on my lap and rubs her chin on my chin. She lets me kiss her and pet her. I am the only living person she does this to. When I lay down in bed, within minutes she is there laying on me, licking and rubbing my chin with her chin and cheek. It is nice to have a living thing make me feel so loved.

However if I look deeper, am I really being loved? Fact is, I am the only person in my house that has a stubbly chin. This cat discovered my chin as a young kitten and sees me as her personal face scratcher. OK the bubble is burst, she loves me because I fill a primal need of hers. The pleasure she gets from getting her face scratched by my chin. :-(

This lent me to think more about this. This sweet, soft, gentle animal is just that... an animal. She has no concept of loving another being (except her babies for a short time) for the sake of the other being. She can't. No animal can... except for humans. Humans are the only living animals that can choose to love another living animal in order to solely benefit the other living animal.

The sad reality is that some humans never quite break from that animal instinct. Have you ever met someone who, when they do something nice for you, you know they are expecting something back. You know they are ultimately doing it for their own self-interest. Some may argue that all humans are like that. I would agree to a point. I would say that all humans are born like that. It is a sin nature and a need to self-preserve. Unfortunately some never grow out of it. Usually it is some childhood trauma that stunts their emotional growth like a parental abandonment or abuse.

Ultimately, my friends, there is hope for those who are only capable of serving themselves. When God's Holy Spirit enters your heart you will find the peace and the ability to love and give to another and you will find that you don't have that pang that has always followed a loving deed. You know the one where you feel like your good deed must be followed by a payback greater than or equal to what you had just given. That is the power of Christ in a persons heart. You will feel the desire to do things and not get paid back. You will feel the desire to find those in need and help them - anonymously. The joy will be too much to hold in; joy you certainly never felt when you used to keep score and definitely something my poor little cat will never feel.

Why are news reporters that way?

Who are these news reporters and anchors and why do they nearly all, in their reporting, support Democrat candidates and causes over Republican?

1. Many have journalism degrees and the motivation for that was to "Change the world".
2. Most like their jobs and want to keep them. You see, those who run the networks and news outlets are liberal and are very closely tied with local liberal politicians. Those who run news outlets also read/watch their product. The little people who do the reporting know this. There is no point risking their jobs by running a neutral report. The reporter knows that if they can slant the report and actually report it with a leftward slant then they will endear their management and keep their jobs.
3. The news reporters are generally ignorant of world history and US history. Their thinking is guided by the conventional wisdom. If you actually present them with facts or ideas outside the box then they get uncomfortable. Also take away their teleprompter or script and they will quickly be found out to know very little about anything except maybe what Tom and Katie have been doing lately.
   

Real answer to the uninformed question.

I am going to try to anwer the uninformed question: "Will her gender sway women to Palin?" 

That misses the point completely.   The premise of that question is that there are women who are totally void of brain matter, see a woman and thus will vote for that woman.    That is absurdly insulting.

Women have opinions on issues that supercede their gender.   Let's take abortion.  Some women are for legal abortion and some are opposed to it.    Those who are for legal abortion are not going to be "swayed" to Palin solely because she is a woman.    Just like pro-life women would not vote for Hillary because she too is a woman.

The choice of Palin will indeed have a clear sway on people but the sway will not be restricted to gender.    Evangelicals, social conservatives, pro-americans, outside the beltway types (you get the picture) will be swayed because they finally see a product they want to buy.   There was a large group of the Republican base that was luke-warm to McCain (I am one of them).  We saw three U.S. Senators (Obama, Biden and McCain) on the ticket thusfar and felt that we were being unrepresented.  The addition of Palin, though I may sound melodramatic, finally included America in the race for the presidency.     Average, hard working Americans of every race and gender will see Palin for who she is and that she represents the America outside of Washinton DC.     That will ultimately "sway" them whether they be male or female.

The resentful 80 vs. the comfortable 20

There are basically two types of people when it comes to interacting with a generous partner.  First, there are those who sit back and let the generous person do all the work.  Second there are those who see the work the generous person is doing and they vocalize their appreciation and subsequently offer to help.

All close relationships are dynamic.    Relationships are never 50/50.    In static relationships they would be a constant 50/50.    However we are human and this is the real world.    There is ebb and flow.   Sometimes relationships are 80/20 and sometimes 15/85 and sometimes 45/55 and even sometimes 100/0.    This is fact.

The question is what does each person do when they are a "20" or when they are an "80".   This is key.    When a person is a 20, they are not really doing much.   It can be pretty comfortable when the other person is doing 80%, especially if they are not complaining about it.   This is short term pleasure however because inevitably the 20 takes the 80 for granted and begins to protect their 20.   They think if the other person is willing to do 80 and not complain then let's not change things.   If the 80 begins to not want to be the 80 any more then the 20 will choose to either step up to the plate and raise their percentage or they will choose fight back in order to maintain their advantage and keep from having to do more.   The person doing 20 may try to make the case that things should remain like this because the 20 (for any number of reasons) deserves the current order of things.   It will not hold water indefinately.  Even if the 80 has the lowest self esteem on the planet, they cannot sustain 80 ad infinitem.    They will either crack or find another person that sees the injustice of one person doing 80% all of the time.

The 80, low self-estem notwithstanding, cannot maintain 80.   The higher the self esteem the sooner they will realize they are being taken advantage of and will say something about it.   If nothing changes then resentment sets in and the 20's hand is called.    If nothing changes then the relationship will crumble.

The prior paragraphs referred to a time when a relationship is stuck in 80/20.    However in healthy relationships the values fluxuate constantly.   In the healthiest relationships both parties seek to contribute 100%.    Since mathematically both cannot sustain anything over 50 at the same time something wonderful happens.   When both partners seek to do 100%, without expecting repayment from their partner, then there is a constant balance that manifests itself.   The 80 always knows that they will not be doing 80% for long because the 20 chooses not to be 20 for long.   Does that make sense?  We are talking about choices here.   Both choose not to be comfortable at 20 then the 80 will never be resentful but joyfully 80.

Relationships are extremely challenging and if either party chooses to milk the comfort of being the 20 then they open the door to resentment and distance and they never fill the full potential of the relationship.