#7: Proper President

By now, no one should be surprised that a sign of respect from United States President Barack Obama toward another world leader would come under fire from the right wing.

In the eyes of the warmongering, Fox News-worshiping herd, the recently-dubbed "Groveler-in-Chief" has done (and will do) nothing right during his presidency, so it should be relatively easy to dismiss their criticisms out of hand.

Still, there are too many intelligent people out there who honestly believe the States become weaker by displays like the one pictured, and by apologizing for the previous administration ignoring everyone else and doing what they thought was best for all.

There is a lot for which the United States of America needs to make amends.

Simply because someone doesn't engage in a physical conflict - finds a way to avoid some sort of fisticuffs, so to speak - doesn't mean he or she couldn't win.

This same conservative base that preaches the Christian values of turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor and forgiving seventy-seven times seven, either believes that those only apply to American Christians, or just conveniently forgets these things when it comes to politics.

They decry the gesture because good ol' SuperAmerican Dick Cheney stood tall and simply gave a firm handshake in his meeting. The same former Vice President who condones waterboarding and lying about weapons of mass destruction in order to finish a war from the early '90s really isn't the model for foreign relations.

Obama's gesture, while nowhere near polished, is a sign that he recognizes the importance of other nations' customs - specifically when he's visiting their country. He also is aware the the U.S. doesn't (nor should it) rule the world.

And that a simple show of respect strengthens a relationship.

Under the Bush 43 administration, it must have seemed to the rest of the world that it did not have a seat at the table. The glowing example is when America ignored the consensus of the United Nations in that attacking Iraq was the wrong way to go.

While some lemonade has been made out of those lemons insofar as Iraqi government, the cost has been high with regard to our relationship with most countries around the globe, the lives of servicemen from all nations, and an increasingly volatile situation in Afghanistan. That latter consequence could have been avoided by focusing the battle there.

I'm convinced that most of those who agree with the right wing spin doctors foolishly believe that if the nations of the world were to unite against the U.S. militarily, the U.S. would still win. And, therefore, "Bring it on."

The truism "Peace can only be achieved if both sides want it" does not imply that the only solution is fighting.

Some believe that we're still at war with Japan (over for 64 years), China (by way of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts - also over for 30 years and more), and Russian and Europe's Eastern Bloc (over for 20 years).

I'd like to ask these critics when it will finally be acceptable for the States to show these other nations genuine goodwill and treat them as equals.

I fear the answer will be something along the lines of - "When they are democratic nations" (though they still don't think France is equal); "When they do what we tell them" (so that they don't have their own voice?); or, worst of all, "They will never be equal."

Until then, I'll sit back, smile, and know that the world has become a little more peaceful when President Obama respected a Japanese leader, instead of puking on him (figuratively, or literally).


President Bush 41 (white napkin on face) doesn't feel so good after some sushi in 1990.

#6: Unexpected Acts of Kindness

This man is lucky to be alive.

He is 64-year old Kenneth Moon, and he is a detention deputy at a jail in Tampa, Florida, watching over inmates who are awaiting trial.

He was the lone officer in a jail pod when an inmate charged him, punched him in the face, and put in him a choke hold. Moon was unable to use the radio on his desk to call for help.

But help came, anyway.

It came in the form of other inmates.

What makes this story so riveting is that these inmates were all facing charges related to violent crimes, from drug trafficking and sex offenses, to armed robbery and attempted murder.

In other words, folks who wouldn't be the most likely candidates to take home to mom.

Most would expect the prisoners to either help the attacker or to stand idly by and watch, especially given the stereotypical attitudes we see between law enforcement and criminals in many films and TV programs.

In this case, the alleged "bad guys" became the "good guys".

At a press conference, Jim Previtera of the Hillsboro County Detention Center was asked why the heroes of the hour did what they did.

Previtera simply stated, "Moon's a good guy. That's their response. They like Moon."

You can read the story and watch a video here.

People charged with violent crimes coming to the aid of a man who was helping to keep them incarcerated. Because they liked him.

This is where people should start asking the questions.

Why did these inmates like this man? Does that also imply that had the suspect been strangling another of the jail's deputies that they wouldn't have come to the rescue? And if not, what is the difference?

I have several thoughts on this.

One is that Moon is a total pushover as far as law enforcement officers go. He was a guy who took a bunch of crap from the inmates without saying anything back to them or reporting it to superiors, so Moon was no threat to the Alpha-Male-dom that prisons seem to have become.

Another possibility is that they just liked Moon more than the suspect.

But what I most strongly believe to be the case is that Moon was someone who has been straight with them from the day they arrived. He likely never rebuked or judged them, never tried to be condescending or superior to them. He did his job without any unnecessary force or harsh words.

By showing the inmates respect due to a human being, no matter what they're accused of - or even what they're guilty of - Moon paved the way for his own life to be preserved.

Karma. Three-fold path. Do unto others.

Perhaps the unsung hero in all of this is Moon himself.

#5: When in Rome... Or Berlin...

I may be one of a very few American citizens who thinks this is wonderful.

Early this week, Guido Westerwelle, a man who will probably become Germany's next Foreign Minister, politely pulled a nice reversal, of sorts, on what I see here in the United States all the time.

Westerwelle was holding a news conference on Monday in Berlin after being elected into Germany's governing body when a British reporter asked if he would answer a question in English.

Westerwelle succinctly put an end to that query in the reporter's own language.

"Would you please be so kind, this is a press conference in Germany."

The reporter asked a second time before a second rebuff all but forced him to ask his question through a translator.

While I believe Westerwelle is absolutely in the right in this case, I am reminded of the thousands of Americans who want to waste taxpayer dollars on making English the "official" language of the United States.

I am fairly certain that most, if not all, the nations of the world understand that English is this nation's common form of communication.

I am not certain what good adding "We Speak English" alongside "In God We Trust" on our currency would accomplish.

I fear that the goal is to criminalize speaking in any other language. It is doubtful that making such a "rule" would discourage under-educated people from other countries from trying to enter the Land of the Free, whether to live or just to visit.

Those who are in favor of such a policy need to, instead, go to their local Home Depots and Lowe's hardware stores (or any other chain that used bilingual signage) and protest doing business with them until they make their businesses English-only.

I would bet, however, that those same people would probably argue that such a stance is anti-capitalist.

The greatest irony of it all may be what some Americans have said upon returning from an overseas vacation. They complain about how rude the servers at restaurants were, or the odd looks they received in gift shops.

It was probably because the American tourists were looking for people who spoke their language.

Westerwelle deserves applause for both acknowledging and admonishing the BBC reporter, and trying to set an example that "official languages" can swing both ways.

(Source: Yahoo! News)

#4: Serena, Serena

I love women's tennis.

However, I am no fan of the USA's Serena Williams.

For the better part of 10 years, Serena, and her sister Venus, have been the best representatives from the United States in the women's half of the sport in terms of winning matches and championships.

As such, I feel that most American tennis fans (either dedicated or casual) support the Williamses mainly out of feeling patriotic: "I'm an American, so I root for Americans."

Except this isn't the Olympics.

And even if it were, pride in your fellow countrymen (and women) should only extend so far as their humility.

Some would argue that without the kind of competitive spark that led Serena to suggest shoving a ball down a line judge's throat, she would not be the regular contender that she is, hence there's sort of a trade-off.

I would argue that sportsmanship is paramount, especially on so large of a stage as the US Open, and that there are better ways of disagreeing with the judgment of an official.

As it is, Serena exploded after the line judge's call of a foot fault made it Double Match Point in favor of her opponent, Belgium's Kim Clijsters. The misconduct penalty that followed awarded that final point to Clijsters without her having to play for it.

The sequence of events involving Serena Williams is what the late John Lennon refers to as "Instant Karma".

And it got her.

What's worse is that at the ensuing press conference, and for a couple days afterward (wherein a $10,000 fine was levied against her), there was no hint of regret.

On Monday, a form-letter-sounding apology was issued and posted to her blog.

Still, the damage has been done. More people will remember her outburst, rather than her apology (the sincerity of which can still be free debated).

As the top women's tennis player in the US (and #2 in the world), Serena has to be conscious that there are those who look up to her, who aspire to be her.

While Serena and Venus (the world #3 who seems to be much better at checking her emotions) are the two best players the United States has to offer, there may be another American waiting in the wings for tomorrow's tennis players (and fans) to look up to.

She remained humble, despite dispatching three championship caliber opponents from Russia in consecutive fashion as the 70th ranked player in the world. And, when given the chance to speak after losing to then-ranked #8 Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark (a rare on-court interview of a match's loser), she held back tears as she thanked the partisan crowd for their support through her remarkable run, while crediting Wozniacki on her game.

She is soon-to-be 18-year old Melanie Oudin.

Now ranked #44 (a jump of 36 places).

Let's hope that as she gets more accustomed to winning on bigger stages, she is able to stay down to earth.

Melanie Oudin (l) of the United States meets Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark at the net following her 2-6, 2-6 defeat at the U.S. Open.

#3: "Kanye" Believe This?

I'm still not convinced this wasn't a stunt.

I didn't watch this live, or even recorded, but I've been hearing about it all day (and you probably have, too).

Teen country starlet Taylor Swift (the attractive lady in the picture) won the award for "Best Female Video" at the MTV Video Music Awards. While she was on stage to give her acceptance speech, hip-hop artist Kanye West (not the attractive lady in the picture) gets up on stage, takes the microphone from her and says, "Taylor, I'm really happy for you. I'll let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time ... one of the best videos of all time!"

Where to start with this one...

It is reported that alcohol was involved, so that would explain it to some degree if true. But West would not qualify as the first person to have had a few before and/or during an awards show.

West is probably also not the first person to be disappointed in a particular result.

So, why this?

I find nothing defensible about this, but I'll try:

At least he wasn't throwing a tantrum about losing this particular award for himself...it was for someone else. Since he's not a female, I think that would go without saying, though, so, no dice...

And at least he tried to temper the blow with his introduction to his opinion. Still, raising a little hell during Swift's moment, rather than saying something later to reporters (as he apparently did in 2004 after the American Music awards when he was "snubbed" for Best New Artist...oddly enough in favor of another country artist, Gretchen Wilson).

I almost expect this event to spawn a series of copycats that we'll see reported about in the "Odd News" section of Yahoo! News or the like for various (and far-lower profile) award ceremonies, banquets, pageants, etc, where someone will try to steal someone else's thunder thusly.

It's gotten to a point, apparently, where not even your friends can lose gracefully.

Ah, but that is the upside.

For as little class as West showed during the ceremony, it was Beyonce herself that truly stole the show, upon winning "Video of the Year" (which is like "Best Picture" at the Oscars, to my understanding).

Instead of heaping praise upon those who made her winning project possible, Beyonce showed humility, compassion, and grace.

I remember being 17-years-old, up for my first MTV Award with Destiny’s Child and it was one of the most exciting moments in my life. So I’d like Taylor to come out and have her moment.

I find it a little suspicious that Swift and Beyonce were both wearing red dresses at that point, and that Swift had emerged from backstage - with a microphone, no less - but a lesson can still be taught.

Even if this was a well-executed publicity stunt (wherein certain people would have had to know who was winning what and when), this is still the point when all cameras and microphones should be off of West for a while, and directed squarely upon Beyonce.

It is a prime opportunity for show business to finally focus on a true example where the triumph trumps the controversy.

#2: Turnabout is Not Fair Play

I am a firm pro-choice advocate, but absolutely no victory was won Friday in the debate to maintain women's rights.

Outspoken pro-life advocate Jim Pouillon (pictured in red) was killed Friday (in front of a host of schoolchildren, no less) by a man who is also accused of killing another man earlier in the day. Police seem to believe that Pouillon was a deliberate target, though there is no known connection between the victims.

This post isn't to score points about when life begins, where women's rights end, how abstinance is/isn't attainable among the unmarried, how far activists on each side are warranted to go in their respective crusades, or what have you.

I want to concentrate on a facet of this story that will no doubt be eclipsed by the tragedy at large. It concerns a comment made by a 16-year old boy to a reporter.

“I can see someone spitting on him or punching him, but shooting him is pretty stupid."

There was a time when I couldn't have seen any of these things. Where all of these actions would be "stupid". Yet, here is a teenager who can "see" other forms of disrespect being more...appropriate?... and seem to be somewhat nonchalant about the suggestion.

Could this comment have been made for this particular case only (because the issue surrounding the crime is so divisive)? Or is this more of a blanket statement because youth are accustomed to seeing disputes resolved through physical assaults?

Without speaking for the teen, I think it is more the latter. Too often, issues that are supported and opposed by proportional segments of the population (i.e. abortion, 2nd amendment rights), are perceived as "all or nothing" by each side.

To me, this is similar to why some people go to message boards and pollute threads with hatred, threats of violence, and inappropriate/insensitive comments - they are distant from those they're addressing.

With two sides so far apart, it's as if they don't know each other, and are, therefore, less likely to be sympathtic to the other's views.

My observations lead me to believe that people are more likely to respectfully disagree with someone (as opposed to verbally and physically assault someone) they know reasonably well (family, neighbor, coworker) than when they meet on opposite sides of a picket line.

And with youth being more likely to learn things they are shown rather than things they are told, we may be setting them down a more precarious path than we ourselves travelled.

Suffice it to say, there is more than one sad story coming from Mr. Pouillon's death.

What are your thoughts?

#1: Introduction

Hello, and thank you for stopping by.

I have created this weblog primarily to give myself a place to vent my frustrations with the world, as the levels of respect for each other - as nations, as communities, and as human beings - continues to plummet.

Secondarily, this blog exists so that any readers who happen by can also express their thoughts, concerns, and suggestions for how we can realistically change things for the better.

Ultimately, it is my hope that you are reading the electronic document that will ultimately save the world.

=================

My name is Mike, I live in the northeastern portion of the United States. Much of my writing contains a flair for either the satirical or the sarcastic. I believe it's easy to tell the difference, but I hope it is clear to you whether my statement is literal or if it's humorously twisted to make a point. I also have a tendency to use parentheses.

That said, it my observation that the world's main problem (and particularly this nation) is that very few people respect those whom they don't already know (and sometimes not even then).

People are far more quick to anger than they were even 20 years ago. They've forgotten how to lose, if they ever even knew in the first place. This applies to arguments, sporting events, getting cut off in traffic...

It seems that virtually every disappointment an individual suffers is a grievous affront that most be avenged.

Why has it come to this?

My thoughts on this are far from solid, but they're organized in three categories (and I'm serious about all of them, by the way).

Things that are not responsible: movies/TV, video games, the internet, porn, President Barack Obama

Things that may or may not be responsible, in whole or in part: religion (or lack thereof), celebrity influence, air conditioning (seriously)

Things that strongly contribute to the downward spiral: A genuine sense of entitlement, disregard for authority (see: sense of entitlement), an inconstant series of consequences, lowered standards


What do you think?

To begin, comments will be not be moderated. However, if trolling ensues, or if people START SHOUTING (instead please use -this method- as a way to stress a point, you know...with the dashes), I will begin moderating and/or deleting comments.

I do not like censorship. When politicians talk about censoring the internet, etc, I am far less inclined to vote for them.

Still, as the point of this blog is to promote respect, comments seen as crossing the line from "disagreement" to "disrespectful" are not welcomed.

If something you read here offends you or otherwise evokes strong feelings, think of your response as an exercise in composure. Yelling, swearing and similar behavior generally weakens an argument, anyway.

We're not all going to agree. Some people will disagree more often than not.

And that's the way it should be.