I do not normally delve into politics on my blog, but ran across a thought-provoking piece at MadeByMark.com. Mark McElroy, wrote a very interesting article regarding some insights of his into what he felt Sarah Palin stands for. Mark ends his article with this thought:

Why This Matters. The other night, we found ourselves engaged in a political conversation with a chatty waiter, a young gay man who had just watched the Republican primary. “Did you see Sarah Palin’s speech?” he asked us. “She’s really pretty, and I loved her attitude. Maybe she’s just what this country needs.” …

… All that mattered to this young man was her looks and her attitude. “She seems spunky,” he said.

In the end, as responsible citizens, I suggest we need to focus less on a candidate’s apparent spunk and sparkle, and more on what she has achieved … and how she has achieved it.

I chose to respond to this, and a few other points:

Mark, this is a thought provoking piece. I have a few points here…

1. I do not normally follow your posts, and found my way here via Twitter/FriendFeed. As such, I can make no judgment on your knowledgeability on the subject of politics nor Sarah Palin in particular. However, you assert some level of authority in this post.
2. To your point regarding ignorance of the outside world, I would tend to agree that a well-traveled person most likely has a more well-rounded view of how to approach problems. However, your statement is a rather generalized jab.
3. To your point on censorship, I too agree with protecting 1st Amendment rights. However, your freedom ends whereby it encroaches upon my own. More pointedly, as a parent, I enjoy the right to protect my child from certain things until such time as I deem her ready. In this fashion, I hope to impart a strong enough moral compass for her to make her own decisions in life. I would venture a guess, Palin was simply acting on behalf of the constituents she was elected to represent. And, for the record, asking a question should never be discouraged. That in and of itself is censorship.
4. To your point on borrowing authority from God: This is a very dangerous precipice to stand upon. Many leaders throughout history have invoked religion to justify their actions… not just American politicians. I do not agree with this, and would not presuppose to defend it. Furthermore, as a former United States Marine, I did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq (for many reasons), but also understand that once we are committed to this course of action, it would be unfair to prematurely disengage at this critical juncture.
5. To your point on inexperience, I must say I’m incredibly torn between electing someone with a lot of political experience (because look where that is getting us), and electing someone that is not capable of handling the stress of office. Let me simply say that we as humans look to the past as evidence to indicate future performance. If you will review history, many a great leader had never experienced the monumental task they were tapped to lead. Look to Presidents Lincoln and Truman as evidence of heavy burdens to bear. Were they qualified to make the decisions over sending even 1 person to meet their maker? … and yet they made decisions that changed the world.

Again, this is a very thought provoking post. I write this rebuttal in the hopes of furthering conversation, not in arguing inane points. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with the world, and I look forward to reading more in the future.

My Takeaway:

I hope that everyone shares their opinion on such things. Politics should not be a battleground for spraying of venom, but for all of us to engage in heated - but civilized - debate over how we each feel this country can be better. If you have some constructive thoughts, please feel free to share.

Ken Stewart’s blog, ChangeForge.com, focuses on the collision between the constantly changing worlds of business and technology. Ken is also the Director of Technology at Kearns Business Solutions.

A friend at KnowTheNetwork, wrote a rather interesting opinion regarding liberty and freedom. Tsudonimh wrote:

Liberty - 1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases (Merriam-Webster)

What does it mean to be a free society? Or for a citizen to possess freedom?

Liberty allows you the free will of action and speech up to the point that you infringe upon another’s liberty. The ideal of liberty is uncomfortable and uncompromising and belief in such an ideal makes me a radical in most every circle.

My response is as follows:

Tsu, I would agree with the very principal of your belief. I have become a little more jaded in the simple fact that people have forgotten a very primary component of Liberty - the responsibility and accountability that accompanies such a power as being free.

Freedom, in my humble opinion, is much like love. I can be selfish and call it love - but true love is a relationship where both partners are committed to the other selflessly. This creates restraint and borders where both parties can feel completely protected. Why? Because each party has the other’s best interest at heart.

Extend my argument to liberty: You are correct in that your freedom ends where it will infringe upon another’s liberty - but who is to decide this? The problem here is liberty works only in a society where its members are focused upon an attitude of service and selflessness - protection for each other.

Every argument in a marriage - every argument - comes from one party doing, saying, or acting in a selfish manner. As such, every conflict in history stems from another’s belief in something that is opposite from another and an unwillingness for compromise.

One thing that people have forgotten is that government is supposed to be the people. We in point of fact, live in a more socialistic culture where we have traded our rights of freedom for creature comforts - traded our liberty as currency to pay for the outsourcing of our hassles and worries.

Some efforts by our “government” have been good, but most have been stretched and twisted - resembling something wholly different than the original spirit of law intended.

Keep in mind, legalizing everything is not the answer, excusing irresponsible behavior is never the solution. Successful societies hold to the covenant of some standards - and agree to live by this social contract. Why? To preserve the greater good, to perpetuate humanity itself.

I admire your idealism, and I once to held to a standard that everyone could self moderate, but what I have been sadly made aware of through experience is that so many people do not - or worse - will not self-moderate their behavior.

What is truly sad to me is that these same abusive and selfish individuals claim it is their “right” to act in such a way as not acting in this fashion would impose upon their freedom. If you need any grander social experiment as proof, I would encourage you review a little thing called Woodstock 1967… Great ideals, but a miserable failure exemplifying self-indulgence and excess which resulted in soulless physical exchanges, malnutrition and disease.

No my friend, we are not mature enough to handle a “no holds barred” society.

Ken Stewart’s blog, ChangeForge.com, focuses on the collision between the constantly changing worlds of business and technology. Ken is also the Director of Technology at Kearns Business Solutions.