Just finished reading the transcript of Sarah Palin’s “America’s Enduring Strength” video.

Following some well-spoken and I’m sure heart-felt words of sympathy, Sarah missed an incredible opportunity to speak for positive change. Instead, she felt the need to defend herself against opinions that took offense to some arguably offensive political rhetoric.

I am no longer a fan of Mrs. Palin, although I was for quite some time. I began to have mixed opinions of her during the presidential campaign. I was sorely disappointed in her when she resigned as governor, but held out hope that she would take advantage of her unique position and popularity to make a positive difference. She has made a difference, but I personally don’t see it as positive, and in the process she’s demonstrated what I perceive to be poor judgment.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions.

Yes, but there are limits to what is considered “spirited” debate; too much symbolism of weapons might just start blurring the lines.

…within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

So is using a term so full of hatred and discrimination to respond in your own defense. What might have been useful was a little self-reflection. As tempting as it is to immediately defend one’s actions when criticized, it’s a better idea to consider if the criticism has some value. I don’t think anyone who criticized Palin’s targets (“surveyor marks”? Seriously?) was accusing her of deliberately or maliciously contributing to the attack. I think there was a legitimate point that her inflammatory speech probably crossed a line that thoughtful people attempt to refrain from crossing. Perhaps Mrs. Palin didn’t see that line until it was too late, or until someone pointed it out to her–I’m guilty of that error all too often. And I’ve often been defensive about it, particularly if I speak without thinking first. But I’m trying to work on becoming a better, more self-controlled, less offensive member of society, so my previous behavior shouldn’t be held up as a model. Since Mrs. Palin’s every public move these days appears to be considered and polished, I’m sure she had time to think about whether or not she might have crossed a line. Obviously she doesn’t think she did. I respectfully disagree.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?

Apparently, Mrs. Palin sees the line as somewhere in the vicinity of the use of dueling pistols, although she doesn’t clearly state which side of the line said illegal activity falls on in her eyes.

In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial.

I agree! Unfortunately, Mrs. Palin’s next sentence starts with “But…” and she begins to tell us how the Founding Fathers seemed to be approving of less than civil discourse because they created a system that allowed for it. However, Mrs. Palin, I believe our leaders should set an example of how we should all aspire to behave.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

At this point I wanted to go running to “Google”. Couldn’t this have been turned around to apply to some of her reactions to dissenters?

“…Those who embrace evil and call it good.” Huh? Where did that happen? Did I miss someone calling this incident good? Sorry, this doesn’t make any sense, and it seems inflammatory to me.

We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner…

The irony screams at me from these two sentences: How can we be “united in our desire to peacfully engage in the great debates…” when a dissenting opinion is labeled “mindless finger-pointing” to be endured???

I’m sorry, Mrs. Palin, but just because down at the Mug Shot Saloon, people start calling names, speaking in hyperbole, and denigrating their opponent in a disagreement, that does not make it acceptable for the leaders of our nation to do so. You aspire to leadership, but leadership demands a higher standard of behavior than that of the common man. Our Founding Fathers were not common men, they were statesmen. They understood that just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. If you hope to be a leader, you need to demonstrate that you understand that words have power, and leaders’ words have influence, and must be considered carefully. You also could stand a large dose of humility; you should consider that you might have made a mistake. It’s OK, all of us humans do. The more noble humans will admit to mistakes, and learn from them.

“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds….

“But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other….

“As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.

“If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate — as it should — let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle….

“… if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.

“We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations.” -President Barack Obama, 1/12/2011

Well said, Mr. President.

19 intelligent, experienced leaders from US government and industry spent 8 months studying the current US economic situation for 8 months with a a mandate to “identify to the President policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run.” More specifically, The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was tasked to produce a plan to balance the Federal budget by 2015, and to address the long term growing gap between revenue and expenditures of the Federal government.

Their report is 59 pages long. It’s not overly complicated, and it’s not a cure-all, but it is a worthwhile read for EVERY American. Too many of us are standing around, wringing our hands, attending rallies, and ranting on blogs, but not really doing anything to educate ourselves on the problem or possible solutions.

They have some radical recommendations. They call for shared sacrifice. Guess what? They recognize that we’re not going to be able to balance the budget on the backs of “the other guys”. We all get to share in the pain.

I like it. Some smart people put aside self-interests, and came up with some concrete proposals. Unfortunately, it seems just in the short time since their report has been published, very little has been taken seriously. I’m afraid we’re going to see this one dry up and blow away, and we’ll be in a deeper hole in 5 years.

Have you read it? What are your thoughts? What are you willing to give up, or are you hoping that everybody else sacrifices so you don’t have to?

Let’s look at a few definitions:
to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. lie. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

an intentional violation of the truth. Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

There are many others, of course, but the prevailing definition in most dictionaries I looked into had a common theme in them: INTENTIONALITY

This means that our good friend, the honorable Congressman Wilson from South Carolina is accusing the President of the United States of knowingly and intentionally telling a false statement to the people of the US and the assembled Congress with the deliberate intent to deceive! If the Congressman is correct and has evidence to corroborate his accusation, this is an impeachable offense!

Is he leading the effort to file for impeachment of the President? I kinda doubt it. But why not? He felt so emphatically just a few nights ago that he was apparently convinced the accusation could not wait for a more suitable forum–so he had to blurt it out right then and there!

I’m sorry folks, but President Obama isn’t deliberately telling you or I anything he knows is false, any more than President Bush deliberately deceived us when he said there was irrefutable evidence of WMD development in Iraq prior to the invasion. Put down the conspiracy novels.

I’m not saying that either is 100% accurate in their respective statements. What I’m saying is that each believed what they said to be true, and said it with the best of intentions.

Leveling the charge of “lying” attributes a very evil intent to deceive–and to accuse any man of that level of evil requires a high level of certainty. When the allegation is aimed at one of authority, whose execution of deliberate deception on a national scale would be an affront against our people, our nation, the world, and our God (who both men profess to serve)–that is an accusation of such vile intent, that we are calling the person’s very character into serious doubt…do these accusers really mean what they’re saying? Do they realize what they’re saying?

If we, the American public, have managed to elect, consecutively, two men of such evil character that they would deliberately mislead the American public…we have bigger problems than health care.

In this day of instant communication, we all need to practice the skill of thinking before we speak.

Personally, the behavior we, the people have exhibited during the recent debate on reforming health care provision in the US, indicates that we have a bigger problem than poor health care provision. We, the electorate and the elected, have some serious character issues.