United States

There is no lack of documentation on John McCain’s anger management problems. The Media has done its share to report on just a few of those incidents but its true implications have never been entertained. What does this character flaw mean and what are some examples of McCain loosing his cool?

Psychologists claim that, “anger causes a loss in self-monitoring capacity and objective observability.” The Washington Post wrote an article about 10 years ago on McCain and his temper tantrum. So here is a list of McCain behaving non-Presidential like by stating:

1) "F- - - you!" @ Senator John Cornyn [New York Post]
2)  “A - - hole” @ Senator Pete Domenici [Newsweek]
3) “F- - -ing Jerk” @ Senator Charles Grassley [Newsweek]
4) Yelled and Humiliated Young Volunteert [The Arizona Republic]
5) Told Senator Kennedy to “Shut-up” [Boston Globe]
6)  “Sh- - Head” @ fellow Senator [NewsMax]
7)  “F - - - you” @  Republican Senator [NewsMax]
8) “C- - -” @ Cindy McCain [Raw Story]
9) Got Mad at Foreign Diplomat [The New York Times]
10)  Screamed and Acosted Senator Richard Shelby [Boston Globe]

Olberman does a great job of reviewing this issue in the YouTube video to the right. This begs the question of whether this type of behavior is appropriate for a President. It is fellow Republican Senators that do not agree with McCain’s approach. In fact that is why most of them did not support him during his bid in 2000. Those actions speak loudly. People that know him well and interact with him on a daily basis are turned off by his behavior. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican claims, “His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him." McCain has even admitted that as an “angry 2-year-old, he would hold his breath until he lost consciousness.”

We dealt for 8 years with an incompetent President . . . can we really afford an someone that can not control their emotions? If the qualifications for U.S. President are someone that can not control their temper and is a geriatric . . . then all of sudden folks across America that live in retirement homes have become front runners for the GOP.

There is no official policy on Lost & Found and local customs do not dictate a coherent or logical procedure either. What is a person to do? Do we apply the “finder’s keepers rule” or attempt to find the owner by some means? It is quite simple in my opinion but I am still surprised on how many people do not adhere to a policy or tradition format in their own experiences.

I believe in Karma and that belief influences the way I shape my personal policy when it comes to finding an item that has obviously been lost. So why is that people use such vague ethics to guide them in this process? I believe it is that they sometimes feel like they have been rightfully ordained . . . blessed with their new fortune. Heck, I may just be cynical but many people become opportunistic when they find something of value. So, what is a law-abiding good hearted citizen to do when the laws or etiquette do not establish a simple solution.

It is quite simple! Everything you lose and everything you find happens for a reason. This may seem hard to grasp at first but give me a second. I believe that in life you commit actions that you may have to pay for later or be rewarded for later. Did you steal a piece of candy when you were 10? May be you lost your school lunch money two weeks later or 2 years later. You see, I genuinely believe that you are rewarded/reprimanded for your actions in life.

As an adult though what do you do when you find an item? Easy . . . find the owner or at least try to find the owner. Step back for second and empathize with the individual. How would you feel in their situation? Would you want yourself to return that item? A normal human being would say yes. So, you should do what ever it takes to find that individual with reason. I do not mean to purchase billboards and buy up local tv commercial time. Instead you may want to post a notice on Craigslist or a local meeting area etc.

How long should I search you may ask? I recommend about 2 weeks to 1 month as reasonable. Most employers have established a policy of 2 weeks for any lost items to be held and then the person that does find them may claim them. If you took the reasonable steps to find the owner and after at least 2 weeks there was no success in reuniting the owner with the artifact then you may claim it. If you still feel uneasy or guilty then donate it. Please take your body’s signals as warnings and heed to their concerns.

I hope this helps some individuals with their own dilemmas on how to handle such a situation. Remember the golden rule and of course be practical about applying this solution. If you find money donate it or keep it. It may just be life rewarding you for a good deed that you fulfilled last week.

The rumors that continue to develop about Obama’s character never fail to amaze me. That is until I realized that countless of people actually entertained some of those claims and took it as fact even when Obama took the steps to dismiss any false claims about his background. Steve Benen sheds some commentary on a Washington Post article regarding this subject. Jon Stewart added some comic relief by coining a new term: Barcknophobia – The irrational fear of hope.

The Washington Post article states, “On the television in his living room, Jim Peterman has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor’s house, at his son’s auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate’s background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.”

Benen adds, “Peterman sounds sincere, and inclined to vote Democratic, but conflicted. A friend told him that Obama refuses to wear an American-flag pin. Another friend told him that Obama is a radical Muslim. Peterman’s friends, in other words, are lying to him, but he doesn’t realize it.”

Leroy Pollard, who lives in Peterman’s neighborhood,  claims, “I understand [Obama’s] from Africa, and that the first thing he’s going to do if he gets into office is bring his family over here, illegally. He’s got that racist [pastor] who practically raised him, and then there’s the Muslim thing. He’s just not presidential material, if you ask me.”

Obama has taken steps to counter any false rumors by setting up  “Fight the Smears” website so that people can inform themselves. As I claimed earlier, How Lies Become the Truth, the best way to counter the rumors is not to repeat them but instead inform voters of the actual facts.

Benen’s over argument is that these individuals may just be willfully ignorant. I concur but does it help that there is someone out there that is fueling the fire? Should I be surprised? As a cynic, I can state no but as an idealist I am saddened. Ideally, America should be comprised of some of the most intelligent people in the world but sadly that is not a fact. The truth is that open-minded, progressive thinking; intelligent individuals comprise a small minority of our population. It doesn’t matter if someone has an “education” if that individual cannot think for himself or herself and ignore talking points. As long as there is a television that broadcasts pointless hours of brain candy to Americans, our political discourse will be undermined. A combination of apathy and willful ignorance is detrimental to democracy and that is why we are in the current economic and political state. Stupid people do deserve a Stupid President.

Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt wrote an interesting piece in The New York Times on how our brain lies to us. They introduce the topic by stating that 18% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. Thus, it should not be surprising that 1 in 10 Americans believe Obama is a Muslim when in fact he is Christian.
They go on to explain how those lies become statements that render themselves “true” for some reason.

Wang and Aamodt claim, “A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength.”

Repetition of a half-truth becomes the truth after a while because one forgets the original reason and context of the information learned. Think of commercials and their jingles or slogans . . . after a while their claims seem credible.

Obama recently set up a website to counteract any rumors that may surface during his presidential bid. Wang and Aamodt warn that “by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger.” A better approach they claim is to counter the rumor by dispelling the information at hand with a claim that emphasizes the truth. So, for example if Obama is labeled a Muslim, he should claim that he is a Christian. In other words, Obama and any other candidates facing similar dilemmas must take a proactive approach in the matter but should not repeat the false information at the same time. It becomes tricky in the world of politics when candidates have a limited time frame to fight off any attacks. A rumor during the final stretch of the race may be detrimental to Obama if his campaign does not prepare itself.

This is a great short read on how the brain processes information and can end up lying to itself over time. Candidates and publicist may want to look into this topic a bit more in order to better market and represent themselves or clients.

Darren Manzella, a homosexual Army Sergeant, was discharged from duty due to his sexual orientation/lifestlye. Last December, “60 Minutes” featured Manzella in one of their stories pertaining the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

This Army medic was deployed to Iraq twice and earned a combat medal for rendering treatment under fire. He was open about his sexual orientation and introduced his partner to his Army  friend. He did not hide his lifestyle when his battalion commander initiated an investigation into Manzella’s private life. The investigation’s report claimed that there was no evidence of homosexuality and he was sent back to work. This happened even after Manzella provided photographs and testimony of his relationship with his boyfriend.

Cholene Espinoza, an Air Force Captain who flew combat missions, explained, “Darren is in a critical field. He’s a medic. His commander needs him. He’s a known quantity. He gets along with others. He does what he’s supposed to. He goes above and beyond. Why do I want to lose Darren?”
John McCain recently said gay people in the military represent an “intolerable risk” to unit morale, cohesion, and discipline.

As Steve Benen notes, “Which poses the great risk, Manzella being deployed and serving honorably, or Manzella not being deployed? Which is better for the troops? Which does more to help those in uniform? Which leaves the military stronger, and which leaves it weaker?”

I agree with Benen. This policy is flawed but more importantly it inherently undermines the military. If a qualified individual that is willing to scarify their life in order to defend this country . . . isn’t the bare minimum for the military leave these troops’s personal life alone. Do we discharge individuals for their religious views or their infidelities in their marriage? Is it really supporting the troops when you take away talented services members due to their sexual orientation? No, it weakens our military and sends the wrong message about the “freedom” we promote.

Rush Limbaugh states, “I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois—I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans. I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property…I don’t see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don’t see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don’t see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don’t see a bunch of people doing everything they can…whining and moaning—where’s FEMA, where’s BUSH. I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.”

Upon hearing this, I understood why he said it. There is no secret that Limbaugh despised and criticized those individuals that suffered most in the Katrina aftermath. His futile attempt to showcase the differences between Blacks and Whites as a justification for his personal perspective on the flaws of one certain group.
What Limbaugh fails to notice in this juxtaposition is that the situation that is ongoing in the Midwest and what happened in New Orleans are different. One event is dealing with the preparation and prevention of a devastating catastrophe and the other dealt with the aftermath of a category 5 hurricane.

This is not an attempt to down play or ignore the ongoing devastation that folks are currently experiencing due to floods but when a bigot such as Limbaugh attempts to push his flawed logic on people, someone has to call him out. People in Iowa have joined together in order to take a proactive approach to their natural disaster. The population density of this area also does not compare to that of New Orleans. On the other hand, the events that unfolded in New Orleans occurred after Hurricane Katrina wrecked the region. People reacted the way they did only after waiting over 3 days before ever receiving any aid. Furthermore, these folks were just abandoned in a football stadium for days before getting any help. Limbaugh should be ashamed of himself for trying to up on group over the other when it comes to natural disasters. But then again, why should I be surprised at this hypocrite. When he abuses drugs, it some how becomes permissible but when any one else commits the same act . . . he calls for them to be sent to jail indefinitely.

The one thing I feel that political analyst and the media fail to measure correctly is the Hispanic vote. Many view this unique group through the traditional political looking glass and miscalculate their campaign approach.

In order to understand this though, one must have background knowledge of the Hispanic caucus. The label Hispanic is a label applied to people from Latin American countries. There in lies the problem. A group as massive and diverse as the Hispanic sector cannot be viewed this way. Other groups can afford this political approach such as the African-American or Christians. Think of it this way. Imagine categorizing all Religious groups under one umbrella and then applying a strategy that does not fit each group properly. You have a problem don’t you. Although the sub-groups may share inherit basic values there are distinct ones that may undermine their support for each other.

Hispanics are the same. This diverse group is categorized under this umbrella that dictates a cookie cutter strategy to all. The end result is failure. The agenda of Mexicans is not necessarily the ones that Cubans may have in mind. Folks from El Salvador may be opposed to legislation that Cubans may favor. The list can go on but one understands the concept.

Orlando Sanchez, a prominent Cuban-American politician, in the Houston area failed in his bid as Houston Mayor twice. In a city where Hispanics are the majority how did it fail to elect a Hispanic mayor? Easy . . . he was running in heavily dominated Mexican voter bloc. His first mistake was to run as a Republican and the last one was to run as a Cuban. The Mexican voting bloc understood that although Sanchez was Hispanic and that was the only characteristic they shared in common. Mexicans are traditionally Democrats and Sanchez did not represent them in any way so they negated his bid for mayor, twice.

What is the most effective approach to the Hispanic vote then? I tend to recommend a dynamic approach to the ever-changing social-political realm. A savvy candidate understands this illusion and approaches it as broad as the group is. Establishing a broad policy that is moderate is the best approach. This policy should also not be targeted to any niche group. Remember even though we are all Hispanic . . . we do not all share the same interests.

Frontline has an intresting segment regarding teens growing up on the internet. The one hour segment follows several teens and their interactions/relationships on the internet. Although most of the information was not new to me . . . it never failed to amaze me how many people are out of the loop with the internet and its evolution.

I am a quick and fast learner when it comes to adapting to situations on a computer so when instant messaging became popular, I was there. When having your own Facebook or MySpace account was the next trend . . . I followed along so I would not be lost. Then YouTube and the introduction of widgets on popular social networking sites became the norm . . . I had to play catch up to figure out what all the talk was about.

I am technologically savvy and even though I partake on these social networking websites, I do it from a pragmatic position as a consultant of the evolution of the internet within the last years. I just graduated from college about 1 year ago. 5 years before that I was graduating from high school, so it isn't that I am old or really out of the loop. But it sure seems like it.

When I was in high school there was no Facebook or MySpace. There was no YouTube and the only thing we had close to connecting to other people online was our AOL Instant Messenger accounts.

It is intresting to note how the four years that I was out of high school have changed high school life so dramaticaly. I use to sell "burnt" cd copies of the latest cd to classmates. Speaking of a CD is like bringing up ancient history and talking about dinosaurs in a generation who own iPods and sophisticated cell phones. My only connection to this new version of high school is a sister that will enter her senior year in high school. The insight I gain from her and her friends is priceless. Have you ever heard of a "text break"? That's a break you usually take after you have been mashing you fingers on your cell phones keypad as you SMS with 5 other individuals. Talk about an attention span . . . communicating with 5 people at the same time while scavenging YouTube for a funny video as you update your MySpace profile.

The Frontline episode is available to view for free via their website. I highly recommend it whether you think you know it all or not. Listening to the teens perspective and reasoning was worth it in itself. I wonder what the internet will be like as my generation enters parenthood in 20 years of their teens. Will MySpace and Facebook be around? If they are, wouldn't it be awkward when you get a notification indicating that your teen would like to be friends with you, their parent? I guess we will just have to wait until then.

Did you know there was a high possibility that bananas may become extinct within your lifetime? Don't believe me? I am serious . . . that is if the Cavendish version of banana is invaded by a fungus called the Panama disease, according to Dan Koeppel author of Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World.

You see, the banana we eat now is just "the fruit equivalent of a fast-food hamburger: efficient to produce, uniform in quality and universally affordable." Americans would eat a healthier and tastier version of the banana called Gros Michel before it was replaced by the Cavendish banana. Unfortunately, the Panama disease ravaged banana plantations and the Cavendish became the standard by 1960. It is of Chinese origins and is 'inferior in taste, easy to bruise (and therefore hard to ship) and too small to appeal to consumers." The only thing it had going for it was that it was able to survive the Panama disease.

Presently though, a new stronger version of the Panama disease has been causing trouble in the last ten years. This time, the Cavendish is not immune. It is expected that the fungus will "reach Latin America in 5 to 10 years, maybe 20," followed with a slow response by the banana companies to find a cure, the future of Cavendish and bananas altogether . . . looks rather blight.

What will the impact be on Americans though? That's hard to speculate because although banana consumption outnumbers apple and orange consumption put together, that trend is slowly changing as Americans become health conscious. The banana's deceptive role in the fruit family has turned of some folks from it. If it does become unavailable, it will not be greatly missed one never developed the sweet tooth that grapes or other fruits invoke. The greatest impact I believe it will have will be on the local economies that rely on the banana as an export in Central America. Those economies may be devastated if not properly prepared. In particular in the labor sector, as hundreds and thousands of workers become unemployed and with no other option but to migrate to the United States.

Which begs the question? How shall we solve this before it does become an issue? Every American problem does not need an American solution. Case in point . . . Spain. Jason DeParle of The New York Times wrote an intresting piece describing how Spain and Southern Europe have handed their illegal immigration issue.

The first step to solving the issue is to understand that you are not the only one with the issue. There are others in the world that have encountered the same or similar issues and applied their own solutions. DeParle claims, "With little domestic opposition, Spain legalized nearly 600,000 of the African, Latin American and eastern European workers who helped power its economy and brought this once insular land the strengths and strains of diversity."

It seems that legalization does not necessarily bring the negative assumptions that most assume it would, or at least in this case. It is intresting to see how other nations around the world are managing their domestic issues. It takes a proactive positive approach to achieve success in such sensitive matters. It will take Americans time to comprehend the true intentions of most immigrants that enter this country without the proper permission. Immigrants that enter the nation through a valid visa make up about 50% of the illegal immigration population. The other half did so by bypassing border security through Mexico and Canada. That is why we are building a wall to prevent half of the people from coming. It doesn't make sense when the other half are still entering and will continue to enter lawfully.

Congress should take time to truly understand the issue at hand before applying haphazardly the first solution that placates the small minority of vocal constituents that are against immigration.

American culture is peculiar . . . at least that is what I would think as a foreigner observing the norms and traditions we practice in this great nation. I recall a lengthy discussion with a friend once about how strange it may seem to other nations that some in American society put great value into people that can do tricks on their bike or their skateboard. Then there comes an event like the 2008 USA Paper, Rock, Scissors League Championship which will be held this weekend in Las Vegas.

If you happen to think this is just a fluke event . . . think other wise. Bud Light will be sponsoring the event and the champion will earn $50k in prize money plus a ticket to Bejing, China to compete in the International Rock, Paper & Scissors Federation Championship.

What does this say about our culture and our society? I find it intresting that such an event could garner the support of a large corporation. Then again, there are the ESPN STIHL Timbersports Championships where men compete to axe, saw and cut their way throw large tree trunks. Let's not forget the video game competitions where some young men make a living playing video games. Why should I truly be surprised? In Valencia, I met two Americans that were visiting to compete in a Magic the Gathering card game competition.